Told you so.

http://www.tribnet.com/frame.asp?/news/top_stories/1201a12.html

Judge blocks I-722 for plaintiffs TAX ROLLBACK: Cities counties that sued won't enact measure next week

News Tribune staff and news services

TAX ROLLBACK: Cities counties that sued won't enact measure next week

A judge temporarily blocked tax-cutting Initiative 722 on Thursday - but only in the nine cities and four counties that have sued to stop it.

Pierce County and the other counties and cities won a temporary injunction on I-722, which rolls back some 1999 taxes and fees and limits property tax growth.

In Thurston County Superior Court, plaintiffs' lawyers argued that implementing I-722 now - before the court determines whether it is constitutional - would cause permanent damage.

Attorney James Johnson, representing the I-722 campaign, said while the initiative might inconvenience tax collectors, it wouldn't cause irreparable harm.

Judge Christine Pomeroy said at the end of the three-hour hearing that she believes the plaintiffs have a case, and that I-722 could cause permanent harm if it goes into effect and is later struck down.

Her ruling applies to the cities of Bainbridge Island, Burien, Carnation, Des Moines, Newcastle, Olympia, Pasco, Richland and Seattle; as well as King, Kitsap, Pierce and Whitman counties. Pomeroy said that according to state law, she could not make the injunction apply to counties that did not ask for it.

Other cities and counties, unless they join the lawsuit, will have to go ahead and change their tax-collecting systems to comply with I-722 when it takes effect next Thursday.

The judge's ruling added another element to months of already dramatic budget discussions in Tacoma, where the city's two-year budget has see-sawed between minor cuts and a $20 million deficit.

Tacoma officials had begun to prepare to cut some $5 million next week from a two-year, $300 million operations budget. Now they say they'll study the court decision and maybe join the suit.

"This ruling changes everything," said deputy city manager Jim Walton. "We will have to scramble to get informed on the ruling and decide where we'll go from here."

Councilman Kevin Phelps said council members began considering adopting "the will of the voters" to limit property tax increases to 2 percent per year. Those discussions prompted the city manager to offer a variety of options, from nearly 2 percent across-the-board cuts to targeted cuts trimming parks, libraries, the humane society and police and fire departments.

That's now thrown into limbo. But a strategy to cut $5 million may have run into problems anyway on the council, said Councilman Steve Kirby.

"I'm not going to vote for a budget that cuts $5 million needlessly," Kirby said. He preferred a wait-and-see stance on I-722.

Administrators of other Pierce County cities said the Thurston County court ruling left them confused whether I-722's provisions still applied to them - and whether they should hurry to join the lawsuit:

* University Place: City Manager Bob Jean said he believes Pierce County's participation in the suit means the injunction applies to property tax collections in its cities as well as the unincorporated areas.

"Pierce County assesses the property tax in University Place," Jean said. "The rules they'd have to apply would have to be uniform."

The University Place City Council's Monday meeting will include an executive session. Jean said he plans to discuss with council members the option of joining the lawsuit.

* Steilacoom: Town Administrator Lois Stark also was unsure whether the ruling affects the town's property tax collections. The Town Council could discuss joining the suit when members meet Tuesday night, she said.

* Lakewood: City Manager Scott Rohlfs said Thursday's ruling was "one of those possibilities that I outlined, but I didn't really expect them to do it this way."

Lakewood has kept its property tax collections below I-722's 2 percent limit, but the City Council passed a 6 percent utility tax during the six-month period covered in the initiative. The city could be forced to refund $2.6 million if I-722 is ruled to be legal.

Lakewood officials have resisted joining the suit, but the possibility of doing so likely will be reviewed when the council meets Monday, Rohlfs said.

"It sounds like that gives us an option," he said. "If we have an option, clearly that's something we ought to talk about."

I-722 passed last month with 56 percent backing. Sponsored by populist Tim Eyman, the initiative requires a refund of taxes and fees imposed since July 2, 1999. It also limits property tax growth to 2 percent a year or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that forcing local governments to return taxes they've already collected - and in some cases spent - would be disastrous. Also, since county assessors start calculating taxes for the next year this month, they would have to make huge, costly changes to their systems at the last minute.

Lawyers compared this initiative to Eyman's successful I-695, passed in 1999. It also sought to limit taxes, and the state Supreme Court recently struck it down as unconstitutional in its entirety.

Both initiatives, the attorneys said, promised a one-shot tax break while at the same time requiring a complicated restructuring of the tax system - thus violating the state constitution's single-subject rule for laws.

Eyman was disappointed but still optimistic the courts will uphold I-722 in February, when both sides are scheduled to argue the merits of the case before Pomeroy.

"Elected officials that chose to use taxpayer money to sue the taxpayers are going to be able to stick it to the taxpayers," Eyman said after the judge's decision. "Voters have this kooky idea that when they vote for something it becomes law."

