** UPDATED **
A couple questions came up in the comments on yesterday's post on the roads and transit measure up for a vote this November worth answering in a separate thread.
Essentially they were "Who is voting on the measure" and "what are the actual details?" Given the variety of ideas and proposals bandied about in the press in the last couple years those are good questions.
This map gives an approximate answer to the first question. If you currently pay Sound Transit taxes then you'll be voting on both the RTID and Sound Transit portions of the measure (both described here). If you live in the portion of Snohomish County indicated on the map noted above, including roughly Monroe, Snohomish, Lake Stevens, Marysville, and Arlington then you'll be voting on only the RTID portion. Clicking on the appropriate part of this map lets one examine the project list in different parts of the region.
Besides the pro-package website there's this opposition site for those looking to do a little research. Anyone aware of additional information worth sharing on the ballot measure on either side can post it in the comments and I'll update as appropriate.
UPDATE: I knew I was forgetting something with the original post: the work of Michael Ennis at the Washington Policy Center opposing the package found here, here, and here.
Also related to the boundaries of the ballot measure noted above is this map showing how I-776 lost within the Sound Transit bondaries - and not just in Seattle. Those were days when Sound Transit had considerably worse PR than now. Coupled with the mood of the voters more recently expressed with I-912 in that voting area, it's a reminder that while the current ballot measure certainly has its weaknesses, the public may be increasingly willing to vote "yes" anyway. It probably depends heavily on how effective the pro and con campaigns turn out to be in the coming months.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 29, 2007 09:47 PM | Email ThisWhat we need is a "Robert Moses" type to grab the reins and impose an architecture on the soggy urban blancmange that we live in.
For myself, I believe the only appropriate mass transit instrument are computer dispatched, shared taxis, such as the "texxi":
"texxi is a Demand Responsive Transit Exchange. We use advanced scheduling technology to make the most of existing transport resources at times of peak demand. Use of the scheme extends well beyond club night transportation and will provide a myriad of solutions to well known problems. Anywhere, anytime there are a lot of people to move from a single location as efficiently and safely as possible, texxi will provide a good solution to a perennial headache. "
Posted by: John Bailo on June 29, 2007 08:25 AMYou know, the laws that actually will be approved or not approved.
All you've linked to is marketing fluff.
Do everybody a favor and post:
- the current ordinance ST is operating under (Res. 75 and the complete 1996 version of Sound Move that the voters actually approved that year);
- the resolution and plan ST will be putting on the ballot in the fall; and
- the resolution and plan RTID will be putting on the ballot in the fall.
Some folks were surprised to learn years after the 1996 vote that what they thought ST was going to deliver in fact was nothing like ST's actual, minimal obligations under Res. 75 and Sound Move.
To try and head off comparable misunderstandings, why not just post the actual ordinances that will be shoved in front of voters.
As far as I know, ST and RTID do not plan on providing voters with copies of what they actually will be asked to approve. That is what happened in 1996 - ST didn't give the voters copies of Res. 75 or Sound Move. SMP didn't give voters copies of that ordinance they were voting on in 2002 either. All that these local governments have to do is mention the names of the ordinances in the ballot title.
As you can see from that prior thread on this subject Eric, there's a lot of BAD information floating around. Post the REAL ordinance documents, so everybody can start reading off the same page of sheet music.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 29, 2007 08:27 AMhttp://soundpolitics.com/archives/008834.html
Those screen names actually think ST has a blank check to spend tax revenues implementing the 1996 system plan!
Once they saw what the voter-approved Sound Move actually says, they realized they'd been suckered by disinformation from ST's PR team. The truth is that ST already has maxed out on the amount of local tax revenue it can spend implementing (what it was able to) of the system plan approved in 1996.
Who says the truth won't set you free?
By posting the actual ordinance the voters approved in 1996 and the draft ordinance terms RTID and ST want approved in November, you'd be doing a big service.
We could compare what we've been living under for a decade with what ST and RTID want to foist on this region for six more decades. This is a one-vote deal: if it is approved, there's no way any future change of circumstances will cut off a massive and rapidly growing tax stream to those boards made up of political appointees.
And nobody knows what is actually in the terms of the laws they want approved. Just look at the discussion at the link posted above: seemingly intelligent posters casting extremely bad assumptions around simply because they wouldn't look at what the existing law says.
Did you know the draft ordinances ST and RTID will be putting on the ballot allow those boards of appointees basically unlimited discretion in prioritizing the funding of an indefinite set of "improvements," none of which have been designed and none of which have full funding?
