Conventional wisdom is that legislation authorizing the deep-bore tunnel wouldn’t have passed without a provision, supported by House Speaker Frank Chopp, putting Seattle property owners on the hook for cost overruns.
However, state House transportation committee member Brendan Williams (D-22) told PubliCola yesterday that Chopp’s language actually lacked support in the House. (We talked to Williams in the context of our story yesterday about last year’s vote). Only when the powerful speaker insisted on inserting the language, Williams said, did the House pass the amendment by a narrow margin, 49 to 47.
“If Speaker Chopp allowed a vote to remove his provision, enough people would vote yes to remove it unless they were ordered to vote no,” Williams said. “I never felt the stick-it-to-Seattle provision was necessary.”
Tweet
That sound you hear is the death rattle of Chopp's political career.
I really like Brenden, I do. He's a nice guy, a good progressive, and fun to look at.
But at the same time, his ongoing verbal assaults against the Speaker would have me caution anyone to take what he says with a grain of salt. And a big one at that.
There was a vote. The vote was whether or not to adopt the amendment. It passed. If Rep. Williams is so sure that it could have been pulled, then where was he, whipping up votes against the provision?
Rep. Williams is pretty clear in his animosity towards the Speaker, which I think is more at play here than anything else. Every member of the State House that I've spoken with have not once stated it was the Speaker's provision. In fact, a couple have gone so far as to say that the Speaker was none too pleased that the provision was inserted. He may have fought for it after the fact, because he is smart enough to know that his caucus would divide over this language, and Seattle would have been shit on with no funding for a replacement for the AWV, but I have never heard of him being the one trying to saddle Seattle taxpayers with overruns.
You poor fool. Who's going to run against him?
Apparently Kim Verde is doing it again this year. Although, according to the PDC, she hasn't raised any money to do it.
Brendan's my buddy, but he'd accuse Frank of fucking goats if he thought he could get away with it. He's about as credible on the subject of Frank Chopp as Susan Hutchison is on nonpartisanship.
I'm sure Frank is cowering under his bed in the fetal position at the very thought.
I'm loathe to get into this, and understand that personalities are at odds here. But, Michael, will you list the members “of the State House that I've spoken with” who “have not once stated it was the Speaker's provision.” Can you tell me who's provision they allege that it WAS?
You and I both know that Susie is totally Non-Partisan. Remember, she had the endorsement of super progressive Democrats Brian Sonntag and Brad Owen! And didn't Wes Uhlman endorse her? Isn't he now backing Richard Sanders? See! Non-partisan!
It does not matter who initiated it. THEY VOTED FOR IT.
They are responsible for their votes.
It's funny to see them scamper and run for cover now.
Oh and btw — this whole cost overrun controversy would be put to rest in about 5 minutes if you had clibborn, chopp, kastama and a few more who voted for it say “why by all means….we shall remove it asap!” which they are NOT saying to McGinn's leadership, wisdom and character is proven once again.
McGinn is calling the tune, and the legislators are backpedalling more quickly than a preacher caught in a whorehouse.
“Mommy, big bad bwuther Chopp maaaaaade me do it!”
I would prefer not to identify folks – i enjoy be able to be candid, and allowing the same – but they are all Democrats, and come from Snohomish County, the Eastside and Clark County, predominately. (it's always fun to get into the tunnel debate when chatting up folks who are involved in the Transportation committee in any way).
I didn't ask you to identify the sources, Michael, only where they allege that the language came from. If you can't divulge an alternative source for this provision, then the assertion isn't very credible.
Kastama is a problem, because he believes it's actually enforceable. He joins McGinn, Haugen and McKenna as the only major voices to say so. Clibborn, Chopp, Murray, Holmes, the entire City Council (except O'Brien) all think it is unenforceable.
Nothing I say is credible. I'm a hack
But basically, as I understand the story, the language came out of Transpo as a way to get wayward Dems on board with the tunnel instead of a rebuild. Without it, the tunnel would have died, and we would have had to go with the rebuild (which was much more viable then than it is now). So, some folks teamed up, whipped up votes using a rather skilled State Rep, and were able to get the amendment passed, even though some folks thought it would fail, and ultimately doom the entire bill. It was politics played very well, and, IMO, for the benefit (overall) of Seattle (unless, of course, you want a larger viaduct).
Given how schizo candidacies are this year, anything is possible, is all I'm saying.
From The Seattle Times April 22, 2009:
“The vote came after House Democratic leaders added a controversial provision to the bill — at the insistence of House Speaker Frank Chopp — that requires downtown Seattle property owners to pay for any cost overruns related to digging the tunnel.”
