Today's headline: "Sims budget relies on 'fiscal discipline,' and higher taxes".
Higher taxes, yes. 'Fiscal discipline', not so much. Among Sims' fiscally undisciplined proposals:
A property tax of about 5 cents per $1,000 of valuation to finance passenger ferries. A 5-cent tax would cost $20 a year for the owner of a $400,000 home; Sims will send a specific proposal to the council next month, but the tax won't be more than 5 cents, his aide said. A 5-cent tax would raise $16 million a year.If passenger ferries were a sufficiently valuable service the passengers could pay for their own rides. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 16, 2007 01:36 PM | Email This
If 1,000 people ride it daily, round trip, every work day of the year, that would be about 260,000 "trips" (1,000 x 260). Divide $16 million by 260,000 and you get about $62 dollars a year per rider, or about $5.20 per month. The number would change based on ridership, but if more people ride this ferry, then it would seem to be even more absurd to foist this additional cost off on homeowners.
Why do homeowners have to foot this bill?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 16, 2007 01:44 PMThank you sir, may I have another! Tax that is.
Posted by: danno on October 16, 2007 01:51 PMOne GOOD price increase in the King County proposal is to raise the bus fares about a quarter. This is a step in the right direction, but buses should also be funded mostly by fares. Perhaps a need-based, means tested voucher or subsidized bus pass could be given to the poor, but most people should pay their own way. Oh, and if we de-regulate taxi-cabs to allow jitneys, we would have mid-priced alternative transportation choices between cars and buses... But the City and Port are growing fat off of inflated cab medalion fees, while taxi users pay inflated cab fares in an oligarchic system that provides too few cabs. This reduces employment among potential cab drivers and small would-be cab entrepreneurs as well. It benefits the politicians and the big, well-connected cab companies.
Let the free market be free!
But property taxes to fund ferries? Crazy!
"Regressive" sales taxes to fund mental health and addiction services? Self destructive!!!
And where are the spending cuts that would have made this budget truly responsible?
Oh, well.
Fortunately, Prop 1 will fail and Eyeman's I-960 will pass. Yay!!! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 16, 2007 01:53 PMA sales tax of one cent per $10 purchase to provide treatment for substance abusers and the mentally ill who get into trouble, as an alternative to jail or hospitalization, if appropriate. The tax would raise $50 million a year. It would cost the average family $25 a year, a Sims aide said.
(( JUST WHAT WE NEED MORE DRUGS TO TREAT DRUGEES. THERE ARE MORE METHADONE USERS IN SEATTLE THAN ANY OTHER CITY, AND INCREASING EVERY DAY. I AM IN THE HEALTH FIELD AND THE WORD IS OUT,"COME TO SEATTLE AND GET FREE DRUGS" AND WE PAY FOR IT IN OUR TAXES. THIS COUNTY IS TURNING INTO THE DRUG CAPITAL OF THE COUNTRY.
A property tax of 10 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation to repair aging flood-control levees. The tax would cost $40 a year for the owner of a home assessed at $400,000. It would raise $32 million in 2008, the first year of Sims' proposed 10-year flood-control program.(( THIS MIGHT BE THE ONLY TAX SIMS HAS PROPOSED THAT MIGHT BE WORTH IT? ))
A property tax of about 5 cents per $1,000 of valuation to finance passenger ferries. A 5-cent tax would cost $20 a year for the owner of a $400,000 home; Sims will send a specific proposal to the council next month, but the tax won't be more than 5 cents, his aide said. A 5-cent tax would raise $16 million a year.
(( WHAT HAPPENED TO REDUCING EMISSIONS? NO TERMINALS, NO CONNECTING RIDES, NO PARKING AT THE TERMINALS. IN FACT WHAT TERMINALS? PASSENGERS WILL HAVE TO BUS IT TO THE DOCK, MORE SHORT RUNS USING MORE DIESEL CONSUMPTION, THEN GET ON A POLLUTING DIESEL FERRY TO SEATTLE, ANOTHER SHORT RUN WITH MORE EMISSIONS, THEN WHAT ANOTHER DIESEL BUS TO DOWNTOWN. WHAT A STUPID PROPOSAL. FORGET THE BOAT...RUN MORE BUSES FROM TOTEM LAKE, KIRKLAND NORTH, SOUTH AND EASTGATE..AND FROM HUB TO HUB. THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM, USE LESS DIESEL RESULTING IN FEWER EMISSIONS. YOU WILL STILL HAVE SOME POLLUTION BUT WILL GET A BIGGER BANG FOR THE BUCK WITH LONGER RUNS RESULTING IN BETTER GAS MILEAGE, HENCE LESS CARBON EMISSIONS. I DO RECALL SOMEONE CALLED SIMS PROMOTING MORE BUSES AND GETTING SUPPORT. GET IT TOGETHER RON YOU ARE GOING TO TAX KING COUNTY TO DEATH BY PROPOSING INEPT IDEAS.
