King County Challenges Cities To Buy Back Their Metro Service

Comments

1
Isn't this an expansion (which is good) of Plan C?
2
What about fee based on value of car as has been suggested in comments here? Is that under discussion? Is there a precedence for it?
3
Precedent I mean.
4
99/cents a mile?

A cab is $2.70 per mile according to seattle.gov:

http://www.seattle.gov/your-rights-as-a-…

So putting 3 people in a cab already saves money.

5
1 - Fee based on value of car is a Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Exactly what King County has been asking the state to authorize all along.
6
@2 - Barred by state law. Thank Tim Eyman and a dipshit legislature.

It would be awesome if a local news source did a run down of all the funding sources that ARE NOT allowed under state law, and little education on this is clearly needed.
7
Progressive valuation of car tabs was one of WA few progressive taxes. Getting rid of it was Tim Eyman's first government choking success story in the early 90s. He's one of the reasons we have the most regressive taxation in the state.
8
"I really like the regressive nature of the taxes" - Mayor Murray's "donors"
9
I'd love a little Balkanization. The suburbs do not need the same level of service as the city and it's asinine to tie our interests together.

This is a great first start toward stopping that nonsense.
10
A start we desperately need as Sound Transit 3 is likely going to fail in 2016.

The only way we're going to get more rail in Seattle is if we go it alone and we should be preparing for that fight now.
11
@2, you mean like the MVET we all paid for the monorail ?

Tim tried with I-695 but left local options, then I-776 blocked any new, including local, MVETs but that was overturned by the courts as violating the two subject rule, again. I'm not sure if MVETs are really off the table (or if some R ended up making it their own legislation to block them).
12
http://socialcapitalreview.org/wa-gas-ta… Seems these guys think a local MVET is doable, although subject to the max of 1% of the property's value limit.... still, a $10k car = $100 a year with the max MVET.
13
If municipalities are going to carry all costs then expect the municipalities to only pay for service within its boarders, unlike Ben Schiendelman's Keep Seattle Moving plan that would fund routes that were 80% in Seattle.
It's unlikely that Seattle will give away 20% without a big sales job by the DSA to shuttle workers in to the city.

It's a contiguous blob.

I wonder just how interested some cities will be to pay to have their citizens leave town to go to downtown Seattle to work. It makes sense at a county level, but, what's the real benefit for a city like Shoreline?
14
@12, an income tax is just as legal up to 1%
I would go for a 1% income tax.
15
I'm too lazy to read, but I bet a tollbooth at every "city entrance" (and maybe every exit) with a $1 "entrance/exit fee" for all non-city residents would get things done.
16
@4 yes, when I call. a cab, I always have 2 others to split the cost with!
Thank God for Dow!
17
You say regressive, I say flat.
18
@15, so, you mean a "Mercer Island I-90" pass for Seattle-ites. Sounds good, but I think you'll need a wall like Berlin had.
19
@9 The suburbs don't have the same level of service as the city now.
20
@14

As soon as you get the State Supreme Court to revisit it's 1933 decision you could go higher than that... but first you'll need to get it past the voters. Since IIRC State income tax initiatives have failed at the polls several times in the last 20 years I can't see that happening.
21
So wait a minute here. We have a regional system (Sound Transit) and a county system (Metro Transit), and now that two systems actively working in the same area isn't enough, Dow wants cities to pay for city service on top of this?

How much of this stupidity are we going to bear before we start looking at actual viable solutions? All this is going to do is further ensconce the dysfunction that lies at the heart of our transit woes. One area, one system, one source of funding. Eliminate the redundant overhead, unify tax structure and transit base, clarify the actual transit footprint...

Unfortunately this makes far too much sense to ever actually happen in this state.
22
"I would go for a 1% income tax."

Go for it!
23
Property tax and car tabs are not the city's only options. If King County or Seattle want to be actually green, and we do, we should implement a sharp and increasing tax on the #1 cause of climate change -- livestock products. An excellent way to use the tax money would be to pay for environmentally-friendly transit.

Livestock (beef, pork, dairy) tax is inevitable and the only way Seattle can be an environmentally-friendly city. It's somewhat regressive but not as clearly as a sales tax -- it's easier to opt out of a livestock tax than a cigarette tax or even cars, because livestock is not addictive and there are countless alternatives available everywhere, even fast food if that's the only option around. Taxing cars hurts those who are stuck in our unfortunate sprawl.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-an…
25
If Mayor Murray's plan is anything like this, we are about to see Murray's first foreseeable failure.
26
@25, his first failure? Have you not been listening for the last 4 months of his tenure?

It is extremely sad to think of the people who have been priced out of renting in Seattle, who live in Burien/Renton/wherever but work at some low-paid job in a Seattle hotel, and who will not be able to get to work because their bus service is cut, because their neighbors in those "suburbs" think they're overtaxed.
27
@23 & 24, no and no. I agree that feedlot farming needs to be curbed, but taxing the consumer for food is not the answer. You'd like to levy a tax on milk and say it's only slightly regressive.
28
Dow looks in the mirror, channels Russell Wilson, and says, "why not me?"
30
@19 They basically do at a per capita level thanks to the still mostly in place subarea equity rules. It just seems that way as transit can only be efficient with density. Seattle has bought a few more hours thanks to some previous votes, but that's about it.
31
So if a city like Federal Way wants to buy back the one or two routes that are set to be eliminated, that might cost the city less than a million dollars. For Seattle, they need 40 million or more to keep their 25-30 routes. And yet Seattle residents still wonder why the rest of the county rejected prop1.
32
Over 2,000 King County employees make six figures; is that why they want a tax increase?

http://mynorthwest.com/76/2492060/Over-2…
33
@15 - Yes! People driving cars into Seattle MUST pay for the privilege - if only to offset their carbon footprint. The fees can go toward funding Metro and pedestrian/bike projects. This is already being done around the world -- it is called a "congestion pricing ". San Francisco begins their version next year - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francis…
34
"The league put out a statement today reaffirming its reasons for endorsing Prop. 1 and hitting back at its critics."

It's the INTERNET. Drop in a link, please?