Staff writers Skip Card and Martha Modeen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

© The News Tribune

12/01/2000

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000

Answers

Wait till next November, BB. Then you will see a real PISSED off electorate who will stand in line to vote for eyemans next initiative. Instead of making this initiative law, they chose to sue to stop the will of the people. Reminds me of Al Gore....and he lost in the end too....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 01, 2000.

>>Wait till next November, BB. Then you will see a real PISSED off electorate who will stand in line to vote for eyemans next initiative. Instead of making this initiative law, they chose to sue to stop the will of the people. Reminds me of Al Gore....and he lost in the end too...<<

The plaintiffs that have sued to block 722 are not going to lose in the end. This initiative is going to be thrown out, just like 695.

Spare us all the false indignation; you were told over and over again that this was going to happen, and just because you chose to ignore the warnings doesn't mean you have the right to be pissed off about the outcome.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

"The plaintiffs that have sued to block 722 are not going to lose in the end. This initiative is going to be thrown out, just like 695. "

Yo, BB guy......

Does that mean I'm going to have to go back to paying MVET?

Didn't think so.

Those legislators who don't want to be out of office shortly will be coming up with property tax limitation and other tax reductions schemes, tout de suite, demonstrating just as much political savvy as they did when the s**t-canned the MVET.

I think you better get used to the populist tide coming in periodically to devastate the bureaucrats world. Or move to Canada, eh?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

>>Those legislators who don't want to be out of office shortly will be coming up with property tax limitation and other tax reductions schemes, tout de suite, demonstrating just as much political savvy as they did when the s**t-canned the MVET.<<

Mark my words: there will be no property tax limitation or "other tax reduction schemes" coming out of the legislature this year. And if the legislature doesn't implement such "schemes," nothing will happen. There won't be major turnover at the next election, and there won't be a massive tax revolt, despite your hyperbole to the contrary.

The reason for all this is that there is no consensus on a reduction in property tax funding as there was with the MVET. People might not like property taxes, but they like the services funded by property taxes, and aren't going to be willing to support the destruction of the ability of local governments to provide these popular services. The legislature can talk about restricting property tax funding, but once the impacts on local governments become clear, the talk will quickly die.

Additionally, 728 and 732 have mandated major spending increases at the state level. If property tax reductions are implemented, 732 and 728 can't be followed. The legislature will choose to follow 728 and 732, rather than follow an unconstitutional 722.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

BB, YOU are being TOLD over and over and over again: Olympia shalt not defy the will of the electorate. Who cares if a couple of initiatives are being thrown out with some legal sleight of hand.

The Pandora's Box of initiatives is open and will never close again. The Genii is out of the Bottle. We, the People, will have the Final say. Even if I have to tell you this one thousand times. No Tax Increases Without the Vote of the People...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 02, 2000.

>>BB, YOU are being TOLD over and over and over again: Olympia shalt not defy the will of the electorate. Who cares if a couple of initiatives are being thrown out with some legal sleight of hand.<<

"Legal sleight of hand"?! Hardly. You really don't understand the fact that legislation can't conflict with the constitution, do you?

Initiatives and referenda have been thrown out in this state for as long as Washington has been a state. Seen any action on term limits lately?

>>The Pandora's Box of initiatives is open and will never close again. The Genii is out of the Bottle. We, the People, will have the Final say. Even if I have to tell you this one thousand times. No Tax Increases Without the Vote of the People...<<

And apparently I am going to have to tell you a thousand times, YOU CAN'T HAVE VOTES ON TAX INCREASES UNLESS YOU AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION YOU NEED A 2/3 MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES AND A MAJORITY IN A PUBLIC VOTE. What part of that don't you understand?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

Giving voters the right to approve new taxes or increases (at the state level,) does appear to conflict with the constitution.

HOWEVER.....Notice the Blue Ribbon Commissions report advised that voters be given final say, and the Governor, who may be alot of things, IS NOT A FOOL says voters will have the final say.

BB would have you believe initiatives don't send messages......but Locke seems to have figured it out, even if BB can't.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 02, 2000.

BB- Olympia did not have to ratify the mvet tax, because clearly it was going to be thrown out by the courts. They adopted it into law. Why? Because they thought it was the right thing to do? No... Because the people wanted it. Olympia can also adopt all of 722 as law, because the people demand it. Of course, they will not do it. As far as Amending the Constitution, Amend It. You sound as though it cannot be done and should never be done. We need, and will vote on all tax increases in the future, Whether YOU like it or not....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 02, 2000.

Marsha:

>>BB would have you believe initiatives don't send messages......but Locke seems to have figured it out, even if BB can't.<<

When did I ever say that initiatives don't send messages? Oh, wait, that's right, I didn't. Nice strawman you just knocked down there.

Rolex:

>>BB- Olympia did not have to ratify the mvet tax, because clearly it was going to be thrown out by the courts. They adopted it into law. Why? Because they thought it was the right thing to do? No... Because the people wanted it.<<

Which is what I just said. The difference between 695 and 722 is that there was a clear consensus that people were pissed about the MVET and wanted it to go away. There is no such consensus with 722, because even if people are mad about property taxes, they continue to vote in property tax increases (to the tune of 30% of the average bill) and have voted in two education initiatives that will require greater use of state property taxes.

