Let me know if this is against the rules, if so I’ll remove the post.
I read in the voter pamphlet the proponents take and opponents take on the renewal, but something didn’t add up. Opponents mentioned that this levy would make our sidewalks, roads and bridges worse, but in the budget allocation there’s funds for fixing sidewalks roads and bridges.
What am I missing here?
https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/elections/how-to-vote/voters-pamphlets/2024/202411/local-edition.pdf?rev=ef6a947716b1404395bf9fab90ac7aa1&hash=51D0D774A84C9BEEA319C4D4FF527B50 Page 19 for reference
You must log in or register to comment.
Here’s a deep breakdown by the Seattle bike blog:
“With fewer financial resources available, SDOT will focus on capital project delivery for existing work and commitments made in the levy,” the budget overview notes. “Less will be spent on maintenance and preservation of assets (roads, bridges, transit, pedestrian and bike facilities), while innovations and system enhancements will be delayed to a future time when more resources are available. This slowing of maintenance and asset preservation work will affect transportation safety, mobility of goods and services, and climate and environmental goals.”
The expiring levy has provided $103 million per year, and the only way to craft a budget without that $103 million is to slash pretty much everything.
TL;DR:
Without the levy, the current miniscule budget for fixes/improvements will be cut in half. Every major policy promise will basically die, and the bare minimum will be way more bare.
Right, it’s just that in the pamphlet the opposition to renewing the levy claim that the renewal would make the roads/sidewalks/bridges worse
Hold on to your wallets, Seattle. As civic leaders free from politics, we urge neighbors to vote No on this terrible transportation tax. Why should you pay the largest tax in city history, when it leaves bridges, streets, and sidewalks in dangerous disrepair while worsening traffic congestion?
The Seattle bike blog post goes into it, but basically the “no” voters are being disingenuous by calling the renewed levy both a “huge waste of money” and saying “it doesn’t do enough.”
Their primary complaint is that “the food is terrible, and the portions are too small.”
It can’t be both, so I don’t read it as earnest disagreement. If they want a bigger levy to do more, they can vote for this one, and push for another one next election season. Killing this one, and then pretending that after a small levy fails that somehow a much larger, “perfect” levy will be put up to vote later and pass? Not likely, and obviously so.
Nah, that’s just people pretending to care about safe bridges/roads/sidewalks/bike paths, but who actually just care about their pocket books. They want to use “perfect” to prevent “good,” in a very cynical way, and I don’t find that compelling.
Got it, thanks!