From The News Tribune May 12, 2009:
“I thought Gov. Chris Gregoire might veto the provision in the bill that lays any cost overruns for the tunnel in the lap of downtown Seattle businesses that benefit from having the viaduct removed from the Seattle waterfront. But I'm told there was a deal to keep House Speaker Frank Chopp's language in the bill.”
From Seattle PI May 7. 2009:
“That proviso from House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, requires city tax payers to cover cost overruns on the tunnel project.”
Mr. Chopp may deny it, but his fingerprints are all over that nefarious amendment.
Ivan, watch the juvey language.
Which, if it hadn't been added to the legislation, would have resulted in the state moving forward with an elevated rebuild. The car-hating contingent seems to keep forgetting that part.
Well, he has a point.
And, of course, the people who like to dog on Chopp. He'll take the hits for his caucus, because he's a good leader. That's why he gets re-elected year after year.
He may not like Chopp, but that doesn't mean Brendan Williams is a liar. He's not.
I wish they could just rebuild the current viaduct just like it is today, although I know that isn't plausible.
Still… I wish.
That's not cowering, he's hiding from the press, as usual.
How about come on out of the cave and speak?
Is “fucking goats” a euphemism for taking campaign contributions from Sarah Palin?
Thanks, X. Keep saying it.
You don't have to hate cars to think they shouldn't be subsidized. And you don't have to hate cars to think that the infrastructure we build for them should have a financing plan.
And you most certainly don't have to hate cars to think the tolling plans for 99 and 520 are irrational and wrong.
Best,
jazzerciser
Putting in some vague and unenforceable language to win votes from non-Seattle legislatures concerned about the costs sounds exactly like something Chopp would do.
Lying about a Democratic governor does not strike me as particularly faithful to the Denocratic Party, no matter what a loyalist to Chopp like the 43rd District vice chair for events might say. Or are we to believe that every Democratic member of the House Transportation Committee to speak on this issue (three so far, including Chopp's own choice as chair), as well as the 43rd District's senator, are the ones lying? I would just as soon not comment upon a fellow Democrat being a liar, as it distracts from the election year narrative, but it's not being a good Democrat to obligation to accept lies as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Since all of this political brinkmanship leaves me confused and you seem to have some kind of grasp on it, can you tell me:
1. Where does it go from here?
2. Is there any likelihood of resolving this, so that McGinn can't wield it like a baseball bat anymore?
Thanks.
I would not be so confident of that. Remember who was Seattle Mayor at the time, and how things were steered towards a cut/cover tunnel. Big Nick had more clout than McGinn…
Are you making fun of me? It's okay. I'm used to it. It just gives me yet another reason to drink! HUZZAH!
But, if you really want my opinion –
It's really hard to say. The Council has the votes to pass the language for the agreement with the State, which includes an indemnity clause, but the Mayor will likely veto the agreement, because he doesn't think the language is strong enough. The Council will then be able to override the veto, and then the Sierra Club and Real Change will attempt to get signatures to put the issue up to voters.
And once something is with voters, it's impossible to tell what will happen. There was a recent poll by SurveyUSA, but that is without any real campaign supporting the agreement.
If that fails, then it depends on what happens in November. Let's say Sen. Haugen is re-elected, but the majority in the State Senate is diminished significantly, she may be able to get the votes to kill the entire tunnel project, and stick Seattle with a new viaduct. Or, worse, kill the project, and re-allocate the funds to pet projects in Snohomish, Pierce and Island counties, leaving Seattle on the hook for the entire shindig.
Same goes for the House, although it's not as dire over there (I would venture a guess that some of the big players on the Transpo committee are fairly safe in the House).
If, however, there is a referendum this November, and if Seattle voters pass the referendum, agreeing with the City Council that the indemnity clause that makes clear Seattle can't be stuck with the bill for Tunnel-related overruns (which is what State Law makes clear), then everything moves forward, and McGinn's only recourse is to use Elizabeth Campbell to slow the project down with lawsuits while he attempts to slow things down in the permitting process.
Or, he will stand by what he promised in the campaign, and let the project move forward.
Either way, it's all murky at this point, and November really is D-Day (unless the Council passes the agreement, and the Sierra Club and Real Change can't get enough signatures in time, which is a possibility, given the fact it is Summer).
I was not being snarky at all. Thanks. Murky seems to be the right word.
I never thought of the Tully's on 45th Street in Wallingford as a cave.
Ugh…I hate having to clarify myself. First, all of my comments are mine, and have nothing to do with the 43rd.
