Today's Seattle Times editorial slams the No New Gas Tax initiative -- "I-912 is backward policy on roads", concluding
Don't sign this initiative and don't support it. It is backward public policy.Given the history of the Times' mostly brain-dead editorial board on other public policy issues, such a strong statement telling you not to sign an initiative is all you should need to know to not only sign it, but also hit the streets with a petition to collect signatures, as I'll be doing later today.
What's the Times main objection to I-912?
The new gas-tax package dedicates $2 billion to replace the viaduct, an investment a forward-looking community ought to make.In reality, there's no working plan for either fixing or replacing the viaduct, yet the Times thinks it's good public policy to dedicate $2 billion for something that doesn't exist yet? Yeah, whatever, dudes. Call me when there's a plan for the Viaduct on the table, and I'll decide whether it's worth paying for. Until then, I'll ignore the Times increasingly shrill and irrelevant editorial page and do what I can to support the No New Gas Tax campaign. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 16, 2005 10:15 AM | Email This
Real Washington residents who buy gas to drive cars and trucks to and for productive work, are the folks for whom this I-912wa s written. These real Washingtonions are actually concerned with how our tax dollars are spent, and won't be giving the Seattle Times' opinion a second thought.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 16, 2005 10:30 AMWhich is really funny. It shows that they know what we know: If it makes the ballot, it passes.
Anyhow, I'm doing my small part. I've got 8 signatures so far. I'll be sure to at least collect my 40.
Posted by: Cliff on June 16, 2005 10:36 AMThe Seattle Times is showing their financial desperation by schmoozing with the liberals on every one of their anti-citizen issues! I guess the pay-offs flow from the left.....
Perhaps it's time to audit the Blethen family! They are in a unique position to influence public opinion - and in doing so - can influence their investments.
What a racket!
Maybe there is more to this RICO stuff than just King County!
Posted by: Deborah on June 16, 2005 10:36 AMHe'll be with me as I collect more signatures on this inititive.
Posted by: GS on June 16, 2005 10:41 AMWhy not let your dog piddle there; the Times' editorial staff does.
Posted by: Amused by liberal Putzes on June 16, 2005 10:46 AMThis gas tax doesn't fund ANY construction on the Viaduct. It will cost BILLIONS more than what is being allocated from this tax. As Stefan points out, there is absolutely no plan or construction schedule yet. The Demos plan on hitting up Seattle residents for the balance in a few years and then start construction (between that tax and the monorail tax, Seattle really IS the Emerald City, "Ignore the man behind the curtain").
So Scott, before you parrot any more liberal propaganda, check the FACTS. What you have here is higher taxes and the Viaduct still falls down in an earthquake. That's CG's "strong leadership" for you. My advice: stay away form the Viaduct and sign the I-912 petition.
Posted by: On the Far Right Side of the State on June 16, 2005 10:55 AMTHAT is not the plan. The plan?
THERE IS NO PLAN. D'oh!
So let's pay a few mil to talk about what we'll do...and then maybe there will be an actual plan which, by the way, will cost even more since by then we will have spent the $$$ on surveys, think tanks and basically a lot of hot air.
What other public works project does this sound like?
Posted by: smoke on June 16, 2005 11:00 AMFunny story: Had an "Anyone but Bush" person come to my door prior to the 2004 election and to his credit, he was very polite. Told him I was a Bush supporter and sent him on his way. My neighborhood streets are somewhat winding so an hour later, same fellow rings my doorbell, recognizing it's the same guy, I said "Sorry, still Republican". We laughed and talked a bit. Told me 90% of my neighbors are also Republicans.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 16, 2005 11:04 AMThose are EXACTLY the questions we should ask! Let's see the actual plan (and real costs!).
"...invest in ROADS..."
NOT light rail (the train version of "lite" beer),
NOT monorails (talk about one-track mind!)
NOT sussidies for bicycle paths..
Of course I'm speaking as a NON-Seattlite whose only connection with Seattle is the taxes sucked out of my wallet to pay for their latest boondoggle!
That all is beside the point, however. It's high time we stop trying to build our way out of congestion. Any roads we build just fill up.
