Sound Transit misleading voters, again (update II)

On the matter of Sound Transit rolling back ST1 taxes, Joe Turner raises an interesting question at the TNT's blog:

So, as Sound Transit heads toward another ballot measure, I suppose it's fair to ask "How many defeats does it take to indicate that voter approval is not forthcoming?" Proposition 1's defeat was Strike One. Is this a Three Strikes situation?

Since Sound Transit promoted this language in Sound Move as a taxpayer protection, the clause should be triggered with the first failure. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a hollow statement designed to make Sound Transit appear to care about accountability. Since the Sound Transit board would probably disagree with this claim, then they must respect the will of the voters in approving the roll back of ST1 taxes.

Comments

[somebody should sue]

What am I missing? Voter approval was not forthcoming last November. ST must pay off the debt, and roll back the taxes. That's what the voters said in 1996, and that still applies.

If voters approve some other (ST3?) measure in the future, then they'll get to raise the taxes back up.

Anyone disagree?

[Chris]

The reason I and a lot of other people I know voted against prop 1 had nothing to do with the Sound Transit portion and everything to do with the crummy overpriced road package tied around it's neck.

If Pierce County really wants the cross-base highway it can damn well pay for it by itself.

[Seabecker]

The reason I and a lot of other people I know voted against prop 1 had nothing to do with the roads portion and everything to do with the crummy overpriced Sound Transit package tied around it's neck.

[Walter]

"What am I missing?"

Well, for one thing, you've missed a King County District Court and a State Supreme Court decision (Sane Transit) which ruled that Sound Transit is not obligated to ramp it's taxes down. The language is quite blunt, actually.

And somebody did sue, which triggered that majority opinion.

Currently, there's a chronically unemployed guy named Will Knedlik who runs around town calling for a roll back of taxes currently funding regional buses and trains. It should come as no surprise that Knedlik was disbarred himself a couple years ago, and doesn't pay an awful lot of attention to legal realities.

But I can see why Mr. Ennis would want to place a cease and desist order on Sound Transit. We all know the region is shrinking, the buses are empty, Microsoft is on the brink of bankruptcy, gas and parking prices are at record low levels, and regional transportation gridlock is a thing of the past.

Yep, it's denitely time to stop funding regional transit solutions.

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how Mr. Ennis can be both for - and against - bus transit. I get the whole deal about right wing think tanks politicizing issues related to basic infrastructure and services. But could these people who pretend to like (more highly subsidized) buses try to be honest with us for once?

If you dislike public transportation because it requires a service subsidy, why on earth would you pick (or pretend to pick) the most heavily subsidized mode out there? And why would a devotee of the automobile pick buses as their (fake) favorite light rail alternative? Buses will always compete with the car for space on the road, and like it or not, buses will always win. Sorry to inform you of that. (file under: be careful of what you wish for)

[fact checker]

"[There was] a King County District Court and a State Supreme Court decision (Sane Transit) which ruled that Sound Transit is not obligated to ramp it's taxes down. The language is quite blunt, actually."

The challenge the "sane transit" group raised in court, and the issue the supreme court majority ruled on, was whether the decision of ST's board in November 2001 to proceed with a $1.5 billion (in 1995 dollars) 14 mile light rail line was a lawful deviation from the description of the light rail line in the Sound Move plan.

The court ruled that the particular ways in which that 11/01 project deviated from the one described in Sound Move (14 miles of track not 21, fewer stations, and 13 years of construction not 10) were lawful deviations. That is because sec. 2 of Resolution 75 (also part of the measure approved in 1996) specifically permitted ST to scale back the project to stay within the voter-approved budget.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that majority opinion that relieves ST from its obligation to pay off the debt on an accelerated basis, or roll back the tax rate.

