Out of respect for the opinions of the bulk of the readership, here are links to Washington Policy Center staffer - and fellow Slade Gorton School of Public Policy alumnus - Michael Ennis's assessment of Sound Transit's latest musings:
Sound Transit misleading voters, again
Sound Transit misleading voters, again (update)
Sound Transit misleading voters, again (update II)
The crux of his point is that Sound Transit should be obligated to lower its rate of taxation if a Phase 2 ballot measure is not approved by voters. That's an excellent point, though one would assume Sound Transit is likewise obligated to complete the projects approved in Phase 1 before doing so. I've asked Ennis that question and will post his response.
UPDATE: Ennis and I have had a productive email exchange. His position amounts to the assertion that based on the language he cites, Sound Transit must begin scaling down its tax collections regardless of the state of ongoing Phase 1 projects. Moreover, based on the surpluses accruing in some subareas (such as East King), Sound Transit should begin reducing taxes first in those subareas while existing tax rates it in place in others.
The former is an interesting lay reading of the law, though in the end it is just that. Sound Transit certainly has its flaws and its governance structure - including a lack of directly elected board members - leaves much to be desired. Yet, it seems a questionable legal proposition that the agency is obligated to take such actions prior to completing Phase 1.
The latter is a challenging issue as well. Sound Transit has obligations to the constituent, individual portions of its taxing district through the principle of subarea equity. Yet, it has broader fiduciary responsibility to its bondholders (which was part of the litigation over I-776) that potentially overrides subarea equity when the financial books are put to the test. As such, it would appear legally and logistically implausible for Sound Transit to implement a differentiated tax base while still building out Phase 1 projects.
If there are brighter legal minds than I who would like to disagree I would welcome hearing from such individuals via email (ericearling at gmail dot com) or in the comments.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 26, 2008 09:59 AM | Email ThisI can respect Ennis for at least spending a couple minutes scratching the surface of transportation planning basics, but in the end, two degrees in politics did not prepare him well enough to swim over to the deep end of the pool.
But true analysis isn't really what Ennis is after. He is a committed anti-government / anti-tax ideologue who won't even vote for pothole-filling in his own town of Enumclaw. I think that's just fine if Ennis wants to pursue a rigid, ideology-based approach to life. But he shouldn't expect many people (outside of the small Kemper/Stanton bubbl) to take him seriously.
Personally, I am a lot more likely to pay attention to the work of somebody or some think tank which prioritizes policy and analysis over a particular hardcore political doctrine.
Anybody and their brother can make up anything they want when it comes to transportation planning and analysis. But there are a few, basic accepted standards within the field that help ground the discussion and debate in reality. It's a shame Ennis doesn't bother with most industry standards.
Gotta go now - I'm going to stop by the UW Physics lab and ask somebody there if I could borrow their equipment to build this magic flying carpet I designed in my own head using my own unique methods of calculating gravity.
I'm sure Ennis and the rest of Kemper Feeman's pretendgineers would be happy to join me.
Posted by: JasonS on April 26, 2008 02:12 PMThat's why it was posted here inside the bubble.
Posted by: thehim on April 26, 2008 09:33 PMToday, almost 40 years later, the public has two additional, limited use lanes between the two cities, no light rail, and a lousy bus transit system to manage the exponential growth on the Eastside.
Since October 2006 I have used light rail and the bus systems for approximately 65% of my commutes between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue. (If the body-politic insists on forcing mass transit down my throat, I'm going to be an informed supporter OR critic.) The long and the short is mass transit, in Puget Sound, has a long way to go before it is a viable mode of transportation for more that 3-to-5% of the population. If you are making a living by selling your time, as I am, driving door-to-door in 45 minutes versus 2-plus hours is a no brainer. It is my observation that the greater majority riding the system today is not like me; time is obviously less important to them.
Clearly, during this 40 year timeframe, bureaucratic-induced "social re-engineering" stymied forward progress of the region's infrastructure. I was amused to see Beijing build the world's longest building in four years; here it would take twice that, or more, with the permitting process alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/13/wchina113.xml
So, as we watch our competitive advantage slip away, along with our standard of living, think back to the time spent arguing what are essential elements in our daily life and conduct of commerce. You'll have plenty of time as you gaze from the bus window...
Posted by: ClearView on April 27, 2008 08:32 AMEnnis' analsysis also made a mistake (first link) where he states that one of the proposals keeps the rate the same. While this may be technically true, it isn't the whole picture. Part of the issue with confusing nature of the last package was all the shifting of funds around with some of the current taxes being collected going to roads and some new, different taxes going to ST projects. The "shell game" so to speak was forced on the RTID and ST due to the legislature's mishandling of transportation in general and tieing thse two separate initiatives together. It was further conflated by the two boards, once forced to run a joint vote, co-mingling taxes in order to make sure both initiatives failed or suceeded together. It was a train wreck (pun intended) from the start.
