R – University Place
Say what you will about State Sen. Steve O’Ban’s package of bills and investigations attacking Sound Transit, but at least he’s not circumventing the normal legislative process. When he didn’t get his way last session, he didn’t wait to catch his opponents off guard and strike fast. He took his show on the road to the affected communities. Last week, he resubmitted some of his bills from last year, with minor changes, all of which will have to go through normal process if they are to become law.
Senate Bill 6164 and SB 6299 would allow voters within a county to nullify their Sound Transit taxes by a countywide vote. The bills do not limit the vote to those in the ST taxing district within a county, nor relieve Sound Transit of any obligation to build or operate transit within a county that votes to nullify ST taxes.
SB 6301 would elect Sound Transit Board members from 11 single-member districts. Besides ignoring the principle that you don’t change a board’s leadership simply because you want the organization to fail in its mission, the devil remains in the gerrymandering details.
SB 6303 would once again try to impose a Kelley Blue Book or lesser private methodology on MVET tax determination, despite it not being bondable.
These bills face a long road to becoming law: a committee public hearing in the Senate, vote out of committee, vote out of the Senate Rules Committee, vote in the Senate, a committee public hearing in the House, vote out of its committee and House Rules, and a vote in the House. That’s still dozens of steps short of the Seattle Process, but it is a lot more than what transit advocates got from House Democrats last week.
Last Tuesday, several bills left over from last year that had passed the House were pulled from the House Rules Committee, including Engrossed House Bill 2201 — which would alter MVET tax calculations and is predicted by ST to reduce funding for ST3 by $2.2 billion over the life of the package — and put on the floor calendar for last Wednesday. The power to pull bills from committee is traditionally performed only by either a floor vote or the Speaker of the House, and usually only when there is no time left for normal committee process. Hold onto your umbrellas, but there is still seven weeks left in this session.
Only an overloaded schedule, or sudden cold feet as constituent calls and emails suddenly poured in overnight, stalled the House from re-doing their vote from last year, when the Republican-controlled Senate may have wanted to keep the issue alive for the fall campaign. Those predicting the Republicans would choose grandstanding over a policy win were right.
Some thought the House would not offer the compromise again once they didn’t have a Republican Senate with which to contend. As of the second day of the session last Tuesday, it appeared they would be proven wrong.
Transportation Choices came out with a statement as quickly as possible, only hours before the planned vote.
There is chatter that the House Democratic Caucus has decided better of amputating Sound Transit’s ability to complete ST3. Whatever solution there is to the problem of needing to cater to the car lobby and find a (probably more regressive and pollution-positive) alternative funding source, there ought to be some basic public process, which includes a committee public hearing in each house.
Well written Brent, well written. Some would say “Fair and balanced” but somebody on the all-time lame list appropriated the term and we’re not lame.
1) As to, “Senate Bill 6164 and SB 6299 would allow voters within a county to nullify their Sound Transit taxes by a countywide vote. The bills do not limit the vote to those in the ST taxing district within a county, nor relieve Sound Transit of any obligation to build or operate transit within a county that votes to nullify ST taxes.” Gee whiz it’d be so nice if say… Senator Lilias put forward a bill offering folks to opt in to Sound Transit! Just for kicks!
2a) As to electing the Sound Transit Board, well read on… I support, “The plan must be drawn to ensure that the electoral districts: Have nearly equal populations in accordance with the one person, one vote principle; do not divide a precinct; are compact, convenient, and contiguous”. The rest of it makes me nervous. Especially the, “Do not exceed five electoral districts solely in one county”. So “nearly equal populations in accordance with the one person, one vote principle” matters… until it doesn’t? Sounds to me like a recipe for trouble down the line. My plan would ignore county lines and limit how many sides to a district to prevent gerrymandering and other sorts of mischief.
2b) Don’t get me started on keeping the 2-3rds majority requirement, the ban on current electeds running for a position (which I want – no secret), and the pitiful low salary. All of which aren’t intended to further my goal of having transit advocates on the Sound Transit Board and keep me a neutral on the bill.
3) Finally, as to “There is chatter that the House Democratic Caucus has decided better of amputating Sound Transit’s ability to complete ST3.” I hope so. There was very publicly a time when I wanted a deal done. But that time has came and passed. It’s too late now, and elections have consequences. Once again, we win by a squeaker. In spite of some of us like…. me.
Bottom Line: The Republicans had their chance last year to reform Sound Transit and they blew it by going too far right like with an elected board structure that made even me testify electronically as neutral. When then-Representative Jessyn Farrell voted for a MVET compromise – Republicans should have taken it. The 45th LD clearly had a Republican who was a weak candidate who would sink Sound Transit and slink out of the 45th LD like the professional campaign operative she is. Oh and Tim Eyman was stopped. Happy to see Democrats blink – the car tab hordes have been turned back.
