I've covered countless community meetings in the years I've written for this paper, and it never fails to amaze me how many citizens really don't have a clue about what's going on.
An example: Despite literally years of back-and-forth discussions before a design for a new Queen Anne water tower was approved, one member of the Queen Anne Community Council in a recent meeting asked city staffers whether the design issue couldn't be revived.
There was no way that was going to happen; work has already begun. But the council member really should have known that to begin with.
Another unclear-on-the-concept example comes from Magnolia, where a neighborhood resident at a recent meeting was upset with the prospect of housing for the homeless going in at Fort Lawton when the land is surplussed.
The citizen's idea is that the Army should just sell all the land to private developers and use the money to build homeless housing just about anywhere else besides Magnolia.
There was no way that was going to happen, either. Private developments are part of the planned mix at the fort, but the cash-strapped Army will keep the money. That news was provided to the citizen by several city staffers, but the citizen still didn't seem to get it.
Unfortunately, the clueless can be found at all levels of society and government. Take Team Bush's convoluted contention that it was a sign of progress when Great Britain announced plans to withdraw some of its troops from Iraq while this country is sending another 20,000-plus military personnel to the civil-war zone.
Strikes me that one pretty much cancels out the other, but maybe I need to study up on George Orwell's "1984" again. You know: "War is Peace."
And then we've got unclear-on-the-concept action right here in the Emerald City, where a harebrained upcoming vote on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct may or may not matter to the powers that be. You have to wonder whether the city council - which came up with the vote format - has lost its collective mind.
I suspect proponents of the tunnel will say the vote does matter if the tunnel option gets the nod. But I also suspect tunnel fans will insist that the vote is only advisory if the rebuild option wins.
It seems unlikely, but the yes-or-no vote on each option could end up with Seattle citizens giving a thumbs-up to both a tunnel and a rebuild. That would be absurd, of course, but no more absurd than the extremely well-financed campaign to torpedo the rebuild option, calling it the "Big Ugly."
That's to counter rebuild fans' contention that a tunnel would be like Boston's "Big Dig," where cost overruns shot the price up to four times original estimates.
The city says a Seattle tunnel would be different, but according to my sources, the same contractor involved with the Big Dig has been tapped to head the Seattle project.
But it's really a moot point - at least for the moment. Gov. Christine Gregoire - who must have waffles for breakfast every morning - has yanked funding for what has turned into Tunnel Lite.
But even if she changes her mind and returns $2.8 billion funding for the $3.4-billion project, there is still a fundamental problem with the tunnel. Like the original six-lane version, it's simply too expensive.
Sure Mayor Greg Nickels has come up with a plan to make up the difference by, among other steps, adding an extra $6 or so to people's monthly water bills for close to a decade.
But that assumes a couple of things. One is that inevitable cost overruns can be kept in line with reality, something that is highly doubtful judging from other major projects in this country.
The other issue is whether the recent cost estimate for Tunnel Lite is accurate. Chances are it's not. I base that on the renovation of the Magnolia Library, where a single bid came in $1.2 million over the original estimate, which was made in mid-January.
There's so much work out there that contractors can take advantage of supply-and-demand factors to charge more. Plus, the cost of materials has gone through the roof lately.
Strikes me that the same factors will turn a tunnel into a huge boondoggle that will leave city and state taxpayers on the hook for an ungodly amount of debt.
But hey, that doesn't seem to matter to Nickels, who is in a legacy state if mind. Remember, he spent years promoting the larger tunnel until economic reality forced him to come up with a last-minute alternative.
A majority of the city council supports Tunnel Lite, as well as the Downtown Seattle Association, which is gleefully rubbing its hands together at the thought of all the development that will take place on the waterfront if we just get rid of that pesky viaduct.
City council member Peter Steinbrueck, who's in an aesthetic state of mind, likes the idea of opening up the waterfront, too. And if Tunnel Lite is shot down, he vows to fight a viaduct rebuild with all the state and city laws he can find. That probably means the city will have to spend a huge amount of time in court as costs continue to rise.
But assuming Steinbrueck is successful in blocking a viaduct, and assuming the tunnel doesn't make the cut, there's only one remaining option: a surface route.
And that's a perfect example of unclear-on-the-concept thinking. Can you say gridlock?
Staff reporter Russ Zabel can be reached at rzabel@nwlink.com or 461-1309.
[[In-content Ad]]
