511,000+ PEOPLE, not organizations or businesses put I-596 on the ballot

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

I had this as a reply in another board, but I think it deserves it's own area:

As you all can see, it doesn't mean diddly if they have a list a mile long of organizations or businesses against us. It all matters on how the people want to vote.

I don't know about you, but I get tired of hearing about how such and such organization or business (or for that matter how many) are not endorsing it.

511,000+ PEOPLE not organizations or businesses put I-695 on the ballot. Something still tells me that there is still a high percentage of those that are still going to be marking "Yes" no matter what or whom says otherwise.

I've also heard the radio ads... and of course they are using scare tactics.

I also had this on another board, and it should go here too:

I also believe that most people will be voting Yes on I-695 at the last minute if they haven't already decided. To me it would almost be common sense to vote Yes when I see these types of words on the election ballot: "Shall all license tab fees be $30 per year for motor vehicles, regardless of year, value, make, or model, beginning January 1, 2000." and "Shall any tax increase imposed by the state require voter approval?"

I predict a landslide Yes vote on I-695. I also predict a bunch of lawyers from the opposition trying to stop its implementation if it does pass (Remember Prop 103 in CA). Though I read on some other board that intitatives must take effect after a certain number of days according to our state constitution.

"May fortune favor the foolish."

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999

Answers

Yes.. I now I mis-spledd 695. Shuot me. But I did get your attention, didn't I?

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Yes, Sandy, over a half-million people did sign the petition for I- 695. Had I seen it, I would have signed it too. On the surface it looks great. It's after you look at the effects it will have on local governments that it's warts begin to show. Not to mention the fact that having to vote on every minute fee increase sounds like a great waste of time and money to me. I suspect that a large number of people who originally signed that petition, at least those responsible enough to have done a little research, and care about the people in their communities, have changed their minds. At least I hope so.

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Dave I think it is you that may need to do a little more research. You see, even though it is true that voters will have to approve all new fees or increases, the governments (at each level) will prioritize first and decide if they can make a cut elsewhere before having to spend (however much it is) to bring an increase request to vote.

Everyone always uses the old "You'll have to vote on library copy fee increases." Oh please... like you'd ever see something like that brought to the polls! As for the "warts" of why 695 may be bad, anyone who has actually researched this knows that all the things the No campaign says MIGHT happened, probably wouldn't unless under dire circumstances.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.


Dave you have the right comments about the wrong subject. I-695 doesn't have the warts. All the petty little fees that would NEVER have been allowed if the people knew about them to begin with won't show up on ballots because it would expose the government for what it is really doing......gouging.....stealing...and wasting money

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Three cheers for maddjak!!!!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.


"All the petty little fees that would NEVER have been allowed if the people knew about them to begin with won't show up on ballots because it would expose the government for what it is really doing......gouging.....stealing...and wasting money."

Actually Maddjak, if the average person doesn't know about a certain fee, then odds are the person doesn't even pay it. So the odds of that person even caring that the fee exists let alone caring if is increased is probably pretty low. Gee, my city has a $500 fee if you want to own an elephant? That's odd, but since I don't ever plan on owning one, I don't really care either.

"Everyone always uses the old "You'll have to vote on library copy fee increases." Oh please... like you'd ever see something like that brought to the polls!"

Yeah, you're probably right. It would be just too expensive to bring something like that to the polls. But is that the fair thing to have happen? Unless someone can prove me wrong, I have to assume that the $.10 most libraries charge isn't going to anything beyond that copy machine's upkeep. So as a true fee, the people who use the copier pay for it and nobody else. But as the cost of operating the copier goes up (you know that inflation thing), the library won't be able to raise the fee to keep pace, and they'll have to look elsewhere to continue funding it. So the copier that used to be self-supporting now has to be subsidized by people who don't use the copier at all.

This provision actually has a little anti-free market tone to it. A lot of these fees like at libraries, pools, golf courses, and what not depend on market values for their price. The lowest amount that can be charged is the amount to maintain the service, and the highest amount that can be charged is the amount that won't keep enough people away to make it unprofitable (for those who never took Econ 101). So although the library could charge $.50 per copy, no one in their right mind would pay that much, and the library wouldn't receive enough funds to continue to operate it. 695 removes the capitalistic forces in favor of democratic forces, which isn't exactly the best way to keep prices at fair market value.

Another example is the ferry system. A lot of people here seem to be hoping that 695 will force the ferries to be more self sufficient. I have to disagree with that theory. The ferry system gets about $200 million every two years from the MVET. That money goes away upon passage of 695. Since the state would rather not see the Puget Sound economy tank due to a lack of people's ability to get across the Sound, they're going to want to keep service as intact as possible. The problem with getting the ferries to be self-sufficient is that even with quite a bit of fat cutting, there would still be a need to increase fares significantly. Of course such actions would require a statewide vote, but I have a very hard time believing that an increase even close to getting the ferries self sufficient would have any chance at passing. As highlighted in the Seahawk vote, practically the entire state could vote a certain way on an issue, but if the Puget Sound region votes the other way, that's the way the election is going to go. So the voters (mainly through an overwhelming no vote in the Puget Sound) reject the fare increase and the state is faced with the same reduce service or find the funds somewhere else question. Again, the state isn't going to cut ferry service much if any, so they'll just pull funds from somewhere else. This could, and probably would, keep repeating for quite a long time. Sure, there aren't that many steady ferry riders, but almost everyone in the Puget Sound region rides them on occasion, and if they can, they'll keep the price low just for those occasions. So the idea of forcing the ferries off subsizies will most likely give way to the reality of Puget Sound residents wanting to keep their low prices.

