West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(18 posts)

prop 1 - car tabs

Started 6 months ago by hooper1961
Latest reply from kootchman

hooper1961
Member Profile

this measure failed because the city wanted to remodel the kitchen while the roof is leaking. it should have been 100% dedicated to street and bridge maintenance.

Posted 6 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

you are probably right
that is likely why it failed

IMHO... another instance of short term thinking

when will drivers figure out that it is in their best interests to get people who can utilize other forms of transportation off the roads?

because everyone knows it's is much more productive to sit in a traffic jam on well maintained roads :(

NOT!

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

It failed because it was a universal tax.... now if it was apportioned by the purchase price of ones car... liberals would have had it passed by a huge margin. Oh that's right.. Eyeman took that option away.

Posted 6 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Agree with kootch, $60 per car no matter how much the car is worth or how often you drive. Not to mention it was for 10 years and the allocation of funds was a little shady.

Actually with how many potholes there are its much easier to avoid them going 4 mph in traffic.

Posted 6 months ago #
skeeter
Member Profile

I've said it before but I'll say it again. If other cities in Washington are able to maintain their streets with existing revenue streams, I don't see why Seattle can't do the same.

Posted 6 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

skeeter -- there's a huge flaw in your logic, namely your assumption that other cities maintain their streets better than Seattle does. Google 'pothole repair' and then fill in any WA city and see what you get. Another flaw is your unspoken assumption that all cities have the same revenue stream (i.e. $$ per capita); if cities in Eastern WA have better maintained roads, it is because you and I are helping to pay for that work. The tax base in many Eastern WA counties is too limited to provide enough funding, so we end up sending money over the Cascades (despite the inaccurate belief that it's the other way around.)

kootcherman - I-man did not take away the option of vehicle value-based tax as the legislature can override any initiative after two years, with sufficient votes. In addition, new proposals to use value-based MVET to fund transportation projects can be approved by voters, which has happened.

BTW, of the 11 I-man initiatives that the people have voted on (of the dozens of titles he has requested), 6 have passed statewide and 5 have failed. Of these 11, only ONE was approved by the majority of voters in King County; that was the initiative on audits. None of the initiatives related to limiting MVET or property taxes passed in KC. Citizens of Seattle also initially approved Monorail funding, which included value-based MVET funding (after 695 passed) and the citizens of the majority of King, Pierce and Snoho counties have twice voted to approve Sound Transit's bus, rail and facilities projects, which also include value-based MVET funding.

So, I agree that the city's initiative was poorly planned and the non-value based MVET tax was regressive, which is why I voted against it. I doubt your generalization about liberals theoretically approving a different tax structure is accurate as I think the bigger issue was the project mix and duration of the tax. However, the citizens of KC have clearly repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to pay taxes for transportation infrastucture and maintenance as well as for other government services. I'm guessing we will see another package presented to the voters within a year.

Posted 6 months ago #
MrsL
Member Profile

Posted 6 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

The anti-car advocacy is getting a bit tiresome. Until bicyclists pay for a license to ride on the roads, I do not believe they should add more bike lanes.

Seattle area motorized transportation is F$#*ed up. Always has been and always will be.

Choke points,
HOV lanes that end.
Express lanes that would be better as HOV lanes going both ways, not one way.
On Ramps that choke to one lane from three.
No parking available for some LINK rail sites.
Mayor McGinn
Not enough lanes for cars.

Although I love the Ferry system. And I-90 does not end at Dearborn anymore.

Tell you what, I want a South Bound ramp from the West Seattle Bridge to SR 99. I want a road that connects I-5 with SR 99.

I want a chocolate shake right now. At least I can get that.

And still we love living here.

Posted 6 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

rich -- sounds as if you think roads are funded solely by the gas tax and car tabs. would it surprise you to know that's incorrect? The city's Bridging the Gap levy, which includes bike lane improvements, was passed by voters in 2006, prior to McGinn. BTG is a nine-year, $365 million levy for transportation maintenance and improvements funded by a property tax and supplemented by a commercial parking tax. Yep, those pesky bike riders are paying for those lanes cuz if they don't own property, they rent and only a really dumb landlord wouldn't include property tax in calculating rent. Pretty impressive list of projects completed to date; shockingly, many are outside of WS as, believe it or not, other neighborhoods have transportation needs too.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

And, at one point, there was a plan for a hiway to connect 99 and I-5 but it was scuttled. At the moment, there is a plan to include fixing the Mercer Mess as part of the north portal for the 99 tunnel. So, there will be a direct connection between 99 and I-5. Won't be a freeway, so I guess it won't make you happy as a chocolate milkshake will, but it probably won't give you gas either. Check the SDOT website for details.

