70 Percent of Seattle Would Like City Gov't to Get Things Done

Part of the ammunition Mayor Mike McGinn brought to his City Council briefing on the seawall replacement [video] were the results of a poll he had conducted on the public's willingness to fund it. Of the 1,001 people who were asked this question:

This May, voters will decide a property tax measure to fund replacement and seismic improvements to the downtown seawall, built by city engineers in 1934. The measure authorizes property taxes of up to two hundred forty one million over thirty years, at approximately twelve cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation.

If the election were today, would you vote yes to approve, or no to reject this excess levy?

70 percent said yes, 19 percent said no, and eleven percent were undecided. The margin of error is plus/minus three percent. That 70 percent is important because the property measure that McGinn is proposing requires a 60 percent approval rating. At $0.12 per $1,000 of property value, it would raise $241 million.

McGinn argued to the Council that the response to "What's the hurry?" is not just public safety, but is related to the depleted city coffers as well. In a letter, McGinn wrote:

Until further funding is secured, financial constraints will limit design and permit work. In 2010, $8.3 million was appropriated for design and permit work. While it is difficult to estimate the precise cash flow impact of accelerating the seawall project, SDOT estimates that an additional $3 million will be needed to cover the additional design and environmental review for 2010.

The Council's response to McGinn's briefing was at times confusing. Sally Bagshaw, calling for a "comprehensive" proposal and noting that WSDOT is calling it the "Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement" project, asked McGinn why he was making Seattle shoulder the burden alone, without our partners.

"Ironically," replied McGinn, it was the City Council that agreed with the state, last fall, that the city would shoulder the seawall costs. (From the Seattlepi.com: "Under the agreement, the city would agree to pay $248 million for utility relocation; $225 million for replacement of the central seawall; and $123 million for a new promenade or public space along the waterfront.")

Councilmember Licata seemed concerned primarily with holding a May special election versus putting the measure on an August ballot. McGinn later agreed that the urgency behind a May election is in part strategic; in case the measure failed, there would be time to regroup before a financing shortfall arose. For the May ballot, the council would need to come to a consensus by the beginning of April.

Jean Godden sounded dubious and querulous. Sally Bagshaw was concerned about uncovering a Native American burial ground and whether "this one-in-ten seawall failure is something we're really concerned about now?" Tom Rasmussen wanted to make sure "we weren't digging up the same streets twice" (which is slightly odd, considering the deep-bore tunnel is a deep-bore tunnel).

The Council's questions often displayed a remarkable sang froid concerning a possible waterfront collapse, and an inability to distinguish between McGinn's funding proposal and design and logistical concerns. Almost everyone prefaced their remarks by saying of course, this is a major public safety issue, but then went on to ask why taking action sooner was so important.

The idea of moving as quickly as possible seemed completely foreign to them.