Come on - look at the real ordinances that will appear on the fall ballot. Those proposed laws are designed to facilitate bad decisions. They would eliminate ANY possibility of holding those board members accountable. The political appointees who would be imposing the limitless taxes, and signing off on the partial funding of whatever improvements seem like a good idea to them decades from now, will have ZERO accountability for dumb and self-interested decisions. What they are offering is no way to plan and execute transportation system infrastructure upgrades.
Post the actual ordinances. We should discuss those, not the marketing fluff at those websites you linked to.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 29, 2007 08:49 AMI can't believe all the farmland within the RTID property. I bet those farmers are going to demand pickups for their cows.
RTID is a total and unequivocal disgrace to our state. What in the world are they doing in rural areas?
Posted by: swatter on June 29, 2007 08:55 AMHas the new plan been published? My guess is that it will be "still in draft form" until about November 10th (after the election).
Your posts have been a bit confusing, but if I get the drift, you're basic premise is that ST plans are ONLY about spending money (tax and spend) and have no basis in reality for actually delivering a product with definable boundries.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 29, 2007 09:11 AM1. ST2 and RTID are pitching a set of solutions that legally they know they don't have to implement.
2. ST and Sound Move were marketed to make the public believe 21 miles at under $2 Billion (and a bunch more transit improvements) but in actuality could do as little as they chose.
3. We're being given a full-court press again to approve new spending with the same set of sky-high promises.
4. You can't find the original laws/information anywhere.
Yeah, if a private business did this they'd be busted in seconds and shut down for fraud, false advertisement, etc. But ST can do as they please?
Voting no on all taxes, and voting against all incumbents. It's time to not only throw the bums out, it's time to completely cut off all funding until they can show a little fiscal restraint and honesty...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 29, 2007 10:48 AMSeems someone fiddling with the truth here to me.
Posted by: ConcernedTaxpayer on June 29, 2007 11:10 AMIt is nothing but a massive and I do mean massive tax on every person in every family in this area.
Hell NO
Posted by: GS on June 29, 2007 09:02 PMswatter - I have to disagree with you on the "rural" issue. Drive out on Hwy 9 or Hwy 522 or the Hwy 2 trestle during rush hour and you'll see why the RTID boundary was extended out there. They have suburban traffic with rural infrastructure. It makes I-5 and 405 look fun by comparison at times.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 29, 2007 09:20 PMRail in the Sound is a joke. Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 29, 2007 10:26 PMThat of course means two things.
First, the fight against rail funding will ALL uphill without the more conservative voters from Enumclaw to Duvall on the Eastside.
Second, those of Eastside won't see any new roads for a long time.
Good luck to those of you further west.
Posted by: deadwood on June 29, 2007 11:22 PMThey combined the two different ballot measures (roads and transit) into one, so you just just yes or no on one thing.
But how does this work when the ST area is smaller than the RTID area?
What if the outcome is one way considering the larger area and another way in the smaller ST area?
Ex. no. 1: the "yes" vote is just barely above 50% in the smaller area (ST); but the yes vote drops below 50% in the larger (RTID) area.
Ex. no. 2: The no vote is barely above 50% in the smaller ST area....but in the larger area there is a yes vote overall.
Doesn't someone lose their equal voting rights in this scenario ? Doesn't this effectively change the ST boundary and result in taxation contrary to representation ( it gives non-ST-area taxed-people a role in the fate of the ST program)? Doesn't this go contrary to the vote that set up ST in 1996, revise its area and contradict the provisions that you need another vote in this area to go to ST2?
Thoughts? Anyone want to lawyer up?
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on June 29, 2007 11:26 PMAfter the 1996 measure passed, Sound Transit was legally able to scale back the length of the light rail line, drop stations, etc. That is because what the voters actually had done is approved an ordinance that allowed ST to do that. ST had not provided copies of the ordinance in advance (it is called Res. 75 and Sound Move).
swatter says it has weasel words. Others claim ST lied in Sound Move. ST doesn't have Sound Move up on its website (only some some text from it is there).
CETA just put out a new website, that Stefan linked to in the following thread:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008834.html
CETA has a chart showing "what we were promised" vs. "what we are getting."
So there is a big, big disconnect between what people think ST's responsibilities are, and what the law the voters approved actually says.
Nobody can trust the daily papers to tell them what actually is in one of these ordinances that the voters get: the papers get paid to omit key details.
