Letters to the Editor

Edmonds Crossing

Ferry project is worth the expense

The startling letter by Natalie Shippen describes supposed deficiencies in a new terminal site for the proposed WSF Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal. Her misconceptions concern some elements of this vitally important project. The intent of the project, not acknowledged in her letter, is to provide a multiuse terminal for ferries, trains, buses, walk-on passengers, bicyclists, autos and trucks which is removed from the current congested and dangerous location in downtown Edmonds. Enhanced safety and travel congestion reduction easily justify the cost, but the potential collateral benefit is without precedent. Edmonds would finally have an uninterrupted waterfront area from Bracketts Landing Beach to Marina Beach. Part of SR 104 will be vacated so that Edmonds City Park, the Wildlife Refuge and the Port of Edmonds can be joined. Wise urban planning can yield a variety of amenities – trails, a tasteful shops/commercial area, beach access and pedestrian/bicycle access to the Terminal. What municipality in its right mind would turn down such an opportunity?

Sure, the Edmonds Crossing project will be expensive if it’s to be done right. A rapid, reliable and safe people-mover will certainly be a requirement for pedestrians, just as it’s now required in airports. The access pier must be high and long to bridge the railroad and to extend beyond the salmon migration path. The hillside approach will facilitate smooth ingress/egress of traffic onto SR 104. These elements which are so worrisome to Ms. Shippen are necessary parts of an integrated terminal design.

Edmonds Crossing is but one project proposed by the Regional Transportation Investment District to reduce traffic congestion in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. The “Roads” (RTID) program will be combined with the “Transit” (Sound Transit ST 2) light rail extension program into a single November ballot. Since the vote will be all up or down for Roads and Transit together, there is no line item veto for individual projects. Ms. Shippen’s concept that “Snohomish County residents will be asked to contribute $157 million,” and that Snohomish County (not WSF) would choose to build the terminal on its own is not correct – funding for all “Roads” projects will come from the taxing authority granted to the RTID and would amount to about $107 per year per household for 18 years. This cost is for all RTID projects, estimated at $14 billion, on the ballot.

The most disturbing part of Ms. Shippen’s letter is her conclusion to “vote NO in the fall transportation proposal.” Such a negative result will start the dominoes to fall. Boeing, Microsoft and Biogenetics have repeatedly stated their relocation intentions if traffic congestion issues continue to be ignored. These companies know they cannot attract/keep a work force who must start out for their jobs at 4:30 am.

Henry Moravec

Edmonds

School levies

Supermajority was there for a reason

It amazes me what a rubber stamp policy the Enterprise and Herald papers have regarding the school districts. They endorse every school levy and bond issue and now they support amending the state constitution to provide merely a simple majority to pass them. Neither paper ever questions or demands accountability or fiscal responsibility of the school districts. Should taxpayers hand over a blank check to the schools every year, no questions asked?

I get angry when I hear politicians like Tracey Eide and Rosemary McAuliffe in Olympia whining about how the supermajority requirement for school levy passage is unfair. What’s unfair is that non-property owners, those who are not responsible for paying the taxes, are allowed to vote to increase the taxes of those who are.

The reason that the constitution was amended 60 years ago is relevant today, to protect property owners from excessive taxation by the schools.

It’s proven year after year that schools can and do pass their levies at the 60 percent threshold. The Edmonds School District succeeded in 2004 and 2006, and Seattle voters passed two major school propositions just last week. Amending the constitution to require but a simple majority to pass levies is not only unnecessary, it is unfair to taxpayers and would place a financial burden on property owners. It should not be easy to raise property taxes. Currently the responsibility is rightfully placed on the school districts to prove their valid needs to the super majority of voters. It should remain that way. Contrary to what Evan Smith wrote in his forum column, a tax levy is not a tax levy when it comes to school levies and bonds. The schools already receive the largest slice of the property tax pie. The Legislature should not pass the resolution.

D. Kevin Baker

Lynnwood