I-912, the proposed "No New Gas Tax" Initiative now has a ballot title:
This measure would repeal vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents, 3 cents, 2 cents, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively, enacted in 2005 for transportation purposes. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 20, 2005 05:18 PM | Email ThisBallot Measure Summary
This measure would repeal a series of increases in the motor vehicle fuel tax enacted by the 2005 session of the Legislature. The 2005 enactment provides that the motor vehicle fuel tax rate would increase by three cents per gallon on July 1, 2005, by three cents more in 2006, by two cents more in 2007, and by one and one-half cents per gallon more in 2008. The measure includes liberal construction and severability provisions.
1. Freeze Property Taxes at 2000 levels (california prop 13)
2. Compensate property owners for property taken by legislation (Oregon Prop 37)
3. Recall the Gov. Fraudoire (california has done this why can't we follow the lead)
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on May 20, 2005 05:26 PM4.) End the prevailing wage for government projects.
5.) Stop allowing workers that work for two months, get three months off, and then begin a new two month project from receiving unemployment benefits during their three months off. This is standard for contract employees that work refinery shut-downs. I have three friends currently doing this and they make excellent money...and have their "vacations" subsidized.
Posted by: Mark D on May 20, 2005 05:40 PMThey used to take the full five days when Christine Gregoire was running the AG's office, especially if the initiative or referendum was something that Gregoire opposed. It is nice to see that Rob McKenna is trying a lot harder to make the direct democracy process work by not needlessly delaying matters.
Unfortunately, the process can be delayed up to two weeks more by someone suing about the ballot title and summary.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 20, 2005 05:44 PM7) Sales tax does not apply to construction materials (allowing a 8.5% kickback to the general fund).
Posted by: Dogbert on May 20, 2005 05:44 PM9) No transportation money shall be used to subsidize mass transit.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 20, 2005 05:48 PM11) All projects shall be audited by an independent accounting firm.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 20, 2005 05:49 PM13) All transportation projects shall result in an increase of capacity.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 20, 2005 05:52 PMWhat does this clause mean?
Posted by: jeremy on May 20, 2005 06:32 PMThis is essential if we are to have any form of private property. The "wetland" land grab is unbelievable. Wetland... old Puyallup indian word for "lousy drainage".
Posted by: Huey on May 20, 2005 07:33 PMI know they think they are punishing Excursion and Humvee drivers, but this is screwing small business (ie people who really do need 1-ton pick up trucks and cube vans).
Posted by: Andy on May 20, 2005 09:16 PMI can't think of a legitimate emergency that wouldn't get 2/3 vote.
I'm sure I could use the word "mischief" and "prevention" to describe this legislation too.
Posted by: Andy on May 20, 2005 09:19 PM#23 re-register all voters with a real proof of citizenship, and showing a picture id that shows the correct name, current address when voting.
Posted by: C. Oh on May 20, 2005 09:56 PMI think
a) there is a need for highway improvements.
b) I'm sure WSDOT is not perfectly run, but I don't think the "waste" is more than 5% - and WSDOT's budget is about 4 billion (operating plus capital budget), so that would be $200 million a year. Nowhere near sufficient to pay for the highway improvements (405, 520, Viaduct, 167, etc, etc.) I think are necessary. That isn't to say the waste shouldn't be eliminated, if it is present - but it can't be the whole solution.
c) Hardly seems fair to require all highway improvements benefit people who vote one way or another. If people really want a Sound Transit like subarea equity across the state, then road budgets everywhere but King County would likely be cut.
If none of the above, and you agree more spending is necessary, why the opposition to the gas tax?
Posted by: Peter Carlin on May 20, 2005 10:51 PMBetween this Governors Race contest, GMA, wasteful spending on planning, re-planning and re-re-planning PLUS a lot of other KingCo lead "wet dreams" a lot of folks around the State want to give Seattle the BIG MIDDLE DIGIT!!
There are many ways for Seattle to address these WANTS...privatize projects using tolls being one option that has worked in Orlando and many other communities.
Lastly, the Alaska Way project is an "asthetic fix" to a problem that is not as big of a problem as the LEFTIST PINHEADS have lead us to believe. They want a beautified waterfront Peter. And they want the entire State to pay for it.
How's that for starters?
You asked Peter...
Being efficient is not the same as being effective.
Efficiency means that nothing is wasted. Effectiveness means that goals are accomplished.
Regardless of how efficient the WSDOT is, they are not effective in solving traffic problems here in Washington state.
Why do I believe the WSDOT is ineffective? Here is why:
1) Multiple environmental studies are undertaken when a dose of common sense would suffice.
2) Unions are placated while the common good is ignored.
I remember a construction project I saw (in another state). The machines were lined up, one after another. At one end there was dirt. At the other end there was pavement. Not too complicated.
Contrast with Washington state. Projects here seem to be on the order of patching potholes and retrofiting existing roads with curbs to capture storm water for treatment.
The solution becomes simple, once environmental concerns are properly addressed and unions are made to compete with the free market:
* eliminate Sound Transit (immediately save millions)
* eliminate HOV lanes (immediately increase effective road miles)
* convert dead ends to connecting roads (immediately relieve pressure from choke points)
* add road miles across the state (increase capacity for the future)
Four billion buys a lot of pavement.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on May 21, 2005 12:46 AMA START on the viaduct, 520, and other projects... ALL of which are just concepts, Nobody has even drawn up plans yet! If you would bother to read the legslation you will find that it is full of fanciful ideas and concepts, there is nothing concrete! In addition, all of it is moot unless the local districts come up with more monies to complete the projects. If the local districts do not come up with the monies they have the right to reallocate funds to other projects or for other needs....
Translation: We need more money for our social welfare agenda and this is how we can dupe the public into paying for it! It is nothing but a bait and switch plan.
There is also a lot of mumbo-jumbo about what kind of projects it would pay for, translation...more HOV lanes, bike trails, light rail lines.
This is not my idea fo how to "fix" our transportation problems!
Solution:
LANES, NOT TRAINS...USE YOUR BRAINS!
Posted by: Steve on May 21, 2005 10:13 AMThose petitions will fill up fast where I live!
Posted by: Deborah on May 21, 2005 12:53 PMToo bad it won't be enough. This initiative is doomed. The campaign is lousy. It started way too late. It can't get its facts straight. And it is being run by some of the biggest blow hards in the state.
Can someone credible emerge to run this?
Posted by: todd on May 24, 2005 07:42 AMToo bad it won't be enough. This initiative is doomed. The campaign is lousy. It started way too late. It can't get its facts straight. And it is being run by some of the biggest blow hards in the state.
Can someone credible emerge to run this?
Posted by: todd on May 24, 2005 07:43 AMYour gas tax dollars fund the State Patrol, including their drug lab and the Governor's security detail. How does that square with the constitutional requirement that gas tax is to pay for transportation?
Not to mention the $105 you have to put up every time someone gets on one of those damned trains! You could buy those riders their own car and pay for the gas and save millions!
WSDOT doesn't need any more money, they need the felons running the place behind bars.
Posted by: deforddk on June 3, 2005 11:43 PM