This Blog Will Now Go Slit Its Wrists

Because Mike McGinn said that if elected Mayor he would honor prior agreements made by the City’s elected representatives.  The sun has set on hugeasscity.

>>>

UPDATE:  Please note that I grew up in the Boston area where sarcasm is well-used.

UPDATE 2:  I better spell it out:  Sarcasm is when you say the opposite of what you mean, as in, “slitting your wrists” would mean you actually couldn’t care less.  In other words, McGinn’s statement on the Council’s approval of the tunnel agreement has not changed anything regarding my unequivocal support for his candidacy.  Because it has always been about more than one issue.

25 Responses to “This Blog Will Now Go Slit Its Wrists”

  1. KirkH

    That’s not true Dan. This blog has always been about more than the tunnel. I started reading Hugeasscity because it was one of the few places to have thoughtful discussion on urban design in Seattle, and I know I’m not the only one. That discussion still continues, tunnel or no tunnel.

    Yet now we have to focus on making our future waterfront the best it can possibly be, and we’re going to need respected voices like yours. Don’t lose all faith, remember, the sun also rises.

    -KH

  2. dan cortland

    Interesting. Does that imply an altered stand on Paul Allen Boulevard?

  3. Chuck Wolfe

    Dan, if you need an intervention, well, I can get you the best help. And there are so many things to concentrate on now, like tunnel costs and how many backyard cottages are actually built, and maybe even the land use implications of those little bunnies that Mallahan says he eats in that Crosscut article.

  4. Brice

    i think mike also said he would watch out for seattle voters. so when that hugeasstunnel (where’d i hear that?) starts sinking of its own weight, i’d rather have a skeptical, nee oppositional, mayor in city hall than one who has been bought and sold by the tunnel borers.

  5. Chuck Wolfe

    And speaking of Crosscut: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19136/

  6. Chris

    He might not be willing to unilaterally kill the tunnel, but McGinn is still our best hope for derailing this hugeass money pit.

  7. Keith

    I’m a little disappointed but he still had my vote. He didn’t turn around completely and say the tunnel is a good idea. He still opposes it, he’s just willing to go along with it if he doesn’t have any other choice. I don’t believe he made this decision because of pressure from the construction industry. The tunnel, unfortunately, has enough support in Seattle that it was hurting his campaign. I think he was really just responding to the voters. I think if public opinion moves more clearly against the tunnel he’ll be able resume fighting against it. If O’Brien joins the city council that also might help revive opposition to the tunnel.

    I’d rather have a mayor who holds the right beliefs even if he can’t always act on them. There are also many other areas where McGinn could do good work on the environment and city planning. I agree with Kirk. I started reading hugeasscity before the governor announced she wanted a tunnel. I hope you stick around; the tunnel is just one battle and we’ll nee people like you.

    It seemed strange to me opposition to the tunnel organized around a mayoral campaign. It might have been better if there was and independent group opposed to the tunnel. I mean, a mayor has to worry about approval ratings and how a position on one issue would affect his overall agenda. Also if all the opposition to the tunnel is coming from the mayor’s office it might make it seem like opposition to the tunnel is only a Seattle thing. Is it too late to organize opposition to the tunnel?

  8. Scott

    Doesn’t McGinn know that you’re supposed to wait until AFTER you’re elected to break campaign promises? Sheesh.

  9. Tychotesla

    Can the tunnel easily be modified to run trains (light or heavy) through it?

  10. Adam Parast

    How many times before has this project appeared finished? Lots. Until a contract is signed with a construction company I think it is safe to assume more is in store.

    With that said I would really appreciate having the old HAC back and reading about non-tunnel related things.

  11. Madisonian

    I think the city council forced McGinn’s hand.

  12. Renee

    Regardless of who wins this horse race, I have serious doubts of whether the tunnel as planned will ever be built. And, I have always preferred to have McGinn leading our city.

  13. publicadministrator

    @11 no, it was his trailing poll numbers and the large block or undecideds that forced McGinn’s hand.

  14. Magic Beans

    Much of this, I think, might have been avoided if we’d been firm and clear that an ‘active waterfront’ is not worth the compromise of a tunnel.

    I regret, for all of us, that so many waterfronters felt like the waterfront dream was the central, orienting issue about the viaduct. The politicians are unprincipled and blind at best, but we gave them a golden opportunity for a compromise in which everyone (waterfronters, througputters and freight mobilizers) would be happy.

    The chickens are coming home to roost.

  15. City Comforts

    “Much of this, I think, might have been avoided if we’d been firm and clear that an ‘active waterfront’ is not worth the compromise of a tunnel.”

    That nails it. The big problem here is that McGinn too had bought into the dream-state of Surface/Transit and he has no fall-back to the Repair. (When the history of big lies is written “the Seattle Viaduct is collapsing” will be a significant chapter.)

    In this case, if we get a tunnel, you can thank the Surface/Transit people for spreading the insidious vision of a sterile parked-up waterfront which it shares, ironically, with Tunnel advocates.

    People don’t live in reality but in their heads. An awful lot of people have been persuaded that they will be happier if the viaduct is gone, McGinn included.

    Oh well, I am at retirement age and have no problem moving from Seattle to avoid the preposterous taxes.

