In a drama that appears to be getting increasingly confusing and absurd by the moment, the best comment of the week may belong to Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin who dubbed the August referendum on the deep-bore tunnel as the “Seinfeld referendum.”
“It’s a referendum about nothing,” Conlin told KUOW listeners recently, referring to the description of the popular 1990s comedy series.
We suspect that Conlin may have it right. However in this game of posturing and parsing of words, the actual meaning of the referendum and the vote, itself, appears to be in the eye of the beholder.
King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled on Friday that anti-tunnel groups are entitled to have a referendum on the Aug. 16 ballot concerning the deep-bore tunnel.
Middaugh made clear in her comments that no matter the wording, the Aug. 16 referendum will not have a direct bearing on whether or not a tunnel is built. She ruled that the Seattle City Council put that issue to rest in 2009 when it chose the tunnel as the preferred alternative to the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In one of the great ironies for a city known for endless “process,” the August referendum is really about…you guessed it, process.
The Seattle Times described Middaugh’s ruling as declaring that the referendum will deal with only two lines in a 140-page agreement between Seattle and the state. The provision in question states that the City Council is authorized to decide on whether to issue certain notices in an open meeting held after the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Emails, instant analysis and lengthy press releases have been flying about ever since. Some anti-tunnel opponents are already claiming victory because they say the referendum could disrupt the completion of the EIS. But this appears to be quite the stretch in logic. Instead of being the final word on the issue, Middaugh’s ruling has, so far, proven to be a peculiar Rorschach test with members of both the pro and con tunnel groups reading into it what they wish to see.
However, in light of the judge’s own analysis, we see little evidence in the ruling that the tunnel referendum will offer a substantive conclusion to this ongoing political farce.
[[In-content Ad]]