No, no and no. Special-interest non-profit advocacy groups - such as Sightline Instittue (to which the author belongs) - have been whispering good ideas in our elected officials ears for WAY too long. Rather than amend the constitution to allow these leeches even more access to the community chest we should call for an end to the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code and launch a full investigation/discussion of the true effect so many non-profit advocacy groups are having on public budgets.

Further, Roger, I watched you advocate for referendum 52 on Inside Olympia. I got the distinct impression you were lying to the public. Here is a link should anyone care to judge for themselves.

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010090081&TYPE;=V&CFID;=790675&CFTOKEN;=56977002&bhcp;=1

The reasons for the prohibition on the loaning of the state's (local government) credit are as valid today as they were 100+ years ago. Washington state has tools to attract or retain business through tax breaks and investments in infrastructure. I see no reason to go further and lend the public's credit and expose tax payers to further risk. As for tax increment financing (TIF), there's a significant downside, which is why most local government's have not pursued it in Washington. The increased tax dollars that go to repay the debt are not available for education or local services like police, fire, or maintenance of roads, etc. New development - housing or commercial - requires increased services. TIF is no panacea.

This is where the Left and Right totally agree. No, No and NO!

"A city would sell bonds, build roads, drainage, parks, and other infrastructure in an otherwise undeveloped area"

"undeveloped areas" .... like Potholes? Just what land is "undeveloped". Or did you mean farm land, or forests?

Funny, I'd have worded this statement a little differently:

More than a century later local governments are still prevented from shoveling taxpayer dollars to cronies with political pull and rewarding their constituents with make-work jobs by squandering hard-earned income taken from others at the point of a gun.

There, that's better.

I do think that these are generally good ideas, but one comment about repealing the 18th amendment. As it stands now, only a portion of funding for highways comes from car licensing fees and gasoline taxes, and much comes from other sources. I have a dislike for dedicated revenue streams in general, as they tend to be arbitrary restrictions that create inefficiency, but in the case of the 18th amendment, the practical effect of repeal would be minimal.

Let’s not rush to judgment. The author’s right about the need to look for ways to boost the state’s economy. So there’s nothing wrong with discussing the ideas he has suggested, even if they’ve been rejected previously. With one important caveat: there needs to be a thorough analysis of the pros and cons, a review of past efforts, and a look at other available opportunities and policies that may be just as good or better.

For example, on tax increment financing, a previous commentator reminds us that one big downside is that it captures tax increments (increased property tax revenues) that are not available to other local needs. This has been a major argument against TIF which has been rejected, I believe, three times. The last time in 1985, HJR 23 lost 59-41. All counties rejected it, including King. The state currently has four limited TIF programs available to local governments, including one for “Community Revitalization.” These presumably have passed constitutional muster. Are they not working?

And the Constitution does permit municipal electrical utilities and PUDs to finance energy conservation. That amendment (No. 86) passed in 1989. Can I get a loan from Seattle City Light to insulate? Not sure.

Repeal the 18th Amendment? It might allow for a more flexible use of available transportation funds. But it won’t fix the current and long-range problem: insufficient monies to repair our crumbling streets and roads and operate the existing bus transit system.

Roger, love ya bro. I like that you are oh so consistent, since I first met you at WSSDA, when it was explained when I asked why we hired this guy, that "you were hired because we needed a real lib to work with that side of the aisle".

All the commenters are right, thanks for the electrons, but NO, NO and NO to your ideas.

All are cheap ploys to have sound-good ideas implemented just to raise taxes.

Like transit does not get enough of our hard earned tax money? It is over 2% of the 10% sales tax where I live. Plus, half of road projects money goes for transit and environment, from gas tax money already.

And loaning credit? Geez, we have a superior offer already, with a very educated workforce, so why should be have to do gimmes to attract business?

Nope, always nice to engage and debate, but Roger, you are wrong on all counts.

The Geezer

I can't get too excited about TIF, Roger. As I understand it in principle, it's a means to fund public capital improvements which stimulate private tax-paying development. In other words, it stimulates private development that would not be there BUT FOR the public improvements. It's the But For that's important here.

