Evening Campaign Fizz: Car-Tab Opponents Form PACs

What the hell are they thinking?  It’s $60.  How many cars do you have to own for it to make sense to drop $5,000 into a campaign to avoid a $60 car tab fee?

And if you own any cars, you’re surely going to be happy to be able to drive them on something smoother than our current swiss-cheese-like road system.

Has John Fox ever said what he’s for, rather than what he’s against?

How much would it take to make Fox leave Seattle? I’d happily kick in for that campaign. He is nothing but a self aggrandizing lesser Seattle blowhard. 

Amen to Fox ever being for anything, but I still question this whole $60 car tab for a transportation poi potpourri proposition. Particularly when, in the aftermath of a 59% victory of the tunne, the city must figure out how to pay for projects like the seawall, the waterfront park,and Mercer West.  Hmmm maybe we should weigh the nice to have stuff against the gotta have stuff?

And happy to be driving in a roadway with lower congestion – which comes from better transit.

Transit isn’t gotta have stuff? What major metropolitan area actually functions without transit service?

So if taxpayers don’t cover 3/4 of a bus riders cost to get to work, they’re going to buy cars and clog the roads in revolt?  Ha.   Raise the damn fares to cover HALF of the cost of their choice to use Metro.

Streetcars are not transit.  They are public works  boondoggles.  Put money in bus transit, transit that people use.

Then you should love this measure because almost all the transit money foes to making the bus system more reliable. Only a pittance goes to long-range planning for neighborhood rail links in few select corridors, something that’s going to need to happen in the next 10-20 years anyway. As the Transit Master Plan shows, on at least a few corridors – like Eastlake and Downtown-Fremont-Ballard- ridership will outgrow the carrying capacity of even the most frequent bus service amd we’ll need the higher capacity provided by rail. But, for the most part, this is a bus transit measure.

This is yet more proof that Fox, Miller, Garneau and friends have a vision of Seattle’s future that looks an awful lot like Houston – shitty, low-density development, where driving is the only viable transportation choice, bus service is too limited to be of use to anyone except those who can’t afford a car and where there is no safe means for getting anywhere you need to go on foot or by bike because safe non-motorized infrastructure is seen as a luxury to be built sometime long in th future.

The difference between a livable city like Portland or Boston and a shithole like Houston is that the people in livable cities are the ones willing to support investments in the kind of infrastructure that will make their city a place in which their kids will want to stay rather than flee.

Yeah right. Because if it isn’t Portland, it’s automatically Houston. No middle ground anywhere, is there?

Fox is for building and maintaining affordable housing in Seattle for poor and lower-income people. Yuppie urbanist greenwashing gentrifiers have no place for poor and lower-income people in their “visioning” for Seattle, because poor people provide no profit for them, and so they bash Fox at every opportunity, and the sheep applaud.
 

“Fox is for building and maintaining affordable housing in Seattle for poor and lower-income people.”

Yet he’s against funding for transit that “poor and lower-income people” rely on to get between their “affordable housing” and their jobs?

Sounds like maybe he can’t see the forest for the trees.

Did Fox oppose the $20 Metro car-tab fees, that kept the buses running? I’ll bet you don’t know the answer.

How much?  Would you pitch in $100,000?

Ok, St. Louis

Streetcars are expensive amusement rides for overpaid yuppies in Paul Allenville.   What exactly was wrong with the regular bus?  It is far more cost-effective to improve buses and bus scheduling than to build shiny new toys like the SLUT.

Then you should love the millions of dollars this package invests in trolley buses and speed and reliability improvements for existing bus lines.

You clearly haven’t taken the two seconds necessary to read any of the draft Transit Master Plan’s benefit cost analysis, so I’ll tell you what the problem is with the “regular bus.”

Buses can only get so big, and they can only run so often.  Also, many of Seattle’s bus routes already “crush-load” at peak hours and are at capacity. We’re already leaving people at the curb and passing them with full buses on certain routes. That problem is getting worse and not better.

Simply put, in 20-years we’re going to need to be running higher capacity vehicles, BRT or streetcar, on 5 of the 15 highest priority corridors in the city, or we’ll leave even more people at the curb.  The cost estimates clearly show that at on least one of those corridors, the lowest cost per new rider is satisfied by a rail option.

Minus three or four zeros. 

