There is great anger over the Legislature's last-minute raising of the gas tax.
There are several areas of concern, first: There is a lot of concern that the Dept of Transportation is not making wise use of the billions it gets. For example, the state ferry system, which is in the DOT, in its annual audit for almost 20 years has received a warning that it does not keep proper track of the fares it collects. DOT has not corrected the problem - for 18 years.
A large portion of recent spending has not gone to maintain and expand our highways or has had marginal benefits. Huge projects have resulted only in an HOV lane where a few people zip along, while everyone else plods. And large amounts have gone for environmental enhancements. So people are saying "spend the money to build more road capacity and make better use of it."
Even short-time Governor Gregoire agreed. When she was running for office she said "she did not support another gas-tax increase until taxpayers are convinced that a nickel-per-gallon increase approved in 2003 is being well spent." - Seattle Times
Second, before this increase our gas tax was the 4th highest among the 50 states and DC. This makes it the highest. (Update: This link quit working. Try again later.)
Third, the $9.5 billion they will collect won't do the big projects. To replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct along the Seattle waterfront another tax increase will be required. If the Seattle-area voters don't pass a regional tax increase this money will go away for other purposes. SB 6106, Section 104
Fourth, this is a tax to benefit the Seattle area. Eastern and other parts of Western Washington get very little.
Well, Gregoire promised one thing and did the opposite.
Oh, conditions changed in 5 months. How? She pushed through a tax increase of 9.5 cents, which is 34%. What did she do to make sure taxpayers are convinced that the previous tax increase is being well spent? Let me know; I haven't heard.
Mac Safari users click on the time stamp below to continue.
There is a provision to start some sort of performance audits in DOT in this tax increase bill, which got some Republicans to vote for it. SB 6106, Section 104. We have to watch to make sure the "performance audits" are really performance audits. There are ways to have a program that sounds good, but protects the guilty.
To add insult to injury the Democrat leaders of the Legislature took away our ability to push back the increase. Any law passed can be repealed by a referendum. A referendum takes much fewer signatures than an initiative; and might be otherwise easier to do. But they put an emergency provision in the tax increase bill, which disallows a referendum.
And the late timing makes it impossible to do an initiative. It takes time to draft the legal language, get it vetted for accuracy and get the Secretary of State to approve it. Only then can you print the signature pages. Then you have to get around 250,000 signatures by early July. It takes a lot of money to do this and even more if you pay signature gatherers.
So the Democrats controlling the Legislature cornered us. It is too late, so there is nothing we can do. They got a huge tax increase past us. They are laughing at us.
NO NEW GAS TAX.com
It will take a huge effort by a lot of people. But a group called "No New Gas Tax" in Kirkland is starting the initiative process. According to our popular talk-radio hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur they need to raise $25,000 by Friday or Saturday. If there is that enough interest to accomplish that they will go ahead.
Today John was excited and ready to go. He has done 3 successful initiatives, against no defeats (except for Governor). He knows it won't be easy. But if people are mad about their expressed wishes being violated by our elected representatives, then the impossible can be accomplished.
If you agree, there is a petition and you can make a donation at:
Cross-posted at my still-nameless blog.
Posted by Ron Hebron at May 05, 2005 11:06 PM | Email ThisDump this tax!
Posted by: Michele on May 5, 2005 11:51 PMHelp Eliminate the 9.5 cent Gas Tax
WWW.NONEWGASTAX.COM
Posted by: gs on May 5, 2005 11:59 PMI'm glad to hear that there is a citizen movement to roll those taxes back.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 6, 2005 12:06 AMPut some blank initiative forms in my hand. You won't need to pay me...I'll fill 'em up and get 'em back in promptly. And, yes, legal ones.
And so would any number of similarly angry citizens that normally don't get involved.
There's a lot of people that remember getting the sales tax on food rolled back. That happened mighty fast, if I remember correctly.