A number of years ago, the City of Seattle planned a TIF demonstration project in Belltown. I believe the public project was street improvements, but City officials drew the TIF district boundaries carefully to include a number of private projects that were already committed or under construction! They were proposing to divert tax revenues from already-committed private projects to the City's own use and take revenues away from all the other taxing districts that would've gotten a share.

There was no But For in the City's calculus. It was a cynical and manipulative revenue grab.

If TIF has any future in Washington, the But For has to be written into the enabling legislation, to make sure that TIF district boundaries include only land with no committed development projects.

"It was a cynical and manipulative revenue grab."

As is this.

Legislatures and government do not create jobs. They suck the life energy out of private sector business and are tax hogs.

Please understand that Tax Increment Financing, does not, I repeat DOES NOT, work in a budget-based property tax system like Washington State. Increased assessed values do not, I repeat DO NOT, increase revenues to a taxing district or entity to pay off the bonds. New construction does creat new revenues, but you would have to build a new CBD ($500 MILLION in new construction each year for 20 years) for debt service on a $10 million, 5%, 20 year bond.

... there's nothing wrong with discussing the ideas he has suggested, even if they’ve been rejected previously. With one "important caveat: there needs to be a thorough analysis of the pros and cons,..."

unless you are Mayor McG.

LOL

Mr. Noble is indeed correct. Tax Increment Financing does not work in a budget-based property tax system because new projects don't contribute much to the property tax base. What TIF would do in Washington is snag general fund revenues that could otherwise be spent on libraries, roads, police, human services, etc. and earmark that money over a period of years to pay for goodies for developers. Not terribly "progressive," huh Roger?

Yes Roger that's exactly what I wish govt would do. Take money out of much needed road projects and give it to mass transit which hasnt done shit to clear up road congestion.

The Puget Sound Region's mass transportation plan is not supposed to clear up congestion. Its purpose it to make owning a motor vehicle as painful as possible. Once you understand that, it all makes sense.

I always enjoy dbreneman.

"The Puget Sound Region's mass transportation plan is not supposed to clear up congestion. Its purpose it to make owning a motor vehicle as painful as possible. Once you understand that, it all makes sense."

And I'm going to keep owning cars. When the first flying car comes out, I'll buy one of those also.

Wilbur wrote: "voters have already approved ~$20 billion for Sound Transit".

Wow – Wilbur forgot to mention the financing costs! Talk about somebody with their head stuck in the sand . . ..

To fully appreciate what a lousy job of managing public resources the government managers here are doing you need to compare the tax costs to the people in Portland for their bus and train services to what’s going on here. Take note Wilbur!

People here and in Portland wanted trains and buses, and two different financing schemes were used. The government managers in Olympia and Seattle selected the "hammer poor people and the economy unnecessarily" model.

There is no good reason for the following discrepancies between how it’s done here vs. how TriMet pays for buses and trains. Below is a "fact sheet" document that lays it all out re: how TriMet pays for its light rail. The light rail in Portland has come on line gradually, and federal funds covered a lot of the costs. A public/private partnership was used recently for an extension. Here though they pile on regressive sales taxes, and do not use much grant money.

Apparently less than 10% of the $100 billion financing plan for the $18 billion in capital spending ST is launching into would be grant money - a FAR lower percentage than its peers. Get that Wilbur? We’ve got a financing plan for the ST capital projects that will require about $100 billion of public money, the vast majority of which (about $85 billion) will come from regressive tax collections. Get your facts straight!

The following describes how TriMet finances its top-quality bus system (along with better light rail construction and operations than what we have):

http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf .

TriMet never has imposed regressive taxes targeting people and individuals. Metro and ST sure do. Here are three differences between here and what goes on around Portland that the folks in Vancouver should consider:

- Progressive taxing of businesses there vs. heavy regressive taxing targeting families and individuals here.

- A couple of billion dollars of a reasonable mix of federal grant money and progressive tax revenues used to build out a 50-some mile light rail system there vs. a $100 billion mostly-regressive local tax revenue package to pay for the same number of miles of track, and fewer stations here.

