genwin

Thanks for explaining. I question my sanity when I see lots of comments and can't tell what's so exciting about a black & blue dress you can change the lighting for.

The guilty parties (where known) are local heroes. The US has a bad reputation in much of the world.

> It really seems like they're throwing good money after bad.

When making rich people richer is the primary goal, it all makes sense.

They should default. A few years later the investors will be back the same as before.

And likely forevermore too. $10 to cross the lake round trip, increasing faster than inflation.

A $5 billion cost overrun is a decent possibility. That's about $20K for every worker in Seattle.

For a 1 bedroom? Wow, guess I'm out of the loop on that.

I didn't support a surface street because it would have stop lights, in which case it wouldn't begin to replace the viaduct. (For some reason the US can't have Germany-style streets that dip below cross streets.)

> The whole thing always had the feel of a land grab for real estate developers, too.

Yep. A quote from the NYT article:

> “They’re talking about greenbelts and all that, but I think it’s a bunch of baloney,” he said. “I think it’s going to be all condominiums.”

I agree, the project is mainly about $700K 1-bedroom condos.

It could hardly have been more obvious that the cut and cover option (trench with a lid "tunnel") was the best choice for the public.

Which isn't worth much in some states, like Texas.

And if it goes to trial, the jury's likely to think in terms of compromising on the multitude of charges (rather than outright rejection), in which case the defendant still goes to prison for many years.

That's a nice chunk but insufficient nowadays. (The 24-year old in that article might've been able to make several $million in his remaining career.) The Lyft driver could still end up on the hook.

Why would it? If you enlarge the scale and find that the principle applies, it's useful.

You never get outside the universe, if it's infinitely large (and there's no evidence to the contrary).

The principle is meant to apply only at a sufficiently large scale. If any particular scale goes against the principle, one can enlarge the scale to see if the principle still applies.