The campaign for Sound Transit will be 'going Facebook'
Big and corporate didn't do it for last year's roads and transit measure, so the hurry-up, cash-starved campaign for Sound Transit 2 will be Internet-based and volunteer-driven.
The proposed 15-year, $17.6 billion Sound Transit measure to expand bus express-transit and add more light rail took so long in gaining political approval that it hasn't even been placed on the ballot yet. Time is short for the November vote, and the pro-rail forces are scrambling to put together a campaign. Opponents are also gearing up.
Last year, opponents of a large rail and roads package easily defeated a very well-funded ballot issue, demoralizing the generous business backers of Proposition 1. This year, both the shortage of time and cash and the need for a different campaign approach have led to a different strategy for the new proposal. If Prop 1 was big and corporate, the campaign for Sound Transit 2, or ST2, will be low-cost, high-volunteer, bottom-up.
The new pro-light rail campaign is called Mass Transit Now, and its campaign manager is Andrew Glass Hastings, 27, who is taking a leave of absence from his job as a strategic adviser in Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' office. Nickels is the current chair of the Sound Transit board, and he pulled together the consensus for putting ST2 on the ballot this fall. In 2006, Glass Hastings successfully managed Nickels' voter-approved "Bridging the Gap" tax levy, which put $544 million into street improvements for the city.
Mass Transit Now will be a hurry-up effort with a much smaller budget than Prop. 1, which spent close to $4 million and failed by a wide margin. The new budget may be around $1.5 million, and will rely very much on volunteers and some of the Internet strategies honed by the Obama campaign. Glass Hastings says victory will be grown from the grassroots, up. "Last year was more of a traditional top-down campaign," he explains. "This time we're a lean, mean grassroots operation looking for more door-to-door voter contact so they know why it's a great plan."
But he also admits the campaign is late in getting started. Last year, the pro-Proposition 1 group, Yes on Roads and Transit, had raised nearly $800,000 by early September 2007. According to the latest reports from the Public Disclosure Commission, Mass Transit Now (MTN) has raised just $3,000.
Still, Glass Hastings says going with the grassroots could help enlist a large number of voters and small donors — similar to the approach of Obama's presidential campaign. The broader appeal is also expected to help spur a bigger turnout for light rail on November 4, assuming all those youthful Obama supporters remember to vote for ST2 further down on the ballot.
"We're going for a wide range of sources and different donors," he says. "There are plenty of progressive, young, transit-friendly voters in King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County. We are going to explore a lot of options and be creative in the way we reach them." The campaign could take "many forms on the Web and blogosphere," he adds, including the use of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, or YouTube. MTN will also pursue potential big business donors such as Microsoft and Boeing via traditional fundraising routes, while also using the region's "strong volunteer base" to court as many smaller donors as possible.
"Right now is somewhat of a perfect storm," he says. "We've got a presidential election with a heavy turnout expected; and — with high gas prices — demand for transit is at an all-time high all across the country."
But can "going Facebook" really propel an infrastructure improvement proposition to victory? Glass Hastings admits there's no ready-made road map to work from, but he's confident the public's "pent-up demand for light rail" will work to his advantage. Helping will be the local Sierra Club, which last year opposed Proposition 1 and divided environmental support.
"The Sierra Club opposed [Proposition 1] because the additional highway lanes would swamp all benefits of increased transit and worsen global warming," Club transportation chairman Tim Gould and Cascade Chapter chairman Mike O'Brien wrote in a July 17 guest editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Sound Transit Phase 2 (ST2) is a critical piece of our transportation future. We are tired of sitting in our cars burning fuel and dollars, while watching our time evaporate."
Opponents this time won't have the Sierra Club on their side, and it's not clear yet whether King County Executive Ron Sims, who opposes ST2, will be quiet or active in his criticisms. Regardless, opponents are armed with deep pockets and deep reservations about the $17.6 billion measure.
