City Adopts $20 Car License Fee

“Council member Bruce Harrell said that although he supported the fee, he was concerned that it was “a very regressive tax. The owner of a $100,000 car pays the same as a person who owns a $2,000 car.””

Who here remembers the days before I-695 when license tabs were based on an unrealistic vehicle value depreciation schedule? I recall having an $800 renewal fee for a 3 year old small Mazda. It was disproportional fees like that which led to the disastrous consequences of I-695 for state and local governments.

More reasonable fees such as this are precisely what we should be relying on for transportation funding.

Ty, I agree! I think I paid somewhere around $400 before good ‘ol (love him or hate him) Tim Eyman came around!

There is a middle ground between basing fees on unrealistic values and having a flat rate.

By the way, you probably pay even more now, its just spread out via higher sales tax, property tax, and gas tax.

Uh, $800 for a three-year-old Mazda? Unless you meant to write “Maserati,” I doubt that’s what you paid.

Concerned about freight mobility? Don’t build stadiums or large residential complexes (north lot) near major Port operations.

Bruce Harrell made a good point, and I certainly agree with him.

Tolling of either 520 or 99 is what worries me the most. Many people may not have the money to pay for tolling, and will use other streets like 1st Ave; making Down Town a very congested place.
Taxi, limo, and other transportation service providers may have problem accepting toll roads because this will increase their operating cost; advocates of low income communities may also have problem accepting toll roads.
It may not be prudent to introduce tolling when we are increasing the license fee and the commercial parking ticket. The city council needs to conduct more public hearing and study about the impact of toll roads to our communities, our mobility and our economy before making a decision.
The only way tolling could be acceptable to the public is if the generated money will be used for the benefit of the public not the companies that built it.
The council and WDOT need to tell the public how the money will be used—this is very important for the success and the credibility of the projects.

Harrell is right. This should be based on a standard mill rate of the vehicle’s sale price, and then just do a basic depreciation. $20:$1000 of new car value, reduced by $2/year to a flat minimum of $20/year total for the oldest of cars.

Good that Bagshaw is looking out for the interests of freight. With only $179 million in freight-related projects budgeted for the next two years, they’re really getting squeezed by the $20-odd million in ped, bike, and TDM projects over the same period.

Way to fight for the little guy, Sally!

Maybe they can special toll booths where they ask you if you’re po’ or not?

wrong, the only sensible metric for road usage wear is gross vehicle weight. Its how many other states do it already.

What if I put $4000 rims, a $2000 boom-bass and gold plated gear shift on my piece of sh*t 1995 Honda Civic, does that mean I’m still po’?

What if I put $4000 rims, a $2000 boom-bass and gold plated gear shift on my piece of sh*t 1995 Honda Civic, does that mean I’m still po’?

And that treats the $100,000 car the same as the used $1000 hoopty for tax purposes if they’re about the same size, which is absurd.

If you got commercial plates, I can see the value in gross weight as the metric, but for normal passenger cars, it has to scale to some sort of baseline tied to the value of the car for it to make any sense or have any sort of ethical value in the taxation.

Nope, we were paying that back in the early 90s.

One of the problems is they use a “standard mill rate of the vehicle’s sale price, and then just do a basic annual depreciation” as recommended by Joe in comments lower down. You end up with a tax based on a “value” for you vehicle that does not at all resemble market value for a given vehicle. Both the amount, and the method of determining the amount were what taxpayers revolted against back in 99 or 2000 whenever 695 was.

“By the way, you probably pay even more now, its just spread out via higher sales tax, property tax, and gas tax.”

And I am ok with that giffy. I have no problem with paying taxes and investing in infrastructure and services. what I found alarming was how few people in the public sector learned any lesson from that experience. Which in my opinion was too much tax taken from any one method.

If we increase our sales taxes past the 10% line, we start to reach this same issue.

Fred, the point is- if we are collecting tolling fee, The collectors must explain how the money will be used. SIMPLE

Fred, the point is- if we are collecting tolling fee, The collectors must explain how the money will be used. SIMPLE

I’ve lived in Washington state since 1992. The MVET was assessed at 2.2% of your car’s value. I know that the state had a messed up valuation back then, but there’s no way your 1990-ish Mazda was valued by the state at $36,000.

