Exactly my sentiments

"If only they'd all been honest from the beginning...".

In order to make good public policy decisions, one must consider all the options, all the facts, fairly and without prejudice. It is clear that everyone who has approached the Viaduct thus far has done it with strongly preconceived notions and wishful thinking, and that has prevented an open, honest discussion about a critical decision for our city's future.

Btw, another thing greatly concerns me about Gregoire's confused and feckless "decision" about the Viaduct is totally partisan. Her action provides an enormous opening for the Republicans to offer a systemic (and not unfair) critique of Democratic management. After all, here we are -- a full six years after the Nisqually Quake created a (supposed) emergency. Yet an entirely Democratic Washington State government (local, state and federal) has been unable to come up with a reasonable and affordable solution. The Democratic establishment has stumbled along as if the D in Democrat stands for "Dither." Lawsuits and years of political rancor — among Democrats — loom before us. I suspect that Mr. Rossi, who ran on the Republican ticket in 2004 and barely lost to Mrs. Gregoire has noticed; and if he has any brains he will hammer Gregoire with her undecision decision.

Comments

[Gomez]

This whole process has been run and argued by people with prejudice. None of the key players went into this debate with an open mind: they all had their personal agendas, and the debate to them was all about forcing their agenda on the city, rather than weighing options objectively and making the right choice.

And by the way, you've touched on the biggest indictment of the Democrats as a ruling body:

After all, here we are -- a full six years after the Nisqually Quake created a (supposed) emergency. Yet an entirely Democratic Washington State government (local, state and federal) has been unable to come up with a reasonable and affordable solution.

Half of them are afraid to make a decision that some might disagree with, and half of them have their own agendas and have forced a debate that isn't at all objective. What a joke.

[Holly B]

I disagree with people throwing flak at Gregoire's decision. What were the options? Choose the tunnel "solution," for which there is no money and no practical (vs cosmetic) advantage, or choose the rebuild, which Nickels and company have threatened to obstruct by withholding permits and any other means?

The public vote is warranted and, I predict, will expose that Paul Allen is behind the tunnel demand. Keep an eye on how much of the pro-tunnel campaign is funded by Allen's companies. No one in the city has more to gain from sticking taxpayers with the bill for a tunnel that--while utterly eliminating direct connections to the downtown business core--would serve as an expressway connection between Allen's real estate holdings around Pioneer Square with Allen's real estate holdings around Aurora Avenue North.

[David Sucher]

Holly B.
The Governor had many options. For one thing, the City's threat to withhold permits has no credibility as the legal iissue is clearly with the State -- bthere is no serious discussion on that matter. And politically, such a move would have been disatrous for the Mayor and Council both in the City and Statewide. So there was little to fear except a political fallout -- and that is exactly what Gregoire's actions have brought on us.

Had she sincerely believed that there were really only two options -- Tunnel or Rebuild -- a view which also demonstrates her own lack of study of the issue, she still had a choice of how to frame the decision. As I wrote a few days ago, she could for example have said something like "I choose the Rebuild but if the City of Seattle can demonstrate in the next 90 days the firm ability to fund the Tunnel, then we can rfeconsider the matter."

In that way she would have demonstrated some leadership (though at the end of the day the Rebuild will not be a viable solution) and yet she would have given the Mayor/Counci one last, placating chance. But she would not have opened up what will be a contentious and indecisive and destructive election. Many people are resentful that the election is a sham and that the Surface and Retrofit options should be on the ballot. It will come back to haunt her politically and hurt the Democratic Party. The vote called for by Gregoire will not even remotely end the question.

[kieth Nissen]

I am puzzled that Seattle voters get to decide an issue regarding a state road but I guess that's the way it's going to be.

If the vote goes to the rebuild option I fail to see where Gregoire suffers politically. Yes, the people who lost the vote (including me) would much prefer that she support the tunnel and magicallly find the money but if the vote goes as expected what does Gregoire lose? we could name the new viaduct after her I suppose, at least informally, and she would lose support of the arts crowd (maybe they'd vote Republican next time, likely story) but I think she will suffer very little if the vote goes according to early polls.

I agree with Gomez and David on the lousiness of the process. There is no good solution in sight.

If the tunnel should win the vote then there just might be enough turmoil to stimulate some sort reconsideration of all the options. Slim hope there.

[dave s]

You think Rossi lost?