The Seattle Times has editorialized against passing a temporary, two-year, $20 car tab fee that would avert a looming 17 percent cut in Metro bus service—about 600,000 hours of service a year, impacting four out of five routes and 80 percent of riders. Metro estimates the cuts would lose it 9 million rides a year while forcing an additional 15,000 car trips a day onto the county’s already congested streets.
Fine. That’s okay. None of the Seattle Times editors rely on Metro for their daily commute, and besides, that $20 could probably be better spent ordering the steak and eggs at 13 Coins. I understand that. They’re entitled to their breakfast, and their opinion.
But what they’re not entitled to do is intentionally mislead the public about the circumstances behind Metro’s predicament:
When does government have enough?
Metro raised its tax rate twice in the past 11 years and has raised fares several times.
True enough. But what the editors don’t tell their readers is what happened 12 years ago: Tim Eyman’s I-695 eliminated the motor vehicle excise tax, and with it, one third of Metro’s revenue. So to admonish Metro for raising taxes twice in 11 years, while failing to mention that the new taxes were needed to offset the revenue lost by eliminating the old tax, well, that’s simply dishonest, and does absolutely nothing to foster an informed debate.
When folks scream about higher taxes, demanding to know “When does government have enough?”, the implication is that government is taking more of our money… when in fact Metro has been taking in less! In 2008, Metro hauled in over $445 million in sales tax revenue. In 2009, sales tax revenue fell to $388 million. For 2012, sales tax revenue is forecast to recover to $423 million, but that’s still five percent below the 2008 peak. That’s less sales tax revenue, not more. Less in actual dollars, less in dollars adjusted for inflation, less per capita, and less as a percentage of personal income.
- King County Metro
“With the tax increases came promises of extra service,” the Seattle Times complains, yet “in each case the service was less than promised.” Um, that’s because in each case (two-tenths of a cent in 2000, and another one-tenth of a cent in 2006) the sales tax rate increase came just before a recession, meaning that in each case, tax revenues came in far lower than expected. Yet somehow Metro has still managed to deliver a higher percentage of planned service hours than the percentage of forecast revenues it received. Indeed, between 2007 and 2009, Metro delivered 99.9 percent of the service promised in the voter-approved 2006 “Transit Now” initiative, while receiving only 94.3 percent of the projected tax revenue. In other words, the Seattle Times editorial board is just talking out of its collective ass.
But more than the lies, what really offends me about this bullshit editorial is the way the editors consistently dismiss anybody who disagrees with them as little more than a taxpayer-pocket-picketing special interest:
The transit lobby lobbied hard not to let the public vote on the $20 tax.
The “transit lobby”…? Honestly, FUCK YOU!
I sat through about a dozen hours of public testimony these past few weeks, and while we did hear from people representing pro-transit activist groups, and at least one official from the Amalgamated Transit Union, the overwhelming majority of the testimony came from hundreds of ordinary citizens asking the council to approve the $20 tab fee and stave off the proposed service cuts. To brand these people as lobbyists is an insult to them and to the democratic process.
When the Seattle Times editorializes against the $20 fee and in favor of “sustainable reforms,” what they’re really arguing for is a smaller, less expensive Metro that provides far less service. Which I suppose is a policy objective they have the right to promote. I just wish they had the balls to be honest with their readers about it, and base their arguments on facts or even principles, rather than spurious bullshit.
Bullshit. This entire fucking article is slanted. MANY people were tickled pink by I-695 passing. THAT was the will of the voters you fucking moron! New taxes to subsidize other people’s transportation was SHOT DOWN! Eliminating the motor vehicle excise tax was GREAT for motor vehicle drivers!
You want to offset revenue losses? Then figure out a way to make the users of the transit PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES you whiny sniveling piece of shit.
Dishonesty thy name is Goldy.
I wonder if the Seattle Times editorial board’s ideas of “sustainable reforms” is the same thing as the GOP’s ideas for how the federal government should cut spending. Read: not at all cognizant of what they’re demanding or the costs to provide it, but repeating it because it sounds good. Fuck off, Seattle Times.
It is the “Blethan Times.” The Blethans don’t ride buses, the Blethans piss on people who ride busses.
Thank you for this analysis!
“I don’t want to pay a penny more for other people’s transportation, and I don’t care if it makes everyone’s commute worse,” is a fine and admirable position. It’s just not supportable by disinterested analyses. But, sure, if the Times’ editorial board is willing to remain consistent, and argue against funding roads and highways, too, then go them. Who doesn’t like dirt pathways?
