Mayor McGinn has proposed a quick election in May 2010 so Seattle voters can determine whether to tax themselves to rebuild the Elliott Bay Seawall along our central waterfront. (Mayor's press announcement here.) The Mayor gets credit for recognizing the danger a deteriorating seawall poses and he's right to jump-start a brisk discussion about how we should proceed to repair the seawall. But before I can support a special taxation election, I need to get answers to the following questions (after the jump).
How much will it cost to repair the seawall and what should it look like? Some preliminary design work has been done, but those designs are based on traditional seawall construction and do not include adaptations for direct access to Puget Sound. We need a better cost framework before we can ask the voters to fund this project and for how much.
Will Seattle taxpayers pay all the costs of seawall repairs? We can't answer this question now and this is perhaps the primary reason not to rush this decision. The City has agreed that seawall repairs are our responsibility, but we know the Port of Seattle wants to help and even the federal government may have interest in helping offset costs. We should not rush forward without a proper understanding of the various potential revenue sources. Instead, we should be focused on creating a cocktail of revenues to pay for seawall repairs and all of the related projects.
Should seawall repairs be made all at once or in stages? Some seawall repairs have already been made, including sections at the Olympic Sculpture Park and near the Aquarium. These repairs were made in conjunction with significant land-side improvements. It makes sense to have an overall plan in place before asking voters to approve new taxes.
How do seawall repairs relate to the viaduct replacement? The seawall repairs are part of a much larger project involving the Alaskan Way Corridor that includes replacement of the viaduct, plus a new pedestrian-focused waterfront and the Spokane Street and Mercer Street upgrades. This is one important and integrated project. The various components cannot be separated, in my opinion. The integration of this project is important for transportation planning—especially related to alternative transportation options, economic development, protection of businesses along the waterfront and environmental considerations. Piecemeal actions do not advance this work.
What will it take to win voter approval in May? The Mayor has proposed a special election to authorize issuance of 30-year bonds. State law requires that such a ballot measure win a minimum 60% voter approval. There is a turnout requirement as well: at least 40% of the voters who voted in the last state general election must vote in the special election. When was the last state general election? Some suggest that election was November 4, 2008 when President Obama was elected. Others say November 2009 when Mayor McGinn was elected qualifies as a state general election since statewide ballot measures were on the ballot. The legal details matter. If 2008 is controlling, then at least 133,041 Seattle voters must vote in the special election and 60% of those must vote "yes." If 2009 is controlling, then 86,629 voters must vote and 60% of those must vote "yes." That's a very significant difference. No room for error or a murky ballot measure that does not have widespread and deep support throughout the city. By the way, this special election will cost city taxpayers approximately $1 million!
Why special bonds instead of a property tax levy? Bond elections have specific minimum thresholds, as discussed above. Property tax levies can be adopted with a simple majority of 50% or more and there is no minimum turnout requirement. Bonds cost the individual property owner less annually than levies, but also take more to win approval. Which approach is best?
Should the current central waterfront planning process proceed as scheduled? The City Council took another step in central waterfront planning on November 2, 2009 with unanimous adoption of Ordinance 123142. (Amended unanimously by Ordinance 123212 for committee make-up only.) This Council action established a 41-member citizen planning committee to make recommendations about the central waterfront and the seawall no later than August 31, 2010. The committee is charged with making recommendations that will create multiple public spaces along the waterfront and to work in partnership with regional stakeholders. A May special election will limit, perhaps even interfere, with this committee's work.
Is Mayor McGinn's recommendation for a special bond election part of a larger scheme to block construction of the deep-bore tunnel to replace the viaduct? Councilmembers are leery of the Mayor's intentions here. We've told him of our concerns. He opposed the tunnel during his election campaign, then said he would follow policy adopted by the Council. But he continues to speak out against the tunnel; conflicting messages only fuel our doubt. I would appreciate a clear and succinct statement of his beliefs and intentions; tell us the truth, Mayor McGinn, we're adults. Lingering doubts and suspicions serve no one and will only confuse and alienate the public. It would be better if the Mayor put his cards on the table and engaged in a reasoned and fact-based debate about this important corridor.
These are my early questions and thoughts . . . so far.