A new website RoadsAndTransitFactual.info has a treasure trove of information about the proposed $38 billion roads and transit package.
There's a lot there. One thing to start with is the Table comparing Sound Transit's 1996 light rail commitment and the 2007 reality of what's under construction.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 26, 2007 01:27 PM | Email ThisThere are several references to how ST "supposedly" does not need approval of ST2 to use local taxes for construction of University Link. That argument ignores the terms in Sound Move limiting how much ST can spend putting the 1996 system into place.
The reason ST was forced to scale back the light rail line in the first place was that spending restriction. It didn't just disappear because ST in April 2006 resolved to proceed with initial planning for University Link.
If ST2 is approved, ST could use the existing tax streams to pay for University Link. But if ST2 is not approved, the voter approved taxes limit in Sound Move would prevent ST from using local taxes to pay for the difference between the federal grant and the eventual costs of University Link.
Posted by: take it with a grain of salt on June 26, 2007 02:06 PMSo evergreen, debunk this for me right now.
Posted by: swatter on June 26, 2007 02:07 PMSure, I can debunk some of what is in that information at CETA's new website. But you have to help me out swatter. You have to get yourself a copy of Sound Move and Resolution 75. Those are the documents where the local legislation is spelled out. Once you have those, let me know. Then you can help me point out to everybody the numerous mistakes in this CETA workproduct.
Fair enough? If I just told you what the voter-approved ordinance says, you wouldn't believe me. You need to have the law in front of you, so that I can be sure we are reading off the same page of sheet music. You'll do that for me, swatter?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 02:22 PMWhat do they cost now.
They don't tell us because this data would show a huge overrun.
Of course resolution 75 says they can change their budget and of course they increase the budget to account for the overrun.
That does not make it go away. And the fact they are all legal and well lawyered up with escape clauses like resolution 75 also doesn't mean they aren't waaaaaayyyyyyy over budget, compared to what they told voters before the vote.
Too bad they can't just man up and say "yes the ship canap crossing estimate was off, it is higher now, the project is delayed but it's still a good idea." Instead they duck and hide and lie.
Posted by: yourspantsareonfire on June 26, 2007 02:28 PMThis is why we need swatter to get a copy of Resolution 75 and Sound Move in front of his beady little eyes. Too many posters do not write the truth about what is actually in the local law the voters approved!
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 02:37 PMIt is that I got officially phone-polled on what I think about this phoney package deal and whether I will support it. It could have been commissioned by the people putting together the package.
But the poller told me that what she discovered was that NO ONE liked the fact that mass transit and roads in this deal were holding the other hostage. People didn't like that they had to vote for one to get the other. It looks bad for this deal because of that. I personally will not support it for those very reasons. And it will not surprise me if it fails because other people are also angry that they are forced to pick something they don't like to get what they do want.
Posted by: Michele on June 26, 2007 03:00 PMBut what's going to save the Puget Sound is that immigration has probably already ground to a halt.
People have stopped believing the hype about how "livable" it is here, and now see it's the same traffic and pollution as anywhere else. Even worse, it has crappy weather.
There's a bunch of other stuff that isn't as good as elsewhere, but I'd rather not go into that now.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 26, 2007 03:14 PMGo ahead: download Resolution 75 from here:
http://soundtransit.org/x2384.xml
What you will see is that section 2 says that if the available revenues are not sufficient, ST must scale back spending. You will also notice Res. 75 does not say ST can just unilaterally increase its spending budget if the projected costs exceed the funds the voters made available to it.
Look swatter, I'm helping you out. I've given you a link to Res. 75. Now go get yourself a copy of Sound Move, and you and I can debunk the falsehoods on the CETA site. Sound good?
@8 called me a "blog hack from ST." @8 is SERIOUSLY misreading what I am posting . . ..
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 03:18 PMWith that and Resolution 75 you and I can debunk that CETA chart of some big-time BUNK.
Sound like a good deal Palouse?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 03:23 PMI don't think many voters read in detail what was in Resolution 75, or even understood the implications. It might not have specically stated we were getting the 21 mile line, but the people who approved it thought that is what they were voting on, and relied on the budget estimates provided by ST that this is what it would cover.
Won't be fooled again.
Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2007 03:44 PMSome of us knew then this would be result.
Hate to do it. Have to do it.
TOLD YOU SO
Posted by: JCM on June 26, 2007 03:49 PMLook, go get your hands on a copy of Sound Move. That is part of the law the voters approved. Once you have that, I'll help you with the debunking, and you'll be able to see what the voters actually approved.
swatter - don't you want to help out with the debunking? Hook up with a copy of the law, and we'll do this together. But you'll just say I'm making things up if you and I are not looking at the same document. Fair enough?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 03:55 PMLook, if I just tell you what Sound Move says, you'll accuse me of making it up, and who knows what else. Get yourself the controlling law - the one the voters approved in 1996 - and all show you things in there (in black and white) that demonstrate that new CETA chart is brimming with BUNK.
