INITIATIVE 695 Transit delays seeking tax hike By Ed Friedrich, Sun staff Kitsap Transit won't ask its board for approval to place a tax increase on the September ballot until it can explain it to the public.

The transit agency originally intended to get permission last week to seek an additional three-tenths of a cent of sales tax to replace funds lost to Initiative 695. Now it appears the request won't come until August.

Kitsap Transit lost $10.2 million a year in motor vehicle excise tax revenue. It recouped some of that by cutting service and raising fares.

The tax increase would generate $7.5 million and enable the agency to restore service to last year's levels and add promised shuttles for downtown Bremerton and Winslow and buses to the future Olympic College branch campus in Poulsbo.

Also up for discussion, said Executive Director Dick Hayes, is whether to roll back January's fare increases.

"We knew we needed public input," Hayes said. "It became very clear if we were going to get it, we needed a period to do just that between the initial presentation of the issue and the final conclusion of the issue."

Transit staff also wants to be able to discuss the levy in relation to its five-year plan. If it commits to putting it on the ballot, public disclosure rules can constrain the talks, Hayes said.

Transit staff will ask the board for a decision in August, after the public hearing process.

The transit agency also made recent progress on other fronts:

 Kitsap Transit changed its joint proposal with the city of Bremerton for the Enetai building redevelopment.

It won't tear the building on Washington Avenue down right away. Instead, the city will have 18 months to package it with the parking lot between it and the water. That should give the city a better chance of luring a developer.

If it is unsuccessful, Kitsap Transit will proceed with its plans to tear the building down and build a three-story parking garage under it to support a new commuter retail building.

 The board of commissioners approved hiring the Silverdale firm Matty, Templeton and Milnes as its general counsel. Ronald Templeton will be the primary attorney.

He replaces Richard Stocking, who was fired after spending $166,000 the transit agency left in his care. Half has been paid back. Payments are being made on the remainder.

Scott Snyder had been serving as interim counsel .

 The board authorized Kitsap Transit to contract Parametrix for design and permitting of the Port Orchard intermodal ferry terminal. The deal is for up to $275,000.

About $1.2 million in funding for the program was lost to I-695, but Kitsap Transit later took over a grant from Washington State Ferries for passenger ferry terminals the state no longer intends to build.

Reach reporter Ed Friedrich at (360) 415-2679 or at efriedrich@thesunlink.com. Come on Mikey, give us a rationale. The union must have one!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), June 12, 2000

Answers

At least one ageny is doing something for their community. As opposed to a fool like eyman, who, when writing his toilet legislation, gets a thrill, cause he can touch himself at the same time.

-- (youareshit@assholesrus.net), June 12, 2000.

Ah Mikey, it does my heart good to see you this upset. It also motivates me to push hard for 745. Will it win? Who knows. But every dime that you and your union use to defeat it, every volunteer hour that you put in, is just that many more resources that you can't put in to politicking for your pet social engineers in Olympia.

The Republicans are learning belatedly what you union guys have known for years. This really is war. You have no compunction about politicking, "capping" people, or using force, intimidation, and violence to get your political goals. You've played the "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable" game for years. You've played the exploit the poor and handicapped game for years.

But the Republicans are learning.

You want more money for transit? Not a bloody farthing until you PRIVATIZE transit.

If it can't compete in the real world, let it fold.
Mark Stilson

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

If you object to the adolescent tone of postings from Mikey and realize he can't be contacted via email at: youareshit@assholesrus.net, then try his atu1384@earthlink.net.

Or better yet, just phone his office at 1-800-459-5360. Let the Union pay for the call! They can afford it! If you just want to leave a message, call after normal working hours.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

Thank you for thinking I am the creative genius behind that posting, however, I have never used foul language on this site, I always use my real e-mail address, and have never been afriad to say who I am. And as far as privatization, there is no such thing in an industry such as this. They claim that there is, but it's just private companys competing for government subsidies. Transit does not work on users fees alone. Well, I stand corrected. In some third world countries they do. You can read the articles all the time, "Ferry sinks, two hundred drown" Mike

-- Mike (atu1384@earthlink.net), June 13, 2000.

"They claim that there is, but it's just private companys competing for government subsidies. Transit does not work on users fees alone."

Out of curiousity, have you looked at the budget for the British Columbia ferry system. While not totally self-sufficient, it is *reasonably* close to being so. Comparing it to the Washington state ferry system. . .well, it's not even close.

"Well, I stand corrected. In some third world countries they do. You can read the articles all the time, "Ferry sinks, two hundred drown""

Yawn. Like third-world ferries wouldn't sink if the government ran them.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), June 13, 2000.

"If it can't compete in the real world, let it fold."