>>As far as Amending the Constitution, Amend It.<<

Get back to us when you have that 2/3 majority in both houses.

>>We need, and will vote on all tax increases in the future, Whether YOU like it or not....<<

Get it through your head: there will not be any legislation allowing local votes on all tax increases coming out of Olympia in the future. Any initiative put forth to accomplish the same goal by Eyman & Co. will be struck down as unconstitutional. You can complain all you want about the fact that you won't get to vote on tax increases, but your energy would be better spent telling your elected officials what you're saying here.

Let me give you a little personal story. Every year, every local taxing district has special meetings to allow public comments regarding their budgets. As might be expected, the further down the food chain you get, the less people attend.

Last year, I took it upon myself to go to the special budget meeting for my local fire district, and guess what? I was all by myself, save for my elected officials. The longest serving commissioner had been there for six years, and there had never been a single person to come and comment at the special meeting called regarding the district's budget since he had been in office. This district has about 15-20,000 people in it, so we're not talking a place where nobody lives. We are also talking about a budget that runs into six figures.

I have absolutely no doubt that many local taxation districts across the state have a similar turnout at their budget meetings. Quite frankly, I don't see how anybody who lives in my district, if they are so totally apathetic and unwilling to get involved in their government as things stand, has any right to demand the right to vote on all tax increases. And unless the level of involvement in local government across the state is considerably higher than where I live, I don't see how those people have any right to complain either.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

Let me clue you in, BB. The reason why no citizens attend these council meetings is very simple: They have no power and no input in the councils decisions. This is the same way ordinary voters feel about Olympia. Hence, along comes the initiative process. You say citizens do not get involved in politics. When an initiative comes along that gives a little power and input to the voters; Hell Yes, we are going to vote for it. Then the initiative passes and voila'- The government suddenly does not want the voter to get involved in their little fiefdoms or, heavens forbid, control the pursestrings. The pursestrings that belong to the voter in the first place.

So do not tell me about Complacency and Apathy towards citizens getting involved in politics. The door to power has opened a crack and we are coming in that door with a Mac Truck. The power of the people and our democratic principles, will not be denied. No matter how many high priced, shyster lawyers, file lawsuits to stop the will of the people. If you are afraid of Change, BB, You should be.....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 02, 2000.

>>Let me clue you in, BB. The reason why no citizens attend these council meetings is very simple: They have no power and no input in the councils decisions.<<

This is pure, unadulterated, BS. It's clear that you've never actually gone to the meetings that you speak of.

I did, and guess what? They were very, very excited to finally get some citizen input, listened to what I had to say, and were willing to take suggestions that I had and implement them if they made sense. And they also explained to me how some of my suggestions wouldn't work, and I was perfectly willing to acknowledge that they were correct, and saw things that I didn't.

Since then I've become more active in attending other local government meetings and have had similar experiences. My government has been *very* responsive to me, and quite frankly, if you think that citizens "have no power and input in the councils decisions," it's quite clear that you really don't have a clue.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

to BB: You write: "Since then I've become more active in attending other local government meetings and have had similar experiences. My government has been *very* responsive to me, and quite frankly, if you think that citizens "have no power and input in the councils decisions," it's quite clear that you really don't have a clue."

Please, we've been through this before. I've attended meetings by the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the Narrows Bridge; I've attended meetings of the Blue Ribbon Commssion; I attended a meeting of the Puget Sound Regional Council (Transportation Committee); I attended meetings of the Gig Harbor City Council (even though I don't actually live in the city limits of Gig Harbor). I've e-mailed and phoned the DOT and Pierce Transit. And, when I say I attended, I mean I spoke out, contesting their recommendations, and promoting alternative points of view.

With the exception of the Gig Harbor City Council (which had no legal obligation to let me speak), not one single recommednation or course of action was changed by the powers that be. In the case of the Narrows Bridge, there was an even an "advisory" election, where the vast majority of the people who will pay the vast majority of the polls said "HELL NO".

Guess what? The government does not listen to the people. That's been my experience.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

BB.- What planet do you live on?

I watched the final meeting of the famous Blue Ribbon commission on transportation last night. What a joke. Hundreds if not thousands of man-hours spent on pie-in-the-sky recommendations, that will never work.

In the end of the meeting, all they were concerned about was the size of the press release they were going to put in the papers. They remind me of Chrysler Management- more concerned about what color binding to put on the annual sales report, than to actually find way to fix the lousy sales and crummy, piece of junk cars they build.

We need to vote on ALL transportation matters along with All tax increases. This commissions only recommedation is that every man, woman and child in the state will be taxed $231. a year. That is the only sure thing about the plan. What a Joke....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 03, 2000.

Matt:

>>Guess what? The government does not listen to the people. That's been my experience.<<

And what was it that you told them? Did you support your ideas with evidence of instances where what you were proposing has worked? Or if your proposal hadn't worked, or had never been tried anywhere else, did you explain why it would work here?

