The No New Gas Tax campaign turned in over 230,000 signatures today. A lot more petitions are coming back to the campaign and will be turned in to the SoS on Friday. Even net of rejected signatures, there should be more than enough to make the ballot. Campaign spokesman Brett Bader is quoted in the article:
"This is another example of the fact that Olympia is disconnected from citizens and the rest of the state,"The daily newspapers are as disconnected from the citizens as the government is. Thursday's P-I : "Gas Tax: Repeal exposes fault lines"
By November, however, a clear plurality of voters, led by those in the most populous counties of Western Washington, should have developed to reject the gas tax repeal and the damaging backward step it represents.We'll see.
I turned my signed petitions in to the campaign this afternoon. It's now past the mail-in deadline. Bring any signed petitions to any collection point by end of day Thursday. Or to campaign HQ in Kirkland by 10am Friday.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 06, 2005 09:35 PM | Email ThisUmmm, does the PI have to report as a contribution the value to the anti-I-912 campaign of that editorial?
Posted by: Mike H on July 6, 2005 09:46 PMPS: none of you interested in hanging with Stefan Kirby and Rob on the 16th?
What a bunch of stuffed shirts you are
J/K ,would really like to see some of you up here
Had not heard about anything on the 16th. What's the deal?
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 6, 2005 10:10 PMBy November, voters will have had months to get used to paying the first 3-cent step in the gas tax increase. Projects will be in the pipeline, and by Election Day it should be clear to voters just how much getting those three pennies back would cost them.
The editorial doesn't mention the forthcoming litigation wherein the State will be asked to hold off collecting the tax and bonding projects until the voters have their say. They also miss the point that it isn't just the tax how the tax will be used that has folks cheesed, it's how it was passed (i.e., at the last minute and as an "emergency" ordered by Queen "I won't raise the gas tax" Christine).
Posted by: SheriJo on July 6, 2005 10:13 PMHow people vote in November is entirely up to them, the real victory is allowing citizens to be heard.
Posted by: dl on July 6, 2005 10:23 PMThis reminds me of a 4th season Babylon 5 episode, which dealt with the concept of "good facts" vs "real facts". "Good Facts" support the current political administration but may conflict with "Real Facts". So the way to get the public to believe the good facts is you have to lie, often. Something that seems to come naturally to liberals.
Posted by: Mike P on July 6, 2005 10:28 PMMichele, I agree, as much as I'm excited to send a message to Christine with I-912, I'm even more excited that I will actually be able to breath if I choose to play pool, or go bowling, or go to a bar, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 6, 2005 10:59 PMAs much as I hate the Democratic leadership in Washington state, and as much as I hate the inefficiency, you absolutely cannot repeal the gas tax.
Please think objectively outside of general Republican ideology. Without this gas tax, the decrepit 520 and Alaskan Way Viaduct are in seriously bad shape. Why in the world should we wait for an earthquake to destroy them?
Seriously everybody. We may not like taxes or the leadership, but the gas tax is just plain necessary for the infrastructure and safety of the state.
Think about it. Repealing this will be detrimental.
Posted by: nathan on July 6, 2005 11:10 PMAs much as I hate the Democratic leadership in Washington state, and as much as I hate the inefficiency, you absolutely cannot repeal the gas tax.
Please think objectively outside of general Republican ideology. Without this gas tax, the decrepit 520 and Alaskan Way Viaduct are in seriously bad shape. Why in the world should we wait for an earthquake to destroy them?
Seriously everybody. We may not like taxes or the leadership, but the gas tax is just plain necessary for the infrastructure and safety of the state.
Think about it. Repealing this will be detrimental.
Posted by: nathan on July 6, 2005 11:10 PM30.00 a plate, steak or salmon or vegetarian
If you are interested there is a link of the details and you can contact me
Jim
How can Washington make its gasoline tax more than 20% higher than anywhere else in the nation, but still have far less than half the money needed for such supposedly critical projects as the Alaskan Way viaduct, the SR 520 bridge, I-405 improvements, and SR 167 improvements?
Something just doesn't make any sense here. It is the same mentality that (almost?) brought us the Conorail fiasco. I don't trust the state leadership one iota, especially the Governor.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 6, 2005 11:27 PMHow many petitions do you think I-912 will turn in?
A. 250,000 - 275,000
B. 275,001 - 300,000
C. 300,001 - 325,000
D. 325,001 - 350,000
E. 350,001 - 375,000
F. 375,001 - 400,000
G. 400,001 - 450,000
H. 450,001 - 500,000
The same AP wire story will be printed in tomorrow's actual P-I, but they cut out the last few paragraphs. The story still says that I filed a complaint about Keep Rolling Washington's erroneous list of supporters, but leaves out much of the explanation of what they did:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/231597_initiative07.html?dpfrom=thead
Maybe the media will pick up one of these days on how nearly 2/3 of the businesses and organizations that Keep Rolling Washington originally listed as its supporters had never authorized their names to be used.
