lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2013 0:18:18 GMT -8
This may come from a different point, I think it's just the facts.
The State of Washington just collected the largest amount of taxes in it's history. The real story is that the State has gone from providing its original services to providing those never anticipated by the founders. Some are justified, others are not. The major cost of the State, 60%, is people, those employed and those retired. Governor Christine added 30% to the State Employee roles in her first term, some have had to be let go, about 1/2 are still on the payroll. Did your life get any better because of this? I think the word is no. The "New" State Employes mostly ended up in Departments, with a Political Agenda, enacting and enforcing new rules on the People and Businesses. As the CEO of my small resource based Family Company, I can easily prove this has made our ability to operate greatly more difficult. The final outcomes are the same as before, except huge extra efforts have to be expended to be able to even approach the work. The rules change with the whim of those who enforce them, who seem to be without restraint. We have to hire attorneys to get them to abide by their own laws, they are the ones who really win.
Go to Olympia, look at the Office Buildings, staffed to the hilt. Not just those in the Capital core, but all over the town in obscure places, they seem endless. Every person in them gets paid, insured, and indemnified from their errors, unintentional, and unfortunately purposeful. For example, 60% of the Dept. of Ecology's rules are ultimately deemed illegal, yet they continued to issue more. The cost of this, just in State funding, is enormous, the cost to the Public larger, and the costs to economic activity, even more. No Department ever gets smaller, they require more funding each year, wage increases, maintenance, infrastructure costs, never diminish, even if their activities remain the same. The cost of State Government has gone from assisting it's Citizens to providing for itself, the services have become secondary in importance.
When I first started College at WWU in 1969, there were 10, 000 students, there are a few more now. Since 1969, the work load to the Professors has increased, the Administration is 5 times the size, even with the inplementation of work saving computers. In 1969, computer access was by punch cards. Whole levels of Supervisors have been added, wages for them, in real terms, are several times what they were in 1969, a Student could get a job and put themselves through school, I did, not now, student costs are outrageous.
I-695 was a taxpayer attempt to control the explosion of the waste, it has not altogether worked. Citizens just go tired of more and more fees being added with no additional benefit to them, this continues to this day. The State gets plenty of money, way more than it ought to, for what it does. I feel badly for the State Ferries, they are simply the weak link that gets shorted. Now I am not saying certain Ferry operations could not be made more efficient, and ought to be, as you know I have pointed out a few. The Agency answer always seems to be more income. The Public is tapped out, Taxes and Fees are already too expensive, there will be no new magic increases in targeted Revenue funding, it is time to clean up and increase the efficiency of the whole Government. Whatever increases to Ferry Funding, must come from internal State reallocation. Unless this is done, the load on the Public will prevent any economic growth, and therefore no new increases of justifiable revenue.
The State Ferries have participated in their own demise, they have continued to make absolutely stupid decisions. To my reckoning, the pinnacle of stupidity is the events around in and including the acquisition of the KDT Ferries. Those who made these decisions ought to be dismissed and run-out-of their positions in disgrace. The Build in Washington rule ought to be repealed, as well as the apprentice requirement for bidders. The increase of in-State economic activities only has an effect to the areas near the builders. It is a negative to all other jurisdictions in the State, it costs them more money than if building costs were less. Vigor does just fine on it's own in both national Public and Private projects, without being favored by the in-State monopoly. We also have several other great efficient Shipyards, including Dakota Creek who also do very well competing nationally, who are now prevented from bidding, it's not just those out-of-state.
We got a mess on our hands, it won't be solved by throwing more money at it, it needs a change of attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 0:14:37 GMT -8
I-695 was a taxpayer attempt to control the explosion of the waste, it has not altogether worked. Citizens just go tired of more and more fees being added with no additional benefit to them, this continues to this day. The State gets plenty of money, way more than it ought to, for what it does. I feel badly for the State Ferries, they are simply the weak link that gets shorted. Now I am not saying certain Ferry operations could not be made more efficient, and ought to be, as you know I have pointed out a few. The Agency answer always seems to be more income. The Public is tapped out, Taxes and Fees are already too expensive, there will be no new magic increases in targeted Revenue funding, it is time to clean up and increase the efficiency of the whole Government. Whatever increases to Ferry Funding, must come from internal State reallocation. Unless this is done, the load on the Public will prevent any economic growth, and therefore no new increases of justifiable revenue. The State Ferries have participated in their own demise, they have continued to make absolutely stupid decisions. To my reckoning, the pinnacle of stupidity is the events around in and including the acquisition of the KDT Ferries. Those who made these decisions ought to be dismissed and run-out-of their positions in disgrace. The Build in Washington rule ought to be repealed, as well as the apprentice requirement for bidders. The increase of in-State economic activities only has an effect to the areas near the builders. It is a negative to all other jurisdictions in the State, it costs them more money than if building costs were less. Vigor does just fine on it's own in both national Public and Private projects, without being favored by the in-State monopoly. We also have several other great efficient Shipyards, including Dakota Creek who also do very well competing nationally, who are now prevented from bidding, it's not just those out-of-state. We got a mess on our hands, it won't be solved by throwing more money at it, it needs a change of attitude. I respectfully disagree on most of your post. For one, Washington State has not collected the largest amount of tax revenue. That is a fallacious lie. If that's the case WSDOT wouldn't be woefully short of funding the ferry system, and the WSDOT wouldn't be woefully short in meeting its current infrastructure demands. Your claims fall as flat as a pancake