Pages

Monday, May 19, 2008

Smoke on the Water When Progressive Priorities Clash

While I appreciate good intentions of Progressive Nashville's call for a water rate increase to fund Metro Transit, I suspect that the people who know our water system inside and out will tell you that any coming raise needs to be ploughed back into our the water system itself to pay for stormwater run-off infrastructure upgrades. Those upgrades are at least as, if not more, important than mass transit, because effective stormwater run-off if the first step in the process of water treatment that eventually puts cleaner water back into the environment. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the carbon emissions of effective stormwater run-off versus those of expanding bus lines.

Beside those reasons, Metro Water fees are already funding other people's priorities, like Phil Bredesen's commitment to service the debt of Bud Adams' pro football stadium. That's one league that Metro Transit does not need to join for the sake of their own reputation. Add to that the fact that Metro Council is probably going to pass a bill that spreads high business connection fees out over a 36-month interest free payment period (which decreases short-term revenue) to give small business owners relief, and there is not much room to help Metro Transit without extending the decade of Metro Water's hurt.

The reality of the situation is that Metro Water revenues have remained flat for years while they cut their budgets, and neighborhoods are seeing the results in MWS's inability to solve stormwater run-off problems quickly. And as water revenues continue to go elsewhere the backlog of crumbling infrastructure will mount as it gets older and buying power shrinks. So, Metro Transit should not look to MWS funds, and we should persuade Mayor Dean to take the 2006 property tax referendum to trial and get it overturned by a more enlightened court of law. We should be paying Metro Transit through higher taxes or bus fare increases (not excepting fare relief for poorer riders), rather than through Metro Water fees.

1 comment:

  1. You're right on water. I used the example to illustrate how, with a little work, a the modest amount of money needed to support transit could be found.

    A little from all of us could go a long way on transit, but there is a much greater problem with the city's infrastructure.

    If only Mayor Dean had not taken the bait and pledged not to raise taxes.

    ReplyDelete