It's time we stop worshipping at the feet of the highway lobby and do what makes sense. Seattle can show a commitment to progressive principles by committing to mass transit. There's no need to subsidize SUV driving soccer moms by spending tax money on roads. Seattle has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead the region in giving up the single occupant vehicle.
No replacement for the viaduct! Replace the concrete with gardens!
Posted by: South County on June 16, 2005 11:17 AMI cross the old bridge daily (reverse commute), and to this day, I am mystified how it ever got approved.
It's a bridge that cost more than triple of what voters foolishly approved and only adds one commuter lane each direction. Oh, and as an added bonus, there are TOLLS.
Leadership in Oly has to change. Ignorance isn't bliss when the majority don't learn from it.
Posted by: Brent on June 16, 2005 11:17 AMI painted up a sign and when the paint drys this PM I'll put the petition on a table at the end of the driveway to hit the local commuters. I'll also try leaving it on the tail gate of the truck when I park at stores etc.
There is no doubt of that...
If you have people signing a few clipboards of petitions at a time keep your eyes on them at all times!
Posted by: Joe on June 16, 2005 11:21 AMThe state-wide gas tax is a joke. People who live in Spokane, Yakima, and Walla-Walla don't commute in Seattle. I feel bad for them and all those who don't use any of those roads. If the people really want those roads improved, then impose TOLLS on those who use the roads, not everyone else.
Posted by: Kiddo on June 16, 2005 11:30 AMYes Joe, I think your right on the vigilance thing. As great as it would be Andy to leave some on your tailgate, I fear that it may be counter productive as some prick would probably swipe it and you would lose all signatures that were on it.
The funding provided by the new gas tax is only a down payment on a project with no plan. And, guess what, once there is a plan, there will still be no new viaduct unless you tax yourself again.
I'm hitting Titleist. Let me know if you find mine back there.
Posted by: Danny on June 16, 2005 12:44 PMCost of petitions - $20.00 on Debit Mastercard
Cost of Postage - $10.00 on Debit Mastercard
Look on Queen Christine's face and her legislative buddies when I-912 passes - PRICELESS
When taxpayers want to have accountability and performance audits of WA transportation (with a proven dismal audit record) the editorial tone turns sour and browbeats us for not handing over blank checks. What works for the Times' own financial controls should work equally for ANY state. As the Bronx kid said, "Who you kiddin'??"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 16, 2005 01:02 PMAnd that coming from an avowed train nut. At least I buy my "trains" at a hobby shop with my own money!
Don't forget that license fees, car weight fees, and other fees are going up as well. All part of the package brought to us by Olympia's best and brightest!
Posted by: Victor on June 16, 2005 01:07 PMHere's a copy of his column:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945/
By the way, I took a few journalism courses in college in teh mid-80s and I still remember my professor dismissing some of my quotes. "We don't need to hear from people like that," he wrote on my paper.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 16, 2005 01:32 PMThe Alaskan Way Viaduct project is an Asthetic Seattle Waterfront project disguised as a transportation emergency. They want the rest of the State to pay for a beautiful waterfront. They have INTENTIONALLY understated cost estimates and will do the typical LEFTIST PINHEAD bait-and-switch with the scope of this boondoggle project broadening AFTER we are stupid enough to pay to start it. Screw these a$$holes in Seattle. They have spent literally hundreds of millions planning, re-planning and re-re-planning. ALL PROCESS....NO PRODUCT!
Vote YES on I-912!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 16, 2005 01:34 PMI have a couple of petitions to fill. I live in Sammamish and work near the Museum of Flight. Drop me a line if you can't find one to sign.
Posted by: Tucker on June 16, 2005 02:01 PMShe ACTUALLY said to me that she didn't trust the will of the people.... she put her trust in the politicians that get paid to think these things through for her.
I offered to buy her a glass of kool-aide since there was nothing else I could do.
Sooo sad!!!
Bob
Posted by: Bob on June 16, 2005 02:09 PMGone to the dark side, that one has.....