As for Rick @ 11:54 p.m., my prediction is B 275,001 to 300,000 signatures for I-912.
The problem is, Seattle has the worst transportation in the country. We are one of the only major functioning cities in the world without a solid public transit (subway, etc), so we are forced to pay for constant patchwork road improvements.
The truth is, this region drives EVERYWHERE. Look at the traffic -- worst in the nation. The gas tax targets drivers.
I'm not saying that Dems didn't put us in this dilemma, but there is no way out. Either we shell out the dollars for public transit ( tunnelled light rail) or we continue to spend on road projects.
There is a reason we have the highest gas tax. Mr. Cynical, I suggest you think about WHY that is the case.
Posted by: nathan on July 7, 2005 12:12 AMSo, you are saying that we should pay the highest taxes in the nation and get nothing concrete in return? This tax pays for NOTHING completely. It pays for studies and other things like that. It does NOT pay for any of the projects you are saying we need to fix. I say that if the roads up in Seattle are that bad and are that dangerous...close them down and don't let people drive on them. Simple solution. This tax is merely a pre-tax tax.
Posted by: Miriam on July 7, 2005 12:36 AMI want to have a great mass transit system, but not at the expense of fiscal responsibility. When this state and region can prove that is being responsible with it's money, then i have no problem with a tax increase. But until then, forget it. People in Seattle and Olympia are clueless when it come to money management. All they care is whether a project feels good or not, and worry about the actual costs later.
Posted by: Mike H on July 7, 2005 12:41 AMIf the Alaskan Way viaduct is really that dangerous, it should be shut down immediately. If we keep it open while construction of something else is being contemplated, then we are just trading lives for not having traffic inconvenience in the meantime.
Supposedly, it will take seven to nine years to complete the "Big Dig" tunnel along the Seattle waterfront. Certainly, during that time, we would have to do without the Alaskan Way viaduct or any type of replacement.
Might as well shut down the Alaskan Way viaduct right away, if it really is dangerous. Then wait a year or two and see if we can live without it. If not, maybe consider the cheapest possible alternative for replacing it.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 7, 2005 01:00 AMNow, I would be happy if the same crowd did a ballot initiative for a regional gas tax to fix 520, and expand I5. I would be MORE than happy to pay for a targeted bill WITHOUT:
1) prevailing wage
2) public arts funding in it
3) more public transit dollars in it
4) a third going to pushing EIS paperwork
5) sales tax on the materials used in the projects
And if we could get this done right, I would pay yet AGAIN to improve 405, and then maybe, just maybe the Viaduct (though my dreams of it falling upon Ron Sims in an earthquake would then be crushed--pun intended).
I think you are missing the main point. Personally I would agree with you and pay high gas taxes IF it was going to accomplish good roads and a decent mass transit system. However, we are already paying highest in the nation and what do we have? Also, I-912 is not just about $$$ but about the cheating dishonest way this tax was imposed, with the emergency clause for the specific purpose of denying a citizens' referendum, which we are constitutionally guaranteed. You are also missing another point... the folks in Olympia have made NO promises as to what this tax is going for... no plans, no commitments... just give us the money. It won't happen if we can help it! Remains to be seen in a couple more days when all the petitions are in. :) I don't think it has a chance on earth of passing if the citizens vote; and if it does, fine... in a fair election.
Posted by: Sue on July 7, 2005 05:20 AMWhen I see a petition, I will always stop and read it first. This is the first time I ever took the petition around and had people sign it. I got three pages total sent in = 60. I only had one person not want to sign it because he said "you can't fight government ya know." Oh yes we can!
Posted by: Son of Liberty on July 7, 2005 06:54 AMDoesn't sound like an ironclad, concrete commitment to "safety" to me. Since we do not know when the next major earthquake will occur, and some of these structures are at such high risk, why is anyone in government allowing these structures to remain open? Are they really unsafe and in imminent danger of collapse, or is it hyperventilated rhetoric for political purposes?
If the people reject additional taxes, will Seattle acquiesce and replace the viaduct with an elevated roadway using the 2 billion? Will they be prompt, or will they hold out longer to get the funds they want to build a tunnel?
For this uncertainty, the legislature declared this bill an "emergency"?
The KWR site has a banner that says “Breaking News” and then states that Mainstream Republicans voted against I-912. I haven’t seen the news report of this and KWR didn’t provide a link. Anyone know what their “Breaking News” is based on?
Also, the 41 cent average cost per week they show is misleading. That only shows the first 3 cent increase, not the full 9.5 increase.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 7, 2005 07:04 AMAnyway, my thought on many of these improvements, lets fund them by tolls. Seems I heard that the original 520 bridge was a toll bridge until it was paid for, I'd be happy to pay tolls to use the new one.
Nathan, I understand your frustration, but the government of Washington state is abusing their power, both in general and in this law. They have actively opposed performance audits which would determine where the state government could act more effectively. They have pushed laws like prevailing wage that jack the cost of transportation projects instead of getting them done at a reasonable price. And they pulled this BS about making this bill an emergency bill to prevent a referendum.