Where'd swatter go - I thought he was demanding some debunking too.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 04:08 PMI am just like the others here. The promoters promised one thing and we got overruns on their promises. I go after road estimates and the WDOT, too. Don't take it too personal, but STs problems is that the Board is selected and not elected.
And while I hear that the new regime is reining in costs, it goes out and gives us a cost effective station at the airport that is double what was estimated. You didn't build it, but you sent it back to the drawing boards to make it "cost-effective". Why didn't you make it cost-effective and not gold-plated the first time?
Please, save our money.
Posted by: swatter on June 26, 2007 04:10 PMVote NO in November. Got it? Tell your old lady to do the same!
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 04:10 PMFine points of law - what are you talking about?
You challenge me to debunk what is in that new CETA chart, fine, I'll do it. It won't take looking at fine points of law - it takes looking at the big print.
Do you want to do the debunking or not? Go get a copy of Sound Move and we'll debunk big portions of the garbage CETA is now putting out there.
And stop posting things that suggest you believe I work for ST - it makes you look, well, a bit dim.
But if you don't go get a copy of Sound Move, I'm not going to do the debunking. If I tried it that way, you'd say I was making up what Sound Move says, or you'd say what I was referring to "is not there." So once you have a copy of the ordinance the voters approved in 1996, I'll show you what it says that proves the new CETA chart is full of BUNK. Such a deal for you!
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 04:22 PM99% of the voters who approved it when it was up for a vote in 1996 didn't even know what was in it. The voters were not provided a copy, in the Voters Guide or anywhere else. But that is no reason for you to be scared of it now. Overcome your fear, get a copy of Sound Move in front of you, and we'll do the debunking.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 04:27 PMGreat question. Using no less than three (rather obscure) documents from ST's website, one can determine Sound Transit has hauled in about $2,800,000,000 (two billion eight hundred million dollars) in taxes since April, 1997.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 04:49 PMOkay, with that out of the way, evergreen, I did pull up the resolution. It was as I expected- lots and lots of weasel words. Tell me what I was supposed to be seeing. Maybe seeing isn't the right word; tell me what I was supposed to be understanding.
I'll go with the Bundy report. It has prettier pictures and isn't in legalese.
Posted by: swatter on June 26, 2007 04:53 PMNothing in Resolution 75 says Sound Transit can "increase the budget" or spend more than the "available funds." Do you agree with that swatter, or do you think whoever posted @4 is correct?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 05:05 PMThat is where Res. 75 incorporates all the terms of Sound Move. The voters approved Res. 75 and Sound Move in 1996 (even though they really didn't know they were doing that, but that's not the point).
So now swatter you are going to have to get a copy of Sound Move. When you have that, we can do the debunking of a bunch of what CETA has just posted. Let us know when you get your hands on a copy of Sound Move (or as ST calls it: "the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73")!
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 05:16 PMkiss my Gentrification!!!
It cost us to gentrify Seattle's Rainer Valley.
Transportation tax dollars = Gentrification.
Gentrification = Relocating poor people+ Higher Property taxes - Retail sales taxes + carrot stick and Flubber- = Congestion -Urban Village milk run .
Do Not forget to add the price of relocating 20,000 people who now can't afford to live in the rainer valley anymore.
If the new tax passes Sound Transit would relocate a Quarter million poor people from The Puget Sound area.....
That bloody well IS the point. Hardly any voters knew of the fatal blank check in Res 75 because the crooks who put the ballot initiative together OMITTED, intentionally, stating it on the face.
Hiding 'gotcha' clauses in obscure external documents gets evil big businesses busted big time by consumer protection laws. So if the government does it, that's OK? That's "not the point"? Feh.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 26, 2007 07:25 PMWhat Res. 75 says that some didn't expect was that ST could not spend more than the "available revenues," and if anticipated costs of some project would exceed those, the project scope would have to be cut back (or the project eliminated).
That's no "blank check." Those provisions keep a lid on how much ST is authorized to spend during the implementation phase.
@ 30 wrote: "I pulled up the aboe mentioned Sound Move document"
Liar.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 26, 2007 07:37 PMThe KC Muni League had an interesting summary of Proposition 1 back in 1996. They recommended approving it, but look at the scaling back ST had to do:
In March, 1995, a proposed RTA package for $6.8 billion was put to a regional vote, but failed with a 43% favorable vote. The current Plan differs from the 1995 package in several ways:* The plan would be implemented in 10 years, rather than 16.