I think there is a discrepancy here between the council approving a “$20 vehicle-license fee this morning to pay for preserving and maintaining city streets, enhancing safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, and improving mobility and safety for people with disabilities” and Council member Sally Clark noting “that the fee puts the burden of building infrastructure on the people who use that infrastructure”. I don’t see any reference to bicyclists, or pedestrains making the $20 tax. Why is its always the car driver who has to pay for everyone else? Also, since the mayor and the council are trying to disuade people from using cars, where will they raise their revenue if people listens to them and switch from cars to public transport?

“Why is its always the car driver who has to pay for everyone else?”

Why is it that this requires explanation every single time? Just about everyone who is a pedestrian or bicyclist will also pay this tax since either directly or indirectly they almost all also drive and operate a motor vehicle at some point.

does someone really have a viable method for applying a fee for only those pedestrians who are Seattle residents?

I am a driver as well as a bicyclist and walker who pays their taxes and fees, and in return for those taxes and fees, I expect a transportation system that is safe and predictable for all users. I don’t want a system that withholds school crosswalks and safety investments until we come up with a school lunch tax to provide some token contribution.

Because the car drivers are the ones using the roads, and creating the most of the damages on the streets. I am driver, I have never rode bicycle or bikle in my entire life, and i don’t want to. I drive a car, but i will never blame the bicylits for my mess. Come on guys be fair –okay. This is the time we(car drivers) take a full responsiblity for our roads and stop blaming or scapegoating the bicylist

But only arterials are “maintained”. As far as damage as concerned, our roads are damaged far more by heavy vehicles than cars. How much is Metro paying? Will charter bus operators need to pay a use fee? How about construction vehicles such as cement mixers and dump trucks? Where is the principle of fairness at work in this ordinance? Which council member is representing that interest?

Well, I am a car driver, but when I take public transport, I also (and expect to pay) for the privilege. My point is why don’t bicyclists pay for the privelege of using a public roads or bicycle lanes. Just saying!

Well, golly, imagine if we had another tax that brought in several million dollars… that wasn’t so “regressive” and was charged to employers instead of people, and tied to actual commuter patterns instead of just owning a car regardless of how often one used it.

Gee, I’ll bet we could call it an “employee head tax” and it would sure be swell!

Um…they are. For the tunnel, it will be used to pay off the debt of the tunnel. For 520, same thing. It’s all bonds and shit. And after that’s done, it’ll go into the transpo budget, assuming the State is smart enough to keep the tolls. Don’t like tolls, take clogged roads. Don’t like clogged roads? Take the bus, walk or bike.

Erica, I think there is an error in your story. As I understand the TBD law, the City Council can impose up to a $20 fee on its own. The law also allows the Council to seek voter approval for a fee of up to $100. The law also permits a voter approved sales tax.

This TBD should be struck down b/c it does not comply with the elements for a TBD set out in the RCW, and that is that the enabling legislation needs to identify what the purpose(s) are that the money raised is to go to. Other cities who have established TBD’s set out with specificity what the money is to go for – a specific road, improvement, and the like. The COS’s TBD is for a general slush fund that the city council acting with no oversight can go spend as it sees fit. It is unfortunate that the electorate at the time that the Legislature acquisced to the associations for Washington cities and counties didn’t realize what the latest iteration of this vehicle entailed, council people getting to essentially act with immunity and impunity in their capacity as the directors of these TBD’s. More government without oversight/accountability, more taxation without representation, and more acts by officials that give them legal status far beyond what they constitutionally have. It’s not too late to challenge the establishment of the TBD and this act that the council people have taken.

No, the same old argument that is made before, that bicyclists do pay, does not extend over into the realm of this TBD. you are wrong TY – wrong – this is a separate circumstance that is not ameliorated by the general situation you are talking about. This is a tax specifically levied on motor vehicles, to pay for all forms of transportation. To be equitable a tax should be levied on all forms of mobility or users – every citizen, bus riders, bicycle owners (not just riders), rail users.