Same kind of holier than thou campaign that worked so well against the tunnel. Keep it up as I’d love to see this plan pass with the same 60-40 margin. 

Fox can’t claim any successes on getting any low-income housing built. He only gets in the way of all the more selfless, less self-aggrandizing affordable housing advocates who actually get subsidized housing built in this town. One wonders how many more SHA units we might have if they didn’t have to waste so many resources fighting all his baseless law suits and appeals.

Fox can’t claim any successes on getting any low-income housing built. He only gets in the way of all the more selfless, less self-aggrandizing affordable housing advocates who actually get subsidized housing built in this town. One wonders how many more SHA units we might have if they didn’t have to waste so many resources fighting all his baseless law suits and appeals.

He certainly wasn’t out there fighting for it

He certainly wasn’t out there fighting for it

Wasn’t John Fox also a vocal opponent of the South Lake Union Development. Something that has “attracted over 13,000 permanent jobs, achieving over 72% of the
City’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan goal for the South Lake Union Urban
Center. This magnitude of construction and economic activity has
resulted in an average of $5 million per year in additional tax revenues to the City of Seattle.” Reference: http://publicola.com/2011/08/22/south-lake-union-success-the-numbers-dont-lie/

The broad brush complaining about ” yuppie urbanist greenwashing gentrifiers” who exploit the poor has become a anti-business and anti-progress cliché that often misses the point. Small, medium sized and yes, even ethical large businesses also create jobs and opportunities in the neighborhoods being renewed . Many of these businesses are owned by citizens who are hard working entrepreneurial people willing to take a risk. They often struggle to make their business successful. The Fox crowd doesn’t seem to understand is that this type of renewal also creates many entry level jobs and opportunities for the “poor and lower-income people” so that these working class people have an opportunity to move on and not remain poor and lower-income people indefinitely. 

Once again Ivan, you’re either confused or full of shit (probably both). Fox has done far more harm than good in the challenge to provide adequate levels of affordable housing in our community. Ask anyone who is actually providing or producing this much needed resource. Just because he’s self righteous doesn’t mean he’s right.

With “friends” like John Fox, the earnest, hard-working housing providers in Seattle don’t need enemies. 

Um, if you read about the issue, you would find that it is $60 per year for TEN YEARS.  That is $600 per vehicle over the next 10 years.  If a business owns 10 vehicles, that would be $6,000 over the next 10 years.

Hope that is not too complicated for you, bombastic.

Um, if you read about the issue, you would find that it is $60 per year for TEN YEARS.  That is $600 per vehicle over the next 10 years.  If a business owns 10 vehicles, that would be $6,000 over the next 10 years.

Hope that is not too complicated for you, bombastic.

Yes, he is for low income housing.  Have you ever read anything in the newspapers?

Yes, he is for low income housing.  Have you ever read anything in the newspapers?

And the reason why people who use transit can’t pay for it themselves is?

And the reason why people who use transit can’t pay for it themselves is?

Low-income people need streetcars?  Buses don’t work for them?

Articulated buses have the same capacity as streetcars.

These businesses should pay for their own streetcars.  Tax those businesses for “improvements” which they think benefit them.  Porland’s entire light rail and streetcar system was paid for mainly by taxes on businesses, not on cars.

The interesting point for me was that the Transportation Benefit Board is not subject to Seattle Ethics and Elections.  Since the members of both are the Seattle City Council, it seems the TBD board could adopt legislation to make them subject to the same campaign requirements.

John Fox is an advocate for low-income people. The city is pushing a $60 per vehicle charge to set up a random transportation slush fund to pay for bike lanes and whatever. It makes perfect sense that an advocate for low-income people would be opposed to this dumb, regressive new tax.

Advocates don’t build low income housing. People who build housing are developers–even if they are building low-income housing. They make a salary and do a job.

Many of their distant ancestors suffered an injustice.

You’re right Grover, the businesses should pay for the streetcars – AND THEY DO. Had you bothered to do even a modicum of research, you’d find that 50% of the SLU Trolley costs were paid for by a Local Improvement District. The balance came from Federal and State funds and the sale of surplus property. Not a dollar of Seattle General Fund monies were used.

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/faqCosts.pdf

Try again?

Where did you get this unsubstantiated BS – “lowest cost per rider is satisfied by a rail option.” 