The Seattle Times reported in July that the Eastside Transportation Association, under the financial backing of Bellevue Square developer Kemper Freeman Jr., a longtime foe of rail transit, has already spent more than $50,000 in anti-light rail radio ads. Meanwhile, last year's No to Prop 1 group is also planning to campaign against the measure, and will run radio and television ads during the coming months, according to Mark Baerwaldt, the group's treasurer. Some observers expect the opponents to equal or outspend the MTN campaign. Last time around, Baerwaldt gave nearly $200,000 of his own money to help fund the opposition campaign.
"Our plan is the same as last year," Baerwaldt says, arguing that the measure "still costs too much, does too little, and takes too long to implement." The new measure, he argues, doesn't do enough to provide immediate relief for cramped buses and crowded highways. "It's an absolute lie to say it will fix things right away," he says. "Plus, you can't double-down taxes on a failed strategy — not in today's economy. There isn't an economist in the world who would tell you 'this is the time' for an expensive ballot proposition."
But Glass Hastings disagrees, pointing towards recent talks between economists and congressional Democrats about drafting a second federal economic stimulus package that would "include spending for roads, bridges, schools and other public facilities" — in other words, for infrastructure. Such spending is often used as a way to pull a national economy out of recession.
A recent column by Neal Peirce cites many metro regions that are spending heavily on light rail and other transit, responding to cries from the business community to deal with congestion and howls from commuters wanting to evade high gas prices. Peirce points to Houston, Denver, Charlotte, Phoenix, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Washington, Portland, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Norfolk, as well as the upcoming Seattle ballot measure, as evidence that "the future path of metro rail systems in America is unquestionably upward, triggered by congestion, spiraling gas prices, and citizen demand."
"The public has recognized the need for investment and immediate relief," Glass Hastings adds. "That's what this measure provides. The question is this: stalemate or action? Should we sit back and do nothing? Hardly any other major city in the nation relies on just buses. But light rail can put us back on the map."
Of course, voters may also react to gas pump blues by opting against tax increases, or by favoring quicker relief through buses. Before the debate is joined, however, Mass Transit Now has to get on voters' radars. So far they've got a late start and a low budget.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 12:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Never mind that last year's corporate sponsors have decided to take a pass this time around. Good Karma will no doubt pull this one out.
Between a Sound Transit Board with their push polls and self congratulatory (albeit doomed) ballot design; the Eastside's copiously funded crowd that will oppose anything that doesn't involve asphalt; and Mr. Rossi who (seriously) told a Herald reporter that he thought transportation was strictly a local matter, the voters in November will likely kill ST2. Not because they don't yearn for a balanced transportation system for the region, but because they have little trust that our leadership will not be back next year with another "critical" road package.
Where's Pogo when we need him?
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Experience shows there is good reason for Sound Transit to put no end date for taxes into the ballot measure, even if the construction program is supposed to end in 15 years. The ten-year rail construction program approved in 1996 is in its 12th year, with at least eight more years to go even if Prop 1 fails to pass in November. Some elements of the first ten-year construction program are being rolled into this new Prop 1, to be paid for with the tax hike.
All of the Regional Express bus additions and Sounder commuter rail expansion of this fall's Prop 1 are already authorized under the terms of the original 1996 Sound Move plan, and were said at one time to be adequately funded.
But light rail and commuter rail budget overruns have sent Sound Transit back to the people for a doubling of its taxes ... from one million dollars per day now, to two million dollars per day if voters approve the Prop 1 Do-Over.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 3:36 p.m. Inappropriate
//eight more years to go even if Prop 1 fails to pass//
Maybe you're misunderstanding what "permanent" means.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 3:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Not actually: "System expansion or tax rollback. Any second phase capital program that continues using local taxes for financing will require voter approval. In the absence of voter approval of any plan to expand the system, Sound Transit will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off outstanding debt, and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. " ST website.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 6:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Ove the next ten years, the current plan will have approximately as much effect on congestion as sitting down in the middle of I-5 with all your money in a paper bag, dowsing yourself in imported oil, and lighting yourself on fire.
I'm waiting patiently for the ST2 crew to explain how much debt service will be paid--in the best and worst cases--relative to the amount borrowed. The worst case is more-or-less what we have now -- double the time period for taxation, delays of approximately 100%, performance on the work plan at approximatley 25% of what is promised, and a massive make-work project that would be done at approximately 50% the cost and in half the time if done in the private sector.