Whats dishonest is thinking the 20$ raise in car tabs will only be 20$ (its going to get jacked some more, but not to help mass transit) and dishonest for thinking this will expire after 2 years.
If we’re off the peak by 5 percent, why is Metro proposing a 17 percent decrease in service?
People want Personal Transit.
They want point to point and door to door service.
Metro won’t provide it unless you browbeat them into the earth and then finally they put up a parking garage near a light rail station.
Look at the new “charter” for Metro — of the three main goals, not one of them talk about moving a person from point A to point B. It’s all about re-engineering society.
If Metro really did a job that people wanted it wouldn’t even have to be part of Government…it could just be a private agency because its service should (at this point, with all the poorly designed highways, also courtesy of local Government) cost top dollar as it would be the only way to move in and around the city.
Kinison @6,
What’s dishonest is to imply that the $20 car tab fee won’t expire in two years, when the legislature only authorized it for two years, and event that was like pulling teeth.
The purpose of this fee is to give Metro some breathing room to either find new revenue and/or figure out how to reduce costs/service in the least disruptive way possible. The council does not have the legal authority to raise or extend it.
In the June 29 editorial, the Times cited the following as a cost issue for Metro:
So when they refer to the “transit lobby,” they’re probably using shorthand for the Amalgamated Transit Union (the president of the local had an opinion piece in the Times last Friday supporting the car tab fee). The average annual income of a Metro driver is about $60,000.
#1: I hope you get hit by a bus you stupid fucking yokel. Go suck on a tailpipe you taint.
#10: And they deserve 60k for the bullshit they deal with, but I guess in conservative world that’s a huge bundle of money for just some guy providing an thankless essential service. Fuck those fat cats being fairly reimbursed for difficult and stressful work.
The funny thing about using the world “union” or announcing 60k for difficult work as a big deal is that it literally only works for pro-business or conservative ears. Liberals and leftists don’t care about that. It’s basically a political dog whistle. It outrages conservatives and communicates nothing to anyone else. It assumes that the default position is anti-union and against public employees on general principle. Software engineers who make shit products get paid more than 60k a year. A bus driver is actually more essential and has people’s lives in their hands.
@10 I have no problem with the people who I entrust with my safety on the road making 60k/year. And never mind that bus transit is an absolutely essential service for many of our residents who are either unable to drive or cannot afford cars. Plenty of people have cushier, less important jobs that pay more than that.
@10, Assuming the Times’ numbers are correct (not always a safe assumption), that would represent an annual salary increase of about 3.3 percent compared to an average consumer price index increase of about 2.2 percent over that same period of time. The more relevant Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government is closer to that 3.3 percent level. So big deal.
But of course, that’s a snapshot taken out of context.
Goldy: “The Seattle Times has editorialized against passing a temporary, two-year, $20 car tab fee . . . .”
Times editorial: “Don’t impose transit tax without a public vote.”
Note that the Times editorial doesn’t say: “Don’t impose transit tax.” It says don’t impose the tax without a public vote. There was no Times opposition to putting the tax on the ballot.
Goldy, maybe you should explain why the tax should be imposed without a vote. After all, it would be nice if you had the balls to be honest to your readers.
people can’t afford $20 in fees so poor bus riders should pay hundreds of dollars per year in higher fares. Makes sense to me.
@16, Because that’s what we elect representatives to do: make the hard decisions.
And, the Times has repeatedly signaled their opposition to the fee. Anybody who thinks they might endorse it once it’s on the ballot is smoking crack.
@14: I don’t have a problem with drivers making $60,000, either. If the Council puts the $20 tab on the ballot I will surely vote in favor. What you won’t find in any of the SLOG posts on this matter is an explanation of why the tax should be imposed without a vote. And what you won’t find from Metro is why a 5 percent decrease in revenues should lead to a 17 percent cut in service.
King County residents spend 0.9 percent of every taxable sale for Metro transit and 0.9 percent of every taxable sale for Sound Transit. That’s a lot of money, and they’re very regressive taxes. I’m not saying they’re not worth it, but all of those taxes were approved by voters. Why shouldn’t this one be, too?
Why do we elect people to manage the government if they are going to refuse to stick their dicks out and actually make tough decisions once in a while? Isn’t that their job? Instead, they just kick the can for a bit, then pass it the to the voters, to become victim of the ever-changing winds of public opinion. That way the elected officials never actually have to take a stand on anything.
