 |
Re: Seattle Waterfront tunnel proposal
Author: FedUp
Date: 01-15-2009 - 09:01
> at least start your rant at the right point.
> She said 4.2 billion, not 8.
Right... and she said she'd balance the budget too. It's only 6 billion (or is it 7 by now) over. She's lied about everything else, why would you believe her now?
> Of course it'll cost more than the estimate by the
> time they overcome the constant naysayers and
> perpetually negative types like you.
I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic. We don't need the tunnel! If we build it, the cost over-runs will be enormous. Do a little research on Boston's big dig. A 100% cost over-run is actually being VERY conservative. It will almost certainly end up being more, way more.
> Do you think any other place ever gets things
> built for the original estimatae?
Gee, now who's being negative? Make up your mind, do you agree with me or not?
> And that tired argument about east side taxes
> going to west side projects.
Sorry, but you've got me confused with somebody else. I never said anything like that...
> She said 4.2 billion, not 8.
Right... and she said she'd balance the budget too. It's only 6 billion (or is it 7 by now) over. She's lied about everything else, why would you believe her now?
> Of course it'll cost more than the estimate by the
> time they overcome the constant naysayers and
> perpetually negative types like you.
I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic. We don't need the tunnel! If we build it, the cost over-runs will be enormous. Do a little research on Boston's big dig. A 100% cost over-run is actually being VERY conservative. It will almost certainly end up being more, way more.
> Do you think any other place ever gets things
> built for the original estimatae?
Gee, now who's being negative? Make up your mind, do you agree with me or not?
> And that tired argument about east side taxes
> going to west side projects.
Sorry, but you've got me confused with somebody else. I never said anything like that...