Next time you're stuck in congestion, remember that we've taken over ten years to build light rail TO THE AIRPORT of all places, as if that is some sort of priority for relieving congestion. And don't forget that we're spending over $26 million a year on the Sound Transit bureaucracy of over 340 employees; we're using the contractors Parsons Brinckerhoff (well-known for their work on the Big Dig project in Boston); debt service to well-heeled bondholders who don't pay taxes on this larded lucre; prevailing wage contracts that ensure high wages for union members, but little work for lower-paid, minumum-wage Hispanic workers; unseemly right-of-way purchases that might have been done at much lower cost through eminent domain; sweet-heart deals with Burlington-Northern; and pet projects of minor to no merit for anyone who raised their hand.
Light rail is a good idea if it pays for itself. The GMA insists that growth pay for growth. Instead, this project attempts to regressively tax all those who will not use light rail to subsidize special interests, corporations, and builders of downtown high-rises. Why won't the projected huge ridership pay for this lard-ridden project with fares that will pay for the capital and operating costs, and the debt service? Could it be that riders won't value it as much if they have to pay for it themselves?
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 6:18 p.m. Inappropriate
At it's core it is the same as Proposition 1 - it is an attempt to gain control, with little accountability, for a very long time. It does not solve the problems we face NOW with a 'sustainable' business model that serves every existing resident of the Puget Sound. To extend light rail to everyone would bankrupt us, no doubt of that. Presumably the bond folks are smart enough not to have this plan bankrupt us - however solving the problems that will still be left AFTER this expenditure just might.
Worse is the misuse of the environmentalists to advance this Seattle-centric plan. The best geographic design for an environmentally friendly economy is not a single power mad tax sucking hole like Downtown Seattle, but rather a decentralized distribution of employment near desired residential cores. Yes, increased density is part of the answer - that does not mean that you take that idea to its extreme.
This plan will likely pass in Seattle and fail everywhere else, and though the environmentalists may fall back on the PC rags about everyone who actually works for a living being a earth hater that isn't going to get anyone anywhere, save the folks that make their living off of controlling hate - e.g., the government and their 'friends'.
The simple answer to this is that we need to get rid of these people just as fast as we can create something better. It's gonna be bus people and WashDOT who take the lead on that. The role of the Feds has not yet been determined.
-Douglas Tooley
My Blog
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 6:50 p.m. Inappropriate
Want several examples of tax hikes in recent years, where tax sunset provisions were totally absent? I believe John Niles was supportive of all:
Metro Transit sales tax hikes, '00 & '06Nickel & 9 cent gas tax hikes/ No on 912, '03-'06
Discovery Institute Foot Ferry Property Tax hike, '07
The one thing John Niles and other mass transit opponents can be consistent in: double standards and inconsistencies.
Especially when they are trying to sell us road & freeway alternatives to light rail.
John Niles and his Discovery Institute are hard at work to impose an all-region congestion pricing plan (toll anything that moves). Think the highly regressive Niles Plan will include tolls which sunset? Think again.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 7:17 p.m. Inappropriate
Pay as you go, or don't go: Well, I'm no friend of permanent taxes or of rail as a solution to traffic problems. (I think buses are a much more cost effective, flexible and sensible solution, together with some technology to try to route traffic better.) But the comments about never ending taxes and cost of light rail are really off the mark, unless we talk about the never ending road taxes and the costs of driving. So, would drivers be so hot to motor around if they had to pay the full cost of the road with no subsidies? If they had to pay to clean up the pollution driving creates? If they had to pay for the health problems created by the pollution? It seems to me that we should evaluate transportation alternatives objectively, looking at both direct costs and externalities, and one step further, find a way to require that people who engage in an activity like driving pay for their externalities. If the government did that, you might even be able to build a private, market driven transportation system, like the private bus systems in Shanghai or Santiago, or the private rail systems in Japan. Oh I know it's pie in the sky. We Americans know it's better to rely on our government to build and operate essential services like transportation, than to rely on government to regulate fairly and sensibly and leave the enterprise to us. At least, we act like that's what we know.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 8:02 p.m. Inappropriate
The failure of Prop 1 in November 2007 represented "absence of voter approval of any plan to expand the system," yet there was no plan announced for a tax rollback. Sound Transit needs all the money being collected to continue working on the 1996-approved ten-year plan, which as I noted earlier, goes for another eight years at a minimum.
