As a former journalist and someone who thinks about “speaking points” and “framing,” the latest flare of argument about the deep bore tunnel replacing elevated Highway 99 has been particularly interesting.  As he lobbed his debate challenge at Council President Conlin and has followed up with statements and releases, Mayor McGinn is very careful to always frame himself as the elected official who cares and city councilmembers as the elected officials who don’t.  Repeatedly he says he’s the one who is worried about project cost overruns on behalf of Seattleites while councilmembers are not.

The school of speaking points trains you to stick to your message; repeat it until others take up and use your language.  As a listener soon you find yourself talking about “abortion” instead of “choice,” or the “death tax” instead of the “estate tax.” This is smart argument strategy, but that doesn’t make the statements true.  Both Joel Connelly of SeattleP-I.com and David Brewster of Crosscut have recent postings about this communication strategy.

Frankly, I don’t know anyone who isn’t concerned about the deep bore tunnel coming in on-time and on-budget.  I know I am. Not to speak for other councilmembers, but I don’t know of one who’s kicking back and taking anything for granted. It may cover a short distance, but it’s still a b-i-g tunnel. The Governor (with whom the buck ultimately stops for this project) is partly dealing with her concern by appointing an executive oversight committee that includes the State House and Senate leaders, Mayor McGinn, City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, King County Executive Dow Constantine, King County Councilmember Larry Phillips, Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant and Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani. The Council is dealing with our concern by reviewing the details of the project to death via staff, hired experts and community advocates, and through twice-a-month public meetings with city staff, the Washington State Department of Transportation and members of the Waterfront Partnerships Committee.

No one in City Hall likes the language the state adopted about capping project costs and shifting any overages onto property owners. Heck, almost no one in the whole city no matter what side of the Highway 99 replacement debate you’re on (or anyone in any other city trying to work with the state on big projects) likes that language. Debating the City Council president won’t erase the language, though. Maybe the Mayor should challenge Seattle area state lawmakers who supported the language. For the crafters of the language, it’s performing better than intended.  The language was intended to weigh down the project like an anchor. Using a different metaphor, the language is an ever-present odor of constant, niggling doubt about the project; about the competency of the engineers; about the predictability of soil conditions; about the boundaries of tunneling technology.

And about who’s really guarding the public’s interest.  Per the Mayor’s framing, if you collaborate with the state to move forward before the language is excised, you’re gambling and complacent. But traditionally, delaying transportation projects has proven to be the most likely way to incur cost overruns. Evidently the mayor is willing to risk taxpayers’ dollars in an attempt to resurrect the surface street option. To me, not surprisingly, that’s as a gamble with potentially catastrophic results – like collapse of the viaduct as we replay a decision that’s already taken ten years to make.

What’s not to worry about? Despite the worry I know I’ll never support city dollars paying for any cost overruns on the tunnel. It’s the state’s project. It’s the state’s highway. The language is unenforceable and unprecedented, an example of “Seattle exceptionalism” in Olympia.  It was great strategy for an odd coalition of tunnel opponents and elevated supporters, but it’s bad policy.

Let’s move on.

Posted: May 25th, 2010 under Transportation