And being personal – Ty, enough with the argument that this new level of taxation is necessary – it is only “necessary” b/c those city council people that you are apparently enamored of have robbed the money that was to go for the things that you want in order to fund support for their positions, support for the things that their elite friends want (business and social), with some crumbs thrown at problem areas in just enough of an amount to keep the wolves at bay.

And cigarette taxes should only go to support cigarette infrastructure.
And alcohol taxes should be used to build a beer-based amusement park.
And police salaries should only be paid by our new tax on crime
And hotel taxes should only be used for bedbug extermination services.

Why does everyone believe cars are these special devices that must pay for themselves and not anyone else? Taxes shouldn’t work like that.

No, Michael, not the same thing. The State is going to start collecting tolls on 520 before even the first spade of earth is turned on the new 520 bridge. Unprecedented, collecting money from users for an improvement they are not getting the use of.

Like the waterfront toll tunnel, I just won’t use it. The I-90 bridge is free and with an extra five minutes driving, I can use it just as easily (in fact more easily under some circumstances) then I can 520.

If you actually read what I was responding to – the commenter was apparently complaining that nobody is telling people where the tolls go. I was just correcting his ignorance, as we all know that the tolls are going towards replacement of the bridge.

We do. The majority of funding for local roads comes from property taxes. Everybody who owns property in Seattle pays for the city streets. Anyone who rents, pays for them indirectly through their landlord.

But I guess you’re right, the homeless bicyclists aren’t paying squat.

When does “City” start charging an annual fee for bikes and skate boards??!! This is BS!

Michael — well we have to spend what we have right!!!. If there is no money, then don’t do it. Easayyyy!!

Campbell What Social– do you mean Social Justice. I thought you were in our team. Waaw. correct me if i am wrong ?

Because they are helping the environment; allowing you and me who are SUV drivers to breathe fresh and better air quality. Washington State sends 30 million dollars to foreign countries to get oil every month, bicyclists decided not to send that money to foreign countries and keep that money here in Seattle.
They are courageous and good citizens who care their country and the environment; they deserve every help and support from the car driving folks. Get out of your fatty SUV, and then only you may have chance to judge others

We have reduced fare transit passes, why not reduced tolls?

Ms. Campbell,

Do car and gas taxes pay for all the costs of cleaning up polluted rivers and our very own Puget Sound? Do they pay for all the court costs of adjudicating the myriad civil and criminal disputes involving the dangerous 4000-lb guided missiles piloted by half-wits more concerned with texting or wolfing down a Triple McFattie with Triple Cheese and Triple Bacon than driving?

It would cost more to administer and enforce such a scheme than one would take in taxes based on the assessed value of most bicycles and skateboards.

Road wear, yes. Road usage, no. The majority of road space is being taken up by single-occupant vehicles, which often means that vehicles with high gross weight such as trucks or buses are stuck in traffic. When we’re talking about congested roads like SR-520 or I-5, we absolutely need to look at who is using the space.

A reliable license method would be the same as a pet license (although cyclists would freak out if they were charged on the scale of a dog, $47, or even a cat, $25).
A license would be required to be shown under the same conditions as a driver of a car.
It is not nearly as tough as opponents would like to make it out be.
You could have a scale by age, under 18 a minor fee or free, over 18 some thing just short of the fee for a common house cat.
There would have to be a deterrent fine for adults that do not have a license.

And to add to that, back in 2005 roughly 158,000 people commuted into Seattle and do not pay the property taxes and will not pay this fee either:
http://raincityguide.com/2005/04/29/commuting-in-seattle/

Not sure on more recent numbers or the exact mode split, but it’s certainly a significant number of vehicles taking up lane space.

Somebody tell my cat.

Skateboards generally do not consume painted, set aside, road space.

Bikes riders over 18, or out of high school, should buy a pet license for their bikes.

Of course if you make the license fee much larger than a car fee it could be enforceable. I was talking about a fee that was proportionally similar. If the median car is worth $12,000(?), the median bicycle is probably worth $300 or less. That would make the fee $0.50 for a bicycle if it were a comparable flat fee.

“$6.8 million a year”Let’s see that should cover Con-man’s salary and the rest of City Clownsil, plus all the retreats to solariums and ski resorts.