Indeed, the majority relies on the part of the local law requiring the debt payoff and tax rollback in its analysis. It points to those provisions when it rejects the claim the "sane transit" group raised. Those folks made the (flimsy) argument that all the taxing had to stop completely after ten years. Never mind that nothing in the local law said that. The court points to the tax rollback language we are discussing here as evidence that the taxing does not have to end completely because the tax has to be rolled back to a level sufficient only to subsidize some modest O & M expenses.

When does that rollback have to occur? Once two conditions are satisfied. First, ST gets the right to collect the amount of local tax as the voters authorized it to spend in the five subareas during the construction period ($1.98 billion (in 1995 dollars)). You can see that "voter-approved local taxes" spending amount on the page of Sound Move that is posted below. ST had taken in that amount by 2006. The second condition that needed to be satisfied is the failure of voters to approve a future phase of capital spending. That happened last November with the failure of Prop. I.

The big problem with your argument "Walter" is that the only thing the supreme court was addressing in the sane transit case was whether the taxing had to stop completely after ten years (it doesn't because some modest ongoing subsidies are allowed perpetually). The other thing is was addressing was whether the scale of light rail could be reduced, and the court correctly determined that it could be scaled back.

What you are suggesting, "Walter," is that the court ruled ST has no obligation to comply with 1) the tax rollback terms, 2) the bond acceleration payoff terms, or 3)the construction period spending limits identified in Appendix A of Sound Move. The court didn't even consider those aspects of the local law when it was ruling on the legitimacy of the 2001 resolution authorizing the building of a scaled back light rail line.

[fact checker]

Here’s the long and short of it regarding the “sane transit” opinion from 2004.

It does not validate, sanction or otherwise “bless” one single thing ST has done OTHER THAN start to act pursuant to the November, 2001 board resolution authorizing staff to begin building out a 14 mile line from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. The opinion only dealt with that resolution. The issue the court answered was nothing more than this: was it a lawful deviation from the 1996 local law’s terms for ST to only build a $2.07 billion (YOE) light rail line of 14 miles that was expected to be completed by 2009. That was it.

Here are examples of what ST now is doing that are unlawful deviations from the 1996 local law voters approved:

- ST is exceeding the spending limit of $1.98 billion of local tax revenue (1995 dollars, as the page from Sound Move in the prior posting from Mike E. shows) in the five subareas during the construction period;

- ST is not accelerating the payoff of the outstanding debt; and

- ST is not rolling back the tax rates as it is required to under the terms of Sound Move Appendix B we are discussing in this thread.

“Walter” and his friends always say the same thing: “The Sane Transit opinion gives us the right to spend unlimited amounts of tax revenue during the Phase I construction period.” That is a completely bogus assertion. It ignores how the court only was addressing the very narrow issues specified in that opinion: whether the taxes had to stop completely after ten years (the court correctly determined there never was any time limit on tax collections), and whether scaling back the light rail line was permitted (the court correctly determined that the board had discretion to use the amounts of local taxes voters made available for ST to use during the construction period on scaled back projects).

What the court did not rule on – because it was not at issue in the claims that were raised by that “sane transit” group – was what is NOW relevant:

- whether exceeding the Sound Move “voter approved local taxes” construction period spending amount of $1.98 billion is a lawful deviation from the 1996 local law; and

- whether failing to accelerate the payoff of the outstanding debt now that the voter- authorized amount of $1.98 billion of Phase I construction period tax revenue has been collected and voters rejected a future phase of projects is a lawful deviation from the 1996 local law voters approved.

Both those questions must be answered in the negative.

It also should be noted that none of ST’s lawyers ever has argued the overly-broad reading of the “sane transit” opinion that Walter just offered is warranted, or that ST itself actually believes what Walter posted above. It is only anonymous posters who say things like Walter does above.

[fact checker]

It doesn't look like "Walter" wants to discuss what he posted. His is nothing but a fanciful notion: "(Sane Transit) which ruled that Sound Transit is not obligated to ramp it's taxes down."

The internet is an interactive medium, Walter. You are supposed to respond when your claims are shown to lack merit. Try to defend what you posted - don't run away.