Posted by: no fool on October 16, 2007 02:11 PMAnother proposed tax is to pay for restoration of the flood control levees the County stopped maintaining years ago in order to divert the flood control revenue for other purposes.
This new tax proposal has been under development for several years. Sims eliminated specific flood control districts that had taxing authority and replaced them with one county-wide district. The county-wide scope of the tax enables Sims to overstate the cost needed to fix ailing levees. His intent, if the tax is approved, would be to divert part of the revenue to non-food control expenditure. This effort is a typical bait and switch scheme. Sims' successors will be stuck with figuring how to raise additional money after major levee failures occur that are inevitable.
The solution is to form targeted flood control districts to levy taxes upon the property owners that are directly benefited by the improvements. Taxing all county property owners to pay for flood control measures that benefit a few cannot be
justified.
There is another way to reduce the impacts from flooding. Dredge the rivers to lower the channel levels that have become occluded by the spoils from erosion for years. This remedy is less costly than the amount required to restore and maintain levees. Moreover, dredging is less harmful to the environment than what results from repetitive sheet flooding that occurs annually irrespective of the levees.
Posted by: Paddy on October 16, 2007 02:14 PMProposed
A sales tax of 10 cents per $10 purchase to provide treatment for substance abusers and the mentally ill who get into trouble, as an alternative to jail or hospitalization, if appropriate. The tax would raise $50 million a year. It would cost the average family $25 a year, A. Voters already approved a sales tax for this problem Veterans and Human Services Levy, now they want to tweak it a little more.
Proposed
A property tax of 10 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation to repair aging flood-control levees. The tax would cost $40 a year for the owner of a home assessed at $400,000. It would raise $32 million in 2008, the first year of proposed 10-year flood-control program. A. This should have been covered with the revenues already being received, but they use that money for their pet projects. Of course they are using the Katrina flooding as a example that it could happen to use. Are they crazy.
Proposed
A property tax of about 5 cents per $1,000 of valuation to finance passenger ferries. A 5-cent tax would cost $20 a year for the owner of a $400,000 home; the tax won't be more than 5 cents. A 5-cent tax would raise $16 million a year. A The Council states: Under legislative authority to counties provided by the state in 2003, local ferry districts receive funding for operations through a property tax levy with out a vote of the people. 1 The tax payers are all ready paying taxes to the State. Let the State take care of the a Ferry System. With the problem with the ferry system why would the county want to start a ferry system.
With no vote by the citizens, you know these taxes will increase every year.
If you watched Ron Sims speech proposing his 2008 budget what a sermon. I was waiting for the money tray to be passed around. We can all see where his priorities are cant we.
Vote the bums out, State and County
"If traffic lights were a sufficiently valuable service the drivers could pay for their own lights."
"If 911 were a sufficiently valuable service the injured could pay for their own assistance."
Posted by: Bill Anderson on October 16, 2007 03:15 PMI'd like to live in a place where those less fortunate are incented to become contributing members to society -- but provided for in the meantime.
I'd like to live in a place where all folks are considered equally important.
I'd like to live in a place where race/religion/ethnicity are all positive attributes, not division ones.
I'd like to live in a place where investments are made that keep these priorities up.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on October 16, 2007 04:05 PMWhy do druggies get $18,000,000 more per year than shoring up the river levies?
The Internet tax "ban" was extended four years. The reason a Democratic congressman voted against making it permanent was (paraphrased), "The Internet will change and more business will be performed over it. If this ban was permanent, we wouldn't be able to tax anything."
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan
Wow, after reading that list, it sounds like you'd be pretty happy as a new recruit in the Army.
