Who thinks 745 or 722 will pass or fail, any opinions-pro or con.

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

I would like to hear other opinions besides my own on why or why not these two initiatives will pass or fail. Any opinions from my learned colleagues, or worthy adversarys, on this issue?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 30, 2000

Answers

>>I would like to hear other opinions besides my own on why or why not these two initiatives will pass or fail. Any opinions from my learned colleagues, or worthy adversarys, on this issue?<<

I think both could go either way. I would be surprised if they both passed. I think 722 is more likely to pass than 745.

If 722 passes, it is an absolute certainty that it will be thrown out by the courts. It is so blatantly unconstitutional that I wouldn't be surprised to see an injunction issued when the first lawsuit is filed, unlike 695, so that it is never even implemented.

If 745 passes, there's a good chance that it too will be thrown out after litigation, but it's not a dead set 100% lock like 722. More like 95%.

Either way, if both pass, the people that voted for them will be disappointed, because it's likely that neither will ever become law.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


I think I-722 will pass with ease, since it limits property tax increases to 2% per year. A simple message, which anyone can understand.

I-745, on the other hand, does not specifically guarantee anything to the voter. Or, if it does, it is buried in the fine print.

Ironically, I-745 is more likely to be found constitutional, since it simply mandates that our transportation dollars be spent more wisely. How anyone can object to that, I don't understand.

However, I-722 rolls back a variety of fees and taxes, yet, the initiative does not explicitly list the affected fees and taxes. And, it is my understanding that a failure to explicitly list all affected taxes and fees makes it unconstitutional. And, of course, there is the "log-rolling" aspect of I-722, as it addresses separate issues: 1) limiting property taxes and; 2) rolling back specific (yet not explicitly spelled out in the initiative) fees and taxes.

Remember, SCREW LIGHT RAIL! EXPAND THE HOV SYSTEM! VOTE FOR I-745!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 31, 2000.


BB, what if an initiative were put this way-? The supreme courts says the people who pay the taxes cannot make the legislators put a vote to the people for every tax increase-... What if we voted on an initiative to limit the tax rate they can impose on us, say like, little or nothing? I wish I was a constitutional lawyer. The more this Pandora's box opens, the more interesting it going to get.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 31, 2000.

Matt,

The worst case scenario may be that the initiative may actually eliminate the thing that you actually want to preserve. It might be more fiscally responsible to eliminate high cost bridges and force people to use expanded roadways. The people on the peninsula or on the eastside might have to drive an additional few miles, but that is just more gas tax money. The government can make more money by reducing the number of bridges! That would really look good on the performance audit! It is doubtful if this would occur, but who knows.

Whether I-745 is for or against ferries is still unclear. While the DOT may consider ferries as part of the highway system, the authors of the initiative made a clear separation between highway and ferry funds. The initiative did not include ferries in their definition of road construction. Our interpretations of this initiative disagree. You think that the ferries are covered within the 90% while I think the authors meant to include it in the remaining 10%. It may require another court decision. Are you willing to risk it?

Privatization of the transit systems may be a valid option. So could raising taxes to bring road construction funding up to 90%. Various other editorials and comments have been made on these as well as other options. Which of these is THE message that is being sent and which ones are not?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


to Questioning: You write: "The government can make more money by reducing the number of bridges! That would really look good on the performance audit! It is doubtful if this would occur, but who knows."

I think it's reasonable to assume that a pro-I-745 vote will not be interpreted by the politicians as a call for LESS road capacity. So, getting rid of bridges is unlikely to occur.

You also write: "Whether I-745 is for or against ferries is still unclear. While the DOT may consider ferries as part of the highway system, the authors of the initiative made a clear separation between highway and ferry funds. The initiative did not include ferries in their definition of road construction. Our interpretations of this initiative disagree. You think that the ferries are covered within the 90% while I think the authors meant to include it in the remaining 10%. It may require another court decision. Are you willing to risk it?"

I don't care one way or the other about car-carrying ferries. So, I'm not taking any risk. But I do believe car-carrying ferries are more cost-effective than light rail. The Washington Constitution is quite clear that the gas tax can only be used on "roads". It is my understanding that the state Supreme Court has ruled that gas taxes can be used on car-carrying ferries, because the ferries are part of the "highway system".

You also write: "Privatization of the transit systems may be a valid option. So could raising taxes to bring road construction funding up to 90%. Various other editorials and comments have been made on these as well as other options. Which of these is THE message that is being sent and which ones are not?"