If Walter comes back, I have a question for him (or anyone who wants to discuss this).

Take a look at Table 2 shown on the part of the Sound Move document that M. Ennis posted a couple of days ago. It shows a specific "voter approved local taxes" amount - $1.98 billion. That is the amount that ST received authority to spend covering the construction period costs of Phase I.

Who wants to argue that ST has the right to spend one penny more than $1.98 billion (1995$) of local tax revenue during the period it is building out what it can afford of the projects described in Sound Move?

The law the voters approved is clear: that is how much tax revenue spending authority ST received for the purpose of spending on construction and operations costs during the build-out period of Phase I. ST already is spending far more than that of that particular revenue source.

Let's say someone sued ST to hold it to the law (which includes the tax rollback terms in Appendix B of Sound Move). There would be a huge common fund created if ST is prevented from proceeding with the Phase I construction period tax revenue spending plans it has just announced. Those plans exceed by a wide margin the legal limit of $1.98 billion (1995$) of tax revenue spending during the build-out period that the local enabling legislation allows ST.

[Walter]

Factfree does an excellent job channeling the (extreme) minority opinion in Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit. It's as if he blew a couple hundred grand on some expensive lawyers, lost bigtime, and is constantly re-living the outcome... fantasizing about an opinion which never occurred (well, the minority opinion occurred).

For years, factfree has been talking about "somebody" filing a lawsuit using his (highly unique) legal strategies (he plays a lawyer and a financial expert on daytime tv)

When factfree was asked the simple question "why don't you file the lawsuit?" and "If there is sufficient legal merit, there are all kinds of rich transit opponents in this town willing to pay for the Tim Eyman legal team."

Factfree answered with some absurd excuse involving an even more absurd conspiracy theory. But that didn't stop him from continuing to shop his lawsuit around in that bastion of progressivity, Sound Politics (factfree pretend to be community minded, as opposed to 100% self-serving).

Keep in mind, that was over a year ago.

The basis of factfree's multi-decade obsession at the time was his theory University Link could not be built without a second public vote (well, the real basis was avenging the death of his beloved monorail).

None of the tail-chasing you read from factfree really carries any relevency. The entire charade is built around a bad case of ego-driven OCD. Early on, logical and balanced people tried to play in factfree's reality-free world. Each and every one of them soon discovered this to be a pointless endeavor. When your ego is all that drives you, facts will always become the first casualty in any debate. Most of us learned that fact of life at an early age.

[Walter]

Huh? I thought this was supposed to be an interactive medium, factchucker? No response to my last set of comments? You must want to duck the important questions I raised about your extreme credibility gap.

Vintage factchucker comment:

"Who wants to argue that ST has the right to spend one penny more than $1.98 billion (1995$) of local tax revenue during the period it is building out what it can afford of the projects described in Sound Move?
The law the voters approved is clear: that is how much tax revenue spending authority ST received for the purpose of spending on construction and operations costs during the build-out period of Phase I"

I won't waste my time identifying the multitude of other mongo holes in factfree's always swerving (monorail kool aid induced) legal interpretations, but most are rooted in this fundamental misunderstanding of reality...ironically, a reality specifically called out in that Sane vs. Sound Supreme Court opinion:

"Sound Transit argues that these and other similar statements were merely declarations of the principles of the plan. We agree with Sound Transit's characterization of the above statements. Declarations of principles, purposes, and aims are not operative rules of action and do not give rise to enforceable rights or create legal obligations."

Hm. I wonder why nobody has ever taken up factchucker's invite to sue?

And a note to Mike Ennis, creator of this blog: factchucker has dragged your name through the mud on other forums.

How did you characterize him, again, factchucker? Was it "incompetent?"

The guy really has a unique talent for winning friends and influencing people. Transit supporters in this town have their own word to describe factchucker: typical transit opponent. As in, little to no facts, lots of hatred, a long running obsession based on ego and personal/professional failure, self-centered world view, no viable alternatives, few friends... to name a few. The stereotype is strengthened every time factchucker fires up his computer.