Perhaps all the headlines State Democrats find themselves in recently might have something to do with it as well…. Good work Seattle Transit Blog.
Section 1 of 6301 is Joe’s Contractor/NIMBY-alliance Dream Come True.
Well as I told the State Senate, “Neutral on SB 6301. Sadly. I support electing transit boards. But this bill has massive structural flaws. Massive. The bill wants for districts “nearly equal populations in accordance with the one person, one vote principle” matters… until it doesn’t with “Do not exceed five electoral districts solely in one county”? I prefer the former. The 2-3rds majority requirement for major elements of Sound Transit are going to create a tyranny of the minority and will strangle Sound Transit. Also divide & conquer the staff.”
Joe- how do you assure that a directly elected board will reach working agreements among both themselves and other boards- however chosen?
Mark
Mark;
The same way the State Legislature normally does. Ditto cities & PUDs, Counties and more do. It’s normal and rarely is there deadlock.
It all depends on who gets elected. I don’t think that will be predictable or uniform. If Tim Eyman gets on the board then he’ll be 100% contrarian, but I don’t expect all the board members will be like that. If the boardmembers just want to improve transit but don’t have a good understanding of what effective transit is, then we’ll get a mediocre board but not a contrarian one.
The quality of an ST-elected board would very dramatically from one board member to the next. You’ll have some board members who actually care about improving regional transit, and others who will simply do whatever they can to shut ST down and lower the taxes.
The latter members will foot-drag every project, even projects like Northgate Link, where most of the money has already been spent, in hopes that by creating “crises”, they will create popular support for abolishing Sound Transit.
Currently, the board members, even representing different geographical areas, are able to at least negotiate amount themselves and agree on things by consensus. Switch to an elected board, and consensus will become all but impossible, with the “abolish ST” constituency refusing to go along with anything, no matter what.
asdf2,
I see your point. I acknowledge it has SOME merit. Which is why a simple majority on all Sound Transit Board items is crucial to my true support of any elect-the-ST-Board legislation. Otherwise we’ll have either the “abolish ST” bloc or some leading a self-serving callous charge of, “Screw the suburbs and connect my urban villages” constituency wrecking Sound Transit or both.
That said, as Margaret Thatcher once said about consensus, “To me consensus seems to be —the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no-one believes, but to which no-one objects. —the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner “I stand for consensus” ?” Please keep this in mind.
I have a better idea. Stand for who and what we are as a coalition. I could go off on several tangents, but I know where the dreaded {OT} line is these days. So I will say we have that coalition to build out ST3 – I just wish we had it to deal decisively with other problems ST has, like Tsimerman.
I also know Senator O’Ban could have reached out to me instead of lost me when drafting his latest legislation… the Senator has my e-mail and I’ve made clear where I stand. Just saying….
Yours;
Joe
SB6303 is improperly drafted; there was no approval of MVE taxes in “2017”. The approval was passed in 2016.
We’re in a race to the bottom here in Washington, between Dumb, Dumber, and O’Ban.
Senator O’Ban is ignoring a really embarrassing disaster of a literal train-wreck directly over I-5 in his own district. For which he could at least partly blame Sound Transit. Not one single witch-twitch. Which means to me he’s not really serious about obliterating ST. Reminds me of a certain other source of Twitter threats immediately “walked back” to make way for some other distraction.
If anything really happens to ST, might deprive the Senator of cover for some other things he is or isn’t doing. Anybody know anything about University Place politics? Might be good place to find out what really could be on his district’s mind.
Off the wall, but any chance there’s some service he wants Dupont to get that it’s currently not? What’s to really lose by sending Sounder about ten miles south? Maybe an Amtrak stop there too. And maybe throwing in some passenger parking. And some ST Express from Steilacoom? And Olympia? .
Finance not my territory, but honest question, though maybe best avoided in public: Worth a couple of years at far end of ST-3 for some honest, open and shameless short-term voter bribery? Because I think that ST’s strongest weapon is to get shorter-term service up and running (right) ASAP. At least it would serve Steve right to force him out into the open in front of cameras, savagely denying something to his own voters.
Mark Dublin
Fix those, and I’d support it. No reason to build a slow train out into Pierce County sprawl if they don’t even want it.
Any chance, William, that the “They” in Pierce County might change their minds- or be replaced by people with a different outlook, when present voters die? Reason I’m trying to keep discussion on the long view is that I can see “Sprawl’s” final cause of demise. But could take a longer while than I’ll ever see.
Likely cause of death? Not environment or fuel cost, but solely because of the number of cars will assure that nobody can move, on wheels or not. But am presently seeing, up close and personal, the worst effect of Seattle real-estate gone supernova: the worst return of 1950’s land use since 1955. Feeding on same factors: cities overcrowded, except this time with millionaires. And land that used to be farm and forest, for sale.
