| Traffic | Weather | Your account | Movies | Restaurants | Today's events |
|
|
Sunday, May 28, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM Editorial The sum of all things in road levyMayor Greg Nickels' proposed levy for Seattle roads, bridges and other items is too big and lasts too long. But the central idea is all right. A smaller, shorter levy focused on roads and bridges alone makes sense. It is idle to say roads and bridges should have been fixed. They were not. Seattle put its dollars into a downtown library and neighborhood libraries; a city hall; a concert hall, an opera house, baseball and soccer fields, community centers and parks. It built fine, new brick schools. Meanwhile, traffic increased. The mayor's tax package would immediately provide the city money for four projects. The first is to add a bus-only lane and a car lane eastbound on Spokane Street as far as Fourth Avenue South, so that the people of West Seattle could get to downtown when the waterfront viaduct comes down. The second is to create a bridge over the railroad tracks at South Lander Street. That improves movement to West Seattle and to the port. Both projects make sense. The third project is to transform the King Street rail station into a transit entrance-way to the city. That is a good idea, but it strays from road and bridge work. The fourth project is to make Mercer Street between Highway 99 and Interstate 5 into a two-way, six-lane street. That is more about developing a neighborhood than moving traffic. Beyond these, the mayor's package includes all sorts of things. Some, like paving one lane-mile of street per week and bolstering bridges for earthquakes, are central to the main idea. Others, like planting trees, trimming grass, sweeping streets, painting out graffiti, building bicycle lanes and replacing the street-name signs at all 17,000 nonsignalized intersections, are add-ons. Many people want these add-ons, and we like them all, but they balloon the total cost of the Nickels proposal to $65 million in the first year. His plan adds up to $1.8 billion over 20 years. When Councilman Peter Steinbrueck says he's "aghast," or Councilman David Della says he's "sticker-shocked," this is what they're talking about. No levy in recent times has covered 20 years. The standard has been seven or eight — long enough to see how it works and short enough to remember that it's there. The mayor's levy should be cut to eight years. The annual amount also should be cut. A citizens committee appointed by the mayor suggested a citywide property-tax increase of $25 million and a 5 percent tax on paid parking. These are much more defensible numbers. The $25 million figure is what the city calculates it is losing per year because of successful statewide initiatives. The mayor, however, is asking for property-tax increases that begin at $46 million. He would make the parking tax 10 percent and would add a $25 annual "head tax" on private-sector employers. The head tax is a bad idea. It is a direct penalty for creating a private-sector job. Besides, by state law, it would have to exempt insurance companies. Imagine the feeling in the University District when private employers have to pay $25 per head but Safeco is exempted. The tax on paid parking would mainly hit downtown. It might be better saved for subsidizing bus service because it is more directly related to that. Several council members object to the use of the property tax to pay for roads and bridges, but we do not. Roads and bridges are the people's property. To tax property to pay for property makes sense. But keep it focused. If the problem is bridges and roads, keep it to that. Do the bike paths and the train station some other way. Resist the temptation to create a fountain of wealth; it is the people's wealth and they have other plans for it. Remember also: These are not the only taxes the people pay, or will be asked to pay. Big as it is, there is nothing in the Nickels proposal about replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the Highway 520 bridge. There is nothing for Seattle Center. And we will be asked to support levies for schools, families, housing and parks. To sum up: Yes to a levy for bridges and streets. But make it shorter and smaller, and keep it to bridges and streets. Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company Most read articles
|
|