A sales tax isn’t the right answer — and we have better options
Editor, the VOICE:
I’ve been following the King County Transportation District’s road funding debate closely, and I want to put something on the table that I think a lot of people in Ravensdale and Maple Valley have been thinking.
First, the stakes are real. South King County — our part of King County — contains 18% of the road miles and nearly a quarter of all the bridges the county is responsible for. Without new revenue, the Roads and Services Division has said it will eliminate all funding for new, planned, and emergency road projects on those 1,500 miles of roads. That’s not an abstract budget problem. We already have a preview of what it looks like when bridge funding gets deferred: the Fairfax Bridge on SR 165 — a state road, not a county one, but our neighbors know it well — closed indefinitely last year after 104 years of deferred maintenance. Replacing it now will cost an estimated $160 million. That’s what kicking the can down the road actually costs. Out here, transit options exist but they’re limited — not frequent enough or accessible enough to be a real alternative for most people’s daily lives. When the roads degrade, this community feels it more than most.
So, I understand why the Transportation District felt pressure to act. But I don’t think a sales tax was the right tool — and I don’t think we should accept the idea that it was the only one.
Sales taxes are regressive. They take a larger share from families spending most of their income on necessities than from households that can save and invest. Families in this community are already stretched. Adding to a tax structure that already hits working people harder than anyone else isn’t the answer, even when the underlying need is legitimate.
What I’d rather see the district pursue seriously is developer impact fees. SE King County has seen significant growth — new subdivisions, warehouses, commercial development. Every one of those projects puts more vehicles on our roads and more weight on our bridges. Right now, the cost of that additional wear falls on everyone through general taxes. Impact fees change that equation: they require developers to contribute to the infrastructure their projects actually use. The people profiting from growth should help pay for the roads that growth depends on. That’s not a radical idea — it’s used in counties across the state. It’s just been underutilized here.
Vehicle license fees are also available to the Transportation District — up to $50 per vehicle without a public vote — and worth considering, particularly as more electric vehicles on the road pay no gas tax at all. But that’s a cost spread across all vehicle owners, and families are already stretched. The developer impact fee is the more targeted and equitable place to start.
What I find hard to make sense of is this: the council member who represents SE King County on this board voted to defeat an amendment that would have protected our area’s proportional share of any revenue collected — then voted against the tax entirely. That’s two votes that both hurt this district, with no alternative offered.
Our roads aren’t a Seattle problem. They’re our problem. And we deserve representation on this board that comes to the table with something other than no.
**Tom Marsland**
Ravensdale