New language on tax rollback for this year's version of Prop 1 has been presented in Appendix B of the "Mass Transit Plan" that is part of Resolution 2008-10. The language "Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming," has been crossed out and replaced by "When the voter-approved capital projects in ST2 and Sound Move are completed, the Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by Sound Transit."
Within the two steps, ST states, "Sound Transit will implement a sales 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 ongoing system-wide costs and reserves."
To me these words sound like, "we are going to need all the taxes we are collecting." If you want to think these are "sunset provisions," be my guest.
Based on history and other evidence presented here, I'm claiming a clear pattern has developed in which a voter in this current day can reasonably assume that there is no foreseeable circumstance in which Sound Transit will ever roll back its taxes, despite the assurances provided in financial policies but avoided in the ballot language itself.
I'll grant that many transportation tax proposals may not have any sunset or rollback provision at all. Let's simply note that Sound Transit's language in the 1996 Sound Move to act like there was the potential of a roll back has not worked out. We should also note that the claim that the 2007 Prop 1 plan was a 20 year plan and the 2008 Prop 1 Do-Over is a 15 year "cheaper" plan is simply wrong. The imposed transit taxes are the same in both cases, and the permanency is the same.
This question of whether or not to believe future tax rollbacks are possible is a potential issue in the Prop 1 campaign as long as the Do-Over Prop 1 is termed cheaper and quicker. Supporters might want to blunt the issue by saying, "Sound Transit will never roll back taxes; the agency is going to keep trying to win elections; if it succeeds, ST will use all the tax money collected to build and operate more and more light rail, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much it costs, no matter what performance is achieved."
That would be honest, and would match experience to date.
Posted Mon, Aug 11, 10:49 p.m. Inappropriate
request for a source, please: Hi, could you please include the page number of the Sound Transit 2 plan to back up your assertions about how there is a sunset provision? Thank you.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 7:47 a.m. Inappropriate
Ken Shear writes: "It seems to me that we should evaluate transportation alternatives objectively, looking at both direct costs and externalities, and one step further, find a way to require that people who engage in an activity like driving pay for their externalities."
Question: would 'engaging in activities [that have] externalities' include riding tax-supported mass transit? Isn't pushing cost onto others an externality? Just something to think on.
Notwithstanding that, however, I'm not going to place any blame on riders for the choices they make (or are offered). I'd rather keep the focus on those who put the choices before them. That's where the attention really needs to be paid.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: request for a source, please: Try the section called "Sales Tax Rollback", page 44 of the July 24th document.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 11:50 a.m. Inappropriate
You have to wonder when these broken record pet grudges started out. Dtooley has been rambling on about nothing for a long time now. But hey, at least he has a "solution." Ridiculous, but it's something. And jniles pretends to like buses. But check out Stuka and Heller: they just ignore the challenges of population growth and congestion. Yeah, I'm sure it will all go away. Soon.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 11:54 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: The tax hike is permanent, not 15 years: From what I know, it would appear jniles is just making those last two claims up. Unless, of course, he has assembled some actual proof to accompany his Washington Policy Center conjecture.
Posted Wed, Aug 13, 10:06 a.m. Inappropriate
Also copied there are the changes that ST wants to make to that part of the voter-approved 1996 law.
As you can see, these are not tax "sunset" provisions, as that term is commonly used. "Bridging the Gap" is a measure with a true tax sunset provision - that tax increase will go away after a set number of years.
Posted Wed, Aug 13, 12:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Buses too crowded to stop for the remainder of their customers is proof positive that people want transit now and everywhere. The nimble among us make amends.
On Monday when a Seattle Councilmember asked faith-based consultants (the Council has hired to help them out-green the Mayor) about the impact on existing businesses of their recommendation to outlaw free parking, the answer was informative and fact-based: you have to have the transit in place BEFORE you do that. We are not yet to the point where the faith-based make that answer a part of the presentation itself. But close, very close.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.