Thanks, Charlie. Good piece and good work.

Imagine how much money we could save if we did not rebuild the old "concert pier". Beach! No pier, no seawall in that stretch. The little stretch of beach proposed at washington street is in sufficient. Besides simply adding more beach, the concert pier area is accessible to more people.

Beach, no sewall, less cost.

When a city needs to solicit charity to maintain its parks, it is an indication that it has lost sight of its core functions as local government. If Seattle has burdened itself with so many vanity and feel-good project expenses that it cannot even maintain parks, something is indeed wrong with the city government's priorities.

Absolutely. This scares me:

Consider New York City's Central Park, for example, where 85 percent of the cost of maintaining and programming the park now comes from private sources, mostly voluntary contributions from residents and businesses that are located nearby. Other cities with major new urban public parks have created organizations like the Friends to keep them clean, civil, and interestingly programmed.

And what if those private sources dry up?

From the story:

There is a $290 million bond issue on the November ballot that, together with money already budgeted by the city, will pay for a new seawall

Vote no on that upcoming tax hike measure. There is no good reason property owners city-wide should incur a tax hike to pay for this seawall.

There’s a much better, more fair, and more obvious way for the money to be raised. The government heads around here aren’t telling the public about it though. Moreover, I expect the individuals the city selects to draft the “Statement Against” for the voters guide won’t explain this to voters either (getting a stiff to draft lame “Statements Against” for voters guides is standard operating procedure for the tax pimps around here).

If this measure is rejected what would happen is the Port of Seattle would just go ahead and form a LID. It has the authority to do that, without any vote. Here is a state statute setting out some of the powers the Port of Seattle possesses -- RCW 53.08.020. Part of what it says is this:

"A port district may construct, . . . add to, maintain, . . . and operate sea walls . . . and other harbor improvements . . . within the district."

In light of that statute the Port would have standing to form a LID to pay for the seawall, and its LID authorization statutes don’t require that kind of financing technique to be approved by voters.

If that financing approach were to be used, only the benefited property owners near the seawall would bear the costs. That group includes mostly companies, and many of those are out of state companies. Even if they passed some of those costs on to tenants we'd still have businesses (mostly) paying. That’s a FAR better approach than hiking property taxes citywide, which would adversely impact individuals and families whose properties are nowhere near the downtown waterfront.

This ballot measure is another cynical attempt at playing people here for suckers. It’s the Greg Nickels approach -- don’t fall for it.

Fabulous.

What do the Railroads and Port have to say about the waterfront redevelopment and its connecting proposed new arena project in Sodo?

The $290 billion bond issue this fall for the seawall, yet McGinn and his cohorts simply want to provide without voter approval $200 million in bond money to multimillionaires and billionaires to build another sports arena. Clearly skewed priorities.

There's also a library bond issue, a juvenile justice center bond issue and school bonds all to be approved by voters.

McGinn, Ceis, et.al., get your head out and your hands out of our pockets.

It's not $200 million in bond money for Hansen. It's $350 million. Or did you think the Good Witch of the North was going to pay the $150 million in debt service?

A "failed transportation system," a "failing roadway." I don't think the AWV has "failed" yet; it's still facilitating the north-south travel of most of the traffic it formerly carried before the folks that decide started messing with it. And it still beats the heck out of trying to get from north Seattle to south of the city via I-5. It will be "failed" when it's gone, and not before.

As for "failing:" well, despite all the dire predictions, the AWV is still carrying traffic through downtown, with the ability to get off and do one's errands if needed, much more efficiently than I-5. There are annual (or more frequent) inspections that don't show much in the way of scary possibilities how many years after the last earthquake? And repairs/reinforcements are being done through weekend closures. All this without tolls.

Seems to me like the AWV builders did a phenomenal job since it has survived more than one earthquake since opening with minimal, if any damage. I have NO faith that anything they build today will match the quality and quality materials that have served us so well for so long.

Of course, I'll have to rely on news reports to see how soon and in what specific ways the tunnel will fail because unless the "You Can't Get There From Here" department figures out to make the tunnel the only route from north of Seattle to south of it, I'll never travel in it. For that matter, I may not even live long enough to see the tunnel completed, since I fully expect that it will be plagued by the same problems as Boston's Big Dig: From wikipedia:

"The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3] and even four deaths.[4] The project was scheduled to be completed in 1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]).[6] The project was not completed, however, until December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars)[6]as of 2006[update].[7] The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.[8] As a result of the deaths, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.[9]"

The destructive horror that our waterfront will become, assuming current plans eventually come to fruition, will live as a monument to the fecklessness of this era's politicians and the developers with whom they collude.