I could have gone to my fire district meeting demanding that they have 20 people on each fire truck without raising taxes at all, which would have been totally unrealistic. They wouldn't have done what I wanted them to, but would that have been their fault? No. It would've been mine for being unreasonable. As I said, I am perfectly willing to go into such situations with an open mind and the realization that I could be wrong about what I'm concerned about when confronted with additional data. If I expect to get everything I want all the time, I'm being unreasonable. So are you.

Additionally, if you'd actually read what I wrote, I was specifically discussing local governments, and not the state. This is precisely the problem with initiatives like 695 and 722: they play on your anger at the state, but they hurt responsive local governments like mine much harder than they do the state.

Rolex:

>>I watched the final meeting of the famous Blue Ribbon commission on transportation last night. What a joke. Hundreds if not thousands of man-hours spent on pie-in-the-sky recommendations, that will never work.<<

First off, you're basing your opinion on the final meeting? Secondly, how do you know, after a grand total of about 4 days, that none of their suggestions will ever work?

>>In the end of the meeting, all they were concerned about was the size of the press release they were going to put in the papers.<<

And if you've ever been involved in a group that will be scrutinized by the public, that's precisely what you'd expect the final meeting to be about. It's the time when your substantive work is done, and you're clearing up all the clerical housekeeping stuff that every such group has to deal with.

>>We need to vote on ALL transportation matters along with All tax increases.<<

Why? Because we've done such a good job voting on transportation issues so far, like when we vote for a couple billion in new roads with R-49, and then a year later decide to defund them with 695?

In case you haven't noticed, direct democracy died way back in Athens thousands of years ago for a reason: it doesn't work.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

to BB: You write: "And what was it that you told them? Did you support your ideas with evidence of instances where what you were proposing has worked? Or if your proposal hadn't worked, or had never been tried anywhere else, did you explain why it would work here?... Additionally, if you'd actually read what I wrote, I was specifically discussing local governments, and not the state. This is precisely the problem with initiatives like 695 and 722: they play on your anger at the state, but they hurt responsive local governments like mine much harder than they do the state."

Gee, an advisory vote, where the vast majority of the people who will pay the vast majority of the toll say "HELL NO". What part of the message did the state not understand?

As for harming local governments to get at the state, I see no evidence of this. I continue to see empty buses running around town. Isn't transit "local government"? In fact, I-695 and I-722 caused NO HARM to Sound Transit, which is a regional (not state) authority. And, I guarantee you they will not listen to what I have to say.

The Puget Sound Regional Council did not listen to what I have to say. They're not "state government".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

Matt, you seem to be forgetting about the state Supreme Court (a statewide elected body) recently throwing out the contract for the Narrows project. Seems as if the system is working in this case. The state will have to revise the contract to make it so the tolls don't pay for work on the existing bridge.

Also, you're taking casual observances of a single transit agency and that of another agency not even affected by I-695 and making the assumption that there has been absolutely NO local impact by the initiative? If you want to get into some of the evidence that disproves your conclusion we can do that, but be forewarned that the list of local governments with a substantial negative impact is quite long.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 04, 2000.

IC,

Last I read on the topic, no one mentioned re-writing the Bridge contract. I read that the are going to try and get the Legislature to change the law.

Matt,

Continue to be suspicious. The state would have allowed a private company to set toll rates, but won't allow you to vote on tax increases.

Wrong is wrong, no matter how much BB and IC tell us otherwise. We are morally right, and they are not. We will find a legal way to gaurentee the right to limit taxes one way or another. At some level of taxation, even they would join the fight and if they deny it, they would be liars.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

Actually Marsha, last I read the DOT was considering either going to the legislature or revising the contract. It is yet to be seen whether or not they could convince the legislature to change the law, or for that matter, what parts of the law they could get changed.

And you can try to claim the moral high ground all you want. It doesn't matter to me how much you waste your breath. BB and I have been trying to tell you all how the universe works, and all we get in rebuttles are excuses as to how it's not fair because it doesn't fit the path of least resistance.

FYI, it already IS possible to vote on every fee and tax increase done by the state, and in many local governments. State and local taxes are also, in fact, limited as well in many ways. That you seem unaware of these facts seems to confirm the general impression that although a lot of you like to complain about how unfair the government is, most of the time you're complaining about something you know nothing about.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 04, 2000.

IC,

I won't argue semantics with you. The message will be understood by those to whom it was intended.

As far as your knowing how the universe works......

Gee, did a State Supreme Court just get their hands slapped? Looks like it from where most of the "experts" sit! This goes a long way toward showing citizens everywhere that not all courts, even State Supreme Courts are always right in their interpretations of the law.

Fight on Timmy!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

>>Gee, an advisory vote, where the vast majority of the people who will pay the vast majority of the toll say "HELL NO". What part of the message did the state not understand?<<

So you told the state that they should disregard a referendum that passed? That's it?

So you're saying that if I provided evidence to the state the the people who paid the majority of the old MVET voted no on it, that they shouldn't have made tabs $30, even if 695 passed with a majority?