Opposed only by angry, defeated fatalism at transit future beyond ST-3. If a choice even exists by 2030. “De-Sprawl”- got to be a better name for it. “Re-Concentration?” Again, I’m not talking about limiting anybody’s freedom or enjoyment of life. Just the opposite. More like clearing living space in a house or yard by cleaning up a mess.
Also reason I think it’s counterproductive to dig in and fight for territory. Better program is to surround the opposition. Said before, say again: Laws forbidding transit-land-development financial cooperation can be changed. Before 1915, when ordinary people began buying automobiles, many land developers started their own streetcar lines to sell homes.
Summing up, truly think that the larger the region in its plans, the more transit-friendly it can become, but won’t happen by itself at least in most of our lifetimes, without a lot of effort. And doubt Steve O’Ban or anybody with him leaves very much to pure chance.
Mark Dublin
“Senate Bill 6164 and SB 6299 would allow voters within a county to nullify their Sound Transit taxes by a countywide vote. The bills do not limit the vote to those in the ST taxing district within a county…”
Unlike Internet sales, Sound Transit collects sales tax from everyone, whether they live in the district or not. So its good to have a county wide vote whether to keep the tax. This would be unnecessary if the sales tax system matched the one used for Internet sales, where sales tax is based on where one lives rather than where one shops.
If you’re worried about a half percent sales tax, perhaps you need to start driving to Oregon for your non-grocery items.
Thing that gets me, Richard, is the Whiskey Rebellion over a tax on soda pop and bottled water. Why doesn’t somebody just put on three-cornered hats and dump a half gallon wax paper bucket of diet Coke into Elliott Bay? Yeah, I know, Shoreline Management Act.
But I’ve got a consummately progressive one that’ll not only exempt 99% of the population, but will have massive support from both cafe owners and customers alike. And will also be “scaleable” to both Amtrak and Sounder- which in California always has bistro cars.
In Europe, it’s traditional to pair shortest possible “ristretto”, Italian for (antimatter “brown hole” through intergalactic space -time) through the bottom of the cup to Italy with a tiny amount of cognac or other liquid alcoholic 24 carat gold.
The Liquor Control Board can safely create a blanket exemption (trust me, nobody under seventy is ever going to drink this), with following regulations:
One drop of coffee (barista must be sent to Italy for skills test). ONLY served with a single shot of brandy. Minimum charge: $300. Minimum State sales tax $500 extra. Since for driving safety, roadside stands won’t be able to offer this drink, Labor and Industries will finally provide bikini’s that’ll prevent both scalds and steam-wand contact. Especially if they work on Amtrak or Sounder.
Now, here’s financial calculation. Target clientele’s own life goals demand purchases that everybody involved, from source to customer, knows are so galactically overpriced that nobody starting with the World Bank can afford it. Definition Cool so deep it’s antarctic. Making astronomical sales tax its greatest attraction. But most important of all:
To thank Senator O’Ban for giving our State’s political system this combined hallmark of Continental cultural prestige and revenue, he and the whole Republican delegation will each be awarded a sack of coffee beans known to be Indonesia’s best. And at the bottom of the bag, a small note explaining what a luwak is.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43315334@N07/39685834472/in/dateposted-public/
Senator O’Ban, thank you for their little green-cards.
MD
Well, why not care about the sales tax? The county has raised the roads tax to the max to the point where the tax collected outside the closest city far exceeds that in the city. Except that much of the retail is concentrated in the city. The tax hit on bigger items like furnishings and cars is substantial.
Why not respond with sustained effort to increase the Sound Transit district in every county? Could be only good thing to come out of present forced migration of pro-transit voters into presently anti-transit territory. Especially people who want to keep either paycheck or seniority where they got work before their EthnoEconometric Cleansing.
Incidentally, anybody know conditions between Vancouver, Washington and Portland? Also between New Westminster and Bellingham? Curious as to progress is going for rendering interstate and international borders into same former boundary as between Seattle and Ballard?
Mark
“Unlike Internet sales, Sound Transit collects sales tax from everyone, whether they live in the district or not. So its good to have a county wide vote whether to keep the tax. This would be unnecessary if the sales tax system matched the one used for Internet sales, where sales tax is based on where one lives rather than where one shops.”
Truth. Which is why my version of an elected Sound Transit Board would have a statewide rep. Somebody to represent folks in Skagit and Marysville. Somebody who wants Sound Transit to win. Somebody who wants trolls resoundly defeated.
Do you really go into the Sound Transit District to shop regularly, Joe? Sure, there are some things which simply can’t be had in Skagit County, but they have to be pretty rare. There’s Wal-Mart, Fred Meyer and even a Costco.
Gee, Joe, who do you have in mind for this statewide/Marysville/Skagit rep? Couldn’t possibly be yourself, could it?
