Sunday, February 16, 2014

Dr. William Croft,,,, Oper...

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

If Free Speech Cannot Figure Out The Whole Picture, Then What Can?

If Free Speech Cannot Figure Out The Whole Picture, Then What Can?

Chris Grygiel coordinates political coverage for He previously worked at it… -

Chris Grygiel, got the tunnel-dander up in Seattle on August 1, 2011, and never-mind that the thumbs up and or the thumbs down ratings for each replying reader, are merely and or simply an “I am going to out thumb your view,” campaign, that may or that may not truly indicate anything when one side organizes to begin to out thumb the other side.

And, thenceforth, regardless of the two to one number of posted responses who wrote their perspectives apposing the tunnel, or thereof, the overall, and the entire responsive Northwest’s (very intelligent) community has thus far, have unanimously thus replied (again incredibly intelligently) for and or against the Seattle tunnel, but yet both sides are incredibly RIGHT, that the Seattle Viaduct is an eye sore, but for the cost venturing into burdening the Seattle City Citizens, with more costly projects that they are to be made liable for, while some contractors make a fortune, really doesn’t make any sense in this current world where the entire planetary economy is about to totally collapse.

And, Not to overlook Elizabeth Campbell’s - getting the necessary 25,000 signatures in order to get the –I-101 initiative accomplished. And or also Bud Shasteens -

So consider the for and or the not for responses to the Seattle tunnel debacle.

And, or thereof, it is that: who has the most supporters for and or who has the most persuasion who renders the results of all establishment decisions for steering the entire future of the Seattle Tunnel Project into complicating the future of Seattle’s community who have to carry the burden of the tunnel’s costs in their future tax and liabilities during a dying economic historical catastrophe. Most usually.

But regardless of who has the most persuasion, it is not at this time who has the most persuasion over what are going to be future local policies and project renditions when a global economic collapse brings forth all kinds of different historical events that may also involve nuclear wars, biological and other super advanced warfare events. .

It is at this time to recognize those who are now aware that our entire economy is about to ignite into being a mass economic human commerce and banking paralysis, and that whether (weathering massive earth changes right now) that the supporters to the Seattle Tunnel Project may not effectively be able to swing their tunnel project or that they cannot realize that this entire planetary economic puzzle is disintegrating before our very eyes.

The reality is that those who are for the Seattle Tunnel Project may or may not be aware of the clear and present danger of our real soon to occur worldwide and local (Seattle and Northwest) pending economic paralytic paradigm that is happening while all that they are seeing are more Dollar signs while this entire country and the entire world are falling down around them?

Thumbs, one way or another, are just a, (a few, - no - or just a mere handful, of maybe twelve or possibly ten or less votes and who would vote to each response).

No matter what the thumbs up or down and or for the adversaries to the Seattle Tunnel, and or to the dis-Likes to the adversaries to the tunnel.

The (On-line) voting by thumbing can be easily handled-&-0r-manipulated, so take note, the thumbs up or down doesn’t accurately give the real thumb (print) on the real community yays or nays that are for the tunnel or that are against the tunnel.

But, for a verifiable observation of and thus, about the different perspectives and then after reading, the many very well addressed responses that may or that may have not prevailed for (apposing view) thumbing up or down to the tunnel, that in reality, all of the views had verifiable reality written into all of their replies.

What Chris Grygiel had written is a master piece of getting everybody’s attention, and not only getting their attenzione, or thereof, this Chris Grygiel news report was responded by and from some of the most astute and extensively researched people and that normally someone would have to pay a small fortune to get this amount of really well founded and or better to be found out information.

When a writer gets enough truly incredible responsive (community-inter-news-replies), like that had followed Chris Grygiel’s linked news article (linked below) from the community’s views. And, thereof, what Chris Grygiel has done at the Seattle PI, today, would say that this writer has done his job and then some.

Responding: Will P. Wilson,, Producer of All Day Live now soon to be weekly on-line at: & - from Seattle.

This story also posted at:;article=138096;title=APFN - -

Nice job, Chris Grygiel, you have attracted and compiled an incredible string of responses that are posted here:

Lots of ‘liars’ in tunnel debate

The Seattle Times editorial board called Mayor Mike McGinn a liar on Friday.

In its article urging voters to approve Referendum 1, the Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel replacement measure on the Aug. 16 ballot, The Times referenced McGinn’s now infamous statement in the waning days of the 2009 mayoral election. McGinn, who ran on an ”I hate the tunnel” platform, walked back his opposition and said he wouldn’t seek to block $3.1 billion tunnel project. This well-timed move almost certainly won McGinn the election, but since assuming office McGinn has made killing the tunnel his number one priority.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, a tunnel opponent, in front of the viaduct in 2010 (Joshua Trujillo/ file photo)

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, a tunnel opponent, in front of the viaduct in 2010 (Joshua Trujillo/ file photo)

On Friday, The Times wrote “…McGinn, for lack of a more politically correct term, lied. He has done everything imaginable to stop the tunnel.”

