Seattlest: What Are We Voting for Anyway?

guest

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:35:21 -0800

"Well, Sound Transit's taxes DO end actually, by law." This statement, however, doesn't answer the question by guest#1. Namely, HAS Sound Transit ever actually retired any debt, historically. It's one thing to plan to retire a debt (say, my mortgage), it's another to actually do it.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:43:23 -0800

I live in Ballard. I work downtown. Someone please tell me how Prop. 1 will benefit me. My understanding is the nearest projects run along the I-5 corridor, and frankly, I'm not inclined to simply hand money to folks in the suburbs.

Charles

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:01:27 -0800

Hey last guest, Rarely are things as black and white as you seem to think this question is. I think there is more than one way to save the world personally. Making it easier for lower-income folks to get to higher paying jobs in town is one. Forcing the reduction of carbon emissions through laws and doing it around the world might be more effective than shooting ourselves in the foot by killing a chance at light rail.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:21:42 -0800

Save light rail, not the planet. Nice job Seattlest.

Charles

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:56:09 -0800

Last Guest commenter: It makes sense if you believe that if we don't accept the roads (again, most of which the Sierra Club calls "good roads") we won't ever get this kind of light rail expansion again. Which I do. There is a long history in this town to support this belief. Big business in this region has worked to kill every effort to create a viable mass transit system in this region since the 60s (since before if you count the tearing out of the Inter-Urban thanks to the car companies) and will continue to. 50 miles of light rail is not gonna come down the pike again especially with the lack of political will there seems to be to bring it to the ballot on its own.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:30:56 -0800

It's astonishing to me that one could read the Sightline study, care about global warming, and still somehow rationalize supporting this package. Why should we have to accept this garbage to get something we want? It just doesn't make sense.

mattgrundy

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:09:41 -0800

It will be a major travesty if this doesn't get approved. It means two things: roads will still get built, suburban sprawl will still happen, and it will cost twice as much and take twice as long to get a reasonable rail system set up in the city. Voting against this is a sign of a major Luddite. Seattle should already be ashamed of itself for not having a comprehensive rail system by now, this is the only solution as far as I'm concerned. I would prefer the rail to not come with the road-strings attached, but this is America and this is life and let's take what we can get.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:19:56 -0800

This is exactly how I feel about Prop 1. This is really our only chance to make a big impact on mass transit, because if the two are separated, I'd bet dollars to cents that any transit-only package won't have anywhere near $10.8bn in funding. We'd be lucky to get half of that.

Tom

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:32:10 -0800

Wow! I fear the day when the populace will be swayed by a bullet point list of un-cited, and likely unfounded, claims. Also, from what I can gather, the "Washington Policy Center" is a bunch of free-market zealots hiding behind a deceptively official and non-partisan name that hardly masks their bias.

Charles

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:11:37 -0800

Well, Sound Transit's taxes DO end actually, by law. "By law, the Roads and Transit taxes must be scaled back once projects are paid for, unless voters authorize additional projects to be constructed." Check out the Yes site for more refutations of completely false claims.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:46:40 -0800

As green and ecofriendly as I also consider myself, reading the PI today was a bit dispiriting with regard to this issue. Ten very good reasons, conciselyl displayed, why we should vote against it. #1 caught my eye in particular- "Sound Transit's taxes never end." Now I don't mind paying my fair share, but taking on neverending debt is ridiculous. Has ST really never retired its debt?