@19… Oh god… do I really have to spell this out? The revenues are falling $200 million a year short of projections that were based on historical averages for the increase in the sales tax base, thus the shortfall is much greater than five percent. But most importantly, cutting 17 percent of service does not cut 17 percent of expenses, because there’s all other sorts of overhead involved in running Metro other than just the cost of operating buses.
Metro has closed $135 million a year of this gap through increased efficiencies, wage concessions and other savings, plus an 80 percent fare increase over the past four years. Of the roughly $60 million shortfall remaining, the $20 fee will only fill about $25 million a year. The rest will be filled with Metro’s remaining reserves.
It’s complicated. I’ve written about it a lot. Read the posts.
I’m all for using car tabs for revenue to help public transit. However, in this society we don’t defferentiate amounts paid according to income. I have an old truck and a fixed income. Why should I pay a much greater portion of my income than somebody driving a 2011 Audi? The tab fees should be in amounts according to the value of the vehicle. It’s only fair.
@22 That would be the old motor vehicle excise tax, which was based on percentage of the value of your car. It was fairer, more progressive, and incredibly less volatile than the sales tax.
Unfortunately, Eyman’s I-695 did away with it, and our legislators are too chicken-hearted to bring it back.
@23: yeah good old 695, which actually increased my car tab fee because my old ride was at the lowest assessed value. And which wiped out many public health services in much of the state among many others things.
Oh, Goldy, it is so tiresome to do math, isn’t it? If the sales tax revenue in 2008 was $445 million, and the $423 million forecasted to be collected in 2012 is $200 million short of projections, that implies Metro was forecasting 9% increases every year starting in 2008–a year when anyone with a brain knew we were on the verge of popping a completely unsustainable bubble.
What kind of government agency is crying poor because it can’t survive on 9% annual increases in revenues?
Or, in other words, Metro is claiming that they will have to provide 17% less service than they could have provided if they had received 9% annual increases in revenues from 2008 through 2012. I’m ok with them making that case to the voters.
how predictable. yawn. yeah, you make a couple good points–against the Times. but the justification for the car tab fee is tenuous at best. and the Times is right on in bashing the useless unions that control that incompetent agency. metro used to be quite good but has deteriorated–and you cannot just blame the “recession”. the economic downturn exacerbated what was already a poorly run agency.
why does KC even need to a bus system anymore? ST is cannabalizing them and has plenty of money. let ST run the whole regional bus system and get the counties out. Pierce Transit is having big problems. don’t know about CT but one large regional transportation system seems to make more sense than this public begging–which will result in more broken promises–recession or not.
goldy, i guess you never had a car under the old MVET. Fairer? my ass. that tax stuck in people’s craw for years–and it was hardly fair. the idiotic legislature kept using that cash cow to throw at transit, local gov’t, law enforcement/public safety, etc.
First off, DOL ALWAYS overvalued your vehicle by 20%–there was no way that anyone could sell their vehicle for what DOL assessed. And it was 2.2% of the inflated value. had clowns in oly (mostly dems but some repubs, too) lowered the RATE to 1% or 1.5% AND required DOL to use actual market value, people would have seen their tax go down and 695 would not have gotten traction.
Also remember that the courts invalidate 695 due to the 2 subject rule and it was again, the gutless legislature, at that time led by our ambassador to china, gary locke, that enshrined 695.
but, as usual, seattle residents in their utmost arrogance, continue to believe that the majority of the state’s voters believe as you do–and they simply don’t. seattle is the minority of opinion.
no, there is nothing wrong at all for metro drivers to make $60k/yr–plus fairly generous benefits and a defined benefit pension–something those of us in the private sector haven’t seen in over 20 years. But with that comes accountability–like gps on the buses. I cannot tell you how many late or simply non-existent buses I have experienced over the years. First metro’s “customer service” won’t even talk to you until the bus is 20 minutes late. And their “solution” is to call the driver and ask where he/she is! WTF is that? “oh yeah, I went by that stop–that guy must have missed it” BS. bunch of crackheads. Then try to complain on their website–just goes into cyberspace. No acknowledgement of receipt of complaint, no follow up, nothing.
You bet I want to vote on this tax and it will be NO. I will continue to enjoy light rail that has been pretty reliable (esp. for ST).
