@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.
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.
@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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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…
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.
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.
This is a great first start toward stopping that nonsense.
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.
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).
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?
I would go for a 1% income tax.
Thank God for Dow!
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.
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.
Go for it!
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…
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.
http://mynorthwest.com/76/2492060/Over-2…
It's the INTERNET. Drop in a link, please?