* The proposed 25-mile "starter" light rail transit (LRT) line was reduced from the 1995 proposed 68-mile system. Light rail to the east side was replaced with a new two-way HOV "expressway" on the existing I-90 corridor.
* Regional bus routes were increased from 8 to 20 routes, with most new service in east King County.
* The level of service for the two-way, north/south (81 mile with 14 stations) commuter rail on existing track between Lakewood/Tacoma/Seattle/ Everett was reduced from all-day service to peak hours.
Now we have even less being "promised" because ST has the authority to scale back projects to fit the revenue stream. All this means is that we are getting far less for our tax dollars than we anticipated. This doesn't make good economic sense.
Oh, and taxes in perpetuity? Maybe this is how they can be iterpreted:
Although the current plan is scaled down from $6.8 to $3.9 billion, it retains the same sales and motor vehicle excise tax rates as the 1995 proposal. The system will be built in less time, relies less on federal funding, and does not assume contribution of state funds. Another regional vote would be required to extend and fund the system to Phase 2. If there is no Phase 2, the RTA will partially roll back the tax rates sufficient to pay off the remaining 30-year capital bonds and operate and maintain the system. Interest on the debt remaining after ten years is projected to be $335 million, and is not included in the $3.9 billion total. When the debt is paid off there would be a second roll back to the minimum tax rates needed to operate and maintain the regional system, estimated at about $102 million annually.Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 26, 2007 09:06 PM
Plus, it has some incomplete assertions that standing alone are misleading:
[i]Another regional vote would be required to extend and fund the system to Phase 2.[/i]
Approval of the November ST2 ordinance also would be required for ST to extend and fund the system for the parts of Phase 1 it can't afford now.
ST's tapped out of "available revenues," and unless ST2's approved, it'll not have the right to spend the taxes it wants to for whatever University Link would end up costing.
Posted by: Huh? on June 26, 2007 10:52 PM
At #28, I thought #4 was correct. And with the 'weasel' words of ST selected board, you can increase budgets so that you can tell the public you don't have any overruns.
So what is your point in the "where's waldo" paper chase you sent me on?
Posted by: swatter on June 27, 2007 07:07 AMST won its court case evergreen, you can stop with the legal arguments of whether it can spend its money and cut miles and stations whenever it wants. The real issue is that people thought they were buying a decent transportation system that might actually do something to relieve congestion. Instead, they will get a rail system that no better than 1% of commuters will use, will do NOTHING to relieve congestion, and will require massive taxpayer subsidies in perpetuity.
No more of this madness. If you're here to convince anyone to vote for another boondoggle in ST2, it won't work.
Posted by: Palouse on June 27, 2007 07:44 AMCopy and paste the words that you think support what was written at 4. We'll tell you why you are wrong about that.
Now, go get yourself a copy of Sound Move, and we can debunk a bunch of what is on that new CETA site.
Posted by: evergreen__rails on June 27, 2007 07:47 AMYou asked me to speculate about what voters thought they would get by voting yes in 1996, and I am 100% confident everybody had something slightly different in mind.
"And with the 'weasel' words of ST selected board, you can increase budgets so that you can tell the public you don't have any overruns."
Go ahead and copy and paste these "weasel" words you think are in Resolution 75 or Sound Move. Hint, they aren't there.
And @ 38 wrote: "before you call somebody a liar make sure that you can back it up." If you have a copy of Sound Move you did not get it from ST's website. If you don't have a copy of Sound Move, you (most likely) won't be able to identify what ST's bonding capacity is.
And I am 100% confident that no one was voting for what we're getting now.
Posted by: Palouse on June 27, 2007 08:07 AMThe fact that you personally as an employee may belive this unsubstantiated tripe doesn't impress anyone, hell you probably wrote some of these BS projections. Bottom line is, as a public employee, your function is a waste of tax dollars.
Posted by: Huh? on June 27, 2007 08:18 AMSo what?! Ronny and company have shown a propensity to thumb their noses at voters and ignore laws. Give me a break.
ST = "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh*t."
Posted by: NW_Denizen on June 27, 2007 08:30 AM
See, your problem is you think what ST has up on its website labeled "Sound Move" is the same thing as the law the voters approved. You are flat wrong about that.
What the voters approved is Resolution 75 and "the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73."
What you linked to "HUH?" is only a part of the Sound Move document.
To debunk the CETA garbage that was just posted, we need to refer to terms in the REAL Sound Move ("the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73.").
ST took out some important terms from what it has on its website. Those include what ST's bonding capacity is. That is why I called you a liar when you said you pulled up Sound Move. You just pulled up the part of the local law Sound Transit wants you to see.