>>As for harming local governments to get at the state, I see no evidence of this.<<

Then you're not looking.

>>In fact, I-695 and I-722 caused NO HARM to Sound Transit, which is a regional (not state) authority. And, I guarantee you they will not listen to what I have to say.<<

First of all, what did you say? And secondly, why should they care what you say? You don't even live in their service area. If you want a say, move there and start paying for it like the rest of us, and then they might listen to what you have to say.

>>The Puget Sound Regional Council did not listen to what I have to say. They're not "state government".<<

And what was it that you said?

All you're saying is that people didn't listen to you, without telling us what you said. If your statements were patently unreasonable, it's no surprise that nobody listened. If they weren't, then you'd have a right to complain. But you're not providing enough information to make an accurate judgement either way.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.

>>We are morally right, and they are not.<<

Says who? You? You just get to claim the moral high ground because you say so? Forgive me for not finding such reasoning very persuasive.

>>We will find a legal way to gaurentee the right to limit taxes one way or another.<<

Do you honestly believe that taxation in this state is not limited? Would you please check your facts before you shove your foot in your mouth?

There are a number of limitations on taxes on the books in this state; among them, the 106% lid, R-47, the 1% of total AV limit, and on and on and on. If you think that there aren't limitations on taxes in Washington, you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.

Limited taxes, BB? Maybe if you are rich or work for the government, then you do not feel the "limited" taxes imposed on us citizens. If you believe we pay low taxes, I have some excellent ocean front property in eastern washington to sell you.

As far as moral high ground, I could care less. We voted and Passed tax reduction measures, and Olympia is going to abide by it, one way or another. Maybe not this election cycle, but it will happen. I believe in one man ,one vote, and to HELL with the high priced lawyers who would thwart the will of the people. We WILL win in the end. Won't we Marsha...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 04, 2000.

to BB: You write: "So you're saying that if I provided evidence to the state the the people who paid the majority of the old MVET voted no on it, that they shouldn't have made tabs $30, even if 695 passed with a majority?"

If the vast majority of the people who paid the vast majority of the MVET lived in a well-defined, contiguously geographic area, then they are more than welcome to petition the state to create a Regional Tranit Authority, which would have the authority to reinstate the MVET on that particular geographic area. We on the Peninsula have no such relief, since the state ignored our voice, once already. Furthermore, the vote on the Narrows Bridge was not a referendum but an "advisory vote". So, once again, your analogy is a poor one, comparing a statewide initiative to an advisory vote.

You also write with regards to cuts by local governments: "Then you're not looking."

I still empty buses rolling around town. Where's the cost benefit in that?

With regards to Sound Transit, you write: "First of all, what did you say? And secondly, why should they care what you say? You don't even live in their service area. If you want a say, move there and start paying for it like the rest of us, and then they might listen to what you have to say."

First of all, I do live in their "service area", since they took over the express bus from Gig Harbor to Seattle. Second, although I don't pay the special license tab fee, I do pay sales taxes when I shop in areas part of the Sound Transit taxing district. So, once again, YOU ARE WRONG.

As to what I said, I made several recommendations. First, I pointed out that the non-stop express bus they run out of Gig Harbor should go to the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride, and not to the Tacoma Community College (TCC) Park'n'Ride. By the way, TCC is south of Hwy 16, and Seattle is north of Hwy 16. So, if you're traveling north, you may find it annoying to be traveling south. But, hey, that's just me. Second, I pointed out that based on their schedule, the express bus from the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride to the Federal Way Park'n'Ride (at I-5 and 320th) just misses the bus from Federal Way to Bellevue. I also requested information about how much the taxpayer is subsidizing bus passengers, and if the subsidies are over $1000 per passenger, annually, then Sound Transit has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to recruit people out of the buses and into vanpools, since this would allow Sound Transit to run fewer buses, saving the taxpayer monies. Now, I wouldn't mind as much, if Sound Transit carefully explained why or why not they can't do what I recommend. But, the sad reality is that they never even bothered to respond, except to say that they're constantly looking at their system for ways to make it better.

With regards to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) you ask: "And what was it that you said?"

I told them that the highest priority for people who use Hwy 16 was to widen I-5 nortbound between the Tacoma Mall and the King County line. After I-5 northbound is widened, the next highest priority would be to widen Hwy 16 in the eastbound direction between Union Ave. and I-5. The PSRC held a meeting to determine the importance of funding HOV lanes on Hwy 16, as well as I-5 between the existing HOV lane and the King County (as part of the now defunct bridge toll project). I explained to them that HOV lanes on Hwy 16 and I-5 southbound were not as important as focusing all their efforts on I-5 nortbound. Keep in mind, BB, that I had a lot to say, and I was only given 2 minutes (not that there were a huge number of speakers). And, after I finished speaking, there were no questions from the committee. No explanation as to why my priorities were unreasonable. I also pointed out that because of the contract for the new bridge, ours will be the only community which is penalized for ridesharing. The more people wideshare across the new bridge, the higher the toll must be. Therefore, I recommended that they charge an additional fee for vehicles to use the HOV lane, in order to partially mitigate the negative consequences of high tolls. I did receive a letter from the PSRC, which obliquely mentioned "interesting ideas" from the citizens for generating revenue.