The message is pretty clear. Given the amount of money we are NOW spending on transportation, governmental agencies need to improve the "bang for the buck". There is no message to raise taxes. How does raising taxes improve our "bang". Once the government shows it can spend our money more wisely, then raising taxes and/or fees might make sense, since we will now expect the government to be more likely to deliver on its promises.

What part of spending transportation-related taxpayer monies more wisely do you oppose? Why do you believe light rail is superior to HOV lanes? Why do you wish to see diesel-burning, polluting buses run around town almost empty almost all the time?

I-745 is a no-brainer. It results in more efficient transit. Why are you opposed to more efficient transit? For the cost of operating "empty" buses, we could GIVE non-profit organizations mini-vans, in return for their giving the disadvantaged people a ride, etc.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 31, 2000.



>>BB, what if an initiative were put this way-? The supreme courts says the people who pay the taxes cannot make the legislators put a vote to the people for every tax increase-...<<

Correct. I would suggest that you look at this page for more information:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/695opinions.cfm

>>What if we voted on an initiative to limit the tax rate they can impose on us, say like, little or nothing?<<

We already have laws limiting the amount of tax increases that can be made in a particular year. The state's property tax collection is limited by the IPD (a *very* low inflation measure), while local governments can exceed the IPD if they get a 2/3 majority of their governing boards and declare a substantial need. Even if they do this, their maximum increase in a given year is 6% greater than the year before. Property taxes cannot be more than 1% of the total assessed valuation of your property, unless the additional taxes have received voter approval.

Frankly, this is exactly how it should be: the state's take is limited, while local governments have more flexibility in the amount of tax money they can take in year by year. I'm not at all concerned about the ability of the state government to figure out a way to deal with the consequences of tax cuts. I am *very* concerned with the ability of local governments to figure out a way to deal with tax cuts, as they provide the most services and are the most efficient. There's very little fat in most local governments to cut.

This is the problem I have with 695 and 722. They both play on people's anger at wasteful state spending, but hit local governments *much* harder than they do the state. At the very least, the proponents of 695 and 722 should be honest about who they are hitting hardest, which is local governments like fire districts, cities, and counties.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


Matt,

Eliminating the Narrows Bridge and widening the roadways from Gig Harbor to Olympia to Seattle/Tacoma would be a net addition of roadway. Similarly, if you got rid of the 520 floating bridge and added additional lanes around Lake Washington, it would result in additional roadways. Since roadways are less susceptible to crashing barges and other at sea conditions, they are easier to maintain and more efficient. Eliminating bridges probably won't happen, but 'probably' isn't a sure thing!

As far as the Constitution and courts are concerned, most Eyman initiative supporters have been ignoring these legal bodies and have claimed the "will of the people" as the source of law. I pointed out, the initiative does not specify funding ferries as part of "road construction". You may not care how I-745 is interpreted, but your claim that I-745 will provide additional funding for ferries may or may not be true. But it is a disservice to make that claim as a fact.

The message sent by I-745 is FAR from clear. You imply that a 'bigger bang for the buck' is the message. Others may not care for the 'bang'; they want roads-period. Is it 'efficiency' or is it 'roads' or is it something else? YOUR message is one thing, but yours is one of many different messages being sent. The message is NOT clear and I-745 is not as straight forward as it may seem.

Spending transportation-related taxpayer monies wisely is a great idea. But government has a greater onus upon them than 'spending wisely'. If that were the case, they wouldn't have to spend anything. Each bit of city, county and state roadway could be privatized. Government would not need a transportation budget. Of course, you and I would be paying a toll for each mile of roadway we moved along, but that's privatization for you.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


I went back and took another look at the text of 745 and found something interesting. Allocation of sales tax increases for mass transit systems are covered under RCW 82.14.045. This statute requires that sales taxes raised be used "for the sole purpose of providing funds for the operation, maintenance, or capital needs of public transportation systems." 745 does not mention RCW 82.14.045. You can't amend a law with a new statute if you don't mention the law you're amending.

What does this mean? There are a number of different interpretations, but let's narrow it down to the 3 that are most likely.

(1) 745 is thrown out, because it attempts to reallocate sales tax funding dedicated for transit without mentioning RCW 82.14.045, the statute it is attempting to amend.

(2) 745 is upheld, but it cannot reallocate the sales tax funding for transit under RCW 82.14.045, so road spending must be *decreased* to make the 90/10 ratio.

(3) 745 is upheld, but the state must drastically *increase* the gas tax to meet the 90/10 ratio of funding required.

