Posted by: Sharon Calvert
The NoTaxForTracks.com
PAC was filed with the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections on October
5, 2018. The PAC was established as formal opposition to the All for
Transportation 14% sales tax hike that is on the ballot.
On October 17th the Times published an article about Mayor Buckhorn supporting the rail tax hike that included:
On October 17th the Times published an article about Mayor Buckhorn supporting the rail tax hike that included:
The only organized opposition to the tax is
from Americans for Prosperity — an anti-tax, small government group founded by
oil billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch.
That was totally
incorrect.
But such newsworthiness that Mayor "I haven't seen a rail tax I don't support" Buckhorn is supporting another rail provided the Times another opportunity to provide free earned media in support of the rail tax.
The Times was finally shamed into having to acknowledge NoTaxForTracks. Times reporter Chris O'Donnell contacted several representatives of the NoTaxForTracks PAC yesterday.
NTFT asked O'Donnell to email his questions and NTFT responded in writing. This is important to compare what O'Donnell wrote vs NTFT's full responses.
The Times has given pages and pages of free earned media coverage to All for Transportation for the last four months. As we previously reported, the Times has even printed multiple articles in one day to cheerlead for the tax hike.
Below are the questions from O'Donnell and NTFT's actual response.
But such newsworthiness that Mayor "I haven't seen a rail tax I don't support" Buckhorn is supporting another rail provided the Times another opportunity to provide free earned media in support of the rail tax.
The Times was finally shamed into having to acknowledge NoTaxForTracks. Times reporter Chris O'Donnell contacted several representatives of the NoTaxForTracks PAC yesterday.
NTFT asked O'Donnell to email his questions and NTFT responded in writing. This is important to compare what O'Donnell wrote vs NTFT's full responses.
The Times has given pages and pages of free earned media coverage to All for Transportation for the last four months. As we previously reported, the Times has even printed multiple articles in one day to cheerlead for the tax hike.
Below are the questions from O'Donnell and NTFT's actual response.
First you asked me on the phone why we formed
so late?
We formed to counter the deception perpetrated by wealthy developers bankrolling the All for Transportation campaign. The public is unaware that this is a tax hike over 30 years costing $16 billion.
We formed to counter the deception perpetrated by wealthy developers bankrolling the All for Transportation campaign. The public is unaware that this is a tax hike over 30 years costing $16 billion.
1. Why is it a bad
plan?
It’s a tax:
It is a new 30-year
increase of our sales tax on purchases, going from 7% to 8% which totals a
whopping $16 billion and makes Hillsborough County the highest taxed county in
Florida.
It's unnecessary:
This tax increase is unnecessary as Hillsborough County Commissioners re-prioritized $800M of existing revenue for transportation funding over 10 years that along with our existing gas taxes funds needed maintenance and safety issues.
It funds 4 rail projects
This spending plan fully funds three of four rail
projects outright without leveraging federal funds because they wouldn’t meet
minimum federal thresholds for cost-effectiveness. This means that Title 6
protections likely won’t be in place for the transit-dependent community.
According to Beth Alden of the MPO during an
August Tampa City Council discussion of this tax and according to organizers of
All For Transportation who wrote the 5-pages of fine print that voters won’t
see on the ballot, this plan is based on the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Page
168 of the plan funds rail
which we believe is too costly and provides little to no congestion relief. The
Hybrid Rail project long cited on the MPO’s wishlist is a diesel-burning train
built for freight tracks. There is no demonstrated ridership for the USF to
downtown route to justify the exorbitant costs. In fact the Regional Premium
Transit study showed that benefits didn't exceed costs. There is also streetcar
construction, modern tram (aka light rail) from downtown to West Shore and then
a people mover from West Shore to the airport.
