Kitsap Transit sends out pink slips.

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

Kitsap Transit notifies state of 174 I-695 layoffs Kitsap Transit has notified the state that it expects to lay off 174 employees or approximately 43 percent of its work force should voters pass the $30 car-license measure, Initiative 695, on Nov. 3. Under I-695, the motor vehicle excise tax would no longer be pegged to a vehicle's value but would be reduced to a flat $30 a year fee. The Bremerton-based transit agency made its layoff plans known to the state Employment Security Department earlier this month under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The 1989 law requires employers to provide 60 days notice in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. John Ancock, a spokesman for the Employment Security Department, said the Kitsap notice was in line with notices being received from other transit systems "all over the state, including King County Transit." King County Transit spokesman Dan Williams said about 1,000 workers, including part-timers, would be laid off should I-695 pass next month.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/brfs204.shtml

FYI: Farebox revenue covered 11% of operating expenses in 1997, or about 8 and =% of total budget.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 20, 1999

Answers

Craig:

So is this supposed to be a reason to vote for 695? You really want to get rid of transit, right? Is this an anti-program comment, or is it an indication of a fear and terror campaign by the oppostion?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 21, 1999.


Way to go craig! Lets get some factual information on this site. all I see is a bunch of bull and vague talk about scare tactics. For once I would like to see some factual numbers and or information, on where the funding is going to come from for Transit and Transportation needs in Washington. Scare Tactics just do not cut it for me anymore I AM DEFINATELY VOTING NO! SAVE WASHINGTONS ECONOMY! If you cannot move goods you can not make money...

-- Randy Timmerman (rjustpeach@aol.com), October 21, 1999.

174 gone? Time to find a shovel that can stand up by itself. Good Riddance. Buy a car, get yer $30 tabs and smile. Roads too busy? Wait til the gov comes to the people with a transportation tax JUST for roads and vote for it. In the mean time deal with it. It will be far worse and more expensive if 695 fails. Government does nothing well or efficiently.

-- Bill (live_free_2000@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

"So is this supposed to be a reason to vote for 695?" No d. This is just informational. Whether it supports I-695 or not, kind of depends upon whether you believe that transit is over-funded, underfunded, or just right.

"You really want to get rid of transit, right?" No. I consider transit to be a necessary portion of the social safety net. Having said that, it is becoming less necessary as a social safety net as the general level of wealth and auto ownership in the society increases. It will always be useful for those individuals who, because of age, infirmity, etc., are unable to use motor vehicles. But I DO believe that it is over-subsidized in an attempt to get other groups to ride it for a variety of reasons. These other reasons do not, in my opinion, justify this level of subsidization and therefore most transit systems probably should be scaled back to serve their core constituency, the transit dependent. I also believe that they should be privatized to the extent possible, since privatized transit companies appear to deliver more value for the dollar, in the states where they are permitted.

"Is this an anti-program comment, or is it an indication of a fear and terror campaign by the oppostion? " Neither. It would, I hope, stimulate an interest in discussing the alleged social advantages of transit, determining factually which are real, which are imagined, and enabling people to come to a determination as to what level of subsidization is appropriate, since many of these subsidies are relatively hidden in the umbrella "transportation" budget. What proportion of the "transportation" budget goes for transit versus ferries versus roadways seems to me to be an appropriate issue for public debate. You got a problem with debating this issue?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.


Craig:

No problem with the issue, just the timing and the forum. This is about 695, and why voters should vote for it or against it. Transit has almost nothing to do with that question. If it passes, and government priorities are being debated, the place to sell your position is with the politicians who will need to sort out the mess 695 will create.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 21, 1999.



" No problem with the issue, just the timing and the forum. This is about 695, and why voters should vote for it or against it. Transit has almost nothing to do with that question" As much as I'm inclined to believe you after our long association, d, the WDOT people are saying something different.

OLYMPIA -- State transportation officials, in full doom-and-gloom mode, have released lists of programs that likely would be cut if voters approve a reduction in automobile taxes -- and the Legislature does nothing to plug the revenue shortfall. If Initiative 695 is approved Nov. 2, hundreds of highway projects to begin in the next 18 months will not get started, while the ferry system might have to cut all passenger-only service and reduce other runs. Public transit likely would be decimated, they said. http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/hway21.shtml

Now to believe you, I have to believe that they are using government time and money to spread FALSE information to affect the vote, which of course is illegal. Are you telling me that WSDOT is doing something illegal, d? If so, I'm not sure that I want to trust crooks with my tax money. If not, then you must be in error, n'est ce pas? (as Jeff would no doubt say) The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.


Craig:

As I noted in another thread, none of that is false as far as it goes. Until the legislature meets to deal with the mess that would be created by 695, the DOT is justified in some concern about the immediate cuts associated with the MVET. That is all that was said. "If" the legislature does not reprioritize, this could happen. That is not what should happen, but what could happen. Or perhaps it is what will happen if the legislature is not given enough time for the political process to work, and priorities reevaluated.

1. The voters ought to reject 695.

2. If passed, the court should declare most or all of it unconstiutional.

3. Worst choice, it wins and is allowed to go into effect 1/1/2000.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.


d-

Another opinion heard from:

1. The voters ought to approve 695 by a healthy margin.

2. The courts ought to accept the will of the people.

3. Best choice, it not only goes into effect, but spurs more citizen involvement by initiative to restore voters faith in the process, while neutralizing the effectiveness of paid lobbyists and political contributions (aka, bribes) by the construction industry, the teachers unions, and other feeders at the public trough (identifiable by their contributions to the pro-MVET campaign).

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