Eyman’s car-tab initiative violates state Constitution, says complaint by Seattle, King County and others (Lynnwood: sales tax, price)

[pnwguy2]

It is implied. I used to enjoy your comments here, but lately you have lost me. We both frequent these threads, but I don't understand, nor connect with your latest musings.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

It is implied. I used to enjoy your comments here, but lately you have lost me. We both frequent these threads, but I don't understand, nor connect with your latest musings.

And I you, however, I know exactly when our opinions diverged:

"Why should Eastern Washington residents be taxed for something they never use? Yes, on the repeal on 976. Western WA residents should pay for Sound Transit."

Eastern Washington did not and does not pay for Sound Transit. The exact opposite is going on. King County is sending massive amounts of money to Eastern Washington. Once that was exposed, it changed to "we're all in this together" and "the state does best when everyone prospers". Unexpected and very disappointing.

I live in King County. I see first hand how traffic affects the metro. I also see how much the metro is growing and how people keep moving here. 33 counties have their hands in King County's wallet but they couldn't wait to try to cause King County harm while they try to grapple with the massive traffic affecting the area. The whole "we're all in this together" clearly only applies when King County is paying the tab.

And honestly - Pierce County gets $500 million a year from King County, yet they don't want to chip in a nominal portion of ST3 that still won't cover their costs? Fine, cross them out. That is extremely reasonable.

[pnwguy2]

Sorry to disappoint. I guess the 30,000 foot view is somewhat different between you and I. Perhaps there is some confusion on my part on what 976 meant. I interpreted it as the entire State would pay for ST. I still don't completely understand it. However, I am not alone, as the final vote tally substantiates that. So, in the end, perhaps the ballot initiative was a bit confusing. I will admit that.

Look, I think we both want to see progress in our State. There will be skirmishes, for sure. I am a Seattle native, and want the city to succeed. I also am living in a better place, IMO, today, and want Eastern Washington to also succeed.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Sorry to disappoint. I guess the 30,000 foot view is somewhat different between you and I. Perhaps there is some confusion on my part on what 976 meant. I interpreted it as the entire State would pay for ST. I still don't completely understand it. However, I am not alone, as the final vote tally substantiates that. So, in the end, perhaps the ballot initiative was a bit confusing. I will admit that.

Look, I think we both want to see progress in our State. There will be skirmishes, for sure. I am a Seattle native, and want the city to succeed. I also am also living in a better place, IMO, today, and want Eastern Washington to also succeed.

But again, look at what is being written. There it is again. "I interpreted it as the entire State would pay for ST." So - that was a bad thing. But if Seattle/King County instead is paying billions to 33 other counties, that's okay, that's a good thing. See the problem? If King County was keeping those billions, they could address these projects. Instead, they are spreading it all over the state only to be told "we don't want to pay for Seattle". It appears that to those outside the metro, this "all for one and one for all" only applies if the money is flowing to them.

[pnwguy2]

I made my (conceding) point. But you just want to keep arguing. Good night.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Seacove

This is where living in the place in which one is giving opinions on matters. Not even going to bother explaining it to someone who lives in Idaho.

So in other words, you can't explain why auto drivers should be forced to fund mass transit that they do not use, so deadbeats get their commute subsidised. Got it.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Perhaps there is some confusion on my part on what 976 meant. I interpreted it as the entire State would pay for ST. I still don't completely understand it. However, I am not alone, as the final vote tally substantiates that. So, in the end, perhaps the ballot initiative was a bit confusing. I will admit that.

It is not only confusing, but deceptive.

Sound Transit is 100% paid for by locally approved and collected taxes. Tax payers who reside outside the ST District pay ZERO in MVET taxes to support ST. The only such taxes paid are ST sales taxes while visiting the ST District, and they aren't included in I-976.

[CrazyDonkey]

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...r-14866837.php ("King County judge blocks Tim Eyman’s $30 car tab measure")

A judge on Wednesday blocked Tim Eyman’s $30 car tab measure from taking effect in Washington state while cities and counties challenge its legality, citing “substantial concerns” that the initiative’s description on the ballot was misleading.

The plaintiffs have noted that the ballot summary said I-976 would “limit annual motor-vehicle-license fees to $30, except voter-approved charges.” That suggested to voters that locally approved measures, such as additional license fees passed by Seattle voters to pay for improved bus service and voters’ agreement to fund Seattle-area Sound Transit light rail projects, would survive, they said.

As the full text of the measure shows, however, only fees approved by voters in the future would be allowed, and the authority of local jurisdictions to seek such measures to begin with would also be curtailed.

King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson expressed concern during a hearing Tuesday that language was misleading, and in his order Wednesday he said the plaintiffs were likely to win their case.

State Rep. Jake Fey, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said the Legislature is still “in a pickle,” even with the injunction. He said that because there’s no way they’ll have resolution on the case before the end of the upcoming 60-day legislative session, they’ll have to approach the transportation budget the same as if the law was taking effect. The Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a list of projects not yet started that are to be postponed.

The ballot title and summary are supplied by the Attorney General’s Office. In this case, the language was drawn directly from the first section of the initiative.

[Botev1912]

So what will happen now is people will continue to pay the same for car tabs, but some projects would still be canceled or delayed. So whatever the outcome is, the tax payer is always screwed.

[CrazyDonkey]

Well, if the goal was to use a state-wide vote to stick it to Seattle (Sound Transit and Metro Transit), then it looks to have failed. All those voters have succeeded in doing is to screw themselves, since it will be transportation projects (subsidized by King County, not the other way around) that benefit them that will be canceled or delayed. Thank Timmy.