Now go get a complete copy of the law the voters approved in 1996. When you have it, let me know. We'll use facts from it to debunk that bogus "then and now" comparison chart. Those are not facts, as CETA would have you believe.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 08:53 AMI don't think you and I are on the same page of life, so my weasel word is your gospel truth.
BTW, I do appreciate the way (seriously) you and ST are trying to rein in costs, but that station at SeaTac and the overrun in the estimate (my words, I know and not yours) and your ability to downsize/make the project more cost effective was a little disconcerting to say the least. It should have been done the first time.
I know some of the employees and nothing in their backgrounds gives me great confidence in ST getting things under control.
I keep having nightmares relating the runaway WPPSS projects with ST.
Posted by: swatter on June 27, 2007 08:57 AMYou might have to ask Sound Transit for one. I don't know if there is a copy on line anywhere. Ask for Res. 73 and all attachments, if you ask for it from ST.
And re: the KC Muni league blurb you posted at 35 - I called it junk above, and that is too strong. It is not completely accurate with respect to limits on ST's financing abilities. Also, what it has to say about "Phase 2" could be misleading to folks in light of what ST has done during the past ten years and some of the implications that would flow from approval or rejection of the ballot measure in November.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 09:02 AMYou challenged me to debunk the bunk CETA just posted. All I asked you to do is get a copy of the law the voters approved in 1996. That is not some big exercise. What is your problem? We can use the facts in that document to do the debunking you wanted.
Guess what swatter, sure seems like you don't what to know why what CETA just posted is bogus. Kinda like ST doesn't want anyone to know why what CETA just posted is bogus.
I've urged IN THIS THREAD big hearty NO votes in November, and you suggest my interests are aligned with those of ST. Why'd you do that?
You say you agree with what is posted at #4 (that ST has an unlimited spending budget), but you won't explain yourself or provide any support for your claim.
You say there are weasel words in Res. 75, but you won't post them.
You stink swatter.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 09:12 AMST didn't post Resolution 75 on the internet prior to the 1996 election.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 09:15 AMWrong. swatter and palouse and you wanted me to debunk the garbage CETA just posted. I can do that. I want some help, from you gentle Sound Politics denizens. Go get copies of the controlling law (Res. 75 and an accurate copy of Sound Move - not the incomplete version ST posted). When you've got the law in front of you, we can debunk that CETA nonsense together.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 09:20 AMWhy don't you save us all the trouble and just debunk it yourself. I'm sure that you are just as good at cut and paste and the rest of us. Then you can compare line by line and put whatever spin you want on it. Paste is all here and wait of the comments. You are the one trying to sell ST, so you have to do the sales work. Calling people liars and idiots because they don't think, speak, and act exactly as you do is not going to get it, at least not with me.
Posted by: NW_Denizen on June 27, 2007 09:42 AMConsidering that they were doing their best to limit public access to it by sneaking it into an off-ballot document, their skulduggery was a brilliant success. But their fiduciary responsibility to voters was the opposite, and they all still deserve tar and feathers at the least.
I notice that ol' EG Rails, in her constant demands that we obediently troop off to look up some supporting information before he'll deign to continue her harangue, is much like the ST board in 1996. They too were implicitly demanding that we troop off to read Res 75 elsewhere, and then if we didn't, it would be our own fault if we elected the travesty that it enabled.
As a citizen, I expect to be honestly and transparently informed by gummint agencies (elected AND non-elected) of all the aspects and conditions of the proposals which they submit to voters - not just the ones which will further careers, bribe blocks of voters and advance the causes of social engineering. ST is worthy of the Boss Tweed award for its dishonest manipulation of the 1996 election, but it appears that EG Rails is a also strong contender, for presenting research assignments instead of open arguments in its defense of our abominable light rail ripoff.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 27, 2007 09:43 AMI bet fewer than 1 or 2% of the people who voted in 1996 even knew what Resolution 75 was or what it said. That's why debating it now ex post facto is really irrelevant. The people THOUGHT they were getting a 21 mile rail system, and got screwed.
If the courts had rightfully allowed a revote after ST downsized the line to 14 miles, it would have gone down in flames.
Posted by: Palouse on June 27, 2007 09:54 AMThe very-limited scope of that performance audit was worked out by Sonntag and ST months ago. The draft report has been circulated. It is a whitewash job. It will not address, one way or the other, whether ST even is capable of complying with the legal responsibilities it has to taxpayers.
That I-900 "performance audit" by Sonntag will be an absolute joke.
@ 58 yells: "What's in that CETA table is WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING WHEN THEY VOTED FOR IT." If you think CETA did a good job of speculating what hundreds of thousands of voters "thought they'd be getting" by voting yes in 1996, good for you. Go ahead and get a copy of the law the voters approved, and you can read what they really approved.