There was also a plan to wipe out a lot of the Arboretum, Lk WA Blvd and a bunch of cool old brick houses by connecting 520 and I-90. Fortunately, Seattle residents objected after seeing what I-5 did to tear neighborhoods apart and the RH Thompson Thruway was stopped, leaving a bunch of ramps to nowhere. Check out historylink dot org if you actually want to do some research on this project or the planned 99 to I-5 freeway.

Parking garages at Link stations would have been enormously expensive and would have reduced the number of track miles that could have been built. Monorail wasn't gonna provide parking either, same reason.

Wanna connect WS to 99; already done. Take Highland or W Marginal and connect south of the 1st Ave South bridge.

Some of the very reasons you love living here are cause major problems for roads. You know, things like rivers and bodies of water, hills, ravines, parks, etc.

Happy now? Didn't think so.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Start requiring bicycle tags. Say every adult (over 18) has to put up $ 100 per year and display a bike tab? You love imposition so much.. I pay for my bike privilages by increased rental rates? It's a canard. You are spreading those costs to hundreds of thousands who don't comute by bike. JoB every tax is regressive... ya wanna means test vehicle registrations too? So every tax out there is to be imposed in a "progressive" tax structure? My cars cause less eco damage than half the older models out there. Hell, some of those carbon fiber, titanium road bikes are worth as much as half the vehicles out there. Sales tax on bike parts, tires, panniers, new bike sales...etc etc.. dedicated to bike improvements... sure let's do THAT..

Posted 6 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

i don't believe i mentioned means testing vehicle registrations at all ...

would it surprise you to learn that i voted yes on the license tab increase even though i thought it regressive?

in this case, i weighed the greater good and found that argument more compelling.

you remember that greater good concept from your childhood, don't you?

I think I made a huge mistake when i started defending arguments by appealing to self interest...
I had the mistaken idea that it was possible for those motivated by self interest to see beyond their next latte.

I suspect i was very very wrong ..
but old habits die hard.

It's long past time we shifted the conversation from self interest to common good ...
yes, i know that's a foreign concept to many..
but apparently so is self interest if it involves investing now for long term gain.

I am weary of pandering to the defensive position right wing talking points has created for liberals.

it's time to go on the offensive.

Whether conservatives are too stupid to realize that the common good is good for them too or not...

it's time to re-frame the conversation.

it's not all about you dude!

Posted 6 months ago #
Dennito
Member Profile

I would have happily voted for it if all of the revenue was being directed to road repair. Additionally, because of McGinn's anti-car/pro bicycle obsession, I'll vote against and measure with the word "bicycle" attached to it for as long as he is in office.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

I weight the "common good" against my self interests. I expect no less of anyone else. The issue with the common good in Seattle is... the "common" don't like to tax themselves. They vastly prefer to use words like "regressive" which means find someone else to pay for it. Commons use, common benefits, mean a common obligation to pay for it. Code words like "common good" do not make the good common at all. It's like the word "progressive".. there is nothing new or progressive about that agenda. Let's just call socialism what it is and socialists what they are? It is stunning to watch the convoluted tongue twisting to avoid the term. Obamacare is not a progressive, common good, it is a socialist take over of the medical industry. If Chairman Mike wants little green boxes painted on the street... great.. get the box users to pay for them. Yes the legislation has to vote, out in the open, transparently. Like coackroaches, they will scurry from that light. While it wasn't perfect Eyemen did a great mitzvah. Now I can see the logic in taxing cars by weight, emissions, they have a direct bearing on road surface wear and tear or environmental degradation. If I had a lightweight low impact, Tesla... I am doing more good, less damage, lowering the societal impact and costs... and an MVET would punish for that decision. But it far more appealing to assume the MVET is "progressive" taxation. If you are running around in a 3/4 ton truck, with loud 34" knobby tires, a 400 cubic inch V-8 .. valued at 5K.... your impact is what should be taxed. An MVET discourages investment in newer technology, lower impact vehicle purchases.

