Mesquite, Forney, Terrell: "We Want DART"

[RobertB]

I just about jumped up with a hoot-n-holler when I read this:

City Desires Limited Mass Transit Service
Don Purdum
[Forney] Post Managing Editor
September 3, 2008
http://forneypost.net/articles/2008/09/03/dart.html

The City of Forney hopes to make commuters travel experience more pleasurable and relieve congestion into downtown Dallas from Highway 80.

Last night, the City Council authorized Mayor Darrell Grooms to sign a letter written to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), along with Mayors from Terrell and Mesquite. The letter states, "The recent increases in fuel prices coupled with decreases in highway funding have caused the Cities of Mesquite, Forney, and Terrell to explore and evaluate every option that provides transit service from our cities to Downtown Dallas."

City Manager Brian Brooks and the city staff have been in discussions with DART about the possibility of having limited mass transit service in the forms of Express Bus and/or rail to Forney.

According to the agenda bill submitted to the Council by Brooks, "After several conversations with DART, we were made aware of efforts by the City of Mesquite and City of Terrell to achieve the same outcome."

The intent of the letter is attempt to get recognition from DART "of the collaborative efforts of the three cities. This will allow us to have a much stronger negotiating voice with the DART Board," writes Brooks. "It will also recognize us as a potential competing interest in mass transportation funding if DART fails to work towards our goals."

The Council unanimously voted to give Mayor Grooms authorization to sign the letter written to DART.
It looks like the Forney Post scooped the Morning News, but I hope to see an article in the big paper Right Soon Now. I was thinking that DART's accounting malfunction on the Orange Line would keep Mesquite, Forney, and Terrell from considering a deal with the agency... but the increased cost of the new LRT line pales next to $4 gas.

[mjblazin]

They don't want to join DART. If they did, they could just vote to join. They want a deal and are essentially threatening DART "as a competing interest in mass transportation funding." That attitude doesn't sound very friendly or in DART's interests.

[eirin]

This has some lasting repercussions though. If cities started paying DART out of the city budget to operate one or multiple park and ride express bus locations similar to the one in Glenn Heights, it could be a stepping stone to future service, whether it be rail, bus service, or both.

[tamtagon]

They don't want to join DART. If they did, they could just vote to join. They want a deal and are essentially threatening DART "as a competing interest in mass transportation funding." That attitude doesn't sound very friendly or in DART's interests.

I know, the wording of the dealio is so off-putting. It's like, what, are the goals of these three cities.

The article implies that it played out like this:

Municipal Forney approached DART to see about getting express bus and/or rail service for Forney residents.

After a few meetings, DART folks told the Forney folks that the people from Mesquite and Terrell were asking for the same thing.

Then the Forney, Mesquite and Terrell folks got together to have a stronger negotiating position when making plans with DART.

Hum. In a perfect world, the good neighbors of Mesquite, Forney and Terrell would have talked about carpooling, buses and stuff like that in the first place. I dont really know why DART folks would not have brought up conversations with the other communities. The lack of communitation is just stupid.

The whole idea of negotiating tactics is just an unfortunate reality, I guess. whatever. But since the secret's out, how about DART sending an announcement to all the communities between Mesquite and Shreveport that theinevitable process of putting together a mass transit plan giving North East Texas daily train access to downtown Dallas is finally underway. It's already been in the news that folks in Texarkana are interested to be involved in bringing passenger train service between Dallas and Little Rock, I dont know why people in Tyler, Longview, Marshall and Shreveport should not be part of the cornerstone meetings that would result in passenger trains carrying people from Mesquite, Forney and Terrell into Dallas.

Anyway, it's a step in the right direction.

[AeroD]

I dont know why people in Tyler, Longview, Marshall and Shreveport should not be part of the cornerstone meetings that would result in passenger trains carrying people from Mesquite, Forney and Terrell into Dallas.

Anyway, it's a step in the right direction.

Actually, one of rail's biggest proponents is Longview's own Tommy Merritt. He can go on about rail. He would put FoUTA to shame. Unfortunately for reasons that are political (beyond rail) he has not been able to push rail.

[Hannibal Lecter]

The thing to note here is that this totally politician-driven. Taking this approach allows them to get some level of service without having to put it in front of the voters.

When I lived in Rockwall (same general area, more upscale demographic), there was a proposal for a "new urbanism" type development on Ridge Road at the DNGO railroad tracks. It was widely and vigorously opposed, and the zoning change refused. The reason was that it looked a lot like a TOD, and was right where you would expect to see a station if the blue line were extended from Rowlett. While it may seem ass-backwards, the widespread fear was this development might represent the camel's nose under the tent of DART coming to town, and that was most definitely not wanted. In five years there, I never met a person who said they wanted DART.

[FoUTASportscaster]

They don't want to join DART. If they did, they could just vote to join. They want a deal and are essentially threatening DART "as a competing interest in mass transportation funding." That attitude doesn't sound very friendly or in DART's interests.

They can't just out and out join. Mesquite doesn't have the one cent sales tax available. They instead have an economic development tax. Forney and Terrell do not border a DART member city. Contracting may be their only option.

[RobertB]

I know, the wording of the dealio is so off-putting. It's like, what, are the goals of these three cities.
Their goals are simple: Mesquite wants what's in Mesquite's best interests. And the same for Forney, and the same for Terrell.

That may seem mercenary, but it sure seems like an improvement to me. Because 10 years ago, nobody in those three cities would have even suggested that a relationship (of any sort) with DART would be in their best interest. And no politician would have gotten elected if they had stuck their neck out to make such a claim. Now, it's a given. The question of "Do we want to enter an agreement with DART?" has been answered in the affirmative... the question now is not "if" but "how" and "when".

And while "It will also recognize us as a potential competing interest [...] if DART fails to work towards our goals." sounds negative, I welcome it. DART has had its share of ups and downs. In the '80s, it was a paragon of mismanagement and waste. In the '90s, it rode a wave of success and was perceived as a model agency. The '00s have seen another reversal, with scandals from Jewelrygate to the Orange Line overrun, with a murder-suicide thrown in for good measure. On top of that, the city of Dallas looms over the agency like the elephant in the room, demanding unworkable routes like the LRT spur to the single-employer Hutchins (!) intermodal terminal.

So I say it's a GOOD thng that the towns are banding together. The negotiations that result will give us a better regional transit plan -- and maybe even a better DART. And it's just the sort of thing we need to be doing if we want the legislators in Austin to take our concerns seriously.

[Mballar]

I know that DART has been salivating over the opportunity to expand its service out to Mesquite. DART currently has 4 or 5 bus routes (e.g. 37, 110, 466) that literally border the Mesquite city limits. I've also heard that DART wants to expand the Green Line with a spur down Sceyene to 635. Because the willingness seems to be there on both sides now, I think that an agreement between DART and these cities will come within the next year.

[electricron]

I know that DART has been salivating over the opportunity to expand its service out to Mesquite. DART currently has 4 or 5 bus routes (e.g. 37, 110, 466) that literally border the Mesquite city limits. I've also heard that DART wants to expand the Green Line with a spur down Sceyene to 635. Because the willingness seems to be there on both sides now, I think that an agreement between DART and these cities will come within the next year.

It would be easier, but much more expensive, for Dart to extend the Scyene line into Mesquite. Since Kaufman County borders Dallas County, Dallas County having over 1 million citizens, they could form their own transit agency like Denton County (DCTA), and build their own rail line into Dallas County to join the Dart line. Only two cities (Terrell and Forney) will have to pass a taxation enabling vote to pay for it.
See Chapter 460 of Texas Code.
http://www.dcta.net/AboutDCTA.asp

The major problem with this rail scenario is that the cheapest way to do this is using the existing railroad line, which is owned and operated by the Union Pacific. The UP is notorious and will do everything in its power to prevent transit on its lines. It'll cost far more than DCTA's luck in that's its line is owned by Dart.

The cheaper solution, is for Kaufman County to form a transit agency and run express buses on US 80. An express bus system could probably be financed with just a 1/4 to 1/2 cent sales tax.

What I'm suggesting, if all Kaufman County wants is express bus, there's already a mechanism in State Law that they can use to make it happen. They don't need Dart.

A Kaufman County Transit Agency could also send express buses to the end of Dart's Green Line in Pleasant Grove, or to the end of the Blue Line in Rowlett, not just to downtown Dallas. It'll have to make a deal with Dart to drop passengers at Dart's rail stations, but other agencies including the DCTA have done so, so it can be done.

Expecting the tax payers in Dart's member cities to foot the entire bill is unfair. There's plenty of projects within Dart's member cities that haven't been built yet.

Other Counties bordering Dallas and Tarrant Counties can do the same thing. That includes Collin, Rockwall, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, and Wise Counties.

They don't have to join Dart or the T. They can do this themselves.
The NCTCOG's RTC will be willing to help the counties plan and finance it.

[tamtagon]

Any one know if Mesquite, Forney, Terrell and/or DART have come up with a rough timeline for Express bus service to get rolling? Or is it still in the talk-it-out stage?

[RobertB]

Any one know if Mesquite, Forney, Terrell and/or DART have come up with a rough timeline for Express bus service to get rolling? Or is it still in the talk-it-out stage?
I haven't seen anything else. I've got a Google News section configured for "mesquite, tx", which is how I found the original story, but it hasn't come up with any more hits.

I'm especially surprised (and disappointed) that the DMN didn't pick up the story. They're usually quick to toot DART's horn, for better or worse, so I expected this to fit right into their current "DART is great" mantra. Either they decided that Mesquite+Forney+Terrell=BFD, or else someone would rather not point out that DART could have competition. Or most likely, they fired all their reporters except for one guy to watch the Reuters and AP websites, and another to report on the latest fashion trend at Collin Creek Mall.