as far as that goes. Secondly, the only reason I-695 was even authored was because the author of the initiative was a wealthy Seattle businessman who was growing ever more tired of the perceived high cost of licensing his luxury cars. He and several of his fellow businessmen wrangled up the equivalent of a PAC and started campaigning in 1997 to start changing the fees. When his first attempts failed, out came I-695. Until the time I-695 passed, there was never, ever, in any way shape or form, a budget crisis at WSDOT and most certainly not at WSF - at least since the 1980s. WSDOT was a well-funded agency with very little waste, and 90 percent of the $1.6 Billion annual revenue generated by what was then known as the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax went straight to WSDOT coffers. Never to any other non-transit agency within the state. The remaining ten percent of the MVET revenue was disbursed throughout the state, funding various public transit agencies. I say that because I sat on a volunteer committee on the "Yes on 695" campaign and know full well the circumstances surrounding it. At the time, I supported it (being young, naive, thinking it'd be better). Now? I think I-695 was the worst initiative ever brought forth to Washington voters, and quite frankly think - once and for all - it should be struck down and ruled unconstitutional and the MVET reinstated in full. Going back to the revenue of the MVET, as far as the 90 percent that was doled out to WSDOT, $150 million annually (or roughly 40 percent of that) went to Washington State Ferries. This would've been enough to build a whole entire line of Olympic Class ferries from here to eternity ontop of the annual maintenance and operation costs. When the Steel Electrics were yanked, Port Townsend saw 25 percent of its businesses close and they are still wearing the scars of that fiasco to this day. The reason the Steel Electrics were yanked was not just solely due to hull rust and corrosion, but also because the lack of funding caused by I-695 resulted in 8 years' worth of deferred maintenance (and the fact that the hulls were up for partial replating at some point from various sources I've read). Another side effect of I-695's passing was the irrefutable fact that the M.V. Hyak - to this day - still retains her original passenger cabin décor and has not seen a refurbishment. I-695's passing resulted in the loss of funding to even think of renovating it. Third, there was no audit showing any waste that prompted Tim Eyman to even write I-695. Eyman acted on his own accord and in the best interests of himself and his wealthy Seattle cronies, notwithstanding the fact that at the time, WSDOT was the best-funded government agency in the entire nation and earned high marks in fiscal management year after year. We also had - at the time - a world-class ferry fleet that was extremely well maintained, virtually no visible rust on any vessel, and a ferry fleet that saw each vessel properly staffed with the right amount of personnel. Nowadays, you can't look at some of the ferries and see huge splotches of rusty paint, severe corrosion, and warped steel (The Hyak and Kitsap are perfect examples of that, right now). None of that would've ever happened were it not for I-695. It also stands to reason that the state ferry system has seen its fares increase by over 600 percent on some routes, with a few approaching a fare increase of a thousand percent ever since I-695's passing in 1999. And those fare increases have not managed to even come close to matching the revenue stream that the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax provided Washington State Ferries. As a case example, according to a look at the old WSDOT website on the Internet Wayback Machine, fares for the Bremerton-to-Seattle ferry route in 1997 were $5.90 for a standard car+driver (under 20 foot). A regular passenger fare collected westbound was $3.50. Now, the standard going rate for a fare on that route is $13.15 (and nearly $4 more expensive in the summer months) with the westbound passenger rate being $7.70 for an adult. There are also, by comparison, a whole hell of a lot more other fare classes now, as opposed to just a few in 1997. With those figures from 2013, the ferry system is still not making enough to meet the financial demands of the system. Also, in 1997, the farebox collected 60% of the revenue, now, it is far less. Prior to Initiative 695, the MVET revenue made up the difference - and then some! With respect to taxes, I hate to call your bluff, but there's loads of empirical and irrefutable evidence and facts out there that fly directly in the face of your claims. Not long ago (say, a few years ago), the state of California just enacted their highest income taxes in history - especially on the top earners in the state. So much so that it just made news on Yahoo! News and was a feature story on Yahoo!'s home page. At the time California enacted the tax increase, they were deep in the red and very close to insolvency (partly due to decades of conservative-led tax cuts on the wealthiest of citizens). Now, the state budget is back in balance - due to those tax increases - and at the same time California's economy is also on a sharp upswing and the state debt per citizen is also being vastly reduced due to the tax revenue increases. Historical evidence also shows that the higher taxes are - especially on the more wealthiest of individuals, the more prosperous the economy becomes, and the better a state is able to handle the current and increasing needs of its citizens - especially in the field of infrastructure. At the federal level, historical evidence across two centuries shows that any time taxes are cut - especially on the wealthy and large corporations - the bulk of new revenue is then shifted to the middle class and the poor. The middle class and the poor fail to make up the difference, so the government, seeing a faltering revenue stream, starts to sink in the red. This happened during the Depression, during the Great Panic of 1896, as well as throughout the Reagan years and both Bush presidencies. The lower taxes go on the wealthy, the more the economy suffers because the middle class is forced to pay out more in user fees, tolls, etc., which means they have less money to spend on other goods and services which boost the economy. It stands to reason that this nation saw its greatest period of economic prosperity when taxes on the wealthy stood at an effective rate of 91 percent. Taxes on the wealthy and major corporations right now is at an effective rate of just 20 percent, with some paying as little as eleven percent or less. With respect to infrastructure needs, an estimated $4 trillion is needed to bring up our nation's infrastructure to where it needs to be. That means replacing outdated bridges, repairing deficient ones, repairing or repaving miles and miles of interstate and local highways, upgrading stormwater and wastewater facilities, upgrading the power grid, adapting to new energy sources, plus a whole host of other areas. Right now, the federal government takes in a mere fraction of that $4 trillion amount, and with over a third of our nation's 600,000 bridges being rated structurally deficient or in need of replacement, that is a pretty damning assessment. And no, the "Build in Washington" rule does not need to be repealed, in any circumstance or fashion. Taxpayer dollars spent in the state of Washington should be spent creating jobs within the state of Washington, not being sent elsewhere. I will agree on the point of having the costs being brought into a checks and balances system, but under no circumstance should Washington State ever exercise the practice of outsourcing Washington jobs to the lowest bidder outside the state - or at the worst - outside the American border. That, I find, is an irresponsible practice. Just as irresponsible as outsourcing jobs to China for the sake of having cheap products.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 8:13:31 GMT -8
