Vote YES for regional transit!

**GMan** · November-10-16, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

How the hell is that overreaching? Do you think transit systems take a day to create or something? The BRT system wasn't going to be completed until when into the 2020s. This isn't the zoo or the DIA, it's huge network that needed time to be implemented!

No I don't think it takes a day to create but the the point is they are asking to cement funding for an open ended project without providing any service or proof of concept.
Better to break it down into smaller parts and pick 3 services and ask for 5years of funding. But then what do they do when the money runs out and there is still no product?
How do they ask for more money then?

**dtowncitylover** · November-10-16, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by GMan

No I don't think it takes a day to create but the the point is they are asking to cement funding for an open ended project without providing any service or proof of concept.
Better to break it down into smaller parts and pick 3 services and ask for 5years of funding. But then what do they do when the money runs out and there is still no product?
How do they ask for more than?

Then what do you think the Master Plan was? That was open ended? They told us what we were gonna get!

In fact more money would have been the billions of more dollars we just drained down the effing toilet that we could've got from the federal government. But nooooooooooo our taxes get to continue to be given to Seattle or Minneapolis or Denver. Thanks!

**GMan** · November-10-16, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Then what do you think the Master Plan was? That was open ended? They told us we were gonna get!

In fact more money would have been the billions of more dollars we just drained down the effing toilet that we could've got from the federal government. But nooooooooooo our taxes get to continue to be given to Seattle or Minneapolis or Denver. Thanks!

My point was the master plan should be phased in at five year funding stages which gives the communities the benefit of evaluating the value and real operating costs and which also allows the option to put the brakes on expansion time tables if ridership levels fall short of expectations.
Hell my fire service has to be renewed every two years and our Police / EMS got a new centralized dispatch center with only a two year guarantee of funds. Now ask about school millages.

**ABetterDetroit** · November-10-16, 03:50 PM

Reading this thread makes it seem like the pro transit team is more interested in a political vendetta to get a property tax hike through then to actually secure funding for the RTA.

As the green zone rises in popularity the awareness of the City of Detroits property tax rates only becomes more widely understood locally and the more people begin to understand why new construction only gets built with tax credits and want nothing to do with rates that are detrimental to property values.

Is there a reason to ignore what was successful elsewhere?

http://t4america.org/maps-tools/stat...ng/2016-votes/

**swingline** · November-10-16, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I live in Milford. Looking at the RTA masterplan you'll see that there were no planned services whatsoever in this area of the county. None of the above scenarios would apply to Milford residents, but due to the higher home values they would be paying 7-8x more towards the RTA than the average resident of Detroit.

It appears that most Milford voters agreed with Johnny5. Let's see why.

Well, the average family household income in Milford is $78,463. The median home value is $303,500. That means that the homeowner of the median valued Milford home would've paid a RTA transit tax of $182. In other words, 0.23% of that homeowner's entire income would have been extracted from them for something that would be of no benefit. [[We can pretend for the sake of argument that effective mass transit would not increase property values across the region.)

You know, when you look at those stark numbers, you can understand why even a generous, charitable, community-minded Christian taxpayer would balk at the confiscation. $.50/day can add up and could be put to better use gassing up the SUV.

**Johnnny5** · November-10-16, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

That is a very long winded way of saying, "I only care about myself, the greater good [[especially those in need) can fuck off."

Good for you and your little selfish community.

I also see that you live in Milford: i assume you are fine with those of us in Detroit and inner rings paying for HCMA so you can have a nice park down the street. Please start campaigning to end that tax since it doesn't benefit us [[unless you are a complete hypocrite)

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...y-to-screw-off

So it's ok for you to criticize a tax for which you don't see a direct benefit, but it's "selfish" if I do the same?

Just for the record, I'm not ok with Detroit residents paying HCMA taxes yet not having the same level of accessibility to the parks. In fact, I'm sure I've posted my support on here before for the possibility of the Metro Parks funding and taking over Belle Isle [[Prior to the state takeover). I would also be fine with Detroit being exempt from HCMA taxes unless or until something was done to benefit the city.

That being said, the two situations are not equal. The Metro Park taxes are .25 mills [[Not 1.2), and in that case Detroit residents may be far from the parks, but they are paying very little per household towards the HCMA. With the RTA it's the outer ring suburbs that would be paying the most, yet getting the least. At least Detroit residents with access to a vehicle can [[And do) make use of the Metro Parks.

**Mark Smiles** · November-10-16, 06:14 PM

1. Why is it the responsibility of people who own homes, to pay taxes for mass transit?

2. Why is it fair for those who are not liable for the tax increase to vote for others to pay it?

3. Why not have those who voted yes for this tax increase get a bill for $2000 [[$100 x 20 years), and run their program with that?

4. Why did this plan not provide any protection for taxpayers in case of a strike? Is it that this is really about adding to the burden of taxpayers, more government workers on their back, than providing a service? Is it fair to continue to collect taxes, for a service not provided? Doesn’t this really tell people that this is really not about providing a service, when there is no guarantee that the service will be provided?

**archfan** · November-11-16, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Then what do you think the Master Plan was? That was open ended? They told us what we were gonna get!

In fact more money would have been the billions of more dollars we just drained down the effing toilet that we could've got from the federal government. But nooooooooooo our taxes get to continue to be given to Seattle or Minneapolis or Denver. Thanks!

Don't worry, that will dry up soon.