[Walter]

If and when you come across factchucker and his multiple personalities on multiple forums, and you can't quite put your finger on why he seems a little off...well, I have an easy way to put yourself in his shoes: think Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day." No matter what he does, the outcome remains the same. Except Bill Murray's recurring dream only lasts for weeks.

The factchucker unreality has been going going on for 5 or 6 years now. (10 if you get down to the root of his obsession). One more key distinction: Bill Murray got paid for his work.

[fact checker]

This “Walter” sure uses a lot of ad hominem attacks. Those always indicates a position of weakness.

From his posting above (at one in the morning!) - “When factfree was asked the simple question "why don't you file the lawsuit?" and "If there is sufficient legal merit, there are all kinds of rich transit opponents in this town willing to pay for the Tim Eyman legal team." Factfree answered with some absurd excuse involving an even more absurd conspiracy theory.”

I haven’t been asked those questions, but I’ll answer them. I would not make a good plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging ST’s failures to comply with terms of the 1996 law (for several reasons). There is no “conspiracy theory” – whatever that is supposed to mean.

[fact checker]

Here “Walter” gives us his half-assed legal argument. He pulls some language out of a Supreme Court opinion. This is supposed to convince everybody that there is a bulletproof rejoinder should someone sue on the grounds that ST is not complying with certain mandatory terms in Resolution 75 and the documents it incorportates (such as the tax rollback/debt payoff provisions):

"Sound Transit argues that these and other similar statements were merely declarations of the principles of the plan. We agree with Sound Transit's characterization of the above statements. Declarations of principles, purposes, and aims are not operative rules of action and do not give rise to enforceable rights or create legal obligations."

That is an excerpt from Sane Transit v. Sound Transit, 151 Wn.2d 60, 85 P.3d 346 (2004), at 76.

Here is the next sentence of the opinion, which “Walter” didn’t share: “We conclude, therefore, that there is no legal obligation under the statements in the Sound Move summary brochure or the detailed Sound Move plan for Sound Transit to complete the light rail line within 10 years.”

What the opinion is addressing there is the lame argument the “sane transit” folks raised about all the building needing to be completed by 2006. The language “Walter” copied is part of the analysis where the Court determines that nothing required what the “sane transit” group was suing about: they wanted the court to order ST to stop building completely the scaled-back light rail line, merely because it would not be completed by 2006.

All Sound Move says is that the RTA would make best efforts to get the services up and running in ten years. The court was right - the parts of the 1996 measure at issue in that lawsuit indeed were mere “declarations of principles, purposes, and aims.”

In contrast, the majority’s holdings (and its analyses) in that opinion in no way relieve ST of ANY of its financing limits set out in the 1996 law. Using the language in the Sane Transit case, ST must comply with every one of the “operative rules of action” spelled out in that measure voters approved.

Among those “operative rules of action” are the spending limits and tax rollback terms.

Contrary to “Walter’s” suggestion above, the Sane Transit opinion did not eliminate ST’s obligation to comply with the terms in that ordinance specifying how much tax revenue ST has the authority to spend, and when ST must accelerate the debt payoff and roll back its tax rates. Those “operative rules of action” in no way resemble the statements in the Sound Move booklet where ST expresses its hope that all the new transit services would be up and running in ten years.

Nice argument though, “Walter.”

[Walter]

factchecker has this incredibly unique ability to contradict his own statements and (supposed) values. This ongoing problem of his could have something to do with isolation and obsession; but who am I to judge?

For a long time, he kept trying to wrap the monorail albatross around Sound Transit's neck...until somebody pointed out factchecker had recently been a staunch defender/apologist of/for the Seattle Monorail Authority's insane finance plan.

(call it "the Larry Craig effect")

Mr. Ennis might know a little something or two about this dynamic: his think tank was pushing monorail 10 years ago, when those in the know knew it was a bad idea.