So Eric, if you say the measures in November have weaknesses, fine. Maybe we'd disagree, maybe we'd find other things in the actual ordinances we like more.
Point is, why not post the actual ordinances?
Here's what I sense: the politicians do not want the public to know what the actual laws they will be voting on say. It may be that you are more interested in keeping the actual terms of what will go on the ballot out of the public eye. You may be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
I am sure the state Republican leaders (as well as those on the other side of the aisle) do not want the terms of the actual proposed RTID and ST2 ordinances posted here. Is that why you have not posted copies of the ordinances that the boards of RTID and ST approved several weeks ago?
This is a fairly notorious website. Go ahead, post the following so the public can actually see what the law is that ST must operate under now, AND what the actual law is that voters will be asked to approve in November:
- the current ordinance ST is operating under (Res. 75 and the complete 1996 version of Sound Move that the voters actually approved that year);
- the resolution and plan ST will be putting on the ballot in the fall; and
- the resolution and plan RTID will be putting on the ballot in the fall.
All you've linked to is marketing fluff. Second-hand statements from proponents and opponents of the measure don't begin to tell the story of what ST and RTID actually are putting before voters.
Let's look at what they really will be putting up on the ballot. Unless you want to keep that quiet, Eric . . .
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 30, 2007 06:44 AMIf you think about it, they all relate to what proponents of these measures NEED to get voter approval.
Those who'd make money off these (including R and D politicians) need the public ignorant.
All the whining now about how ST is not delivering on its promises? That is because 99% of those voting in 1996 did not know what was in the actual law they were being asked to approve.
Anyone think there might be a good reason for Eric or Stefan to NOT post the actual 1996 voter-approved law ST must operate under now, AND what the actual law is that voters will be asked to approve in November?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 30, 2007 06:52 AMIf any of you can tell us with 100% certainty how these things will play out then I have some money I would like to invest with you as we could make a killing.
The fact is we can guess and make extrapolations, but we can't know for sure. What we have now is a plan that is a best guess on what will happen. Not sure if you saw the story in the PI about the 787. In the 1990's Boeing was talking about the sonic cruiser. However they adapted to changing circumstances and developed the 787 which to has been modified becasue of unforeseen circumstances.
Locking ourselves in to an unchangeable and highly specific plan would be asinine. Instead voters will vote on the recommended plan which if need be can be changed as circumstances change.
Once again the solution is to have good elected officials who make these decisions. I think for the most part we have that now. This is not the same ST board that made mistakes in the late 1990's and so far they done what they can to completely deliver on the original plan given the realities that took place.
But ST's board is made up of political appointees. The County Exec's appoint them. Voters have zero say in who gets selected to serve on ST's board, and those in the ST district have no right to join together and vote someone off ST's board for non-performance (or worse).
All those who would be on RTID's board are elected to different positions (district winners of Co. Council races). None of the RTID appointees RAN for the position of RTID board member, none of them faced challenges for their RTID seats, and voters in RTID have no right to vote together to remove a poorly-performing RTID board member.
A transportation planning board that is accountable to voters would be a vast improvement over the appointee system ST/RTID represents.
"What we have now is a plan that is a best guess on what will happen."
So let's get the ordinances these governments want us to approve posted here, so we can compare them with what the voters actually approved in 1996. Maybe Giffy is right and the new ordinances will be superior to the 1996 one. But we can't just take Giffy's word for that. I'm sure Giffy would agree.
swatter insists there were "weasel words" throughout Sound Move. He won't identify those. OK swatter, take a look at the ordinances that ST and RTID are going to put before voters in the Fall? Are there any of those same "weasel words" in the new ordinances?
Giffy: what you've posted in general about the new measures makes sense. It is not "flexibility" that is the problem, and yes steel costs can rise.
But I've got to take exception with the following: "This is not the same ST board that made mistakes in the late 1990's and so far they done what they can to completely deliver on the original plan given the realities that took place."
I assume you have a copy of Sound Move. You can not get one from ST's website, so don't try if you don't have one. Assuming you can refer to the controlling law the voters approved, what makes you think ST can "completely deliver" on the voter-approved requirement that no more than $1.98 billion in local taxes be spent during the system plan implementation phase?
If you are not aware of that limit the voters imposed on ST in 1996 it would be because ST's PR machine has given the impression that ST has a blank check to spend local taxes on the voter-approved system plan. One way ST keeps the public ignorant of the truth on that subject is by not posting an accurate copy of Sound Move on its site.
