Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Murray doesn't have an original thought in his head.
But two different transit votes, with different funding sources makes sense how? What happens of both pass?
Also, none of these murray plans exist in legislation, they are only committee ideas, so they account for nothing.
Why? Last few weeks you were all bragging how Prop 1 did so well in Seattle, so it should be a breeze in liberal, progressive Seattle?
Hope you folks are ready for "Plan F", which is basically waiting 20-30 minutes at the transfer point to catch the connecting bus. Also, why does Metro need this when projected tax revenue is increasing.
"Improving economy boosts Metro's coffers by $32 million"
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/32-mi…
I suppose why have money, when you can have MORE money.
More generally, this ballot measure would pass if it were the only solution, I guess. But it's not regional, it's not collaborative, and it's not original, which is what Murray said it would be. He should never have complained about leadership on the issue unless he planned to show some.
Looking forward to voting Yes on 118.
am i reading this right? the plan allows for the first round of cuts to remain, but prevents subsequent rounds of cuts?
if so, are you fucking kidding me? service is already inadequate. please tell me i'm wrong about this.
"In addition, the city would create a $5 million fund to "partner with key suburban partners to maintain cross-jurisdiction routes," including routes connecting Seattle to Bellevue and Kent."
There is what little collaboration is likely going to be allowed in "D"ow's plan.
It finally looks like metro is slowly transitioning into the kind of county relationship King County government has with the cities on other cooperative activities.
Unincorporated King County is about to get what they pay for, next to nothing.
Mean-spirited snark aside, those guys are in with Rodney Tom... you know, (one of) the guy(s) behind this mess. Soooo, I'm gonna go ahead and make fun of that entire article.
Your next mayor, the other Mike, Mike OBrien (I'm calling it now).
Would Plan C prevent the first round of cuts? It seems like it wouldn't since the vote would presumably be in November.
That said, if Murray wasn't interested in preserving existing service by, for example, imposing new taxes *now* instead of waiting for a public vote, Plan E is some pointless bullshit. God forbid his pet project have to compete for property tax dollars.
http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…
They compete even if they are not on the same ballot, and not identifying the same funding source.
It's an admirable and at the same time a disturbing trait to compartmentalize to that degree.
I think what Murray is afraid of is that the childless urban crowd would vote for a property tax increase for transit but not for pre-K. And he's probably right.
He seems like a real combative asshole -- another one-term mayor.
I do enjoy Anzel's monthly column, "Mortgaging to Morons". Invariably a few minutes of sniffing around pubic records shows the truth of the matter.
@14. I don't really pay much attention to the WPC, but Metro isnt disputing what they report. Tax revenue is higher, will climb higher, so all Metro really needs is enough to get by, lets say 10-20 million. Its hard to justify the need for 40 million when tax revenue is better.
To me this is a no brainer. A property tax is much more progressive than car tabs/sales tax.
Sorry Ed. Not with you on this one.
As to the why - well, for one example, the 60' Breda articulated trolleys were purchased in the early '90s. If you've been on one lately (after they were converted from their original dual-mode role to be electric-only) on the 7, 49, 36, 44, etc., you'll know that they are basically held together with duct tape at this point. And while Metro was able to salvage the electric engines from the old 40' trolleys the last go-round, they are now ending their serviceable lives. PLUS a new trolley fleet will be low-floor, eliminating the need for the time-consuming lift and making service better for everyone who uses them. So yeah, by all means, we should replace the trolleys.
See plan "E" $5 million dollar "partner" plan with Shoreline, Bellevue, and Kent.
It's, everybody go it alone, anyway you want, together, or apart, right now, or never.
It's the worst dim sum I've ever had, and the portions are small, too.
I'm not being snarky, I'm just having a hard time understanding the progressive/regressive taxing debate that is happening here.
As we all know, Prop 1 was heavily supported in Seattle, it was defeated by big meanies from King County. Now Seattle can get it's very own version of Prop 1, which will no doubt win by 60% to 70%.
The logic typically is this.
Why car tabs are regressive: I own a $1000 beater and you own a $100,000 Tesla. I earn $20,000 a year. You earn $500,000 a year. We both pay +$60 in tabs. That represents to me:
For you, that represents:
Now, for sales tax, it's the same argument. You can absorb that $0.01 increase a hell of a lot easier than a poor person can.
Compare that to a property tax:
We both pay the same flat rate: $0.22 per thousand of value. Our bills go up by:
One is a proportional tax. Those with more pay more. The others aren't.
My rich friends and donors said they would fire me from my throne if I taxed them more!