So, BB, I've tried to be involved. I've tried to be a good citizen. All it's done is compromise my career and my family.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 05, 2000.

Matthew,

I would not stop with your input at this point. Might I suggest a petition addressed to who ever is in charge of changes and new service at Sound Transit? It has been an effective technique getting routes started or re-routed in many Transit Districts. That person may not have been present at the meeting you attended.

The resistance to encouraging Vanpool participation is due, in large part to Labor Union lobbyists.

This would be a good time to let your Legislators (the more the merrier!) know what YOU think transportation priorities are, as they may need input to fight Locke and the Blue Ribbon Commissions recommendations.

Just think, if 25% of those SOV people in favor of higher taxes for mass transit would get off their hypocritical butts and USE it, we wouldn't need more roads.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 05, 2000.

to Marsha: Thank you for your thoughtful advice. My representatives have not been responsive in the past, although we have a new person, now. I believe the Democrat edged the Republican by a razor-thin margin, ala Florida.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Matthew,

BB wrote "All you're saying is that people didn't listen to you, without telling us what you said. If your statements were patently unreasonable, it's no surprise that nobody listened. If they weren't, then you'd have a right to complain. But you're not providing enough information to make an accurate judgement either way."

You should be commended for your efforts, not subjected to enquiries as to whether or not the contents of your statements pass BB's standards regarding reasonable/unreasonable.

I think it is absurd for him or anyone else to tell people to get involved, and then make excuses if those people don't get satisfaction.

BB seeks to maintain the status quo. He doesn't really want those who oppose him to get involved and have a larger voice. His very presence in this forum is to discredit the opposition. He seeks to silence those who oppose him. As does IC.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Matt:

>>I still empty buses rolling around town. Where's the cost benefit in that?<<

Are you saying that all local governments do is run buses?

>>First of all, I do live in their "service area", since they took over the express bus from Gig Harbor to Seattle. Second, although I don't pay the special license tab fee, I do pay sales taxes when I shop in areas part of the Sound Transit taxing district. So, once again, YOU ARE WRONG.<<

I don't know what to tell you besides what's already been explained to you over and over. If you choose to shop in ST's area, that's your choice. No one is forcing you to spend your money there. If you live in Gig Harbor, you do not live in ST's service area, and you don't have a say in what it does. The bus to Gig Harbor may have Sound Transit painted on the side, but chances are that it's funded by Pierce Transit.

I was in LA last summer and I bought some stuff there. Does that mean that I should be able to vote on stuff there too? And that I should be able to go to government meetings down there and tell them what I think they should do?

>>As to what I said, I made several recommendations. First, I pointed out that the non-stop express bus they run out of Gig Harbor should go to the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride, and not to the Tacoma Community College (TCC) Park'n'Ride. By the way, TCC is south of Hwy 16, and Seattle is north of Hwy 16. So, if you're traveling north, you may find it annoying to be traveling south. But, hey, that's just me.<<

Sounds reasonable to me. What was their response? Do you know or did they explain why the system operates the way it is right now?

>>Second, I pointed out that based on their schedule, the express bus from the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride to the Federal Way Park'n'Ride (at I- 5 and 320th) just misses the bus from Federal Way to Bellevue.<<

Again, sounds quite reasonable. What was their response? And why is it operating the way it's currently operating?

>>I also requested information about how much the taxpayer is subsidizing bus passengers, and if the subsidies are over $1000 per passenger, annually, then Sound Transit has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to recruit people out of the buses and into vanpools, since this would allow Sound Transit to run fewer buses, saving the taxpayer monies. Now, I wouldn't mind as much, if Sound Transit carefully explained why or why not they can't do what I recommend. But, the sad reality is that they never even bothered to respond, except to say that they're constantly looking at their system for ways to make it better.<<

Well, this is exactly the type of stuff that I'm talking about as possibly not being realistic. Is it really all that reasonable to think that Sound Transit is going to run out and buy a bunch of vans because you suggested that they do so? Why do they have a "fiduciary responsibility" to start running vanpools? Because you say so?

>>I told them that the highest priority for people who use Hwy 16 was to widen I-5 nortbound between the Tacoma Mall and the King County line. After I-5 northbound is widened, the next highest priority would be to widen Hwy 16 in the eastbound direction between Union Ave. and I-5.<<

All of these projects were on the drawing board until they were defunded by 695.

>>snipped<<

Your other suggestions, as with the ones above, sound like good ideas. Perhaps I just didn't see what you saw, but it sounds like you expected them to respond more enthusiastically to what you were suggesting than somebody like me would expect in the same situation.

