There have been quite a few letters to the editor regarding transportation taxes and spending here in WA state. Some say that King County taxes support the rest of the state and others who say that rest of the state supports King County. Curious about what was true, I contacted the Dept of Transportation directly about how tax collection and allocation breaks down county by county. A Mr. Meale sent me a report, produced on August 11, 2005, with the information I was looking for.
Among other things, the report looked at a twenty year period of actual taxation and spending from 1984 to 2003 broken down by county. For every $1 in State and Federal transportation tax collected in King County, they received $1.09 back for projects. This is an excess of $691million from what was collected. Over the same 20 year period of actual spending the following counties contributed more transportation taxes then they had returned to them: (in order from the most return per dollar to the least): Franklin, Snohomish, Mason, Benton, Pierce, Yakima, Clark, Spokane and then Whatcom County, which came in with the least return at .61cents per dollar contributed. So, a case could be made that we, along with most of the other semi-urban counties, are indeed subsidizing roads in King County and the rest of the state.
The report also breaks down the collection and allocation of the new 9.5cent gas tax and fees as well. King County will receive $1.82 in funding for every dollar they contribute to the new tax, or an extra $1.67billion (yes billion) in spending. So, projects in King County as well as Lewis, Douglas, Pacific, Jefferson, and Kittitas will be subsidized by the rest of the state taxpayers.
This report is pretty eye opening, and lays to rest the argument about who is subsidizing whom. It also addresses future spending, and I encourage everyone interested to get a copy of the report and read it for themselves by contacting the DOT, or emailing me at Whatcompolitics@yahoo.com .
It's pretty obvious that a few of the sub-urban counties have been subsidizing our states road projects through various taxes. Although I do support I-912, this is not the reason. I, and many others, realize that a good system of roads in our state helps everyone by lowering the cost of good stransported to and from the rural, suburban, and urban areas of our state.
So why support I-912? Just because we don't want a new tax?
The real problem myself, and a lot of people I've spoken to, have with the new tax is what it will give us in return and how it came about. While the 520 Bridge and Alaska Way Viaduct do need to be replaced, the plans are just now coming together as almost an afterthought. Even with the new tax providing $2.5billion in funding, the projects are still lacking over $3.7billion for completion (the plans and dollar figures are available on the DOT website). At this point the state has no idea where the extra needed money will come from. Shouldn't we expect completed projects for our investments?
Another reason to support I-912 is to remind the legislature who they work for. This bill was passed at the last possible minute, in hopes of avoiding an initiative (thankfully people organized quickly and got it done). Did you know that any new tax and spending bill has to go to a referendum to the people as per Initiative 601 passed in 1993? Well the legislature placed an "Emergency Clause" on the bill bypassing that required vote by the people. I don't think putting up cable barriers or building holding ponds for runoff here in Whatcom County constitute an "Emergency", do you?
I don't think most citizens would have a problem taxing themselves more for roads, if they were presented with a good, complete, and honest plan that addresses safety problems, congestion, is fully funded, and isn't sneaked past us by the legislature. The 2005 Transportation Funding Package is none of these, that's why I-912 should be supported.
Anyway, I am hoping to post a little more as the new year starts. I also plan on looking into the Whatcom County voter database a little harder. In the last few weeks two voters have been found to be registered at false addresses. One of them was a city council person and the other a political activist. How many others are there?