You want to know what the bunk is in what CETA puts out? I'll show you, and back it up with facts. But you have to help me. Get yourself a copy of the controlling law, and I'll point you to the problems with the garbage CETA is spewing now. That way you can see for yourself what I am talking about, and you can help me debunk CETA's garbage. Sound good?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 10:05 AMThe analysis they laid out is very similar to what the public was hearing from all corners during that election.
Your poo-poohing of it because it didn't describe the law accurately is crap. Read their whole work, it describes things similarily to what you have been writing, but with the perspective of what voters were hearing at the time.
The examples I put in were to emphasize that all ST has ever done is shrink the deliverable and increase the cost.
@49 You might have to ask Sound Transit for one. I don't know if there is a copy on line anywhere. Ask for Res. 73 and all attachments, if you ask for it from ST.
I am curious. Why does ST have all sorts of documents on their site, but the primary document authorizing all they do is not? As Huh? mentioned, they do have Sound Move on their site, but it is lacking in details and reads like a marketing brochure.
However, I did find this SoundTransit1996SoundMovePlan.pdf
Haven't read all of it yet, but it is interesting in that it looks like it had been up on ST's website seven years ago and is now no longer available.
Sound Transit is Union job grabb a$$+ Developer Sqaure footage Grab a$$+ City,County,State sales tax /property tax Grab a$$.
The job that you have was fabricated for the benefit of the Grabbassians at the Seattle water buffalo lodge.
We never could take everyone everywhere in a metropolis like Seattle.
It was meant to shuttle The new gentrification corridor Urbanites,to and from inside the urban village to work,and buy things smaller than a bread box.
Evergreen you are part of a boondoggle.
You rise and shine to go to work at a public disgrace.
The people were lied to.
You work at that lie.
I disagree with this statement though: "ST has . . . increase[d] the cost." ST has no right to increase the spending budget the voters gave it in 1996. That is why it scaled back the light rail line in 2001.
If you simply meant to point out that the costs of all the train lines and park and rides described in Sound Move would have been too high for ST to complete within the spending budget it has, then I'd of course agree.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 11:03 AMBig gnarly parts of Res. 75 and Sound Move are facts that demonstrate CETA's new website contains a bunch of bunk. And it is bunk that is PRO-ST and anti-taxpayer.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 11:07 AMBecause ST wants the public ignorant of key terms in the law the voters approved in 1996.
For example, ST does not want people knowing there is a dollar limit on how much local taxes ST can spend during the system plan implementation period. That is why ST removed Table 2 from the Funding part of the Paying for the System section when it posted part of Sound Move on its website.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 11:17 AMIs that the version that has a "2002" date on the bottom?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 27, 2007 11:20 AMResolution 75, Sec 1 says that Sound Move will cost (1995 dollars) 3.914 billion dollars. Is this their authorized spending limit? Do they actually have a spending cap?
Where are they today? Have they hit 3.914 bil?
Specifically what about this statement is not factual with Sound Move?
FACT #1: The currently planned "Initial Segment" of Sound Transit's Central Link Light Rail project is not what we voted for. In 1996, taxpayers approved 21 miles, 10 years to complete, $1.67 billion, from U-District to the Airport. The current plan is 14 miles, 13 years to complete, $2.9 billion, and goes only from Downtown to two miles north of the Airport terminal. (Sources: Sound Move Ten Year Regional Transit System; October 2001 New Starts Submission, Appendix B)
I think you have the documents (Res. 75 and Sound Move) that show why your questions require lengthy answers. Answering them requires looking at terms in both Res. 75 and Sound Move.
"Resolution 75, Sec 1 says that Sound Move will cost (1995 dollars) 3.914 billion dollars. Is this their authorized spending limit?"
No. That $3.914 BLN figure in Res. 75 Sec. 1 is "the approximate estimated cost of system plan implementation . . . and all costs incidental thereto." That figure is not a spending limit.
As an initial matter, that estimate does not apply to the post-implementation period spending ST may do. For example, other terms (in Sound Move) specify that after the implementation period ST may subsidize with tax revenue certain operating costs. Those permanent post-implementation period costs are not included in the Sec. 1 $3.914 BLN estimate.
"Do they actually have a spending cap?"
Not an overall spending cap. There is no dollar-limit on how large the post-implementation period operations subsidies can be, for example. Local taxes can legally be used for those.
That Sec. 1 $3.914 BLN estimate also is not an overall "spending cap" on ST during the implementation period. For example, if some huge federal grant had come through in 2002 and ST had more federal grants than it estimated before the vote, there wouldn't be any problem with ST spending that unanticipated grant money during the implementation period.
