Apparently not in Grays Harbor. They overwhelmingly approved an additional .3% increase in their sales tax to maintain transit service. You know I-711 would probably override this vote.

Transit tax just the ticket -- March 1, 2000

By Margaret Ellis /Daily World Writer

The 4,000 Grays Harborites who rely on the bus to get to school, work, doctor's appointments and grocery stores breathed a sigh of relief Tuesday night.

In an unexpected landslide, 59.45 percent of the voters countywide approved Proposition 1, a three-tenths of a percent boost in the sales tax to keep the Transit Authority largely intact.

As of last night, the vote was 8,782 to 5,990. Some 5,000 absentees are still out, and the results won't be final until March 10. Absentee ballots will be counted again March 3.

The measure fared well among election-day voters and absentee voters.

Of the 14,772 votes counted last night, nearly 32 percent were absentee ballots. Of those, nearly 57 percent approved the transit tax.

Election-day voters numbered 10,084, and they gave the measure a 60.7 percent favorable vote.

Given that trend, it's highly unlikely the 5,295 outstanding absentees will change the outcome. If all the ballots are returned, which is unlikely, about 4,044 would have to vote against Proposition 1 for it to fail.

The favorable margin was enough for Hoquiam Mayor Roger Jump to take heart. He is chairman of the Transit Board.

"I think it really shows that the people on the Harbor do care about those who really do need the help," he said. "That's what makes this such a friendly place."

The proposition was a last-ditch effort to prevent drastic cuts in bus service in the wake of Initiative 695, which eliminated the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax.

The sales tax boost will add 3 cents on every $10 spent in the county. The total sales tax rate will go from 7.9 to 8.2 percent. The earliest it could go into effect would be June 1, according to Dave Rostedt, the Transit Authority manager.

Even with the extra funding from the tax, the Transit Authority will still have a 10 percent shortfall.

That won't force the agency to lay off workers, though a few full-time positions will be reduced to part-time, Rostedt said before the election. Some positions could be reduced when staff retire or seek other jobs, he said.

Service to a few routes might be reduced as well, he said. Those changes haven't been mapped out yet, and Rostedt said they would be made in April.

Without the extra pennies from the sales tax, the Transit Authority was planning to cut 35 full-time positions and run nearly every route about half as frequently as it does now.

Some funding still could be restored by the state or federal governments.

If that happens, the Transit Board could eliminate the tax, or reduce it by one- or two-tenths of a percent. It could raise it again if the need arose, Rostedt said. The only rule is that the total not exceed the three-tenths of 1 percent authority taxpayers have given, the manager said prior to the election.

Margaret Ellis, a Daily World reporter, can be reached at (360) 532-4000, ext. 134, or at mellis@thedailyworld.com

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000

Answers

In addition, 695 passed in Grays Harbor County with a 62% approval rating.

Turnout for this election was roughly 50%.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

This would appear to be a rather desperate attempt by Patrick to change the topic after getting his butt rather conclusively whipped on the SmartGrowth thread. But I'll bite.

Gee Patrick. It absolutely astounds me that not every locale everywhere feels it has an excess of bus service. It would never have occurred to me that other areas that hadn't overbuilt their transit as much as King County has, might want to tax themselves to avoid some of the cutbacks that they would otherwise experience under 695.

Now answer the REAL question. After you take the 695 dollars away and add back the new tax dollars (approved by the people in the true spirit of 695), do you wind up with a smaller bus system, a bigger bus system, or one just the same size? The answer of course is a 10% DECREASE. So oviously the voters thought it was over-funded to begin with, or they'd have restored the WHOLE budget.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.

Little advice zowie, stick to the attempts at follow ups to other people's rebuttles. It's rather embarassing to have to be this brutal to you directly, but if it's the only way you'll learn....

So, first off, I know this might be a little hard for you to grasp, but most of us here on this board are capable of carrying on more than one conversation at a time. So when one of us starts another thread, it isn't a conspiracy to confuse and distract you. But I'm sorry if you feel that way.

Second, has Metro overbuilt its system more than Grays Harbor? Well let's see. Grays Harbor Transit has an 8.7% farebox recovery rate, and Metro has a 20% recovery rate. Sounds to me like the Grays Harbor system is MUCH more overbuilt than the Metro system is. And for that matter, if Metro is so overbuilt, then WHY DID KING COUNTY REGJECT 695?

Finally, the voters weren't the ones that decided on the rate increase in Grays Harbor, the transit authority was. And did you get distracted before you reached the end of the article? The 10% decrease will ONLY come in April, and ONLY if the state or federal governments don't provide additional funding. Since odds are the legislature will provide more funding, Grays Harbor Transit most likely will remain at FULL FUNDING.

I can't say that I was really trying to bait someone with my post, but can I say how disappointed I am with who I caught?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

So in the final analysis, High MVET statewide, to fund Grays Harbor Transit, (or any other Transit Agency) was unecessary.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 03, 2000.

The conclusions I draw are (1) GH voters decided they, like a majority of voters statewide, didn't like the bite of the MVET, so they voted to eliminate it, and that (2) they wanted to maintain at some level a public service receiving MVET funding. Consequently, they voted to tax themselves (a lesser amount) to support the sevice. What the GH voters did validates 695-Eyman et. al. statements that if local people wanted a service formerly funded by MVET, nothing stopped them from funding it themselves. Lack of MVET money didn't mean that a local government service was history. The GH vote will work with any other service -- sewer hookups, public health stuff etc. -- formerly receiving MVET money IF THE LOCAL VOTERS DECIDE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), March 03, 2000.