"...the Senate and House versions would prohibit Sound Transit from fully eliminating any light rail or bus projects, instead directing the agency to look for savings and cost reductions"

Yes. Find the money in the seat cushions. I'm sure that will work wonderfully.

^^ Another moron who doesn’t know how voting works.

And this troll can’t even get his facts straight. 2 out of three approved. You can actually look this up, dipshit.

Approved
King 57.91%
Pierce 44.24%
Snohomish 51.00%
Total 54%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Tr…

717,000 yes votes
609,000 no votes

A resounding win since PEOPLE vote. Not counties.

The valuation formula should be corrected and the appropriate credit's issued to those who have paid the over inflated tabs. Surprised by how Sound Transit isn't being held accountable by their own deliberate overstatement of revenues. And instead it's "take a shit on car owners" because it's fun.

@8 look you lying cretinous pustule, you claimed Snohomish voted it down and it didn’t. You named three counties. And say d two out front three voted it down. And those two out of three APPROVED it.

You have made this fallacious claim before and gave been called out before. So either you’re stupid as fuck or just a liar. Or both.

It’s both.

And it’s irrelevant. People vote. More people voted FOR ST3 than against.

Counting areas who DIDNT vote and we’re not part of ST3 and not part of the vote but might’ve voted against betrays just how stupid you are.

I bet Pakistan would’ve voted against it, too.

The board secured new and existing (post-1999) long term bonds by pledges to collect all the revenue the annual car value tax would bring in at the amount the statutes now in force would generate. That means the contracts clause of the constitution would be violated if this "credit" process the bill describes is effectuated. There is no economic difference between this proposed "credit" process and a reduction of the rate: Sound Transit would end up with less from each car owner each year, so the bondholders' contract-based interests would be impaired. The legislators know this. They may adopt the statute and then let the bondholders sue -- that would provide them with political cover.

. . . Don't believe me? Ask your favorite gay legislator Jamie Pedersen. He was a partner at Sound Transit's bond counsel law firm -- I'm sure he'll say whether or not this "credit" process would run afoul of the contracts clause.