Where did I download these names?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Question: Where did I download these names:

GARY LOCKE, Governor; MARY MARGARET HAUGEN, State Senator; RUTH FISHER, State Representative. Advisory Committee: PAUL SCHELL, Mayor, Seattle; ELIZABETH PIERINI, President, League of Women Voters, Washington State Chapter; VALORIA LOVELAND, State Senator; DR. TERRY BERGESON, Superintendent of Public Instruction; DALE NUSSBAUM, President, Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council, Spokane.

Answer: From the 1998 voter's guide of individuals who help prepare the VOTE NO statement on Referendum 49.

Isn't it interesting that these individuals, who did not want Referendum 49 in the first place, are now using the existence of Referendum 49 as a rationale for NOT voting for I-695.

ref: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ralph/default.htm

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 19, 1999

Answers

Craig, you're missing the point.

Last year, the Republican-controlled legislature refused to raise the gas tax to keep pace with inflation in order to fund road construction, and instead put R-49 on the ballot. R-49 was approved by 57 percent of the voters, because people want solutions to traffic congestion. One thing R-49 did (besides give everyone $30 off their oh-so terrible car tabs) is direct 75% of the MVET to transportation. But if the MVET disappears, then so do all the new projects to relieve congestion that R-49 was supposed to bring.

Yes, there was opposition to R-49 last year, since R-49 is basically Reaganite voodoo economics--giving a tax cut AND paying for new roads using deficit spending. But that election is over, and most people now want action on the traffic congestion--Republicans and Democrats. If I-695 passes, then nothing will happen to relieve congestion anytime soon. Furthermore, with the cuts in transit funding, more cars will be on the road than ever before.

The point is, R-49 passed because people want action, and all those people you listed support R-49 infinitely more than I-695 because they believe action is necessary to solve our traffic mess. I-695 is a giant leap backward.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.


Tony, Then if that is the case after 695 passes, then Olympia can put that on the next ballot and the voter can approve it or not. And most likely the voters on the western side of this state will approve it. And to cover the short fall if any, we can use some of the surplus. It is the peoples money and not the governments.

Also, here is an excrept from the News Tribune:

Just how much money gets shifted around if I-695 passes - and which projects would get postponed or canceled - would depend on what the Legislature does next session.

Morrison said Gov. Gary Locke doesn't seem inclined to use the state's current $1billion reserves to make up for any shortfall in transportation. Rep. Karen Schmidt(R-Bainbridge Island) said Locke is still mad about Referendum 49, which Locke opposed.

The GOP-written referendum shifted money from other state programs to pay for transportation.

There's still a possibility the Legislature could tap into the state's reserves to make up for some of the transportation funding that would be lost through the passage of I-695, Morrison said.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.


Tony, please explain to me why WSDOT is so determined to waste MVET monies if they need it to cure congestion on your side of the mountains.I refer to the $300,000.00 that WSDOT aided a few people in Okanogan County in getting thru a Rural Mobility grant to give the county a bus test program after it was voted down with a 67% no vote. I suggest that if the state was concerned about money, they would not push to give away $300,000.00 to a county with a population density of six people per square mile that just voted down what they are determined to give us. I asked WSDOT to give the money to some area that needed it, like the west side to help cure the congestion. Please dont try to tell me that the state does not have money to waste when the do things like this..

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 19, 1999.

Tony:

A gas tax increase to keep up with inflation? Give us a break! Washington's gas tax is among the highest in the nation. Other states maintain their roads with a gas tax. They also go out to the lowest bidder for much of their maintenance work. The legislature needs to give our own DOT the green light to do the same.

Tony, I doubt your salary gets inflated by 7 to 10% each year. That's what government budgets are doing. This means that every 7 to 10 years the budgets double. If you want to live in your home when you retire, you had better either help reduce the growth of government, or be prepared to give you home to the state when you cannot pay the taxes.

The problem with our roads is not more money. It's how the money is spent. Visit the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's web site and see how long they have been trying to inform us of the problems with DOT.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 19, 1999.


Monte-

What's more to the point is that MORE CONGESTION is the DESIRED RESULT of our urban growth management act and it openly states that. Look at the metrics that they track. One is the number of drivers that commute less than 30 minutes per day. It openly laments the fact that the current number (80%) is inadequate to force more people into transit. The intent is to pack people into the urban areas like sardines in the hope that a population density can be achieved that will make transit advantageous to more people. These plans, reports, and metrics are available on the net. Just go to metrokc.gov and do a search under growth or transportation. Don't assume that congestion is just happening. This is the end result of a philosophical/religious animosity toward autos in general and the hated SOV in particular. Road infrastructure is being systematically underfunded for some time. Go to http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/04capita.pdf and take a look at relative capital expenditures for roads and for transit. Those who believe in the New Urbanism have been trying to make this happen since the Forward Thrust fiascos of the 60s. Now they have created an emergency and they're using their own creation to drive their agenda. Read the UGMA plan.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.



tony, you seem to mimic another notorius individule in ploitics today. that individule also is a great spin-master. i'm certain you would also be well versed on the subject of deficite spending seeing as how the liberals have been so successful at it. there again however, they work their "wizardry" with words and, "wa'la" it becomes something different. hopefully this time the proverbial "jig is up". respectfully, w. lindhorst

-- w. lindhorst (lindhorst@tgi.net), August 24, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