The SunBreak
posted 11/12/10 10:43 AM | updated 11/12/10 10:43 AM
Featured Post! | Views: 0 | Comments : 5 | Politics

Seattle Will Pay for Any Tunnel Overruns, Vow Lawmakers

By Michael van Baker
Editor
Recommend this story (0 votes)
Share

Governor Gregoire

A few days ago, the Seattlepi.com's Joel Connelly was scolding Mayor McGinn for his "gratuitous personal insult directed at Gov. Chris Gregoire." At a press conference, McGinn said, "I don't believe we can trust the governor" to protect Seattle against cost overruns from the deep-bore tunnel project. The governor's spokesman Cory Curtis said that Gregoire simply doesn't believe overruns are a threat to Seattle. 

That would be news to anyone who's spoken with the state legislature. The latest lawmaker to go on record vowing to make Seattle pay for any excess costs is Rep. Larry Seaquist, a Democrat from Gig Harbor. Seaquist told the Seattlepi.com, "I will be among those who make damn sure that deal stands in place. We bought our own bridge, you can buy your own tunnel" (a reference to funding of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge). 

Gov. Gregoire has mounted lawyerly arguments against the possibility of cost overruns, saying things that sound like there's little possibility of such a thing ever happening, and heaping scorn on McGinn as a foot-dragger. "What could cause a cost overrun? Delay," said the governor, despite the fact that, when it suits WSDOT, a year's extension to the project's timeline is spun as bringing costs down.

Gregoire has also called the specific provision "unenforceable," which may be technically true. But it's also disingenuous. The Legislature is perfectly capable of writing an enforceable provision, and Sen. Jim Kastama (another Democrat) went on record over a year ago to say, if costs exceed the budgeted amount, Seattle will pay. Note that these are both Democrats, and that recent Republican wins have cut into the Democratic majority in both House and Senate.

So why should we trust the governor on this issue? She's minimized evident risks, cast aspersions on those who questioned the soundness of the project's funding, and moved goalposts as needed--but the provision that signals the Legislature's intent to make Seattle pay for cost overruns has never gone away, and nor have the legislators who insisted on it. Only in politics would it be an insult to point that out in public.

Save and Share this article
Permalink
Tags: governor gregoire, mayor mcginn, deep-bore tunnel, wsdot, cost overruns, transportation, jim kastama, larry seaquist + add tags
savecancel
CommentsRSS Feed
Cost overruns? Doubtful.
I'm SURE there won't be any cost overruns associated with boring a tunnel through tidal flats. Besides, massive infrastructure projects usually run super smoothly and hardly ever go over budget! Instead of worrying about cost overruns, we should be planning for how we are going to spend all the free time we'll have once this tunnel is built and puts an end to downtown traffic!
Comment by Seth Kolloen
2 days ago
( +1 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
This quote, while probably honest, means nothing. Consider the source.
It's a Gig Harbor representative. It's his job to publicly say things like that. He's one guy in a legislature with dozens of representatives, and unless you can get 20-30 WA legislators on record as saying they will put Seattle on the hook, it has no meaning other than hot air from a politician saying what his consitutents want to hear. He can't vote Seattle on the hook all by himself. If he has legislative help in this endeavor, where are his cohorts to publicly back him up? I don't see any.
Comment by Gomez
2 days ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
RE: This quote, while probably honest, means nothing. Consider the source.
The House vote on the funding was 53-43, so I'd say he starts with a cohort of at least 43 representatives. The Senate voted 39-9, so Kastama may need to make more friends, but, again, this was a make-or-break provision. No one thought the bill would pass without it. If overruns amount to a few hundred million, I think there may be wiggle room, but anything more than that could easily end up on Seattle's bill, given the state's struggles with the deficit and gas tax revenues not meeting projections.
Comment by Michael van Baker
2 days ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
I vote "No" on said "tunnel"
FYI in case you were wondering. We don't need no stinkin' tunnel.
Comment by Steve Winwood
2 days ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Don't want more overruns: Shut the tunnel project down
I appreciate Rep. Seaquist's concerns about cost overruns in the tunnel project. Well, guess what. It just had its first $210 million cost overrun, right before the Governor errantly announced that the bids had come in under budget. WSDOT raised the bid limit by $210 million a few days before the deadline, and then when the two bids came in by that much over (Hey, I thought these were supposed to be sealed bids!), the governor moved the budget bar by $210 million.

So, all the governor has to do to say the project is on budget is to keep increasing the budget.

Yes, there is a fund for unforeseen cost overruns. After last week, that fund is down to $160 million. The bids just came in, and over half the contingency fund is already used up. And we are supposed to believe there won't be additional cost overruns?

As for Rep. Seaquist, if he doesn't want his constituents to be stuck helping to pay cost overruns, he can join the effort to cancel the project. And then support legislation to let localities tax themselves for better transit, and hopefully override the governor's anti-transit vetoes.
Comment by Brent
1 day ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: