I have to agree with Rich.

Politicians seem to think that the homeowner pot it limitless; but it AIN'T! In fact, it was the housing crash, along with all the financial abuses surrounding it, that brought the economy down. Indeed, those abuses were resorted to by the the banking industry (and national politicians) as a desperate means to squeaze a dry turnip even harder. There really is no more money to be had there - at all! . . Hasn't been any real money there in decades!

Even so, property tax is still not a proper method of funding publicly owned transit. The real purpose of any kind of transport infrastructure, is to make commerce possible. Therefore, any necessary public funding of it should come from the commerce that it makes possible - via taxes on that commercial activity. Such taxes as sales, gasoline, business receipts taxes, payroll, etc, would be a direct measure of such commerce and therefore should be used instead. So what, if when commercial down turns occur from time to time, it is then necessary to change service levels accordingly. Transit service levels should always match fluctuation in demand anyway.

But residential property produces no real commerce. The use of property taxes, if they are to be used at all on residential property, should therefore fund only those services that are directly incurred solely because of property ownership. And that really ain't much!



But as I have often said. The big stinky elephant in the room isn't funding shortages at all. It is excessive costs. How come it is that UP, BNSF, CSX, et al (private), can lay track on an already existing gradient for somewhere around 2-3 million per mile, including signaling; while virtually all publicly funded projects are costing anywhere from 10 to 50 times as much to do the same?

They both have the same environmental report costs, must buy the same materials, use the same machinery the same amount of time, pay the same labor costs, etc, etc, etc. If they use an outside contractor, they then both must account for the same added contractor overhead costs and profit. Or are contractor overhead costs somehow magically much higher if the bill is paid by gov't?

Even given all the special hoops we make gov't agencies go through; it is still beyond my ability and smarts to understand what is actually multiplying the cost to the public sector.

Somebody's pockets must be getting lined with it - has to be! But 9 out of every 10 dollars worth is unfathomable!? Extreme graft or waste is one thing, but to kill the pigeon while you're grafting or wasting, smacks of just plain shooting yourself in the foot. So where are all those sore feet?!

But If this problem with gov't finances in general were to be fixed (I know, sixty years old and still naive) - then SMART would not now be having a funding problem. Probably, neither would the State for that matter. Indeed, those seventy miles could then be built for about what a mere seven miles are actually going to cost us now!

I wish somebody would actually do a credible investigative report or two, on how this happens, and where all that extra money is actually going; what puts gov't at such a disadvantage; are differences in contracting law, between public and private, really justified? Or are these the true cause of the problem?

We ain't gonna fix anything until the light of day shines on this.

Where is the "Forth Estate" when we need them. . . . .

OPB