That is why the people in this state are up in arms over the gas tax and why this will pass by historic margins in November.
Posted by: Calvin A on July 7, 2005 07:05 AMIf you follow the discussion around here you see very little opposition to gas tax which would actually build something out of steel and concrete.
The problem with this gas tax, and the extreme hostile reaction to it in WA. Never before has an initiative qualified in 30 days that is measure of how pi**ed off the voters are. On top of which one of the Queens campaign promises was no new gas tax.
2 years ago voters rejected Ref 51 a 5 cent gas tax. Since then we've had the 5 cents and now 9 1/2 cents. 14 1/2 cents increase in the gas tax since the public said no. To top it off the legislature slaps an "emergency" clause on the tax bill force the high standard of initiative to recall the bill.
Exactly what did the 9 1/2 cents buy. No complete major project. If funded partially, 520, the Viaduct, 167, etc.. but did not include enough money to finish any of those projects. In many cases less than half.
Now given this states history of project costs do you really think WA state is capable in any form of fashion of complete any of those project within the stated budget and time frame?
Additionally I-601 passed 12 years ago which essentially limited the growth of the state budget to inflation and population growth. Olympia has gutted that reasonable spending restriction.
This years budget in Olympia revenue had increase by 7%, the legislature increased spending by 12%. The budget "crisis" is purely and simply mismanagement.
A few years ago Olympia had a huge surplus, some counseled saving the surplus for a rainy day. But no, Olympia increase annual spending by the amount of the surplus resulting in a shortfall the very next budget.
Those are some of the things fueling the opposition to the gas tax. The voters revolt against a history of incompetence, mismanagement, and in general stupidity on a monumental scale in Olympia.
Most of us here would support a gas tax after Olympia at least demonstrates it could manage a lemonade stand.
Bring us a complete project. With proformance audits, real spending projections, cost controls the other features of contracts you'd find int the private sector.
Then you'd find support for a transportation project.
Posted by: JCM on July 7, 2005 07:09 AMHow can either one of you be excited about handing control of privately owned establishments over to the government? What about the RIGHTS of the property/business owner to decide for themselves, and their clientele, what is right for them?
Next is you can't smoke in your own home, because a hint of smoke drifts to your neighbor's house (and this scenario has already been played out in apartment complexes).
Even if it passes, it's a slippery slope you're stepping on to. Just because it would be a "majority rules" situation, what happens when the majority rules that you can only have one fast-food burger a week, "for your own health and welfare"??
I won't be voting in favor of the smoking ban.
But, HOORAY for I-912!!!
If it makes it I predict B, 275-300,000. I hope I'm wrong and it goes much higher!
Posted by: Tucker on July 7, 2005 07:18 AM"A new 16-year, multimillion dollar transportation package approved by the Washington Legislature last June will allow the state to pursue plans for one additional lane in each direction along the Renton portion of Interstate 405.
Meanwhile, opponents of a new gas tax to pay for the improvements hope to get an anti-tax initiative on the November ballot."
The rest of this hit piece goes on in similar fashion: it paints in glowing terms all of the great things your government is going to do for you, and then it stops and (figuratively) says: "Oh wait - those anti-taxers are going to take all of this away from you!"
This is the sort of mis-information we are going to be inundated with throughout the rest of the battle to the ballot.
Never mind that this particular project was financed in 2003 (see: http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/142221). How many times are we supposed to pay for the same job?
We’re not supposed to look at the man behind the curtain. We are obliged instead, to blindly accept that they know better than us, and they will take care of everything.
No Nathan, I do not trust the current Washington state (democrat controlled) government.
They show themselves again and again to be hopelessly incompetent to spend my money!
VOTE NO ON I-912!
If you want the gas tas hike to be repealed (and evidently you do), you need to VOTE YES ON I-912!
If you vote NO on I-912, current law will remain in effect. The gas tax will remain at 31 cents and then increase to 37.5 cents over the next three years.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 7, 2005 07:51 AM-I'm certainly not claiming that the Dems are fiscally responsible, but ignoring our biggest transportation problems is just dangerous and damaging to the future. Studies do need to be done on what steps to take and then action needs to be taken. That's what this will fund.
How do you guys expect our transportation problems to be fixed?
Shuffling around money isn't going to happen. This is a pressing issue.
You're asking me to give more money to the very same people who engineered us into this mess. Why would I do that?
Let's say you go to a store and by a widget, then at the cash register they charge 2x or 3x the price on the widget. You then take the widget home and find half the pieces missing. Back the store they charge you more for the missing pieces.
Would you go back to that store again? That is what you're asking us to do.
I am sorry, but if you think giving more money to the crowd in Olympia might actually result in something given the track record you meet the definition of insane (doing the same thing and expecting a different result).
Posted by: JCM on July 7, 2005 08:11 AMAlthough this surrounds the no-no-rail fiasco, it speaks to the half-assism approach that so-called planners are taking to cobbling up these projects.
