Well, the NBA basketball season is finally over. But apparently the all-court press is still in vogue at our morning paper.
On Friday, June 10, Mr. Tully took up the case of mass transit, insisting that the time for a vote was at hand.
On Tuesday, June 14, Ms. Smith jumped on the bandwagon with equal insistence that the peasants be allowed to vote on this imperative.
This morning, June 15, Mr. Sikich joined the party. He tells us supporters of a "mass transit overhaul" are getting up a petition asking the legislature to raise taxes for that purpose. Actually, he doesn’t use those words. He refers to having the legislature "...authorize a referendum on transit funding...."
This column sidebar (is that the proper term?) gives a link to the internet with specific directions as to how one votes as follows: "I support dedicated funding for transit." (No indication that there is an opportunity to cast a "Do not" vote.
Given the fiscal precedents set by "leaders"of Indianapolis and Marion County in recent years, it is depressing - but not surprising - that the paper continues to support efforts to provide public officials with such a massive blank check.
Will someone really explain - and guarantee - what "dedicated funding for transit" really means? What source of revenue will be used? Income tax increase? Sales tax increase? Property tax increase? (The so-called constitutional property tax cap could be avoided by an across the board increase of assessments.)
What body will receive the increased tax revenues? Will that body make the determination as to projects and priorities thereof? What constitutes "transit?" Are Bike lanes included? Federal "transportation" funds are being used for the Georgia Street boondoggle for Super Bowl "Dress Up Day." Is that kind of project in the future?
Will someone finally answer a question we’ve asked many times, and explain why it makes sense to place a new rail system parallel to, and within a short distance of, current multi-million dollar re-construction of multi-lane freeways before we know whether that solves our problems?
Which will come first - suburban pleasure or city needs? Would you send your ten year old child into a department store with a $100 bill and suggest that he buy what he needs? Pardon our cynicism, but we believe setting up the big slush fund before nailing down the details simply begs for abuse of the funds.
And wouldn’t it have been nice if the same paper had been as interested in having a public vote on municipal assumption of a billion dollar plus debt to build a football field?
Comments