Now, here’s the thing. McGinn left himself wiggle room in his 2009 remarks. He said he still disliked the tunnel and would continue to question the project’s costs and whether Seattle taxpayers could end up paying for overruns. He has done that, with a vengeance. But if McGinn’s words about the tunnel make him a liar, he’s got plenty of company:

Gov. Chris Gregoire

In 2008, the governor promised to demolish the viaduct – next year. “It’s coming down in 2012. I’m taking it down,” Gregoire said at the time. “That’s the timeline. I’m not going to fudge on it. And if we don’t have some alternative by then, boy are we going to have a mess on our hands because it’s coming down.” Three years ago Gregoire was asked whether she could actually take a wrecking ball to a state highway in the state’s largest city, one that carries 110,000 vehicles a day.

“Yeah, watch me.”

Needless to say the viaduct will still be standing next year. Gregoire’s bluster was meant to move the various factions toward a decision about how to replace the Downtown bridge.

Seattle City Councilmembers Richard Conlin and Tom Rasmussen

Throughout the protracted, decade-long debate about what to do with the viaduct, tunnel supporters have been the ones to most often pull out the public safety card. The aging double-decker bridge was damaged in a 2001 earthquake; another big one could bring it down, engineers warn. In February the City Council overrode McGinn’s veto of city-state tunnel agreements, and Conlin and Rasmussen talked all about public safety.

”We have a responsibility to protect lives,” Rasmussen said. “This viaduct is fragile.” Conlin: “This is not just about transportation; this is about safety.”

What Conlin and Rasmussen failed to mention was the tunnel replacement scenario leaves the dangerous viaduct up longer than any other option – until 2015 or 2016, when the tunnel is supposed to be completed. If they were that concerned about public safety they’d close the viaduct – today. One of the reasons the tunnel replacement is so popular in some quarters is precisely because the viaduct can remain standing while the tunnel is built. Other options – surface/transit and rebuild - would’ve brought the viaduct down sooner, but would’ve compounded traffic concerns during that messy process.

Let’s Move Forward

The campaign to convince voters to support Ref. 1 this month came out with this whopper. They’re telling voters that the tunnel “comes with millions for transit.” No, it doesn’t. That money is mostly hoped for funding in some distant future, one not constrained by the realities of the Great Recession we’re living through. (Click here to read my colleague Scott Gutierrez’s analysis of the Let’s Move Forward claim).

McGinn and Protect Seattle Now

Come back into the “liar” dock Mayor McGinn, along with the anti-tunnel campaign. For months and months McGinn has been saying Seattle voters deserve to have their say on this project. Fair enough.

But what McGinn and Protect Seattle Now are not pushing for is a vote on their preferred option, surface/transit. Under that scenario the viaduct would be torn down and traffic would be dispersed on surrounding streets, with transit and other road enhancements. Here’s why the anti-tunnel camp didn’t try to put a “go with surface/transit” before the electorate: People hate it. A March poll of Emerald City residents showed only 21 percent liked the idea, while 35 percent favored the tunnel and 38 percent wanted to repair or replace the viaduct.

The warring tribes in our tedious viaduct melee aren’t exactly crooks, liars and thieves, but there’s not a one among them who should be swearing on a stack of bibles anytime soon.


Posted by Chris Grygiel on August 1, 2011 at 6:00 am | Permalink | 32 Comments

Categories: Alaskan Way Viaduct

Chris Grygiel

Chris Grygiel coordinates political coverage for He previously worked at it… More

Contact: Follow:

We Recommend

Bristol Palin goes after McCain’s wife, daughter

GOP heads into hostile territory – Seattle

Patty Murray blames, slams John Boehner

Bachmann rewrites Canadian history

Michael Spearman to Court of Appeals

Poll: Washington says tax the rich to cut deficit

More from Our Partners

A savings calculator helps you grow wealth (

National CD rates for July 7, 2011 (

Home Ownership Matters (HouseLogic)

The Most Socialist States in America (Mainstreet)

The Republicans’ Jewish Problem (Tablet Magazine)

[Sponsored links]


Add Your Comment

Sort comments by:


10:58 AM on August 1, 2011

Given that parts of the Viaduct have already come down, not sure how Gregoire's "the Viaduct will be down by 2012" statement is a lie. Even if there was no progress in taking down the Viaduct by 2012, her statement wouldn't be a lie; it would be a failure to get other people to take action. She doesn't operate the equipment that will take down the Viaduct.