On the other hand, there are definite limitations on ST's right to spend certain types of revenues during the implementation period. Take a look at the "revenues" figures in Table 2 of the Paying for the System section. Those are the amounts of revenues the voters made available to ST to spend during the implementation phase. Do you see in Section 2 of Resolution 75 where it refers to "the available funds?" Those are the amounts specified in Table 2.
ST can not spend more than the voter-approved local taxes amount ($1.98 BLN, 1995$) during the implementation phase. ST can not sell more than $1.052 BLN (1995$) in long term debt (bonds) during the implementation period either. Those figures in Table 2 are part of the overall estimate of $3.9 billion in implementation period spending. They also are upper limits on how much of those two revenue sources ST is authorized to utilize putting (what it can of) the system plan into place.
There are several reasons we know the Table 2 "local taxes" and "long term debt" amounts must operate as upper bounds on ST's right to spend amounts derived from those two particular revenue sources. The first is what Res. 75 Sec. 2 says about ST having to scale back or eliminate improvements if the available funds are insufficient. That is why when the light rail costs were going to be so high ST's board had to scale the line back from 21 to 14 miles. The provisions of Sec. 2 of Res. 75 obligated the board to reduce the improvements to stay within the revenues limits; the Supreme Court in the Sane Transit case opinion in 2004 said ST operated properly by scaling back the project to keep within these revenues limits.
Another reason we know the "local taxes" and "long term debt" figures in Table 2 are upper boundaries ST can not exceed is a very well established legal principle: substantial deviations from a voter-approved measure exceed a government's lawful authority. The court in the Sane Transit case opinion describes that rule, citing much authority. What that rule means in this context is that if ST deviates from what the voters approved by spending more than the $1.98 BLN (1995$) voter approved local taxes amount set out in Table 2, it will be acting outside its lawful authority.
Given what Sound Move and Res. 75 say, and the convoluted way those documents say it, the term "spending cap" is not really helpful. The way to look at it is that ST only can spend certain amounts of certain kinds of revenue during the implementation period.
"Where are they today? Have they hit 3.914 bil?"
The key figure from the taxpayers' point of view is the voter-approved local taxes limit on spending during the implementation period. Once ST hits that mark, future taxes still can be collected (to pay off outstanding debt, and subsidize post-implementation phase operations, for example). But since those authorized subsidy costs tax revenue may be used for are relatively modest, ST would be required to roll back the current tax rate in order to not take in more than it is authorized to spend during that post-implementation phase. The tax rate rollback requirement is a function of the constitution (not any statute, Sound Move or Res. 75): it would be arbitrary and capricious for any local government to collect more tax than it is authorized to spend.
The financial data and budgeting documents ST discloses do not indicate when it hit the voter-approved local taxes limit set out in Table 2. The total amount of taxes ST has collected since 1997 is about $2.8 BLN.
So, evergreen, where do we go from here?
Signed,
idiot
Posted by: swatter on June 27, 2007 04:55 PMA less ambitious light rail plan would get more support, but the elites at the top don't want it any other way. This will put a humongous excise & probably sales tax burden on this region.
I won't be surprised but not disappointed if it loses.
What are these people smoking? 56.4 Billion Dollars and NO major projects fully funded, Not the Viaduct, Not the 520, Not Roads, Not ST.
Posted by: Huh? on June 27, 2007 09:42 PMIt is million$ of dollars. Each of the various jurisdictions was "promised" projects that were to be built in and services which were to be provided that would be of benefit to voters in those areas. This was an attempt to get the suckers to buy off on SoundMove.
The reason we see "subareas" is because the voters outside Seattle were skeptical, to say the least, that anything would be done that was not what Seattle wanted and Seattle wants light rail and couldn't give two hoots and a holler about what has to be done to get it.
ST is somewhat constrained by this subarea equity, however they have made attempts to "lend" money from the east and south subarea to impliment light rail in Seattle. Stopping this has also cost YOU millions because YOUR City's staff has had to be present at meetings gallore and has had to devote staff time (which should be spent working to improve your local jurisdiction) to fighting to get what was "promised" and to prevent YOUR money from being pissed down the light rail rat hole.
And let's not let them get tecnical, Stefan will have the original SoundMove documents and will be able to post what was presented to the public soon. This is what the public voted on, not bla bla 75, which was never widely circulated or even mentioned to the voters prior to the vote. In order to have been aware of it you would have had to have devoted your entire life to attending each and every meeting held prior to the vote and then probably have made endless PDR requests. They are in the mail on the way to him as I type, conspicuous is their absense from SDTs website and believe me this is by design. I had the foresight to recognize that there would come a day when these documents would come in handy and that when that day arrived that they would be hard to come by. 7 Years ago I PDF'd them for posterity's sake.
Posted by: ConcernedTaxpayer on June 28, 2007 07:47 AMNo, that is not what the public voted on.
