Sorry, I can’t go for this. First, its like the old Wall Street saying goes” “bulls and bears get rich and pigs get slaughtered,” They had to go for a half cent, when they might have been able to get a quarter cent passed. There are several other county taxes on the ballot this time, thanks to Charlie Doolie’s greed. It is just too much to ask taxpayers to pay during tough economic times. But, more importantly, the entire premise is flawed. This agency loses over sixty-cents for every dollar collected. They want to expand it with this tax increase to build a bigger system that will lose more money and require higher taxes in the future. This is guaranteed. You will have to pay even higher taxes in the future to keep this system running. When I asked a high ranking Metro official why they would suggest such insanity he said, quite honestly, “the only way we can get people to vote for this is to make them think they are getting something, too.” That isn’t a good idea. If it is important to move urban people, it is illogical to think the answer is to expand a system to areas where people don’t need it and create higher losses and higher taxes in the bargain. The first answer needs to be a right-sizing of the system. This means bus riders should be asked to shoulder some of the higher costs of fuel (just like drivers) and perhaps some reductions in service. If a bus stops on your way to work three times an hour instead of four, people will adapt, just like drivers did with Highway 40. Asking for higher taxes when gas prices are so high and taxes are already such a burden is wrong and this will go down to defeat. Asking people for money when they feel broke is not very smart.

So jjk, your’e just against public transit in general? While LA and San Francisco, and New Orleans, and Chicago, and New York, and Washington D.C., and Seattle and all the other cities whose citizens support public transit get all our tax dollars for their systems, we should have your attitude and sit on our hands like St. Louisans do for everything that might have a positive impact on our region? Yes, public transit does not make money, nor does the police department, fire department, or any other government supported agency which serves the public.

Rather than criticize my position, which was clearly outlined, you choose to attack me. What is your position? Here is my point: making a money losing propositon bigger will result in more losses and more taxes. That is a fact. At what point do you suggest it stop? When the tax bill accounts for 100% of our purchasing power? It is a real and fair question. I once asked my school district, which was claiming a right to a tax increase “since their rate hadn’t been increased in five years (even thought the property values had been increasing), how they could justify a continual increase in the rate? The rate is roughly three percent now. If it grows at one percent every five years, in 100 years the rate would be 23%. At what point is it enough? If you had read my statement, you would have read I said that the solution to moving urban riders is not best accomplished by expanding a money loser to areas where people don’t need it? Are you against urban riders? This tax is a clear example of overreaching. Voters might have approved a small increase for operations, if they felt comfortable the new management was in control. If all riders of the train were made to pay; if downtown riders had to pay (they don’t now), if the extravagance of the past was ended. Did you know bus drivers at Metro make more than the average teacher? Metro has become the local equivelent of Fannie Mae. This is a bailout of previous sins.

What a surprise … the Post supports a tax increase. And surprise #2, the Post twists every fact to support their position.

Actually, about 90% of Metro’s problems are of its own making. Yes, federal and state funding has been reduced. But if Metro hadn’t built the Cross County Extension, they wouldn’t be facing financial ruin. The new rail line was spectacularly expensive, and serves only a small portion of the county.

Of course, we know it will be an absolute catastrophe for the region if we don’t triple the transit tax. Just like it was a catastrophe when highway 40 was closed. Our entire region is gridlocked, just like the experts predicted - right? How much did Metro spend on their “Decongestant M” campaign? This campaign looks absolutely idiotic now that we know the highway closing had only a very minor, very local effect on traffic.

They say if we don’t triple the transit tax, plans to expand Metrolink will be put on hold. Good. We don’t have billions of dollars to spend on new light rail lines. Yes, Metro is a great service. But for the vast majority of us, it’s just a way to avoid paying for parking at baseball games. That’s a really dumb reason to triple the tax rate.

