Viaduct Tunnel: Who Should Pay?
Ever since the Mayor began pushing the tunnel option for the Viaduct, I've been saying (in conversations with people, not publicly on this blog) that if they want to build a tunnel instead of one of the more economical (sane) solutions, the people that would benefit from a tunnel should pay for it. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they're actually considering (partially) doing just that!
Last week, the city projected that downtown property values would increase by $400 million to $600 million if the viaduct comes down. The big increase — as much as 25 percent for some properties — reflects the fact that land next to a roaring highway hasn't historically been the city's most desirable.Granted, that's only 25% of the price difference, but at least it's a step in the right direction. For the vast majority of Seattle area residents, an elevated freeway is a perfectly adequate solution. A very small minority stand to benefit both monetarily and aesthetically if the viaduct is torn down and left down. Since there exist viable alternatives that cost far less money, that small minority should be the ones to pay if the more expensive option is the one that is selected. It only makes sense.
Hoping to close a roughly $1 billion gap between the cost of building another elevated highway and a more expensive tunnel, Mayor Greg Nickels is considering a special assessment on property owners who would benefit from better views, more parks and less noise, vibration and pollution. That could yield up to $250 million for the tunnel project, city officials have estimated.
(Jennifer Langston, Seattle P-I, 07.03.2006)
2 comments:
Speaking of the minority that benefits paying for things, any solution that includes construction - whether tunnel or another viaduct - should definitely have tolls to help defray the cost.
I think it is fine for people who benefit directly from the tunnel to pay more. However, I find it strange when people say that only those who live right near the viaduct would benefit from its removal. If it were more pleasant along our waterfront, I think a lot more people would make it a destination. In addition, it would make Seattle a greater tourism destination which would have an economic impact on the region. And who doesn't want their home city to be a showplace -- even if you live outside of the city, wouldn't you be proud to have one of the most beautiful waterfronts in the world in Seattle? I don't get it.
Post a Comment