The fact so many people are mystified as to how the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee was formed worries us. In fact many never heard of this new committee until a notice was sent out recently under a letterhead with the logos of the state, city and King County.

Then the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce sent a letter complaining that no member of the new committee represented the business community of West Seattle, despite there being two members from West Seattle on the committee.

Ballard has two members (shared with Fremont) also, but one at least operates her own business in Ballard.

Before we go any further, we want to assure people we have no concern about the people who were selected from either community.

However, we are concerned about what this new committee is supposed to do and why it came to be. Reporter Matthew G. Miller (see Page One) had trouble tracking down the committee formation. It seems to have had its beginning as a way to support whatever decision was made to replace the viaduct. Its members appear to have been selected because they might support whatever the City of Seattle decided would be the right choice. The city's choice, in reality, will be whatever Mayor Greg Nickels says it should be.

The mayor has tinkered with the viaduct most of his time in office. He tried to foist upon the city a very expensive and not nearly adequate tunnel, but the people in a quickly put together election said no to that idea. The strange election also asked if the viaduct should be replaced and people said no to that also.

Now, generally at the urging of now former City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, the state has agreed to look at what to us is the worst possible choice, just let traffic find its own way through the city. The idea seems to take his roots from the election that said no to both the ill-conceived options. It seems to take root in the idea that the razing of the viaduct would "open up the waterfront" to views of the majestic Elliott Bay and the Olympics beyond.

Not only would the loss of the viaduct further strangle Seattle in traffic, it most assuredly would not "open up the waterfront." All of those marginal building now along the east side of the viaduct would soon be gone, to be replaced with high-rise condominiums for the rich (who will move in and then complain about noise and any business that draws a crowd).

So, instead of a traffic connection through our narrow middle, we will have a lot of condominiums blocking out the view to anyone but those at the top of an even taller office building.

What will happen to business that needs the viaduct to get to or beyond downtown? Well, it seems the idea, denied but fairly obvious, is that business can go elsewhere. The mayor simply does not care, that that is the shame of the whole viaduct matter.

We will watch and see if the "stakeholder committee" really probes this matter or simply becomes a lapdog for decisions made in the back room.

- Jack Mayne