The public voted on a proposed ordinance: a local law. The terms of that law are in two documents - Resolution 75 and the complete 1996 version of Sound Move. The ballot title said to voters that is what you are voting on. The Supreme Court in the Sane Transit case determined that the contents of BOTH those documents were what voters approved.
If what Stefan is being sent by "concerned taxpayer" is an 8-page mailer, that is NOT Sound Move. That is a marketing broadsheet that merely summarizes some of the actual law the voters in 1996 approved.
There is absolutely no point now in trying to determine what voters "thought" they would get by voting for the measure in 1996.
There is however a very important reason to understand what Resolution 75 and Sound Move say. Those terms are the law. There are terms in there that taxpayers can rely on to ensure ST does not collect too much tax.
The terms not in the version of Sound Move ST has on its website are key taxpayer protection terms, for example. By removing the table showing the dollar amounts of the several voter-approved revenue sources what remains of the ordinance text makes it look like ST has absolutely unlimited taxing authority. Taking out what it did is deceptive.
This thread has got about five screen names on it who are posting stuff that is central to ST's PR efforts. The common theme: "avoid looking at the real Sound Move."
Stefan, if you want to post the real law, the one that gives taxpayers rights as against ST, post Resolution 75 and "the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73."
Oh, and those taxpayer protection provisions that are in the current law? ST2 would remove those AND give ST a friggin' blank check for taxing and spending on the light rail extensions it is describing in the new plan.
If you want to see the REAL law ST will be putting on the ballot in November, the current version is available on ST's site via links at the 5/24/07 Board Meeting Agenda page. That's part of the law, anyway. There also will be a resolution that may in some respects resemble Res. 75, but that part of what voters actually will be voting on has not been disclosed yet.
The Sane Transit case had very limited holdings. The court ruled the board acted properly in reducing the amount it would spend on Light Rail because of the requirement in Res. 75 sec. 2 that it scale back spending to stay within the "available funds" budget. That is a GOOD THING from the taxpayer's perspective.
The other ruling was that ST could take longer than ten years to implement (what it could of the system plan). So what? It isn't like the court ruled ST suddenly got a blank check to spend on light rail, or anything like that. ST still has to stay within the revenue spending limits addressed in post # 70 above.
Now, was is kosher for ST to not send out complete copies of Res. 75 and the true Sound Move document before the vote? There's a long line of cases in Washington saying that if the ballot title mentions a statute, that is enough.
Obviously I think NOBODY knew what actually was in the law that voters were being given the vote on. That was the case with the ST measure in '96, the SMP measure in '02, and it very much will be the case with the RTID/ST2 measure this year.
If Stefan is interested in helping the cause of disclosure, he could post the REAL law that is in force now that limits ST's authority to tax and spend: Resolution 75 and "the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73." He also could post the REAL law that ST and RTID are going to put on the ballot in November.
But posting the marketing materials from '96 is worse than useless. It doesn't matter what voters think they're getting, it matters what the ordinance referred to in the ballot title says.
That is one of the problems with the CETA chart and material referenced in the original blog item here. "What we thought we were getting" is nothing more than presumptuous overgeneralizing and speculation.
Another big problem with what CETA is doing is that CETA refuses to acknowledge the existence of the revenue limits in Table 2 of the Paying for the System section of Sound Move. Yeah, just like ST eliminated those from the text it put up on its website that it calls Sound Move.
Is that a coincidence? No way. CETA is a friendly enemy of ST. It takes shots at ST, but soft ones. It hits at ST in ways ST wants to be hit, and CETA misrepresents the taxpayer protection provisions of Sound Move.
For example, the "costs now" figures in the chart CETA posted show big costs of light rail. ST does not have the revenues authority to pay for those costs, yet CETA misleadingly suggests ST can continue to tax to pay for those costs (including University Link).
How about someone from CETA (or Sound Transit, for that matter)comes on here and tries to poke holes in the analysis of the controlling law set out in post # 70? If that analysis is correct - and I'm sure it is - no way does ST have sufficient tax revenue to pay for University Link. Unless of course the abomination in November is approved . . ..
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 28, 2007 09:20 AMLearn from the past. Get a copy of the ACTUAL law that ST and RTID will be putting before voters. If there are weasel words (your term, swatter) flag them and discuss them publicly. Call BS on those marketing the open-ended tax grab mess that ST and RTID want voters to approve.
And learn about how the current law limiting ST's rights is structured and how it should operate to protect the interest of taxpayers.
And swatter, your professed belief that what is posted at #4 in this thread shows you either do not understand reality or you want to misrepresent it. ST has no right to spend more if costs go up.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 28, 2007 10:03 AMGet the actual LAW that is being proposed for this November and use it in opposition arguments (or if you are a supporter).