If the city of Seattle really cared about paying for infrastructure, they’d pay the real cost of the Ride Free Area.

Can’t they buy those 3″ x 2″ ones with their first name on it from the mall?

Then the city could put a two dollar tax on those.

The $20 fee is not on a scale, it is flat, that is what half of the comments in this thread are about.
My cat cost a less than a bike., and the fee doesn’t car how valuable one cat is in comparison to another cat.

How about the same rate as a miniature goat, $20.
Get cause without one, $40 fine.

Here is the latest spam from the mayor:
Have you contacted the City Council about the mayor’s proposed 2011/2012 budget?

Please let the City Council know what’s important to you.

Note to self, looks like the commercial parking tax is moot.

Yes. I’ve never been asked to provide proof of my dog’s license, but I keep it current because It’s The Right Thing To Do.

You should only ever talk about the Viaduct. Amazingly, it’s worked for you so far. When you start with this stuff, people might be far less likely to support you.

More importantly, Erica Barnett will stop returning your phone calls.

I wonder if the angry internet commenters throughout the country that substitute “clownsil” for council thing they’re each uniquely clever.

Please don’t blow the whole $20 on that stupid hole in the ground.

God willing, both the bidders will bail, and the $20 can be spent on something actually useful.

I understand that. What I am saying is that if a flat fee for a bicycle were set by scaling it to the comparatively small price of a bicycle compared to a car, compared to the average weight difference, to the average externalities difference (pick any number of metrics) would be a small fraction of $20. Probably $0.50 or less, which is not worth the administration costs.

If Metro really wants to be rid of the RFA, they can offer the city something of value in return.

Oh, I understand you point, I simply do not agree, and think you should pay $20.

That’s a great job for the next Publicola News Intern – dig up the actual registered dog/cat numbers vs. statistical estimates of the pet population. I’d really be interested to know the results.

Salma the viaduct deal is dead. Haven’t you been reading the Seattle Times lately. No money and NO plan = Deaf by the people for the people. Sooooooooooooooon something will chage, I promise you

“pay for preserving and maintaining city streets, enhancing safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, and improving mobility and safety for people with disabilities. The new fee, designed to help close an estimated $500 million backlog in transportation projects, would raise about $6.8 million a year.”

I thought that the Bridging the Gap Levy was supposed to cover those things–where is that money going?

Tax the bike commuters! good call. They do not follow the rules of the road, the least they could do is help pay for the infrastructure that they demand.

She means social friends. Use one poster name; we can tell you’re posting as multiple people.

I’m sure I’m a sucker for registering, but I do. I’d be surprised if a quarter of Seattle pets were registered.

Every time I read one of his blasts, I get the sense that he actually wrote them.

Also, do people besides the Seattle Internet genius commenter community and actual users of it care about the South Park Bridge? I never heard of it as a cultural institution until it was set to close. Also, I still don’t think it’s actually in Seattle.

Apparantly you haven’t heard about plans to toll I-90? Get used to it people “freeways” are not free. Next up, I-5 express lanes will become HOT lanes.

This has to happen. We haven’t been collecting “replacement” costs of these faciliities. This is why we need to foot the bill all at once when its time for replacement (which is very painful!).

Think about it. If you own a small business – and your main widget machine costs $400,000, and is supposed to last you 10 years. Do you set aside nothing, and then in 10 years look to raise $400k? No, you set aside $40k each year, so that in 10 years, you can buy a new widget machine. Basic economics..

State DOT”s recognize this. On the east coast, they have for years. It’s out west where we don’t connect that this needs to happen. The money that goes into the general fund is barely enough for regular maintenance (re-paving, new signing, new lighting, guardrails, landscaping, snow-removal, etc…).

Tolling and variable pricing are long overdue transportation facilities. Its common in other arenas (phone plans – PM and weekends are less, water and heating bills, airline tickets….).

But, if its that important for you to save a few dollars to get to the eastside, I’d suggest you try finding other means (transit, or bike?).