**scooter** · November-11-16, 07:32 AM

well since it failed say good bye to the second people mover mistake,[[q-Line) rta was suppose to take it over.

**dtowncitylover** · November-11-16, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by scooter

well since it failed say good bye to the second people mover mistake,[[q-Line) rta was suppose to take it over.

The RTA wasn't going to take it over until 2027 anyways, so if it presents a plan in two years it will probably happen. They weren't not going to start if the RTA failed.

**Bobl** · November-11-16, 09:23 PM

It's all dead as a doornail and there will be no more plans with a realistic chance until the region wakes up. Meanwhile, in January, no funding for anything except defense pork will be allowed in Washington. Even Medicare and Social Security will be attacked. There will be so many bills sent to President Trump's desk that his head will spin. I am old and retired. I'll manage to get by, provided there is some good live music and a few friends left. Advice to young forum members: Find a more pleasant and modern place to move to, if you can afford it. This region is stuck in the 1970s, and drifting toward the 1950s...without the jobs.

**ParisianLesion** · November-11-16, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by scooter

well since it failed say good bye to the second people mover mistake,[[q-Line) rta was suppose to take it over.

How many times does this misnomer need to be debunked?

Calltoaction · November-12-16, 02:35 PM

What a nightmare, this region dropped the ball AGAIN.

Hope the conservative boomers love everything the way it is, they made this bed now lay in it. Young people are leaving.

**swingline** · November-13-16, 12:45 PM

It’s pathetic how the suburban and exurban “nothing in it for me” voter selfishness blinds those residents to consequences that actually do affect them. How many SE Michigan senior citizens and baby boomers have lamented about how the region’s lackluster economy resulted in their college educated children moving to New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other booming cities to embark on their careers. Nothing here for them those kids say. And of course, thousands and thousands of those kids are lured away merely by the availability alone of urban and non-automobile centric lifestyles in those places. Job considerations are often secondary.

Well, it’s no secret to the rest of the world that economically strong cities benefit from the cycle of global capital and jobs gravitating to talent and talent gravitating to cities with attractive lifestyle options. Mass transit improves livability and is an essential part of every economically healthy city in the world. Regions without it will never enjoy recession proof economies and will always have to satisfy themselves with the leftover economic crumbs dropped by the regions that understand what actually works to attract talent and capital. All of these cities know that effective transit is mandatory. There’s nowhere near enough crumbs being dropped in this region to keep our kids here. Yet somehow the voters around here think we can do it differently than every other city. How amazingly stupid can we be? We have apparently figured something out that rest of the world doesn’t understand. I don’t think so.

The whiny suburban baby boomers, and the “no mass transit” Gen Xers who in a few years will also watch their kids decamp elsewhere, only need to look in the mirror to see the reason why they’re spending so much money on plane tickets to visit the kids and why they don’t really know their grandchildren. Then again, if they save all that money they’re not paying to the RTA, every couple of years they can buy another plane ticket. Win win right?

**iheartthed** · November-13-16, 02:30 PM

Is there a reason that they always tie these things to millage proposals? Maybe they should request the state to levy a sales tax on the four counties.

**Jason** · November-13-16, 03:12 PM

How does this affect the RTA?

Does the RTA need to operate service in order to count as a transit agency for federal money?

The RTA is already having the flex routes. Would it be possible for the RTA to essentially use SMART and DDOT money for bigger transit projects, avoiding the need to get money from ballot proposals? If they could get DDOT and SMART to each take over a complete Gratiot and Woodward line, could they also coordinate the various transit agencies to share costs for other projects?

To me the main benefit of the RTA is organizational, and the longterm potential of improved transit. How does this affect that?

For example could the RTA right now coordinate with DDOT, SMART, and AAATA to make a AA-Airport-Detroit bus line? If DDOT and SMART agreed to pay their proportional share of the costs, could the light rail be extended to Royal Oak?

**rbdetsport** · November-14-16, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

How does this affect the RTA?

Does the RTA need to operate service in order to count as a transit agency for federal money?

The RTA is already having the flex routes. Would it be possible for the RTA to essentially use SMART and DDOT money for bigger transit projects, avoiding the need to get money from ballot proposals? If they could get DDOT and SMART to each take over a complete Gratiot and Woodward line, could they also coordinate the various transit agencies to share costs for other projects?

To me the main benefit of the RTA is organizational, and the longterm potential of improved transit. How does this affect that?

For example could the RTA right now coordinate with DDOT, SMART, and AAATA to make a AA-Airport-Detroit bus line? If DDOT and SMART agreed to pay their proportional share of the costs, could the light rail be extended to Royal Oak?

You are talking about a major Title VI issue. These agencies do not necessarily have the biggest budgets in the world and cutting service on other routes to fund these new rapid corridors would be considered illegal under Title VI.

**Detroitnerd** · November-14-16, 04:14 PM

Back to the drawing board.

I'd be more willing to vote for a plan that was more short-term. Really want to move those workers out to Hall Road? OK, fine. Fund a five-year plan to accomplish that.

I'm sick and tired of having this dream of bus-based rapid transit forced down metro Detroit's throat again and again. Please, no 30-year plans unless they offer rail-based service to foster development in the inner city.

And don't blame little old me for saying that I'd vote yes on a plan that actually offered what other big cities get. Lay the blame where it should go: Lansing, for creating authorizing legislation that hobbles the RTA's ability to run rail. If that was such a great rule, why did they allow two exemptions for it already?