How much is a waterfront tunnel worth? The governor's blue ribbon panel has studied the financing alternatives for the two options (see cover story) and says such plans - building a new viaduct or a tunnel, are reasonable. What's unreasonable is spending Ballard's tax dollars on a tunnel we get nothing from. Ignoring a plan to replace the viaduct - a plan we can already pay for - with a tunnel that costs at least $1 billion more, largely to provide amenities downtown, is a boon to people who live there. But what does it do for anyone else?

The choice between a new viaduct and a tunnel is really about property. There can't be any housing developments on top of a tunnel and that's precisely its value. The developments it could support are parks and pedestrian plazas, which would probably be beautifully done. People who live downtown along the new waterfront could look out of their windows to green spaces and the blue waters of Elliot Bay, and developers could reap the profit of such desirable addresses. The concrete monster broken into much more manageable, tasteful promenades. Just like that, the big ugly becomes the big snuggly.

But in order for this dream to be realized, tax payers and specifically property owners far beyond Belltown's borders must pay for it. It's an unnecessary tax burden for someone else's luxury.

There is no direct property tax connected to paying for a tunnel (yet?) but there are many indirect ways property taxes will fill the $1 billion hole in the tunnel. For instance, one of the mega-ifs in the mega-project that the governor's panel points out is $800 million in funds coming from the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), a three-county agency charged with transportation planning in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Next year, voters may pass (if they don't, it would be trouble for the tunnel) a funding package for RTID. Those funds will come from sales and motor vehicle excise taxes. It will amount to a little more than $100 per household, which will pay for about $4.5 billion worth of projects in King County. A little less than 20 percent of that amount would be the $800 million promised for the tunnel. It's about the same amount RTID wants to contribute to State Route 520 and improvements to Interstate 5. The funny thing is, this money doesn't go to further RTID's mission of fostering transportation throughput since a new viaduct, which we already have funds for, would achieve the same thing. It's just taking 20 percent of the funds away from other necessary transportation projects to help buy a premium Alaskan Way solution. It's not a property tax unless you stop to consider the poor schlubs, stuck in I-5 traffic every day, who get 20 percent less on their transportation dollar because of our glorious new waterfront. Well, if they get too steamed, they can come downtown and unwind in the nice new park.

Where else can we get money for the tunnel? The blue ribbon panel pointed out in its report that the city has pledged $500 million in funds for the tunnel, mostly from public utilities. Utility revenues aren't property taxes - they're more universal. But the panel points out that if there are still shortfalls to covering the tunnel, the city could use money from its general fund:

For the tunnel alternative, there is a possibility to share the Seattle general fund's annual allocation of more than $650 million with many other competing uses, such as arts, culture and recreation, and health and human services. While this would force the city to make difficult choices, it is at least possible to use this source of funds to make up shortfalls from other sources.

Difficult choices made possible in large part by property taxes. In the city's 2006 adopted budget, the biggest element of the general subfund, 28 percent, is property tax.

Then there are toll roads - another idea for funding the tunnel, which can be thought of as a kind of property tax if there's a toll between where you work and where you live. Of course, you wouldn't have to pay this property tax if you lived and worked downtown, since you wouldn't need to drive.

There's also the Port of Seattle, which has made noises about supporting the tunnel option to the tune of $200 million. Where would the port get this money? Well, in 2006, they figure to receive about $62 million in property taxes. That will help.

The reality is, property owners are going to have to step up and pay for a big chunk of the viaduct's premium replacement option. That's not unreasonable if property owners in this community get to share in some way the benefits a tunnel would provide.

Certainly Ballardites can come down to the waterfront and enjoy the open spaces provided by a tunnel. You'll have to pay to park, but then so will everyone else who doesn't live downtown (another kind of property tax) so don't feel singled out.

Better yet, instead of parking that gas-guzzling car, enjoy the new waterfront park by riding a bike or taking a bus. Thanks to the proposed $1.6 billion "Bridging the Gap" initiative heading to the ballot, we'll get plenty of support for both transportation alternatives thanks to property taxes.

This newspaper has advocated passing the "Bridging the Gap" initiative. We still do. But if we're asked to pay for something, we should reasonably expect some benefit. This far from Ballard, the tunnel, and the wonderful views it makes possible, seem far away.