Posted by: Dogbert on June 16, 2005 02:27 PMIf you live in the Lakemont area in Bellevue, drop me a note with your address or place to meet in the evening, and I will be there.
Posted by: C. Oh on June 16, 2005 02:47 PMThey want to talk about irresponsible? Hey, there's plenty of irresponsibility going on with this bill. They say roads but forget to tell people that almost a billion goes to Sound Transit. hmmmm
They want us to shell out for a viaduct that hasn't even been planned or designed yet. Let me tell you---just try to go into a bank and get a loan for a project not yet designed. They will laugh you out of the joint.
But THEY want us to give money up front for something not even designed and planned out yet? THAT would be irresponsible. No way are we obligated to be dumber than a smart bank would be. (and I'm NOT talkin' about the Bank of Ron Sims, either)
Posted by: Michele on June 16, 2005 03:00 PMopinion@seattletimes.com
Must include name/address/contact phone.
Posted by: Palouse on June 16, 2005 03:17 PMIt's called the Tunnel of Love!
It's Nuckels' testament to his largesse. He wants to have something named after him.
Of course, it will be full of water most of the time and cost $20 billion when all is said and done. But, hey, since when did $ get in the way of "vision."
If the innitiative goes through, though, we should do another innitiative for erecting a large donut statue, named "the Nickels Donut."
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 16, 2005 03:31 PMI am for fair use taxes. The people who use the roads will pay for them. The people who use public transit will pay for Sound Transit. With all the money they collect from motorists, there should be no potholes or traffic jams.
Posted by: William on June 16, 2005 03:36 PMCongratulations on your citizenship. I for one am proud to have you as a part of a people who care about others and will go the extra mile to make something right. As we say to those who are willing to work and improve the quality of lives for others. You are a great American.
a new citizen who is taking democracy and the initiative process seriously, and doing something about inept career bureaucrats and tax&spend bloodsuckers? I love it. Thanks for doing something, instead of sitting back and doing nothing. I'm glad some good came out of the 3rd King County vote count.
Posted by: Elliott Johnson on June 16, 2005 06:03 PMNeither paper is worth reading IMO. Picked up 10 Petitions today. Your going down OLY!
Posted by: Daryl on June 16, 2005 06:34 PMPerhaps the bills will be amassed with all the other 632 future pending "emergency" bills (if we let things continue.) Lord help us if these folks are charged with civil defense from a terrorist act!
Send them a messsage. We the people...
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 16, 2005 07:22 PMMore backward thinking from Shark, but then again Shark just doesn't understand the concept of planning, and shows himself to be a hypocrite when he condemns policy making that has to be predicated on future income to pay for infrastructure, while denouncing policy making that looks to secure that funding before building infrastucture. Shark wants it all for free.
Shark also conveniently disregards the fact that dozens of projects all over the state need this money. It isn't just going to benefit the Viaduct replacement needs. For a breakdown by county go here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1467D8A9-AD9B-48B5-A26D-36110E911F3B/0/2005ProjectsByCounty.pdf
Simply put, Shark ignores the 52 pages of projects statewide that this initiative looks to kill.
Shark also seems to believe that you shouldn't raise money for road work projects by having the users of roads pay for them. He seems to believe it is fine for people who never drive a car to bare an equal burden as the person who drives their car for every small errand they have.
Shark also fails to tell you that raising money via a small gas tax will appropriately place the lion's share of the funding burden on the urban areas of the state that consume more gas and have the majority of the infrastructure needs.
Not just backward thinking, but predictably dishonest.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 16, 2005 07:41 PMExactly. We all know it will cost more than $2 billion, so it is very important we start putting together the funding for it now. This is a big, and important first step, and one that will help make the work a reality, and not just a pipe dream.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 16, 2005 07:47 PMAnd more to the point, why should those of us in Spokane pay for King County's duck?
