King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson reportedly threw a temper tantrum at yesterday's "road and transit" debate after Sierra Club chairman Mike O'Brien called the proposed light rail extension from Federal Way to Tacoma "not the most efficient use of tax dollars"
"The working poor are moving to South King County. ... These are the people who work in your hotels, drive your trucks," [Patterson] said. "To say that light rail should not go to South King County is almost unbelievable, coming from the Sierra Club."Patterson's hysterical attempt at class warfare turns the actual economic fairness of the boondoggle on its head -- it's not too hard to see that Sound Transit is essentially a corporate welfare program, subsidized by a regressive tax.
And of course the Sierra Club's O'Brien was right about inefficient use of tax dollars. See the Washington Policy Center blog for more: "The ten things you should know about "roads and transit"".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 21, 2007 11:49 AM | Email ThisSweeeeeeeeet!!
Posted by: ewaggin on September 21, 2007 11:53 AMI guess that didn't work, so now it's "working poor".
It's so nice to see liberal government getting rebuked by liberal special interest groups. Something very satisfying about that, especially regarding light rail. Bonus points for that.
Posted by: Palouse on September 21, 2007 01:34 PMLast week alone, 1.3 million Washingtonians in service sector jobs failed to show up for work at all, because there is no light rail to get them there. Another 800,000 had to hitchhike to work. Dozens were killed and hundreds badly burned in attempts to human-cannonball themselves to their job sites, because there is no light rail. A massive traffic backup was caused on I-5 last Tuesday by hundreds of fast food workers commuting to work via the two-man ankle roll (the poor man's alternative to rollerblades). This is a crisis! Scientists have proven that if we don't have light rail in Puget Sound by 2009, the mean surface temperature of the Earth will rise by 16 degrees Celsius, and we will all die of heat exhaustion, the affluent doing so while stuck in traffic, and the poor doing so while hauling more gasoline in jerry cans to build yet more powerful human cannons to try to get to work.
Posted by: TB on September 21, 2007 01:47 PMPoint #3 (sales taxes never end): It is a pretty big stretch to sale that they will "never" end. A more correct statement would be that there is no mechanism currently for ending the sales tax. The legislature (and or general population) could always decide to end the sales tax in the future. One cannot definitively state "never."
Point #6 (average $1,257 per household): This point is meant to jump out but doesn't spell out what it means or where all the taxes come from. Does this include all gas taxes, sales tax, special taxes (like Regional transportation taxes), etc.? Is it arrived at by dividing the total transportation budget by number of households? The point is the only accurate number is transportation budget, but even there businesses pay into the general fund and therefore, also pay a share of the transportation budget. To say that only households pay this amount is inaccurate.
Point #7 (Increase I-90 congestion): Anyone that throws increasing or decreasing congestion numbers around for some future date sure has a very good crystal ball. The proof is with the new Narrows bridge. The skeptics were quick to say that the backups were going to extend to Kitsap county due to the toll booths. Even the state got on the "crystal-ball" bandwagon and spent money to install ramp meters on several of the GH on-ramps. Well the backups didn't materialize, the ramp meters are never used, and in fact only on maybe return home from holiday weekends will all six tollbooths be used. The point is you just can't predict this to any accuracy at this point of time. It is a scare tactic.
This is the whole problem with this whole package. You have multiple sides trying to "scare" you one way or another. The only real facts is that traffic sucks and no one seems to have any better idea than anyone else how to solve. My preference would be to spend money on the true known problems today and not get too hung up on 40-50 years down the road. As long as one plans arterial routes properly, one can address the future when it comes. Where cities, counties, and states get into problem is with the lack of proper planning (e.g., like buying the proper right aways that would allow for expansion in the future). For example, all state highways should have a minimum right-away defined so that if needed they can be expanded to four to six lanes with turn lanes at proper intersections. All bridges and overpasses should be constructed so easy expansion can be made in the future. Cities need to designate major routes and make sure those routes have adequate easement to expand to boulevard standards (e.g., four lanes with turn lanes). Regular streets need to be defined to allow for two way traffic, parking, and turn-lanes (left and/or right) at intersections with arterials. Until cities, counties and the state do this work, one can not say where one needs light-rail or other high-density transportation systems. Let's get the priorities straight and work on the right things first.
Posted by: tc on September 21, 2007 02:28 PMAlso in the plans is a 520 bridge design that has been finally approved and we will need about 10 billion dollars more to start constructing the new bridge to replace the one that so tragically fell into the lake 3 years ago. The current design is one lane for buses and one lane for light rail. No plans to allow any cars on this new bridge. This bridge will be a key component for Phase 3 of light rail system and will be able to move even more people to work each day. I realize that the taxpayers have been frustrated with all these delays but we wanted to do it right the first time. THe last $5 Billion spent on planning is well worth the money.
Also we want to say again Mass Transit overall is underbudget on all projects. We are making our goal to keep the costs down with no waste"
Posted by: David Anfinrud on September 21, 2007 02:38 PMYou are absolutely correct to point out that the legislature (and or general population) could always decide to end the sales tax in the future. But, to say that it is a stretch is in and of itself a huge stretch. Other than any taxes that expired (without being renewed), just name one instance where legislature voluntarily ended any tax, let alone sales tax. It is even hard to come up with a single example of expiring taxes that were not renewed before its expiration. In this regard, "never" is probably about 99.99% correct statement.
Posted by: DopioLover on September 21, 2007 02:47 PMIf a local government has the right to impose a certain amount of tax, it can pledge that amount of tax as security for a bond. In that event, it would have the right to keep collecting that tax until it has taken in the amount it has a right to take in. That is because of the "contracts clause" of the constitution.
Posted by: cold water on September 21, 2007 03:25 PMWe are building our own infrastructure -- local.
We're going businesses.
We're rezoning to densify and create "walking communities", higher rising apartments.
Did you know that where I live, Somerset Apartments, is the 2nd densest area in population (2nd to Lower Queen Anne) in the whole Puget Sound.
We're tired of playing second fiddle to a bunch of puffed up mucky mucks in Seattle who's only claim to fame is sitting around on their ass.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 21, 2007 08:07 PMEvery transportation advocate must read those links
Posted by: Publicbulldog on September 21, 2007 10:41 PMFor a better analysis and more compelling reasons to vote NO, go to ;
http://www.truthabouttraffic.org
The MSM is aiding and abetting this by its silence.
If the taxpayers who would be on the hook due to this irresponsible scheme were businesses, no way would this measure come anywhere near the ballot. But because it is people who are hit by sales taxes, this nonesense is lurching, headless, toward a vote.
Posted by: John Doe on September 23, 2007 07:54 AMAnd besides there is so much more money available for my re-election campaign and post government lobbying career from big pocket construction than from middle class folk trying to maintain their status."
Posted by: Julie P. on September 23, 2007 03:41 PM