Well, here we have factchecker making a hysterical claim about the Sane Transit having no bearing whatsoever on Sound Transit's taxing authority (above). But guess what? Factchucker was singing the EXACT OPPOSITE TUNE in late '06. Told ya he had a slight credibility problem:
--------
#1249208

As the ST supporters repeatedly point out, the Supreme Court in “Sane Transit” said ST has limitless taxing authority. No one now is able to either say how much taxes ST is entitled to collect, or limit how much tax ST collects “for construction” of the Sound Move system.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicID=86298
-------------

Factchucker made those remarks just a year and a half ago. Did the Sane Transit opinion change since then? No. Is this guy's mind scrambled? Well, I'll let others judge. But I can tell you there are plenty more examples where that one came from.

For additional light reading, check out factchecker's pathetic apologies for the Seattle Port Commission as an example of the kind of "accountable government" he thinks Sound Transit should strive for. No surprise factchucker succeeds with that argument the same way he succeeded at defending monorail finance plans.

I swear, this guy is channeling Mark Baerwaldt. If I were Mark, I would demand a better spokesmodel.

[Walter]

"I would not make a good plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging ST’s failures to comply with terms of the 1996 law (for several reasons)."

Why? Because you already sued and had your seat handed to you? This is an interactive medium, factchucker. Why won't you reply?

"There is no “conspiracy theory” – whatever that is supposed to mean"

What, you forgot about the big conspiracy you concocted, where Sound Transit leads this large fascist mafia, including (but not limited to): the State Auditor, The State Supreme Court, big business (the people who brought us the WPC), the unions, the developers, yadda yadda yadda...

If I recall correctly, it was this insurmountable set of opponents which stood between you and a sure legal victory. I could quote you some more, but I think you've already done yourself enough damage for one day.

As for playing the ad hominem victim card yet one more time: this whole obsession of yours is based on a personal vendetta and the status of your ego. Of course you're going to feel personally slighted when people punch huge holes in your logic and methodology. After watching the factchucker train wreck take shape for many years, I am surprised you haven't grown accustomed to being flat-out wrong most of the time.

Or, are you going to now tell us the monorail authority took great strides in releasing a fiscally responsible finance plan? Or, that the Port of Seattle is well on its way to reform, especially since Alec Fisken was given the boot?

My advice to you: get used to feeling criticized. I'm not getting the feeling you'll be leaving that unreality cocoon anytime soon.

[fact checker]

There’s “Walter” with the ad hominem insults again. It’s the only card he’s holding, so it’s the only one he can play.

That excerpt from something I posted a year and a half ago is this: As the ST supporters repeatedly point out, the Supreme Court in “Sane Transit” said ST has limitless taxing authority. No one now is able to either say how much taxes ST is entitled to collect, or limit how much tax ST collects “for construction” of the Sound Move system.

Those are correct statements. ST has limitless taxing authority, but only in certain respects. There is no sunsetting date, beyond which ST may not collect taxes (for example).

There also is no dollar amount limit on the amount of local taxes it is entitled to collect “for construction” because the spending limit that does apply during the Phase I build out period pertains to capital expenses and operations expenses. That is the $1.98 billion (1995$) limit on how much ST is entitled to spend of local tax revenue during the Phase I implementation period. That voter-approved local taxes spending cap is shown on one of the pages of Sound Move Mike Ennis posted in a blog entry a couple of days ago. ST received authority to spend only that amount during the Phase I build out period in the five subareas, on capital expenses, operations expenses, and to build up a reserve.

There is no dollar amount limit on how much local tax can collect and spend subsequent to the build-out period either. However the types of expenses ST is authorized to spend tax revenue on in the post-implementation period is strictly limited. ST only has authority to collect as much tax in the post-rollback period as it needs to subsidize five modest types of ongoing operations costs.

Let us know if you disagree with anything here, “Walter.”

Of course you're going to feel personally slighted when people punch huge holes in your logic and methodology.

