Decision 2008
Dude, where’s
my sign?
What kind of people live in Kitsap County where election signs are put up one day and torn down within 24 hours?
It is very hard to challenge incumbents when their supporters roam through the county to remove signs both on private property and in the right-of-way of county streets and roads. I am not talking about one or two signs. Between 150 and 175 of Connie Lord’s signs have been stolen or torn down.
Without accusing anyone in particular, it is extremely clear who is doing the dastardly deed, because only Democrat candidate signs are left standing. There is one white truck with two people in it who zoom in, pull out the Republican sign, throw it into the back of the truck and zoom away. It was done so quickly that I could not get the license number. It is obviously an organized effort!
What kind of people cannot stand fair and open elections?
Nancy Zorrozua
Bremerton
No love for Obama on the Island
Having lived on Bainbridge Island for a majority of my life and seen numerous elections, I have noticed a decided lack of Obama bumper stickers. For as long as I can remember The Island has long been a self-proclaimed bastion of liberalism. Remembering back to the 2000 and 2004 presidential primary seasons, every other car had a GORE/LIEBERMAN or KERRY/EDWARDS bumper sticker.
As the Democratic National Convention approached, it was impossible not to notice the lack of Obama bumper stickers. On a recent weekend I surveyed all the cars parked along Winslow Way (between Grow and 305), both Saturday and Sunday and counted a grand total of three Obama bumper stickers. One might say it’s too early in the political season but I believe that there is a much deeper issue than just a lack of bumper stickers.
There are two possible reasons for this. First explanation is local Democrats may feel disenfranchised because they supported Hillary Clinton. The other and more probable reason is that the Island liberals support Obama and his rock-star persona but are afraid to have his name on their vehicle. Bainbridge lacks diversity and local Democrats may support Obama but because of his race they neglect to plaster their vehicles in support of him.
Crosby J. Olsen
Bainbridge Island
WSF
Public should
speak its mind
Next month, Washington State Ferries will present, at a public meeting, versions of a 16-year plan for the Kingston-Edmonds route that are aimed at providing service while also making the ferry system financially sustainable. The meeting will also be an opportunity for ferry riders to “sound off.”
So what does “sustainable” mean? Before 2000 the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax paid for 20 percent of WSF’s operating costs and 40 percent of WSF’s capital costs, with fares and other ferry-dedicated taxes paying the remainder. After MVET was eliminated in 2000, a 63 percent fare increase and transfers from non-ferry tax accounts filled the financial gap.
The 16-year plan now being prepared includes strategies to reduce or eliminate these transfers. As each ferry route is to be considered individually in the plan, let’s look at the Kingston-Edmonds’ financials.
Operating budget: Here the Kingston-Edmonds route has a $5.6-8.9 million/year surplus which, over 16 years, makes a net of surplus of $90-142 million.
Capital budget: Over the 16-year period about $90 million will be needed to move the Edmonds terminal and let’s guess another $5 million for Kingston’s terminal projects, for a total terminal capital cost of $95 million for our route. Of the $95 million about $40 million isn’t covered by ferry-dedicated taxes. What about the capital costs for ferries? Over the next 16 years $1 billion is needed system-wide for ferry replacements and overhauls. Again about $400 million isn’t covered by ferry-dedicated taxes. As Kingston-Edmonds uses two of WSF’s 16 operating ferries let’s say our share is 1/8 of the total ferry costs or $50 million.
The bottom line: Our Kingston-Edmonds revenue not only covers our route’s operating costs but also the route’s $90 million in 16-year capital costs that are not covered by ferry-dedicated taxes. The North Kitsap riders who regularly use the ferries are the mainstay of this revenue and their financial contribution deserves consideration if not downright respect in strategies for our route. The strategies that will cut costs are good business and laudable public policy.
The strategies that raise commuters’ fares, such as peak-hour pricing, are both bad business and an unjustified public policy.
The public meeting to present proposed Kingston-Edmonds strategies will be on Sept. 25 in Edmonds at the South County Senior Center at 6 p.m. This is on Railroad Avenue, to the right as you get off of the ferry, about half way down the block. Please come and speak up.
Foot Note: Comprehensive WSF financial data is not publicly available, however, there is enough scattered information to put together the overall picture.
I’ve followed WSF’s assumption that taxes will continue to support 20 percent of operating costs and 60 percent of capital costs, and that fares will rise with inflation. Route calculations are based on ’06 route financial data (the latest available).
If we assume that diesel fuel costs increased by 75 percent in ’07, then the $140 million surplus over 16 years shrinks to $90 million. On the other hand, the Edmonds terminal project was conceived in rosier financial times, and its scope could be greatly reduced.
Walt Elliott,
Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee chair
Reader feedback
Let the Free Market Work
In her column last Saturday, Val Torrens said that Metro in Seattle should continue to provide shuttle service to Seahawks games, for which it charges $6, when the cost of providing the service is $25. As she also said, people want something for nothing, or close to it, and the only entity that has a chance of doing that is the public sector. But there is no free lunch. The difference between what the service costs and what Metro charges for it must be paid by someone other than the rider who benefits from it, which is unfair and akin to larceny.
A noted historian said that all great civilizations decline when people vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, yet people continue to vote for politicians (mostly Democrats) who promise them something for nothing or close to it. But the cost of that something must be borne not only by the voters who want it but also by the voters who do not want it by confiscating their money through taxes, which again is unfair and akin to larceny.
We are talking here only about services that can be provided by the private sector, not essential public services that can be provided only by government. Providing shuttle service to people who have enough discretionary income to attend a Seahawks game is not an essential public service. In a free market, the private sector provides better service at lower cost than a government monopoly. The government monopoly might charge less for the service because it is subsidized, but the subsidy comes from people who are forced to pay it even though they do not benefit from the service.
Stan Teigland
Poulsbo
