Transportation and Ecomomic Impacts Begin

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

If our state is to hold its own in the world marketplace we must make massive improvements in our transportation system or we will continue to loose ground in the evolving just-in-time economy which provides our jobs. This must sometime mean substantial improvements to our road, rail, transit and water transport systems. We can't delay resolving job-dissolving and costly congestion. The voters agreed, hence Ref. 49.

......the millstones of pending I695 approval already start to turn.

The State Transportation Commission, as it should, is now considering strategies to address the devastating loss of several billion dollars over the next few years. Talk of a halt to all new project planning, right-of-way acquisition, let alone the cessation of project construction is on the lips of senior DOT officials. With I695 passage, the transportation referendum to the people and its promised improvements is dead before arrival.

And what about those most in need of transportation services -- the conscientious commuter, lower income workers and those who only get around by bus. The public's response, if I695 passes, is to cut the budgets of transit agencies by over 40% in some cases. In these cases we are talking a return to service levels of the early 80's, reversing over a decade of local votes. Should a voter in Walla Walla County, in this statewide vote, effect bus service historically desired by the voters in Clallam County?

Supporters who choose to respond --- please give me some hope in the form of specific process that will relieve what we are hearing from the officials who are on the front lines at the agencies responsible for providing the public transportation product.

-- K Attebery (katteber@krl.org), August 24, 1999

Answers

K Atterbery, Please put your Birkenstock on the other foot for a moment and listen to those of us who pay instead of reap the benefits. First if the state if going to go over the edge due to a 2% decrease in income, then they were in big touble long before I-695 was even a dream. I dare suggest that most if not all of us, in the east half of the state would love to say that 2% was the most decrease in income that we had to endure in the last few years. You seem to think that the folks in Walla Walla County should have the privilege of paying their MVET and living in the 6th highest taxed state but should have no say in the way its spent? or in the amount they pay? Again I suspect your Birkenstocks are too tight. If Clallam County is running short on public transit funds I have two ideas. One is they might consider letting the ridership pay some of the bill.(Im sure they pay some, but what % of the total cost?) Second, if WSDOT would distribute their MVET monies with some common sense the people in Clallam County would not need to worry about their transit system. I suggested to WSDOT that they give the $300,000.00 that Okanogan County got to some area that needed it and could put it to good use. But no, they pushed the $300,000.00 to Okanogan County for a demo bus system after it was voted down with a 67% no vote and this is to a county with a population density of 6 people per square mile. So, is the problem the loss of 2% of their income, or their foolish spending of the money they have?

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 24, 1999.

Let me touch on two things. First, there is nothing in I-695 that will prevent the people of a particular district (county, metro, state, whatever) from raising money by new or increased taxes for any project or category of expenditure if that is what a voting majority wish to do. This is a very important concept when you think about the effects of I-695. There will only be a "shortage" of funds to pay for anything if the voters decide not to fund it. Thus, the real fear that some people have is that they will find out that the specific thing they are interested in is only a minority view. This is always a possible outcome in a democracy. If you think after I-695 passes that mass transit will be shorted, then you have the absolute ability to try and persuade a majority of voters that X or Y fee should be increased and the money spent on mass transit. If the voting majority of your area see it that way, there will be no "funding shortfall." If a majority do not agree, then there will be less money available than you believe is prudent. But that is always a risk. In short, whatever you fear will suffer from reduced MVET money will not suffer if the voting majority determine that they place a high enough priority on such funding to obtain the money from another source. Some people are uncomfortable with this approach because they are sure that they "know what is best" for the majority, even if the majority disagree. In our form of government, however, the ultimate power resides with the people (even if from time to time they forget it!) Second, one of the problems with the current MVET that justifies this initiative is that the money raised by this means is fairly unrelated to the purposes that the money is used for. Why should the proverbial "little old lady" who only drives her car to church and back once a week pay the same tax as a 21 year old who puts 500 miles a week on the same make and model of car as he drives to and from a long commute to work and to see his girlfriend? Why should the family in Republic subsidize through a vehicle tax the San Juan Islands Ferry system that they never use? Why through a vehicle tax should a teenager in Colville pay for the Seattle inner city juvenile justice system? This does not seem proportional or logical to me? Thus, even if we agreed that the total amount of money was fundamentally necessary for essential government services I do not think that the MVET is a proper system to provide such money since it is so disconnected from the services themselves and, hence, leads people to believe that the direct service actually costs less than it really does. This means that alternatives are not studied as much as they could be or creativity is not utilized as much as it should be. In short, the only projects that will be "defunded" are those which the voting majority agree should suffer such defuunding. Those who oppose such "defunding" are totally free to persuade the people that X is a necessary and prudent expenditure, or that this is more important than allowing people to spend their money on their own ideas of what it means to pursue happiness privately. As a consequence, the tax structure will actually become more rational and closer to the services that are provided. I hope this helps address your concerns.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Great reply Vancouver, that needs to be said on all the posts.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

Hmmmm,

All in all a very interesting set of underinformed posts.

1. The MVET pays for much more than just transportation. 2. WSDOT rarely funds projects all by itself, it generally has other federal, state and local monies attached to it. WSDOT generally raises what are called "matching funds". Meaning WSDOT gets a bunch of money and then pairs it up with other money. This means that the loss of money for WSDOT is actually much higher than just what is lost by I-695. 3. Waiting to pass a vote on every new tax will cost the public millions just in elections. There are lots of small levies that are annual and hardly worth the time of every person in Washington State. 4. There is a major transportation crisis in Washington - the whole state - Clallam County included. This is going to continue to get worse. Waiting a few years to get a project on-line will yeild catastrophic results. 5. The 2% of the state's income argument is totally rediculous. If only for the reason that most people's cars don't even cost 2% of their income to plate. 6. Ultimately, it comes to responsibility, I buy a car, I want to drive it on a road, I pay to plate it. Yes, I am paying for education and E911 service in there as well ... would I rather have a state income tax?

Enjoy the potholes.

Jim

-- Jim Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 25, 1999.


Mr. Benson:

It sounds like you have a nice income and can be included among the rich. Working class folks, not just rich people, should be able to afford a newer vehicle. $30 per year for tabs is reasonable.

Oregon, with an income tax has $20 per year tabs. They are the 24th highest taxed state. Washington is number 6.

I-695 will not bring about an income tax. It takes a change in the WA constitution to do that. This means a 2/3 vote of both houses and a vote of the people. It sounds like you would not vote for an income tax. I definately would not. Do you know anyone who would?

The sky is not falling. The same arguments you are using have been used over and over again with the removal of sales tax on food, I- 601, R-47, I-200, and R-49. Those arguments did not work then and they will not work now.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 25, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