March 2007

We have studied this mail in ballot up and down for several days, read all of the letters to the editor, even read all of the news releases with claims and counter-claims. It can be confusing and often because of what the protagonist say as well as how they say it.

First, even though this is only an advisory election and the result could be ignored by the Washington State Department of Transportation, you should mark your ballot and mail it in - or drop it off at the High Point Community Center from tomorrow through election day.

Over the course of the past year I recall Mayor Nickels reiterating that sinking State Route 99 into his "tunnel of love" had nothing to do with downtown developers or building million dollar condominiums for the well-heeled to enjoy unfettered views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. And it had nothing to do with caving in to the demands of downtown movers and shakers.

The mayor may believe this fantasy but the truth is something else. As the Seattle Times reported on Feb. 21, tunnel of love supporters have raised $415,000.

With the upcoming advisory vote, I cannot understand how any West Seattleite who commutes over the West Seattle Bridge could do anything other than vote "yes" to replace the viaduct and No on the mayor's Tunnel Lite proposal.

The proponents of a tunnel, and the even sillier surface street option, have done an excellent job of obfuscating the issues. The tunnel proponents, in league with city staff, have whined about the Washington State Department of Transportation and its failure to send the city a report on the Tunnel Lite project. This is a diversion.

Pick a reason for the tunnel option.

Safety? Whoops, with nowhere to go in case of a fire, or an energy black-out - an enclosed tunnel can kill hundreds quickly by making them choke on deadly carbon monoxide fumes.

Cost-effective? Whoops, if /when there are cost- overruns, like with the bus tunnel years ago, only the Seattle taxpayers can pay the money back.

Time-savings? Whoops, currently many West Seattleites and Burien commuters delay their commute until 9 a.m.

The Hybrid Tunnel redesign is cheap, unsafe, and unusable. You don't need an engineer to determine that. A grade separation alternative is cheaper and eliminates Mayor Greg Nickels' costly, unneeded waterfront park. Here are the issues that need attention.

- Both tunnels have six lanes. The hybrid is just 2 feet narrower in each direction.

There are many and varied confusing sources providing misrepresentations, unsupported statements, and in some cases hypocritical positions related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement.

One of the worst is the mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels. His statement that Seattle won't be pushed into accepting the governor's decision to fund only the viaduct is self-serving. The mayor sends the message that he speaks for the city! He does not!

Tunnel or elevated highway. Hmmmm.... If I thought we'd created the greatest park in the country, if not the world, I'd vote for a tunnel. But no, there'd be condos. So I will vote for another eyesore.

Jonnie Rhea

West Seattle

Be sure to read your ballot before you vote "yes" or "no" on the tunnel, and "yes" or "no" on the viaduct.

Because there are many unknowns about both: cost overruns on both choices; views of the waterfront for both choices, public access to the waterfront and other unknowns. Because of these unknowns from the ballot choices, I am voting "no" on both choices.

Alexandra Pye

Alki

Now you can see the big money starting to tell you how to vote: almost a half-million dollars has been raised to promote destroying the viaduct and replacing it with million-dollar condos and a waterfront park. Vote for the people who live and work here, not the downtown interests, developers, architects, and lawyers planning to make millions from this new development.

Ten hours a day of downtown gridlock and the Interstate a parking lot. Without the viaduct that's what we would have today if 110,000 cars are forced onto existing city streets.

I need some help. I need someone to tell me a compelling reason why I should even take the time and energy, as little as it might be, to mail in my vote on the viaduct referendum.

I'm actually trying to establish a reasonable justification for voting at all around here. After all, the track record of our voting procedures actually making a difference seems rather suspect. In my short time here I've witnessed a stadium, voted down by the people, actually being built. I've witnessed a monorail system, approved numerous times by a vote of the people, actually being scrapped.