Horse to Nowhere?

The summer started with a frantic push by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce promoting an urgent special session to address transit funding.  That was then followed up by the misstep of the Salt Lake County Council that voted to place a deceptively worded question on the  November ballot that, if passed, would raise property taxes to fund expansion of TRAX to the tune of almost $900M.  The council then seemed to have buyer's remorse, begging the legislature for a sales tax option, but being stuck with the property tax.  After much pleading on the part of many individuals and businesses, members of the legislature, despite their better judgment, began to grapple with this tar baby (or is it more politically correct to say "try to solve this fiasco").

So it's with complete disgust that I read Joe Hatch's attacks on Monday.  Now I don't know Joe Hatch.  I don't recall ever meeting him.  For all I know he could be well intentioned, but completely uninformed or he could be a Rocky-lite, partisan hack.  The one thing I do know is that if the legislature wanted to "screw" the SL Co. council, the transportation bill currently before us isn't the way to go about it.  Probably the best way to let the council flap in the breeze (pardon me, learn from its mistakes) would be to leave it with its proposed property tax increase (still a viable option).  That would have been an easier approach and would have saved many of us a huge amount of time, several weekends, and a holiday.  The current transportation bill is about providing an opportunity to protect homeownership while also moving Utah's transportation policy forward in a broad, comprehensive manner.  It's not about catering to every whim and impulse of the SL Co. council.

Sen. Killpack has provided a good summary of the key points of the bill (Prioritizing Transportation).  Let me give some additional background.  Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose wasteful, pork-barrel spending.  I also hate knee-jerk patches, particularly targeted exclusively at a single city or county.  I appreciate policies that will provide long-term benefit; that empowers individuals to address their own needs.  As Sen. Killpack, Rep. Lockhart, and many others looked at the problem, we determined that the best approach to this bad situation would be to (1) craft fair and balanced legislation that would be applicable across the state, (2) develop legislation continuing our policies of providing greater transparency of the transportation project selection process and focusing on letting the scientific data, rather than political clout, target the limited transportation funds to the most critical regional transportation needs, and (3) ensure that necessary transportation corridors are preserved in perpetuity.

These are significant and beneficial policy decisions, providing a better funding tool while empowering local governments within each county to create the prioritization process and then select those transportation projects that will provide the greatest benefit to their constituents.  It also has the possibility of securing the 2/3 vote required to take effect before the election.  Without being able to clear that high bar, we might as well just wait for the general session in January.  (Personally, I'm in no particular hurry.)

It's an option that the council could choose to adopt, if approved by the legislature.  Otherwise they could stay with the horse they are currently riding.  Despite the inaccurate report, no one is forcing the council to make the change (or pulling the rug out from under them).

So, here we are, getting ready to debate the future of transportation in Utah -- a topic that now overshadows income tax reform.  Should we provide tools to develop the roads,rails, and airports to the future or should we leave SL Co. riding their horse to nowhere?