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 28, 2007 10:21 AM-- "The Regional Transit Long-range Vision, Apendix "A""
This one is just some broad, non-binding statements of policy. Nothing in there is law: Res. 75 and the real Sound Move are law.
-- "A Detailed Description of Facilities and Costs"
This is just a marketing brouchure. ST can not be held to anything said in that document.
-- "the Ten-year regional Transit System Plan."
This probably is the 8-page mailer that summarizes what is in the actual Sound Move document. This was sent to voters, but it does not contain the key taxpayer provisions and it is not part of the law.
The documents that ARE relevant now are the draft laws that ST and RTID will put on the ballot in November, and the 1996 ordinance that the voters actually approved: Res. 75 and "the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, as described in the document entitled "Sound Move," adopted May 31, 1996 by Resolution No. 73."
Nobody should give a hoot about how ST marketed the plan last time. Everybody should be concerned about how it is marketing the current plan, and what is actually in the current plan.
A good opposition argument is pointing out that those supporting the measure have next to no idea what actually would be in it. Neither RTID nor ST is committing in those measures to doing anything except spending untold billions for decades. That is the only "promise" in there.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent the legislature coming back next session if this measure is approved in November and authorizing the three counties to impose an additional sales tax - without any public vote - to close the funding gap between the SR 520 project would cost (for example) and what ST2/RTID would apply to that project.
ST2/RTID just raises huge piles of money that unaccountable appointees get to allocate. It does not promise completion of ANYTHING by any date certain. It is the worst kind of public transportation infrastructure planning.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 28, 2007 10:56 AMI like Concerned better, but will take your advice. My other letters to the editor can be ghost written and signed by others for the other contests.
This one as you mention could be mine.
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 03:03 PMThe way this likely will shake out is that ST probably will be afforded a pass until the election.
A lawsuit relating to the Reg. 75/Sound Move spending limits could be filed before November, but if the measure is approved a dismissal would be appropriate right after that. That's because approval of ST2 would mean new authority from voters for ST to spend unlimited additional amounts of local tax revenue on "Phase I" system plan elements.
But if the measure is not approved, then somebody will sue to enforce the local taxes revenue limit described above. The claims will seek injunctive relief (an order requiring ST to comply with the ordinance's spending limits) and damages (the difference between how much ST has collected in taxes and the amount it should have collected).
If you want to point to marketing materials from the mid-nineties and say they were misleading, fine. Go for it.
But the actual law that people voted to approve in 1996 - even though most did not know what they were doing - is most certainly not the past. It is the current law. The reason to know what is actually in Res. 75 and Sound Move is so that when postings like those in this thread from whoever posted at #4, and swatter, and Huh? and palouse ALL same the same inane, anti-taxpayer thing ("ST has unlimited taxing rights if costs go up"), it is good to be able to point to the actual law that is in place now to show them why they are wrong.
See, JDH, that is why it was necessary to get the controlling documents - to show the uninformed posters that they are sooooo wrong. Nothing in the current law gives ST a blank check to spend tax revenues. ST2 would take those protections away, but it hasn't passed yet.
So you may not care about what the law is now, but you (for some reason) care about ST's ancient marketing materials.
My suggestion - learn what is in the current law, what is in the actual ordinance documents RTID and ST will be asking voters to approve in November, learn how the latter would change the former for the worse, and start spreadin' the word . . ..
But hey, you want to look at old marketing materials instead - knock yourself out.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 28, 2007 06:09 PMDefund this boondoogle and fire everyone involved starting from the top down until you can find someone who wants to actually address congestion and complete projects.
Posted by: Huh? on June 28, 2007 07:05 PMI know in Snohomish County, the transit people are salivating and eying the potential to add another half cents on the sales tax,which they say they are currently able to be done legally.
Posted by: swatter on June 29, 2007 05:54 AM
I could see some creative lawyer arguing that the ST financial plans and budget document showing massive lifetime project expenditures demonstrate intent to violate the spending restrictions. Those figures could provide the top line for calculating the size of part of the common fund the suit would generate. That would be BIG bucks the suit would prevent ST from dissipating in contravention of citizens' rights to keep the money ST otherwise would confiscate from them.
Plus, by that time there'd be refunds due (and the assets to make good on those!) . . ..
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 29, 2007 09:14 AMThank you for the late night entertainment. This proves once again that politicians never cease to deceive the voters. Just follow the pea.
Thank you all for a very informative posting.
Perhaps the truth may set us free of the yokes looming over our heads.
What happens when ST exceeds the boundries making up its taxing district. I have such proof, but it appears that no one in government is prepared to act. Anyone have an answer to this gnawing problem?
Posted by: Snuffy on July 2, 2007 01:50 AM