The cost per rider for the SLUT, taking its $52 million capital cost at 6% for 30 years (a AAA/aa bond), plus the annual operating cost at $2 million, with ridership at 1,000/day for 7 days of the week (not likely on weekends) you get a cost greater than $25 per trip.

So, kindly STOP this gibberish, puleeze.

St. Louis has had light rail to the airport since 1994.  With stops at two different terminals … stops that are right in the terminals themselves, not at the far end of a huge parking garage.

I know nothing about the city’s zoning or density.  And I’d still rather live here than there.

As I said: They bash Fox at every opportunity, and the sheep applaud.

Then why do we need $60 per car per year car tab increase to build more streetcars?

And, exactly how much are businesses paying for the new streetcar on First Hill?  Have you done a modicum of research on that?

Yeah, and the other 50% of capital costs were paid by taxpayers, as are most of the operating costs (which also cut into other Metro service).

Yeah, and the other 50% of capital costs were paid by taxpayers, as are most of the operating costs (which also cut into other Metro service).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010582835_streetcarcosts24m.html 

“Sound Transit recently agreed to supply $132 million in voter-approved funds, mainly sales-tax revenue, to build and operate a new streetcar line, managed by the city and serving Seattle University, Seattle Central Community College, hospitals and other points between Link light rail’s International District/Chinatown Station and the future Capitol Hill light-rail station.”

This measure won’t provide any more buses.  Read it. 

This measure won’t provide any more buses.  Read it. 

And at the huge cost for BRT or streetcars, we’re going to be leaving people at the curb on the less-than-highest-priority corridors in the city.  But those people don’t count, I guess. 

I’m beginning to stop reading whenever I see the term “hardworking” in a comment, because it’s almost inevitably either a screed against lliberals or a whitewash of business practices. 

There is no “Fox crowd”, by the way.  Some of us agree with him on some things; we’re not led by John or anyone else.

Increasing maldistribution of wealth and income is more to point than your snide irrelevancy.

Without John Fox’s advocacy, SHA (and the other non-profits) would be doing even worse than the horrid Yesler Terrace redevelopment proposal, for one example.

Dear “in the know”: do you really need to call Houston a shithole? I used to live there, and now live in Seattle because I prefer it here. But Houston is a great city as well, in many ways. Bad in others – congestion and sprawl come to mind (I-5 is no better, and we sprawl a lot too).

Try positive arguments about Seattle, and leave the dissing on other peoples’ hometowns out of it.

To be clear, Sidewalks and Streets for Seattle does not oppose a car tab fee. We oppose THIS proposal. Our effort is not appreciably different than the 2007 effort to kill the Roads & Transit proposal. The 2007 proposal was also imbalanced and deserved to be defeated. The 2008 proposal was a much better one and deserved to be approved. Voters got it right both times.

Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows. In 2007, the Sierra Club and Kemper Freeman were on the same side. Not so much in 2008. The important thing for this flawed, unbalanced measure is to reject it and and get a replacement focused on the real, immediate needs in Seattle — repaired streets, more sidewalks, and more frequent bus service to our city’s neighborhoods.

This is not about John Fox, this is about $60 car tab fee that many of the Seattle residents can’t afford.

Seattle city council raised $20 license fee last year, King county council  follow siute this year by raising $20. the Seattle city council  is putting  another $60 license fee increase in  November ballot. This is insane. I am sure this will fail.

There are many unanswered questions, and the worst of all is that the proponent of this $60 fee are demeaning and belittling to those who are raising their disagreement with the $60 fee.

Let us be constructive, let us sit down together and see if we can agree on something, political fight is not the interest of the social justice community or the Envir/urban born again folks.

This is not about John Fox, this is about $60 car tab fee that many of the Seattle residents can’t afford.

Seattle city council raised $20 license fee last year, King county council  follow siute this year by raising $20. the Seattle city council  is putting  another $60 license fee increase in  November ballot. This is insane. I am sure this will fail.

There are many unanswered questions, and the worst of all is that the proponent of this $60 fee are demeaning and belittling to those who are raising their disagreement with the $60 fee.

Let us be constructive, let us sit down together and see if we can agree on something, political fight is not the interest of the social justice community or the Envir/urban born again folks.

This argument that the $60 increase will bring benefit and prosperity to
the low income community is not only misleading but a false

The money for streetcars is for PLANNING to connect and extend existing lines. It’s a very small fraction of the proposal. 

And where is South Lake Union?