It is looking like ST is proposing another wreck of a proposal now. What is wrong with just finishing the current plan? Can't any follow-on plans wait a few years? Right now, what is really needed is to get to work on the identified road projects that were in the RTID portion of the previous package.
Posted by: tc on April 27, 2008 04:16 PMThere are the exurbs...where "rail" is a chimera -- it can't possibly work for the densities.
There is Seattle...which is not the hub of commerce that Lib planners seem to have wanted it to be.
What is really happening is the exurbs are gaining power and may soon want to exert their authority over the "centralized" governing bodies.
That's why the triple headed hydra of Sims-Nickles-Gregoire have been scurrying to get a tax -- any tax -- on the exurbs. And by tax, that can also mean an unworkable public works project that drains the public coffers with no respite.
Posted by: John B ailo on April 27, 2008 08:34 PMThere is no legal mandate for a tax rollback. Quite the opposite is true, actually.
Ennis just wants to spend that transit dough on more freeways. Also known as money pits.
Posted by: marketforce on April 28, 2008 12:07 AMThe fact that the taxes were pledged by ST's board to bondholders didn't give the extra tax powers to ST, it was the courts.
Posted by: harold on April 28, 2008 12:40 PMYou are putting the cart before the horse. The first thing that happened was that the agency sold the bonds (in 1998). That is when it pledged the taxes for thirty years. The courts hadn't given it any extra taxing power at the time.
I think we are arguing about the same thing: both the promises to bondholders AND the courts saying that ST could pay as much tax revenue as needed for all the projects are two of the reasons ST never has to lower its tax rates.
Although it might do so, in the future.
Posted by: right on on April 28, 2008 12:45 PMThere are some thoughtful comments following Ennis' posts.
In particular, there is a discussion of your claim after the Update II post. The jist of it is that the courts were ruling only on the narrow issue of whether ST's scaling back of the light rail plan was a lawful deviation from the plan submitted to, and approved by, the voters.
The courts found the downsizing to be lawful, but they did not rule on the language that Ennis is talking about.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 28, 2008 12:52 PMThe real reason Sound Transit never has to reduce its tax rates is that the 1996 measure voters approved never gives any particular date that the taxes have to stop. The leaders who put that package together were wise, and they didn't want to tie the agency's hands in a way that would prevent it from serving the public.
The agency always has held the right to keep its taxes as high as it wanted as long as it wanted, plus, it can add projects if sufficient revenues are available (that has already happened, in each subarea).
All the courts did is reiterate all the power that ST already had, and the pledges to bondholders were well within its rights despite the excess revenues they will generate in all the subareas. It is what your neighbors wanted in 1996 - get over yourselves.
Posted by: Evergreen_Rails on April 28, 2008 12:54 PMThe state statutes (the RCW's) contemplate ST can keep its taxes going at the current levels forever.
Posted by: Anon., Esq. on April 28, 2008 01:02 PMNow we can't hold them to those promises. That's just how "free speech" works! There were plenty of opportunities for all the opponents to get their message out (about the limitless taxing). It was the marketplace of ideas, and ST's ideas won. Not that I like that, but there we are . . .
Posted by: spelunker on April 28, 2008 01:28 PMWell what's he going to do about it? SUE??? I don't think so.
That's the only way he could prove his point. If he really thinks the Transit is doing something wrong he has an obligation to bring it to a court of law. That is the only place for him to make his case, what he's doing now is just "whistling" into the wind.
Ennis and the WPC have deep pockets. If they really thought they had a case I'm sure they would have brought it already. The fact that they refuse shows they know what he is saying wouldn't even pass the smell test in court. They'd be thrown out, and probably sanctioned as well because of the precedents already on the books.
Time for Ennis to go back to trying to disprove global warming. Sheesh.
Posted by: Hootie on April 28, 2008 01:41 PMWhat Ennis should do is start using his time productively. I'm sure there's piles of waste and fraud going on in the WSDOT projects up and down I-405. Lots of wiggle room in a $12 billioin project like that. Think he'll spend any time looking into that? Not a chance - he's just going to clang his anti-transit bell until it falls apart.
Posted by: realist on April 28, 2008 02:07 PMThe point is, it is premature for Mike Ennis to expect the board will call for a rate reduction now. The agency does not have enough "in the bank" to reduce the tax rates - much remains to be done to fulfill its obligations to the public. The board is aware of this, and when it does make a decision it will do so in a prudent manner with the interests of taxpayers foremost.