Drago: "Where's the Money?"

Here’s the problem, Councilmember Drago: you, as a proponent of eliminating this source of $5 million per year in transportation funding, are the one who needs to answer your own question. It’s odd to slash the money from the transportation department’s budget in one breath, and in the next breath to demand that the transportation director explain how the transportation department intends to make up for the shortfall. Again, as the proponent of cutting the funding, you bear the burden of explaining the cut’s negative effects.

If I were Grace Crunican, I would respond: “The department will prevent a decrease in revenue by asking you not to cut the head tax.”

A further issue that Drago—and other supporters of cutting the tax—need to address: You can’t simply “make up” for a loss of $5 million in funding. Sure, the commercial parking tax is bringing in more dollars than expected. But it’s not like there’s nothing to fund with the head tax’s $5 million per year: Bridging the Gap is inadequate as it is, there is hardly any money to fully implement the Bicycle Master Plan and the proposed Pedestrian Master Plan, and the city has no plan to finally build sidewalks in neighborhoods that don’t have them yet.

One final point: Councilmember Drago, you want to cut taxes and build a $4 billion tunnel, but you can’t have it both ways. Seattle has to raise taxes and utility rates to cover its $1 billion share of the project. In light of that, a $5 million tax cut seems imprudent.

Bold stance from Drago: against the tax, but in favor of the revenue the tax brings in. Also in favor of outsourcing any hard decisions to administrative staff. That’s leadership!

But has anyone been to explain why all the political consultants are apparently convinced that this is an issue for anyone other than ideologically anti-tax zealots from the Chamber of Commerce? It’s $25 a year — hardly enough to make a difference to any employer of any kind anywhere in the city.

Here’s the problem, Councilmember Drago: you, as a proponent of eliminating this source of $5 million per year in transportation funding, are the one who needs to answer your own question. It’s odd to slash the money from the transportation department’s budget in one breath, and in the next breath to demand that the transportation director explain how the transportation department intends to make up for the shortfall. Again, as the proponent of cutting the funding, you bear the burden of explaining the cut’s negative effects.

If I were Grace Crunican, I would respond: “The department will prevent a decrease in revenue by asking you not to cut the head tax.”

A further issue that Drago—and other supporters of cutting the tax—need to address: You can’t simply “make up” for a loss of $5 million in funding. Sure, the commercial parking tax is bringing in more dollars than expected. But it’s not like there’s nothing to fund with the head tax’s $5 million per year: Bridging the Gap is inadequate as it is, there is hardly any money to fully implement the Bicycle Master Plan and the proposed Pedestrian Master Plan, and the city has no plan to finally build sidewalks in neighborhoods that don’t have them yet.

One final point: Councilmember Drago, you want to cut taxes and build a $4 billion tunnel, but you can’t have it both ways. Seattle has to raise taxes and utility rates to cover its $1 billion share of the project. In light of that, a $5 million tax cut seems imprudent.

Bold stance from Drago: against the tax, but in favor of the revenue the tax brings in. Also in favor of outsourcing any hard decisions to administrative staff. That’s leadership!

But has anyone been to explain why all the political consultants are apparently convinced that this is an issue for anyone other than ideologically anti-tax zealots from the Chamber of Commerce? It’s $25 a year — hardly enough to make a difference to any employer of any kind anywhere in the city.

I applaud Jan for working to replace the lost revenue.

Pedestrian and Bike projects funded by the Commuter Tax (aka the “Head Tax”) bring jobs to Seattle and are important infrastructure and part of to Seattle’s ability to attract and retain residents who add to our economic vitality.

Perhaps the commercial parking tax could be increased to pay for the shortfall. Or, even better, large (not small business – start this at say, 50 parking spaces) employers who offer free or subsidized parking could be charged a new tax. This would have a similar benefit and incentive as the current tax but would exempt small business.

I applaud Jan for working to replace the lost revenue.

Pedestrian and Bike projects funded by the Commuter Tax (aka the “Head Tax”) bring jobs to Seattle and are important infrastructure and part of to Seattle’s ability to attract and retain residents who add to our economic vitality.

Perhaps the commercial parking tax could be increased to pay for the shortfall. Or, even better, large (not small business – start this at say, 50 parking spaces) employers who offer free or subsidized parking could be charged a new tax. This would have a similar benefit and incentive as the current tax but would exempt small business.

That’s what we call a bandwagon. So much for a spine. Just lock up your warchest now and bury it in the sand for a few decades in the hopes we forget.

That’s what we call a bandwagon. So much for a spine. Just lock up your warchest now and bury it in the sand for a few decades in the hopes we forget.

I would like to see them all come out against a 20 percent (or 10 or 5 or 1%) increase at City Light. I could care less about the head tax. No one was going to defeat Nickels based on his support of the head tax. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. A “rumored” increase of that magnitude at City Light is a real election issue. What could possibly justify that?

I would like to see them all come out against a 20 percent (or 10 or 5 or 1%) increase at City Light. I could care less about the head tax. No one was going to defeat Nickels based on his support of the head tax. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. A “rumored” increase of that magnitude at City Light is a real election issue. What could possibly justify that?

Thank God that there is a *real* council member who will stand up on this issue.

Fer chrisssakes, aren’t people aware that SDOT actually RIFed non-union staff at the beginning of June? Damn straight we need this revenue!

Thank God that there is a *real* council member who will stand up on this issue.

Fer chrisssakes, aren’t people aware that SDOT actually RIFed non-union staff at the beginning of June? Damn straight we need this revenue!

considering the only funding slated for the Pedestrian Master Plan (for example) is to the tune of $10 M a year, and that the tax gets us almost half that, Drago should be very concerned.

I would have thought she’d be concerned enough to not be in favor of getting rid of the tax.

Guess not.

People have suggested that she look into other sources of funding for the Ped Plan, but have not heard a peep from her office on that. Taxes, fees, transportation benefit districts… There’s a long list of things to explore.

Sounds like she asking Grace to do that dirty work though…I think it should be Drago’s job.

considering the only funding slated for the Pedestrian Master Plan (for example) is to the tune of $10 M a year, and that the tax gets us almost half that, Drago should be very concerned.

I would have thought she’d be concerned enough to not be in favor of getting rid of the tax.

Guess not.

People have suggested that she look into other sources of funding for the Ped Plan, but have not heard a peep from her office on that. Taxes, fees, transportation benefit districts… There’s a long list of things to explore.

Sounds like she asking Grace to do that dirty work though…I think it should be Drago’s job.

I’m having a hard time not watching the seven car pileup that is the mayor’s race.

I’m having a hard time not watching the seven car pileup that is the mayor’s race.