On the other hand, McGinn's statement during the mayor campaign was clearly a lie. He said that he would not obstruct the tunnel and then proceeded to take action to obstruct the tunnel once elected.




Popularity: 4

| | [Report Abuse]


10:43 AM on August 1, 2011

Governor Gregoire is technically right that the viaduct will be tore down.

The viaduct will be coming down next year, just not all of it.




Popularity: 3

| | [Report Abuse]


10:20 AM on August 1, 2011

dash12- besides the fact that the viaduct is ugly, dangerous and cuts off our waterfront from our downtown making it a place only tourists frequent, why do you think the "views" from a highway are an important topic of discussion? You want to take in the view while you're driving? That's as crazy as choosing to keep that ugly death trap standing!

Further more, don't you think the views during a leisurely stroll down a beautiful and welcoming waterfront with no highway noise rumbling in the background would be better?

Reject Ref. 1! NO TUNNEL!




Popularity: -10

| | [Report Abuse]


9:57 AM on August 1, 2011

Another lie from Richard Conlin on Robert Mak's show yesterday was when he claimed that the tunnel, replacing the viaduct, and a surface street option all cost the same. Everybody in the room booed and guffawed at that one.




Popularity: -2

| | [Report Abuse]


9:50 AM on August 1, 2011

The tunnel is NOT a done deal, and McGinn is right to fight it.

Should McGinn allow the tunnel to bankrupt Seattle, just to please the Seattle Times? The man's whole campaign was based on fighting on the tunnel. It's why I voted for him.

$2 Billion, plus cost overruns, for a TOLLED tunnel, that doesn't have any exits downtown. Cars will be forced on to city streets to avoid tolls, causing massive traffic delays through downtown. That's of course, if they can even build it. Deep-bore tunnel projects are plagued with complexities.

It's not to late to stop this thing!




Popularity: -3

| | [Report Abuse]

1 reply


9:47 AM on August 1, 2011

WillPWilson - Just an observation - to where and to whom, has the more then one billion(s) of dollars, (considering) that where also is the accounting of the billion(s) of dollars that has already gone to whom? Quiet - Secret - Mysterious - and Hidden deep pockets. So why you Chris Grygiel, are pointing fingers at Mayor Mike McGinn, why don't you point fingers at the hidden deep pocket interests as well, or are you also on their deep pocket payroll? Amazing how you insider journalists can control the focus of thinking of the mostly unknowing and mostly remedial thinking readers.




Popularity: -1

| | [Report Abuse]

New to the site?

To use commenting, you need to sign up.

Already a member?

(Forgot Password?) Please log in.

Email Password Remember Me

1 reply

Name withheld

9:37 AM on August 1, 2011

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.


9:08 AM on August 1, 2011

I still don't see any reason to remove the viaduct we now have. The seawall does need replacement. The only thing better than a the view corridor viaduct would be a suspension bridge over the sound. A suspension bridge would have better views and would not disrupt downtown traffic much during construction.

This is really the wrong debate.




Popularity: -5

| | [Report Abuse]


8:01 AM on August 1, 2011

Way to go, playing the false equivalencies game!

Let's Move Forward has been playing fast and loose with the truth throughout the campaign. I would imagine that reason Protect Seatlle Now didn't put the Surface/Transit/I-5 option in front of people is that's not actually the question in front of us. I don't believe that the city has the ability to compel the State to commit to any one particular solution, and certainly not through the city initiative process. The question in front of us concerned actions taken by the city, it's a question formulated by their process and the referrendum process.

To suggest otherwise is disingenuous, or a deliberate attempt to cram a "everyone is a liar" thesis into what's actually happening.

The tunnel is a bad deal, and it's not a done deal. Reject Ref. 1.




Popularity: 0

| | [Report Abuse]


7:51 AM on August 1, 2011

Here are some facts, the average cost overruns on these types of projects is about 34%. The legislature has said these cost overruns will be paid for by Seattle residents. 34% of 2 billion dollars is 680 million dollars. Divide 680 million by the population of Seattle (608,000 according to the 2010 census), that leaves us with over $1,100 per person just in overruns. Consider that a large portion are unable to pay or do not pay taxes, ie under 18 or elderly or just plain poor. That will be about $2,500 per taxpayer. Keep in mind this is just the average cost, a project such as the Boston big dig the overruns were much much greater. These overruns can not be covered by tolls.

Also it is a fact we will have tolls, less capacity, and a great deal of traffic diverted onto the already overcrowded Interstate 5.




Popularity: 3

| | [Report Abuse]

2 replies

Comments Per Page: 10 | 20 | 50

View Page: « Prev 1234 Next »



By Chris Grygiel | Published March 23, 2011 |


« President Obama: ‘Agreement’ reached on debt crisis | Main | GOP heads into hostile territory – Seattle »

Labels: , , , , , ,