[electricron]

I haven't seen anything else. I've got a Google News section configured for "mesquite, tx", which is how I found the original story, but it hasn't come up with any more hits.

I'm especially surprised (and disappointed) that the DMN didn't pick up the story. They're usually quick to toot DART's horn, for better or worse, so I expected this to fit right into their current "DART is great" mantra. Either they decided that Mesquite+Forney+Terrell=BFD, or else someone would rather not point out that DART could have competition. Or most likely, they fired all their reporters except for one guy to watch the Reuters and AP websites, and another to report on the latest fashion trend at Collin Creek Mall.

US 80 is an old four land freeway that's overcrowded most mornings and evenings rush hours. TXDOT plans to widen and add HOV lanes at an unannounced time in the future. Dart 2030 maps show these future HOV lanes. For an express bus service to work effectively, the HOV lanes will need to be in place on US 80.

What we've read here is the desire to talk and haggle by Kaufman County cities. I replied earlier what I think would work best. I believe Kaufman County should look at Denton County as an example for the quick implementation of express bus and/or regional rail.

[Mballar]

I haven't seen anything else. I've got a Google News section configured for "mesquite, tx", which is how I found the original story, but it hasn't come up with any more hits.

I'm especially surprised (and disappointed) that the DMN didn't pick up the story. They're usually quick to toot DART's horn, for better or worse, so I expected this to fit right into their current "DART is great" mantra. Either they decided that Mesquite+Forney+Terrell=BFD, or else someone would rather not point out that DART could have competition. Or most likely, they fired all their reporters except for one guy to watch the Reuters and AP websites, and another to report on the latest fashion trend at Collin Creek Mall.
Ask and ye shall receive.

_________________________________
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091208dnmetdart.272acef.html

Mesquite, Terrell and Forney ask DART to explore service

07:36 AM CDT on Friday, September 12, 2008

By FRANK TREJO / The Dallas Morning News
ftrejo@dallasnews.com

High gasoline prices and crowded roads are prompting three non-DART member cities to ask the agency to explore transit options for them.

The mayors of Mesquite, Terrell and Forney sent Dallas Area Rapid Transit Chairman Randall Chrisman a letter this week saying they were aware of regional funding options being discussed and wanted to help find solutions.

The letter also requests discussions with DART's staff "to determine what transit services are or may be available near term, such as Bus Rapid Transit from each city to Dallas, and to plan for an eventual connection with DART's Light/Commuter Rail Line system through Mesquite and Forney to Terrell."

DART spokesman Morgan Lyons said that the agency was willing to talk but that, as nonmembers, the cities hadn't been paying the 1-cent sales tax for transit.

"Really, in the short term, there would be no service we could provide them like they're requesting, because they just don't have the funding available," he said.

[RobertB]

Somehow, the DMN missed what mjblazin noticed right away -- the cities aren't just going to DART with hat in hand, but pointing out that failure to negotiate with the cities will mean that DART will face a "potential competing interest in mass transportation funding".

Instead, the DMN portrayed the cities as beggars with nothing to offer, and DART as the Big Daddy who decides the terms of any deal. And the DART rep did nothing to dispel the paternalistic slant, dismissing these three growing cities' request out of hand.

Consider the situation of Texas Senator Bob Deuell. His district (http://www.deuell.senate.state.tx.us/#District) includes Mesquite, Sunnyvale, and Balch Springs, as well as Forney and Terrell and all the way from Bonham to Tyler. He's running unopposed -- he has the flexibility to make a stand. DART is about to go to the legislature and ask Deuell and others to increase taxes for transit funding. Is Bob Deuell going to do that for an agency that blows off a significant proportion of his constituency? Heck no, not when the rest of his district won't benefit, and other parts (Rockwall) are openly hostile.

This is a situation where the Dallas Morning News' fawning over DART does the agency no favors. DART is stuck in a rut, riding the echoes of its past success with rail, but in danger of heading down the wrong path. The best thing for the agency right now is for it to be held accountable by the media. And outside of the Dallas Observer, nobody seems to be picking up the ball.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Rather than file a bill that would increase the transit tax, I would like to see a bill that allows one election to ask voters if they would repeal their 4a and 4b sales tax (usually in the form of economic development) and at the same time institute that transit tax after the debt is retired. That way, overall taxes do not go up, which is a much better proposition.

[tamtagon]

You've got to pay to play. How long did it take Arlington to work out a deal with The T to get commuter serice to downtown Fort Worth? and how much was the hook-up fee? If Mesquite, Forney and Terrell folks want to get together and buy some buses, build some park-n-rides, and carry commuters into Dallas that's great; but if these folks expect to take the Mes-orn-ell Express into Dallas to finish their trip on DART, then they have to contribute. Just like the TRE gets money from Arlington and Grand Prairie - someone estimates how many Arl GP residents drive to a TRE station and ride the train to Dallas or Fort Worth.

I agree that the DMN ought to do a better job explaining the situation - why exactly can DART expect a negotiation with a potential competitor. As well, for the folks who do not live in a DART member city, the DMN ought to explain why they should not expect to ride the Forney Bus to the DART system without contributing to DART. There's an upfront membership fee if new cities want to join DART, and it's only fair (fare).

[eirin]

Either way, they are going to have to pay for it somehow. If they want to start their own agency, then have fun with that. They'd have to somehow get DART to let them operate it inside their jurisdiction and make connections. It's much easier to just pay for DART service than to have multiple competing agencies. If they want transit in their area, that's fine, but what they say they want is a link to Dallas. DART would be the best way to go in that regard.

If the public seriously wants mass transit, they have to understand there is no such thing as a free ride. Either spend your money on gas, or pay a lot less in sales taxes. That's how Texas law works.

Now if they want to contract for limited fixed route service through an annual allotted budget, then I think DART would be willing to deal with that. But they'd have to have the money up front before any service can get started. And I think that DART would be able to put more capital up front more quickly than if those cities have to come up with it themselves.

[Mballar]

Now if they want to contract for limited fixed route service through an annual allotted budget, then I think DART would be willing to deal with that. But they'd have to have the money up front before any service can get started. And I think that DART would be able to put more capital up front more quickly than if those cities have to come up with it themselves.
Now, I've been thinking all along that this is the route that these cities will probably pursue. Maybe they'll even agree to support a ballot measure in the next 5 years. But, as Sport pointed out earlier, Mesquite doesn't currently have enough room under the cap for DART's 1 cent sales tax requirement.

[eirin]

I know Mesquite doesn't--it's like most of the suburbs. What about Terrell and Forney? Are they using the full 2%? I don't know at all.

[FoUTASportscaster]

How long did it take Arlington to work out a deal with The T to get commuter serice to downtown Fort Worth? and how much was the hook-up fee?

The difference is that Arlington is paying for a trial run of commuter buses with the T. In theory, these cities coulkd do the same, but I have a feeling (nothing more if any one wants to debate this point) that DART is lukewarm to the idea.


I agree that the DMN ought to do a better job explaining the situation - why exactly can DART expect a negotiation with a potential competitor. As well, for the folks who do not live in a DART member city, the DMN ought to explain why they should not expect to ride the Forney Bus to the DART system without contributing to DART. There's an upfront membership fee if new cities want to join DART, and it's only fair (fare).

How is it any different than if they drove to the station or transit center themselves? That's the conundrum you face when you have cities decide if they are part of a regional issue or not.


I know Mesquite doesn't--it's like most of the suburbs. What about Terrell and Forney? Are they using the full 2%? I don't know at all.

Yes, all three do not have the one cent to spare.

[electricron]

The difference is that Arlington is paying for a trial run of commuter buses with the T. In theory, these cities coulkd do the same.

Yes, all three do not have the one cent to spare.

How much sales tax capability do they have left?

Interesting Kaufman County news:
http://kaufmancountyonline.com/artman/publish/article_2248.shtml
I'm not sure what would happen if Kaufman County had charged a half cent sales tax for bridge and road repairs, as many Kaufman County cites are already maxed out at 8.25 cents.

TERRELL is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4A = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

FORNEY is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

KAUFMAN is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4A = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = o.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

CRANDALL is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

MABANK is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

KEMP has 0.25 cent left
Street Maintenance/repair = 0.25 cent
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

SCURRY has a full cent left
Regular Rate = 1 cent

ROSSER has a full cent left
Regular Rate = 1 cent

COMBINE has a half cent left
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

Looks like most cities in Kaufman County are more interested in reducing property taxes rather than having transit taxes.

Compared to Dallas and Fort Worth, just as examples
DALLAS is maxed out at 8.25%
Regular Rate = 1 cent
Transit (Dart) = 1 cent

FORT WORTH still has a half cent left.
Regular Rate = 1 cent
Transit (Dart) = 0.5 cent

And let's look at the suburbs surrounding Dart, just for kicks!
MESQUITE is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

GRAND PRAIRIE is maxed out at 8.25%
Sport & Comm Ven Loc Gov 334 = 0.125 cent
Sport & Comm Venue Loc Gov 334 = 0.125 cent
Street Maintenance/repair = 0.25 cent
Sport & Comm Venue Loc Gov 334 = 0.25 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

DUNCANVILLE is maxed out at 8.25%
Economic/Industrial Dev Sec 4B = 0.5 cent
Property Tax Relief = 0.5 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

ARLINGTON at 8% (Surprise, Arlington still has a quarter cent left!)
Sport & Comm Venue Loc Gov 334 = 0.5 cent
Street Maintenance/repair = 0.25 cent
Regular Rate = 1 cent

Arlington can go to the polls after this trial run and implement a quarter cent sales tax for transit. Many regional cities can't, unless they cancel other sale tax programs.