Do you assume that just because what you suggested hasn't yet been implemented that the information you gave wasn't important, or wasn't taken into consideration?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

>>You should be commended for your efforts, not subjected to enquiries as to whether or not the contents of your statements pass BB's standards regarding reasonable/unreasonable.<<

I always commend people for getting involved and going to meetings. And I wasn't referring to any standards of my own making, but the fact that there *are* certain things that *everybody* could agree are totally unreasonable.

If I go to the state and tell them that I want a new 12 lane 520 bridge, and I want it to be completed by tomorrow, and I want it to be funded by a 5 cent tax on lemons sold at the Carnation QFC, I'm being totally unreasonable. Of course, Matt didn't say anything like this, but how was I to know that before he explained what it was he said?

>>I think it is absurd for him or anyone else to tell people to get involved, and then make excuses if those people don't get satisfaction.<<

Do you expect everybody to be 100% satisfied when they get involved in government? To have 100% satisfaction for everybody would mean that everybody would have to be satisfied by the same things. I would never think that anybody would want the exact same stuff that I want, because what makes us human is the fact that we all want different things.

>>He doesn't really want those who oppose him to get involved and have a larger voice.<<

Bull. If there's one thing that I have said, over and over and over and over, it's that people need to get more involved in their government. Once again, so even you'll understand: I want people to get involved, whether they agree with me or not.

>>His very presence in this forum is to discredit the opposition.<<

Usually "the opposition" in this forum does a pretty good job of discrediting themselves without any help from me.

>>He seeks to silence those who oppose him. As does IC.<<

You are getting quite good at knocking down those strawmen. When you want to talk about things that I've actually said, or things that I actually believe, you let me know. Until then, there's no reason responding to you if all you're gonna do is make stuff up.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

to BB: You ask: "Are you saying that all local governments do is run buses?"

For me, buses are some of the most visible examples of services which local governments provide. So, when I see an empty bus, or a bus traveling after 7PM or on the weekends, I have to wonder about the cost benefit analyses of such decisions.

You also write: "I was in LA last summer and I bought some stuff there. Does that mean that I should be able to vote on stuff there too? And that I should be able to go to government meetings down there and tell them what I think they should do?"

If you regularly shop in LA, and contribute significant taxes to the state and surrounding communities, then, yes, I think the local government, time permitting, should extend some courtesy to you and listen to what you have to say. And, just as importantly, they should make some effort to explain why your suggestions won't or can't be used.

In response to my suggesting new or revised routes to Sound Transit, you write: "Sounds reasonable to me. What was their response? Do you know or did they explain why the system operates the way it is right now?"

That's the point, the governmental agencies never explain their actions, or why my suggestions don't make sense.

You then write: "Well, this is exactly the type of stuff that I'm talking about as possibly not being realistic. Is it really all that reasonable to think that Sound Transit is going to run out and buy a bunch of vans because you suggested that they do so? Why do they have a "fiduciary responsibility" to start running vanpools? Because you say so?"

No, I didn't ask them to BUY a bunch of vans, but simply to encourage and/or recruit the bus passengers into van pools, which may be currently available from either Pierce Transit or Metro Transit. Furthermore, I would only expect such a policy if the annual taxpayer subsidy for bus usage is in excess of $1000. And, as I've stated before, yes, I expect ALL governmental agencies to spend taxpayers' monies as wisely as possible. Even though I didn't explicitly ask Sound Transit to buy vans, your suggestion has some merit, as Sound Transit could take over the vanpool programs from both Pierce and King counties, providing greater efficiencies in terms of economies of scale.

With regards to my asking the Puget Sound Regional Council to declare the highest priority be I-5 northbound (between the Tacoma Mall and the King County line, you write: "All of these projects were on the drawing board until they were defunded by 695."

You're missing the point. Apparently the PSRC has funds to extend the HOV lanes on I-5 nortbound AND southbound, between the existing HOV lanes and just south of the King County line. They also have the funds to build HOV lanes on Hwy 16 between Union Ave. and the Tacoma Narrows bridge, as well as between the Narrows Bridge and the Purdy exit. So, the funds are there, BB. They simply refuse to recognize I-5 nortbound as having the highest priority. Nor are they able to present any data to show their priorities will provide any benefit. Again, the government refuses to perform cost benefit analysis. Anyone commutes on I-5 northbound between the Tacoma Mall and the King County line can easily affirm that this is an extremely dangerous and highly congested stretch of roadway. The only argument that any of the committee members could offer was a guy from Tacoma, who claimed his constituents were "tired" of the Narrows bridge traffic backing up on to their streets. As if HOV lanes would have any affect on this!? So, society is going to continue to tolerate a high rate of accidents on I-5 nortbound, by the Tacoma Dome, just on the outside chance that HOV lanes on Hwy 16 MIGHT diminish the congestion in neighborhoods near the Narrows Bridge.

You gon to write: "Your other suggestions, as with the ones above, sound like good ideas. Perhaps I just didn't see what you saw, but it sounds like you expected them to respond more enthusiastically to what you were suggesting than somebody like me would expect in the same situation....Do you assume that just because what you suggested hasn't yet been implemented that the information you gave wasn't important, or wasn't taken into consideration?"