Can't help it....I'm starting to refer to CG as "the Pirate Queen."
Posted by: scott158 on May 6, 2005 12:49 AMI definitely will be helping with this cause!
Posted by: Kolomona on May 6, 2005 03:20 AMWell, I say, Seattle can pay for its projects, just like the Gig Harbor/Key Peninsula/Kitsap people have to pay for the new Narrows bridge. If they stick us with a toll, then stick Seattle with a toll. The 520 and Alaska Way Viaduct make even more sense for toll because there are alternative routes for those who don't want to pay a toll. There isn't a practical alternative route around the Narrows.
Just my two cents worth.
Posted by: tc on May 6, 2005 05:44 AMHow Much Do You Pay in Gas Taxes?
The default numbers are for Washington's new gas tax once it's fully phased in.
Posted by: Ironman on May 6, 2005 06:56 AMOf course, something has to be done, but why not use some common sense with freeway projects and add lane capacity? Even the proposed viaduct and the proposals I've seen of the new 520 don't add lane capacity, they just replace the existing bridge. Why not add lanes while you're in there doing all this work...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 6, 2005 07:41 AMIt seems to me that if the legislature deemed there was an emergency of sufficient gravity to dump I-601 and to pre-empt the public's right to vote on 9.5 cent tax increase, then the emergency is sufficient to dispense with un-necessary redundancy that constitutes the bulk of environmental review of the projects this tax is intended to fund.
DOT knows where the environmentally sensitive areas are, and they know how to minimize the impacts these projects will cause.
The big costs are mitigation and litigation. In emergencies can these not be by-passed, or at least truncated? If not they should be.
The public interest does not just mean critters and trees - it means you and me too!
Posted by: Deadwood on May 6, 2005 07:52 AMI had been in favor of the gas tax because something needs to be done, but now I'm against it because none of the projects have a design so we don't even know what our money is supposed to pay for.
I have made my contribution to the NoNewGasTax.com website. Others should do the same if they want any chance to dump this ill thought-out tax.
Posted by: Tucker on May 6, 2005 07:54 AMWhere do I go to find a record of who voted for this oppressive tax?
Posted by: otto on May 6, 2005 08:02 AMI find it rather pathetic that the two radio stations (you know who you are!) would diminish the importance of BOTH initiatives by refusing to support the one championed by the competing station (yes - both stations!)
We have an opportunity to make a resounding statement to the tyrants in Olympia, but it is going to be reduced to "white noise" by the DJ's!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 08:10 AMBecause that doesn't fit the agenda of many supporters of this tax. More roadway means more cars.
The one nice thing about carpool lanes is at least they're building some additional capacity. Eventually, we can (maybe) get the social engineers out of there, and change the lanes to general use.
Posted by: jimg on May 6, 2005 08:16 AMI GUESS ABE LINCOLN SAID IT BEST IN 1862 WHEN ASKED WHAT HAS BEEN THE MOST DIFFICULT THING TO DEAL WITH SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE? HE ANSWERED "THEIR AREN'T ENOUGH TEETS FOR ALL OF THE PIGS"
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on May 6, 2005 08:24 AMI went there and could not distinguish between a viable site and a scam. Send money, which I am willing to do, but there is insufficient info on the site about who is getting it and what is going to happen.
The money could be going to Charles Ponzi for all the site says. Regardless, the site with so little responsible info left me cold.
No contact info, no names, no nothing. How could I in good conscience send this to others?
Please get some responsible info up there immediately.
I love this site, but think y'all are missing a bet by your open posting non-rule....
(just an opinion - your mileage may vary)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 08:55 AMSection 104 says that unless the local municipalities raise enough revenues (i.e. raises taxes sky-high) to match the projected outlays for the earmarked projects, the legislature reserves the right to reschedule the projects.
Let's take King county. So we've got $2 bil for the viaduct (need $4bil), $500 mil for 520 (need something like $3bil more) and some cash for 405. That means that Sims gets to/will need to raise our taxes such that he raises at least $5billion. And this has to happen by 2007.
