City Hall, News & Politics, The City

May Seawall Vote? No Way, Says Council

By Erica C. Barnett, Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM
View Comments

Mayor Mike McGinn sent the city council legislation this morning to replace the downtown waterfront seawall that was substantively identical to the proposal he rolled out back in January—$243 million in bonds to be funded by an average property-tax increase of $50 a year. “I trust that the citizens of Seattle, when we make the case to them about a critical safety need, will respond,” McGinn said this morning, briefing reporters on the balcony outside his seventh-floor office at City Hall.

The council would have to vote to put the measure on the ballot by April 2.

But City Council members, already skeptical about the prospect of a May special election (which would cost about $1 million), said today that they’re unlikely to put the measure on an August or November ballot without significantly more information from McGinn.

“There’s nothing wrong with the idea of doing a ballot measure, but we want it to be part of a comprehensive waterfront planning process,” said council president Richard Conlin. “When you come up with these big projects, you can’t just say one day, ‘Hey, we’re going to do this,’ then the next day say, ‘No, wait, now we’re going to do something else. Our voters have been very willing to vote for things in the past, but we think that’s been the case because we’ve prepared the groundwork first.”

Sally Bagshaw, head of the council’s central waterfront planning committee, said she wants the seawall to remain part of a comprehensive waterfront planning process. “I want the waterfront to be designed, where appropriate, to have beaches, places where you can touch the water. You can’t do that if you’re just going to slam up a concrete wall,” Bagshaw said.

McGinn said he would be “willing to work with the council” on “counterproposals,” but said the seawall was too urgent to get hung up on specifics like the exact cost of the project, which has not been designed. “We built in a very large contingency,” he said this morning. “We have a fair degree of confidence in [the $243 million estimate]. When we get further down on design work, it’s possible that the costs [will be] different, but this is a critical public safety need and we need to finance it no matter what.”

However, Conlin said that even an August vote is “pretty unlikely,” given how complicated a project like the seawall is. “Even with the renewal of the parks levy, we took six months to lay the groundwork. We need a lot more time than that for this proposal. It’s a matter of respect, in my mind, for the voters.”

“The earliest I can see [a ballot measure] is November,” Conlin said.

  • Mike T
    it would be nice to get an all-in-one integrated plan for the seawall and waterfront. I am afraid that it will be a waste of money if we build one before the other without a plan as to how they will work together. As for a special election, I am not convinced that McGinn should be making these decisions with comments like "... too urgent to get hung up on specifics like the exact cost of the project, which has not been designed ..."
  • Wells
    The seawall was intregated into the AWV replacement project, but rebuilding it has been a priority for decades. Why wasn't a replacement plan begun and finished years ago? Mayor Mike is right to demand action now, not later. And just look at the crappy Alaskan Way blvd rebuild design. It's crap and must go back to the drawing board too.

    A straight seawall is fine. Access stairs and ramps can be built on its side leading to engineered/structural seabeds and floating docks.

    Build Tunnelite. Deep-boor is crap.
  • Wells
    I'm sorry, maybe the video was released more like a month before the vote, I forget.
  • Wells
    The seawall issue got a boost when WSDOT released its video depicting a collapse. That was a week before the vote. McGinn is right to oppose the deep-bore tunnel. The Cut-cover Tunnelite as an option builds the strongest seawall and the most stable Alaskan Way; accommodates Ballard-bound traffic rather than displace it (40,000 cars daily) onto the new Alaskan Way and through Lower Queen Anne with the atrocious Mercer West. The cut-cover has better emergency exit, ventilation, lighting and lower maintenance costs. It has the best park space potential by far.

    Seattlers who can't see these advantages a cut-cover tunnel has over deep-bore are dumber than a box of rocks.
  • sarah68
    Why did McGinn not talk about the seawall during the campaign?
  • Anna M
    This city has many emergencies beyond the Seawall: education, lack of employment for people of color, homelessness, domestic violence, etc. We have to be very deliberate about how we address and fund each of these issues. You can't just go to the voters for a pile of money every time you notice a problem because guess what? there's another major problem waiting around the corner.
  • Anc
    If you are going to have access to the water, it should be like the Moonwalk in the Quarter. Near places of activity (ie Pioneer Square) and with deep broad steps perfect for lounging around on. Plus there should be plenty of street food and performers to enhance the nightlife.
  • morning fizzy
    Why don't you compare AW to the Lido or Waikiki or Atlantic City?

    Seattle will never be those places and the waterfront will remain a cold hostile place 95% of the year.

    If we are going to put millions into upgrading leisure venues, I can of many parks all over the city that could be enhanced that will serve the people much better.
  • Anc
    Why? B/c I haven't spent alot of time in those places.

    Also, you'd be surprised how could a New Orleans Winter can be. Regardless, why would it have to be a cold hostile place? My wife and I went the 'beaches' many times during winter up there and there were always tons of people. Why would broad deep steps be any more cold and hostile?
  • Drive-By-Trucker_(Soapboxin')
    Seriously. I was not impressed w/Bagshaw's ideas about a beach downtown. The waterfront needs to be structurally sound, relatively environmentally-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly. It will be much more open and quiet for tourists and downtown promenaders when the AWV goes down. But let's not get carried away. I'll go to a park if I want to hang out on the beach. I already have several options.
  • morning fizzy
    And a night lifeguard.
  • Anc
    New Orleans gets by fine without one.
  • Wells
    Without the AWV, the waterfront has many possiblities. It'll be great. Lots of large street trees. Generous sidewalks, crosswalks clearly defined. The old pier should be restored. The shops on piers require a straight sidewalk bordering a fairly straight seawall. Access to water will extend from this fairly straight seawall.

