Sunday editorial: Yes to Proposition M
St. Louis County voters will be asked Nov. 4 to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to provide funds for public transportation — sustaining the current Metro transit system and providing for future expansion of MetroLink light rail.
A sleeper issue, Proposition M has been caught up in a debate about failed lawsuits and allegations about improper financial management at Metro. In fact, it is an economic development issue. If you think the sale of Anheuser-Busch or the closing of the Chrysler plant was a problem for St. Louis, wait’ll you see what happens if Prop M fails.
Simply put, the outcome of the sales tax vote will influence whether St. Louis remains competitive among metropolitan regions that are trying to attract top talent, top jobs and other economic opportunities.
Dynamic public transportation — systems that are smart, efficient and convenient — is a key indicator of a community’s confidence and vibrancy. Our region has made major strides toward creating such a system with its $1.4 billion investment (bus and rail) over the past decade. But many voters still need to know what’s in it for them.
Only 8 percent of county residents tell pollsters they regularly ride the Metro system. Forty-five percent say they use the system for special events. The rest never get on a bus or train. Why should they pay a nickel more in taxes for every $10 they spend?
The answer: Because the people of our community who do use and depend on the transit system are an essential cog in the local economy on which all of us depend. They’re the men and women who keep our hospitals and nursing homes operating; the people who cook the food, serve the meals, bus the tables and wash the dishes in the restaurants we patronize; the people who help find us shoes and cell phones and hammers and baby clothes in thousands of retail stories, and countless other businesses large and small.
Without public transit, many couldn’t get to work. Without public transit, the worlds of many elderly or disabled transit riders would shrink. Ask not for whom the buses and trains run; one way or another, in an era of $4-a-gallon gasoline, global climate change and economic hard times, they run for all of us.
Proposition M’s defeat would force Metro to make deep cuts in service early next year. Trains and buses would run less frequently and serve fewer areas. Plans to expand MetroLink would be put on hold indefinitely.
A scaled-back system would mean less federal operating support. The inability to raise local matching funds would mean missed opportunities for capital subsidies. And given the very long planning and budgeting process that transportation systems require, we would be living with the consequences of those missed opportunities for years to come.
Metro faces a $45 million shortfall in its operating budget, and, yes, some of the problem is of its own making: poor planning on the Cross County MetroLink extension, flawed judgment and poor oversight of its failed lawsuit against the Cross County’s construction managers. Larry Salci, the agency’s former president, ran roughshod over a sleepy board of commissioners.
But most of the shortfall was beyond the agency’s control, a toxic combination of cutbacks in state, federal and county support and new accounting rules. Metro’s strong new management needs an alert, involved and astute board of commissioners and active support from the politicians on both sides of the river who appoint them.
Prop M would raise an estimated $80 million a year. Half would be used for ongoing operations, with the remainder banked for future MetroLink expansion. Approval in St. Louis County also would trigger a similar sales tax in the city that voters approved in 1997.
Too often public transit is misperceived as a social service for the poor; it is, in fact, a crucial tool for economic development. To change that skewed public perspective, the members of our region’s business and civic community need to realize that writing a check, while necessary, is not enough. This is a time for leadership, not merely lip service.
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.