News from Patrick Flynn

Because the airwaves aren’t saturated with political ads like they were last fall, you may not have noticed that municipal campaign season is actually in full swing.  A glance at my calendar, which is loaded with various candidate forums (not all of which I can attend), confirms that fact.

One of the interesting parts about many forums is sharing the stage with candidates running in other elections.  You get to know them a bit and hear more about their thinking, which leads to a little story I’d like to relate.

At the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce forum on Monday, March 14, the eight of us on stage were asked to stand up if we supported various things read by the emcee.  (Do you support school bonds?  Road bonds?  Ballot initiatives?  And so forth.)  After that we each had an opportunity to expand on one of the topics raised by the questions, though many chose to talk about several or even all of them.  If I recall correctly, I was the first to focus on support for legislative funding of public transit as Alaska is one of two or three states in which the state provides zero operating dollars for public transit.  I noted those unrestricted dollars could be heavily leveraged (i.e. lots of bang for the buck) and that our People Mover system plays an important role in the lives of many working families.  It’s a lot easier to keep families stable and together if parents have a safe, reliable means to get to work on time, and that’s good for employers, too.

Later in the forum one of the east side candidates, Adam Trombley, offered more tepid support for public transit.  I believe he said he supported it because his neighbors in east Anchorage support it, but that riders should pay higher fares to reduce subsidies.  That led to a question from the audience – given that People Mover benefits both employees and their employers, how should those increased costs be allocated?  It was phrased a little less clearly than that, so Mr. Trombley seemed understandably puzzled and basically reiterated his support of cost-causer, cost-payer funding.  That makes sense in a lot of circumstances but if it’s the approach we’re going to take for something as basic as transportation I can foresee a lot of potholes in that particular road.  Here’s why:

The neighborhoods in my district are relatively densely populated and close to employment centers.  As a consequence the number of people using public and non-motorized (bike & pedestrian) transit is higher than most other areas in town.  Yet they pay the same level of gas tax at the pump and, more importantly, the same mill rate in property taxes for debt service on road bonds while causing less wear and congestion on the very roads for which they’re paying taxes to build and maintain.  In other words, if we’re going to follow a cost-causer, cost-payer model it seems reasonable to suggest that residents in my district should pay a lower level of road costs.  It’s only fair, right?

Or maybe we should recognize that providing a safe, efficient transportation network – including public transit – is a basic function of our community.  So while it’s important to scrutinize budgets and seek ways to provide services in a more cost-effective manner, I’m less interested in shifting additional costs to those who are working hard to put food on their family’s tables.

Regards,

Patrick