Just a little dose of reality to those outside the Puget Sound region who might think that 695 will give them more say in how state funding is distributed geographically. A majority of the 49 legislative districts are actually within the Puget Sound region, which means that the majority of Washington State residents reside there. And I can't imagine the average Puget Sound resident being more sympathetic than the average Puget Sound legislator has been.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.


Patrick-

Since you are being serious and thoughtful, I'll divert from form and try to do the same:

"Yeah, you're probably right. It would be just too expensive to bring something like that to the polls. But is that the fair thing to have happen? Unless someone can prove me wrong, I have to assume that the $.10 most libraries charge isn't going to anything beyond that copy machine's upkeep. " This was looked at, at least for the Seattle library. Copier and library fine and sales of old books and every other type of revenue other than tax revenue added up to about 2%. And actual copier costs have been going down for most of this decade. I'm not sure that an argument over even a doubling of the cost of copies or late fees is worth the time.

"Another example is the ferry system. A lot of people here seem to be hoping that 695 will force the ferries to be more self sufficient. I have to disagree with that theory. The ferry system gets about $200 million every two years from the MVET. That money goes away upon passage of 695. Since the state would rather not see the Puget Sound economy tank due to a lack of people's ability to get across the Sound, they're going to want to keep service as intact as possible. " Using your own free market argument, why shouldn't the users pay more of the costs of the ferry system? Loss of $200 million would not make them anywhere near self-sufficient. They are 80% subsidized for operating expenses and 95% subsidized for capital expenses. Discussion of this IS worth the time. Nor would "the Puget Sound economy tank due to a lack of people's ability to get across the Sound." As the subsidy decreased, people would either find other jobs or decide not to further expand commuting from Bainbridge and similar locales. Clearly, the people receiving the subsidy would likely be opposed. I'm not sure that the average inhabitant of Puget Sound would. The average inhabitant is certainly not a ferry commuter. I believe they tolerate the rather huge subsidies because they are unaware that they exist.

But I believe if we are ever going to solve our transportation problems, we need to have transportation users pay the transportation expenses to the extent feasible, and that doesn't exempt users of mass transit, whatever its form. And it makes no sense whatsoever to devote public funds on the one hand to UGMA, SmartGrowth, etc., while subsidizing sprawl in Kitsap county on the other. Government is inefficient enough without having different government policies working at cross purposes to one another. IMHO, at least.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.


Well I do appreciate the chance to have a meaningful debate on this forum, and who knows, maybe we'll start a trend!

First off, let me say that I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of the ferry system paying more of its way, but I'm still not convinced that it would be feasible under 695 rules. For one thing, one of the main selling points is that it would make it harder for government to raise taxes and fees, and for better or worse, that includes the fees that are currently not pulling their own weight.

As your explanation tends to hint at, you and I probably agree that a one time massive fare increase to get the ferries fully unsubsidized would be rather stupid in more ways that one. First, it most likely would get thumped at the polls, and even if it passed, it would create chaos. But I'm not convinced that a gradual subsidy phase out would have much success either. The first few minor increases would most likely be accepted, but eventually voters would probably get tired of the state constantly asking them for fare increases. Even if they've never been on a ferry, they will still get to the point where they'll vote no just because they think they're saving other people from getting ripped off by the state.

Overall, I think the best chance for a gradual phase out of the ferry subsidy would be in a legislature not affected by 695 (note: I'm not saying that the chance would be a good one though). As it is now, the people of the Puget Sound probably assume that they have the ferry system pretty good, even if they are paying for it in other ways. On top of that, the people on the west side of the Sound aren't going to vote for something that will force a lot of them to move over to the east side, and the people on the east side aren't going to vote for something that will increase the population density more than it already is. Something that has this kind of consequences would probably take somebody other than the voters to decide to bite the bullet. It's not that they lack the good judgement, just why should they give up the life they

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.


Patrick-

I think you over rate the ferry system. Average weekday trips are only about 37000 unlinked trips (one way), less than the average weekend day (mainly recreational) crowd. That's less than 18000 commuters max, depending on how many of these trips are up in the San Juans. That is not a huge "yes vote" lead in a statewide election, and offsetting that is the entire Eastern Washington crowd who'd block vote against the ferries. And, except for those in the San Juans, I'm not sure that the business community is all that heavily dependent on the ferries for cross sound travel. I think that it would be possible to decrease the subsidy gradually over time. I think that I-695 could be part of that. Go to those 18000 people and say, "Hey guys, we just lost $50 million. We are going to have to raise fares by $5 a trip."

But the general point is still there. We still have subsidies in this state working at cross purposes. I understand why. Government just wants to grow. It's how you become successful as a government manager. But that winds up costing us all, and costing government the support of the voters. That's not something you want to lose for unrestrained growth of government, IMHO.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