I-695 was a taxpayer attempt to control the explosion of the waste, it has not altogether worked. Citizens just go tired of more and more fees being added with no additional benefit to them, this continues to this day. The State gets plenty of money, way more than it ought to, for what it does. I feel badly for the State Ferries, they are simply the weak link that gets shorted. Now I am not saying certain Ferry operations could not be made more efficient, and ought to be, as you know I have pointed out a few. The Agency answer always seems to be more income. The Public is tapped out, Taxes and Fees are already too expensive, there will be no new magic increases in targeted Revenue funding, it is time to clean up and increase the efficiency of the whole Government. Whatever increases to Ferry Funding, must come from internal State reallocation. Unless this is done, the load on the Public will prevent any economic growth, and therefore no new increases of justifiable revenue. The State Ferries have participated in their own demise, they have continued to make absolutely stupid decisions. To my reckoning, the pinnacle of stupidity is the events around in and including the acquisition of the KDT Ferries. Those who made these decisions ought to be dismissed and run-out-of their positions in disgrace. The Build in Washington rule ought to be repealed, as well as the apprentice requirement for bidders. The increase of in-State economic activities only has an effect to the areas near the builders. It is a negative to all other jurisdictions in the State, it costs them more money than if building costs were less. Vigor does just fine on it's own in both national Public and Private projects, without being favored by the in-State monopoly. We also have several other great efficient Shipyards, including Dakota Creek who also do very well competing nationally, who are now prevented from bidding, it's not just those out-of-state. We got a mess on our hands, it won't be solved by throwing more money at it, it needs a change of attitude. I respectfully disagree on most of your post. For one, Washington State has not collected the largest amount of tax revenue. That is a fallacious lie. If that's the case WSDOT wouldn't be woefully short of funding the ferry system, and the WSDOT wouldn't be woefully short in meeting its current infrastructure demands. Your claims fall as flat as a pancake as far as that goes. Secondly, the only reason I-695 was even authored was because the author of the initiative was a wealthy Seattle businessman who was growing ever more tired of the perceived high cost of licensing his luxury cars. He and several of his fellow businessmen wrangled up the equivalent of a PAC and started campaigning in 1997 to start changing the fees. When his first attempts failed, out came I-695. Until the time I-695 passed, there was never, ever, in any way shape or form, a budget crisis at WSDOT and most certainly not at WSF - at least since the 1980s. WSDOT was a well-funded agency with very little waste, and 90 percent of the $1.6 Billion annual revenue generated by what was then known as the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax went straight to WSDOT coffers. Never to any other non-transit agency within the state. The remaining ten percent of the MVET revenue was disbursed throughout the state, funding various public transit agencies. I say that because I sat on a volunteer committee on the "Yes on 695" campaign and know full well the circumstances surrounding it. At the time, I supported it (being young, naive, thinking it'd be better). Now? I think I-695 was the worst initiative ever brought forth to Washington voters, and quite frankly think - once and for all - it should be struck down and ruled unconstitutional and the MVET reinstated in full. Going back to the revenue of the MVET, as far as the 90 percent that was doled out to WSDOT, $150 million annually (or roughly 40 percent of that) went to Washington State Ferries. This would've been enough to build a whole entire line of Olympic Class ferries from here to eternity ontop of the annual maintenance and operation costs. When the Steel Electrics were yanked, Port Townsend saw 25 percent of its businesses close and they are still wearing the scars of that fiasco to this day. The reason the Steel Electrics were yanked was not just solely due to hull rust and corrosion, but also because the lack of funding caused by I-695 resulted in 8 years' worth of deferred maintenance (and the fact that the hulls were up for partial replating at some point from various sources I've read). Another side effect of I-695's passing was the irrefutable fact that the M.V. Hyak - to this day - still retains her original passenger cabin décor and has not seen a refurbishment. I-695's passing resulted in the loss of funding to even think of renovating it. Third, there was no audit showing any waste that prompted Tim Eyman to even write I-695. Eyman acted on his own accord and in the best interests of himself and his wealthy Seattle cronies, notwithstanding the fact that at the time, WSDOT was the best-funded government agency in the entire nation and earned high marks in fiscal management year after year. We also had - at the time - a world-class ferry fleet that was extremely well maintained, virtually no visible rust on any vessel, and a ferry fleet that saw each vessel properly staffed with the right amount of personnel. Nowadays, you can't look at some of the ferries and see huge splotches of rusty paint, severe corrosion, and warped steel (The Hyak and Kitsap are perfect examples of that, right now). None of that would've ever happened were it not for I-695. It also stands to reason that the state ferry system has seen its fares increase by over 600 percent on some routes, with a few approaching a fare increase of a thousand percent ever since I-695's passing in 1999. And those fare increases have not managed to even come close to matching the revenue stream that the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax provided Washington State Ferries. As a case example, according to a look at the old WSDOT website on the Internet Wayback Machine, fares for the Bremerton-to-Seattle ferry route in 1997 were $5.90 for a standard car+driver (under 20 foot). A regular passenger fare collected westbound was $3.50. Now, the standard going rate for a fare on that route is $13.15 (and nearly $4 more expensive in the summer months) with the westbound passenger rate being $7.70 for an adult. There are also, by comparison, a whole hell of a lot more other fare classes now, as opposed to just a few in 1997. With those figures from 2013, the ferry system is still not making enough to meet the financial demands of the system. Also, in 1997, the farebox collected 60% of the revenue, now, it is far less. Prior to Initiative 695, the MVET revenue made up the difference - and then some! With respect to taxes, I hate to call your bluff, but there's loads of empirical and irrefutable evidence and facts out there that fly directly in the face of your claims. Not long ago (say, a few years ago), the state of California just enacted their highest income taxes in history - especially on the top earners in the state. So much so that it just made news on Yahoo! News and was a feature story on Yahoo!'s home page. At the time California enacted the tax increase, they were deep in the red and very close to insolvency (partly due to decades of conservative-led tax cuts on the wealthiest of citizens). Now, the state budget is back in balance - due to those tax increases - and at the same time California's economy is also on a sharp upswing and the state debt per citizen is also being vastly reduced due to the tax revenue increases. Historical evidence also shows that the higher taxes are - especially on the more wealthiest of individuals, the more prosperous the economy becomes, and the better a state is able to handle the current and increasing needs of its citizens - especially in the field of infrastructure. At the federal level, historical evidence across two centuries shows that any time taxes are cut - especially on the wealthy and large corporations - the bulk of new revenue is then shifted to the middle class and the poor. The middle class and the poor fail to make up the difference, so the government, seeing a faltering revenue stream, starts to sink in the red. This happened during the Depression, during the Great Panic of 1896, as well as throughout the Reagan years and both Bush presidencies. The lower taxes go on the wealthy, the more the economy suffers because the middle class is forced to pay out more in user fees, tolls, etc., which means they have less money to spend on other goods and services which boost the economy. It stands to reason that this nation saw its greatest period of economic prosperity when taxes on the wealthy stood at an effective rate of 91 percent. Taxes on the wealthy and major corporations right now is at an effective rate of just 20 percent, with some paying as little as eleven percent or less. With respect to infrastructure needs, an estimated $4 trillion is needed to bring up our nation's infrastructure to where it needs to be. That means replacing outdated bridges, repairing deficient ones, repairing or repaving miles and miles of interstate and local highways, upgrading stormwater and wastewater facilities, upgrading the power grid, adapting to new energy sources, plus a whole host of other areas. Right now, the federal government takes in a mere fraction of that $4 trillion amount, and with over a third of our nation's 600,000 bridges being rated structurally deficient or in need of replacement, that is a pretty damning assessment. And no, the "Build in Washington" rule does not need to be repealed, in any circumstance or fashion. Taxpayer dollars spent in the state of Washington should be spent creating jobs within the state of Washington, not being sent elsewhere. I will agree on the point of having the costs being brought into a checks and balances system, but under no circumstance should Washington State ever exercise the practice of outsourcing Washington jobs to the lowest bidder outside the state - or at the worst - outside the American border. That, I find, is an irresponsible practice. Just as irresponsible as outsourcing jobs to China for the sake of having cheap products. Steve, you state a lot of good info about the circumstances behind I-695. I too think it was a dumb initiative, but if I were a taxpayer why wouldn't I want to pay less in taxes? I think that was many people's mindset. I think WSF should only get more money once they re-engine the KdT's (or commit to doing so) because this would probably force David Moseley to do so. Currently he refuses to re-engine the KDT's, thinking such powerful engines are justified.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 11:50:00 GMT -8
Steve, you state a lot of good info about the circumstances behind I-695. I too think it was a dumb initiative, but if I were a taxpayer why wouldn't I want to pay less in taxes? I think that was many people's mindset. I think WSF should only get more money once they re-engine the KdT's (or commit to doing so) because this would probably force David Moseley to do so. Currently he refuses to re-engine the KDT's, thinking such powerful engines are justified. As a wise Democrat once said, and it rings ever so true: "Taxes are the dues we pay, for the priviledges of membership in an organized society" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Eisenhower - a Republican who succeeded him, held the same beliefs. He didn't believe in lowering taxes at all until all government debts were paid.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Feb 8, 2013 12:30:19 GMT -8
I concur with everything SR said about taxation and the role of government... and I think it applies equally on either side of the border. Those who continually dump on our democratically inspired institutions would be very ill advised to place their faith in the corporate world's management abilities; have we not had enough evidence of that?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 8, 2013 15:14:58 GMT -8
There is currently a high distrust in government due to mainstream media pointing out any sort of government waste. I have issues with an uncontrolled growing bureaucracy and the legislature not having the guts to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. Steve, I am curious to know if we get a return on investment for investing in jobs here via what I would consider a state subsidy. As per usual, when there is competition, prices will fall. Would you be willing to compromise on a local bidder preference if the cost is only 10% of that of an out of state we build in state? That might be a way to keep people happy and put Vigor in check in terms of pricing, that way, we achieve the best of cost control and increase competition. Not according to this. www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jul/24/could-wsf-follow-the-course-that-bc-ferries/#axzz2KHuQxHud The recovery ratio is not below 60%, it is at 68.3%. I would like to see this audit if you could find it. Taxpayers saw this as a tax cut as it would cost hundreds per year to register your vehicle. Given the way the United States has developed, utilizing transit is not a first option.