David, what about lobbying the council to allocate a greater percentage for more sidewalk funding in future years then? Did you not notice that 30% of this is for street repair and a huge chuck for bus speed and reliability?

Seattle taxpayers?

You never hesitate to blast others for making claims without links or facts, yet I never see you provide any backup to any of the numbers that you’ve pulled out of your ass. Color me shocked.

MVH how is this random or a slush fund? The percentages of funding were recommended by a citizens’ committee, the projects follow what the city engineers say is our greatest need and it was approved unanimously by the council. The oversight committee will manage the funding and the council will have to approve changes to the spending.

Sally, it will make them faster and more reliable. They can turn around faster and make more trips per day.

Sorry Yusuf, I don’t know that anyone is suggesting that everyone will magically have a good-paying job as a result of this. But what is true is that if buses are faster and more reliable, more people can take them to work without fear of being late and losing their jobs. If more people can get by with fewer cars in the long run, that’s a tremendous financial benefit.

Um, I think that’s why Southender mentioned BRT.

How ironic. I’m beginning to stop reading whenever I see the name “sarah” in a comment, because it’s almost inevitably either a screed against businesses or a whitewash of the injustices of “social justice”.

Meli,  I Comepletly agree with you, but  the point of disagreement is not whether the investment is good or bad, but how should we pay? Shall we charge all the poor and the rich a flat rate? ( regressive taxation). Did we look at other areas, like the developer fee ( many anti $60 fee opponents are angry because the city haven’t even look at this option). We should not subsides Paul Allein’s street car with hard working tax payers’ dollar, is another one.

There are many things that are not right with this plan. I am a big supporter of mass-transit, but this has many flaws where the poor and the middle class are becoming the victims of this inititave.  It will fail unless we come to an agreement to protect the most vurnable segment of our Seattle population.

Eyman,Freeman and other conservatives are already approaching to the  anti- $60 folks, promising moral and financial suppor. My advice to the proponent of this deal is, stop been defensive, there is a strong anger on this license fee thing. And Potraying insane to everyone who oppose this fee, will only anger more people.

Like him or not, John Fox is in it because he’s passionate and committed.  He could make a lot more money doing something else, and gets a lot of abuse from people like you (who just happen to be carrying water for big developers and capital – whether they are aware of it or not) for his trouble.

Did I say Seattle taxpayers?  Half of the streetcar capital cost was funded by the landowners, and the other half was taxpayers (City, County, and otherwise).  And yes, the public is subsidizing the operating costs. 

You can google that yourself, if you’d like.  Or try Wiki….

Did I say Seattle taxpayers?  Half of the streetcar capital cost was funded by the landowners, and the other half was taxpayers (City, County, and otherwise).  And yes, the public is subsidizing the operating costs. 

You can google that yourself, if you’d like.  Or try Wiki….

The $8.5 million in South Lake Union property sales could have gone to projects throughout the city.  You can parse whether it came from the “general fund” all you like – this project would never have occurred without substantial public subsidies.

…ask and you shall receive – according to the 2/9/11 Puget Sound Business Journal, “But so far the service is a long way from directly paying for itself.  King County Metro’s 2010 budget for running the streetcars was nearly $2.5 million, according to an email from Richard Sheridan, of the Seattle Department of Transportation….”

I live in Seattle, and am also a King County taxpayer.  Capiche?

…and a goodly chunk of Seattle’s potential new Metro service hours also went to the SLUT….

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/allentown-drug-war-racism/

That’s actually kind of funny, Meli.  I’ll take it as a joke. 

Mr. X, by showing us that you don’t know the difference between City, County, State and Federal funding it makes it hard to take seriously anything you write.

My point to Grover was that impacted property owners covered 50% of the cost of SLUT. No money came from King County and the only funds from the City of Seattle came from the sale of surplus property. For you to write that “50% of capital costs were paid by taxpayers” was disingenuous at best, and within the context of the broader point, dishonest. Unfortunately, it’s typical of the types of comments that you write regarding issues of land use policy, development, smart growth, etc.

stop reading already.

Tessa,

All of the funds I am discussing are public money – so which part of the fact that 50% of the streetcar capital costs came from taxpayers are you having a hard time understanding?   

Oh, by the way, how are the Magnolia Bridge and/or Lander Overpass projects coming along?   Those are just two important projects (among many others) that have been defunded in order to spend the lion’s share of available public money – from whatever source- subsidizing Paul Allen’s development projects in SLU.  There are lots of other routes and neighborhoods the new Seattle Metro hours could have gone instead of into the SLUT, too. 

