The fraudulent Seattle Monorail project continues to fall far short of its revenue projections:
The tax collected just $2.17 million in October, about 30 percent below projections. Daniel Malarkey, the agency's finance director, said the project is working with the state Department of Licensing to close a loophole that allows Seattle residents to license their cars outside the city and the monorail's taxing authority.The Monorail initiative passed in 2002 with the support of exactly 22.03% of registered voters and a margin of victory of 877 votes. This was hardly a mandate. The YES campaign won with the help of the aptly-named Malarkey's fraudulent financial projections.
The Monorail, which is supposed to be funded by a tax on cars of people who live in Seattle neighborhoods that are not served by the Monorail, won't be able to collect its hoped for revenues because many residents are registering their cars outside of the city to avoid the unfair tax. While state law requires people to register their vehicles at their primary residence, there is no statutory penalty for doing otherwise. Imposing such a penalty would appear to require an act of the state legislature, which I hope will not be forthcoming.
As I see it, the people who register their cars outside the city are committing an appropriate act of civil disobedience. Good for them. If more people do so, perhaps we can undo the Monorail fraud.
Meanwhile, Andy MacDonald, who will hopefully be resurrecting his excellent blog in the near future, e-mails:
how did Jeanne Kohl-Welles come to be on the Monorail Board? She is listed as an ex-officio member. But there is no provision in the Monorail charter for any ex-officio members. Somehow she is being given a privileged position in a feat of back-scratching worthy of Tacoma.Good question, Andy. I wish I knew the answer. In the meantime, folks, be sure to register your cars outside the city limits.
[I should add that I don't know whether or not Andy agrees with my characterizations of the Monorail, only that he questions the presence of Jeanne Kohl-Welles on the board].
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 21, 2003 12:24 PMLyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
[big finish]
Monorail!
Homer: Mono... D'oh!
Within in the next couple months I'm going to beat feet out of Seattle city limits to avoid paying for this monsterous boondoggle. For my truck, car and motorcycle I would end up paying $700 or $800 dollars a year for what amounts to a electric toy train set, that some people who never grew up think the rest of us owe them.
This monrail must also be the least efficient mode of mass transit yet devised. A fleet of half a dozen buses could carry as many people and not be bound to a set route, for 1/10,000th the cost.
When Seattlites finally see how much this turkey is going to suck from them I hope they put it on the chopping block.
these comments from a non-seattlite will likely be even less welcome than my comments on palestine and israel. nonetheless, your posting raised a whole bunch of questions for me.
is it morally acceptable for ANYONE to refuse to pay a tax that goes to fund ANYTHING that he/she finds morally objectionable? Would you mind if opponents of the Iraqi war or aid to Israel withheld some or all of their taxes in protest?
It would be one thing if the tax was foisted upon citizens of seattle in an undemocratic manner -- but according to you it was passed by the majority of registered voters who cared enough about the issue to get off their butts and vote either for or against it. How is the fact that these voters make up 22% of total registered voters any more relevant than the twenty-something percentage of voters who elected Bush by a few hundred votes? Since when is are close elections or low-turnout elections considered illegitimate?
Do you plan to teach your children that it is morally justifiable to break a law they disagree with, as long as the penalties for noncompliance are neglibable or nonexistent?
Assuming your car licence fee pays for other things beside the monorail, how do you propose those presumably more legitimate ends be funded?
People who pay taxes for public transit but never ride the transit themselves benefit in the form of less traffic congestion and pollution.
People can disagree about the project, or its proposed funding mechanism, but in this case, opponents lost an election fair and square. Now you are unwilling to abide by the cosequences of that vote. If you opponents behaved the same way you would be outraged.
I know you are anti-socialist, Shark. In this post, you sound a little
anti-social, as well.
Posted by: markus rose on November 25, 2003 01:57 PMI answer "Markus Rose" here
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 26, 2003 01:00 AMIndeed, this is all very short sighted. A "electric train set"? ?Hardly. Rather it is a vehicle that travels on rubber tires upon a concrete guideway. They are all over Japan in various shapes and sizes. Would you rather have a freight train running down the street pushing out most of the traffic(light rail)? Would you prefer that cars be completley stopped most of the days on the freeways?
Short sighted indeed.
Posted by: Mark Smith on January 5, 2004 10:33 PM