It gives developers a break from paying for
impacts of their developments:
We believe new development should pay for new roads. The mobility fee that developers pay to reduce road impacts will be cut in half if this tax passed. This is Table 7 from the Hillsborough County Mobility Fee study. Developers pay 30% less with a ½% sales tax, and likely more than half if the whole 1 % enacted. See https://hillsboroughcounty.org/library/hillsborough/media-center/documents/public-works/mobility-fees/mobility-fee-study-final.pdf#page=31
We believe new development should pay for new roads. The mobility fee that developers pay to reduce road impacts will be cut in half if this tax passed. This is Table 7 from the Hillsborough County Mobility Fee study. Developers pay 30% less with a ½% sales tax, and likely more than half if the whole 1 % enacted. See https://hillsboroughcounty.org/library/hillsborough/media-center/documents/public-works/mobility-fees/mobility-fee-study-final.pdf#page=31
Legal issues:
There are several legal issues that are troubling. The charter amendment goes
against several provisions of 212.055 Florida Statutes.
2. Your group has stated there are no funds for widening or new road construction. All for Transportation disputes that pointing to the “ “ of the General Purpose Portion (the 54 percent). They also state that those restrictions only apply to Hills County and Tampa, not Temple Terrace and Plant City? Why are they wrong and No Tax for Tracks right?
45% of the funds go to Transit and there is an intentional reason the 55% portion is called General Purpose and not Road Purpose. In the amendment voters are deciding, there is an express prohibition against any funding of new auto lane capacity in the major categories of Maintenance, Congestion Reduction, and Safety. The fourth category is for Bike/Pedestrian Infrastructure which by definition isn’t new auto lane capacity. The final category called Remaining Funds has a road capacity prohibition that isn’t as obvious. This clause states that any remaining funds can be used for any purpose allowable by state statute (so far so good) AND by the charter amendment (which prohibits new auto lane capacity). In legal terminology, the “and” clause means both criteria need to be satisfied to be true. Since the amendment includes a prohibition on new auto lane capacity, the remaining funds can never be eligible for usage towards new auto lane capacity.
3. Ms. Calvert is saying that the plan has four different rails components. Can you explain? (I will ask her if that’s better)
See above on why this a bad plan.
4. How should the community fund needed transportation fixes?
We need a 10-year plan with defined projects that don’t crowd out future transportation technology advances. The County Commissioners restored some of the existing funding that was pulled back during the recession and they are starting to address the backlog. The key phrase in your question is needs versus wants. We have plans to fund what is needed, but funding for pricey trains to downtown stadiums takes an additional tax that residents of Hillsborough County can't afford.
2. Your group has stated there are no funds for widening or new road construction. All for Transportation disputes that pointing to the “ “ of the General Purpose Portion (the 54 percent). They also state that those restrictions only apply to Hills County and Tampa, not Temple Terrace and Plant City? Why are they wrong and No Tax for Tracks right?
45% of the funds go to Transit and there is an intentional reason the 55% portion is called General Purpose and not Road Purpose. In the amendment voters are deciding, there is an express prohibition against any funding of new auto lane capacity in the major categories of Maintenance, Congestion Reduction, and Safety. The fourth category is for Bike/Pedestrian Infrastructure which by definition isn’t new auto lane capacity. The final category called Remaining Funds has a road capacity prohibition that isn’t as obvious. This clause states that any remaining funds can be used for any purpose allowable by state statute (so far so good) AND by the charter amendment (which prohibits new auto lane capacity). In legal terminology, the “and” clause means both criteria need to be satisfied to be true. Since the amendment includes a prohibition on new auto lane capacity, the remaining funds can never be eligible for usage towards new auto lane capacity.
3. Ms. Calvert is saying that the plan has four different rails components. Can you explain? (I will ask her if that’s better)
See above on why this a bad plan.
4. How should the community fund needed transportation fixes?
We need a 10-year plan with defined projects that don’t crowd out future transportation technology advances. The County Commissioners restored some of the existing funding that was pulled back during the recession and they are starting to address the backlog. The key phrase in your question is needs versus wants. We have plans to fund what is needed, but funding for pricey trains to downtown stadiums takes an additional tax that residents of Hillsborough County can't afford.
5. Your group has raised $7,000. How will you
compete with a group that has raised $2.3 million? How will the group campaign
to get its message to voters
As in 2010, it doesn’t take that much money to tell the truth.
6. Why has the group not taken a position on the schools half penny tax?
We are a PAC formed to oppose the Hillsborough County Charter Amendment No. 2. Some of our members are personally supportive of the school tax. Formally we do not oppose the school tax.
