SEATTLE — Sound Transit is holding off on any cuts to projects or service that might result from passage of a recent state initiative, with the transit agency’s board option to wait until courts decide on the constitutionality of the new law.
Initiative 976, which passed Nov. 5, would limit auto registration fees to $30. [See “Seattle, transit agency could sue over initiative which would cut funding source,” Trains News Wire, Nov. 7, 2019.] If upheld, it could reduce revenue for Sound Transit by $7.2 billion through 2041, King 5 TV reports. Seattle and surrounding King County are among those suing to block the law — a hearing is set for Tuesday — but Sound Transit elected not to join the suit, the Seattle Times reports, and will continue to collect its tax that is part of the registration fee for vehicle owners in its area.
Sound Transit’s chief counsel, Desmond Brown, said the agency could continue to collect the tax because the initiative didn’t set a deadline to pay off some $2.3 billion in existing bond debt. Case law indicates the state can’t force a local agency like Sound Transit to go deeper into debt to pay off bondholders early, he said.
The Puget Sound is, and has been a vehicle disaster for 50 years. It is narrow, with I-5 and I-405 providing the main N-S arterials. My issue is this, as a former Washingtonian: they are forcing all 39 counties to pay for 2, soon to be 3, counties using the train. Common sense dictates that if you do not have money or the adequate financing for a new car, boat, RV, condo, what have you, you do not buy it. As our area was booming, and is still rapidly growing, LID’s (local Improvement Districts) were established to deal with the financial aspect of the project. Streets, roads, infrastructures were paid down this way, or with a small temporary tax to assist.
There has even been an additional Tax at hotels in Seattle for specific improvements, for use in their city. That is fine, Local means Local. The gas tax in Washington is atrocious. There is only so much money that you can fleece from the citizens.
The discussion below of local option vs statewide taxes and of forcing either the state or Sound transit or any of the above into bankruptcy, misses my basic point–which is that the overly permissive “Easy Initiative” process, particularly in Washington and Oregon, is a threat both to good government and to the very concept of representative government.
Of course Tim Eyeman (generally) complies with the law when he gathers signatures for his proposals. The point is that the consequences of that undermining of both the power of the legislature and the sanctity of contract may be perfectly “libertarian”, but they are not good for maintaining a functioning community. At a minimum the signatures required to put an initiative up for a vote should be higher and initiatives that undermine “the full faith and credit” of already authorized spending should not be certified. That no fewer than six of Eyeman’s earlier proposals have been declared unconstitutional speaks eloquently to that need. I suspect that will be the fate of I-976 as well, but obviously only time will tell.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments from Mr. Landry and all the subsequent posters. While I do agree with many of the points made, I appreciate the genuinely open and clear tone of this discussion. For once we’re talking to and not past one another. THANKS!
This area has nearly legendary congestion, and terrible infrastructure any problem that occurs on the roads can nearly paralyze the area. I know the area and backroads better than most locals since I worked in the field for 13 years, but even the few backroads get backed up. With nearly 4 million people and way behind on all infrastructure, they need to invest in rail and roads big time. Welcome to unlimited growth. People want all the high tech and jobs, but don’t want to pay for roads and rail. Add to this the high cost of housing or as the locals say “drive to qualify”. It is definitely not a great place to live anymore. I would be back to upper Midwest, but family lives here unfortunately, wished they were in upper Midwest.
GERALD _ Thankx for your opinion. It’s of value to me. Now has anyone answered my question of earlier today?
$30 is cheap for auto registration, they’re lucky it’s not 10% of the vehicles blue book value…which is what should really be in my opinion, make people think first before buying a car(not that they would, it’s just the idea that some might actually think about the annual registration fee first).
Jeffrey, it’s not more, more, more…you would think that people who read these stories and live in the real world understand that to get anything done you have to spend money…you do remember the old adage to make money you have to spend money? Well, that applies to everything, including infrastructure.
The Seattle Spandex Mafia is upset because their piggy bank has been broken. No thought whatsoever they could scale back their expectations or reform their spending habits. Their answer to everything is more, more more.
What is basis for the lawsuit to block the bill???
The bonds sold were revenue bonds. Revenue from registrations go to pay the principal and interest.
If the court rules the fee is wrong, Sound Transit can perform a few things.
– Find a new revenue source to pay the debt
– Reduce costs to cover the expense of the debt
– Refinance the bonds, but they will still need #1, and it will cost more to do so
– Cancel the projects involved and buy out the bonds
JACOB
Thanks for info. You have answered my original question, much appreciated.
Home Rule is a big legal thicket. For example Michigan had different rules for cities over one million (Detroit – at the time), cities under one million, incorporated villages, charter townships, and general law townships, each with its own home rule regulations or lack thereof. That’s before you get to school district, counties, special taxing districts, etc. etc.
