Tuesday, January 13, 2009

I Recomended The Tunnel Option Two Years Ago

I'm such a visionary. In a February 2007 post, just prior to the advisory vote motivated by a gutless city council, county and state government in fear of taking action, I said the real compromise was the tunnel option. Surprise, now all the pols agree in principle with me.

And can we please get Nick "chicken little" Licata and Dori "stupid prices" Monson to please shut their freaking pie holes and stop standing in the way of change we can drive through.

It's time Seattle politicians and citizens embrace the idea of a tunnel and a lets get it done attitude instead of the usual talk it to death bitching and fear. It will create some jobs folks and help the economy plus save the above ground waterfront by removing a monstrous viaduct that is virtually blocking the waterfront access to Seattle.

It time to wake up a smell the concrete mixing.

1 comment:

  1. For too long Seattle has tried to do things on the cheap, pretending that either it would keep the city from becoming a big city or hoping that things would turn out alright anyway. We've for too long feared the reactions of our eastern Washington cousins who think they're paying our freight, when the reality is the opposite. My only hope is that this proposal goes far enough. One objection that is often voiced is that a tunnel primarily benefits the wealthy downtown Seattle land owners, which is true, but the heart of all great cities are their downtown areas. The rich will find someway to benefit someplace else if they don't here. Gregoire will get a lot of flack for this, but at least she's willing to make a decision and have some backbone, unlike her predecessor.

    ReplyDelete