So this means that King county's vehicle tabs will most likely double from their current lofty levels...add in the $200 bucks people pay for the monorail, and whatever Sound Transit is, and we Seattlites are looking at a grand just for the privilege of licensing a car in this banana republic. Where do I get off?
Posted by: steve_dog on May 6, 2005 10:02 AMYou say our gas tax is high. Gosh, could that be because WA is one of the few states with no income tax, and voters have rejected taxing car registration to pay for roads? How do you propose funding roads?
You complain that the ferry system doesn't account for fares. Good news: a new fare collection system is coming this fall. (Details at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/improvement_projects/efs/.)
Posted by: Bruce on May 6, 2005 10:34 AMThere's more than enough money collected in this state to fund the necessities if we reprioritize and get rid of all the junk programs. That's why this message has to be sent to Olympia.
The message, is NO we want you to do a better job with what you already have. If that means cutting back, good, let's cut out some of the ridiculous social programs, etc.
And above there was a great idea. If we are truly in a transportation crisis, why not suspend the ridiculous environmental reviews that jack up the price of every project and just get down to building.
The best way to send a message to Olympia is to take away the money, the drug they are addicted to, and make them work out a budget even if it means cutting back.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2005 11:09 AMTolls on big ticket projects. Period.
We've done it that way in the past. It's only in this decade that Seattle feels entitled to soak the rest of the state for projects which only benefit themselves.
I already pay a gas tax. This gas tax funds the roads I already drive on, which I think are adequate and could be better improved through cutting the fat out of DOT (performance audits) I don't drive on Seattle's wonderways nor do I own a secluded island home that requires a ferry.
Don't force me and my community to pay for your lifestyle choices.
Posted by: Andy on May 6, 2005 11:10 AMNo, I don't assume that, any more than I do that the reason for building cities is to make a place for liberals to live.
But seeing the big picture requires that one pulls one's head out of whatever orifice one has it stuck.
"Don't force me and my community to pay for your lifestyle choices."
I like that!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 11:19 AMHmmm. Are you sure I'm not paying for your lifestyle choices?
Let's say King County roads cost, on average, 5 times as much as rural roads to build per lane-mile (due to more complex urban/suburban design), and get 10 times as much traffic. Therefore, rural roads cost twice as much per mile driven.
Disclaimers: I doubt those are the right numbers. I also realize that rural roads require less maintenance due to the lower traffic. And I realize that most of the new demand is in congested areas, but that's because we've spent less on those areas (relative to population) in the past. But I suspect the ratios and principle here are worth considering.
Posted by: Bruce on May 6, 2005 12:18 PMNice joke, no logic. I didn't say anything about who should be moved, just that the goal of roads is to move people. What do you think the goal of roads is?
Posted by: Bruce on May 6, 2005 12:21 PMClearly, the people want to keep their cars. Many of us have no choice. As a contractor, I do not want to haul my tools on a bus...and there are many thousands of taxpayers are similarly encumbered.
Here's the pattern...DOT gets millions/billions. DOT projects spend money on environmental concerns, abatement, HOV lanes, bike paths, union pay extortion ("prevailing wage" premium)....all of which is not subject to substantive performance audits and normal "business" acumen....
...net result: no relief of the problem. No added regular car capacity added.
The problem isn't the public. The problem is the ersatz problem solvers.
Put ALL DOT functions out for public bid, and suddenly many problems evaporate overnight.
Get it?
Posted by: scott158 on May 6, 2005 12:39 PMIf you went and did that you might have road construction come in under budget and ahead of schedule!
Example: Northridge earthquake, SoCal. When government realized the extent of the damage AND that the community would not tolerate delay it was put out for bid. The results: under budget and ahead of schedule.
Before and lib/union complaints, the same government inspectors that inspect other "normal" work also inspected this.
