Finally, some commonsense

November monorail vote unlikely:

...a proposed resolution gives the Seattle Monorail Project until Dec. 23 to write its own new plan for the Feb. 7 ballot, or the Council would refuse cooperation, and urge the 2006 Legislature to dissolve the SMP. (Italics added)

This report from the Seattle Times' respected reporter Mike Lindblom indicates to me that I am not the only one who observes the troublesome politics of the monorail:  the Seattle City Council simply does not want to intervene -- for some mixture of political and/or legal reasons -- in attempting to shut down the monorail.

• Part may be an elbow nudge to Mayor Nickels to remind him that the Council is not one of his Departments and doesn't take orders from him..
• Or it could be an acknowledgment that the Council simply doesn't want to enrage some unknown but very substantial part of Seattle's electorate.
• Or it could be that the Council has been advised by its attorneys that it simply doesn't have the legal authority to abolish a separate independent voter-authorized government.
• Or it could even be the principled position that while the SMP Board may be a bit weak, that's insufficient reason, as well as being absurdly premature, to attempt to stop a sound project authorized by the voters, especially when the outcome is likely to be litigation.

I have no idea the precise reasons, of course, but it's obvious that the Council would like to distance itself from either helping or hurting the monorail and is hoping that the State Legislature will do the dirty work.

Of course, with that said -- and no doubt the Legislature can hear it -- why should the Legislature get involved? What is the political payoff for a legislator from outside Seattle to try to kill a project approved by and paid for Seattle voters? Bear in mind that the only people who pay the monorail tax are residents of Seattle and they voted to tax themselves, Maybe they were foolish. Maybe not. And bear in mind that what comes around, goes around and if you mess gratuitously with a Seattle project you may very well get a return letter.

So overall I am increasingly dubious that the State Legislature will go where the local Council declines to tread. Would you?

Comments

[bfree2think]

See below for most of my comments on the legislature and why they might get involved. I will add one thing--when I grew up Seattle was almost a third of the state, certainly with key suburbs. Today, the city is one-tenth. We simply don't carry as much weight and our suburbs fight with us more than they support us.

As for the city council, when was the last time they led on ANY issue. Part of the reason Nickels looks so strong is because they are so weak. Your first two hypothesis for why they will act this way are no doubt true. I will grant you the fourth because I am a nice guy. But I seriously doubt your third assertion that their lawyers have told them they don't have the legal authority to withhold the transitway agreement.