In fact, neither of the three cities east of Dart's territory have any sales tax left, not even a measly one eight of a cent. No wonder Dart doubts their sincerity.

[Quiz03]

Rather than file a bill that would increase the transit tax, I would like to see a bill that allows one election to ask voters if they would repeal their 4a and 4b sales tax (usually in the form of economic development) and at the same time institute that transit tax after the debt is retired. That way, overall taxes do not go up, which is a much better proposition.


That's already the law. Chapter 452.6025 Texas Transportation Code.

[electricron]

That's already the law. Chapter 452.6025 Texas Transportation Code.

And Dart is the regional transit agency under Chapter 452.

So, when will there be a new vote in Mesquite, Duncanville, Cedar Hill, Lancaster, Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Grand Prairie, and Arlington? Never?

Chapter 452.6025
(d) The election in a municipality to approve the addition of the municipality to the territory of the authority is to be treated for all purposes as an election to reduce the rate of the municipality's special sales and use tax, on the effective date determined by the executive committee, to the highest rate that will not impair the imposition of the authority's sales and use tax.

Note: Text of subsection effective on April 1, 2009.
It's not quite the law yet. But, on or after April 1, 2009, cities can have elections to join Dart without increasing the sales tax rate. The other special sales taxes are automatically rescinded. Of course, the city councils must vote to have an election first. It's up to citizens wishing to join Dart to force them to hold an election.

More on section 6025
Notwithstanding Section 452.606, a municipality that is not part of an authority may be added to the territory of an authority on a date determined by the executive committee if:
(1) any part of the municipality is located in a county in which the authority has territory;
(2) the governing body of the municipality calls an election on the addition of the municipality to the territory of the authority; and
(3) a majority of the votes cast in the election favor the proposition.

Dart can't force a city to hold an election to join Dart. I really don't think it's in Dart's best interests to push for an election. Either the city wishes to join or not. Whether a city joins Dart or not should reflect what the citizens of that city desires.

To add, if it's not too late, only cities in Denton, Dallas and Collin Counties could vote to join Dart, since those are the only three counties Dart serves now. Dart's existing rules limit new cities to those adjoining existing member cities. So that limits the number that could join Dart initially next year. I wonder if that Dart rule could be changed?

[RobertB]

An interesting tidbit in the Morning News' endorsement for House District 101 (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-xgr1_22edi.ART.State.Edition1.27021d7.html), which includes Mesquite, Balch Springs, and Sunnyvale:

[Mike] Anderson, 52, has been Mesquite's mayor for 10 years; before that, was a City Council member for eight years. [...] On the issues, Mr. Anderson, a Realtor, also offers more realistic solutions to the challenges facing North Texas. He favors increasing state dollars for higher education and would consider indexing the gasoline tax to pay for transit and highway improvements. And he was an early supporter of regional rail, which he would fund with sales tax dollars.
Now, I'm not actually a supporter of Anderson (a Republican in an increasingly "purple" district) -- I've got a sign for Robert Miklos (www.robertmiklos.com/) in my yard, but that's neither here nor there. What's interesting in this thread is that Mesquite's long-time mayor is described as an "early supporter of regional rail". That means that whoever represents Mesquite in the Texas House will be an advocate for the law changes necessary to make rail outside the traditional DART service area a possibility.

[eirin]

That's certainly a good sign if some Republicans in this state are in favor of transit, and adjusting the gas tax to make it more viable at least in the short term. I think that transit and finance, supporting our infrastructure and keeping our economy strong should be a very bipartisan approach. Surely Republicans and Democrats both see the advantages in upgrading our transportation network.

[electricron]

That's certainly a good sign if some Republicans in this state are in favor of transit, and adjusting the gas tax to make it more viable at least in the short term. I think that transit and finance, supporting our infrastructure and keeping our economy strong should be a very bipartisan approach. Surely Republicans and Democrats both see the advantages in upgrading our transportation network.

They can agree about upgrading our transportation network, their differences are on which system needs upgrading. I think in terms of pro and anti rail, or pro and anti highways, rather than Republicans and Democrats.

[electricron]

An interesting tidbit in the Morning News' endorsement for House District 101 (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-xgr1_22edi.ART.State.Edition1.27021d7.html), which includes Mesquite, Balch Springs, and Sunnyvale:

[Mike] Anderson, 52, has been Mesquite's mayor for 10 years; before that, was a City Council member for eight years. [...] On the issues, Mr. Anderson, a Realtor, also offers more realistic solutions to the challenges facing North Texas. He favors increasing state dollars for higher education and would consider indexing the gasoline tax to pay for transit and highway improvements. And he was an early supporter of regional rail, which he would fund with sales tax dollars.

The problem going with just using gas taxes is that were using less as time goes by.
Also, the expense required to build the North Texas Regional Rail lines is near $5 billion, to build and operate over 20 to 30 years around $10 billion. We're talking about a 1/2 cent sales tax or over a 6 cent local gas tax increase.

