Seattle Times Sound Transit “Frugality” Concerns

The November 26^th Seattle Times Editorial “Sound Transit should consider Bellevue as its headquarters” opines “Before making further commitments to rent pricey Seattle office space, Sound Transit’s governing board should explore options for less expensive and more regional offices.”   They were particularly concerned:

The regional transit authority this year signed leases for downtown Seattle office spaces that will cost taxpayers $90 million over the next four to five years. A fourth of the space will be occupied by consultants, who should be paying for their overhead.

They also urged readers to

Remember, just a few months ago, it was revealed that Sound Transit’s Lynnwood extension is $500 million over budget. This doesn’t exactly assure the public that the agency getting a lion’s share of the Puget Sound’s tax revenue is being frugal.

The Times concern Sound Transit was not “frugal” because they'll spend $90 million over the next four to five years leasing property in Seattle rather than less expensive or permanent facilities in Bellevue seems to reflect a "new interest" in how they spend our tax money.  After all, this is the same Seattle Times whose "answer" to their Nov 4^th 2016 edition front-page article question, “Would transit plan ease traffic?” was, “It would not!”.  The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”. 

Yet the Times only objection to the $54 billion ST3 vote was an Oct 28^th editorial  “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority” recommended rejection, not because it cost too much, or wouldn’t reduce congestion, but because “Prop 1 would give Sound Transit permanent tax authority”.  The editorial opined “If voters reject ST3, Sound Transit should return with a measure specifying which taxes would be terminated and when”.

Pierce and Snohomish Counties rejected ST3 with 53% voting against approval even though most of the extension money will be spent there.  After the ST3 vote, a 11/14/16 post urged Sound Transit be audited.  The results of the last state Sound Transit audit were reported in an Oct 25, 2012 Seattle Times article,  “Sound Transit gets mixed reviews in state audit”.   A more recent audit was certainly needed.  Yet the Times refused to advocate for one despite concerns the $54 billion wouldn’t reduce congestion.

A year later, the below Nov 24^th email to the Times attempted to get support for an audit, referred them to this blog,

Dear Seattle Times Staff,

The 11/23/17 post on my blog http://stopeastlink.blogspot.com opines the Republican legislators were justified claiming Sound Transit misled them and voters about what ST3 would cost.  However they should be even more concerned the increased operating costs for the extensions will create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds and do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion.   It urges Republicans use the upcoming session to propose legislation requiring Sound Transit be independently audited to “investigate” these concerns.  While the results may not stop ST3, it will at least alert the area as to what to expect.

Not only is an audit needed because of Seattle Times concerns ST3 extensions won’t reduce congestion, it's needed because of concerns the extension operating costs will create a financial black hole for far into the future.  The Times concerns about frugality regarding lease costs, while well founded, surely warrant their support for an audit.