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Uh metro? Distortions. LOCAL roads in Spokane are maintained by local funds. State roads by state taxes. Those goods and services manufactured in Seattle have to move on those state roads, and vice versa. It would kill the Seattle economy dead without those state roads in E Washington.. and vice versa. No JoB I mentioned MVET.... bet if Chairman Mike phrased it... "every car with a market valuation over $ 20,000 shall be assessed an fee of $500 dollars" it would have sailed through the referendum process. That's how we roll in Seattle.

Posted 6 months ago #
Betty T
Member Profile

I voted against the tax because of a tax followed by another tax is asking too much! I also agree on taxing by value would have succeeded. That's all I have to say.

Posted 6 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

wrong again, kooch; no funding stream for any government project is that simple. Local roads involve a mix of local, state and federal funding; state roads mostly use a mix of state and federal funding altho there is likely a little local money for some projects. Here is the state law that specifies how gas taxes are distributed (simple, huh?):

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.68.090

Here is the same info, but in English:

"Fuel Taxes
The 18th amendment to the Washington State Constitution dedicates motor fuel tax collections to "highway purposes". Revenue generated from the gas tax is distributed to counties, cities and state accounts. The state receives about half of the total revenues collected. These are the funds which support the WSDOT highway programs as well as the Washington State Ferry System, which is deemed a state highway system by constitution. Highway construction, maintenance, preservation, administration and debt service on highway construction bonds are all funded by these revenues.

The other half of the fuel tax revenues are distributed directly to cities, counties and other agencies for roadway programs that are not part of the state highway system."

If you want to look at actual dollars and cents of fuel tax distribution, you will see that the more populated counties, mostly on the westside, receive less in gas tax distribution than they pay while the less populated counties get more, sometimes WAY more:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/default.htm (click on 'Transportaton Revenue Forecast Summary')

One of the *real* problems with the decrease in available money for road maintenance and the need to seek other funding sources is the drop in taxes collected on fuel sales. There are a couple of basic reasons for this drop:
- people driving fewer miles because of the poor economy;
- fuel efficiency of vehicles has increased.

And, Eastern WA is way more dependent on shipping goods to Western WA ports than we are on sending stuff over there to sell. If you really think Seattle's economy depends on Eastern WA, I've got some swampland near Coulee to sell you. They really can't import much from the north, south or east, so, yes, alot of their consumer goods come thru our ports. However, if their local roads go to pot(holes), it really doesn't affect us much. In fact, pretty much every road in Eastern WA except I-90 could fall apart and it wouldn't affect us much.

Posted 6 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

i personally think the $60 would have been a lot cheaper than the twice yearly re-alignments due to unavoidable potholes...

but as long as that isn't called a tax it doesn't count, does it?

Posted 6 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Yea watch the grain rail cars go on the interstate everyday gnome. In total though, the economic effects of agriculture are magnified in the retailing, warehousing, packaging, preparation. of commodities. Easy to figure out. Take the end sale price and calculate the producer revenue and see where the economic action takes place. Sit at the old West Five, sip that Manny's... think the WA farmer grossed 2 bucks? Nope. The value added conversion happens here in Western WA. Agricultural communities ship low cost raw materials and purchase value added finished good. In order for that to work, for Seattle to prosper, there has to be a transportation network. The Romans had that figured out couple thousand years ago. Trade value always flows to the megopolis. It's not for votes that locals get a portion of revenue sharing, we need them more than they need us... road expenditure wise. Aluminum really gets expensive when it is the skin of a Boeing jet... not as coil stock at a Kaiser plant. While EA Wa is not a large customer base..Chicago is Twin Cities, you get the drift. And we need to ship our massive solid waste east too! Since humankind started doing trade.. transportation benefits the city.... in fact, the only reason a city exists. Specialized labor converting raw materials, commodities, and consuming them.

Not one of your more clever statements;

" In fact, pretty much every road in Eastern WA except I-90 could fall apart and it wouldn't affect us much."

Posted 6 months ago #