Reasonable people are always going to balk at being screwed! The no-no-rail project and the new gas tax (and all of the pie in the sky attendant to it) are half-baked ideas that will throw good money after bad.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 7, 2005 08:33 AMCould just as easily read:
"By 1765, however, a clear plurality of Members of Parliament, led by those in the most populous counties of England"
Just as the Stamp Act planted the seeds of the American Revolution 10 years later, I am hoping this arrogant gas tax puts Eastern Washington one step closer to statehood.
No more tyranny!! STATEHOOD NOW!!
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 7, 2005 09:10 AMI have a bet that involves a large amount of ice cream. My bet was 300-350 and my losing position will be 400-450.
I don't think it will reach the 300k mark. Too bad because it was a B&R ice cream cake I was hoping for.
FWI-I lost my bet on the election being set aside- we'll be vacationing in Mexico instead of Vegas this year because of that bet.
Posted by: Andy on July 7, 2005 09:23 AMEmail Jim Pharris at: jim@jimpharris.com and tell him your thoughts on this.
Here is his response to my email regarding the gas tax:
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your E-Mail.
Since the Buck Sops at my Desk I will pass on to you why Washington Realtors
supported and supports the increased gas tax.
We have long supported additional funding for infrastructure because without
increased infrastructure our communities will not grow or worse yet we will
not want to live in them. Neither will our clients!
One of Our 2005 Legislative Priorities from our membership was------
Building Better Communities: Infrastructure(roads, water, sewer) supports
and sustains our quality of life by providing the framework for
accommodating residential, commercial and industrial growth and facilitating
economic development. (No Jobs no clients!!!!)
We worked with a large group of organizations to create a transportation
package that addressed unsafe and deteriorating roads and bridges throughout
Washington State.
n summation The safety and productivity of workers and their families as
well as the efficiency of our companies depends upon functional roads and
bridges. It is how we move people and goods. Hundreds of hazardous bridges
and roadways in our state are in need of repair. Poor roads strike a direct
hit to our economy every day. Time is money, and we all loose out when we
are stuck in traffic.
I am a firm believer in the fact that those using the infrastructure ought
to pay for it.
Have a Great Day!
Jim P. Harris
ABR, CIPS, CRB, CRS, GRI
2005 President of the Washington Association of Realtors
Director National Association of Realtors
National Association of Realtors President's Liaison to the Real Estate
Institute of New Zealand
True enough. And I see no one arguing aginst this point there Jim. As a matter of fact, EVERY person is "using" the infrastructure, either directly or indirectly. So maybe you'd like a more "progressive" tax Jim? If some is good, more must be better, right?!!
Looks like he drank from the demo toilet. Too bad...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 7, 2005 09:44 AMIf the I-912 people are honest, they will admit defeat and move on if they have under 275,000 signatures. However, given that the far right desire to make a propaganda point over anything substantive, I expect them to claim that Sam Reed and others are fraudulently checking the petitions.
One does have to wonder if the powers that be at Fisher Broadcasting are wondering if they should have made money by running adverstising instead of giving up a couple of hours an hours a day for free infomercials.
Posted by: JDB on July 7, 2005 09:46 AMVery few of their actual members support this increase. It's just a bunch of the elites, and commercial folks in Olympia who control the organization and higher taxes. They want to be "in" with Christine Gregoire after being "out" with Gary Locke for so long.
Typical Olympia BS.
Posted by: Henry on July 7, 2005 09:59 AM"I would not be at all surprised if there is a higher than normal level of improper/double signatures given the haste and emotions at play."
You mean sabotage from the left, don't you? The only "haste" was engineered by left to hamstring a legitimate effort, and it is counter-intuitive to suggest that "emotions" from those on the right (and IN THE RIGHT!) would result in defective or fraudulent signatures.
Whatta moron....
You really shouldn't drink so early in the morning. It really is not a good sign.
It is John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur during their infomercials on KVI who say that this isn't about the gas tax, but about sending a message. They want to make a point, not good policy. So you reap what you sow. If you whip up emotions, you shouldn't be surprised that people signed even if not registered to vote or signed more than once. As Mr. Carlson said, lets make a point, after all.
And who is more of a moron, the moron or the one that argues with him? Of boy, might have just given you a stroke with that little paradox.
Posted by: JDB on July 7, 2005 10:39 AMThe ferry system under the WADOT cannot give an accurate accounting of where the fares go;
Those of us in the RTA district already pay $50.00 per year/vehicle registered for people to ride heavy rail at a cost of over $60,000/yr. per head;
This additional gas tax throws another 800 million into the black hole called sound transit;
WADOT is not audited by any agency WITH THE TEETH to correct it;
Just what part of NO does Olympia not understand?
NO NEW GAS TAX WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. PERIOD.
Rant over,
Cheers
Are you comin on to me (again)?
