Northwest Voices | Letters to the Editor
Rebuilding the Seattle seawall for preventive reasons
Check the facts first
The Seattle Times’ recommendation for a “yes” vote on the seawall bond measure [“Vote yes on seawall,” Editorials, Oct. 11] is based not only on fear mongering, but even more egregious, an appalling distortion of facts — disrupt rail service and highway service, the entire region would be environmentally disrupted and “110,000 vehicles daily.” How and where did The Times arrive at these undocumented scenarios?
Chief among the editorial board’s misunderstandings is that only half of the 1.32 miles of Elliott Bay seawall, to be financed by this new citywide tax, has been subject to any deterioration over time. The rest is related only to the so-called "waterfront for all" and has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining the Alaskan Way infrastructure.
Since only a small section of seawall is in need of refurbishment, then, like the other 85 miles of Seattle waterfront maintained by adjacent property owners, the benefiting property owners along Elliott Bay should alone pay for their seawall.
Hence, a Local Improvement District (LID) is the fairest, honest and far superior way of financing the work. It’s been successfully used since 1917. The city's own "Special Benefits Study" has already identified the benefiting property owners.
A “no” vote is the correct vote on this measure.
—Christopher V. Brown, P.E., Opposition Committee chairman, Seattle