And how silly to say that we need to triple our transit tax to remain “competitive among metropolitan regions that are trying to attract top talent, top jobs and other economic opportunities.” I mean seriously, do you guys read your editorials before you post them? Nobody is going to choose St. Louis over Boston or Chicago just because we have a 3/4% transit tax. And nobody is going to choice Des Moines or Detroit over St. Louis because we leave the tax at 1/4%.

Transit advocates point to a few “transit oriented development” districts which have popped up next to Metrolink tracks, as though that was justification for spending billions on more rail lines. Nice try. Just like building a highway, light rail spurs some development. But the beneficiary of this isn’t the public, it’s those who own property near the stations. If there was ever a just cause for a windfall profit tax, it is that.

For better or worse, most of the St. Louis region is suburban. Suburban areas can’t be efficiently served by transit, no matter how many billions you spend. Increasingly, jobs are following workers to the suburbs. In such an area, mass transit in general - and light rail in particular - just don’t work. Those who live in the urbanized areas of the region already have excellent transit service. There just isn’t an opportunity for expansion.

Ultimately, the financial reality which Metro faces is that even if we increase the tax, rail expansion is decades away. We haven’t started making payments on the Cross County line yet. And if the new construction portion of Prop M, $40 million a year, was spent on rail expansion, it would take 20 years to pay for a single line. Metro won’t build anything without significant federal help, which isn’t presently available. Do you think that the federal government, after paying for the $700 billion bailout and the Iraqi war, is likely to come up with a bunch more money for transit subsidies? Dream on. Meanwhile, though, since Prop M is earmarked for funding “new rail construction” I suspect they’ll just use the money to pay off the bonds for the Cross County line. Technically, that would be paying for new construction - right?

If this new tax is approved, a family of 4 would be paying $500 a year in taxes to support public transit. That is absolutely nuts. Like our families, Metro needs to live within its means. Gas went up? So did the gas for my car. I didn’t get a raise to pay for it. St. Louis county voters need to see through this nonsense, and vote NO on Proposition M.

For more details, see our website at

http://www.stoptheprop.com

What is wrong with asking the people who use the system to pay for the system? If you give more money to Metro, they will waste it, as they have done in the past. With the exception of Salci, the same people who wasted your money before, are still there.

Vote NO on Prop M.

I know that public transportation is the Holy Grail for those with a collectivist mindset. However, a careful analysis of the facts would suggest that it is an emotional rather than a logical argument.

Gasoline taxes pay for the vast majority of highway spending. Public transportation users make no such contribution. In fact, a large chunk (20% I think) of the highway tax is diverted towards public transportation.

Three things are indisputable people will not use public transportation unless they have to (most buses are have far less than capacity riders), it is only economical in very densely populated areas (over half the use of light rails and subways in the USA is in NYC), and it is prohibitively expensive.

Despite federal subsidies light rail still request tax revenues from sources that have nothing to do with transportation. What in the world does sales tax have to do with public transportation? The system is so expensive you could probably provide a Cadillac and driver to every user of the system and it would be cheaper.

The logical non-emotional solution is to cut our losses and par the system down until the revenue from users equals the fees they pay. Vote no on Proposition M.

First, just because the PD (of course) supports it I will be voting NO. But here are my real reasons. I am tired of the Democrats and gov in general thinking that the American taxpayers are human ATM’s. Bailout this, bailout that. Now California wants to be bailed out and I understand Massachusetts is next due to the healthcare plan instituted by Gov. Romney which is the exact one Sen. Obama’s wants.

There is ALWAYS a less expensive alternative to raising taxes. In this case, it is very simple. Stop the school busing program which does not need to exist for any reason other than policians are too pc to say enough with this wasteful nonsense. Use those funds that go to buses poluting our air, to fund Metro. If the kids want to go to school in the county, let them ride Metro. I am sure the schools could find funds to get the kids to school by being picked up at the Metro station.

“…the agency’s former president ran roughshod over a sleepy board of commissioners.”

I’m sorry, are they referring to Metro or the St. Louis Police Department??