How would it be fair for Dart member cities pay a penny sales tax and pay the local gas tax, when the Dart non member cities only pay the local gas tax? A statewide gas tax is also unfair. Unless every transit agency in the State of Texas charging sales taxes gets their reimbursement checks first. It'll take years for a joint gas/transit tax to pay all the transit agencies off.

Since Texas doesn't have personal income taxes, charging slightly more for sales taxes in local districts seems fair, at least to me. Maybe it's time for Texas to adopt State Income Taxes, so local Authorities can charge more in sales taxes while the State charges less. Today, the State charges 6.25%, Cities 1%, and local Authorities up to 1%. Have the State charge just 3%, charge personal income taxes to make up the difference of 3% in loss sales taxes, which makes room for the local Authorities charge another 1%.

But maybe that solution is too easy and too simple. It doesn't matter how it's collected, we end up paying the taxes anyways.

[JSteffen]

The problem going with just using gas taxes is that were using less as time goes by.
Also, the expense required to build the North Texas Regional Rail lines is near $5 billion, to build and operate over 20 to 30 years around $10 billion. We're talking about a 1/2 cent sales tax or over a 6 cent local gas tax increase.

How would it be fair for Dart member cities pay a penny sales tax and pay the local gas tax, when the Dart non member cities only pay the local gas tax? A statewide gas tax is also unfair. Unless every transit agency in the State of Texas charging sales taxes gets their reimbursement checks first. It'll take years for a joint gas/transit tax to pay all the transit agencies off.

Since Texas doesn't have personal income taxes, charging slightly more for sales taxes in local districts seems fair, at least to me. Maybe it's time for Texas to adopt State Income Taxes, so local Authorities can charge more in sales taxes while the State charges less. Today, the State charges 6.25%, Cities 1%, and local Authorities up to 1%. Have the State charge just 3%, charge personal income taxes to make up the difference of 3% in loss sales taxes, which makes room for the local Authorities charge another 1%.

But maybe that solution is too easy and too simple. It doesn't matter how it's collected, we end up paying the taxes anyways.

NEVER!! You must not be from around here to think that a state income tax is even plausible. It's in the state constitution and will never be voted down in my lifetime.

[LH_Newbie]

Since Texas doesn't have personal income taxes, charging slightly more for sales taxes in local districts seems fair, at least to me. Maybe it's time for Texas to adopt State Income Taxes, so local Authorities can charge more in sales taxes while the State charges less. Today, the State charges 6.25%, Cities 1%, and local Authorities up to 1%. Have the State charge just 3%, charge personal income taxes to make up the difference of 3% in loss sales taxes, which makes room for the local Authorities charge another 1%.
You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, proposing state income tax. Many people live here partially because of, or evaluated living here (and moved) because of the lack of state income tax. We pay a high property tax rate, but I can justify it because of the lack of state income tax. Add a state income tax to the mix and some of the financial attractiveness of Texas would be gone. We'd see a slow down in jobs moving here and a drop in retirees relocating here - both of which are bad for our economy. Shame on you for even having that thought cross your fingers! :)

One thing that has been resoundingly certain, our government (either local, state of federal) has not been able to equally remove one type of tax (i.e. sales) and replace it with another (i.e. income) - any change in tax code is always designed to increase their receipts, not to keep it the same, just collecting it differently.

For what it's worth, I personally lean toward consumption based taxes. This encourages people to save their money. While the US trend has been to spend more and save less, which is to our detriment, we need to somehow encourage people to actually save for the future. Income taxes do not encourage savings.

Brian

[gshelton91]

I love the idea of consumption tax but i have yet to see a version that gets around the fact that it inevitably places the highest tax burden on the ones who make the least in our society.

[RobertB]

You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, proposing state income tax.
I think that's a bit harsh... he only suggested the possibility, in the middle of a paragraph where all the other sentences were details of the sales tax. I think it's tantamount to looking at all the pieces of your kid's Christmas bicycle, throwing your hands up in the air, and exclaiming "To Hell with it!" You aren't *really* consigning your kid's new bike to the depths of Hades, but you're definitely frustrated.

"To Hell with it!" = "Just impose a state income tax in Texas!" = expression of frustration, never intended to be taken literally. :)

[mjblazin]

The wide swings in commodity prices demonstrate the wisdom of legislatively specified fixed tax. What would we have done if funding depending on taxes levied at $147 a barrel and now we are < $90? The same thing applies to income taxes. States that levy income taxes almost always add a progressivity factor to make them "fairer." What really happens is that revenues balloon at higher marginal rates during boom times, costs rise to use the revenues, and those same marginal rates cause dramatic revenue shortages during slowdowns. It is the so-called progressive natures of CA/NY income tax rates that have wrecked their budgets.