Sorry, but I only date within my species....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 7, 2005 10:59 AMJDB says, "I would guess that they turn in 245-260,000 total signatures, and the total legal signatures turns out to be more in the 175,000 range, if not lower."
If it is true that the range of signatures matches your total, this may be true. But what do you base your low estimate on?
JDB says, "If the I-912 people are honest, they will admit defeat and move on if they have under 275,000 signatures."
If this, then that. It's a long chain of speculation, but it could indeed be accurate in the long run. Of course, the opposite might happen, too, right?
JDB says, "However, given that the far right desire to make a propaganda point over anything substantive, I expect them to claim that Sam Reed and others are fraudulently checking the petitions."
Are only the far right interested in this initiative? If your long chain of speculation is true, then this could happen--but why would you ignore all the moderates and even the democrats who signed the initiative? You seem to be more interested in scoring points against the "loony far right" rather than arguing that the government could fairly do what they did. I guess the government can do no wrong, eh?
In 2002 the PEOPLE of Washington voted down a 9 cent gas tax.
In 2003 the legislature enacted a 5 cent tax.
In 2005 the legislature enacted a 9.5 cent tax.
14.5 cent tax to teach the PEOPLE who is boss.
The legislature was so sure they were right that they put an emergency clause on the bill, forcing the PEOPLE to have to pass an initiative in order to disapprove (or validate) the legislative action.
Some of the PEOPLE thought that the PEOPLE should be allowed to vote on an 8 billion dollar tax increase. They started an initiative drive.
Opponents of the PEOPLE being allowed to vote started with little tricks to delay the gathering of signatures. Once signatures were being gathered these same opponents stepped up their tricks by stealing petitions. The opponents filled out false names and addresses on petitions to purposely dilute number of valid signatures. Opponents (who have yet to show where any of their money comes from) filed a lawsuit to challenge the reporting of some of the funds by the initiative team.
JDB guesses that, out of 280,000 signatures only 175,000 would be accepted. He also seems to approve. (If we have the same signature matching procedures used in the last election, then I would expect substantially less than 100,000 invalid signatures)
Obviously, the opponents do not beleive that the PEOPLE have a right to vote on this important issue. Rather than debate it in the open, they resort to back alley tricks and legalistic shenanigans. The "let every vote count" crowd can't stand to let some things even make it to a vote.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 7, 2005 11:25 AMListen now--and listen well--or suffer the voting wrath of a people tired of excuses and games.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 7, 2005 12:35 PMThanks TC. I will concede it's not 100%. However Democratic control of both WA state houses has brought us this gas tax, pay increases for bureaucrats, and 12% spending increases. Delusional fits perfectly.
Posted by: swassociates on July 7, 2005 12:38 PMI don't think it will reach the 300k mark. Too bad because it was a B&R ice cream cake I was hoping for.
FWI-I lost my bet on the election being set aside- we'll be vacationing in Mexico instead of Vegas this year because of that bet.
Andy, I always hope for the best and prepare for disappointment. Most times it works our fine. I believe that taxpayers are so fired up about this abuse that there has to be thousands of pitations out there getting signed. It will happen. Best and safe trip to Mexico, the ice cream will be waiting for you.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on July 7, 2005 01:53 PMActually, I am estimating a 30% ivalid rate on 250,000 signatures, or 75,000 invalid, or 175,000 valid, however you wish to look at it.
And you seem to forget that we need to pay for road improvements somehow. We got rid of the MVET which had been dedicated to roads. We have to replace those missing funds somehow. So don't blame the legislature for doing what they had to do, blame Tim Eyeman for getting rid of a progressive tax dedicated to roads.
Posted by: JDB on July 7, 2005 01:56 PMMeanwhile, opponents of a new gas tax to pay for the improvements hope to get an anti-tax initiative on the November ballot."
Very interesting. What they don't mention in that little piece is that a miniscule $150 million of the new gas tax goes toward adding lanes on I-405, a project expected to cost several billion. The tax revenue from the 2003 increase is also just a drop in the bucket for this project. East side residents south of I-90 get VERY little out of this new tax in terms of actual congestion improvements.
Posted by: Palouse on July 7, 2005 01:59 PMTim Eyeman didn't get rid the progressive tax. The voters of this state got rid of an excessive tax.
Thank about it, won't you?
Posted by: JDB on July 7, 2005 02:41 PMEven with the MVET, the State didn't really make any headway on congestion relief or "safety". Why?
Of the 8+ billion in this tax package, 4 billion will go to pay back loans (bonds), leaving 4 billion for the actual construction. Of that, a large amount will actually slide into the general fund through sales tax on construction materials.
An even larger amount will be shunted off for environmental mitigation. How much will actually be left over for any real steel and concrete?
Reduce the environmental mitigation costs to be less than 30+%.
Eliminate sales tax on construction materials.
Do everything possible to maximize the money going to stell and concrete.
Under these conditions, I don't have an issue with extra taxes. Over the last 6 years, the legislature has not done anything to meet these conditions. In the end, they just increased the tax.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 7, 2005 02:51 PMFreudian? I thank not.....
