How We Got Here

Every governing system run by a single party or ideology runs the risk of falling victim to groupthink, a condition in which basic assumptions go unchallenged, debate is minimized, dissenters are marginalized, and all the knowing smiles and vigorous head-nodding create an impression everything is going just great - until it isn't. The old Soviet Union is a great example and a new one was recently dished up by a group called "Not Another Elevated Viaduct."

"Not Another Elevated Viaduct" bought space in the Seattle newspapers to publish an open letter to Governor Christine Gregoire urging her to not support construction of another elevated viaduct along the central waterfront. The letter was signed by 228 people described as "business, environmental, arts, civic, and political leaders," and supporters included Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles, County Executive Ron Sims, former Governors Gary Locke and Dan Evans, former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, a majority of City Council members, and a bunch of state legislators.

Assertions set forth in the letter are set out below in italic type, with direct extracts in quotes. These are the Articles of Faith that have been draped over the viaduct by the tunnel-or-else crowd. Responses follow in squared-up letters, stating points that were lost long ago in the viaduct debate that never really took place over at the Kremlin - er, sorry: City Hall.

Article of Faith One - An elevated structure "Hurts Our Communities: The old Viaduct was a mistake..."

When built, the present viaduct was a major public improvement that helped to unite north and south Seattle. Today it permits motorists to "rise above it all" and soar over downtown - just like the monorail, except the viaduct was actually built. Seattle communities aided by the viaduct include West Seattle, Delridge, Ballard, Georgetown, Sodo, Fremont, Queen Anne, Magnolia, the International District and - yes - downtown, which is spared the presence of tens of thousands of cars, buses, and trucks that would otherwise search for north-south access along downtown streets. The viaduct benefit zone includes Interstate 5 and the hundreds of thousands of people who use the freeway without having to cope with the 110,000 people who use the viaduct.

Article Two - The Viaduct "seals off Seattle from its central waterfront."

Anyone is free to believe this if they choose to. The viaduct is loud, it casts long shadows, and it may very well seem like an enormous barrier to those whose sensibilities are offended by it. The issue is, how much do your sensibilities mean to the rest of us? And what will they cost? The reality is that the viaduct doesn't stop anyone from reaching the central waterfront. And while it blocks views from some buildings, the number is relatively low compared to the all the western-looking windows in office buildings downtown that provide breathtaking views of Elliott Bay. Looking east from West Seattle, you can barely even make out the viaduct that allegedly blights our urban landscape. It may be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to see how the viaduct injures Seattle or "seals off" anyone from anything.

Article Three - "Seattle and our region can and should have a waterfront for people, not cars."

Seattle has more waterfront "people places" than most cities in the world thanks to the fact the city is laced with 146 miles of shoreline. And thanks to the foresight of earlier city leaders, public access is provided to wide stretches of our shorelines. If they were laid end-to-end, Seattle's shorelines would literally stretch from here to downtown Vancouver, B.C., and those with public access would probably extend from here to Mount Vernon. We not only have "people places" along the shoreline. We have an off-leash swim area for dogs at Magnuson Park on Lake Washington.

Article Four - An elevated highway "Hurts the environment: a new elevated highway will undermine cleanup of the Puget Sound."

The most serious threats to Puget Sound are contaminated stormwater runoff and the overuse of lawn fertilizers. Downtown Seattle has hundreds of acres of impervious streets, sidewalks, skyscrapers, and other buildings that cause more runoff than anything that is built - or isn't built - to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Article Five - An elevated highway "hurts businesses: Seattle is a world-class destination for business and trade. No other city in the world is building elevated freeways along their central waterfront."

If the existing viaduct is so harmful, how did Seattle grow into such a prosperous city? Other waterfront cities didn't build elevated highways because they didn't need to. Seattle did, and not because its past leaders were brutish or stupid, but because of the city's challenging topography.

Article Six - "Opening the waterfront will improve our local and regional business, and produce substantial new revenue through increased taxes."

The number one tax revenue issue facing businesses, residences, our city, our region, and our state is how on earth we can afford to fix the viaduct and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, complete Sound Transit, expand Interstate 405, revamp the Spokane Street Viaduct, replace South Park Bridge, complete State Route 509, construct two-way Mercer and all the others. This Article of Faith is the tip-off that the letter must have been written by a former government staffer or a present one. Who else would combine the terns, "increased taxes" in a sentence arguing for business benefits?

The letter makes no mention of those other pressing projects and needs, or how they've come to feel the viaduct "fits" when gauged against other regional needs and priorities. Surprised? Don't be. Tunnel vision is, by definition, impaired.

This article was reprinted with the permission of Seattle Industry, a magazine owned and produced by the Manufacturing Industrial Council of Seattle.