Stefan says this fall's Puget Sound transportation measure should fail. Readers know I'm more amenable to it, but let's look at the issue differently based on the Times story Stefan cites.
Didn't the Legislature create the RTID because it refused to deal with the full cost for repairing major highways (520, 405, 167, etc.)? Didn't the Legislature mandate RTID appear on the ballot with Sound Transit, in conjoined fashion?
They're the ones who removed themselves from many direct decisions about what package appears on the ballot. They're the ones who limited their own role in the specific details of what projects will be funded through the ballot measure itself. Why then do they insist on imparting their thoughts upon on its contents after abdicating their own responsibility?
Olympia has been dithering on transportation for over a decade, unable to act decisively. Long overdue packages funded by the nickel and 9.5 cent gas tax increases have had muted impact thanks to the construction inflation that soared during years of debate without decision. Can't they leave well enough alone now that they've outsourced their job to people at the regional level?
Good people can disagree about the contents of the ballot measure itself. Stefan and I disagree here at Sound Politics, and you can see Democratic legislators in the Times article worrying about insufficient roads spending even while their liberal base frets about the road spending that does exist.
I have a crazy idea. The Legislature created this obtuse system requiring a regional vote to raise taxes for road projects the state has traditionally funded. How about legislators sit down, be quiet, and let the vote move forward without further comment on their part? They've had long enough to talk about the issue, thank you very much. And not exactly much to show for it.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 19, 2007 10:36 PM | Email ThisGregoire's MO is the old bait-and-switch, or vice versa. At Ecology she put all staff on the exotics (programs that are nice but not critical) and short-changed the water rights program (one of the traditional and needed funded programs). Then she trooped down to the legislature and whined she didn't have money for the water rights program. And yet, the water rights people were still on staff but in different 'exotic' programs.
It was during the "Gregoire Age" that Ecology staff doubled during the Queen's reign.
I see the same thing all over again (deja vu) with transportation. With all these extra revenues, why isn't a lot of it spent on transportation, which is what we, the people, want? Why is the budget so squirrelly with odd stuff?
Deja vu all over again as Yogi used to say.
Posted by: swatter on April 20, 2007 06:43 AMWhy do you people hate the free market so?
We'll see how much of a "boondoggle" it is when oil hits $300/barrel.
Let alone, every dollar you spend on gasoline is one more dollar for the terrorists. SUV drivers should be forced to have a Saudi flag on their vehicles, and be subject to Saudi traffic punishments. Get a speeding ticket, lose a hand, that sort of thing.
Hummer drivers should be subjected to being spat upon by the troops owning such a vehicle metaphorically spits upon.
But that would require returning to values of Duty, Honor, Country... all the things the party of Great Onanistic Pharisees despise.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on April 20, 2007 12:26 PMThe speculation you see is nothing different than speculation around the railroad during the 19th century.
Lazlo, a few months ago, an ST employee made a statement that ST stations would solve the transportation crisis. He said that all the future high rises around the stations would absorb all the people coming into the area for the next 20 years. When I pointed out that the development around the stations would only be about 2% maximum of the total, he was silent.
You should, too, or get your arguments lined up better.
Posted by: swatter on April 20, 2007 01:38 PMNow I have heard everything I need to vote a big Hell no on this.
Posted by: GS on April 20, 2007 06:48 PM