Posted by: ScottM on June 16, 2005 08:20 PMI tell you what Daniel K., if the VIADUCT is so damn dangerous (as you and the other PINHEADS allege), why are you blogging. Round up a bunch of your unwashed hippie pals and the SEATTLE LEFTIST ELITE with their wire-rim glasses and $1500 bicycles and get your lazy a$$es down to the VIADUCT and take turns holding it up! You morons have more time on your hands than brains in your head...it's a perfect project. I figure about 30,000 of you LEFTIST PINHEADS ought to be enough. 10,000 on each 8-hr. shift. Oh, I forgot, you will insist on mandatory 15-minute latte breaks every hour. And then of curse there is "bonding time" where each of you PINHEADS can speak openly about what is in your heart and how evil America is.
Well, I suppose it will take about 300,000 of you PINHEADS to do a job that 30,000 ought to be able to do.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 16, 2005 09:14 PMWait--cart before horse--Do you "spend first" in the mall and check your bank balance later? The DOT is riddled with almost 20 years of BAD financial audits. Do YOU give your spendthrift / loser relative MORE money to get himself into a bigger jam?
Come on. Common sense. The gas tax thing is a symptom of the taxpayers' (larger) concerns of dumping money as the solution. We want accountability, results and honest "studies." If it can't be done, say so. Don't yank our collective chain. We are all adults. We all pay bills at home. It's that simple--and profound.
Taxpayers, (I think) here and in Eastern WA, don't mind paying taxes for effective, efficient projects that are WITHIN budget--even if not in our districts. Tell us--we are smart enough to decide 'yes' or 'no.' Just don't 'hose' us around (you legislators) with the 'you know best' attitude. We respect integrity. Just do your job.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 16, 2005 09:43 PM
Wonder why Mayor Nichols wants a tunnel replacing the viaduct? Could it be that the Seattle Sea Wall must be replaced. Conveniently the west wall of the tunnel could replace the Sea Wall. That way the folks all around the state can spend transportation $$ for a Seattle project not connected with transportation.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Bwanafriend on June 16, 2005 09:52 PMDon't you understand that the gas tax affects us in rural Eastern Washington more than the urban areas? We have no mass transit options available, and based on larger distances between towns, people drive more. So while the urban areas may pay more taxes net, we pay more per capita. Then when you throw in the fact that our goods have to be trucked in over longer distances, those extra costs will be passed along to us by retailers as well. A double whammy. And for what? I'm glad you posted that link to the DOT site. I can use that to generate dozens more petition signatures here in Pullman. What do we get for our extra 9.5 cents a gallon? To paraphrase Charlie Babbit in Rain Man: "Guardrails. We definitely got guardrails." And you think this is fair?
As far as the Viaduct goes, I could give a rip if it drops into Elliott Bay tomorrow. But what kind of twisted logic is it to spread fear and panic that the condition of the Viaduct is an "emergency", but not fully fund it or have a plan or timetable. Kind of like your house is burning down, but thank God they made a downpayment on that new fire engine. Ought to be here in 10 years or so. Maybe. If you cough up even more money later.
This tax increase is nothing more than a political payoff to the unions and contractors that helped Queen Christine steal the election. Nothing more, nothing less. Kiss it goodbye in November.
Posted by: On the Far Right Side of the State on June 16, 2005 09:53 PMGood going! Go Whitman County.
Posted by: 4pawz on June 16, 2005 10:54 PMI'm not against the viaduct. But if Seattle wants it, then Seattle can pay for it.
Living in Vancouver, it would be nice and convenient if Portland's Lightrail train could make the extra three or four mile jump across the Columbia River to our city, especially since the two cities are pretty much tied together anyway now. But the citizens of the entire state have voted against it because it would only serve Vancouver, not the entire state of Washington. If Seattle wants it, they can pay for it on their dime, not mine.
Posted by: JRR on June 17, 2005 12:30 AMRich, go here, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1467D8A9-AD9B-48B5-A26D-36110E911F3B/0/2005ProjectsByCounty.pdf, to see a list of the myriad of projects all over the state that this transportation bill aims to fund.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 10:24 AMRobert, you are correct, without adequate initial funding, the Feds will not chip in, which makes raising this money very important. As for the plans everyone here keeps clamoring for, you can read about them here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct/. Cost estimates are for at least $4.1 billion.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 10:29 AMThat's debatable. I've read that 40% of the state's gas consumption is in King county, while the county only makes up 30% of the state's population.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 10:37 AMWhere's the rest of the money for the tunnel going to come from? Where the rest of the money for 520 going to come from? Where is the rest of the money to expand I-405 on the eastside going to come from (only a tiny $150 million was allocated for this multi-billion dollar project).
