During Roads and Transit the no vote basically went 3 ways: Taxes bad, don’t spend the money on rail, or don’t spend that money on roads. This is, obviously, wildly simplified but the don’t spend that money on roads faction told people that the transit portion was good, but we should come back with just the Sound Transit. People are comparing that to the current debate on Prop 1. The programs are worthwhile but the funding mechanism isn’t as progressive as it could be. And lots of the opponents of the measure are saying come back with a better funding measure.
But the difference now is that there isn’t a plan B if Prop 1 fails. It’s hope the legislature sees a no vote as a signal from Seattle voters that they’d like an MVET or some other more fair tax, then hope Olympia gives a shit about that signal and passes an MVET, then a City Council that just lost a vote puts that MVET on the ballot. Then they’ll support it. Let’s call that unlikely.
They don’t have a fully formed plan only that car tabs are unfair. Contrast that with The Stranger and The Sierra Club who wanted to put just ST2 on the ballot. I mean nobody reading this believes Ted Van Dyk or Bruce Ramsey are going to support a progressive MVET, if it pays for the things the car tabs pay for, right? And opponents of car tabs weren’t pushing for an MVET or anything else when the legislature passed the authority. I don’t recall John Fox lobbying in Oly making the case for a better way for local jurisdictions to pay for these things.
Look, I disagreed with The Stranger and The Sierra Club on Roads and Transit. But at least they had a plan and some skin in the game. The anti-Prop 1 people need to explain their plan B and what they’re going to do to make it happen, and so far I haven’t heard that.