So Giffy, can you point to any document from ST suggesting it is cognizant of, and will respect, the local taxes spending limit that the voters imposed in 1996?
Posted by: evergreen_rails on June 30, 2007 07:36 AMThey aren't that long. People could use them to just look for what they have questions about: the legal definition of the two districts' boundaries; whether there are any weasel words in 2007 (apparently there were weasel words in the 1996 ordinance); what the limits on taxing and spending would be; if RTID money can be co-mingled with the ST money; how ST2 funds could be commingled with ST1 funds; will the oversight provisions likely be strong enough (look how Seattle monorail spun out of control, for example).
"Besides, this site is about commentary, not providing an online library for those too lazy to do their own Internet research. Besides, Stefan"
Trust me, commentary based on the facts of the ballot offering will be FAR superior to commentary based on the kind of slanted marketing puff-pieces you chose to link to. I'm sure the politicians in the state do not want the public knowing the facts about the actual terms in these several ordinances - is that the only reason you won't gather them in one place, Eric?
You offer the cheeky suggestion that the only reason someone couldn't come up with an accurate copy of the actual 1996 Sound Move from the Internet is laziness.
To my knowledge, the exhibit a to Res. 73 is nowhere online. I know ST doesn't want that correct copy of Sound Move out in the open. Is that why you don't want to post it - you don't want to be the one that releases it? That could torpedo your political career.
Sound Transit should finish the 1996 voted proposal before coming back to tax payer for more revenue. Why would you want to put more money into ST2 when ST1 has not met the expectation that was promised.
Our Representatives in Olympia should dismantle the RTID.
Use the gas tax, which will be 36 cents on Monday to fix the chokepoints that was addressed by WADOT before the 9 ½ cent gas tax was voted in.
Here is a fine example, one of the biggest chokepoint has been the 167 / I- 405. This has been going on for over twenty years. Dot added a HOV lanes on 167. Years later DOT stated the HOV lanes where not being utilized to there fullest. The legislators passed a bill to make the HOV lanes into HOT Lanes ( Cost 14 Mill +++ ). If you want to use them you have to pay (Lone Drivers). The thing to look at is as soon as this passed the work started. Now the new RTID ballot proposal has nothing in it to fix this 167 / 1-405 mess.
The plan is to continue the 167 Hot lanes on to I-405 HOV lanes which all the lanes will become HOT LANES. More money will be used to study the 167/1-405 mess. How many times are they going to study this and how much have they spent????????????
The Voting public had the wool pulled over their eyes when voting in the 9 1/2 cent gas tax.
Don't be fooled again. Vote no
"That could torpedo your political career."
That's quite a reach, and assumes I even have some sort of political career that would be affected by me posting some document related to Sound Transit. The Trilateral Commission called, they want their conspiracy theory back.
That being said, if you have something that is not available to the interested Internet researcher I'll be glad to consider posting it, particularly if it is some sort of official document pertinent to the current debate. You can send it to ericearling at gmail dot com.
That summarizes my take on why ST does not want voters to do a side by side - line item by line item, mile for mile, dollar for dollar accounting of what was PROMISED with what was delivered (and if you do not agree with my use of the word PROMISED a pdr of YOUR City or County Council meeting's video archives from '95 & '96 will be instructive). There were promises and guarantees made in front of every local government body in the region that were as convincing to me as Fat Albert's "Iron Clad Lock Box" guarantee from the '92 presidential debates. I didn't believe Al's line and I didn't believe the SoundMove line of crap either.
Posted by: JDH on June 30, 2007 03:49 PMClick Here for PDF of 1996 Sound Move Plan
Resolution 75 has been continuously posted on the Sound Transit web for years. Google for "Sound Transit Resolution 75" without quotes.
Click here for Resolution 75 from Sound Transit
The text of the Roads & Transit ballot proposition that we are going to be presented with this fall according to State law is a little harder to find.
The text of it is contained in Substitute House bill 1396 passed by both houses of the State Legislature and signed by the governor on May 15th. The ballot language is in Section 4, and it's easiest to just quote that section:
QUOTE
The election on the single ballot proposition described in RCW 36.120.070 and 81.112.030(10) must be conducted by the auditor of each component county in accordance with the general election laws of the state, except as provided in this section. Notice of the election must be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each component county in the manner provided in the general election laws.