This transportation plan is a blank check request.
Posted by: Palouse on June 17, 2005 10:38 AMI will repeat this ad infinitum...
If there is an earthquake large enough to take down the Alaskan Way Viaduct, it will also take down thousands of houses and downtown buildings. Downtown Seattle is built on J-E-L-L-O!!
Saltherring is right..
You LEFTIST PINHEADS will reap what you have sown!
No one outside of Hardcore LEFTIST PINHEAD Seattle trusts you A$$holes.
Just like Chicken Little telling us "the sky is falling", your ILLEGITIMATE Governor and her comrades have worn out the word "EMERGENCY"
Gregoire and her ilk===Chicken Little's!!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 17, 2005 10:42 AMRobert, when you ask about Sound Transit, are you referring to the light rail project? Or are you referring to the agency that oversees the general Puget Sound area public transportation system, which includes dozens of different projects?
The light rail project is not funded by any part of this transportation bill.
So, please indicate where you come up with your $1 billion figure.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 10:51 AMNo I don't. I wrote that the cost estimates are for at least $4.1 billion. While I sympathize with your concerns that this could be a "Big Dig" type project, it won't come close to the size and scope of the Big Dig in Boston which was a huge project compared to this. But it will be expensive, and it will probably cost more than the current estimates, which is why it is important to start allocating funds for the project, and why $2 billion is not money that won't be needed.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 11:12 AMThere isn't a bank in the world that would grant you that loan. Yet the legislature has in effect taken that money from the people and asked us to "trust them" with it. Why should we be paying for a tunnel when replacing the viaduct is cheaper? If the viaduct is going to fall down, then tear it down now and move cars to surface streets. There are many MUCH cheaper options available.
But the point is not that government could not use the money now. Of course they can. There's a lot of really good sounding projects they can use billions of our tax dollars for...the point is whether they are being fiscally prudent with our money and prioritizing their CURRENT budget of tax revenue correctly. They aren't.
Posted by: Palouse on June 17, 2005 11:21 AMWhat isn't debatable, Daniel, is what I said about the per capita impact of this unfair gas tax.
According the US Census Bureau, King County has a population of 1,761,411, Whitman County's population is 40,702.
Based on the WSDOT plan, King County will receive $4,058,800,000 from the gas tax. Whitman County will receive $9,000,000. That breaks down to $2,304.29 per King County resident and only $221.12 per Whitman County resident. I guess if you live in King County, you are 10 times more important than me. Certainly to the Democrats anyway.
Despite our size, we have many important transportation needs, some which were supposed to be funded by the LAST gas tax increase and haven't seen the light of day yet. See here for details: http://www.palouse.org/rtpo/Palouse%20Regional%20Transportation%20Plan%20Final.pdf How many of those are listed in the current WSDOT gas tax plan?
Your blog says that you are a "concerned American troubled by the direction this nation is heading - politically, economically, socially and morally". Does this trouble you? Now do you understand why we in Eastern Washington are against this damn gas tax?
Surely must have been a typo. Or?? Perhaps they think we are to dumb to see the scam. Besides, there are 4 new Spokane Class ferries in the mill, funding secured. How did the Hyak suddenly need replacement? An oversight when they ordered the 4 new ones recently?
Posted by: bwanafriend on June 17, 2005 01:30 PMHowever, the entry for the Hyak ferry is listed for $66.4 million, not $300 million. If you look at this document, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8F60D669-4335-45F5-9A65-E017D8C241FD/0/2005ProjectsStatewide.pdf, which lists the projects another way, you will see that this project is classified as "Systemwide". Rather than think scam, it seems all the more likely that the program that produced the county by county report mis-allocated "Systemwide" after the "Stevens" list.
