Groups want ballot title for Initiative 711 rewritten

COURT ACTION: Critics say the drafted title for Tim Eyman's newest proposal isn't clear enough.

http://news.theolympian.com/stories/20000127/SouthSound/30760.shtml

The current ballot Title reads

"Shall state and local transportation funds be spent 90 percent for roads, transportation agency performance audits be required, carpool lane restrictions be eliminated, and road materials be tax-exempt?"

The proposed definition: "Shall public transit funds be redirected so 90 percent of transportation funds go towards roads, carpool lanes eliminated, and road materials be tax exempt?"

Notice performance audits were not included in the requested Title change!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000

Answers

Could it be that they don't want any performance audits held??? Afterall, when you only recover AN AVERAGE OF 17% of your operating costs from user fees, one of the lowest in the nation, (National average 40.5%) you don't really want anybody looking at your performance. They have kept the State Auditor from doing performance Audits for the past five years. Go figure. Example: Pullman, WA 96% OF THE BUS TRANSIT PASSENGERS ARE STUDENTS (ALL GRADES) THEY RIDE FOR FREE. FACULTY MEMBERS AND STAFF (BOTH ACTIVE AND RETIRED) RIDE FOR FREE. ALL OTHERS RIDERS PAY $.50 GO FIGURE. Operating like that would you want a performance audit???

-- Jacatak (cheebee@email.msn.com), January 27, 2000.

Gee Marsha-

I think I'd have to fight the new wording. Carpool lanes aren't being eliminated, merely changed to GP lanes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.

I think you're missing the point of the requested Title change for 711.

The point is that the groups opposing 711 want the general public to know that 90% of all PUBLIC TRANSIT dollars will be used for building ROADS instead of acutally funding public transit.

What if we began an initiative that required 90% of PUBLIC SCHOOL tax dollars be rerouted to PRIVATE schools? What if we began an initiative that required 90% of KING COUNTY tax dollars be rerouted to JEFFERSON county? The public would be outraged. And rightly so!

That's the point of the title change request. To expose 711 for the injustice that it really is.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

Dear Junque Sighense (CS) You don't get the point. We pay the money so we want the roads. Public Transit pays NOTHING but public transit DOES USE THE ROADS.

So if the funds are used for building REAL ROADS and throwing out the trash as the original title states....then public Transit will benefit too. Because they will be allowed to use the same roads we do. We won't tell them that they can't use them

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

"90% of all PUBLIC TRANSIT dollars " What's a public transit dollar look like? Picture of a bus on it? Seems to me what we are talking about is TAX dollars.

Seems to me we are requesting that 90% of the money be spent where 98% of the passenger miles are. The other 10% can be spent where the other 2% of the passenger miles are. Is that an injustice, well....yeah. But it's certainly an improvement. And if transit can't improve it's market share of passenger miles, it wouldn't be unreasonable to progressively DECREASE the 10% to 2%, which would provide equity between resource allocation and production.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.

No. You don't understand.

What I'm aiming at is that the proposed new terminolgy ("public transit funds") introduces new denotations and conoations that were nonexistant in the original version ("state and local transportation funds").

The change in terminology introduces a concept that, to some, may suggest a vicious circle where we a) spend 90% of all transportation funds on roads and then b) spend 10% on mass transit options. Only now that 10% is immediately broken up into 9% for roads. What transit agencies are left with for their operating budget and capital repairs to their equipment is just 1%. So in the end, that so-called "10%" for transit agencies is actually "1%."

Whether or not this was the intention of 711 backers and whether or not this suggested funding arrangement will hold up in court is irrelevant. The goal is to show that 711 COULD be translated that way, and that might be enough to finally put a stop to all this Tim Eyman nonsense.

(sigh) I wish I had more time to explain it right now. But alas, duty calls: I must adjourn from the computer today.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

"The change in terminology introduces a concept that, to some, may suggest a vicious circle where we a) spend 90% of all transportation funds on roads and then b) spend 10% on mass transit options. Only now that 10% is immediately broken up into 9% for roads. What transit agencies are left with for their operating budget and capital repairs to their equipment is just 1%. So in the end, that so-called "10%" for transit agencies is actually "1%." "

I don't see how you interpret it this way, and I sure don't see how the courts would interpret it this way. But on the off chance that they did, well .......... I could live with that.

But seriously, I think that the 10% is more than adequate to fund services for the transit dependent. For those who DESIRE to use transit, but who are not transit dependent, I'd approve of as much transit as they are willing to fund with user fees (fares) and insist that the license for a transit bus not cost a dime more than the license for any other thirty-ton vehicle using the roads with similar frequency.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.

The proposed definition: "Shall public transit funds be redirected so 90 percent of transportation funds go towards roads, carpool lanes eliminated, and road materials be tax exempt?"

Actually, whoever decided to re-write this thing may find their Title for 711 backfires. Considering how well people read the voters pamphlet, and the low rate of comprehension of some, they may interpret it to mean the following....

Transit now receives 90% of Transportation funding and we want to redirect this 90% funding to roads. Blah blah blah.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.