(dim-witted? Most certainly ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 7, 2005 02:52 PMWe do need to make sure the environment is protected, however, but this should not cost an arm and a leg, but should abide by good common sense. Contractors should not be able to inflate costs nor extract additional funding for their mistakes in messing up the environment. If they cause unnecessary run-off or don't properly contain run-off from their projects, then it should come out of their profits. They should do it right the first time. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.
Posted by: tc on July 7, 2005 03:23 PMI bet they pass with about 300,000 sigs.
Posted by: Alex on July 7, 2005 04:28 PMWhere does JDB find his facts? Obviously not in reality.
I-695 was found unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court in Oct 2000 so Mr. Eyman didn't get rid of anything. The state legislature saw the writing on the wall and instituted the $30 license tabs themselves. Put the blame where it belongs JDB.
And the MVET was not "dedicated to roads". As even an anti-I-695 web site admits: "Some of the MVET revenue goes to local governments for public health and safety, criminal justice, and sales tax equalization."
Come on JDB, do a little research before you spout off!
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on July 7, 2005 05:21 PMLook at Keep Washington Rolling's website, their entire position is that without this tax increase you'll lose your job and potentially your life. They play on emotions, nothing more.
Posted by: BJL on July 7, 2005 05:39 PMAnd therein lies the conflict. You ask how we expect our transportation "problems" to be fixed, and then rule out "shuffling money." Well, it's just as non-negotiable from MY side of the table. Shuffling money IS going to happen, if the government expects me to support massive tax increases. "Shuffle" some money away from taxpayer-funded "art." "Shuffle" some money into adding ACTUAL CAPACITY to roads (hint: repairing a road does not help congestion.). "Shuffle" some money out of a massive tunnel project into something sensible.
In a word, PRIORITIZE.
"Shuffle" money away from the lowest-prioirty to the highest priority. Why boast that the package includes hundreds of projects if it doesn't actually finish them? Wouldn't it be wiser to look at those hundreds and determine which ones present an ACTUAL "emergency?" Wiser, yes.. But easier? Nah - we'll just spew some gloom-n-doom and expect the taxpayers to pony up (and up, and up). And campaign promises, who needs 'em?
Posted by: RookieRick on July 7, 2005 05:40 PMUnder RCW 46.68.090, only 44.387% of the fuel tax will actually go towards "Highway Purposes". 2.3283% goes towards Ferries, 10.6961% gets distributed to Cities and Towns based on population (and thanks to SBS 5969, it's no longer required to go towards transportation), 19.2287% goes to the counties with no provisions that it be used for transportation.
They approved $4 billion in construction projects, and this tax is supposed to raise $8.5 billion but there's no expiration date on the tax. Who's to say that the $4 billion would be spent in the same period that they were going to raise $8.5 billion?
With the reallocation of projects funds if local taxes for the megaprojects aren't approved, I have no doubt that it will end up being a massive redistribution to the Cities and Counties based on population. State funds to pay for the Seattle Monorail or to pay in full for an Alaskan Way tunnel anyone?
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on July 7, 2005 05:46 PMI did the numbers off the top of my head. If you go to http://hdc.leg.wa.gov/issues/transportation/2005_transpo_summary_final.pdf Page 4 is where I'm getting my numbers.
Actually, the new tax package is planned to raise almost 12.5 billion over 16 years. Almost 4 billion will go to pay off the bonds, leaving 8.5 billion for the rest. The gas tax itself is expected to raise 5.5 billion over 16 years.
According to the State, about 2.3 billion will go to ferries, rail, local government, fish, noise barriers and a few other odds and ends. 757 million is allocated to bridge replacement and safety projects. Roughly 5.5 billion goes to roads and congestion relief. 2.5 billion go to the viaduct and 520 which are basically safety replacements not necessarily additional capacity.
I-405 and projects specifically designated for congestion relief amounts to 2.9 billion.
I think we could expect to spend upwards of 340 million in sales tax (4.4 billion * 8.2%). That's enough to fund almost all the bridge replacements or the saftey projects AND Seismic retrofit of bridges.
The plan states that the money for I405 will combine with our "nickel" tax of just two years ago to complete the projects early. What can we expect of the state in a few years? Will they be low on money again and need to raise taxes even more?
After the mismanagement, blown promises and huge cost overruns of ST and the monorail, we need to have more than empty promises.
This money is not being spent wisely. Get a better handle on that first and then we'll feel better about paying more.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 7, 2005 08:35 PMIt's going to fail!!!!!!
Damn.
Posted by: George on July 7, 2005 11:17 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002367642_kirbyed08.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 8, 2005 12:25 AMI hadn't seen the full financial statement that you linked to. Everything you see is that the tax will raise 8.5 billion which we're lead to believe will fully fund this transportation package (even if the transportation package doesn't fully fund anything) over 16 years.