    Though as a congenital optimist I am still convinced that the Tunnel will fail.

  16. Mark

    Although I”m not a big fan of this move, as it always makes for a little unstable footing when yourfavoritePolitian(s) backpedal right before an election…

    I think Mike has simply stepped gently tot he side and will now permit the oncoming train of crazy that is the tunnel to rush on by and smash itself into little bits…

    Even though I casted votes in the direction of Gov Gregoire, the push for the tunnel was something she had to do to save her administration. Plus, the tunnel is the cleanest play for the state, with very clear lines drawn where their responsibility begins and ends. State – tunnel, city and county – everything else. I think (if elected) Dow is walking the line on this, so if it comes to a head, he’ll step aside too and our Governor will catch this speeding train right between the numbers (mixing metaphors…) God save the Queen…

  17. David in Burien

    Jesus Christ Dan, sack up man. This election is about so much more than this shitty version of a tunnel under Seattle and McGinn is still the better of these two candidates. Besides, if you don’t harden up right quick, you’ll get eaten alive by the trolling twits that are now dominating the comment threads at Publicola and surely headed your way for some sport. Long live HAC.

  18. Ross

    That is hilarious, Dan. Great picture by the way. Not only are you fading into the sunset, but it is a sunset that includes the viaduct. Beautiful.

    I look forward to your future posts (as always).

  19. Jason

    As long as a white guy with a beard who rides a bike and owns a Prius is elected mayor, I’m happy. McGinn will do.

  20. Bill B

    [* cross posted from http://hugeasscity.com/2009/10/19/the-elephant-in-the-room/ *]

    I agree that the Mayor can not singularly create massive change that we need. It has to be based in a desire of the people. And in a town that endorses the Discovery Institute candidate, we have some challenges…

    And this is why I believe McGinn has not been the agent of change that he has led many to believe he is. The vision of bike filled streets and street cars and light rail everywhere is still a pipe dream too. Why?

    Because McG isn’t really talking to the truth of the significant structural changes that Seattle would have to make nor describing how they could be achieved and how he would take us there.

    Where is the frank discussion about removing parking downtown (as our idolized Copenhagen has), or stopping parking to be built for ANY housing in the urban village centers and hubs, or taxing the hell outa parking, or making everyone (that includes developers) ponying up to pay for massive local Seattle transit infrastructure (and ignoring lightrail which is a regional system), etc etc. Where is the discussion of what it would take to do these things, how to time them, how to transition our people and commerce, etc.

    There’s a big gap between the truth and the fantasy, and we ain’t hearing about it from Mike.

    And if he rolls over on the tunnel issue – his bellwether – how will address any of these other significant challenges.

    Now if I really believed that once in power McG would take on that leadership, I would support him – as ardently as many on this blog have.

    But his past track record with the green-washed GCI, his refusal to acknowledge that massive urban projects like Dearborn were BS, his role in SLU, and the reaction of his peers in Greenwood or colleagues on the parks levy lead me to conclude he is not all that he’s portrayed as.

    He rolled over and it shows that he’s been blowing smoke all along.

  21. Wells

    I’ve presented several angles in support of Mike’s position on the AWV replacement, several calling for a fall back position, none which dismiss the logic of the Surface/I-5/Transit. Mike is right. The Deep-bore is not the best tunnel nor the ideal replacement option.

    The best tunnel is the 4-lane Cut-n-cover because it maintains the critically important Western/Elliott access. The ideal replacement is indeed the Surface/I-5/Transit because it takes into account the reality of the insane amount of traffic we assume is sustainable. My defense of the 4-lane Cut-n-cover is still a compromise that creates more construction jobs, handles traffic better than the Deep-bore and may cost a few hundred million less.

    Saturday, the Seattle Times finally mentioned the 4-lane cut-n-cover, but not in a favorable light, reminding everyone that it was indeed rejected by voters in March 2007. On the contrary, ‘tunnel-lite’ as it was called, was essentially a 6-lane version, its ’shoulders’ wide enough to act as 3rd lanes during rush hours.

    Leading up to the vote, a 6-lane cut-n-cover was the main discussion. I suspect ‘tunnel-lite’ was thrown together shortly before the vote without a thorough vetting, even regarding construction disruption. WsDOT continued work on the 4-lane cut-n-cover and produced Scenario ‘G’ in late 2008, more clearly defining the construction process. No one outside of SDOT and WsDOT knows what the contruction process will entail. I believe it is manageable.

    One of my arguments defending McGinn’s position is that he doesn’t have all the information necessary to make fully informed decisions. What Seattle does NOT need is a new mayor who will take over where Greg Nickels left off. He pissed people off just too much. Mallahan is clearly nowhere near as trustworthy as McGinn.

  22. Max J

    So are you going to stop sucking Mike McGinn’s dick finally?

  23. Wells

    Would someone please castrate Max J. Thank you.

  24. Max J

    @23.

    Hilarious! You are so funny and clever. I am infinitely envious of your insight!

  25. dick

    @24.

    Equally impressed with your command of the topic. Clearly you’re all over this one with the dick comment. When I’ve got nothing much to say, I usually throw in the dick comment. ‘Cause the dick thing usually makes people start nodding and agreeing with me, and it makes me feel smart. dick dick dick

Leave a Reply