How much of your agitation for an elected board is because you genuinely believe it’d be better than what we have at present, and how much of it is out of a desire to see yourself on said board?
Anyway, having a representative for people not living in the ST district is nonsense. That’s like putting a Lynnwood or Kent rep on the Seattle City Council, just because suburbanites work in the city and spend money there.
YES. As a Sound Transit Boardmember, I would ask the tough questions about getting ST3 done faster, making Sound Transit even safer and growing the Sound Transit fan base.
I think we would have way better with an elected board. [OT] Instead of leaving the dirty work of fighting threatened MVET cuts to CEO Peter Rogoff, Boardmembers would be reminding the public of the virtues of ST3 projects. Instead of some not-so active Boardmembers, we’d have transit advocates.
You can’t even handle one seat for those outside the ST District who pay taxes & fare into ST? Really? I was honest, your turn.
This is not really true. It’s not where one “lives”, it’s where the package is delivered. If that’s an Amazon locker within a city, you pay the city tax.
Afterthought: didn’t I just read that State Farm Insurance is thinking of moving to Dupont? As I understand it, part of their goal is reduced work-force. But any chance Dupont is looking to become a very company-cuddly town?
It’s always had same empty Body-Snatcheristic vibe as San Jose. Just waiting for scene where final frame has Donald Sutherland turn into an alien. Who still wouldn’t have minded a pod-car on Amtrak. No, not Apodments- this was, like, 1958.
But being straight about it, I think it could be in ST’s coldest self-interest to start talking to our enemies’ civilians across Steve’s own barbed wire. Present tsunami of refugees is not being driven out of Seattle by car-tabs, mall envy, or losing the War of Cars. Some of us still miss the trolley wire level with our second-story windows.
And are seriously distressed by the way our very presence is energizing exactly the kind of development that the people who chased us out of Seattle were themselves spending fortunes to flee. By the day, we exiles are becoming ever less Olympia’s grandfather’s electorate. But also facing the undead rejuvenation of 1955’s suburban enticements.
So to me first move is to start putting the term “Regional” at forefront of “Transit”- as it was when DSTT broke ground. This time, make the other side find itself surrounded.
Mark
About the “omission” of explicit relief for Sound Transit to provide service to seceded counties, no court is going to force ST to do that. Now, since it’s Pierce which has voted itself “Most Likely To Secede” [That’s a pretty good pun, no?], and that sub-area has accumulated a significant amount of money from ST1 and ST2 taxes pending the arrival of Link in Federal Way, the surviving counties “owe” it continued STEX and South Sounder service until that accumulated savings is exhausted.
At that time it might make sense for Lakewood, Tacoma, Puyallup and Sumner to form a PTBA in order to contract with Sound Transit in order to continue the service. But if they don’t want it, “Oh well. Pound sand autoistas.”
If Snohomish also bails, well, the tunnel is dug to Northgate, and East King is in surplus, so maybe Seattle ends up with the “optimum” system of Microsoft and Highline to Northgate.plus Ballard-West Seattle.
It would make sense to slip on extensions to 130th and Downtown Redmond, and it’s likely that those relatively inexpensive bits can be afforded using ST3 monies from North and East King only.
Then build a honkin’ big bus intercept at 130th over the freeway and one at the junction of I-5 and the SR509 extension and call it good. Yes, yes, I know that Link does not have capacity to intercept every commuter bus from south of Highline, but the all-day and evening service can certainly be truncated there, with maybe the 594 continuing on to the airport in the bus lanes on SR99.
Peak hour expresses can continue serving downtown Seattle to meet the capacity gap and the desire of commuters for single-seat rides. But they would have a premium price, especially those from Pierce County. At the North end there is absolutely no reason to continue any Snohomish County bus farther than 130th. It’s always going to be faster between there at Westlake via Link than a bus, except at zero dark thirty, when there would be three passengers. Maybe.
Most of the people here have advocated for something like that at one time or another. Maybe d.p. will move back….
It does not look to me like any of the legislation The Banner has proposed would stop King County from continuing in Sound Transit given secession of the other two counties, and if the “elected board” business happens it guarantees that the NIMBY-Developer alliance will be in the minority, essentially just the couple of seats from South King and a couple from Shoreline and the North Lake cities. The 522 BRT would be only a couple of minutes longer using 130th.
If there’s enough tax revenue in the North King subarea an eventual further extension to 185th should make Shoreline happy.
If there is only one county remaining in the agency, the language forbidding more than five representatives from King County obviously becomes null and void.
Once ST3 is completed within King County, you can expect a unified opposition from King County Representatives and Senators in Olympia for any highway improvements anywhere in the State other than those reserved for freight [e.g. “truck lanes”].
Karma’s a bitch and she doesn’t like you, Steve,