The point, BB, is that they should have to present some type of cost benefit analysis, showing how THEIR plan is better than OTHER plans. Otherwise, why are they there? If they're not going to apply rational, objective criteria, then why solicit suggestions? I wouldn't mind them nixing my suggestions, if they would at least present a logical argument on why they're going one way versus another. The sad reality is that there is no moral, ethical, or legal obligation for the government to justify any of its decisions.

So, don't tell me local government listen to what people have to say.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 07, 2000.

>>For me, buses are some of the most visible examples of services which local governments provide. So, when I see an empty bus, or a bus traveling after 7PM or on the weekends, I have to wonder about the cost benefit analyses of such decisions.<<

And just because there are some buses that run empty on the weekends, doesn't mean that 722 and 695 don't hit local governments harder than the state. The problem is that you're not looking at other impacts that those initiatives have had and will continue to have on local governments. You're simply asserting that because there's empty buses running around, 722 and 695 haven't had a greater impact on local governments than they have on the state. That's an unfair assertion that's not supported by the facts.

>>If you regularly shop in LA, and contribute significant taxes to the state and surrounding communities, then, yes, I think the local government, time permitting, should extend some courtesy to you and listen to what you have to say. And, just as importantly, they should make some effort to explain why your suggestions won't or can't be used.<<

You're wrong. The way things work in this country is that we allow the people to live in a certain place to make the decisions in that particular place. You're suggesting that people's residency become irrelevant, which basically is advocating the destruction of our system of local government as we know it.

I can spend all the money I want in Seattle, but if I don't live there, I don't have a say in what they do. And I don't have any particular problem with that. The fundamental concept of local government is that it's controlled by the people who live there. I don't have any business telling the government in a city what to do, and I don't have any right to vote in elections for cities or tax jurisdictions outside of where I live.

I'm not saying that these governments shouldn't *listen* to concerns that are expressed by people who don't live there, but I am saying that when it comes down to making a decision, they have every right to ignore the will of people who don't live within their boundaries to do what the people who do live there want them to do.

>>That's the point, the governmental agencies never explain their actions, or why my suggestions don't make sense.<<

Hasn't been my experience that governmental agencies "never" explain their actions.

>>No, I didn't ask them to BUY a bunch of vans, but simply to encourage and/or recruit the bus passengers into van pools, which may be currently available from either Pierce Transit or Metro Transit. Furthermore, I would only expect such a policy if the annual taxpayer subsidy for bus usage is in excess of $1000.<<

This is exactly what I'm saying: why do you expect this policy? It's becaue you're a proponent of vanpools, isn't it? So because *you* like vanpools, and think they work well, Sound Transit should do what *you* want, because *you* think it's right?

>>And, as I've stated before, yes, I expect ALL governmental agencies to spend taxpayers' monies as wisely as possible.<<

Who doesn't?

>>You're missing the point. Apparently the PSRC has funds to extend the HOV lanes on I-5 nortbound AND southbound, between the existing HOV lanes and just south of the King County line.<<

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about, because the PSRC doesn't build roads, and certainly doesn't have the funds to extend HOV lanes.

>>They also have the funds to build HOV lanes on Hwy 16 between Union Ave. and the Tacoma Narrows bridge, as well as between the Narrows Bridge and the Purdy exit. So, the funds are there, BB.<<

No they're not. Have you actually looked at the PSRC's budget? Do you actually know what they do?

This is getting eerily similar to my 520 expansion hypothetical.

>>The point, BB, is that they should have to present some type of cost benefit analysis, showing how THEIR plan is better than OTHER plans.<<

Governments get a million different plans proposed to them about a million different things. Do you have any idea how much is would cost, and how much time it would take, to do a real cost/benefit analysis of every proposal the government gets against what they do now? The burden is always going to be on the person proposing the change. If you want your suggestions to carry a lot of weight, *you* should do the cost/benefit analysis and show them why what you propose would work better than what's currently in place. And you should be prepared to not have them agree with you, for a variety of reasons.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

to BB: You write: "Apparently you don't know what you're talking about, because the PSRC doesn't build roads, and certainly doesn't have the funds to extend HOV lanes."

BB, the PSRC had a meeting requesting public input on the use of funds to build HOV lanes on Hwy 16 and I-5. Now, you can spout your legalese and say that the PSRC doesn't build roads, or the PSRC doesn't have any funds. But somebody builds the roads, and somebody disburses the funds, and, apparently, the PSRC's recommendations are part of the process.

The PSRC is unable or unwilling to defend its recommendations through rigorous cost benefit analysis.

In general, then, whether I legally reside in a particular taxing district or not, I have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely. If a governmental agency wants to ignore what I have to say, then the agency should at least be able to come up with the semblance of a coherent argument on their behalf. And, of course, the agency's obligations to me are even stronger, if I do reside in the taxing district.

When it comes to transportation issues, BB, the government is not responsive. Admittedly, transportation is not directly under the control of "local" governments. So, perhaps we're both right.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 11, 2000.