Overlooking the name-calling (no commenters, to their credit, having yet stooped), this is all quite informative. My continued thanks to Crosscut and its readers.

One thing that still puzzles me is whatever happened to the Core of Engineers' responsibility that for years appeared in all news articles as a source of some or all of the funds for sea-wall replacement?

There are a slew of erroneous statements in Royer's rebuttal to Mossback's article on the so-called "billion-dollar waterfront park". The problem is where to begin.

First, the legislature capped the state's cost to $2.2 billion but, in approving the deep-bored tunnel, failed to recognize what the actual M&O; costs will be. The electric power consumption is stated in the EIS at 70 megawatts per day for just lighting and ventilation. The power needs for sump (drainage) pump operations is not stated. To give readers a reference point, the three dams on the Skaget River (Gorge, Ross and Diablo) generate 700 megawatts. The actual monetary cost to WSDOT using a favorable rate will be not less than $1.4 million per year. That cost is forever. The DBT on which the water-front park is founded is far from green.

Then, too, there are there "design standards" for the DBT. To get the DBT to fit into the planned bore, WSDOT has purposely negated not less than five (5) standards that were adopted from the 1966 Highway Safety Act. (Lane width, shoulder width, road grade, left-hand ramps and vertical clearances.) Not mentioned is the inability to deploy a Metro Bus wheelchair lift on the northbound tunnel lanes since the right hand shoulder is only 2 feet wide and thus can't take the 6-foot long wheelchair lift.

Second, considering the "failing transportation and public safety infrastructure", and noting the above design standards so recklessly cast aside by WSDOT, recall the AWV carried some 110,000 vehicles per day. The DBT, without tolls, may carry 80,000 vpd. With tolls as now proposed it will be lucky to carry 40,000. That is a pitiful improvement, to use that word loosely.

Third, the good news is that the city's study by Allen-Brackett-Shedd entitled Feasibility Analysis of Special Benefits shows the "Project" will have a mid-value of $810,000,000 with the "High" reaching up to $1.495 billion to local properties. Clearly, downtown waterfront property owners are in for a huge monetary windfall at the expense of all Seattle residents who gain nothing except enormous congestion on the waterfront with its newly decreased capacity.

Fourth, Royer has failed to mention the Port of Seattle's "donation" to WSDOT for the tunnel at $300,000,000 per the signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) of February, 2011. As a 30-year bond that will top out at about $1.12 billion. With not one single port facility gaining access to the DBT it is little wonder the Office of the State Auditor was unable to find the basis of that sum in any port document.

Fifth, and to end this modest if not complete criticism of Royer's "Riposte" let us consider the availability of public parking on the new waterfront. There is none.

To conclude with the proposed seawall bond - it is clearly the icing on a pathetic public rip-off.

"WSDOT negated not less than 5 design standards adopted in the 1966 Highway Safety Act: Lane width, shoulder width, road grade, left-hand ramps, vertical clearances."

I highlighted this note about design safety standards to remind everyone that many additional and more serious safety standards are negated in the DBT & related street reconfigurations. The DBT itself displaces too much unstable soil too close to vulnerable buildings above. Say good bye to the Underground. Furthermore, Mercer West, decommissioning the BST & BSU, the new Alaskan Way boulevard design are all terribly arranged for managing traffic.

The strongest, most earthquake resistent AWV replacement is the Cut-Cover Tunnel/Seawall shown in the FEIS; best traffic management; best utility relocation; ideally removes unstable soils & solidifies remaining; uses half the concrete & recycles more. Neither Jet-grouting nor rows of concrete rods create a sufficiently strong and impervious seawall structure.

"The DBT is far from green. Excessive electricity consumption of 70+ megawatts a day for lighting, ventilation and sump pump operations could exceed $1.4 million per year. The study by Allen-Brackett-Shedd, "Feasibility Analysis of Special Benefits" shows the waterfront park gaining property value $810 Million to $1.5 Billion, a huge windfall for Waterfront property owners."

The Seattle Waterfront rebuild has tremendous potential, but Seattle's psuedo-environmentalists and artsy-fartsy socialites should NOT trust anyone employed at DOT, Transit, other public agency and organizations who support the DBT and related street reconfigurations.

At my scheduled court date in August I will submit into public record extensive evidence exposing the extreme danger that DBT supporters take far too casually. A ruling in favor should lead to a court order for an official investigation of Wsdot, SDOT, Metro, Port of Seattle on this issue with the end result of cancelling the DBT & Mercer West with a long overdue shake-up of DOT directors, policy and practice.
Eat dirt, highway boys!

Good piece Charley.