The Steel Electrics should have been pulled even before the USCG pulled them given their age and they were old, yet they were the only vessels that could run Port Townsend-Keystone and should have been replaced anyways. They were beyond their useful life span.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 15:21:12 GMT -8
Would you be willing to compromise on a local bidder preference if the cost is only 10% of that of an out of state we build in state? That might be a way to keep people happy and put Vigor in check in terms of pricing, that way, we achieve the best of cost control and increase competition. Yes, I would be more than willing to compromise. I would like to see more in-state competition. I also would like to see Vigor brought into some sort of checks-and-balances system. However, it is pretty well established that Todd (now Vigor) has built us some exceptional ferries. The Jumbos, Jumbo Mk IIIs as well as the KDTs (for all their misgivings) are actually pretty outstanding and rock-solid ferries that are built to the task.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 17:16:35 GMT -8
A) The only way to get the funding back is to increase taxes and the fares to ride the ferries.
B) Taking away the I-625 will not doing anything to make the funding come back. By the way, where is the I-695?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 8, 2013 17:29:43 GMT -8
B) Taking away the I-625 will not doing anything to make the funding come back. By the way, where is the I-625? Are you thinking that the "I-625" is a highway, and that taking it away (ie. closing down that highway) would save money that could be diverted to the ferries ? ---------------- That's not what I-625 is about. But it sure sounds like that's what you were thinking, from that post. If that's the case, then I'll let someone more learned than me kindly explain it to you (and if I've understood Mr. Cheese correctly, then I think Mr. Cheese is in for quite a surprise). I think it will make him smile...
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 17:32:27 GMT -8
Steve, you state a lot of good info about the circumstances behind I-695. I too think it was a dumb initiative, but if I were a taxpayer why wouldn't I want to pay less in taxes? I think that was many people's mindset. I think WSF should only get more money once they re-engine the KdT's (or commit to doing so) because this would probably force David Moseley to do so. Currently he refuses to re-engine the KDT's, thinking such powerful engines are justified. As a wise Democrat once said, and it rings ever so true: "Taxes are the dues we pay, for the priviledges of membership in an organized society" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Eisenhower - a Republican who succeeded him, held the same beliefs. He didn't believe in lowering taxes at all until all government debts were paid. I agree, taxes are really important. But everyone is selfish to some degree, and would want to keep the money for themselves, instead of realizing the importance of taxes, that they go towards essential services like building and maintaining roads and ferries, providing police and fire departments, and education.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 17:39:24 GMT -8
B) Taking away the I-625 will not doing anything to make the funding come back. By the way, where is the I-625? Are you thinking that the "I-625" is a highway, and that taking it away (ie. closing down that highway) would save money that could be diverted to the ferries ? ---------------- That's not what I-625 is about. But it sure sounds like that's what you were thinking, from that post. If that's the case, then I'll let someone more learned than me kindly explain it to you (and if I've understood Mr. Cheese correctly, then I think Mr. Cheese is in for quite a surprise). I think it will make him smile... You know, I can sympathize with Awesome Cheese thinking that I-625 (it's really I-6 95) was a freeway! I used to think that when I was little. So whenever I saw signs saying "Vote yes for I-123" I thought the sign was to encourage people to vote yes to build an interstate highway with the route number 123.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 8, 2013 17:45:10 GMT -8
After 10 years of saying we need to build boats to replace "our" 70 year-old ferries, WSDOT then suddenly ties up the Steels? An OBTW, there was a structural flaw in the Steel Electrics (called sponsons). That was where the cracks originated. Historians might reference the inspection report WSDOT commissioned.