I'm guessing that none of these three choices are what proponents of 745 want, but it's probably what they'll end up getting. Maybe next time people won't put their faith in a watch salesman writing good law.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


>>745 is upheld, but it cannot reallocate the sales tax funding for transit under RCW 82.14.045, so road spending must be *decreased* to make the 90/10 ratio.<<

Whoops! Meant to put only the first and third. Either it's unconstitutional, or massive spending increases to get to the 90/10 ratio will be required.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.


>>745 is upheld, but it cannot reallocate the sales tax funding for transit under RCW 82.14.045, so road spending must be *decreased* to make the 90/10 ratio<<

3rd time's a charm. "Road" should say "transit." And there will be no corresponding increase in road funding.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.



to Questioning: You write: "Eliminating the Narrows Bridge and widening the roadways from Gig Harbor to Olympia to Seattle/Tacoma would be a net addition of roadway. Similarly, if you got rid of the 520 floating bridge and added additional lanes around Lake Washington, it would result in additional roadways. Since roadways are less susceptible to crashing barges and other at sea conditions, they are easier to maintain and more efficient. Eliminating bridges probably won't happen, but 'probably' isn't a sure thing!"

Again, you're grasping at straws and being silly. Any politician who endorsed your hypotheses would be drummed out of office. You would have to present REAL cost benefit analysis to support your case. In the case of bridges NOT being eliminated, 'probably' IS a sure thing.

You also write: "...the initiative does not specify funding ferries as part of "road construction". You may not care how I-745 is interpreted, but your claim that I-745 will provide additional funding for ferries may or may not be true. But it is a disservice to make that claim as a fact."

I am not certain it is a fact. But, as I've said before, my understanding is that the state Supreme Court has ruled car-carrying ferries are part of the "highway system".

You also write: "The message sent by I-745 is FAR from clear. You imply that a 'bigger bang for the buck' is the message. Others may not care for the 'bang'; they want roads-period. Is it 'efficiency' or is it 'roads' or is it something else? YOUR message is one thing, but yours is one of many different messages being sent. The message is NOT clear and I-745 is not as straight forward as it may seem."

No, you're wrong. The message is clear. We have a transportation problem, and we CLEARLY have roadway bottlenecks throughout the region. Monies that we pour into light rail and/or empty buses would be better spent on roads. True, there is no guarantee that the bottlenecks will be fixed, but they certainly won't be fixed if we squander the money on transit investments with a poor rate of return. I-745 increases the probability that the bottlenecks will be fixed. Hence, it represents MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK.

You also write: "Spending transportation-related taxpayer monies wisely is a great idea. But government has a greater onus upon them than 'spending wisely'. If that were the case, they wouldn't have to spend anything. Each bit of city, county and state roadway could be privatized. Government would not need a transportation budget. Of course, you and I would be paying a toll for each mile of roadway we moved along, but that's privatization for you."

I've already advocated charging people a monthly fee to use the HOV system. We should strive to make the government as non-coercive as possible. To say that the government has a greater onus than 'spending wisely' is a dangerous philosophy. Perhaps, eventually, all roadways will be privatized. I don't think that makes sense right now, so I endorse a 'compromise' approach, whereby we carve out existing lanes and privatize them. Then, you have REAL CHOICE: sit in traffic or pay a fee to move faster. Right now, realistically, I have NO CHOICE when it comes to the commute. Even if I'm willing to a pay a little more, I can't go any faster.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 01, 2000.


to BB: You write: "I went back and took another look at the text of 745 and found something interesting. Allocation of sales tax increases for mass transit systems are covered under RCW 82.14.045. This statute requires that sales taxes raised be used "for the sole purpose of providing funds for the operation, maintenance, or capital needs of public transportation systems." 745 does not mention RCW 82.14.045. You can't amend a law with a new statute if you don't mention the law you're amending.

What does this mean? There are a number of different interpretations, but let's narrow it down to the 3 that are most likely.

(1) 745 is thrown out, because it attempts to reallocate sales tax funding dedicated for transit without mentioning RCW 82.14.045, the statute it is attempting to amend.

(2) 745 is upheld, but it cannot reallocate the sales tax funding for transit under RCW 82.14.045, so road spending must be *decreased* to make the 90/10 ratio.

(3) 745 is upheld, but the state must drastically *increase* the gas tax to meet the 90/10 ratio of funding required.

I'm guessing that none of these three choices are what proponents of 745 want, but it's probably what they'll end up getting. Maybe next time people won't put their faith in a watch salesman writing good law."

No, BB, I think I-745 is going after the Sound Transit monies derived from the special license tab fees people in the transit district are forced to pay. Sound Transit needs to be forced to use that money on HOV lanes, either as part of a new bridge across Lake Washington, or somewhere else in the region.

As for sales taxes and transit agencies, if the transit agencies would simply eliminate low-ridership bus routes, then they would be spending their money more effectively. Why do you oppose the elimination of low-ridership bus routes?

You say that one result of I-745 may be increases in the gas tax to meet the 90/10 spending. Another approach is to charge vehicles a fee to use the HOV system. So, you should add that as a fourth possibility.

If the people of the state of Washington would rather pay a higher gas tax than charge people a fee to use the HOV system, then so be it. I respect the voters' decisions. Either way, we will have some hope that existing highway bottlenecks will be addressed.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 01, 2000.


I think part of the problem is trying to make these changes within the current tax and business model, maybe the business and tax model has to change.....and I'm not going to even pretend to suggest an alternative..but it makes for an interesting thought. maybe a state VAT matched by reductions/eliminations of others...?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

The interesting legal reality of I-745 is that very little would HAVE to change if it passes. The sales tax on road construction would be eliminated, and performance audits on all transporation agencies would have to be completed. Other than that, NOTHING else would be required.

The key thing is that the legislature cannot be forced to do anything by initiative. It's a fundamental fact of the constitution. So when I-745 "directs" the legislature to spend transportation money a certain way, it essentially boils down to having the same legal weight as however many people voting yes writing a letter to the legislature urging them to do so.

So the entire debate over how to interpret I-745 is a moot point. However the legislature chooses to react is how I-745 will be interpreted. Granted, it would be foolish for the legislature to simply ignore it if it passes, but the idea that Sound Transit and other local transit agencies are going to lose their funding is unlikely. That would require the legislature to specifically invalidate about 26 local elections by redirecting local funds. Not only would that be just as unpopular as ignoring a passed initiative, it is also very legally questionable. And even if it were to pass the legislature, it would face an almost certain veto from Governor Locke (let's be realistic, Carlson doesn't have a snowball's chance).

My personal bet is that the legislature offers up a gas tax increase to boost road construction. This would be placed on the ballot for voter approval. That way, even if the voters reject it, the legislature can say that they attempted to honor the will of the people. And since it will have been a year since the passage of I- 745, the people won't really care either way by that point. Harsh assesment? Perhaps, but realistic. Witness the complete lack of public outrage over the ruling on 695.

With the exception of my gas tax prediction, the rest of the theory is not mine. It is the opinion of most of the legal minds down in Olympia. The ones that actually implement the laws. So just be forewarned that if I-745 does pass, the odds that it will "screw transit" like so many supporters think it will do, are about as good as I-722 withstanding a legal challenge.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 01, 2000.


>>No, BB, I think I-745 is going after the Sound Transit monies derived from the special license tab fees people in the transit district are forced to pay. Sound Transit needs to be forced to use that money on HOV lanes, either as part of a new bridge across Lake Washington, or somewhere else in the region.<<

"Forced" to pay? I think you misspelled "voted to pay with a 57% majority."

So ST should abandon what the voters voted for, and build roads instead, because you say so? Considering you don't live Sound Transit's taxing area, and therefore don't pay for it, I don't see why any of us that do live in its area and are paying for it should give a rip what you think about Sound Transit. If you want a say in what it does, move into its service area and start paying the taxes for it like those of us that already live here. Otherwise it's really not your problem.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 01, 2000.



speaking strictly for myself, I'll vote for a raise in the gas tax about the same time i vote for a income tax. I think most peoples expectations would be for the spirit of either 722 or 745 to be carried out within the current budget. I think this is where asking the public to pay more is an insult. This is what I pay my elected reps to do, sit down, discuss, argue, yell if ya like. MAKE A DECISION right or wrong, but don't punt and say if ya want it, pay for it...I already payed for it ( how big is that surplus ) I don't want more/any stadiums, state liquor stores, ferries, or bridges. Why is it there is always money for the pet projects, but none for the roads, teachers, police, fire...is it just me that sees the priority problem?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Your comments, no chance, highlight the fact that expectations often don't match up to reality. Even if we could build our way out of congestion, the costs associated with even scratching the surface of that need eclipses the funds available.

I believe there's about $500 million in the surplus right now. You would get maybe a billion dollars from killing off transit. But if I'm not mistaken, the same survey that said we could reduce congestion 25% by increasing road capacity 4% also said it would cost tens of billions of dollars. The simple fact of the matter is unless you also want to "screw" something else like public schools or the prison system we can't even begin to solve the congestion problem even if 100% of all transportation money was dedicated to road construction.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 01, 2000.


to BB: You write: "So ST should abandon what the voters voted for, and build roads instead, because you say so? Considering you don't live Sound Transit's taxing area, and therefore don't pay for it, I don't see why any of us that do live in its area and are paying for it should give a rip what you think about Sound Transit. If you want a say in what it does, move into its service area and start paying the taxes for it like those of us that already live here. Otherwise it's really not your problem."

First of all, I SHOP in the service area, and, therefore, I pay SALES TAXES, which may fund Sound Transit. Therefore, IT IS MY PROBLEM!!!

Second, even if I didn't pay taxes, the state has the right to REGULATE governmental institutions. For example, the state can mandate certain standards for schools, which the school districts must obey.

Why is it ok for the state to tell school districts what to do, but it is not ok for the state to tell regional transit authorities what to do?

Sound Transit will be forced to invest its monies in HOV lanes, instead of light rail, per the intent of I-745. There is no way around it.

If you believe light rail is superior to HOV lanes, then vote against I-745.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 01, 2000.


to Informed Citizen: You write: "I believe there's about $500 million in the surplus right now. You would get maybe a billion dollars from killing off transit. But if I'm not mistaken, the same survey that said we could reduce congestion 25% by increasing road capacity 4% also said it would cost tens of billions of dollars. The simple fact of the matter is unless you also want to "screw" something else like public schools or the prison system we can't even begin to solve the congestion problem even if 100% of all transportation money was dedicated to road construction."

You are incorrect. A recent newpaper editorial indicated the transit money is in the ballpark of 350 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Over 30 years, this is over 10 BILLION DOLLARS!!! This is sufficient to make a difference with road congestion. Furthermore, since transit is a POOR investment, the state economy will grow faster as a result of I-745. That means the state will have even more money at its disposal to invest in the transportation infrastructure.

Finally, if the transportation dollars are invested in the HOV system, and vehicles are charged a fee to use the HOV system, then the state has yet even more money.

So, all your nay-saying aside, I-745 is a step in the right direction.

Unless, you honestly believe that light rail is a superior investment compared to HOV lanes. If so, vote against I-745.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 01, 2000.


Well Matthew, the fact still remains that no one is forcing you to shop in the Sound Transit boundaries. In fact, it should be in your best interest to go someplace else, say the Kitsap Mall, to make your purchases and avoid the .2% sales tax. I bought some gifts last time I was in California. Think I should be able to vote down there too? And by the way, when a school district holds a levy to build a new school, the state DOES NOT butt in two years later and make the district use the money on new buses.

Okay, I'm incorrect on the transit funding. But you failed to realized that in fact I OVERestimated the funding. If you knew much about transportation funding, you'd realize that an additional $10 billion over the next 30 years is such an insignificant amount that it won't even begin to address the issues. As I said, that study said that to reduce TODAY'S congestion said that we'd have to spend about $15-20 billion. That's not over the next 30 years, that's IMMEDIATELY.

I'm beginning to think that no matter what the facts say, you're completely convinced that this initiative is based solely on what you think should be the state's transportation policy. Nevermind the FACT that it does not require light rail to be abandoned (ST's light rail funding, by the way big guy, is FEDERALLY funded), that it WILL NOT require one inch of HOV lane to be built, and no matter how much you protest, it might not even change the current system AT ALL!

Believe it or not, I'm trying to work in your best interest here and remove the wool that you've pulled over your eyes thinking that this initiative is the greatest thing since the invention of vanpools. Just don't blame me when 5 years from now you have a heart attack on Hwy 16 because you've had yet another fit wondering why they haven't instituted that fee based HOV lane system that you swear was promised to you when I-745 was passed.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 01, 2000.


"(ST's light rail funding, by the way big guy, is FEDERALLY funded)"

Not that I often defend Matthew, but how can you claim the above and call HIM ignorant?

A fairly small fraction of the Link budget comes from the feds. In fact, they derive some of their priority for the money they do get from the feds from their claim that ST is largely locally funded from stable local tax sources (I-695 was the first hit on that, 745 will be the second).

The time is LONG past when the feds funded 80% of the systems, like they did for Portland's MAX.

Sound Transit hopes to get $500 million in THEN YEAR dollars for a system that's going to cost $2 Billion in 1996 dollars, if it comes in on budget, which it won't.

So before you go calling the other guy ignorant (even Matt), it would be helpful if you had a friggin' clue yourself.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 01, 2000.

informed..

actually I wasn't so much trying to build our way out of congestion...I think that is a myth. I like the congestion, it acts as a population control. I am more concerned with our state legislature maintaining what we have...and not wasting it on the....shall we say less then well thought out....?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.


to Informed Citizen: "Well Matthew, the fact still remains that no one is forcing you to shop in the Sound Transit boundaries. In fact, it should be in your best interest to go someplace else, say the Kitsap Mall, to make your purchases and avoid the .2% sales tax. I bought some gifts last time I was in California. Think I should be able to vote down there too? And by the way, when a school district holds a levy to build a new school, the state DOES NOT butt in two years later and make the district use the money on new buses."

If Kitsap Mall was anywhere near as nice as the Tacoma Mall, then yeah, I'd shop there. Also, both the feds and state have no compunction about regulating others. Why is it ok to regulate other institutions, but is not ok to regulate transit agencies?

You also write: "Okay, I'm incorrect on the transit funding. But you failed to realized that in fact I OVERestimated the funding. If you knew much about transportation funding, you'd realize that an additional $10 billion over the next 30 years is such an insignificant amount that it won't even begin to address the issues. As I said, that study said that to reduce TODAY'S congestion said that we'd have to spend about $15-20 billion. That's not over the next 30 years, that's IMMEDIATELY."

You are incorrect. If society agrees to dedicate transportation dollars to building the roads, then the $10 billion can be borrowed IMMEDIATELY. There aren't that many bottlenecks in the Puget Sound region. $10 billion will go a long way to address the bottlenecks. Furthermore, if we privatize the HOV system, then this is a source of additional revenue, which you conveniently leave out of your equations.

You also write: "I'm beginning to think that no matter what the facts say, you're completely convinced that this initiative is based solely on what you think should be the state's transportation policy. Nevermind the FACT that it does not require light rail to be abandoned (ST's light rail funding, by the way big guy, is FEDERALLY funded), that it WILL NOT require one inch of HOV lane to be built, and no matter how much you protest, it might not even change the current system AT ALL!"

Here, you are somewhat correct. There is no guarantee that the HOV system will b expanded at all. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the PROBABILITIES ARE HIGHER that the HOV system will be expanded and/or existing highway bottlenecks will be addressed.

You also write: "Believe it or not, I'm trying to work in your best interest here and remove the wool that you've pulled over your eyes thinking that this initiative is the greatest thing since the invention of vanpools. Just don't blame me when 5 years from now you have a heart attack on Hwy 16 because you've had yet another fit wondering why they haven't instituted that fee based HOV lane system that you swear was promised to you when I-745 was passed."

I'm more likely to have a heart attack on I-5 than Hwy 16. Hwy 16 is the least painful part of my commute. I've already agreed that I-745 guarantees me nothing. It wouldn't surprise me to see the transportation dollars used to build a new bridge across Lake Washington and/or build I-605, neither of which benefits me.

If you really want to work in my best interests, then please present a logical argument on why you believe light rail is superior to an expanded HOV system.

Why can't you debate I-745 on its merits? Why must you resort to fear tactics? I still don't understand why you love light rail and nearly empty buses over HOV lanes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 02, 2000.


We have to look at the Big Picture here, regarding transit. Since live in Applachian eastern washington, this transit intiative has nothing to do with me. I am voting for it because Olympia does not like it. Back to the point at hand. Would you honestly want to ride a bus or light train, with rude service, dirty seats and little or no choice for destinations, OR:..... Go into hock for a $50K Lexus or Acura with leather seats, 220 horse power, 10 speaker sound system, and the freedom to go wherever the NEW roads we plan to build go, and whenever you like? You do the math... This is America, or was America; Driving an auto wherever you choose is one of the last freedoms left to us. The members of this driving population, take this freedom very seriously. That is why buses and trains just will not work. If all you sheep who loves train and buses want to use them, great. It will leave a little less congestion for me when I take my Acura or Mercedes or Viper to the mall.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 02, 2000.

"Well Matthew, the fact still remains that no one is forcing you to shop in the Sound Transit boundaries."

Speaking of boundaries, why is it that Matthew's area was not included in Sound Transit's boundaries? From what I heard at a Transit Board meeting, there was alot of snobbery going on as to what areas would be included.

Face it Matthew, your a second class citizen! People were allowed to vote on the Narrows Bridge who may never cross the dang thing, but you, who may have frquent occasion to spend money in Sound Transit's district, or utilize services of Sound Transit, get no say. Kind of ironic.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 02, 2000.


Not to sound ignorant Mark, but didn't you just "rebutt" my claim that the light rail system is federally funded by saying that the light rail system is federally funded? If you bothered to check, I didn't say that it was FULLY federally funded (although I believe that ST mentioned that it would use the $500 million to build the south portion). This still makes quite a difference, since the legislature will probably be less likely to yank local funding for a system with significant outside funding.

Matt, the fact still remains that you CHOOSE to shop at the Tacoma Mall. If you were truly concerned about your money being wasted by ST, then that would override your decision to shop at a nicer mall. It's like going to a restaraunt, complaining about the service and food, but returning every day afterwards even though there's another place right next door. If you really want to voice your opinion about ST, STOP VOLUNTARILY GIVING IT MONEY!!! It's a rather simple concept.

Also, on the regulating issue, you're confusing regulate with annihilate. It's one thing to say "you have to use certain types of buses" or "you have to be ADA compliant", but it's another story when you say "regardless of local support, you have to cease to exist."

You are also incorrect about being able to borrow $10 billion. There is a debt limit imposed on the state that caps the amount the state can borrow to keep from doing what the federal government has to do and blow 25% of the budget just to pay the debt. I'm not sure how close we are to that limit now, but I'm almost certain it doesn't have enough room for $10 billion. Besides that, even if we were to borrow $10 billion over 30 years, that would mean that $10 billion would have to LAST those 30 years. State finances work a lot like individual finances in that regard. Unless you're really stupid, you don't buy a house using a loan and then the next year by another house on another loan. The reality is that we'd still have to PAY that money. And with interest over 30 years, the yearly payments would be well beyond that $350 million "saved" from transit.

Finally, I don't understand why you think I value light rail OVER the HOV system. Frankly, I don't see why you even consider it an either/or proposition. My vote against I-745 is NOT a pro-rail or an anti-HOV decision at all. It comes from a belief that a one size fits all transportation policy for the entire state ignores the fact that the transportation needs in this state vary incredibly, and that the best people to decide how to address these needs are the people who live in those areas. What you also fail to consider is that HOV lanes may be on the choping block just as much as transit. There are many people, the writer of this initiative for one, that consider HOV lanes as PART of the mass transit system. It is more than likely that they will consider I-745 a mandate to completely focus on SOV lanes and push to eliminate HOV lanes as part of the "solution." Something you should think about there.

Just what do you consider "scare tactics" here? My belief that because of its wording, I-745 could easily do almost nothing to change transportation policy? My pointing out that most of your beliefs as to what would happen in the wake of the passage of 745 have no basis in any political reality? I challenge you to point out one instance where I used scare tactics. You're the only one here that is creating false choices and failing to debate the merits of the initiative. I highly doubt any of the other pro people on this board consider this an issue of light rail vs. HOV lanes. In fact, I imagine that most of them consider this a transit vs. roads issue with HOV lanes INCLUDED with transit, but the other pro people here are free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 02, 2000.


Both are going down...

Split WA state into two (or three) and then 742 and 722 would make sense and probably pass in Eastern WA. But until then, "Ga- THOOMBY"!!! (Get the hell out of my back-yard)

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.


to Informed Citizen: You write: "My vote against I-745 is NOT a pro-rail or an anti-HOV decision at all. It comes from a belief that a one size fits all transportation policy for the entire state ignores the fact that the transportation needs in this state vary incredibly, and that the best people to decide how to address these needs are the people who live in those areas."

All you're doing is dancing around the issue. By claiming that "transportation needs in the state vary incredibly", you're indirectly implying that there are conditions whereby light rail is superior to HOV lanes. In fact, you're implicitly implying that if someone is pro-ridesharing, there is a more cost-effective approach than extending the HOV lanes. At least, I know explicitly why I'm voting for I-745. You don't seem to have a clue at all. You claim transportation needs "vary incredibly", but you present no cost-benefit analysis to defend your point of view.

You also write: "What you also fail to consider is that HOV lanes may be on the choping block just as much as transit. There are many people, the writer of this initiative for one, that consider HOV lanes as PART of the mass transit system. It is more than likely that they will consider I-745 a mandate to completely focus on SOV lanes and push to eliminate HOV lanes as part of the "solution." Something you should think about there."