GPS and better radio system for communications are both in the works for Metro – the former will be a huge help for OneBusAway and similar apps. Taking money away from Metro isn’t going to get either of those things done. It’ll mean that the network will be changed very quickly, causing serious problems for tens of thousands of people and annoying inconvenience and wasted time for hundreds of thousands more. I get that Metro’s not perfect, but voting no to this proposal isn’t going to magically make Metro perfect. In fact it will probably make things worse.
Tim Eyman has ruined all things transit in this state. I blame him for every goddamned pothole I hit.
#23
It was essentially an asset tax, which I have been long promoting in this blog.
In that same model I would also tax intangible assets like stocks and bonds and intellectual property.
I would cut the sales, business taxes and all fees such as HOT lanes and tolls and replace them with a broad asset tax.
Who has ruined everything for transit in this state, and for all the other things that Eyman has initiative-d, are the VOTERS. The voters, who don’t think, who don’t listen, who don’t read, who don’t analyze, who simply vote for what they think is in their financial interest, and who then go OOPS, now look what’s gone!
And just wait, they’ll vote against $20 also, and then find out their bus is gone and blame whoever they can find for not telling them.
@25 Do a little actual research for a change instead of pulling numbers out of your ass based on assumptions. Then come back and we’ll talk.
@27 Yes, I had a car under the old MVET, and yes I got royally screwed under the old valuation system. We leased a car with cap cost $16,200, but paid the MVET during the entire life of the lease based on the MSRP of $25,000. I mean, who the fuck pays MSRP? It was ridiculous. We paid about $500 a year. I-695 saved me big bucks.
But… you didn’t have to throw it out. They could’ve fixed it. They could’ve used blue book or some other way to value cars, and they could’ve lowered the rate at the time to alleviate a lot of the resentment. It was the only progressive tax we had on the books, and it was one of the least volatile. Instead, the legislature caved and reimposed I-695 after the courts tossed it out. Stupid fucking cowards.
Plus… WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE WANT? We don’t have a fucking income tax, and then you complain about $20 car tab let alone the MVET? The things government provides cost money. Gotta pay for it somehow.
Goldy, I didn’t pull numbers out of my ass. I pulled them from your posts. (“In 2008, Metro hauled in over $445 million in sales tax revenue. In 2009, sales tax revenue fell to $388 million. For 2012, sales tax revenue is forecast to recover to $423 million, but that’s still five percent below the 2008 peak.”) and (“The revenues are falling $200 million a year short of projections that were based on historical averages for the increase in the sales tax base, thus the shortfall is much greater than five percent.”)
Maybe if I had pulled them out of my ass they would make more sense than your posts.
You have an unfortunate tendency to simply call people nasty names instead of replying rationally.
According to you, revenues are down five percent, Metro has made up most of the shortfall through other measures, and now they are claiming that they are going to be forced to cut service by 17 percent.
Sorry, that just doesn’t add up.
WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE WANT?
Well, do some research. Among its peer cities (which include Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Diego, St. Louis and the Twin Cities):
Seattle provides the highest operating funding per capita ($321.58 compared to an average of $168.30).
Seattle provides the highest operating subsidy per capita ($258.25, about twice the average of $129.30, and about 30% more than the second highest).
Seattle provides BY FAR the highest combined capital and operating subsidy per capita ($456.35, far more than twice the average of $203.26 and nearly twice as much as second place Portland).
WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WANT is some recognition that we pay some of the highest transit taxes in the country, rather than continual bitching, moaning and criticism about how anti-transit anyone who doesn’t kiss Metro’s ass for a living is.
Goldy, do you ever think about picking up a phone to check on something before reporting it? Ryan Blethen, the Times’ editorial-page editor, rides a Meteo bus to work daily.
@34, No, you didn’t do research, you pulled out a calculator and attempted to extrapolate from the data in my post. But my post didn’t give you all the data you need to accurately come to your conclusion. Go pull up all the numbers yourself, and then come back.
@34 for the collossal win! Goldy take your fucking medicine and admit that @34 just took your fucking argument to the cleaners!
Sorry but we can save HUGE $$ by rehiring new transit drivers for starting at $30,000/year. The issue I have with drivers making $60,000 + is that the job doesn’t require that much skill, and MANY people have or possess enough skill to competently drive a bus. Combine that with the fact that $60,000 is the BASE salary, and there are MANY drivers making $75,000 base, PLUS overtime, and you have fully 50% of the drivers making in excess of $80,000 K per year. THAT is bullshit, and NO I will never support paying car fees that subsidize that shit.
Period.