Wisconsin has different classes of cities, based I guess on population, in addition to villages and towns (Wisconsonese for township).
What’s in common though is the state of Washington is sovereign; no subsidiary unit of government is. Home rule is only what the state grants through legislation or the state constitution.
C.N.L.
Charles,
I think–based on prior Trains articles– the basis for the lawsuit comes down to home rule and the conflict of this statewide initiative with previously approved local initiatives. Not being familiar with Washington state law I do not know what the balance is. But from what I understand the auto registration fee is a state imposed fee.
Well said Carl, when I originally moved to Washington State in 1967, we had some of the best roads in the West, now they are in horrible condition. Tim Eyman has the right to propose initiatives and referendums like anyone else, but come up with constructive ways to deal with the problems here. I am against initiatives and referendums, that is what legislators get paid for, to solve State problems. If we do not like it, they should be voted out instead of sending them back to the State House or Congress.
CARL – I read your post and I respect your opinion. I have a contrary view. Courts cannot impose a tax, not even for the payment of a debt. For example the debt of the United States Government is $21 Trillion or whatever it is. Nonetheless the courts cannot compel the Government to raise a tax to retire the debt or to keep it from growing. Even in states with a balanced budget requirement (approx. 49 of the states, along with their local units of government) the courts cannot levy a tax to pay the states’ obligations.
And so it is with Sound Transit. They owe money on the bonds. Got it. Even so, if the citizens choose not to tax themselves to pay the bonds, the voters are sovereign. If it means the bonds go into default and the state collapses into bankruptcy and takes its credit rating into the dumpster, that’s the choice of the sovereign voters and not the business of the courts. Not even a bankruptcy court can levy a tax.
As for your Mr. Tim Eyeman, whether or not you think he’s doing any good he has the same right to advocate his position to the voters as does anyone else. If the voters choose to ignore him (most cases) or to follow his advice (this one case), that’s up to the voters. You can strongly disagree but you cannot use the courts to overrule what the voters have in their wisdom (or lack of wisdom) have decided.
The fact that the referendum made it to ballot in the first place speaks to its legality after the votes have been counted.
If I’m wrong in any detail or in general theory (I may well be) and if I don’t understand the law in a state I’ve never even visited, I will stand corrected. My post is based on my best understanding of the issue. And as I posted below obviously I’ve not read the Washington State Constitution.
Sound Transit’s funding had been directly approved by the voters long-before Tim Eyeman’s latest Aynn Randist attack. The “Easy Initiative” has become a curse in both Washington, Oregon and California. A heritage of the Populist movement at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century, this flawed process has repeatedly resulted in this kind of catastrophic “Catch 22” situation. Bonds have been issued and guaranteed on the basis of anticipated tax revenues. Services by Sound Transit, the Washington Ferry System and the Amtrak CASCADES are all at risk, including billion dollar projects already in service which now face the loss of operational support.
Tim Eyeman prides himself in being a ferocious opponent of taxes. His “movement” even calls itself the “Permanent Offense” Mr. Eyeman may derive a huge ego boost from his endless games with initiatives to overturn both previously voter approved and legislative judgements. He was himself convicted of fraud in the handling of funds for his initiatives some years ago–but supported by wealthy reactionary interests in the Puget Sound area, he persists in trying to undermine sensible plans that have long-since been properly approved.
Fortunately, in this case, as in earlier cases where one of his initiatives undermined already properly approved and implemented projects, the courts will probably rule this latest wrecking-ball of an initiative unconstitutional.
It may seem great that the “Easy Initiative” can grant a retrospective review of previously approved infrastructure construction projects and their on-going operations–but fundamentally it threatens the sanctity of contracts, bonds, system operations and honestly-made promises to taxpayers and investors. The voters usually say no on Eyeman’s endless proposals–but as in this case and particularly in off-year elections, terrible consequences can follow when they fall for his promises of “no real harm”. Alas.
As a matter of real-politic it has proven virtually impossible to tighten the requirements for initiatives in the Pacific Coast states. Oregon voters have not infrequently faced ballots with literally dozens of propositions–sometimes directly conflicting one with another. It is virtually impossible to sensibly consider many such measures and there is also the danger of simply cruel propositions intruding–such as measures aimed at religious or cultural practices.
Eyeman can claim that “surpluses” can fund everything he has undermined–but only on-going tax revenue provides the certainty to get support for bonds to be issued (and repaid) for major infrastructure projects. Washington has no income tax. If its’ bonds are not assured of repayment, if significant assets like the Puget Sound ferries, the Seattle light-rail network or the Amtrak CASCADES trains can not count on sufficient support to keep fares supportable, then those services are fundamentally at risk, despite having literally billions already invested in them. Tim Eyeman might chortle at that result, but folks interested in a livable (and honorable) community have the right to see the damage he does and to decry it.