The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Comments (10)     E-mail article     Print view

Don't mire viaduct plans with lawn-sign politics

Advocates of certain Alaskan Way Viaduct alternatives have tried to turn a good public process into a political struggle among eight "candidates." Let's tone down the rhetoric for this important regional decision.

Special to The Times

FOR the first time in many years it looks as if all levels of government have found a promising way to resolve our long struggle over what to do with the unsafe Alaskan Way Viaduct.

It is, as it always must be in Seattle, a process involving lots of people: a large Stakeholder Advisory Committee appointed by the governor, the mayor of Seattle and the King County executive; a project team made up of the best of the three transportation agencies — the Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle Department of Transportation and King County — and a mix of leading consultants and experts.

Unfortunately, even before cost numbers have been released by the project team, the lawn signs are starting to come out and the politics are back. Some advocates have taken the first steps in trying to turn a good process into a free-for-all political struggle among eight "candidates."

In an op-ed in the Nov. 16 Seattle Times, "Waterfront Parkway's the best plan for replacing Seattle's crumbling viaduct," a labor leader, a neighborhood activist and a venture capitalist argue for the elevated, enclosed highway advocated by Speaker of the House Frank Chopp.

It is one of eight scenarios under review by the project team and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Know as Scenario E, it is described as an "Integrated Elevated" with four lanes of surface traffic on Alaskan Way and four lanes of enclosed elevated highway with a park on top and, eventually, retail shops, art galleries and office space underneath.

There are obviously lots of unanswered questions on this and all the other scenarios under review. There are perhaps even more questions with this very large, multipurpose idea.

This is really the first time in the stakeholder process that we are seeing a flexing of political muscle behind someone's idea: labor, the neighborhoods, big money — not to mention the speaker.

In 2007, six years after the Nisqually earthquake damaged the viaduct, Seattle residents in an advisory vote went to the polls to choose between a new elevated highway and a tunnel/surface solution. Neither won the beauty contest.

To their credit, elected officials who had disagreed on the vote agreed to collaborate on a process that promised a decision on the best information collectively developed, not on politics and jurisdictional muscle.

The process has been under way now for many months, some of that time waiting for an election to happen so all parties could get the politics behind them before going to work in public on viaduct issues.

The engineers and the experts have begun rolling out their work — transparently in an open, collaborative process — so that the elected officials can decide from a menu of choices based on six consensus guiding principles. Such as what configuration is best for public safety, most fiscally responsible, most likely to improve the environment, most efficiently moves freight and people through the city, best sustains and improves the downtown and regional economy, and enhances the central waterfront as a place for people.

These are shared Seattle values in a search for the best answer, not individual lawn signs in a political struggle.

The process will run to the end of the year when, in a very transparent and public way, with solid, credible information, the governor, the mayor and the King County executive, as they agreed last year, will face their constituents and make some decisions.

Until then, let's all agree to put away the lawn signs, tone down the political rhetoric, and act as if this were the most important decision for our region, and especially our city, that one generation has ever made for the next one.

Norm Rice, Charles Royer and Paul Schell are all former mayors of Seattle.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

More Opinion headlines...

E-mail article Print view      Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Comments
If the dinasauris electoris really cared about the movement of freight from Portland to Vancouver BC,they would have suggested that the convention...  Posted on November 25, 2008 at 6:57 PM by Publicbulldog. Jump to comment
This is a very divisive decision, and I don't see how the rhetoric about it can be "toned down" without suppressing some of the...  Posted on November 26, 2008 at 7:32 AM by FTG. Jump to comment
If you want to see how pleasant the surface street would be go to the south end of the viaduct where it turns into Marginal way. That's only...  Posted on November 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM by gettingreal. Jump to comment

Ryan Blethen / Times editorial columnist: Times editorial board here to help with voter education before Aug. 18 primary

Guest columnists / The Democracy Papers: Saving America's democracy-sustaining journalism

Charles Krauthammer / Syndicated columnist: The Supreme Court's Ricci decision does little to resolve the contradictions of affirmative action

Guest columnists: Federal policy on new West Coast groundfish fishery rules needs congressional review

Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist: It's time to retire the I-made-a-mistake excuse

Video

AP Video

Entertainment | Top Video | World | Offbeat Video | Sci-Tech

Follow seattletimes.com on Twitter

Get the top stories on-the-go by following seattletimes.com on Twitter. We'll tweet the news and information you need around the clock and keep you up-to-date no matter where you are. Go to www.twitter.com/seattletimes to sign up now.

Marketplace

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed