‘Move Seattle’ transportation levy: After City Council sent it to the ballot, 4-month campaign begins

Now that the City Council has taken final action to send the Move Seattle” transportation levy to the November 3rd ballot – you’re going to hear a lot about it over the next four months. We noticed early today that SDOT has a new round of infosheets. The one below, for example, incorporates changes made by the City Council, including the revised categories for investments – “congestion relief” is now a focus – and added language, such as the “West Seattle ingress and egress planning” that Councilmember Tom Rasmussen pushed to add:

Breakouts by City Council district are now posted – though they’re still relatively short on specifics. Here’s the one for District 1 (West Seattle and South Park):

Again, the funding for Move Seattle – $930 million in property taxes – did not change before the final vote. And if you want to see the discussion before that vote, the Seattle Channel‘s archived video of yesterday afternoon’s meeting is up:

More background about the levy is on its city webpage.

62 Replies to "'Move Seattle' transportation levy: After City Council sent it to the ballot, 4-month campaign begins"

  • dsa June 30, 2015 (10:41 am)

    Channel 5 reported that this could double some people’s property taxes. Is that correct?

    • WSB June 30, 2015 (10:56 am)

      The city says that if your home is taxed at $450,000, it will cost you $275 a year. That is more than double the $130/year the previous transportation levy, Bridging the Gap, cost, so maybe that’s where you heard “double” – because doubling your property tax would mean that, for example, you are only paying $275 a year now, which I don’t think applies to anyone … I’m pretty sure even a small bungalow is taxed at four digits.

  • WSEA June 30, 2015 (10:53 am)

    Is there a detailed sheet that explains the “safe route to schools” project per school? I’ve seen the website which gives general changes (new sidewalks, speed bumps, etc.) but I would like to know what each school would be getting to allow more kids to walk and bike to school.

  • John June 30, 2015 (11:11 am)

    Here’s my understanding and please correct me if I’m wrong….

    The current $130/yr tax is set to expire soon. The new tax will be $275. So if we minus $130 from $275 we get $145. So it’s actually an increase of $145/year, because we’ll no longer be charged the $135/yr tax.
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

    • WSB June 30, 2015 (11:14 am)

      That’s what the city says. But if DSA thought he heard “double,” it was likely the point made that it is double what the “average” homeowner would have paid under Bridging the Gap – $275 being a bit past double $130.

  • Jason June 30, 2015 (11:24 am)

    John, that’s correct. Bridging the Gap will expire at the same time Move Seattle taxation begins. Taxes won’t be levied on both at the same time. For the average homeowner, the actual increase equals $14.50 per month. Certainly seems worth it to me.

    Of local interest, both Move Seattle and the new transportation bill from the WA Leg include money to build the Lander St overpass. That should really help speed up morning traffic in SoDo.

  • Debra June 30, 2015 (12:28 pm)

    Which levy moved forward, the one that just hits proptery owners or the one that spreads it out amoung end users, developers and homeowners

    • WSB June 30, 2015 (12:35 pm)

      In the story, just before the video clip. Funding source did not change. There was a proposed amendment that would have cut the property-tax levy and used a head tax and commercial-parking tax for some of the funding instead; it did not pass.

  • Debra June 30, 2015 (12:40 pm)

    I was going to vote yes if the tax was spread out between homeowner and other end users
    Why does everything need to hit the homeowner, many are finding it challenging to stay in their homes
    Parks, social services, transportation, schools are all important but the city comes back to the same well and we need to find another way
    If you live in arbor heights you don’t pay, if you come in from south end you don’t pay, I support user taxes like the 520 bridge
    And there is minimal improvement for west Seattle
    I will be voting no,

  • Bon June 30, 2015 (1:14 pm)

    I totally agree with Debora. These taxes need to be spread out amongst every single resident, not just homeowners.

  • Chuck and Sally's Van Man June 30, 2015 (1:51 pm)

    I’m with you, Debra. Sadly, our two “no” votes won’t stand up in the face of this tsunami of transportation whitewash.

    Enjoy riding your bike everywhere. That seems to be this city’s top agenda and “big idea” for solving our transportation issues.

    Until there is a solid light rail PLAN and PRIORITY that includes what is fast becoming an overpopulated W. Seattle, this feels like so many band aids.

    And how about a direct W. Seattle to SLU bus line; the most vital work area in the city that is all but impossible get to by bus?

    Bottom line, I don’t trust our leadership. And tired of footing the bill…

  • AC June 30, 2015 (1:59 pm)

    Debra I’m with you. I’m voting no. The council ignored all of my emails and calls asking why they focus entirely on homeowners and our very own Tom Rasmussen went out of his way to lie to Seattle times that he hadn’t heard from any constituents in opposition to this levy. I can think of several opponents whom contacted him. Can’t wait for that liar to leave office. Actually, I hope we vote all of the City Council out of office. Not to mention the Mayor who illegally used developer fees to paint rainbows on the sidewalks, but wants to hit homeowners with higher property tax fees to build up Capitol hill transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes and do nothing for West Seattle. I hope all homeowners (and renters in buildings that don’t get tax waivers) vote no on this levy – send it back so they come up with a better way to fund it, a better mix of projects, and show that they value accountability and integrity.

  • PG June 30, 2015 (2:05 pm)

    Debra, I’m not sure what you mean “if you live in Arbor Heights you don’t pay”? We are in the Seattle City limits, I think I would be taxed (not that I’m crazy about this levy).

  • Eric June 30, 2015 (2:09 pm)

    Example: If you just bought one of the dreadful, new “builder’s box” things that go up every couple of weeks in West Seattle, your Property “value” is 800k. Plus as it is New Construction tax levied. And… your new property levy Every Year for you and you alone is $550 dollars a year for this levy and this levy alone. This is pure fact – read the Levy website and it will inform you of this very factual stand-alone cost that you will be paying on top of everything else every year. Yes, It replaces the old Gap funding so if you’re lucky enough to trade-up then yes, you’ll “feel” a somewhat less then the $550 plus tax each year hit you–IF you roll in the cost of the old Gap Levy plus the new increase – but it’s just ghosts and shadows really. This is all on top of the Daycare initiative voted in last year and on top of every other property tax you pay. Simply think of it as writing an additional $550.00 check every year. Oh and no rail included…. Oh and no one but property owners pay the tax for this. Because of course no one else uses crosswalks and side-walks other than homeowners. Let’s let council and Mayor Spend find another way this time.

  • West Seattle since 1979 June 30, 2015 (2:13 pm)

    Chuck and Sally’s Van Man, Rapid Ride C is scheduled to split from D and go to SLU next year sometime, the last I heard. (Unless something has happened to change that timeline.)

  • John June 30, 2015 (2:18 pm)

    The Fauntleroy Blvd. project will include dedicated bike lanes in both directions on a street that even most bicycle proponents I’ve spoken to say is not a priority for their preferred routes. The project will result in the elimination of the right hand turn lane to westbound Oregon street (turning vehicles will now cross the bike lane), creating a traffic nightmare for people trying to reach our Junction businesses and the ever-increasing number of residences there.
    .
    I would gladly vote for twice this much tax if it meant grade-separated rail to West Seattle, but I will be voting no on this.

  • Jason June 30, 2015 (2:34 pm)

    @Chuck and Sally: The RapidRide C line will go from West Seattle to SLU starting next year. It’s currently coupled with the RapidRide D line to Ballard, but Metro is purchasing lots of new buses with Prop 1 money, and those new buses will make it possible to split up the lines and increase service along both corridors.

    There’s also money in the new state transportation package for a new RapidRide line from Burien to downtown along the Delridge corridor.

    • WSB June 30, 2015 (2:41 pm)

      Two reminders here. (a) One identity per person per discussion. (b) Please leave the bike-vs.-car vitriol at the door. You can certainly critique the spending mix of the proposed levy, if you choose, without going on to allege ulterior motives or belittle someone who uses a transportation mode other than the one you predominantly use. (These refer to unpublished comments, NOT to anything you see here already. When we see discussions starting to veer off the tracks, we issue reminders like these proactively.)
      .
      Also, a fact-check: What the Times said CM Rasmussen said regarding the levy was not that he hadn’t heard opposition to it in general, but that he had not heard an outcry regarding its funding mix. In this story: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/transportation-package-facing-voters-will-be-funded-by-property-taxes/
      .
      Thanks – TR

  • Andrew June 30, 2015 (2:42 pm)

    I will vote NO on this levy and advocate to every voter I know to do the same, even though I myself like to ride. This levy isnā€™t about improving movement/mobility in Seattle ā€“ itā€™s about special projects for a few groups that apparently convinced 7 out of touch City Council members to listen to the Mayor (and in the case of Tom Rasmussen-to lie to the media about opposition to this plan.

    The revenue source is deliberately not equitable across Seattle residents and businesses (currently it targets homeowners, and excludes multi-unit dwelling residents whose owners have taken advantage of property tax-breaks). At least 25% of the funding goes to projects to directly benefit the 4.1% of Seattle residents who self-identify as bicycle-only commuters. Despite Rasmussenā€™s assertion, Move Seattle does very little for West Seattle and we need to send a message to the Mayor and City Council that we exist and need to benefit equally from these projects. The levy shows a number of line items with different projects grouped together and itā€™s unclear what the final mix of projects will ultimately entail.

    At a minimum, MOVE Seattle allocates 10.1% of spending ($94 million) to more bike lanes and bike improvements, while only 4.1% of Seattle commuters self-identify as bicycle commuters. The levy then adds additional line items for bicycle and pedestrian improvements (some fraction of more than $132 million), so itā€™s entirely possible that more than 25% of this levy will go to directly benefit 4.1% of self-identified Seattle commuters. Sure, there will be some indirect benefits if those bikers would otherwise drive, but based on the numbers, this levy is skewed to special-interest groups and not the average commuter in Seattle. And when this levy would be complete, the Seattle Bike lane improvements would only be HALF done ā€“ almost $500 million in bike lanes later. Seriously?

    This spending is in addition to the last levy which, per Seattle Transit and using local numbers, allocated 8.8% spending ($32m of $360m) to the Seattle Bike Plan (and when enacted, bicycle commuters made up 2.31% of commuters). Even if the census numbers accurately reflect 4.1% of commuters doing so by bicycle every single day in Seattle, which I doubt, the amount property-owners (excluding new apartment building developers and their tenants who don’t pay property taxes for 12 years) are spending to fund bike lanes at the expense of other infrastructure is a worthwhile opportunity-cost to consider.
    Biking to work is available to a select elite few, unlike driving. Service workers and those without access to showers, or who need to move large goods, are unlikely to ever directly benefit. It seems like cyclists are a very small minority of taxpayers who are well organized, vocal, and have co-opted policy to support their cause at the expense of much needed infrastructure investment that would benefit more than the very few people who can ever reasonably plan to commute via bicycle on a regular basis.

  • Debra June 30, 2015 (3:06 pm)

    PG
    I apologize should have used white center as a local example

  • Fourth June 30, 2015 (3:11 pm)

    That’s some special hair-splitting by Rasmussen. Weeks prior to that Seattle Times article, I sent emails to the whole transpo committee expressing my outrage specifically about the funding mix and thanking Licata for his attempt to spread the burden out. So because I didn’t attend a public hearing with a special interest group and wave my hands in the air, that’s not an “outcry?” Please. Rasmussen’s really lost my respect over this one.

    I’ve noticed that it’s been very easy for our representatives to ignore individual voices on issues like these, and I will certainly remember that on Election Day.

  • AC June 30, 2015 (3:29 pm)

    This levy isnā€™t about improving movement/mobility in Seattle ā€“ itā€™s about special projects for a few groups that apparently convinced 7 City Council members to listen to the Mayor.

    The revenue source is deliberately not equitable across Seattle residents and businesses (currently it targets homeowners, and excludes multi-unit dwelling residents whose owners have taken advantage of property tax-breaks). Up to around 28.3% of the funding goes to projects to directly benefit the 4.1% of Seattle residents who self-identify as bicycle-only commuters. Despite Rasmussenā€™s assertion, Move Seattle does very little for West Seattle and we need to send a message to the Mayor and City Council that we exist and need to benefit equally from these projects. The levy shows a number of line items with different projects grouped together and itā€™s unclear what the final mix of projects will ultimately entail.

    At a minimum, MOVE Seattle allocates 7% of spending ($65 million) to more bike lanes and bike improvements, while only 4.1% of Seattle commuters self-identify as bicycle commuters. The levy then adds additional line items for bicycle and pedestrian improvements (some fraction of more than $201 million), so itā€™s entirely possible that 28.3% of this levy will go to directly benefit 4.1% of self-identified Seattle commuters. Sure, there will be some indirect benefits if those bikers would otherwise drive, but based on the numbers, this levy is skewed to special-interest groups and not the average commuter in Seattle. And when this levy would be complete, the Seattle Bike lane improvements would only be HALF done, according to SDOT.

    This spending is in addition to the last levy which, per Seattle Transit and using local numbers, allocated 8.8% spending ($32m of $360m) to the Seattle Bike Plan (and when enacted, bicycle commuters made up 2.31% of commuters). Even if the census numbers accurately reflect 4.1% of commuters doing so by bicycle every single day in Seattle, which I doubt, the amount property-owners (excluding new apartment building developers and their tenants who don’t pay property taxes for 12 years) are spending to fund bike lanes at the expense of other infrastructure is a worthwhile opportunity-cost to consider.

    Biking to work is available to a select elite few, unlike driving. Service workers and those without access to showers at work, or those who need to move large goods, are unlikely to ever directly benefit from what is proposed. It seems like a small group of taxpayers who are well organized and vocal have co-opted policy to support their cause at the expense of much needed infrastructure investment to actually improve movement in Seattle.

  • JoAnne June 30, 2015 (3:39 pm)

    We have horrid leadership in this city. They just want to take and take and take from middle-class taxpayers. Taxes go up about a thousand times the rate of inflation.
    .
    And they give us NOTHING in return! Nothing!
    And never will!

  • Ms. Sparkles June 30, 2015 (3:42 pm)

    The Seattle Times article that TR linked to is very informative (thanks TR)
    .
    “Licata warned that the higher the levy, the higher the risk it loses” – how right he is. I hope for once we say “no” to the poorly crafted levy instead of saying “I don’t think it’s great but what other option do we have?” We have the option to vote “No.” To say we won’t be bullied into voting for a mediocre plan because you the City Counsel haven’t thought this through. It’s time to stop bailing out the City for its poor planning and time to deal with the consequences. If the DoT has to go a year without funding because we finally say “Enough,” it will be painful for everyone, but an important lesson.
    .
    Bruce Harrell was quoted as saying, ” The vast majority of the community support is for the primary package that is before us.” If that’s not true (as the comments here indicate) let’s tell him so with our “No” votes.

  • wscommuter June 30, 2015 (3:45 pm)

    At the risk of veering off the tracks, we would have less need for these measures if we funded transportation (and the rest of our infrastructure needs) through a progressive state income tax … ok, done with rant.
    .
    @ Debra … if I understand your point, “non-homeowners” (aka renters) do pay this tax – it gets passed down through higher rents. Having said that, I understand your frustration with this plan. While I’ll probably vote yes on it, it is a less-than-ideal approach.

  • JayDee June 30, 2015 (4:11 pm)

    They are taking out the RH turn lane from SB Fauntleroy to WB Oregon? Are they nuts? That is one of the few short cuts in West Seattle. Alaska and California is a nightmare and there are no options to get west of the Junction in a timely manner. Can you imagine the Trader Joes Crunch spreading back onto the Bridge?

  • M June 30, 2015 (4:18 pm)

    Cant we all just vote no, then use crowd funding to move the improvements we need to West Seattle?

  • ABC June 30, 2015 (4:54 pm)

    I will be voting no. I have no problem paying taxes if this will reduce my commute. This levy does little for W.Seattle. My current commute one way to SLU can be anywhere 45-60 minutes depending on the day. I’m tired of paying taxes and not getting any relief. I’m voting no until They come back with a levy that makes sense and is taxed by various funds beside property tax.

  • Debra June 30, 2015 (5:05 pm)

    AC you are so articulate
    Thanks for your thoughtful comment
    Hope everyone reads this and realizes how the special interest and the deals cut to developers are crushing the homeowner

  • STB June 30, 2015 (5:40 pm)

    Do you smell what I smell? This reeks of special interest/projects as AC mentioned, it doesn’t add up and its not entirely fair and equitable.

    Why are developers exempt from paying property taxes for 12 years? When was that code written and how soon will that loop hole be closed? Look at how many of these unsightly (to me) boxes are going up. Most if not all of these developers are from out of state and have no vested interest in our communities anyway- drooling at the opportunity to make money.

    This is an easy NO vote for me.

    • WSB June 30, 2015 (6:16 pm)

      Whomever said developers are exempt from property taxes is probably thinking of the MFTE (multifamily tax exemption) in which, if the MFTE is sought and granted, a building’s owner is exempt from paying property taxes on the residential portion of the building for 12 years – they still pay taxes on the land and on any commercial or otherwise nonresidential space – provided they rent a certain percentage of the units at a rate considered affordable by people making a certain income level. Explained here: http://www.seattle.gov/housing/incentives/mfte.htm

  • Seaspade June 30, 2015 (5:49 pm)

    Newer WS resident here – think the current Metro system is great, but doesn’t warrant a doubling of the levy, and should extend to a broader base that benefits as opposed to property owners. Current improvements don’t seem to address better service from here to SLU, UW or the Airport.

    No WS rail…no vote….

  • Kadoo June 30, 2015 (5:56 pm)

    It does feel as if the city deaf to concerns of citizens about the transportation levy. The mayor and/or his staff apparently does/do not answer emails even when a response is requested. The one transportation levy meeting I attended did not include a full-group question and answer session. I can only think that they didn’t want people to voice concerns so publicly, and stir the pot. We definitely need a solution to transportation problems here, but this levy isn’t it. I’ll be voting no.

  • ZippyThePinhead June 30, 2015 (6:00 pm)

    While you are pondering how you are going to vote on this levy, remember that the City Council has already approved raising City Light, City Utilities and a host of other taxes over the next couple of years.

    I’m voting no on this levy.

  • Lonnie June 30, 2015 (8:42 pm)

    Another thing not mentioned is the fact that the taxed amount will be based on the next new property assessed value of your home which undoubtedly will also increase based on the recent sales activity in W.S. and very little transportation help being provided for West Seattle. It is ironic that Councilmember Lacata recommeded to the council they go in at a lesser total amount and spread the tax costs around to include new developers and a parking tax. The council rejected Lacata’s recommendation and passed the full amount solely on to property owners only. The last levy provided for a Lander Street overpass to be built but the council diverted the money to other use. This current levy provides planning funds only for Lander Street overpass. It is beginning to look like property owners again are being hit with all the costs and the developers are getting off scott free. As a result, I will have to vote “NO”.

  • MOVE! Seattle PLEASE! June 30, 2015 (9:04 pm)

    AC – thanks for your observations which are spot on. I wish more citizens had better critical thinking to question SDOT’s planning that isn’t going to benefit the greater good. What happened to the greater good idea to benefit a large number of citizens as opposed to let’s focus on the tiny guy? BTW, the tiny guy does matter and I gladly pay my taxes. I biked to work in my earlier days but due to life changes this is no longer feasible.
    SDOT claims 5300 completed on-line surveys. I never heard about a levy or transportation related survey or efforts to collect feedback from March to April on the proposed levy.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident June 30, 2015 (9:26 pm)

    I keep wondering why they just don’t split the levies up into separate packages, i.e.;
    one for road improvements, one for bike lane installation/sharrows, one for buses…etc.
    That way the people of Seattle can decide what they want to fund.

  • ChefJoe June 30, 2015 (10:38 pm)

    Ex-westwood, probably for the same reason that you can’t get a comcast package with ESPN, SyFi, and BBC America without also getting stuff like ESPN Classic, the Home Shopping Network, and Lifetime. And why young children can’t have dessert unless they finish all the veggies on their plate.
    .
    I think the last time they tried something like that was the Viaduct advisory vote where we ended up with a majority voting against a rebuild and a majority voting against a tunnel-based replacement.
    They know what would pass and what would fail, given the privacy of voting.

  • TR June 30, 2015 (10:43 pm)

    I will also be voting no. The token project they’re throwing our way, Fauntleroy Blvd, will do nothing to help our ingress/egress problems. In fact if it really does eliminate the RT pocket at Oregon then it seems like it’ll only make things worse. Why is it so hard for the city to propose meaningful improvements for WS?

  • Don Brubeck June 30, 2015 (11:08 pm)

    @WSEA, RE Safe Routes to Schools: There is no detailed list of specific improvements yet, because the levy will fund the outreach and design. From Seattle Neighborhood Greenways:
    the full 1-mile school Walk Zone, not just the 300-feet generally considered as part of the school zone can have safety improvements added through the SRTS program.

    CM Burgess’ amended the way the $7 million for SRTS will be spent so that 12 elementary schools in extreme poverty will have investments in their entire school walk zone within the first 3 years of the Levy. Several of these are West Seattle / South Park Schools.

    Safe Routes to School: Complete 9 ā€“ 12 Safe Routes to School projects each year along with safety education, improving walking and biking safety at every public school in Seattle. Complete projects within the first three years of the Levy in walk zones of the following elementary schools that have high levels of poverty: Bailey Gatzert, Martin Luther King, Jr., West Seattle, Dunlap, Dearborn Park, Wing Luke, Northgate, Van Asselt, Emerson, Concord, Rainier View, Roxhill.

  • Don Brubeck June 30, 2015 (11:21 pm)

    @AC: Renter pay property taxes. It is built into the rent. And for the mix, you are conflating pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements and making it sound like this only benefits people who ride bikes. The current levy put less than 5 percent into bicycle infrastructure after about 100 years of doing nothing. Surprise: the percentage of people using bikes for ordinary transportation is doubled and can easily double or triple again with more improvements to change it from “elite” activity, whatever that means, and without hurting car drivers to become a significant part of our transportation network, reducing congestion, roadway wear and tear, pollution, and increasing public health and happiness.

  • JD July 1, 2015 (6:23 am)

    Glad I am not the only one to want to vote NO on a levy this time around.

  • AC July 1, 2015 (6:30 am)

    @Don Brubeck – As I said previously, renters in certain buildings do not pay property tax for 12 years on the dwelling in which they reside – WSB clarified that the exemption is for 12 years for MFTE buildings. MFTE is available to more than just new buildings. As for the mix, actually I went line item by line item in my analysis of the most recent documents, the numbers proposed don’t lie – the bike community has cajoled too much out of this bill for me to support. A minimum of 7% for 4.1% of self-identified Seattle commuters, up to 28.3% depending on what the City Council and Mayor actually decided to do. As to biking being an elite activity – let me repeat for you: (1) to be able to ride your bike to work every day you almost certainly have to make arrangements to shower at or near your office before you work (unless your employer doesn’t care about hygiene), (2) you have to be physically fit enough to make the commute in all weather conditions and build in extra time to do so every day, (3) you have to have have access to secure and reliable bike storage, (4) you probably don’t have to deliver large packages in your vehicle or drop kids off at daycare, (5) you probably don’t do manual labor that could make you to exhausted to ride home from work after the end of a long day of labor, (6) most commuters would need to live reasonably close to your work location, which assumes that you live in the urban core that is more expensive than areas further out.

    Don, as a pro-bicycle activist/lobbyist/advocate, do you have any specific evidence that the Seattle bike-to-work community will double or triple from the current 4.1%? As you can see, there are many more calculations that go into making cycling your primary mode of commuting than just some property-tax funded bike lanes. For the record, I like biking, but spending 7-28.3% of a $930 million levy on bike-related activities for the 4.1% of current commuters that self-identify as bike-commuters s not going to move Seattle. Further, Move Seattle includes has zero reliable accountability (Rasmussen’s document shows the same accountability mechanism as the last one #9 – which didn’t work given that the Lander street bridge wasn’t built and the council diverted funds where they pleased).

  • carole July 1, 2015 (6:35 am)

    What about renters who live in buildings with the MFTE exemptions? Those are not paying taxes on the residential portions of the buildings. Do we know how many apt buildings in WS currently have that exemption? How many of the apts currently under construction are or expect to be eligible for the exemption? Are apodments eligible? 12 years, no tax on residential portion of multi-family buildings; the rest of us make up the gap.

    • WSB July 1, 2015 (6:57 am)

      The page I linked to has a list that is allegedly current, though it doesn’t show buildings in the pipeline that I believe have applied or been granted it …

  • sam-c July 1, 2015 (8:31 am)

    I too will be voting no.
    I was so disappointed in the Bridging the Gap results. our neighborhood needs sidewalks. we have no sidewalks for a designated walk zone to school.
    I went to community meetings to lobby for the sidewalk project to be approved. Instead, they got rain gardens over on 26th. I saw BTG funds be used to replace street trees/ plant trees. I heard ‘them’ say things like, “this sidewalk project is too expensive. the money has to be spread around more equally so the funds for each project aren’t enough for this sidewalk project.” I am not going to fall for this again. Voting NO. at least if we’re not going to get sidewalks, maybe I won’t have to pay more taxes for SDOT to install vegetation and invest in beautification projects.

  • STB July 1, 2015 (10:30 am)

    What a joke. Move Seattle my a double-s. I’m tired of ‘making up the gap’ too Carole.

    Time for a re-do SSC, go back to the drawing board.

  • STB July 1, 2015 (10:32 am)

    *SCC* rather

  • Nick July 1, 2015 (11:10 am)

    Definetly voting no the cost is to much and projects just don’t seem that beneficial on whole

  • Michele Drayton July 1, 2015 (12:32 pm)

    Will definitely be voting no for the first time ever. Let’s vote in a West Seattle councilperson who will make developers pay their share for added traffic, etc.

  • AC July 1, 2015 (2:19 pm)

    Michele, yes, we need a councilperson who will actually represent West Seattle. I emailed all of the District 1 Seattle City Council candidates and the only two to respond were Lisa Herbold and Chas Redmond, both of whom took positions that the levy should have a more diversified funding stream. The other candidates could not be bothered to respond to my outreach as a potential constituent (just as none of the current city council members could be bothered).

  • KM July 1, 2015 (2:27 pm)

    I don’t think it’s always necessary to match spending for current usage (i.e. only 3% of the budget for bikes if only 3% regularly commute) as comprehensive transportation in a city with growing density cannot rely on cars and has to encourage people to leave their single-occupancy vehicles at home. Our current transportation system (city-wide, and in much of the nation) is simply not good enough, and likely not sustainable long-term. I don’t cycle in this city, and I do use my car frequently–not ideal. I want to see something that makes it easier and more reasonable for our whole family to leave the car behind in favor of alternative transit. A transportation plan should look ahead for growth and sustainability rather than thinking in the present and spending out in that manner. This levy offers little to be desired in improving existing conditions and planning for future growth and transit. I also will be voting no.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident July 1, 2015 (3:26 pm)

    KM,
    It’s not just the 7-28% being spent on the 3%, it also has to do with removing one or more automobile lanes of traffic that is being used by the 97% and installing one or more bike lanes for the 3% to use when the weather is nice.
    There should be a requirement that bike traffic on a given road must be at least 10% per year before consideration is given for a reconfiguration/road diet is conducted.

  • KM July 1, 2015 (4:37 pm)

    @Ew-Westwood Resident
    I’m comfortable discouraging people to use single-occupancy vehicles, in all types of weather. For single 20-somethings or families like mine. I think we’re just on separate sides of the spectrum.
    .
    Your note made me think though, how poorly designed is this levy if it gives people on different sides of the coin many reasons to vote no? Sigh.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident July 1, 2015 (7:14 pm)

    @KM
    I also support getting people out of single-occupancy vehicles. Unfortunately not everyone can bus/bike/carpool to where they work or shop.
    From 2004 to 2011 I was able to bus to work on SLU. The bus was 2.5 blocks from home and I got a nap each way (one transfer downtown). The trip was 12 miles. Today I work eight miles away, but it would a mile walk, three buses, and one hour 45 minutes to get there in the morning, and 2.5 hours in the evening.
    Grocery shopping would be a nightmare on the bus considering on an average trip I end up with 6 to 8 bags.
    Commerce can’t use buses or bikes.
    The planners for the LLR had their heads up somewhere when they planned it. Bus route planning looks like it was done by a crazed monkey. Building THOUSANDS of apartments without adequate parking just clogs streets even more.
    What we are seeing now is the effects of SDOT/KCDOT/WDOT TOTAL neglect and lack of foresight of transportation for last 45 years

  • ChefJoe July 1, 2015 (8:01 pm)

    There sure seems to be some interesting project allocation work in WS.
    The 35th and Roxbury projects have been stated as “it’s just paint” in some reports and then they’re highlighted on this new levy map as a “corridor safety project” as well as a repaving project.
    If the levy passes, they paint and re-allocate the roadway as planned later this summer, then a few years later re-pave and re-do the striping then too?
    Should the people who opposed that 35th re-channelization project vote against the levy to pull funding or is this for some further “safety corridor” work ? It’s like a whole basket full of non-specifics.

  • Susan July 1, 2015 (9:01 pm)

    The state needs the funding that only a state income tax will provide, otherwise, we keep voting over and over again for measures that are not providing the base we need for transportation and education. I wish the governor and legislature would be less concerned with re-election, and find the political will to end Washington’s regressive tax system.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident July 1, 2015 (9:30 pm)

    @Susan
    LOL!!!
    Income Tax is the MOST regressive tax system there is!
    Don’t turn WA into CA where they BOTH State Income Tax AND Sales Tax.
    The ONLY way I, and most of WA residents, would ever support a state income tax is if they abolish ALL sales taxes in the state, including sales tax on gas.

  • ZippyThePinhead July 1, 2015 (10:35 pm)

    @Susan
    This is a local Seattle levy. I am totally missing how you can tie this levy into a State income tax? Please, what am I missing? Is this all unicorns and hope and change?

    Are you saying that if we had a state Income tax, all of the State transportation issue would be resolved?

    Please, can you help me with your reasoning?

    And as Ex-Westwood Resident mentioned, it is not going to happen,

  • Fourth July 2, 2015 (11:17 am)

    @Ex-Westwood Resident You have that backwards. Income tax is a more progressive tax system (as long as it is set up with tax brackets– like federal taxes, for example– and not as a flat tax). Sales and excise taxes are the most regressive taxes. Washington State actually has the most regressive taxation system in the entire country. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has done a lot of good analysis on this issue: http://www.itep.org/whopays/states/washington.php

    I agree that we’ll probably never shift to a state income tax, which is too bad. It would provide a fairer and steadier stream of income than what we’ve got now. Another feature of a state income tax is that you get to deduct that off your federal taxes.

Sorry, comment time is over.