Posted by: Smoley on October 16, 2007 05:59 PMMore methadone clinics. Just like the one on Pill Hill where the juiced folks stagger over to the McDonald's on Madison and camp out; when they're not hustling people coming and going from Swedish and the like. Or the clinic in Shoreline that provides a diverse celebration of colorful characters who help make Metro Route #358 the scariest ride in King County. How about the clinic on South Airport Way? The strip of Airport Way that should have large yellow signs with silhouettes of backpack wearing men and women with needles in their arms running across the street in front of moving traffic.
YES! Our local government has done such an excellent job of dealing with substance abuse and so stealthily blending it into the local landscape. Why, more money pumped into the program will only make it even better. NOT!
Hopefully below the water line.
Vote Hell No on Prop 1!
Posted by: GS on October 16, 2007 07:23 PMIf people want to get across the Puget Sound they should take the Tacoma Narrows Bridge -- in their car.
Oh, and speaking of transit, I've been refining my numbers. Many of you may have read the recent Seattle Times article about ridership and car registrations. The brunt of the article is that the growth of automobiles has really slowed considerably in recent years. They of course claim that "more people are riding the bus". My counter argument is that things here are so tragically bad that people are leaving en masse.
That said, they did have an interesting number. According to them there were some 112 million "riders" during 2006.
Well, gee.
Let's just round that number 100 million for a sec. Ok, so 100 million is the total number of bus trips. And we're getting ready to spend something like 150 billion on rail.
So how far would just one billion go. That's $10 per trip. So, if we spent $1 billion on transit a year, we could give bus riders a $10 credit to be used in a taxi. And if we used shared taxis, that would be $30 of buying power.
But wait, we are going to spend 150 over 30 years. So that's 5 Billion a year, so now, based on 100 million riders, we could give people $50 a trip.
Do you know how long a taxi ride you could get for $50...you wouldn't even have to buddy up!
It's insane.
Take the money and give it to people to use taxis.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 16, 2007 08:33 PMSo King County Taxpayers will get hit every way possible as the budget still baloons.
Posted by: njerald on October 16, 2007 09:14 PMSouthernRoots' arithmetic is off by a little. If there were roughly 1,000 people who rode every weekday, it would cost tax payers a little more than $30 per ride.
Figure out how many people are likely to be regular commuters and multiply by 260 weekdays in a year, then multiply by 2 to account for the fact that each would take two rides (a roundtrip), and then divide that number into the total tax cost to find the approximate subsidy per ride. Each time someone boards the boat, that's the amount the taxpayer would pay for that ride.
Passenger-only ferries aren't likely to exist without a substantial subsidy from tax payers -- something around 60 percent or more of the total cost to provide the service. They've been tried from a couple of locations in Kitsap County to and from Seattle, and there were very few people willing to pay even half the actual cost of providing them the service. With so few riders, the service was cancelled (until our Kitsap political leaders can find a way to force us tax payers to subsidize it enough to coax more riders onto the boats).
King County can force it on its tax payers, so it will almost certainly happen.
Posted by: Micajah on October 16, 2007 10:13 PMSouthernroots calculations are not a "little off" they're a lot off. It isn't $62 per year per rider, it is $62 per RIDE.
It isn't $5.20 a month, but over $2k a month per rider.
Even if you don't have enough fingers to do the math folks, when Southernroots takes $16m and 1000 daily riders and arrives at a cost of about $5 a month for each rider it is absurd on its face.
Posted by: BA on October 17, 2007 12:30 PMFerry riders on Vashon already have a ferry crossing they can use, that is already subsidized with state funds. Passenger ferries are a luxury that the 99.9% of us need not pay for. Same is true of trains that 98% would pay for, but only 2% will use.
Posted by: Palouse on October 17, 2007 12:30 PMDang, now I gotta start all over on being perfect, but on the bright side, I can only go up from here.
$110,000,000 in new ANNUAL taxes, increased spending, no discernable budget cuts, a seawall to replace, a viaduct to replace, 520 floating bridge to replace, streets to repair, Sonics venue to consider, Prop 1 taxes, increased operating expenses for metro, etc., etc.
When will the tax beast be satisfied?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2007 12:55 PMRoads are subsidized because the state pays for all road infrastructure. That the funds for this comes from the various taxes and fees you describe aren't the issue.
If road use wasn't subsidized, you would pay a toll for every roadway you use. That is not the case, and it's unfair to expect ferries and other public transit to do as much.