Would you apply this mantra to EVERYTHING, Mark, or just mass transit? I assume that you are already aware that the federal highway system would ALSO fold if highways were asked to actually compete in the real world (which they don't). State highways would likey fold, as well, if they actually competed in the real world (and they don't). So would most suburban development. The list is very long.

Your hypocricy is showing.

-- CS (1@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

"Would you apply this mantra to EVERYTHING, Mark, or just mass transit? I assume that you are already aware that the federal highway system would ALSO fold if highways were asked to actually compete in the real world (which they don't). State highways would likey fold, as well, if they actually competed in the real world (and they don't). So would most suburban development. The list is very long. " First of all, can you give REFERENCES for any of this? Or are these just your GUESSES?

My reading indicates that the federal system is largely paid for by users through gas taxes, or at least would be if money weren't taken out for transit and other non-roadway uses. Even the sharpest critics of the auto really don't argue this point, but resort to arguments about societal costs of noise, air pollution, congestion, etc. The economics are too readily apparent. cars and light trucks pay their way. Buses and very heavy trucks don't if you are just talking dollars and cents. State roads are largely paid for with gas taxes, though clearly some other funds go in with them as well (and a ton is diverted to subsidize ferry operations in this state). Local roads get state subsidies, but clearly are noit totally funded by gas taxes, nor should they be. Cities in pre-industrial times (Rome for example) had local roads that were necessary for commerce, for the logistics needs of the populace, etc., and not one of them was paid for with gas taxes. They were there because they were a necessity of life in the city, even in pre-industrial cities.

Do you think that there might also be a difference in degree?? Transit fares in this state pay as little as 6% to as much as 22% of OPERATING expenses and NOTHING toward capital expenses.

Are you seriously asserting that gas taxes cover no more than 22% of roadway operating expenses?

Are you seriously asserting that transit gets less than its passenger-mile share (2%) of CAPITAL funding for transportation?

If you are in either case, you are simply wrong. If you aren't, then YOUR hypocricy is showing, not Mark's. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 15, 2000.

Craig, we've been down this road (pun intended) many, many times before, and each time it nets the same result: You aren't willing to believe anything but your own so-called "statistics," and I'm not willing to venture far from mine.

Been there, done that. It's an old argument between us that will never be resolved.

PS: Spare me the "zingers" in your next posting. I think everyone's seen them all by now.

-- CS (1@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

"Craig, we've been down this road (pun intended) many, many times before, and each time it nets the same result: You aren't willing to believe anything but your own so-called "statistics," and I'm not willing to venture far from mine. " The reality is that I post FACTS from (usually USDOT) websites and you give either your opinion or advocacy pieces from someone with like opinions. These aren't MY statistics, either so-called or otherwise, but the product of millions of taxpayer dollars at work. If you don't believe them, you ought to be petitioning USDOT to stop funding them. Your gripe should be with them, not with me.

"Been there, done that. It's an old argument between us that will never be resolved." Clearly not unless/until you start to value research and facts as much as you value your own biases.

"S: Spare me the "zingers" in your next posting. I think everyone's seen them all by now." "

I think a FAIR reading of the above would be that YOU initiated the hipocricy (sic) allegations. I even copied your misspelling to make that point. I usually spell it hipocrisy ;-) the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 15, 2000.

At the risk of getting run out of town on a rail, it's spelled hypocrisy.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), June 15, 2000.

GAAH, a typo in the punch line!

the craigster

PS: Don't worry, I'm not a big fan of passenger rail ;-).

(br)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 15, 2000.

"Are you seriously asserting that gas taxes cover no more than 22% of roadway operating expenses?"

If gas taxes are paying for capacity improvements that I don't want, use, or need, and subsidize someone else's CHOICE to live where they do, then I'm being OVERtaxed, aren't I?

Okay, you've made your point. Let's get rid of the gas tax, for the same reasons we got rid of the tax on food (they are necessities), and let private investors build highways, charge a fee for using them, and then they will realize a return on investment. Then private companies might get into the act of rail transportation, and then we would truly have a market driven transportation system.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), June 15, 2000.

"If gas taxes are paying for capacity improvements that I don't want, use, or need, and subsidize someone else's CHOICE to live where they do, then I'm being OVERtaxed, aren't I? "

I think we are ALL overtaxed, relative to what services the bureaucrats are providing to us.

But what I think you mean by your question is are you being over-taxed to build capacity improvements? The answer, IMHO: Not if the ADDITIONAL gas taxes by the users of the capacity are adequate to fund the capacity improvements.

Hey, I'm a live and let live sort of guy. I'd even think "transportation choices" was a good thing, if those "choosing" to use it paid their actual costs, rather than soaking the rest of us to pay for their choices.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 16, 2000.