Sound Transit misleading voters, again

These (PI, TNT, Times)articles summarize the two proposals Sound Transit is considering for a second attempt at the ballot.

First, as part of ST1, which passed in 1996, Sound Transit said this:

Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move.

Since voters rejected ST2, Sound Transit must roll back ST1 taxes to O&M levels. If Sound Transit moves forward with another ST2 program that contains ST1 taxes, then Sound Transit is violating the tax payer protection clause voters authorized in 1996.

Secondly, Sound Transit has claimed they would propose an ST2 program that is smaller than the first. Yet, one of the two proposals imposes the exact same sales tax increase as Prop. 1 (.5%). This translates to about $125 per family within the Sound Transit district, which is the same as Sound Transit's first attempt.  Based on their pattern of choosing the most expansive option, Sound Transit is not set to propose a smaller package. Rather, Sound Transit is likely to choose the one that is exactly the same, which of course was rejected by voters.

Comments

[Brotellus]

Great catch. Understand - that isn't just something ST "said" or "promised" in 1996, IT IS THE LAW.

The Supreme Court refers to that passage in the "Sane Transit v. Sound Tranist" opinion, and calls it part of the voter approved local enabling legislation. By NOT accelerating the debt payoff and NOT reducing the taxes, ST is violating that law.

Ask a lawyer - they'll confirm it.

[Mickey]

Way to hold 'em to what should be! Hammer on this