Tunnel foes, backers see high stakes in Aug. 16 vote

Supporters of a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct call Referendum 1 "nonsense." Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin dubbed it a "Seinfeld referendum," about nothing.

For a time, they considered ignoring the whole thing.

But they quickly realized the stakes of letting tunnel opponents' arguments go unmatched. Even if the measure itself couldn't stop the tunnel, a citywide no vote Aug. 16 could cause political damage to the project they had worked on for a decade.

They got organized and started raising money to hire one of the state's top campaign strategists. They needed a message that would convince people a referendum about "nonsense" actually mattered.

"It's a proxy vote on the project," said Dave Freiboth, a pro-tunnel campaign leader and executive secretary of the King County Labor Council. "And so technically, it doesn't matter. Politically, it matters, this vote, and so we're taking it seriously."

Each campaign's success relies on explaining away the confusing details of the referendum and persuading voters to send a message to either build the tunnel or stop the project.

"This is one of the least sound-bite-friendly campaigns in history," said Christian Sinderman, consultant for the pro-tunnel campaign, Let's Move Forward.

Energized by the election of anti-tunnel Mayor Mike McGinn in 2009, opponents wanted a citywide vote on the $2 billion tunnel.

Their last chance came in February, when the Seattle City Council approved agreements with the state about utility relocations and other details related to the tunnel.

They collected well beyond the 16,500 signatures needed to qualify, but the Seattle city attorney promptly sued to keep the measure off the ballot. Project opponents won in court and got their referendum on the ballot, but not the up-or-down vote on the tunnel they had hoped for.

"This was the only way to get a public vote, and we think the public deserves a vote," said Esther Handy, campaign manager for Protect Seattle Now, the anti-tunnel campaign.

Their literature says: "Reject Referendum 1. Reject the tunnel."

Technically, rejecting Seattle Referendum 1 rejects not the tunnel, but one section of a City Council action that deals with how the council gives notice to the state to proceed with tunnel construction.

If voters reject Referendum 1, council members could still approve the agreements and go ahead with the project.

They would just have to do it a different way.

If voters approve the measure, the council could approve the agreements as planned.

Pro side: Time to move

The pro-tunnel effort, Let's Move Forward, argues that a decade of debate "is enough" and it's time to move ahead and drill the tunnel.

"Voters have every right to be confused and annoyed by this issue," Sinderman said.

Instead of rehashing the details of environmental studies as tunnel opponents want to do, the pro-tunnel campaign says, the public meetings and debate have gone on long enough.

They say commerce and regional freight rely on a north-south highway through downtown.

"People are tired of the process. We know that," said Alex Fryer, spokesman for Let's Move Forward.

The pro-tunnel campaign also wants to talk about problems with two alternatives endorsed by many tunnel opponents: rebuilding an elevated highway or adding buses through downtown and diverting viaduct traffic onto an improved Interstate 5 and surface streets.

They make the point in fliers and phone calls to voters that the only plan the Legislature has agreed to fund is the tunnel.

After a late start, the pro-tunnel effort has raised more than $88,000. That includes about $20,000 each from the Downtown Seattle Association and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, plus $12,500 from the labor council.

Local political consultant John Wyble, who represents both pro- and anti-tunnel City Council candidates, said the pro-tunnel campaign should have chosen a single message. Either it matters, or it doesn't.

"When you confuse voters, they tend to vote no."

Anti side: tolls, transit

The anti-tunnel effort has sought to boil down the issue to tolls and transit.

As a publicity stunt, they set up a toll booth at the entrance to the Battery Street Tunnel last week to advertise that the new tunnel will be tolled.

Traffic with the tunnel would be worse than traffic without, they argue. They point to state environmental documents that show thousands of people would drive through downtown rather than pay to use the tunnel.

They're also focusing on transit service. The state's tunnel budget includes money for added bus service during construction, but not after the tunnel is complete.

The campaign is not emphasizing what has been McGinn's main argument — that the city could get stuck with cost overruns because a phrase in state law says "Seattle-area property owners who benefit" from the tunnel would be on the hook.

The anti-tunnel campaign is keeping its distance from the mayor, who tunnel supporters say is deeply unpopular.

"The mayor is really focused on doing the work of the city," said Handy, the campaign manager. "He's not really involved in our campaign right now."

Protect Seattle Now is supported by many of the same people who helped elect the mayor, and McGinn's campaign consultant, Bill Broadhead, gave $5,000 to the anti-tunnel campaign, making him the largest individual contributor.

Handy said Broadhead's involvement was limited to an early financial contribution.

The anti-tunnel effort is led by the Sierra Club and Real Change newspaper, both of which have given thousands to the effort. Their campaign is being waged largely through social networking, such as a Facebook page where they've asked 1,000 people to write their reasons for rejecting the tunnel.

They have raised almost $75,000, including $12,700 from the Sierra Club and $3,000 from Real Change.

Tunnel supporters say even if they lose, the tunnel will be built.

Wyble said that while an anti-tunnel vote wouldn't stop the project, it could change the conversation.

"I think the City Council does have to look at this project and some of the tolling issues, some of the issues around transit, cost overruns," he said. "I can't imagine that they're going to suddenly say, 'We're not going to go do this.' "

Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 or eheffter@seattletimes.com