I-912 Bad For WA Roads
Initiative 912 is designed to capture frustration with a gas-tax increase that would pay for needed improvements to roads and bridges throughout the state.Indeed, many of the signatures the supporters of the initiative will be hoping to get will come from areas outside of King County. In dozens of places around the state, these people will be saying "no" to better roads, bridges, and "yes" to crumbling infrastructure and gridlock, should they say "yes" to I-912.
Before signing the initiative, voters should ask pertinent questions. What is the money for? Should our fast-growing state invest in roads?
Taxes are rarely popular, but to keep roadways safe and improve mobility, the state must make targeted infrastructure investments.
The Alaskan Way Viaduct, which carries more than 100,000 cars a day, is in danger of coming down in an earthquake. Why wait for it to fall down? The new gas-tax package dedicates $2 billion to replace the viaduct, an investment a forward-looking community ought to make.
Gas taxes approved this past session are not Seattle-centric. Legislators from East King County assured the tax increase would include improvements to Interstate 405 and the aging Highway 520 bridge, which also is in danger of failing in a storm. These improvements are in addition to millions of dollars to be spent on roads and bridges in every part of the state.
The Seattle Times ends with a succinct conclusion:
Don't sign this initiative and don't support it. It is backward public policy.Short and simple and to the point. Say "no" to I-912. (nwphtt54)
Posted at 6/16/2005 07:17:00 PM PT
Permanent Link
3 Comment(s):
So, why doesn't the State Democrats declare an emergency and eliminate SEPA and the environmental regulations on new highway projects or widening? They did to circumvent the voter on this one.
Why not get rid of the rules? And why not prevailing wage for 5 years? I bet projects get done quicker and cheaper and maybe you don't need the gas tax increase.
Radical? Yes, I am beginning to sound like a Democrat. But then, maybe not. That is because the Democrats just want to throw good paper money on the fire and not step up to the table to solve the construction woes.
Yes, I guess that is the reason for the initiative. Any solutions to the problem other than throwing money down the drain or onto the fire?
SEPA exists for a good reason, and we must be willing to accept the checks and balances we take to ensure our development does not adversely affect our environment.
Democrats are not necessarily radical swatter, but I do believe that we are stewards of the land we share, and have a responsibility to keep it clean, and protect it.
Funding via gas consumption is but one way the transportation plan will be funded, but it will be a large part of it. If people really cared about what they pay for gas, as opposed to simply wanting to block necessary and fair funding for a multitude of public infrastructure projects, then they'd be hooting and hollering at the oil companies about the price of gas in the first place.
I don't think you will get rid of SEPA, but some of the things designers have to account for today (with the threat of SEPA lawsuits over their heads) would make your head spin.
While this wasn't a SEPA issue, in Snohomish County the Indians held up the Boeing pier project that needed a Corp of Engineers permit. The Corps wasn't going to issue the permit without tribe approval.
The Port of Everett gave $2 million extortion money to the tribe to go on. Now, if the tribe thought the project was giong to be so damaging to their fishing, then they shouldn't have settled, leading me to think it was all about the money to them.
SEPA, NEPA and other rules give too much power to people that don't need the power.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link