My complaint with any government is the inherent corruption of the political process, whether Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. Greed is greed, and that is why the Steel Electrics became a fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 17:55:47 GMT -8
After 10 years of saying we need to build boats to replace "our" 70 year-old ferries, WSDOT then suddenly ties up the Steels? An OBTW, there was a structural flaw in the Steel Electrics (called sponsons). That was where the cracks originated. Historians might reference the inspection report WSDOT commissioned. My complaint with any government is the inherent corruption of the political process, whether Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. Greed is greed, and that is why the Steel Electrics became a fiasco. The Steel electric fiasco was something that they just had coming. I-695 should not be blamed for the Steel Electric fiasco. The MVET was around for ten years, and that's plenty of time to build ferries to replace the Steel Electrics. In fact, WSF would have been better off if they had just built ferries to replace the SEs in the 1980s, instead of refurbishing them like they did. Even then, they were approaching 60 years old, and by 1984, three were suffering from leaky hulls (the exception was the Klickitat, which had been rebuilt in 1981) and had to have repairs done on them. By the time the last one ( Nisqually) was rebuilt in 1987 the class was 60 years old. They should never have been rebuilt in the '80s, in my opinion. The only benefit I can see from the rebuilding was that I was able to ride on one of the oldest ferries on Puget Sound, (the Quinault) in the last year of its service.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Feb 8, 2013 17:58:54 GMT -8
Currently [David Mooseley] refuses to re-engine the KDT's, thinking such powerful engines are justified. Ok, I will not say that I agree at 100% with him but he is not the only one that is responsible for the overpowered engines and not for replacing them. Has lifc send a letter to him saying that the boats should be engineering? Probably, yes Did he answer that he totally disagreed and that they should be overpowered? I don't think so Re-engineering the KdTs has not been mentioned in a lot of places, and this forum is the place where it was been most argued about. Is David Mosseley even thinking about engineering the KdTs? Nobody knows for sure, so please stop blaming him. If he wanted to, he could not anyways, as this maintenance season was messed up like almost never before due to the Walla Walla's breakdown, and next season will probably not be it again due to all of the projects and refits that the Walla Walla canceled.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 18:18:05 GMT -8
Currently [David Mooseley] refuses to re-engine the KDT's, thinking such powerful engines are justified. Ok, I will not say that I agree at 100% with him but he is not the only one that is responsible for the overpowered engines and not for replacing them. Has lifc send a letter to him saying that the boats should be engineering? Probably, yes Did he answer that he totally disagreed and that they should be overpowered? I don't think so Re-engineering the KdTs has not been mentioned in a lot of places, and this forum is the place where it was been most argued about. Is David Mosseley even thinking about engineering the KdTs? Nobody knows for sure, so please stop blaming him. If he wanted to, he could not anyways, as this maintenance season was messed up like almost never before due to the Walla Walla's breakdown, and next season will probably not be it again due to all of the projects and refits that the Walla Walla canceled. I was just basing that off of an article I read from the Vashon Island Beachcomber, found here: www.vashonbeachcomber.com/news/173342111.html. It seemed like he downplayed the fact that there were any significant issues with the class in that article. And yes, I do realize WSF will have to wait at least a year or two before any work like this takes place, just because of the Walla Walla's incident and most significantly, the lack of backup boats until the 2nd Olympic class arrives. Heck, maybe Moseley is thinking of replacing the engines, but he just doesn't want to say anything about that until he's sure about when that will happen.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 18:52:44 GMT -8
A) The only way to get the funding back is to increase taxes and the fares to ride the ferries. B) Taking away the I-625 will not doing anything to make the funding come back. By the way, where is the I-625? I-625? Where did you come up with I-625? Let me spell this out for you. I695, or, more specifically - INITIATIVE 695 - was a ballot measure that was a two-front tax cut proposal that was approved in a landslide election on November 2, 1999. The first part of I-695 repealed the state Motor Vehicle Excise Tax that had been in place since the 1970s. The tax was a ten percent assessment based on market value of an automobile. For instance, if you had a car that was book valued at $2500, it would cost you $250 to license the car, ontop of standard licensing fees. The $1.6 Billion annual revenue generated by the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax was disbursed roughly as follows: 10% - Public transit, light rail, various transportation improvements statewide. 55% - Washington State Dept. of Transportation General Fund (roadway improvements, maintenance, new project construction) 35% - Washington State Ferries. This made up the difference at the farebox, plus paid for capital improvements, ferry terminal construction and maintenance, new vessel design and construction. As I have ever so clearly pointed out, fares have gone up nearly 600 percent. In some routes, it has gone up a thousand percent since I-695's passing. Raising the fares will only hurt the economies of the communities served by the ferries and hurt the pocketbooks of those using the system to commute to work. It will also have dire consequences on those using the ferries for recreation, especially the summer tourism season. It is not in any way an acceptable option. As has clearly happened over at BC Ferries, raising the ferry fares actually results in a drop of ridership - which results in a loss of revenue. Raising rates, in the end, will be the downfall. So, the answer is a resounding NO to any fare increase!!!!! And as for Initiative 695? A direct repeal would restore funding to levels not seen since 1999. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 20:15:24 GMT -8