But that doesn't sound as sexy as your conspiracy theory, or your concocted $300 million figure.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 02:12 PMFirstly, please note that the county by county breakdown will show a project multiple times if it straddles counties. So, for example, the project "State Highways in Whitman and South Spokane Counties - Roadside Safety
Improvements" is listed under both Whitman and Spokane county. So the totals in the county by county list will add up to greater than the grand total for all projects. See the other list at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1467D8A9-AD9B-48B5-A26D-36110E911F3B/0/2005ProjectsByCounty.pdf for a breakdown by project.
Secondly, the gas tax will only go toward road and highway projects. You make no such distinction.
As for your assertion that the infrastructure needs in urban areas mean that those living there are more important, the answer is no, there are just more projects in those areas, and this area was hit by an earthquake. Furthermore, If you don't like to fund these project via gas consumption, how would you propose doing so?
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2005 02:47 PMPlease, that "road safety" project is only $1 million. It's not even worth considering.
Daniel K wrote: "Secondly, the gas tax will only go toward road and highway projects. You make no such distinction."
Of course I meant road and highway projects. Look at Page 9 here: http://www.palouse.org/rtpo/table8.pdf
It lists $172.71 million in road and highway projects, only $26.75 million of which is funded. Notice you don't find any mention of the bridges in Colfax and Oakesdale where $8 million of the new gas tax $9 million is earmarked. These are critical needs we are missing out on. People are dying on thse narrow roads and they give us stinking bridges.
Daniel K wrote: Furthermore, If you don't like to fund these project via gas consumption, how would you propose doing so?
Isn't it obvious? Run the numbers. For every gallon of gas I purchase, 5.4 cents will go to King County and 1/100th of a cent will stay here in Whitman County. Hmmmmmm. Again, do you think this fair, earthquakes or not (give me a break)? Oh sure, as you and Queen Christine love to trumpet, every county in the state benefits. But what is my ROI? Guardrails and two bridges I don't even cross. What a preposterous and denigrating argument.
Either make the gas tax proportional by county or use the magic word: TOLLS!!! You people want a new viaduct and floating bridge, then let the those who drive on it subsidize it. Not us. You libs don't like cars anyway. Seems like the perfect solution. Meanwhile, I am going to get more petition signatures.
I really, really, really hate all you latte drinking Seattle liberals. I truly do.
Actually, tolls will be a big part of the additional funding for these projects. Read the bill.
"These are critical needs we are missing out on. People are dying on thse narrow roads and they give us stinking bridges."
And you don't think your vote against any kind of solution affects such things? Keep voting against improved infrastructure and better roads and you'll simply keep all of these critical projects from being funded.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 18, 2005 11:56 PMWhy are you so in love with taxes? Why aren't tolls the first measure taken, in conjunction with local tax levies. A statewide tax that feeds 5.4 cents from every gallon of gas purchased to King County is wrong-headed, unfair, and soon to be null and void.
Daniel K wrote: "And you don't think your vote against any kind of solution affects such things? Keep voting against improved infrastructure and better roads and you'll simply keep all of these critical projects from being funded."
You libeal brahmins are so obtuse and pig-headed. Why don't YOU read the bill? Whitman County gets a measly $8 million for two bridges while the highway I was referring to, US 195, which requires millions and millions more than that, is not even on the list of WSDOT projects for this tax. When only 1/100th of a cent from this tax gets to stay at home, you're damn right I'm going to vote against this and any other tax like it. As soon as there is a tax that doesn't favor you arrogant Seattleites and your urban Utopia ideas, I'll vote for it. But I won't hold my breath. You are so out of touch and living in your own little la-la-latte land, you can't begin to see the truth out there beyond Snoqualmie Pass.
Posted by: On the Far Right Side of the State on June 19, 2005 12:22 PMThere is no "logic" to his screed because he is just simple-mindedly knee jerk.
Keep the faith and don't forget that not everyone on the left side of the hill is a loony!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 19, 2005 01:23 PMNot a few liberals and progressives who are tired of road-centric transportation budgeting in the largest city/urban area are supporting I-912
Posted by: InSeattle on September 24, 2005 10:35 AM