Second – I 100% agree that it was likely that the Speaker insisted the language stay in while the bill was being reconciled with the Senate. Without it, bill doesn't pass the House. Makes perfect sense. All I'm saying is that my understanding of how it originally happened is different.
The key word – understanding. I could be wrong. I don't know what's going on between the Speaker and the Governor. Not once have I said that I think that Sen. Murray was wrong (in fact, I believe somewhere I have stated the opposite). As stated previously, I'm a hack.
But you make a very important point – the infighting is not helpful. The finger pointing, the multiple stories, the diversion from what really matters – it is what it is. The language is in there. The language is vague, and unenforceable. According to the Mayor's own study, it is extremely unlikely that there would be enough in overruns to go above and beyond the money allocated for overruns, and as such the language is extremely unlikely to even matter.
The tunnel debate should be on the tunnel’s merits and not an imagined conspiracy against Seattle. My district got one neighborhood sound wall for a 10 cent gas tax increase. Thurston County only gets 81 cents back on every gas tax dollar, with most of that spent in a Republican district in its southern portion. Still, I've agreed with Speaker Chopp in the past that we should take a “One Washington” approach, which belied the need for any stick-it-to-Seattle provision. My comment is confined to the facts of this controversy, not the aesthetics of a tunnel (personally I would have preferred a surface boulevard, but that was not a choice before us and we must move forward). As someone who loves Seattle, I defended it by voting no on the amendment, and I leave the rest of the debate to Seattle — a city that loves debate like no other.
I take issue with your statement that we love to debate like no other.
No fair being both right and gay.
(unless you're the wrong Michael. Is there a Michael W?)
You're f*cking with our minds here, dude.
Wait…who is this? I'm not sure if I'm right, just hypothesizing. And it is true. I am a 'mo.
ah, revisionist history. Mr. X: How do you support your spurious claim that the viaduct would have been rebuilt as an elevated freeway without Frank Chopp's insistence that Seattle be put on the hook for cost overruns? In fact, WSDOT's chosen alternative for the viaduct replacement was a Western Avenue/Alaskan Way surface street couplet. Frank Chopp himself advocated for an elevated freeway to be built over street level stores- the infamous “choppaduct”.
This political impasse is Frank Chopp's fault. He should do the honorable thing: admit his culpability and help devise a solution. Instead he does the cowardly thing by denying any responsibility for his devious amendment.
@M.M.
I don't know what a 'mo is, but you are kicking some serious…oh, how shall I say it…common sense here.
sNAP!
@BW:
'mo is short for homo, which is short for homosexual, which is long for gay.
And you are far too kind…or mocking me…one of the two. 
@M.M.
OK, I know what a 'mo is now. And I was being small.
I am guilty of putting people in boxes: Women fight for women's issues. Rich people fight for rich people's issues. Gay people fight for gay people's issues…
So when you busted out and went all facts it threw me.
And it brought Soapboxin' to his knees, no pun.
No fair.
@BW:
If I wasn't such a narcissist, I would blush.
Truth be told, I just love to debate and argue, especially when I can learn from those I'm doing that exact same thing with. I find these comment threads offer the most on that front (a la Matt_The_Engineer, TranspoGuy, Joe, etc).
Plus, I occasionally put something in that generates a private rebuke, which I have always found interesting considering my self-identification as a “hack”.
But thank you again for your kind words.
And seriously, who are you? Do I know you?
That's baloney. Everyone knows that Frank Chopp didn't want the tunnel, and would do everything he could to stick it to the three people who led the decision. Sour grapes and poor leadership; just because they didn't like his elevated park/shop/drive thing.
“And seriously, who are you? Do I know you?”
I don't think so.
I'm that cute guy with the belly, the gray balding head and the body odor.
“Truth be told, I just love to debate and argue”
Me, too. And this is a great place for just that.
Glad you're here.
I don't know enough details – don't live in Seattle (but I work here). I love the viaduct view and abhor the tunnel idea. I see it as less access to/from Seattle, lacking foresight with regard to emergency response. And speaking toward the issue of cost – both initial and overruns, I heard or read a clever little line (& after 26 years of state service I've learned it usually true): The definition of an Elephant is a mouse built to Government Specifications.
Want to see the origins of the cost overrun language put in by the House? watch http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?...
Listen to tunnel advocates (chamber, DSA, etc) speak eloquently about how the state should not be expected to spend a dime more than $2.8 billion. Any additional costs should come from local citizens – particularly those who benefit. Seattle citizens – feeling like your pocket was picked? Here is the video of the crime scene.