- $0 direct regressive taxing targeting individuals and families for bus and train service there vs. $455 per year direct regressive taxing on the average family for bus and train service here, and that amount will grow every year for decades.

Hey, our government managers blow! They like harming people financially in the name of transit. Metro, Sound Transit, and the transit governments in Pierce and Snohomish counties expect to haul in something on the order of $1.3 billion in local tax revenue this year, the vast majority of which will be sales tax revenue. All their peers do a great job providing good bus service and expanding train systems for their people and businesses with far less annual local tax revenue:

- TriMet (Portland) - $233 million;

- DART (Dallas/Fort Worth) - $385 million;

- San Diego Metropolitan Transit System - $100 million; and

- RTID (Denver) - $241 million.

There is no good reason for financing transit the way government managers in Olympia and Seattle do it. The grossly excessive transit taxing and spending programs here in comparison to peer regions are a big problem. They cause financial harm to people and the local economy.

Wow. We start out with three ideas to create jobs, and Cross turns it into yet another tiresome diatribe against Sound Transit. Sigh....

Tiresome diatribe? One of Valdez' suggestions was diverting even more tax revenue to transit (via repealing 18th Amendment). Look at how much more tax revenue the transit services providers get here than their peers. They should be doing well with less, not need more.

And Wilbur got his facts wrong about the tax costs the local and state political managers put people here on the hook for with their Sound Transit financing plan.

I get it you don't like the subject of the costs of Sound Transit being discussed, R on Beacon Hill. Why don't you try to make yourself useful by contributing something, instead of just whining about what I've posted? Give us an explanation of the discrepancies I've identified. Why do these transit governments Dow and Larry Phillips manage need to confiscate mountains of regressive taxes when none of the peer transit services providers do that? A $100 billion financing plan for this largely-insignificant train system the ST managers want to build out is ABUSIVE - it's to be comprised of exceedingly large sales tax confiscations for the next forty years. NOBODY pays for trains like that.

What is the problem with the government managers around here?

Yes, tiresome diatribe. You are turning into mukaseyisatyrant or whatever he calls himself. Or perhaps you are he, and this is just another moniker.

I appreciate both the article and the vigorous debate it sparked--and several commenters are, I suspect, quite knowledgeable about public finance, whether it's for the purpose of meeting general expenses of government or special projects.

And to me, public finance is the base topic, and one that the electorate has little real knowledge of, other than its/our awareness that various financial transactions and assets are taxed to support the activities of government.

Public finance policies, of course, generate the funds that accomplish the work that We The People supposedly consider, debate, and ratify in the context of (drum roll) the Social Contract. The trouble is, there is no Social Contract in that quaint historical/philosophical/political science vision--which ideally would involve full disclosure of the ENTIRE realm of activities and costs that government pursues, by as many informed and knowledgeable citizens as can be coaxed to participate.

Instead of considering the proper tasks of government, the costs of same, and the marginal public willingness to pay in a unified and rational manner, we tend to present projects, costs, and marginal tax effects in narrow "slices." This mode of presentation prevents global public awareness and appreciation of the big picture, and leads us to decisions that (whether rejection or adoption) aren't tied to long-term principles and decision rules to guide our choices. There is no Social Contract that can be referenced, and in its absence, those who bear the financial burden become more and more cynical.

The two great tools of populist governance, the referendum and the initiative, are unfortunately increasingly used in this "slice" manner--and, presented with these narrow glimpses of a much greater reality, it's the unusual voter who will agree to pay. This whittling process leads us to the point that our elected representatives lack the financial tools to acquit their job, and at some point can be expected to cripple government.

Mine is, of course, a wild rant occasioned by Mr. Valdez's Modest Proposal, and I will now apologize and step down from the box of soap on which I've been standing. But not before thanking "crossrip" for helping me to begin to understand the value of comparative management (i.e., glancing at your neighbors and peers in government to see who has the best practices), which certainly has great appeal.