    Managing traffic at any level however will include 4-lanes of Alaskan Way plus very likely a 2-lane frontage road for traffic and transit, curb-side parking, delivery and dropoff. This configuration is similar to the current situation, only better.

    With cut/cover, the pathway from the waterfront to Steinbrueck Park is a lush park.

    With deep--bore, the traffic-clogged roadway to Lower Belltown dominates the experience, whether walking, bicycling or driving.

    The deep-bore tunnel is idiotic.
  • Scared for Seattle
    Blow 1 Million for a half baked idea. Now that's budget leadership.
  • Wells
    Yea cary. She's right and should keep at it. The design of the seawall should include access steps and angled pathways that are ornate, support vegetation and promote a more natural waterway ecosystem.

    I am sorry to conclude the "Wide Plaza" notion is bogus. Alaskan Way will need be either 6-lanes or have a 2-lane frontage road added, and that reduces Wide Plaza width by at least 30'. I expect existing sidewalk to widen by only 6' to 12' overall. But then, it's a working waterfront.

    The stair and path access to the water can still be ornate and natural with the seawall reconstructed in its current straight drop-off. I say this because I've concluded Tunnelite is the ONLY tunnel option. And I'm tired of the lame reponse that it'll be inconvenient.

    Picture Tunnelite's north portal at Pike -- a rising hill planted with trees and a walking/bicycling pathway up a medium slight hill to Steinbrueck Park. SR99 traffic emerging behind the waterfront condos, out of sight, partially lidded.

    Picture 4-lane Alaskan Way up to Lower Belltown -- long line of cars in both directions, speed drivers gunning motors, brakes squeeling on downhill backups. Uphill backups. Sidewalks on both sides of lousy traffic. Bike lanes in traffic. Oh thanks, that'll be just ducky...

    Every honest perspective on Tunnelite concludes it's the better tunnel option by far. Mike McGinn should run for governor.
  • City Union Employee
    It's not often in government that you can save $1,000,000 in hard costs by waiting 4 - 6 months.

    I watched the mayor talk about hard decisions and probable layoffs at an employee town hall. His budget director talked about "right sizing" the labor force due to $6-10 million in deficits & he wants to blow a MILLION BUCKS because he can't wait until September or November for a vote????

    Clueless
  • Matt_the_Engineer
    "It's not often in government that you can save $1,000,000 in hard costs by waiting 4 - 6 months."

    Construction costs are at very low rates right now. If the economy starts to recover in the next 6 months, $1M would have been a bargin. Let's see, a 1% change on $243M = $2.4M.
  • morning fizzy
    The bigger savings could come from a lower interest rate. 1/10 of a percent higher would be more than a million over 30 years, in fact more than $5 million.
  • Think Before Writing
    The one million is the cost of a may ballot measure, Matt. It would be saved by waiting to put it on the ballot in the Fall. Get a clue, dude.
  • Matt_the_Engineer
    I get that, [TBW]. I'm saying that even with spending this $1M we could save even more due to starting the project early. [fizzy] gets it - build while the building is cheap.
  • Jackson
    Part of what makes McGinn seem...insincere in this is if he cared about counting every dollar carefully, how did he come to this number so fast? Yes, the Seawall is on the list of more urgent repair needs. But why isn't anyone talking about the fact that (1) It's set to be repaired in the next 5 years (2) Suddenly McGinn's the expert and nobody else noticed this "emergency"? Why is he pushing this so suddenly? How in the world did he arrive at this number so quickly? It's a rough, ball park at best based on SDOT's best guess without proper due diligence. (3) He wants the tunnel blocked. That's why he's doing it this fast - he likely cost the tax payers of Seattle MORE money by moving so quickly. There likely would have been federal dollars to help in the near future. Now that he's indicated a willingness and belief that citizens can fund this, what do you think the chances are that Seattle can win federal monies for this? It sure seems insincere and more about his personal fight against the tunnel than some heroic effort to rescue us from the collapsing sea wall.
  • Matt_the_Engineer
    All very good points. I don't know the answers to any of those questions. My hope is that he came into office, saw the largest fire and is trying to put it out first. I don't see how this helps block the tunnel, and the theories I've heard about this sound convoluted at best.

    The one point I'd disagree with you on is the strategy of waiting around for federal funds. I believe this is a serious threat to life safety, and should be fixed as quickly as possible.
  • Cary
    The reasoning and timeline for going to the voters needs to be worked out with Council, yes. But McGinn lays out a pretty strong argument for needing early funding, from the voters, and how the seawall headstart fits into the bigger project of waterfront planning. Conlin's suggestion of a possible ballot in November seems about right.
    But what I don't get is Bagshaw's comment. The City's seawall RFQ (out for bid now) clearly states they're looking for engineers to propose a range of people and fish-friendly options, which will then be finalized to fit with the vision for the 25 acres of public space. The Mayor's office, SDOT, and DPD are all on the same page about coordinating these planning and design efforts together. The earlier misunderstandings about 'already having a (bad) design ready to go' have been cleared up; that is not really the risk anymore.
  • ya think?
    Ouch. The only persons possibly surprised by this outcome would be hizzoner and his merry band. They're all like, "huh? wha? what just happened? where'd the bill go?"
  • Drive-By-Trucker_(Soapboxin')
    McGinn takes the ball hard into the lane. Rejected! Council wags its finger and says, "Not in my house! Get that weak shit outta here."
  • pl
    Mutumbo style!
blog comments powered by Disqus