People will always pay taxes if they perceive value received for money spent. If the legislature won't raise taxes, it's because it can't make the value case. That's the beauty of toll roads. The tax payers make the value assessment every day as they use or don't use the road.

[LH_Newbie]

I think that's a bit harsh... he only suggested the possibility, in the middle of a paragraph where all the other sentences were details of the sales tax. I think it's tantamount to looking at all the pieces of your kid's Christmas bicycle, throwing your hands up in the air, and exclaiming "To Hell with it!" You aren't *really* consigning your kid's new bike to the depths of Hades, but you're definitely frustrated.

"To Hell with it!" = "Just impose a state income tax in Texas!" = expression of frustration, never intended to be taken literally. :)

You are correct - it was a bit harsh of a statement. The rest of my statement rings true though.

[LH_Newbie]

I love the idea of consumption tax but i have yet to see a version that gets around the fact that it inevitably places the highest tax burden on the ones who make the least in our society.
The more you spend, the more you pay. How is that not fair? We could say we won't tax food at all even.

[electricron]

You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, proposing state income tax. Many people live here partially because of, or evaluated living here (and moved) because of the lack of state income tax. We pay a high property tax rate, but I can justify it because of the lack of state income tax. Add a state income tax to the mix and some of the financial attractiveness of Texas would be gone. We'd see a slow down in jobs moving here and a drop in retirees relocating here - both of which are bad for our economy. Shame on you for even having that thought cross your fingers! :)

One thing that has been resoundingly certain, our government (either local, state of federal) has not been able to equally remove one type of tax (i.e. sales) and replace it with another (i.e. income) - any change in tax code is always designed to increase their receipts, not to keep it the same, just collecting it differently.

For what it's worth, I personally lean toward consumption based taxes. This encourages people to save their money. While the US trend has been to spend more and save less, which is to our detriment, we need to somehow encourage people to actually save for the future. Income taxes do not encourage savings.

Brian

At least I was proposing a way to pay for rail trainsit to Dallas's remote suburbs. What would you place a consumption tax on, that'll raise $10 Billion in the DFW area to build all the proposed rail lines, in the DFW area alone?

Sales taxes, the best consumption tax of all, is out of the question because every city in the area is already charging the maximum allowed by State Law. The State Legislature has twiced declined to raise the sales tax limit.To raise $10 Billion for regional rail in the immediate DFW area, gasoline taxes would have to double what the State already charges. And Public Schools and the Department of Public Safety will want their 25% cut of any new gasoline taxes.

Here's the possible tax schemes being proposed by the NCTCOG:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/presentations/McKinneyTransitForum_9-26-08.pdf

Option 1 Sales Tax
Sales Tax> 3/8 cent
Gas Tax> 1%
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle

Option 2 Non-Legislative Solution
Vehicle Registration Fee> $105 per vehicle
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle
Transportation Property Tax> 2 cents per $100 value

Option 3 Hybrid
Sales Tax> 1/4 cent
Vehicle Registration Fee> $80 per vehicle
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle

Option 4 Legislative Enabler
Gas Tax> 1%
Vehicle Registration Fee> $80 per vehicle
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle

Option 5 Vehicle User
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax> 1.75%
Vehicle Registration Fee> $65 per vehicle
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle

Option 6:
Local Option Gas Tax> 4 cents per gallon
Vehicle Registration Fee> $95 per vehicle
New Resident Impact Fee> $100 per vehicle

Looks like evey option being studied includes a $100 per vehicle for new residents, along with various other tax increases.

If the citizens expect more services from local government, then the taxpayers will have to pay more taxes. Yxu can't get something for nothing. Since there is a sales tax limit the State Legislature doesn't want to raise, then one must start looking for revenues elsewhere. I only suggested that having personal income taxes should be considered.

Of course, the State could charge a full dollar per gallon of gas. But that wouldn't free up local funding for local rail projects.

[mjblazin]

I don't think the sales tax limit is in the constitution. Some restrictions on property taxes and a a ban on income taxes are definitely in the constitution. In the absence of some unknown groundswell for change on a very controversial subject that cuts differently across multiple layers by party, rural vs. urban, income, etc., constitutional change is not a practical answer.

[FoUTASportscaster]

The more you spend, the more you pay. How is that not fair? We could say we won't tax food at all even.

If I make $10,000 a year, most of that is going to needed items. There is very little disosable income. Any increase in sales taxes means lower needed items like food or shelter. If you are rich, an extra tax isn't felt as bad, since your luxury items are still easily available for purchase. An extra 1% means a lot more to someone making $10,000 than it does to someone making $100,000.

[mjblazin]

When the national savings rate is zero, that by definition means almost no one has any disposable income. Car payments on a more expensive automobile or private school tuitions are no less flexible than someone else's "more worthy" expenses. It's why I got a chuckle when poll results indicated majority of Americans would not spend the stimulus. Give me a break. They had the check spent before it was a glimmer in some Treasury printer's eye.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Savings and disposable income are completely different. If what you say is true, no one would be going to sports games at any level but high school. You don't see average poor guy in West Dallas donating to the buildings in the Arts District because they are worried about feeding their family. Any raise in sales taxes affect the poor guy more.

