Dan Cody - “Left on the Lake” » Good News for Mass Transit in Southeastern Wisconsin

Good News for Mass Transit in Southeastern Wisconsin

On the heels of Milwaukee County residents supporting a 1% sales tax that would be used in part to fund transit in Milwaukee County, more good news for mass transit today from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

This morning the RTA voted 6 to 1 to approve a report that recommends seeking a sales tax increase of 0.5% in Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha counties to provide a dedicated and sound funding source for mass transit in Southeastern Wisconsin, including the “KRM” line that would link Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha to Chicago’s high speed Metra commuter rail system.

While these recommendations will need to go to the state legislature for approval, it’s an encouraging sign that we’ve finally broken through the stalemate that has been keeping the Milwaukee metro area from joining the rest of the Country in implementing and enjoying the benefits of a modern mass transit system.

The one “No” vote? Naturally it was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker’s appointee to the RTA.

The County Executive has been a major roadblock to the progress of Milwaukee’s mass transit infrastructure over the past six years. While you’d think that the County Executive of a major metropolitan area would be in favor of creating jobs, building it’s infrastructure, and expanding economic opportunity for the residents of his County, that hasn’t been the case with Scott Walker.

Thankfully, his ability to remain a roadblock on the road to progress in Southeastern Wisconsin has been limited with the events of the last week.

Politics, Transit | Dan Cody | November 10, 2008 9:47 pm

14 Comments

By Dave Reid, November 10, 2008 @ 10:18 pm

And to be clear if the RTA would eventually become reality then things like MCTS would roll into it.

PS Good job on the referendum…
By Arlen, November 10, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

Scott Walker isn’t hard to understand. The only policy he knows how to run on is “property tax freeze” (it doesn’t seem to matter to him that even Warren Buffet says that’s a Bad Thing). So therefore whenever he hears “tax” his knee jerks.

Maybe he thinks brains are like knives and the only way to keep them sharp is to not use them very often?
By Smitty, November 11, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

Is this a sales tax increase of 0.5% on top of the 1.0% increase that was approved last Tuesday?
By Sean, November 11, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

Smitty,

Is that a rhetorical question?
By Smitty, November 11, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

Sean,

Yes, it was. It appears these political loons won’t be satisfied until they take every last dime I possess.
By Dan Cody, November 11, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

It hasn’t been shaken out yet. The legislature would have the final say as no County has the ability to impose a sales tax on it’s own.
By Sean, November 12, 2008 @ 12:20 am

Smitty, I know it was, I asked it more to get a response from Dan.

Dan,

You do realize the irony of Smitty’s question don’t you? There will always be a tax out there won’t there? IE: A sales tax couched as property tax relief, a double digit MPS increase, a State of Wisconsin budget shortfall, that will surely raise taxes, or the newly proposed transit tax you mention above?!?!? Amazing! Are these the pieces of news I should be expecting over the next 4-8 years? If so, I’ll have to add a third escrot portion to my mortgage. One for my regular property taxes (that go up every year), insurance, AND all other taxes instituted over the next “how-ever-many” years.
By Dan Cody, November 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am

There will always be a tax out there? I would guess so, there’s “always been a tax there” for thousands of years now, I don’t expect that will change anytime soon.

I realize that you see everything through the lens of “tax increase” and respectfully disagree with that.

Here’s a thought though: I paid $400 more for gasoline this year than last, and outside of trips to see family, we really don’t drive that much. That money isn’t going anywhere but to the pockets of big oil.

Under the proposed County tax levy this year, I’ll pay an extra $12.00. I continue to be baffled as to why you’re up in arms about the $12.00 and not the $400.
By Sean, November 12, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

I’m up in arms on both, but there is a difference; unlike gas, taxes don’t come down. As for concentrating on the tax issue, I was commenting on the post.
By Dan Cody, November 12, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

And unlike energy costs, taxes don’t go up 100% in a single year. Any leveling off of gas prices is great, but unless they go DOWN from the price they were at by an equal amount they went UP, I will never recoup the extra $400 I spent this year.

And what did I get out of it, long term, other than a warm fuzzy for knowing that I helped a big oil exec. buy another painting for his yacht?

When I pay taxes, at least I know it’s going to pay for fire trucks, to put cops on the streets, rebuild our infrastructure and places where I can go ice skating with my kids this winter.
By Smitty, November 12, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

Dan,

Your faith in the goodness of government and high taxes is touching. It’s what I expect from a Democrat activist, mass transit cheerleader and the head of a public employee union.

Thank God for “big oil” and its fat cat CEOs, it gives you a convenient strawman to attack whenever taxes are raised. Taxes, of course, never go up a 100% a year but they go up steadily and relentlessly—my property taxes, my sales taxes, my state and federal income taxes, my registration fees, my wheel taxes, my excise taxes and God knows what other taxes I’m not even aware of. They’re going up and I can’t stop it, I can only pay them or lose my house, my bank acount or my freedom.

BTW. I don’t have to drive a car and pay the fat cats’ paint jobs. I can walk, bicycle, ride the bus, I can even buy a Prius. However, I don’t have that option when it comes to taxes, I can’t opt out of the tax system, I can’t use an alterntive method to pay for the police and fire protection, ice skating rinks or the comfortable pensions of public employees. I’m stuck.
By Dan Cody, November 12, 2008 @ 10:47 pm

Your disdain for those who worked a lifetime in the public sector for less pay than they could have made in the public sector with the promise that they’d be taken care of when they choose to retire is troubling and ugly to be honest.

I get that you’re against union workers on a purely ideological basis, although I don’t understand why you hold us in such contempt on a personal level.

Union members are hard working, family orientated people who are trying to make a better lives for themselves and their kids. You can count me in that group too.

I will not, nor should I, apologize for that because you misunderstand, mischaracterize, or misrepresent working union members of this community.
By Smitty, November 13, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

Dan,

Nice rant, I give it a 9.5. Unfortunately, it’s beside the point and it doesn’t address any of the points I made.

P.S. Non-union workers are also family oriented
people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their kids, sometimes under more difficult cicumstances than their unionized kindred. I know, I did it for 40 years.
By Sean, November 13, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

Here’s the problem with your logic Dan, many government jobs are not for less pay, especially when you include the benefits (which are unseen in the REAL world). The majority of us in the private sector don’t get that “promise” of being taken care of and we know that, but we expect those that do basically the same job to be treated in the same fashion that we are. My dad was in a union - and detested every $ he put in. I paid into a union, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. Did the money I contributed (hundreds of dollars) do me any good??? Nope, still got paid minimum wage, and every time a contract would come up there were little to no benefits for my position(s). They’re willing to take my money, but not willing to represent me…..sounds reeeeeaaaaal familiar.

I do agree with you that the majority of union members (county workers, and all other unionized employees) are hard working family oriented people. The problem is not whether or not the people are hardworking, more often than not, they are, but more to the point is (especially in the public sector) union employees are getting benefits that would never be available to those in the private sector. These unrealistic, frankly bloated benefits hurt businesses and employees in the long run. A perfect example of that is the auto industry. Not saying the boneheads on the top of the big three didn’t contribute to their demise, but the costs associated with labor, retirement and ancillary benefits is going to bury those companies.