7. As a former HART board member, do you agree that bus service should be expanded? If so, how should that be funded?
During my six years on HART, we expanded service (measured in revenue hours and miles) every year. Starting in 2014 and continuing today, as in Charlotte which was oft-cited at the time as the model we should emulate, ridership has plummeted. I favor a robust, flexible transit option utilizing buses until newer, faster cheaper options become available. Autonomous rideshare holds a lot of promise to that end. Fixed rail or buses in exclusive guideway doesn’t. In 2015 I spoke in favor of a portion of the $800M in funding that the Hillsborough County Commissioners were re-directing to transportation, go to HART. I spoke in favor of value capture in defined urban area where HART services were heaviest such as they do in Lakeland. Furthermore, it has been several years since HART initiated a fare study.
Now that rideshare is legal in Hillsborough County, there are many private providers of transportation that take handicapped riders to their medical appointments that don’t cost the $76 round trip that taxpayers subsidize for each rider of the rationed HARTPlus service. In many cases, their trip isn’t much more than the $8 they would have paid to HART for subpar service.
As in 2010, it doesn’t take that much money to tell the truth.
6. Why has the group not taken a position on the schools half penny tax?
We are a PAC formed to oppose the Hillsborough County Charter Amendment No. 2. Some of our members are personally supportive of the school tax. Formally we do not oppose the school tax.
7. As a former HART board member, do you agree that bus service should be expanded? If so, how should that be funded?
During my six years on HART, we expanded service (measured in revenue hours and miles) every year. Starting in 2014 and continuing today, as in Charlotte which was oft-cited at the time as the model we should emulate, ridership has plummeted. I favor a robust, flexible transit option utilizing buses until newer, faster cheaper options become available. Autonomous rideshare holds a lot of promise to that end. Fixed rail or buses in exclusive guideway doesn’t. In 2015 I spoke in favor of a portion of the $800M in funding that the Hillsborough County Commissioners were re-directing to transportation, go to HART. I spoke in favor of value capture in defined urban area where HART services were heaviest such as they do in Lakeland. Furthermore, it has been several years since HART initiated a fare study.
Now that rideshare is legal in Hillsborough County, there are many private providers of transportation that take handicapped riders to their medical appointments that don’t cost the $76 round trip that taxpayers subsidize for each rider of the rationed HARTPlus service. In many cases, their trip isn’t much more than the $8 they would have paid to HART for subpar service.
O'Donnell took
succinct answers that even included some citations and the Times published this
article titled Three weeks before election, tax foes organize to fight
transportation measure.
First the timing in
the title is wrong. NoTaxForTracks filed October 5th, which is a month before
the November 6 election. Details must not matter.
The same rail cartel
band of wealthy special interests with their transit advocates in tow put their
band back together months ago. That band is a broken record playing the same
old stale song over and over again.
The Times was so
adamant to adhere to the All for Transportation doctrine not to mention the
word rail or trains, that they truncated NoTaxForTracks name to No Tax.
No one has ever
truncated the NoTaxForTracks name. The Times never truncated the name
NoTaxForTracks in 2010 or in 2014 during Greenlight Pinellas. NoTaxForTracks is
a brand name in Tampa Bay and suddenly the Times decides to truncate the
name.
The Times does not
want the voting public to know the $16 Billion tax hike is a rail tax.
Why didn't the Times
truncate the name All for Transportation to All for Transit?
All for Transportation
is not a grassroots effort. It is an astroturf campaign funded by wealthy
special interests using millennials as their public face. Jeff Vinik has dumped
almost $500K into All for Transportation's coffers.
Vinik associates and
his allies, including the Tampa Bay Partnership band members, have dumped their
obligatory hundreds of thousands of dollars into another rail tax hike
campaign. It is 2010 all over again.
No surprise that All
for Transportation refused to comment.
They do not want to
answer any questions about the plan they wrote.
They have no citations
or evidence to backup all their exaggerated claims.
Posted by Sharon Calvert at 3:49 PM
This post is contributed by EYE ON TAMPA BAY. The views expressed
in this post are the blog publisher's and do not necessarily reflect those of the
publisher of Bay Post Internet.
Cross Posted with permission from: Eye On Tampa Bay
No comments:
Post a Comment