A) The only way to get the funding back is to increase taxes and the fares to ride the ferries. B) Taking away the I-625 will not doing anything to make the funding come back. By the way, where is the I-625? As I have ever so clearly pointed out, fares have gone up nearly 600 percent. In some routes, it has gone up a thousand percent since I-695's passing. Raising the fares will only hurt the economies of the communities served by the ferries and hurt the pocketbooks of those using the system to commute to work. It will also have dire consequences on those using the ferries for recreation, especially the summer tourism season. It is not in any way an acceptable option. As has clearly happened over at BC Ferries, raising the ferry fares actually results in a drop of ridership - which results in a loss of revenue. Raising rates, in the end, will be the downfall. So, the answer is a resounding NO to any fare increase!!!!! I am thinking you do not want funding. To get the funding Washington State must make the ferry system private or increase taxes and the fares. Maybe, cutting some funding from other transportation projects.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 20:22:35 GMT -8
As I have ever so clearly pointed out, fares have gone up nearly 600 percent. In some routes, it has gone up a thousand percent since I-695's passing. Raising the fares will only hurt the economies of the communities served by the ferries and hurt the pocketbooks of those using the system to commute to work. It will also have dire consequences on those using the ferries for recreation, especially the summer tourism season. It is not in any way an acceptable option. As has clearly happened over at BC Ferries, raising the ferry fares actually results in a drop of ridership - which results in a loss of revenue. Raising rates, in the end, will be the downfall. So, the answer is a resounding NO to any fare increase!!!!! I am thinking you do not want funding. To get the funding Washington State must make the ferry system private or increase taxes and the fares. Maybe, cutting some funding from other transportation projects. That is the most ignorant post I have ever witnessed in my two plus years here. Absolutely takes the cake in terms of blindness. I have never expressed no desire for funding. First, I am going to make this as clear and blunt as possible. Washington State Ferries was born of the failures of a private entity that was being seen as a monopoly. Public demand forced the state to take over Puget Sound Navigation. Fares are already high. They don't need to be any higher. Secondly, rescind Initiative 695 and you'll have the funding. Just as there was prior to 1999. Go back and reread what I have said in this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 20:33:22 GMT -8
I am thinking you do not want funding. To get the funding Washington State must make the ferry system private or increase taxes and the fares. Maybe, cutting some funding from other transportation projects. That is the most ignorant post I have ever witnessed in my two plus years here. Absolutely takes the cake in terms of blindness. I have never expressed no desire for funding. First, I am going to make this as clear and blunt as possible. Washington State Ferries was born of the failures of a private entity that was being seen as a monopoly. Public demand forced the state to take over Puget Sound Navigation. Fares are already high. They don't need to be any higher. Secondly, rescind Initiative 695 and you'll have the funding. Just as there was prior to 1999. Go back and reread what I have said in this thread. I'm sorry. I do think the public would have to vote. If the current government takes a way Initiatives 695 they would not get re-elected in from the majority of public.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 8, 2013 20:58:43 GMT -8
If the current government takes a way Initiatives 625 they would not get re-elected in from the majority of public. I will also point out that it is "695" not "625," unless you are posting about something else. I say this based on the very obvious clues that Mr. Rosenow left in this thread. Beyond that, I have no comment, because I am very ignorant of how Initiatves ballots and related legislation works in Washington State. I'm not asking for an explanation here, but I'm just explaining why I've chosen not to do a bunch of back-and-forth debate about something that I know very little about.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 8, 2013 21:50:16 GMT -8
That is the most ignorant post I have ever witnessed in my two plus years here. Absolutely takes the cake in terms of blindness. I have never expressed no desire for funding. First, I am going to make this as clear and blunt as possible. Washington State Ferries was born of the failures of a private entity that was being seen as a monopoly. Public demand forced the state to take over Puget Sound Navigation. Fares are already high. They don't need to be any higher. Secondly, rescind Initiative 695 and you'll have the funding. Just as there was prior to 1999. Go back and reread what I have said in this thread. I'm sorry. I do think the public would have to vote. If the current government takes a way Initiatives 695 they would not get re-elected in from the majority of public. Sorry, um, no. That is where you are wrong. I-695 was ruled unconstitutional by a Washington State Supreme Court Judge in October of 2000, ten months after the initiative became law. The reason is that it was a two-fold ballot measure and Washington State law specifically states that a ballot measure cannot pass or make into law two things with the stroke of one initiative. Secondly, it was ruled unconstitutional by the same judge, because it violated the good will and faith of the Washington State constitution in regards to taxes funding infrastructure developments. However, the judge himself was threatened with multiple lawsuits by the coalition who put together Initiative 695. Including its author, Tim Eyman. So, faced with lawsuits, the judge capitulated to Tim Eyman and struck down everything on I-695 except the $30 car tab fees. Which resulted in a near $1.5 BILLION DOLLAR LOSS beginning annually, starting in FY2001 At the time, I was wrapping up my duties on the "Yes on 695" coalition, and it was also at that time that I had decided for myself that I-695 was a mistake. Bottom line, Initiative 695 needs to be repealed without haste. That is the only way Washington State Ferries will ever see proper funding. As for your understanding of Washington State Ferries and its history, I am sorry but you seem to be grossly naive in the respect that making Washington State Ferries a private entity now would be better for the system. It would not. It would be a colossal disaster in more ways than one. Allow me to expand on that. And perhaps clear you of