I've already acknowledged that I-745 guarantees me nothing. And, I've already acknowledged that the money will probably go for a new bridge across Lake Washington and/or construction of I-605. But, I stand on principle. THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE MEANS TO PROMOTE RIDESHARING IS TO BUILD HOV LANES. Do you believe in anything? What do you believe is the most cost effective means to promote ridesharing?

You also write: "Just what do you consider "scare tactics" here? My belief that because of its wording, I-745 could easily do almost nothing to change transportation policy? My pointing out that most of your beliefs as to what would happen in the wake of the passage of 745 have no basis in any political reality? I challenge you to point out one instance where I used scare tactics."

Well, maybe I'm over-reacting. But you talked about me having a "heart attack". Sounds a little scary. You always pooh-pooh the idea that I-745 will actually free up significant amounts of money, when in fact it frees up $10 BILLION over 30 years. $10 billion seems pretty significant to me.

You also write: "You're the only one here that is creating false choices and failing to debate the merits of the initiative. I highly doubt any of the other pro people on this board consider this an issue of light rail vs. HOV lanes. In fact, I imagine that most of them consider this a transit vs. roads issue with HOV lanes INCLUDED with transit, but the other pro people here are free to correct me if I'm mistaken."

I am not creating false choices. I-745 makes HOV lanes and car-carrying ferries the only real alternative to SOV lanes. In fact, any effort by communities to promote ridesharing will force them to strongly consider HOV lanes. So, we will quickly find out how many people really endorse ridesharing as means of mitigating congestion and protecting the environment. Or, was it all a smokescreen to expand the transit-oriented bureaucracy?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 02, 2000.


I've worked in the automotive industry for a number of years, been involved in performance car clubs, and still consider myself a gearhead, so I have to ask this question about this quote.

Are you serious?

Probably because I grew up listening to the late Steve Allen (God bless him) reading from the New York Daily News "Letters to the Editor" section I can't help but hear his voice reading your statement. The car nut side of me believes you mean it, but the more rational side of me tells me you are being sarcastic. I know this question really is not part of the ongoing argument, but I just had to ask.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 03, 2000.


It would help if the Rolex's quote were included in my previous post, wouldn't it?

>>Would you honestly want to ride a bus or light train, with rude service, dirty seats and little or no choice for destinations, OR:..... Go into hock for a $50K Lexus or Acura with leather seats, 220 horse power, 10 speaker sound system, and the freedom to go wherever the NEW roads we plan to build go, and whenever you like? <<

There, now my previous question "Are you Serious" should make more sense. (And Matt doesn't have to wonder what I'm talking about)

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 03, 2000.


The point of my quote is: With a car, any auto you choose, you are the king of your universe when you drive it. The choices are endless in a driving experience, and best of all, "You have total Control". Not so on a bus or train. I will take freedom over economy or what is politically correct, anytime... I hope that clears that up. I know my English Prose' sucks....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 03, 2000.

How many Blue Ribbon Transportation committee members take a bus or light rail to work everyday? Something to think about...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 03, 2000.

So you are serious then, Rolex.

What's interesting is the perception of freedom.

In more densely populated areas, I've found the train/bus combination to be even more freeing. Then I don't have to worry that my $50k Viper (or $20k Caravan, since I don't have that $50k Viper) parked at work or at an event will get stolen or vandalized.

Also, unless I plan to be lugging around heavy packages, I don't have to keep moving my car to different parking lots and paying each time (or for meters if on-street).

The other interesting perception is the idea that supporting the idea of better transit is somehow taking away the freedom to own and operate a car. In fact, if I didn't have to worry about the upkeep on my 2 generic daily drivers for my family, I probably could afford to have that $50k Viper when I want to hit the open road.

And to me, that open road is a nice 2 lane winding back road with the throaty growl from the exhaust and sound of the wind in my ears, not acres and acres of asphalt with the roar of tires and 'jake brakes' and the smell of diesel assaulting my senses.

It isn't necessary for every place to be rural to acheive that if you can get the majority of the commuter traffic off the freeway.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 03, 2000.


Your arguement is sound Jim. I guess it is a matter of perception. I can leave for work in the morning and get there in four minutes, six if there is traffic. I have never lived in a big city and hopefully never will. In a city situation, I can see an auto would have huge liabilities compared to benefits. A Viper with luxury tax added is about $72,000, plus of course the $30 fee for tabs.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 03, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