Seattle viaduct park likely heading to ballot
Aug 14, 2015, 4:57 PM | Updated: Aug 17, 2015, 1:44 pm
Voters will likely get to decide whether or not to keep a portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in tact as part of an elevated waterfront park. (AP)
(AP)
Voters will likely get to decide whether or not to keep a portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in tact as part of an elevated waterfront park.
The Seattle City Council has a to reject an initiative that would allow for the development of the park, which will be discussed Monday.
If rejected, will be put on the August 2016 ballot.
I-123 campaign organizers got enough signatures to put the elevated park before the City Council and voters. The plan calls for a bike/pedestrian bridge along the waterfront, incorporating a block of the viaduct into that bridge.
The council has reviewed the proposal, which didn’t receive much support. Council member Sally Bagshaw said the initiative “undermines” the work the city has done to raze the increasingly-unsafe viaduct, while creating a better connection between downtown and the waterfront. That includes a plan for a park along the waterfront, which would be disrupted by the elevated park.
Campaign organizers expected the council to reject the initiative, according to campaign director Kate Martin.
“I’m not so sure about the logic behind putting it on the August ballot versus the November ballot, when many more people will vote,” she wrote. “Our August primary comes in the thick of summer and few pay attention.”
The campaign may try to find a sponsor to amend the initiative for the November ballot, according to Martin.
The idea of creating a new waterfront bridge isn’t just getting a thumbs down from the City Council, though. Developers also have qualms with the idea.
George Petire, CEO and president of Goodman Real Estate, told the that the initiative is “crazy.” The company is building an apartment building at 80 South Main Street. The initiative does not coincide with the city’s plans to connect downtown with the waterfront, he said.
But going against what the city has been doing isn’t necessarily bad, Martin wrote.
“Arguments that defend the status quo plan are weak — like let’s stick with the status quo plan because we’ve been at it for so long,” she wrote. “It’s only paper at this point, which is a great time for course corrections.
“The much improved plan we’re promoting costs the same as the status quo, but delivers exponentially more. The politicians will come around. It only makes sense.”