However, the money going to those specific projects is contingent upon local funding being secured by January 1, 2007 or the money gets reapportioned...and I have a sneaking suspicion that somehow Olympia will find a way to reapportion it as a distribution to the counties and cities.
Once they do that, the money doesn't necessarily need to be spent on roads or any transportation system for that matter. King County and Seattle would stand to gain the largest percentage of the distribution, and unless David Irons is elected as Executive in November, I'm sure they'll find a way to waste it.
Not only is Olympia being wasteful with the current gas tax money, but the gas tax allocation law is just plain bad (even before the tax hike).
Posted by: DarthDogbert on July 8, 2005 10:04 AMSo, will someone that can listen to KVI during the day please post the total when it's announced. Thanks.
Posted by: Tucker on July 8, 2005 10:52 AM"The I-912 people will be turning in the remaining signatures at 3:00 PM today."
Hope that the I-912 people have a helicopter chartered just in case something like this happens. The pro-gas tax people seem like they will stop at nothing.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 8, 2005 11:29 AMGoldy's convinced that KVI went over the line by promoting I-912.
But he also readily admits that he would do the exact same thing if he had a talk radio show.
Call in to KVI today and tell John Carlson what you think about Goldy. KVI has been kind enough to give Goldy lots or airtime to increase his own publicity.
If John and Kirby are smart, they'll stop inviting Goldy onto KVI right away. Why give someone with such bad ideas any help?
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 8, 2005 11:36 AMDo you know when and why the State stopped putting the amount of tax on the pump? I think they should restore it. The people should be able to see how much goes to the government. It also reminds them that they need to keep an eye on how well that money is spent. At our current tax rate, we are now at 31 cents a gallon, State, and 18.4 cents a gallon, Federal – 49.4 cents a gallon. At 2.3999 a gallon, that is a 20.6% tax on fuel. Once we reach 37.5 cents, we’ll be paying over 24% tax per gallon (including federal).
The 23 cents is allocated as such:
State 10.96 cents 47.6%
Ferries 1.08 cents 4.7%
TIB 3.04 cents 13.2%
CRA 1.03 cents 4.5%
Counties 4.42 cents 19.2%
Cities 2.46 cents 10.7%
Boy, I missed SB-5969. The worst part is that it was virtually unanimous in both houses. Cities and counties receive 29.9% of the gas (23 cent) tax revenue. How much of that is affected by this bill?
For funds distributed to unincorporated cities and towns, this whole section was gutted: "...to be used exclusively for: The construction, improvement, chip sealing, seal-coating, and repair for arterial highways and city streets as those terms are defined in RCW 46.04.030 and 46.04.120; the maintenance of arterial highways and city streets for those cities with a population of less than fifteen thousand; or the payment of any municipal indebtedness which may be incurred in the construction, improvement, chip sealing, seal-coating, and repair of arterial highways and city streets; ..."
It would seem to me to be a violation of the 18th amendment since the money, in effect, was not distributed solely for “roads” as defined in the Constitution. But it won’t be overturned without a lawsuit.
The new tax has 1 cent going to local governments – $602 million. I wonder how much of this money is affected by SB-5969?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 8, 2005 11:55 AMIf I'm reading the bill correctly, it would be the entire $602 million. Unless there's a provision in the 2005 allocation bill that says differently, the entire amount could be used on whatever the local government wanted to use it for.
There's another bill you may want to keep an eye on - HB 1155: http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1155. Looks like it's still in committee, but I wouldn't be suprised if they try to bring it back next session. It allows new voter approved taxes to supplant existing funds.
Politicians put something on the ballot that says "we need to raise taxes by $10 million dollars to pay for education"...voters approve the tax increase. Politicians then use the new $10 million in taxes for education, but then turn around and cut existing funds by $10 million.
Net increase to education funding: $0.
Net increase in funds available for politicans pet pork project: $10 million.
Gotta love Olympia, huh?
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on July 8, 2005 12:20 PMAccording to "Transportation Financing in Washington State" from January of 2001, they were anticipating an increase in revenue of MVET revenue of about 298% from 1989/91-2003/05.
Over all they anticipated a 106% increase during that time frame.
Motor Vehicle license revenue were expected to increase by 62%
Gas tax revenue was expected to increase by 45%
In the ten years between 1989 and 1999 the revenues increased 57%, yet they still didn't have enough money to do anything. I guess it means that even in a "representative" government, we need to watch them (the politicians) like hawks.
Thank-you Stefan for a site like Sound Politics.
Here is the link to the file: http://stc.leg.wa.gov/Finance%20101.pdf
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 8, 2005 02:39 PM420,000 Signatures!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: swassociates on July 8, 2005 03:14 PMYeah, right.
I just hope we can force them not to issue the bonds before the election, or it's game over, man.
Posted by: Jeff in KC on July 8, 2005 03:16 PMEven the deaf, dumb, blind of Olympia can't ignore this one.
Posted by: JCM on July 8, 2005 03:22 PMAnd... are there any "winners" that picked 'G' :-)
Posted by: Tucker on July 8, 2005 03:23 PMThis is just payback for a bunch of hicks. If Rossi had passed it, it would have been praised to the skies.
