Overview (50%): If the modern-day writer wanted to write an update to John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage, they would undoubtedly reserve a chapter for the political leader who stood up for our environmental, equity, and economic ideals and said no to the waterfront tunnel. Unfortunately, it would be a very short chapter. The tunnel represents a litmus test for civic leadership: will we seize the opportunity to define a new future or will we spend an inordinate amount of money to repeat the mistakes of the past? No councilmember distinguished themselves here except by their haste to do the wrong thing and vote in favor of the tunnel. Unless there was some nuance to their stance, all councilmembers are noted as having the "standard pro-tunnel position" which is based on the perceived need to increase automobile capacity for economic benefit or political expediency.

Tim Burgess (F/F)

Standard pro-tunnel position.

Sally Clark (F/F)

Standard pro-tunnel position.

Richard Conlin (F/F)

Conlin basically took the standard pro-tunnel position, a position strikingly inconsistent with his stated values: During his 2009 reelection campaign, he claimed, "Richard has focused on making Seattle a more sustainable city, developing innovative programs to protect the environment, building neighborhoods, improving pedestrian mobility and transportation infrastructure, and making government more transparent." Conlin's role as Council President would have afforded him a unique opportunity to give full debate on the issue after last November's election, rather than force a unanimous vote through before the election. The tunnel is anything but sustainable
and the timing of the vote was inappropriate.

Jan Drago (F/F)

Standard pro-tunnel position.

Jean Godden (F/F)

Standard pro-tunnel position.

Bruce Harrell (C/F)

Harrell supports all the standard pro-tunnel arguments but must be applauded for at least publicly questioning the timing of last falls vote and what its purpose was. He told the PI that the tunnel vote was "a policy statement, it is not a contract—for those who are concerned that this is the last word on the tunnel project" and he went on to state, accurately that "It seems like we're trying to sell the tunnel."

Nick Licata (F/F)

Throughout the years, Councilmember Licata has cast himself as something of an iconoclast, willing to take unpopular positions against huge capital projects. But Licata supports the tunnel—a project that has dubious returns on a huge investment (not including inevitable cost overruns [pdf])—because, he has said, "as a practical matter, with the support of the Governor, State Legislature, Mayor and Council, the deep bore tunnel is moving forward." By this logic, any project—no matter how bad it is—ought to get Licata's vote if large numbers of elected officials support that project. This sort of thinking is at odds with his own branding and values. We expect all city councilmembers, but especially Licata, to exercise independent judgment and advocate for Seattle's interests.

Richard McIver (F/F)

Early in the considerations of options, McIver said, "I love the tunnel." McIver has to be credited for such straightforward expression of his support and feelings.

Tom Rasmussen (F/F)

Rasmussen is chair of the Council's 2010 transportation committee and ought to be taking a close look at the tunnel project and the impact it might have on the City's transportation budget. Instead, Rasmussen seems, like Conlin, to dismiss the very real problem with cost overruns on the tunnel project. When asked about Mayor McGinn's efforts to fight further obligations to pay for tunnel overruns, Rasmussen said, "It seems like that is something he wants to work out with the State, and all I say is, good luck with that."