And I think the Central Waterfront Project is something that the local port industry supports. Having a Central Waterfront that is attractive to sightseers and residents alike, diners and pedestrians, adds to the vibrancy of our region and benefits one aspect of the port's mission in attracting travelers to our region and moving them through our airport and cruise terminals.

I believe an attractive Central Waterfront can co-exist with the other aspect of the Port's mission - moving cargo - as long as we are smart about investing in, and protecting, our freight corridors.

Just to correct one misconception of a commenter to this piece. The Port has rebuilt all of the portions of seawall in front of it's terminals and properties. The city's bond issue in question would be to replace the seawalls in front of city properties/properties under its jurisdiction.

Just to correct one misconception of a commenter to this piece. The Port has rebuilt all of the portions of seawall in front of it's terminals and properties.

You should re-read what I posted -- you misread it.

I recommend voters reject the City's tax hike measure. If they do, then you and your colleagues on the Port Commission can go ahead and form a LID and begin the assessments needed to pay for the seawall work that needs doing along Seattle's waterfront. It is of no moment that the Port does not own the properties landward of that part of the seawall. That needed work would be within the Port of Seattle's "district" (eg, the boundaries of King County), so the Port could raise the money for the work and get it done. RCW 53.08.020.

Financing the seawall work via a LID is a far better way to pay for it than a city-wide property tax hike.

To reiterate the value of an LID for the seawall it should be noted that those who gain from the seawall will then pay for it. What's wrong with that concept? And, while the seawall holds back Alaskan Way, it also holds back the foundations of all those buildings on its east side, too. Those buildings and their owners are the main beneficiaries.

Likewise, many Seattle residents and business owners have already paid for their own waterfront sea/lake walls/bulkheads and other appurtenances. Why should they now get stuck with a new bill to pay for a similar improvement to some other persons/companies frontage.

As for Creighton's statement that the Port has a mission "in attracting travelers" to our region, he needs to get his feet on the ground. Where in the Port's mission statement does that occur? The Port has been in business for 100 years and still can't get by with its own revenue, unlike Oakland, to name one that actually returns money to the county (Alameda). The time is nigh to privatize the maritime division of the Port.

Speaking of facts, it's a $4 billion tunnel. As with all typical Seattle building projects, it's larded with all kinds of goodies not related to the tunnel itself. Simply fixing the "failed" viaduct would've cost $800 million. But Seattle hates to fix anything. No glamor in that, is there? Just look at our streets.

Same for the seawall. It's full of frills, starting with new bike paths for McGinn's crowd. You know, the same bicyclists who refuse to pay any dedicated vehicle taxes, like the other vehicles on the road pay. Drive a Vespa, and you'll pay $85 a year and be required to be licensed as a driver and to display tags. Ride a bike, and nada. But you'll still demand infrastructure at public expense, and the politicians will fall all over themselves to pander to your every whim.

The traditional Seattle Way is broken, but as usual the local politicians are the last ones to get the memo. We don't have the money that we once did. We need to pay attention to the details now, and to truly search for creative ways to do more with less. What do the politicians offer? $4 billion tunnels, $1 billion waterfronts, $400 million seawalls, a laughably overdesigned 520 bridge, and a light rail system that will add to carbon emission, move hardly anyone, and along with the tunnel suck up transportation funding desperately needed for more effective solutions.

Oh, and soon, a thoroughly corrupted city and county establishment will disregard the wishes of the citizenry here, and common sense, and shovel $350 million (and try to tell us that none of it is "cash" and to ignore the debt service) at a billionaire for a new basketball arena for the benefit of a thin upper strata able to pay exorbitant ticket prices to watch athletes whose average compensation is $5.5 million a year. To add insult to injury, these politicians will run for re-election as "progressives," their campaigns likely funded by the same people who got the public loot.

Charlie, you were a good enough mayor for the fat times when relatively few people had to pay attention to what city hall was doing. But the times have changed. Get with it. At some point, the typical political b.s. runs into fiscal reality, like it or not.

With something this confusing and messed up, sometimes it pays to take a step back and ask -- what exactly are we doing?

Are we in fact, creating problems in order to solve them?

At its basic, the effort seems to be trying to get cars around too dense downtown...a total of a mile and a half.

Somehow, this ends up costing billions of dollars (whereas to build a 3 lane two-way highway in the suburbs of the same length might cost a few million).

Why is it that the "City" is so out of sync in costs and useability than the suburbs.

The things that people really want -- like getting a Target Store -- are things that the suburbs have and use with ease!

Bottom line -- are we spending too much time and money on obsolete cities that offer less value than a good exurb or suburb.

Who would have guessed that the zenith of visionary transportation solutions was achieved on behalf of Seattle commuters in April of 1953 with the opening of the Alaskan Way Viaduct?

Followed by...well nothing?