First of all, people need to remember that Metro isn’t just light rail. Metro is mostly buses, and those buses are vital to serving the region’s economic needs. Light rail is expensive, and it can’t go everywhere. But buses can and do and are much cheaper. And the bus system needs to be funded to operate. Nick writes that suburban areas can’t be effectively served by transit, but that’s just plain wrong. Madison County offers a great example of what can happen in the burbs when the transit is properly funded. And MCT is a part of the Metro system. The difference is just that the State of Illinois provides a steady, reliable source of funding for operations on its side of the river. Plenty of people want to use transit if it is convenient and safe. Metro does a great job filling that need in many places. Express buses from suburban areas into the city, with transfer to the arterial system, are an excellent way to provide services to the suburbs. Repeating “can’t, can’t, can’t!” over and over doesn’t make it true.

Someone wrote that Metro’s expansion plans need to be put on hold, as an argument against the tax. But here’s a newsflash: Metro’s expansion plans ARE on hold. That quarter-cent tax would only be used for expansion if a source of other funding were found for a new project. So in the meantime it will just have to build up. And the next time Metro has a major project, it will have the money in place ahead of time. Isn’t that what people want? In the meantime, the budget for Operations is severely underfunded because of cuts in funding sources, from the County, from the State. And the feds don’t provide money for operations. Skyrocketing gas prices are obviously going to affect the budget. Increased ridership does as well. How anyone can blame that on Metro is beyond me. The County cuts Metro’s funding? Must be Metro’s fault. So you’re mad that the Cross County expansion was built. Let’s cut off our noses now, by refusing the fund the system to operational levels, to spite our faces when we’ve already invested millions of dollars into building the system. Yep, makes perfect sense!

You don’t have to have a collectivist mindset to understand how transit is a cog that keeps the region’s economic machine running. Transit isn’t just for “dense urban areas.” People are crying for more express bus routes. If we want to see the region’s economy continue to grow, we have to move the people to where the jobs are. What better way than transit? Transit is not a last resort. I personally use transit despite having a very nice car. I want my car to last. I want to have a stress-free commute. I don’t like to buy gas (which comes from oil, which is sold to us by People Who Don’t Like Americans) if I don’t have to. The bus picks me up from a central location and takes me right downtown; what’s not to love? I read a book, I put on makeup, I listen to my iPod.

Gas taxes support building roads, that’s fine. But 20% of that money does NOT go to transit. Transit gets a pittance of the money we spend on roads, but it helps keep thousands of vehicles off the streets every day. Can you imagine how much we’d have to pay for roads if all those people on the bus and on the packed MetroLink trains at rush hour every morning were on the streets instead? We’d have big-city congestion so bad that we never could have expanded out into the idyllic suburbs. No one would want to drive in from Wentzville every morning if it took two or more hours because of traffic!!

“Users pay” transit will never, ever happen. Transit is a public service, like public schools. I don’t have any kids, but I understand that educating YOUR kids is important to keeping the civil society running. My tax dollars educate your rugrats, provide police protection and firemen, buys books for the public library and helps get people to and from their jobs, their doctors, and the grocery store via transit. Five cents for every hundred dollars I spend is definitely worth it to me. I’m very much of the small-government persuasion, but the government is there to provide basic infrastructure that private enterprise won’t or can’t, and transit is one of those areas.

No one is arguing that people will move to Boston because they have x-percentage transit tax. But people WILL leave for other areas - or not settle here in the first place - if the region doesn’t have the infrastructure needed to provide a solid economic foundation. Like it or not, transit is one of the cogs in the economic machine and those who close their eyes and their pocketbooks now will come to regret it later.

To the person who finds it ludicrous to suggest that transit tax will bring people to St. Louis: I’m living proof. I grew up in St. Louis and have recently moved to Portland, OR, a similar-sized city with superb public transit. Despite having a lot of love for St. Louis (and family there), I just can’t justify living somewhere that requires me to drive an expensive, polluting car all the time.
And for the record, I’m one of the twentysomething, educated “creative class” people St. Louis keeps claiming it wants to attract. But residents’ oh-so-common refusal to enact any change drove me away.