Property tax is levied on the assessed value of your home, which means that people who own a $2 million house pay a hell of a lot more in total tax dollars than someone who owns a $200k starter home. The proposed $60 car tab fee is a flat rate you pay regardless if you drive a clunker that you can only sell for scrap metal or a $70,000 Lexus.
It's regressive since poorer people pay a greater percentage of their incomes towards that tax. This state has the most regressive tax system in the country.
Similarly, while an apartment owner will pass on the added expense, it will be mitigated by the fact that it could be spread across multiple tenants.
First, parts availability is an issue, and while you can possibly have them custom made if you have the original prints and specs the price tag for such can be prohibitive, not to mention the legal issues.
Next is frame / structural member fatigue. Buses are big and heavy, over time the frame is subject to stresses which will eventually cause stress fracturing among other issues in even the best construction.
At some point you are looking at remanufacturing a vehicle from the ground up - at that point the vehicle is considered unserviceable as the cost of doing so would likely exceed that of buying a new one.
Thanks! You explained it well and I can see how car tabs are regressive. My question now is, what about low-income homeowners who have property that is being assessed at higher and higher values due to gentrification? Isn't that fairly regressive? Is that not how it works? Is that just kind of a red herring? Really trying to understand the nuance of this.
Also, I'm kind of confused about why such skepticism wasn't being thrown against prop 1, even though it's the exact same taxing plan. I thought that prop 1 was a good (not perfect) plan and it seemed like a lot Seattle (including the Stranger) did too. Now that it's being proposed by the mayor, everyone seems upset about it.
What's going on?
Yes, you've identified a group for whom property taxes might fall rather hard. Property tax is not *perfectly* progressive (a more progressive tax would be an income tax; even more progressive than that an inheritance tax), just more progressive overall than a flat car tab (because while there are exceptions and outliers along the lines note, there is a generally pretty strong correlation between the value of one's private property and one's overall level of wealth).
Another reason property tax is relatively progressive is that renters, who as a general rule are poorer than homeowners, won't really feel it all. In some rental environments they might, but the Seattle rental market is sufficiently tight that rents are determined by what the market will bear, not by the costs associated with property ownership.
Well, I itemize my rent to my two tenants, including a line with what they are paying for property taxes, so they damn sure know what will happen if they vote to raise them.
Short answer: They pay, or they get fucked. There is some assistance available in the form of lower levy rates to veterans, seniors, and the disabled. If you are simply unable to pay your levy you have only the option of breaking the payment into 2 payments and paying interest on the deferred amount, which also becomes a lien against your property - which will throw most mortgages into foreclosure anyways. So, your choice: don't pay and face tax lien foreclosure, pay half and face the mortgage lender foreclosing on you anyways.
The issue doesn't apply solely to the low-income. As a middle class homeowner I can tell you that after total cost of ownership I have far less "discretionary" income than many folks who rent. Unlike commercial / residential landlords, I can not simply pass the increase along to my tenants.
The folks who get hurt by property tax hikes are indeed the homeowners - considered by many among the left to automatically be rich, and able to absorb the costs of Metro financial mismanagement, as well as any other public funding issues which may arise.
I'm not so much mad about car tabs as mad at Murray for being a dipshit.
In any event, car tabs plus a sales tax increase affects me personally since my property tax increase would be less than both.
So, in other words, they're paying a hell of a lot *more* than what it costs to actually own/manage a rental property. They're feeling it all right.
And, when I rented below market rate housing several years ago, every single time there was a new levy passed, my rent went up.
We are all in for a world of pain in September. My bus is already crowded. I already have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for the cross town connection. I guess I will be walking more.
I feel like this is just a plot to make me healthier.
An income tax? Because it's been defeated in a vote several times over the last couple decades. It isn't banned by our state constitution, it has just lost at the polls. I'd love to see the 15Now folks put their energy into that issue please.
Did you mean a property tax raise? Because it can only be raised so far, leaving fewer options for funding in the future, including possible future crises. If it is raised to/near the cap a reduction in property valuations can result in defunding current levies. Care to bet buses, Fire, EMS, parks, low income assistance, every civic service, etc on there not being a worsening of our recession in the next 2 years? Yeah, Murray doesn't want to make that bet either. That bastard.
...Which you would know if you had bothered to read anything Murray (or even his reasonably journalistic detractors) have written by the way.
As I wrote elsewhere, "congestion pricing" is Seattle's long term solution. It would mean charging a fee to all cars that ENTER Seattle in order to pay for public transit and pedestrian/bike projects. A move toward fossil-free cities is inevitable, so this is a good beginning. These 'congestion fees' are already being charged in London, Singapore and Milan ... and San Francisco is initiating their version next year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francis…
You raise rents by 5 dollars a month if they vote for this tax? Which line item is your profit?