The good news is that the biz community supports the tax -- hopefully they'll prevail on the Republican community to support it as well.
Posted by: Louis on July 8, 2005 03:26 PMYou're delusional. If the viaduct was going to fall over, do you really think they'd even let cars drive on it?
If Seattle wants their fancy tunnel, let them pay for it, not the "bunch of hicks".
-Rich
Posted by: Rich on July 8, 2005 03:38 PMAnd... in case you haven't figured it out yet... this (I-912) never was a Republican vs. Democrat squabble. There are probably just as many ticked off Democrats as Republicans that signed the petitions. Ha, most of the sigs I collected at work were from Democrats.
Posted by: Tucker on July 8, 2005 03:40 PM-- in the Secretary of State's office right now (written on state government computer!)
Posted by: Alex on July 8, 2005 03:40 PMPuleeezzzzzzzzzz
It's all about giving $$ to folks who HAVE NO PLANS let alone even know the cost of the replacement.
It's all about an "Emergency." 912 should be a referendum....."Emergency" my Ass!
It's all about state governement that doesn't even know where all the $$ is spent as it is........and it's ALWAYS more more more.
It'all about Queen Chrissy who ran on promisies of no new tax......LIAR !
Posted by: smoke on July 8, 2005 03:41 PMAnd how much more to finish the viaduct. 10, 15, 25 cents more a gallon?
Because the gas tax didn't fund completing the project, only starting it.
Posted by: JCM on July 8, 2005 03:43 PMAlso, the viaduct is a Seattle issue. Y'all seem to love financing multi-billion dollar boondoggles - so you do it! Why should Spokane have to help?
And if Rossi had done this... I would be calling for his head (figuratively). But that is a moot point, because I think we all know that with the house-cleaning he would have conducted throughout the government by means of his appointments, this would NEVER have gotten through.
We like Rossi because we look at the state and see how far it has sunk because the people who are running it. Rossi would have changed much of that. Governor Gregoire merely perpetuated the status quo.
The leftists have been in charge for years, and it has not helped. They have had buckets of money to maintain and even improve the roads, but the foisted overpriced, underperforming mass-transit mistakes on us that, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, will do nothing to solve our traffic issues.
This tax is merely more of the same. There are a few dollars going to roads (see SouthernRoots' excellent post on where the money actually goes, located above) but most does NOT. We need new people with new ideas in Olympia.
Boy, did I start to ramble...
Posted by: Jeff in KC on July 8, 2005 03:48 PMTell you what... come up with a realistic plan, some blueprints and a fixed dollar figure for it, then we can discuss a tax to pay for it. Untill then, forget it.
Why in the world would you want to throw a ton of money at something that isn't even in the design phase yet? That's just screaming for government waste.
Posted by: Mike H on July 8, 2005 03:51 PMIf we are hicks how come it's Democrats that can't figure out how to, or who to vote for?
Posted by: swassociates on July 8, 2005 03:55 PMDo you realize that there's a difference between supporting business and kissing union ass? Come up with a plan, a budget, and REAL competitive bidding and lets talk.
Posted by: swassociates on July 8, 2005 03:57 PM"Hope you are all happy when the viaduct falls over.
This is just payback for a bunch of hicks."
The more you lib jerks run your mouth, the more appealing an earthquake sounds.
Gee, is it any wonder we don't get anything done in this state? Funny how these brahmins of Ballard, these latte-sipping intelligentsia who claim to be for diversity and equal rights always revert to the name calling and stereotyping with regards to their fellow Washingtonians to the east.
Don't you get it? Did you see The Economist article on Seattle's mass transit problems? It is just this kind of provincial, "we know better than you other people", divisive thinking that has the whole state in this mess to begin with. How long must we tolerate these children, as editorials have referred to them lately, being in charge?
Give us a plan that benefits the WHOLE state and we'll endorse it. Until then, we "hicks" are going to vote down your unfair gas tax.
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 8, 2005 04:02 PMHHHmmm.....
Posted by: Who.... me? on July 8, 2005 06:20 PMCelebrating!!!
Posted by: Sue on July 8, 2005 06:28 PM420,570 - some more were brought in while they were counting the # of petitions.
heard a bunch of petitions are signed and still out there .... absolutely amazing.
Posted by: Jeff on July 8, 2005 09:49 PMCelebrating to the max Queen Taxusbillions and her court's new massive message from the taxed to death voters of this state! Just helpin her keep her "No New Tax" promise!
If She can't do it! We'll help her!
In Record time I might add! (an Emergency on our part!)
Posted by: GS on July 9, 2005 04:40 PMAnd speaking of paying your way. It's long, long past time that taxpayers should subsidize those who use public transportation and therefore take from the rest of us.
It's time they pay they're own way, any transportation system that can't meet expenses with fares needs to be shut down
Posted by: Mark O on July 9, 2005 11:53 PM