Tell you what, “Walter.” Copy and paste something here that I’ve written, and try punching even a little hole in it.

[fact checker]

Let’s get back on topic “Walter.” These are important big-money, big-time policy matters at issue.

The question this thread poses is this: must ST comply with what the 1996 voter approved law says about paying off the bonds on an accelerated basis, and rolling back the tax rates now?

I’ve posted above about why the answer to that question is an unqualified “yes.”

What you’ve done is just fling dirt around. Everybody here sees that.

Raise your level of discourse.

Set out the best argument you can about why you think Sound Transit shouldn’t have to do what the voter-approved local law says (pay off the bonds on an accelerated basis and roll back the tax rate). Don’t even mention the “sane transit” majority opinion - it is completely irrelevant.

[Walter]

"However the types of expenses ST is authorized to spend tax revenue on in the post-implementation period is strictly limited"

Happy to feed your obsession/only hobby, factchucker.

But first, a quick clarification to better understand the quote above: is University Link Phase 1, or post-Phase 1?

[fact checker]

"is University Link Phase 1, or post-Phase 1?"

Sound Transit does not have enough Phase I tax revenue spending authority, or bond sale revenue spending authority, to pay for the huge costs of University Link. ST already used up its North King County Phase I spending authority.

The tax rollback terms from Appendix B are below. Subsection "b" describes what kinds of expenses ST can use tax revenue to subsidize on an ongoing basis.

----------------

Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA.

a. First, the RTA will first [sic] initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost.

b. Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.
------

ST already has taken in the $1.98 billion (1995$) of local tax revenue it is authorized to spend in the five subareas during the Phase I build-out period. Last November voters rejected a future capital construction phase ST put up for a vote.

So what's your argument - what would give ST the right to ignore the requirements above? Isn't Mike Ennis correct, and ST must now pay off the bonds on an accelerated basis and roll back the tax rate?

[Walter]

"Set out the best argument you can about why you think Sound Transit shouldn’t have to do what the voter-approved local law says (pay off the bonds on an accelerated basis and roll back the tax rate)"

Hey, wasn't that (accelerated bond pay off and rollback) the very subject of the I-776 case, which also reached the Supreme Court?

My memory is a bit fuzzy here, factchucker. But if I recall correctly, you lost that one, too.

Aren't you at strike three now?

I love free entertainment.

[fact checker]

Here is what the 1996 law requires: accelerating the payoff of the outstanding bonds and rolling back the tax rate. Mike Ennis hit the nail on the head.

The opinion in the second appeal of the “Pierce County” I-776 litigation doesn’t help ST at all. That holding was that ST was not obligated to terminate its MVET effective 12/5/02 (as sec. 6 of I-776 said it had to). The court’s analysis was straightforward, and based on extensive “contracts clause” precedent: existing contracts can not be impaired by subsequent legislation.

That isn’t what we are talking about here. This isn’t a situation like with I-776, where a later law would have impaired an existing contract.

ST’s obligations to pay off its bonds and roll back its tax rates now are specific requirements of the 1996 law. After that law went into effect ST signed bond contracts calling for more taxing than it has the right to engage in. Those subsequent contracts don't give ST any right to ignore what the prior law requires.

What do you think, “Walter” – shouldn’t Des Brown, Esq. address at length ST’s obvious failures to comply with the 1996 voter-approved local law? ST is not paying off the outstanding debt, it is not rolling back the tax rate, it is not budgeting or spending in compliance with the subarea budgets as Appendix B of Sound Move mandates . . . don’t you think we should get some explanations straight from the horse’s mouth?

[Walter]

OK, factchucker. I will call Dez Brown and ask him to sue his own agency because you don't have enough confidence in your own (twisted) legal position. I'll tell him a really, really obsessed guy in internet land needs somebody to add some bite to his incessant barking.

Got his phone number?

I have the phone numbers for three rich psychos who would be more than happy to pay for your lawsuit (if it had any merit). We can trade!