When you consider the life cycle costs of road infrastructure, they are in the same ballpark as passenger ferries. In fact, single-occupancy vehicle travel is more expensive than the cost-per-passenger-mile of passenger ferries (carpooling flips that equation)!
As far as this whole idea of ferries being a luxury, this is hogwash. It's the responsibility of government to provide transportation infrastructure for residents and workers, whether that's across water or land is irrelevant, particularly considering that the concept of "marine highways" is enshrined in state law.
A new road in Timbuktu, WA is something only 1% of us will use, but all will pay for. Does that mean it shouldn't be built?
Posted by: Greg on October 17, 2007 01:54 PMThis makes no sense. Who provides the state with ALL the funds? That's right, the USERS of the roads. Everyone who pays the taxes and fees associated with roads is paying for 100% of the building and maintenance of them. Therefore, they are not subsidized as you say.
There is already existing infrastructure provided to the residents of Vashon. So the state is already fulfilling their obligation in that regard. There is absolutely not a NEED for a passenger only ferry. Therefore, it's a luxury. If Vashon wants it, then they can pay for it.
A new road in Timbuktu, WA is something only 1% of us will use, but all will pay for. Does that mean it shouldn't be built?
This is a non-sequitor. Having road infrastructure benefits the entire region, whether you use it or not. Roads deliver goods and services to retailers, deliver mail, and provide a means of travel for emergency services. That benefits the entire region and economy. Passenger ferries only benefit the very few people who would use them. Since a regular ferry already serves the route in question, the regional value of that route as a "road" is already recognized.
It would cost nothing, and be worth a hell of a lot more than the value we got from that purchase.
Posted by: GS on October 17, 2007 03:31 PMThese choices already exist. There's two routes you can take that are already heavily subsidized by all taxpayers. Taxpayers everywhere else should not pay so that you can go anywhere from Vashon Island directly to whereever you want.
It would be nice if government would pay for a road that went directly from my neighborhood to my place of work. But that's not feasible, or cost effective, and last I checked, my neighborhood was part of King County too. Same is true of passenger only ferries.
Posted by: Palouse on October 17, 2007 03:41 PMLook, with gas taxes, people pay more for roads in rough proportion to how much they use roads. I know that some vehicles get better milage, but liberals should like this fact since high fuel efficiency car owners would get a kind of subsidy from low fuel efficiency car owners.
Bill @ 16: We would ALL like those nice things, but the government is NOT the only way to provide these things for a community/society. You liberals always confuse community with government. But community MUST be voluntary. Government is involuntary. It is a use of force. Imagine a block party you were FORCED to attend. That's not community.
Private charities are community. Voluntary associations are community. Since businesses only sell to willing buyers, they represent voluntary community as well. All of these will create the very kind of society that you want. But depending on government to solve these problems is utopian and doomed to failure. Government has no history of solving these problems.
I'd like to live in a safe place where the community is welcoming, service is plentfiul and the American Dream is available to all.
"service is plentiful"? I don't even know what that means. I agree with the rest.
I'd like to live in a place where those less fortunate are incented to become contributing members to society -- but provided for in the meantime.
I agree. So long as they are not provided for by the federal government, as that would be blatantly unconstitutional. And preferably not the state government either, since that is legalized theft.
I'd like to live in a place where all folks are considered equally important.
Me too. And I believe I do live in such a place. Where do YOU live that you think you don't?
I'd like to live in a place where race/religion/ethnicity are all positive attributes, not division ones.
I don't understand this. I don't see any such attributes as positive or negative.
I'd like to live in a place where investments are made that keep these priorities up.
Me too, with the same caveats as above: not illegally done by the federal government, and not immorally done by any other government.
Posted by: pudge on October 17, 2007 08:41 PMEach time he hikes the sales tax, he takes money out of poor peoples budgets. Each time he raises property taxes, he causes rents to go up, thus taking more and more of poor family's budgets.
This is the very man who fears his budget shrinking, so he causes yours to diminish.
The scrooge of King County....Bah Humbug!
Fair is fair, toll all the major transportation links for a level playing field. The tolls for the ferry meter demand and their dramatic rise has reduced overloads (congestion), tolls on the highways would have the same effect.
Posted by: BA on October 18, 2007 07:51 AMThe difficult part is that you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as "question-begging," where you assume your argument is true in your argument itself.