Baloney; the cost of infrastructure for bikes alone is a tiny fraction of what it costs to support motor vehicles. Except maybe big bridges, and even then twenty feet wide and carrying far less weight…

I wonder if embittered readers of internet commenters throughout the country that chafe at the substitution of clownsil for council; are themselves merely clones that were grown in test tubes back in the old U.S.S.R. as part of plot for them to one day emerge and harass commenters doing that substitution.

Or was I just re-iterating the plot of “Salt”?

I have to agree…seems like all but the slowest reader can mouth the handwriting on the wall.

AREN”T POSTS FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU SUPPOSED TO BE IN ALL CAPS?

Totally. Build them in bellevue or issaquah instead.

Yes.

“Taxes shouldn’t work like that.”

I always wondered how the hell tim eyman manages to have a full time job doing nothing but fighting taxes. It’s because of attitudes like this.

The idea that the government should just tax and tax and spend it on whatever the hell they want is just begging for the money to be wasted.

After the monorail fiasco, I think it’s not just a citizen’s right, but a duty to heavily question just how every penny they pay for their registration is going to be spent.

If I wanted to flush hundreds of dollars down the toilet, I can do that on my own time.

“The idea that the government should just tax and tax and spend it on whatever the hell they want is just begging for the money to be wasted.”

Who do you think “they” are? The government is you – if you vote. You don’t think “they” should spend money on bike infrastructure – fine. I don’t think “they” should spend money on car infrastructure. Democracy is our tool to focus the opinion of everyone and refine it into a reasonable set of actions.

“I think it’s not just a citizen’s right, but a duty to heavily question just how every penny they pay for their registration is going to be spent”

Sounds good to me. Maybe you should also pay attention to how all of your tax money is spent. Or is registration special because it’s attached to a car?

Bull Durham

That MVET system was stupid because no one had any idea of the impact of the rate they set, as if they had given the method very little analysis relative to the known values of existing registered vehicles. So many working and middle class people ended up paying ridiculous sums relative to their income to keep their rigs registered.

Perhaps a better idea is something similar to the proposed 1098 income tax, where you don’t pay until your vehicle hits a certain ridiculous value, and then the fee is stiff, something like $100 for every $10K of value. The City can do what they didn’t do last time and conduct some actual practical statistical analysis to determine what would be a fair and yet productive amount.

He’s probably factoring in other registration fees he had to pay. The actual MVET might have been lower but it wasn’t the full amount he had to pay… and this BTW is something else to keep in mind with these debates. The MVET only makes up one part of your reg fees, and the rest of those aren’t small change.

It means you have po’ taste.

Why would they get rid of something the City pays them to provide?

Why would they get rid of something the City pays them to provide?

Oh you mean all the money that was going to be rolling in from increased property taxes on the booming 2007 real estate market? Yeah, whatever happened with that?

Oh you mean all the money that was going to be rolling in from increased property taxes on the booming 2007 real estate market? Yeah, whatever happened with that?

and no doubt the fine folks at SPD, who have nothing better to do, could enforce this law, right? I have a feeling Selma is right, and most Seattleites don’t register their pets – heck, I’d love to see a survey of how many Seattleites even know they are *supposed* to register their pets.

If the law passed I’d register my bike, but I think it’s a waste of time as an argument. Right now we’re looking at millions of dollars in underfunded needs for the Bike and Ped Master Plans. The amount raised by such a license wouldn’t begin to address the need.

Mercer and Spokane, primarily.

Why not a $20 license fee for bicycles too? They are more disruptive to traffic and demand too much while paying nothing for it. As a political action group they are totally obnoxious.

I think bicyclists over 16 should have licenses, and bikes should have license plates. I don’t think it should be to generate revenue (make it cost $5 or something nominal…).
The reason should be when a bike does something dangerous, they can be reported, and held accountable. It might also make over-aggressive cyclists tone it down, for fear of being reported.

Fine.. just don’t take away my studded tires! (kidding, but that rule really damages pavement. Those tires should cost $1000 each to offset the damage).
True about the damage from heavy vehicles. Busses mainley. Large construction vehicles have much larger tires, and are very small in number compared to busses. Just make sure roads are concrete for bus routes, and its fine. Or on 23rd on Capitol Hill, have the curb lanes concrete, and the inside lanes asphalt.