It is interesting to the focus on point and sale or purchase the car. Mainly use of  road and get save time and average of per kilometer and benefit of economics.

Surely you’re aware that ST is building a streetcar on First Hill because they were required to. It’s not some conspiracy but rather compensation from ST since the decided against a First Hill stop they had promised voters. It’s an agreement that has very little to do with the SLUT or Seattle’s more ambitious politicians’ plans for a streetcar network. Though once you have two routes you might consider connecting them somehow…

What is so unbalanced about it? The (spare) details of suggested allocations to different purposes sounded pretty good to me – and shockingly to me actually included pedestrian projects. So what is unbalanced in your opinion?

What is so unbalanced about it? The (spare) details of suggested allocations to different purposes sounded pretty good to me – and shockingly to me actually included pedestrian projects. So what is unbalanced in your opinion?

What is so unbalanced about it? The (spare) details of suggested allocations to different purposes sounded pretty good to me – and shockingly to me actually included pedestrian projects. So what is unbalanced in your opinion?

Maybe they could have if the Lesser Seattle crowd didn’t block developments all the time

The sheep are those who don’t think critically about what Fox says. The sheep don’t realize that his policy proposals would make Seattle worse off and less affordable.

Yusuf, did someone call you insane? You certainly aren’t. But I think you should be aware that the city is very limited in available sources of tax revenue by state law. The council is already committed to lobbying in Olympia for less regressive sources and said they’ll replace the license fee with an MVET if it becomes available. They also resolved to lessen the burden on lower-income households – ask O’Brien and Conlin about this.

He could make more money doing something else…you’d hire him?

Yes sarah, laws of math and physics are hilarious

So now you’re a Tea Party acolyte Mr. X? Wow, the all-consuming depth of your hatred and jealousy of “Hallivulcan” is stunning.

You might find yourself a happier, more successful person if you focused less on stopping people who are trying to make Seattle a better place and more on actually doing something productive yourself.

So now you’re a Tea Party acolyte Mr. X? Wow, the all-consuming depth of your hatred and jealousy of “Hallivulcan” is stunning.

You might find yourself a happier, more successful person if you focused less on stopping people who are trying to make Seattle a better place and more on actually doing something productive yourself.

Last I checked, lots of progressives (though not necessarily New Urbanists) have profound issues with corporate welfare.

I’m plenty happy, but thanks for your (fake) concern…..

Whenever I read personal attacks I begin to believe the attacker has no other arguments.

So, if taxpayers don’t cover 3/4 of the cost of [schools/highway/air traffic control/fire dept/police dpt/library/emergency room], they’re going to do without in revolt? Raise/impose user fees; screw ‘em.

If he chose to do something else, like being a bean counter for a developer, he’d be great. His research and analysis skills are top notch.

I don’t see any “Lesser Seattle” folks opposing road and bridge repairs or additional Metro service.  Do you?

I don’t see any “Lesser Seattle” folks opposing road and bridge repairs or additional Metro service.  Do you?

Who’s “the Lesser Seattle crowd”?

How about we start thinking about the real limitations on development, not just the ones created by appeals and bureaucratic process? Check out
Richard Heinberg’s new book, and here for the Reviews

We don’t always agree, but that was exactly what I was going to say, almost verbatim!

If you have the money than the person has the right to spend it on what they believe in.  Watch the
money on the other side for the pavers pac.

This legislation hurts groups like Chicken Soup

Because car drivers also don’t pay for the full cost of the roads.

If we had electronic tolling at every intersection that charged drivers fees reflecting the actual costs of road construction & maintenance, that might be fair.  As is, though, individual drivers are getting a free ride from the carless, as our sales & property taxes are being diverted into roads.

Are you opposed to the streetcar planning? Because for many of Seattle’s corridors, buses will simply not cut it over the long term, they just don’t have the capacity. We need some form of high-capacity transit beyond buses, and streetcars are the best solution. We’ll be lucky if LINK reaches Ballard by 2030, and even then most of the city’s neighborhoods will still not have light rail service.

This proposal is spot-on – allocating most funds to buses, street improvement, and pedestrian infrastructure, while beginning the process of planning for necessary streetcar (or BRT) lines