Viaduct decision: Should there be a public vote?

What happens if the Seattle City Council places an Alaskan Way Viaduct advisory vote on the November ballot and there is no winner?

That prospect is so troubling that some council members say they should make the recommendation about how to replace the viaduct without asking the voters.

"I am open to the council making that decision," said Councilman Tom Rasmussen. "We have that option, and I feel public officials are elected to make decisions on controversial, difficult issues."

In March, the state Legislature voted to give the council a key role in deciding the viaduct's fate. The plan, put forward by Gov. Christine Gregoire and lawmakers, calls on the council to hold public hearings and then, by ordinance, decide whether to recommend rebuilding the viaduct or replacing it with a tunnel.

The governor would make the ultimate decision.

The council also has the option of putting the choice before Seattle voters in November.

The governor had floated the idea of requiring such an advisory vote by city residents. But legislators quickly attacked that proposal, and the governor backed off.

What worries council members is that they're getting pressure to put more than the two viaduct-replacement options the state has put forth — a tunnel and a new aerial structure — on the ballot.

Some want to include a no-replacement option, under which the viaduct would come down and not be replaced. And others want to fix the existing viaduct.

If all were on the ballot, it's unlikely any one would get a majority of votes.

"The debate seems to be how many options would be on the ballot, and that's the hot debate," said Jan Drago, chairwoman of the council's Transportation Committee.

"Say we go to the ballot with three or four alternatives, what information will we get? We won't get a majority one way or the other. When all the other options started coming forward, people started becoming concerned that the vote wouldn't be meaningful."

But council President Nick Licata said he strongly believes the issue should go to voters.

"The public always thought they'd vote on it," he said. "I think the council is not in touch with the overall public opinion, which overwhelmingly expects a vote.

"I think for the mayor and council to say we'll go ahead with the most expensive project in Seattle's history without even a ballot issue, will set off a firestorm. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the public will take a yawn and say, so what."

Enough money is available now to replace the structure with an above-ground roadway, but so far there isn't enough to build a tunnel, estimated to cost $4 billion.

Mayor Greg Nickels supports the tunnel, and a council decision without a public vote would be seen as a huge victory for him. The council also is on record as supporting the tunnel option.

Whatever the council decides, it won't be until at least September. By law, an expert review panel looking at viaduct options will issue a report by Sept. 1. Then, the council must hold a public hearing on it.

"I'm not out collecting votes one way or another," Drago said of the no-vote option. She said most of the people who want a public vote on the viaduct are those supporting a no-replacement option or a retrofit.

"I'm hearing more and more from people that they want the council to take leadership and make the decision without going to the ballot," she said. "It's an interesting dilemma, to say the least."

Licata, who does not support the proposed tunnel, is pushing for a ballot measure that would ask voters whether they want a tunnel, without giving any other options.

"Build a tunnel or not. That's what the debate is all about," he said.

Cary Moon, head of the People's Waterfront Coalition, which advocates not replacing the viaduct, said a ballot measure, even if it's only advisory, is the best way to make sure that accurate information about the options is debated.

"We are concerned about how accurate information will come to light without the public process that is catalyzed by a ballot measure," she said. "Multiple millions of public money are being spent to refine and advocate the tunnel and elevated options."

Councilman Richard Conlin said he is open to the council picking a replacement option without going to the voters.

"We never wanted a public vote in the first place. The Legislature came up with it," he said. "The more we dig into it, the more difficult it is to structure a public vote in a useful way.

"We are the decision makers. I'm willing to take responsibility for making a decision. I value public opinion, but a vote is not necessarily the best way to get public participation."

Conlin said letters and e-mails he has received have tended to favor not having a public vote.

"The sentiment is they're not excited about voting," he said.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com