City Streets Too Expensive?

Did you catch the argument between the Seattle P-I and Mayor Nickels? The debate is whether city streets are too expensive to maintain without increased taxes, or the city government is spending too much money on concerns that should be secondary to roads. On May 24, the P-I "Editorial Board" laid the smack down on the Mayor's grand tax scheme:

Seattle government has for decades neglected its fundamental obligation to maintain the city's streets, bridges and sidewalks. The correction for this neglect, however, does not lie in Mayor Greg Nickels' grandiose $1.8 billion package of new taxes and tax increases.

A better solution was proposed six years ago by a business coalition alarmed at the condition of our streets. The bottom line then remains the bottom line now: Get the money from the city's general fund.

Certain functions and services are basic to municipal government, things taxpayers expect the city to provide. Safe and passable streets are among them. If general taxes must be increased to deliver those fundamentals, then do it or spend less on matters of lower priority.

While I rarely agree with editorials in the P-I, I have to admit that this one makes a lot of sense. When you think of the purposes of city government, what are the first things that come to mind? For me its police, fire, and roads. Everything else should be secondary.

Of course, the Mayor doesn't quite see things that way, and today the P-I gave him a chance to defend himself.

Like it or not, Seattle faces a growing $500 million backlog of repairs and maintenance just to bring our city transportation system back to a decent and safe condition.

With a challenge this big, half-measures aren't going to cut it. Neither is wishful thinking by the Seattle P-I Editorial Board.

The paper has suggested Seattle simply "get the money from the city's general fund" to magically wipe away this enormous problem. Sufficient funds could be found by cutting money for "matters of lower priority," the paper argued.

What lower priorities would the Editorial Board suggest?
...
Ending the growing backlog with the existing budget could require a 10 percent across-the-board reduction to other city departments. Imagine the outrage if we followed the P-I's advice and cut:

• 19 million from the police department, which is equivalent to losing about 200 officers.
• $12 million from the fire department, which is equivalent to closing about six engine companies in neighbor stations.
• [etc...]

The people of Seattle want a real solution to our transportation woes, not a false choice between money for safe streets and money for public safety or human needs.

Speaking of false choices, I love how the mayor's idea of finding matters of lower priority is "a 10 percent across-the-board reduction." Way to make your case, Mayor. Appeal to emotion by claiming that the only way to fix roads without raising taxes would be to fire 200 police officers.

(P-I Editorial Board, Seattle P-I, 05.24.2006)
(Greg Nickels, Seattle P-I, 06.08.2006)