The single joint ballot proposition required under RCW 36.120.070 and 81.112.030(10) must be in substantially the following form:
"REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT (RTID)
AND
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)
PROPOSITION #1
REGIONAL ROADS AND TRANSIT SYSTEM
To reduce transportation congestion, increase road capacity, promote safety, facilitate mobility, provide for an integrated regional transportation system, and improve the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of Washington, shall a regional transit authority (RTA) implement a regional rail and transit system to link [insert geographic references] as described in [insert plan name], financed by [insert taxes] imposed by RTA, all as provided in Resolution No. [insert number]; and shall a regional transportation investment district (RTID) be formed and authorized to implement and invest in improving the regional transportation system by replacing vulnerable bridges, improving safety, and increasing capacity on state and local roads to further link major education, employment, and retail centers described in [insert plan name] financed by [insert taxes] imposed by RTID, all as provided in Resolution No. [insert number]; further provided that the RTA taxes shall be imposed only within the boundaries of the RTA, and the RTID taxes shall be imposed only within the boundaries of the RTID?"
UNQUOTE
On November 6th, in the Sound Transit District, and/or in the RTID district, you vote Yes or No on this single measure.
Government leaders of Sound Transit and RTID planning sought this law. The celebration of its enactment is contained in a Sound Transit press release.
Click here for Sound Transit press release celebrating single ballot in November.
This press release provides a marketing fluff overview of what the $38 billion will pay for, without mentioning $38 billion.
Posted by: John Niles on June 30, 2007 06:32 PMHell No on this one ... All of it...
Posted by: GS on June 30, 2007 07:09 PMThe libs with the large voting block just want to be like other cities of the world that have light rail (golden spike envy). In their book, it's for the common good. They don't care about logic or the cost. And the unions counting the votes have a lot to gain from the expansion. So all RTA has to do is paint a vague & pretty picture and let their cronies do the rest.
Posted by: mb on June 30, 2007 10:13 PMWhat is copied there is just the ballot title. That is what voters will see, in the Voters Guide in November. See how it refers to the RTA "plan" and "resolution" and it also refers to a separate RTID "plan" and "resolution?" THOSE are the documents that will contain the actual law.
Niether ST nor RTID have released drafts of their respective "resolutions" that will go on the ballot. All of those who support RTID/ST2 at this point are supporting it without knowing key terms that would control for the next five decades. That's because they are interested in one thing: a massive income stream that will create a slush fund for other governments.
The ballot title posted at 36 suggests there will be new "resolutions" like "resolution 75." That is the document that the Sane Transit folks did not know existed, so they sued because they thought ST had an obligation to complete everything in ten years and only build 21 miles of light rail. John Niles in particular was extremely confused about that - he was "Mr. Sane Transit."
Look at the RTID plan. It is at the RTID.org site (Blueprint for Progress). Take the "spending" in Seattle it sort-of promises. The City will be the lead agency. In other words, whatever amounts the RTID board eventually sends over toward Seattle will just go to partially fund some projects, but NONE of those projects could come close to being completed with RTID funds. Seattle taxpayers would be on the hook for the overruns (on top of the RTID taxes and ST taxes they'd be paying).
It is a system designed to generate massive pools of cash where no politicos are responsible for getting anything in particular done with those revenues. Disgusting.
Drafts of the ST "plan" mentioned in that ballot title posted at 36 can be found at soundtransit.org. Don't look where it says "ST2" on the homepage. Go to About Us, then Board, then Meetings, then Meeting Agendas, then find the board meeting agenda for 5/24/07 and links to some of the actual ordinance terms that may appear on the Fall ballot are there.
But John Niles @ 36 is definitely not correct when he says that what will be voted on is what he posted. As you can see, what he posted refers to other documents -- and those are what will be either approved or not approved, even if voters are not given those documents and they are not posted anywhere on the 'net prior to the election.
Posted by: FLD on July 1, 2007 06:50 AM
I will say, if you are aware of "gross mismanagement," you have an obligation to take your accusations to a court of law (and win). Posting nonsense here makes no difference - this is for sharing ideas, not hurling meaningless rants into the void!
Posted by: red means right on July 1, 2007 09:23 AMhttp://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topphoto/story/100246.html
Posted by: JDH on July 1, 2007 10:05 AMLook it up on the internet you lazy bum.
Posted by: Proponent Of The Measures on July 1, 2007 01:17 PMIn the RTA tax world, not sure if a home sale is treated the same as a store selling a shovel.
Anyone besides POTM know?
Posted by: mb on July 1, 2007 09:35 PMThat is hilarious. Well done! :)
Posted by: Palouse on July 2, 2007 07:38 AM