Posted by: pudge on October 18, 2007 11:09 AMHelicopters that take everyone from my neighborhood to work should be viewed the same as buses and trains and should be funded accordingly.
Makes about as much sense.
Posted by: Palouse on October 18, 2007 12:23 PMpudge: See BA's comment. Auto ferry users currently pay gas taxes in addition to their ferry fare. By forcing auto ferry users to pay 100% of cost, you are essentially double-taxing them to use state highways.
Look, all I'm asking for is a level playing field. None of us expect bus riders to pay for 100% of their fare. In fact, part of the justification for subsidy in the first place is that you're mitigating traffic impact on the roads. One more person who is using public transit is one less person clogging our already-jammed freeways. Why do we then levy different standards on ferries, which are another form of public transit?
As for this whole logical fallacy thing, I don't really get what you're saying. My argument is true because I know what I am talking about. What do you know about ferries?
Palouse: Can you explain your argument ad absurdum? I have no knowledge of helicopter costs, but know quite a lot about passenger ferries. Economically they make sense, particularly when you choose the right vessels for the route (which KC is doing, getting rid of the old Skagit and Kalama). Moreover, the county has an obligation to maintain and expand the transportation connections its residents depend on.
Posted by: Greg on October 18, 2007 05:23 PMI don't believe you can prove that the folks taking the passenger ferry are not also utilizing roads on either end of their ferry trips. You can also assume that the goods and services that they receive at home do not arrive entirely by Mass Transit and Foot (they actually do have roads on the islands) so it should be safe to say that they are utilizing the roads provided by the County as well and they are not double taxed without services provided.
Posted by: Huh? on October 18, 2007 08:57 PMIsland residents still use roads, even those who use passenger ferries, so the double taxing point is moot. The passenger ferry that goes directly to your place of work is a luxury that the rest of us shouldn't be paying for.
Now if Vashon residents want to tax THEIR property in order to have this luxury, no problem. In fact, I wouldn't even have a problem with the county kicking in the cost of a bus (capital and operating) for this. That would be fair, no? Vashon would pick up the rest of the cost of this boat, since living on an island is a choice that shouldn't be subsidized any more than other bus routes.
Posted by: Palouse on October 19, 2007 07:49 AMAuto ferry users currently pay gas taxes in addition to their ferry fare. By forcing auto ferry users to pay 100% of cost, you are essentially double-taxing them to use state highways.
That is, in fact, false. They use the highways too. And worse, it's nonsensical, because by the same standard I shouldn't have to pay for the highways, since I work from home. We don't work that way. I don't mind paying for the highways; I am not complaining. But we do not have a system -- as you falsely imply -- that works the way you want it to, where we measure fairness for paying for roads by whether people use the roads or not, because if we did, I would be getting the shaft a lot more than the ferry users.
Look, all I'm asking for is a level playing field.
No, you are not. That's the problem. You are asking for people who get a service above and beyond normal roads to get a free ride.
None of us expect bus riders to pay for 100% of their fare.
I do.
As for this whole logical fallacy thing, I don't really get what you're saying. My argument is true because I know what I am talking about.
Ha. Obviously, you don't understand logical fallacies, which is unsurprising, giving your arguments.
It doesn't matter if you think you know what you are talking about. You have to back it up, or it is meaningless. And you just did it again.
Let's say we're talking sports. I say Tom Brady is the best QB, you say Hasselbeck is. You say, "In fact, Hasselbeck is the best QB because I know what I am talking about." That does not actually provide evidence of any kind. That is called the "argument from authority" fallacy, which you used just now.
Maybe you said, "Because Hasselbeck is the best QB, you are wrong to say he is not." That is the question-begging fallacy: again, you provided no evidence, and your argument just assumes that he is. You don't even leave any room open for discussion, you have no argument, and you have no evidence. That is what you did when you said we "should" pay for ferry service with taxes.
And you've still done it: you've not said one word to back up "should" except to imply it is "unfair." But you've not backed up "unfair" except to say that it doesn't comport with your own subjective view of fairness. And round and round we go. It is not a fact that we "should" pay for it with taxes, nor is it a fact that it is "unfair." There are plenty of arguments against what you're saying, some of which I gave above, and you are extremely foolish to pretend otherwise: you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logic.
I couldn't care less what you know, or think you know, about ferries: all I care is about whatever logical arguments you can make to support your position. And so far, there's been none.