We received an email from Ken & Barbara Miller today with a message which outlines their views on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1 (ST2) to expand light rail. They have sent this message far & wide, to citizens and elected officials.

The Millers are the couple that had their Tacoma property condemned by Sound Transit.

The Millers’ case is the one that prompted the state legislature to draft a new law to (at the very least) notify property owners by registered letter of an agency’s decision to acquire their property.

Sound Transit had buried the decision on their website.

John Ladenburg was Chair of Sound Transit at the time, and has defended Sound Transit’s actions even after the legislature took action to protect Washington property owners by creating a new law. Agencies must now at least send folks a registered letter outlining their decision.

The content of the Millers’ message raises a lot of questions about the use of eminent domain and the behavior of public agencies, and is worth considering, if you are a taxpayer or property owner in Washington State.

Click here for the Weekly Volcano’s article: “Ken and Barbara Miller have been forced to take a bad ride from Sound Transit”.

And HERE –Washington Policy Center’s “A False Sense of Security: The Potential for Eminent Domain Abuse in Washington”.

From Ken & Barbara Miller:

“We urge your no vote on the Sound Transit proposition on the 2008 ballot in the Puget Sound region.

The system is not a practical use of limited transportation funds in this area.  The agency has simply wasted many billions of dollars during the years of the agencies existence in the Puget Sound region!

We are very familiar with the organization known as Sound Transit and have had years of personal experience with those who are promoting the Sound Transit Scheme and all that goes with it.

Our personal experience has stemmed from the treatment received by us related to a long owned family business ownership in South Tacoma.  That property was taken from us needlessly since the agency had many choices for the siting of a parking lot which by the way won’t even be needed for passenger train service for many years to come.

Sound Transit took our property and the compensation finally provided, as we had worried, barely covered the almost 1/2 million dollar legal cost incurred.  Those cost for us were for the nearly 4 years of legal maneuvering by the agency that rose to astronomical levels from the date of initial action filed by Sound Transit against us in July of 2004 ultimately taking our ownership.

Sound Transit is by far the most devious agency in the entire State of Washington.

Sound Transit has little meaningful oversight of their operation whatsoever.  Current members of Sound Transit’s unelected board are hand selected as they have always been for the board positions held and are influenced very little by views of the voters.

It’d be easy to expound for a very long time about our Sound Transit experience now having gone on for many years and taking $100s of thousands of dollars of personal funds we no longer will have.

Agency officials took our land from us and we essentially received no compensation for our ownership .We will therefore not ever have any way to replace our 30 year ownership with another property anywhere let alone a location like we had.   Citizens need to be grateful for what they might have today - it could be taken away tomorrow.

In reality there is no protection whatsoever for those who are subjected to the eminent domain process.  The words “just compensation” are absolutely meaningless. Payment for properties taken are largely whatever the whim of the agency might be.   There is little that can be done in such circumstances.  Judges at all levels do little to protect citizens’ supposed constitutional guarantees.

In our case - at the trial for compensation added to the mix - is the fact that the jury process was severely flawed - the attorney representing us was grossly inadequate at trial - the pro-tem judge presided questionably - the 2 alternate jurors who shouldn’t even have been in final deliberation were left on the jury - one of the alternates jurors was a brother of a seasoned ranking Sound Transit official - that juror somehow became the jury foreman (there is more to the jury foreman tale) - Sound Transit simply overwhelmed the entire  proceeding.

Trial costs to Sound Transit were of no concern - Sound Transit had staff attorneys & legal staff present along with the attorneys & legal assistants from Graham & Dunn. Various outside consultants were on hand to testify. There was biased testimony from some in government  - (the details are just unending).

Sound Transit cares not a wit what happens to citizens who are having private property taken from them.   Sound Transit makes polished public statements about acquisitions of property with various assurances & express promises to help those who fall “victim” to eminent domain actions. Agency policies and assistance are described unendingly by the agency but All of
the mentioned assistance tends to be forgotten and ignored when takings actually take place.

Sound Transit is the most corrupt operation to ever exist in the State of Washington!

The agency appears unstoppable with legal firms, engineers, consultants and many others reaping huge rewards in the Sound Transit scheme.  Those who are recipients of the fabulous riches bestowed upon them by Sound Transit in turn donate large sums to elect officials & re-elect them retaining positions.   Those officials continue supporting ongoing Sound Transit efforts, which continue to plunder taxpayers, property owners and citizens in general.  It is a never-ending, continuous cycle that seems like its unstoppable.

Something must be done to change the un-American conduct exemplified by what takes place in Sound Transit activities in the region.  Little seems to be taking place to promote any sort of change in these ongoing activities that remain rampant in the State of Washington and elsewhere throughout the country.

Thanks,

Ken & Barbara Miller”

Here are our other posts related to this subject:

HERE –Washington Supreme Court Decsions Related to Transportation Agencies & New Candidates

HERE — Sound Transit’s Premature Demolition of 1910 “Hansen House” Precludes Historical Use

HERE – Sound Transit’s behavior in the Miller property condemnation case should give us all pause

Seattle P-I Columnist Joel Connelly writes about concern over-taxing people to the point where they can’t afford to live in Seattle:

“Although devoured by the Seattle P-I computer when we switched e-mail systems, the message from an elderly Beacon Hill couple about their tax burdens remains embedded in my mind. They wrote about reaching a point where they can’t afford to stay in their modest home of 40 years, and how nobody in government seems the least bit interested in hearing about it.”

Glad to see that someone is figuring out that taxpayers from both major parties, Democrats & Republicans, as well as Independents,  have serious challenges in their efforts to save for retirement, pay for medical care, send their children to college, and take care of their parents, along with the relentless ASKS from local elected officials, cities, counties, and agencies. Joel’s response?

“In short, just say no.”

More and more people are figuring out that  elected officials, cities, & counties separate out what they think is palatable to the taxpayers- parks, libraries, fire and police services- so that they can happily spend on non-essentials in the general fund on items they know the public WOULD NOT vote to approve.

Then there is the question of: what are we paying for?

Crosscut’s Ted Van Dyk wrote October 21, 2008 about Sound Transit’s transfer of taxpayer funds for voter “education” services (click here):

“State Auditor Brian Sonntag is investigating payments of taxpayer funds by the City of Seattle (authorized by Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels) to the Sound Transit-supporting Transportation Choices Coalition, which is campaigning for the light rail proposal.”

Now, here’s the top story from King 5 news alleging: “Did Bellevue break the law in push to pass parks levy?”

“But one thing cities can’t do is use tax dollars to help convince voters to say yes. It’s against state law. Yet the KING 5 Investigators have uncovered evidence that Bellevue has done exactly that in its determination to get a new parks levy passed.”

See the King 5 story on the Bellevue parks bond at: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_102008INV_bellevue_parks_levy_SW.13007a1d8.html

How does the cumulative number of tax proposals  relate to transportation planning in the Puget Sound region? Here are Joel’s thoughts:

“There’s one more reason for the natives to be restless — the current financial crisis. Could we not curb urban vision until financial markets are again stable, and we find out how bad the stable smells?

Since World War II ended the Great Depression, Seattle has been a middle-class city. We’ve avoided an affliction of the used-up portions of America, cities as domains of the very rich and the very poor.

The Beacon Hill couple’s message is somewhere in cyberspace. I would hate to see them ejected from a city they love.”

Click to see RTF’s previous posts on this subject HERE. And on future infrastructure ASKS: HERE.

 Read Ted Van Dyk’s scathing article outlining his votes on Initiative 985, Sound Transit’s Proposition 1, and Initiative 1000 at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/21/2008-election/18580/

“Sound Transit, light rail’s prime- and sub-contractors, and the network of law firms, P.R. firms, consultants, and others profiting from light rail have mounted intense 2007 and 2008 campaigns for Prop. 1’s passage. Local newspapers have published essays by local attorneys, former public officials, and civic leaders which were, in fact, written by Sound Transit’s P.R. firm. The light rail network has channeled campaign contributions to public officials and has subsidized supposedly independent groups supporting light rail. State Auditor Brian Sonntag is investigating payments of taxpayer funds by the City of Seattle (authorized by Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels) to the Sound Transit-supporting Transportation Choices Coalition, which is campaigning for the light rail proposal. Sound Transit itself was created by a ballot measure which grossly misrepresented the costs, time of construction, and benefits to be derived from a light rail system.”

….”No independent, reputable transportation or public-finance analyst would tell you that light rail makes any transportation or financial/economic sense in the King, Snohomish, and Pierce county region.”

….”Special recognition should go, here in Seattle, to the critical analysis applied to the issue by King County Executive (and former Sound Transit Chair) Ron Sims, former WSDOT Director Doug MacDonald, former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, Seattle Post-Intelligencer economic columnist Bill Virgin, Seattle Times columnists Joni Balter and Bruce Ramsey, and the Seattle Times editorial board. They took the time to understand the issue and refused light rail Kool-Aid.”

Ballot measures: Hate 'em, but here's how I'm voting Crosscut, WA - 7 hours ago Sound Transit, light rail's prime- and sub-contractors, and the network of law firms, PR firms, consultants, and others profiting from light rail have ...

Sausage Links: they're still human edition Crosscut, WA - 17 hours ago Also on hand was Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman and King County Councilmember Dow Constantine to debate the merits of Sound Transit's $17.9 billion light ...

Snohomish County Council chairman Gary Nelson, one of the three people who wrote the opposition statement to $17.9 billion Proposition 1 for the voter guide, called me after reading the story I wrote for Tuesday's paper. He wanted to elaborate on the concept of "subarea equity," the Sound Transit policy that says all the money collected from a subarea (Pierce is one subarea) will be spent to "benefit" that area. Not spent "in" the subarea, but to benefit. The board, which includes Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, Tacoma City Councilwoman Julie Anderson, Sumner Mayor Dave Enslow and Lakewood ...

This column appears in today's Seattle Times and is based on our Citizens' Guide to Sound Transit, Phase 2 and a piece written for the Heritage Foundation, Reforming State Transportation Policy: Washington State's Efforts to Implement Performance-Based Policies. Guest columnist | Sound Transit's Prop. 1 spends much, delivers little Sound Transit's Proposition 1 would disproportionally spend large amounts of public resources on a transit program that will serve less than 1 percent of all trips. By Michael Ennis Special to The Times ON Nov. 4, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again ...

This is from an editorial on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1 (ST2) tax proposal in the Everett Herald on October 14, 2008:

“High gasoline prices met up with concern over global warming this year to create a rare moment in our region, one that’s potentially transforming. Thousands of commuters have left their cars at home, and most of them have decided that taking a bus is a workable, and in many ways a pleasant, alternative.

With so many people voting with their feet to get on the bus today, the region should be figuring out how to get many more buses on the road, quickly, and to provide more roadway for them in coming years. We think Sound Transit’s Proposition 1, a $17.9 billion proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot, does far too little to address the region’s pressing short-term needs, and would seriously hinder future opportunities to raise revenue for needed transit projects.

We recommend voters reject it.

(Some voters in the greater Maltby area will see two transit measures on their ballot labeled Proposition 1. The other is a Community Transit annexation measure to increase bus service in that area. Our opposition is only to the Sound Transit proposal.)

Roughly two-thirds of the money raised by this measure would go to light rail, which wouldn’t arrive in Lynnwood until 2023 at the earliest. Less than 2 percent goes to increased bus service.

Sound Transit proposes more than doubling its share of the sales tax inside its district — the most urbanized areas of Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. In Snohomish County, that includes Everett and points south.

Sound Transit currently collects a 0.4 percent sales tax; this measure would raise it to 0.9 percent. In Everett, the total sales tax would rise to 9.1 percent; in the rest of the county’s Sound Transit area, it would be 9.4 percent.

Current economic conditions make this a lousy time to raise taxes, especially one as regressive as the sales tax. But our larger objection to Proposition 1 is that it’s being rushed to the ballot because Sound Transit board members smell an opportunity: a large turnout of younger, liberal-leaning voters they believe are likely to support it. We favored waiting until 2010, when changing ridership trends could be better understood and light rail between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport would be up and running, providing a needed reality check.

This year’s dramatic increase in bus ridership suggests taking a brief time out and reassessing Sound Transit’s basic long-range plan, which was developed two decades ago. Maybe a T-shaped light rail line still makes sense, but it could also be that more resources for flexible bus service with dedicated lanes would make even more.

That’s the kind of question that should be analyzed before making a long-term commitment to substantial new taxes.”

Here are a few highlights from some compelling arguments put forth by Eastside Rail Now at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion…”In fact, the plan could even increase congestion in some areas, such as the I-90 corridor.”

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.…”The most urgent need for rail transit on the Eastside by far is in the I-405 corridor (which would also be vastly cheaper than the I-90 corridor).”

4. It would downgrade some existing bus service. For example, several bus routes between Seattle and the Eastside would likely be eliminated or cut back in attempt to induce their riders to switch to the light rail line.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge. “Rail transit has never before been attempted on a floating bridge…”

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility. Constructing a rail line on the I-90 floating bridge would reduce the freight capacity of the region’s most important east-west road freight corridor.

14.   It is enormously expensive, despite only marginal benefits.  …”Furthermore, these are only the direct monetary costs — not included are a variety of other costs, including the opportunity costs, that is, the loss to the region from not using the same funds for more effective projects, such as lower cost rail lines with better routes.”

And here’s the kicker:

16.   It would preclude the region from taking on more worthy projects for decades. The region would become legally locked into this massive and unprecedented tax increase and its poorly planned projects for many years. Tax capacity would be exhausted for decades, and all flexibility to reduce taxes or to replace the Proposition 1 projects with more effective projects, including those that might become necessary due to changing circumstances, would be lost. 

It’s the Opportunity Cost, folks… see the link here

See their website at: http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

Here is the first 10:

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion.

2.   It would provide little environmental benefit.

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.

4.   It would downgrade some existing bus service.

5.   It would result in wasteful construction of duplicative facilities.

6.   The start of rail operations would be too slow.

7.   It is mainly a transit system for Seattle.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge.

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility.

10.   So-called “bus rapid transit” may not be effective.

Read all “29 Reasons to Vote No”  at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html