MEASURE NO. 24-238

Salem-Keizer Mass Transit District

Argument Against

By now, riders have adjusted to the reduced bus schedules in outlying areas. Transit District has already said it doesn’t necessarily plan to restore these routes (Statesman Journal, 9/5/2006). Their staggered scheduling has maintained frequent buses in areas where there is more usage. You don’t see two Cherriots buses following each other down High Street anymore!

Given these savings, gouging property taxpayers with a 80% increase of the Transit District levy is even less necessary. Look at the buses in your neighborhood. How full are they? Salem doesn’t need any new transit services, and already has plenty of capacity to absorb a huge increase in riders.

I spent last winter in the Detroit, Michigan suburbs. Detroit News, 4/21/2006, reported that the three suburban counties would ask taxpayers for a replacement, not additional, levy of 59-cents per $1000 to continue operating their SMART bus system. Apparently they can operate with a levy 20% lower than the current S-K Transit District assessment. There is no rationale for S-K Transit District getting a levy of $1.35 per $1000 (75-cents existing + 60-cents requested) - over twice as much!.

RENTERS: Please understand that your landlords will be happy to pass this property tax increase along to you by raising your rent, if this measure passes.

Because most of the on-going services listed in Measure 24-238 are already more than adequately funded, what could the Transit District want a “temporary” assessment for? The only temporary item is building new transit centers - another welfare project for the land developers in Salem.

The bus system uses a hub-and-spoke model. It doesn’t make sense to build transit centers at the edge of the system where ridership is small and the population is dispersed. It would increase riders’ travel time to downtown, involve additional transfers, consume additional fuel, and increase maintenance and security problems.

Does all this sound nonsensical? It is. Please vote NO on 24-238.

(This information provided by Paul R. Seesing)

Argument Against

The 60 cents/1000 being asked for is on top of the 76 cents awarded in 1966. There have been substantial increases every year since due to the ever increasing tax base in the Area. With this new levy, the owner of an average $250,000 home would be paying $340/yr. to support a transit system that serves 5% of the population. The Fire Dept. is asking us to pay far less and they serve 100%. Fares only pay for about 11% of operating costs. The rest is from your taxes, Presently the System is very inefficient with 80 buses for 29 routes (note all the empty buses running around) and there is waste and excesses internally. Although fares have been 85 cents, only 41 cents is being collected. Too many free rides and under priced passes. Overheads are excessive with fringe benefits over 50%.

Cherrylift is badly abused with many unqualified users because there is no good certification in place. It now costs over $2 million/yr. Fare is $3.40/ride but cost is $20. They buy this service from Wheels but won’t take competitive bids. Internal maintenance of buses costs $35,000/bus, twice what it would cost on the outside. In 5 years, ridership is up 25%, revenue is up 37% but expenses are up 55%. The 25% cut back in service was unnecessary. This is a tactic to spook the voters into approving the increase in taxes.

Before we give the System a tax increase, they must address these issues. If they do, they will find all the money they need to restore full service. What we want is an efficient, cost effective transit system. Providing more tax money now will simply remove the need to address these problems and it will be business as usual. Therefore, we recommend a no vote at this time.

(This information provided by M.C. Bickert, Citizens for Efficient Transit)