Posted by: Fred on May 6, 2005 12:48 PMThe State wants us to believe that on the east side of the state we are getting our money's worth from gas taxes. With a lot less traffic and a lot less people, they end up resorting to "make work" projects. Like spending two years blowing up basalt columns along I-90 west of Spokane (the theory is that if people run off the highway, they might run into them - try not to think too much about this). Just east of Vantage, the state appears to be building an uphill passing lane. Never mind that there are already two east bound/uphill lanes and there is essentially no traffic on the roadway year round since it is in the center of little populated Eastern WA.
Out of the 9.5 cents tax increase that we will pay, I think between 0.5 and 1.0 cents will end up back on the east side. To replace existing roads in Seattle, they have to jack up overall spending Statewide so that "everyone has a share". The only way they to do that is to invent "make work" projects over much of the rest of the state.
A better solution would be to have regional or county-level gas taxes apportioned to the needs of the local area. What we are doing now is a travesty - and surprisingly wasteful as we bribe the less populated areas of the state with truly useless state funded road projects. Seattle might get by with a 5 cent tax and the rest of the state 1 cent, if sanity would prevail. Instead, it'll be 9.5 cents - essentially a blank check for unspecified, undesigned projects. The level of waste an inefficiencies involved here will be amazing.
Posted by: Ed on May 6, 2005 12:49 PMAs a matter of fact, he has it upside down. He would have us believe that trying to lay a mile of roadbed through a field somewhere is "5 times" as expensive as a mile of roadbed through downtown Seattle.
BWaaaaahaaaaa!
Tell me another one there Brucie boy!
Ooh Ooh! I know! "the goal of roads is to move people"...
HHHAAAAAAA!!!!!
Stop it! You're killin me!
The goal of roads is moving commerce you dolt! If all we had to do was move people, we would have a trail or two.
Your numbers are wrong, your premise is wrong, and you're just wrong (but we won't hold that against ya ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 12:50 PMCheck it out, folks~ If you missed it, see Kolomona's post above for the web address if you want a good No New Gas Tax sign for your car to encourage others to help.
Posted by: Michele on May 6, 2005 01:19 PMIn case there is doubt of WHO is financing my lifestyle- go check any given county auditor website. I live in Thurston county- our road budget is a blip of our in-county generated revenue and our existing tax structure has a surplus.
No you urbanites are not paying for my lifestyle nor are you paying for most of the rest of the state.
Roads through cow pastures are cheap. Big Ticket Pugetopolis projects with underwater bike parks are not.
If the megalith overpass here in Olympia fails, I would welcome the toll- I don't see why someone in Okanogan should pay for it.
Read my posting again. You read it exactly backwards. Of course urban/roads cost more than rural roads, and that's what I said, not the opposite. I also noted that they get much more usage because more people live there. Next time, engage brain first, then fingers.
Posted by: Bruce on May 6, 2005 11:09 PMI guess when you're a fake Governor, anything's possible.
Posted by: flexnfx on May 7, 2005 02:03 AMAnd somehow they are proud of their actions.
In the olden days people like this would we tarred and feathered and sent out of town. Amazingly our politicians have hurt and humiliated themselves with their recent political "accomplishments". Now we just need to vote them out of office.
Posted by: Sad on May 7, 2005 04:51 AMThanks, Walt, and thanks to Mike, too!
Posted by: otto on May 7, 2005 10:45 AMIt's frustrating to see all the facts/details come out AFTER the green light is given to pick our pockets.
If the ugly truth comes out a little sooner, the uproar could help snuff out the dems' dirty little tricks.
Posted by: MB on May 8, 2005 11:51 AMMachele_9@hotmail.com
Posted by: machele Lopez on June 8, 2005 10:19 AMThere is to much Government waste. With the cost of living always increasing how is anyone able to retire.
Sincerely a disgruntle citizen,
Posted by: Shirley on July 3, 2005 02:53 PM