[mjblazin]

Your assertion looks to be that any amount over subsistence level is disposable. If someone has a five years loan on a Kia and another has a five years loan on a new Mercedes, neither expense is disposable. Both have to be paid. Another person buys a computer at Wal-Mart for his child while another family scrimps to send their child to Cistercian. Neither family considers the expenses disposable.

In almost every family's budget, you don't find many large expenses where the parent simply spends money for no other purpose but to spend it. The real situation is that family's gradually make hard and fast financial commitments in housing, transportation, education, and charitable donations that occupy the same share of the family budget, regardless of income. Yes, if a family with a 100,000 chose to live like a family with 10,000, then the first family would have large disposable income. Those families will not make those choices. Those families are also not going to be receptive to moral lecturing that their choices are morally wrong from government.

Families that donate buildings are clearly in a special class. Yes, you can have so much money that you can't find something worthwhile to purchase with it all. But those families are few in number and not the starting point for a constitutional change.

[Mballar]

Please bring the thread back on topic. There has not been a mention of Mesquite, Forney, nor Terrell since at least post # 25.

[FoUTASportscaster]

None of what you say would fly in an economics class. I know, since I am in a graduate level class now, but whatever.

If you can't see the difference in a Kia and a Mercedes, then it is pointless to go on. A Mercedes would hardly qualify is indisposable income, since the buyer could easily buy a lower prices auto. They choose to buy a higher priced auto for whatever reason, and use their disposable income, which could easily be used for something else on the car. However, poor people who can't afford any auto are still going to be hit a lot harder by a sales tax. That is simple economics.

[eirin]

Please bring the thread back on topic. There has not been a mention of Mesquite, Forney, nor Terrell since at least post # 25.

I agree,

Are there any updates on this? The three cities' opinion/proposal, DART's reactions?

[FoUTASportscaster]

I'm sure there will be an update as soon as one is made semi-public. This forum is well known for that.

[LH_Newbie]

If I make $10,000 a year, most of that is going to needed items. There is very little disosable income. Any increase in sales taxes means lower needed items like food or shelter. If you are rich, an extra tax isn't felt as bad, since your luxury items are still easily available for purchase. An extra 1% means a lot more to someone making $10,000 than it does to someone making $100,000.
There isn't sales tax on mortgages or rent - and I already stated to not tax food - either in stores or restaurants. Therefore, the NEEDS aren't taxed (food/shelter). As far as buying things like sporting event tickets, tv's, etc - someone making 100,000 per year SHOULD be able to afford more than someone making 10,000. One could argue that transportation is a need - so maybe make the first $10K of a vehicle sales tax exempt and public transportation tickets sales tax exempt. Yup, I think that covers the needs.

[electricron]

NCTCOG has an interesting web page with a link to an Excel spreadsheet where you can try your own suggestions to pay for Rail North Texas. Here's the link:

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/planning/rnt/

[FoUTASportscaster]

There isn't sales tax on mortgages or rent - and I already stated to not tax food - either in stores or restaurants. Therefore, the NEEDS aren't taxed (food/shelter). As far as buying things like sporting event tickets, tv's, etc - someone making 100,000 per year SHOULD be able to afford more than someone making 10,000. One could argue that transportation is a need - so maybe make the first $10K of a vehicle sales tax exempt and public transportation tickets sales tax exempt. Yup, I think that covers the needs.

That doesn't make sense. As long as food and shelter aren't taxed, then it isn't regressive? So those living in poverty have no need for clothes, cleaning supplies, school supplies, auto parts, etc.? The plain fact of the matter is that 1% means more to someone making $10,000 a year than it does to someone making $100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax#Effects

[LH_Newbie]

That doesn't make sense. As long as food and shelter aren't taxed, then it isn't regressive? So those living in poverty have no need for clothes, cleaning supplies, school supplies, auto parts, etc.? The plain fact of the matter is that 1% means more to someone making $10,000 a year than it does to someone making $100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax#Effects

You know, I was going to make some comments that would probably come off as rude and attacking. I don't fully disagree with regressive taxes. Progressive taxes, as applied today, in my opinion are overly done. I don't see why someone should get back MORE than they pay. I don't see why some people should be able to pay nothing. So we will simply have to agree to disagree. This debate would be useless.

The statement "The plain fact of the matter is that 1% means more to someone making $10,000 a year than it does to someone making $100,000" is true. The question is just because someone CAN pay more in taxes - SHOULD they? I can see a need for it, but the way things are levied today is way too convoluted.

[FoUTASportscaster]

No one is debating the merits of regressive versus progressive taxation. A statement was made that sales tax is not a regressive tax. That is untrue. That tax hurts the poor more than the middle class and hurts the middle it hurts the upper class.