that naivete you seem to be displaying. Washington State Ferries was born from the failures of a private operation. That is irrefutable. Prior to Washington State taking over the ferry system, the ferry routes on Puget Sound were served by a coalition of smaller fleets with one large operator known as Puget Sound Navigation. After the WWII post-war boom in the mid-1940s, traffic on the Seattle to Bremerton ferry run (which was then the money maker route) began to trail off to the point where its operator, Captain Alexander Peabody, wanted to raise rates. At the same time, the union representing the ferry engineers had begun to go on strike due to stagnating wages and benefits. These strikes often shut down the runs, and this infuriated workers and commuters on both sides of the sound. Faced with increasing strikes, Peabody still persisted on raising fares 30 percent across the entire fleet. The sharp increase in fares at the time was seen as a disaster for those who depended on the ferry system and were unable to meet the demands. The strikes continued, and Peabody was denied his fare increase and threatened to shut down the operation. The state commission establishing ferry fares at the time only allowed a 10 percent increase, to which Peabody tied up his fleet. This angered thousands of Washingtonians in the Puget Sound area and the state was pushed into action after the general public demanded for the state to take over. In late 1949, the Washington Toll Bridge Authority finalized the purchase of Puget Sound Navigation with the agreement that it would be a short term solution until cross-sound bridges would be built. However, the cross-sound bridge idea was deemed impractical due to shipping lane locations and other factors, so Washington State Ferries officially came into being on June 1, 1951. Since then, Washington State has operated the world's finest ferry fleet. It is the third largest in the world and the largest in North America by volume. It is also the Number 1 Tourist Attraction in the state of Washington. Before you speak on issues you have no knowledge of, you should learn first. Ask questions. I have lived in Washington my whole life, I know Washington State Ferries inside and out, and I also know the laws and regulations. Privatizing Washington State Ferries would result in a sharp spike in ferry rates, so much so that it would critically impact - in a negative (perhaps disastrous) way - every single community and every single person who depends on Washington State Ferries for their economic livelihood. Privatizing the ferry system is a foolish suggestion and is often made by individuals such as yourself who possess absolutely zero historical knowledge of the ferry fleet itself and why it exists in its current form. Until I-695, fares were affordable and reasonable. It is unacceptable to charge $30 (as has been suggested by some who cry "Privatize!") for a one-hour ferry crossing - especially when that $30 can also be used to fill up the gas tank or buy a couple night's worth of groceries. Think before you speak. *EDIT* Please don't take my post as being cruel, Mr. Cheese. I am just merely frustrated over the suggestion our ferry fleet be privatized, and over the notion that fares be increased. Both are disastrous ideas and I have spent the last five years hearing those same suggestions from people with zero knowledge of the history of the ferry fleet or how government is supposed to work. The last three months have been especially weary seeing as how Washington State Ferries has been painted in an unfavorable light by the media here over the last three months due to circumstances beyond their control. In every news article, I hear the same thing... "Privatize the fleet" or "People need to pay more to use them"... After hearing those suggestions, and without any factual evidence to base them off of, it tends to grow old very fast.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 9, 2013 2:24:20 GMT -8
Mr. Cheese the public did have a vote on I-695. Steve, from what I understood, the legislature was the body that instituted the $30 car tabs. Hence it would take an act of the legislature to repeal it. However, I got a bet Tim (a horses *$%)Eyman would be back with an initiative on the ballot to repeal the hike almost immediately. So in a ways, we are stuck in a limbo due to the media stirring up anti-government sentiment among the voters. Based off what has happened to our northern neighbors, privatization is the worst thing that could be done and will cost us more. www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jul/24/could-wsf-follow-the-course-that-bc-ferries/ This is my favorite reference article for this as it gives the data and right now, BC Ferries is having to defer retirements of vessels back to 60 years. Mr Cheese I would encourage you to read the article as it has heavy pertinence to the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 9, 2013 3:25:56 GMT -8
Mr. Cheese the public did have a vote on I-695. Steve, from what I understood, the legislature was the body that instituted the $30 car tabs. Hence it would take an act of the legislature to repeal it. However, I got a bet Tim (a horses *$%)Eyman would be back with an initiative on the ballot to repeal the hike almost immediately. So in a ways, we are stuck in a limbo due to the media stirring up anti-government sentiment among the voters. Based off what has happened to our northern neighbors, privatization is the worst thing that could be done and will cost us more. www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jul/24/could-wsf-follow-the-course-that-bc-ferries/ This is my favorite reference article for this as it gives the data and right now, BC Ferries is having to defer retirements of vessels back to 60 years. Mr Cheese I would encourage you to read the article as it has heavy pertinence to the topic at hand. Nope. It wasn't the legislature that enacted the 30 car tabs. It was I-695 itself. www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i695.pdfI quote: And a list of links pursuant to I-695, including links to lawsuits filed against it as well as several other links explaining how detrimental it was to Washington state.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 9, 2013 9:05:34 GMT -8
AS I recall I-695 was overturned in a court challenge, and was subsquently enacted by the legislature.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Feb 9, 2013 10:02:14 GMT -8
AS I recall I-695 was overturned in a court challenge, and was subsquently enacted by the legislature. It was eventually overturned by the state supreme court. I don't remember if the $30 tab fee was enacted by the lesiglature before of after the court overturned it.
|
|