Councilmember Sally Clark, writing in the July edition of her "Seattle View" newsletter (the bolding added by us):

If you're overwhelmed reading stories about the down economy, join the club. Budget forecasts look grim for this autumn. Employers large and small continue to shed costs – like workers.  It's disheartening to see employers in our neighborhood business districts close up shop, both because of what that means to sidewalk energy, but also for all of the employees who no longer have income or health coverage.

Earlier this year City Council reviewed ways we can help lessen the impact of the recession and possibly speed recovery. Repeal of the Employee Hours Tax (sometimes known as the "head tax") was one of many ideas listed that could help Seattle businesses. To comply with the EHT, passed in 2006 as part of the Bridging the Gap transportation funding strategy, employers pay $25 for every employee who regularly drives a single occupancy vehicle for their commute. They pay zero on employees who bike, walk or carpool.

[read the rest below the jump]

Although I'll consider just about anything that encourages people to get out of their cars, I voted against the EHT when we first debated it in 2006. On balance I think the EHT benefits are outweighed by the negative signal it sends to employers thinking of moving to Seattle or expanding here. It's taken a recession to reopen the conversation, but I think this is a great step to removing a barrier to job creation.

Other nails in the coffin – the EHT is difficult to administer and, perhaps most important, it simply generates less revenue than predicted. The tax was designed to encourage employees to bus, bike or walk to work, which is a principle I fully support, but because the tax is paid for by the employer, rather than the employee, I don't think it effectively pushes people to change their means of commuting.

The loss of revenue from the Employee Head Tax does mean we'll have to shift some spending priorities. We'll pay back bond debt over a longer period and, ultimately, pay more. Because the Commercial Parking Tax now generates more revenue than expected, I don't expect the total volume of street projects completed will be any less than what was promised when Council adopted these taxes, but we'll take on fewer "extra" projects in the coming years because we'll use the unexpected higher revenue from the parking tax to pay off debt instead of revenue from the EHT.

It's a judgment call, but I think removing this barrier to job creation outweighs retaining the tax. We are debating the idea of repealing the tax in the Budget Committee next month with a decision likely this fall when we work on the 2010 budget.

It's good to see Councilmember Clark's honesty: she acknowledges that eliminating the Commuter Tax will result in the City paying more for current projects (by paying back bond debt over a longer period of time) and forgoing projects that the City otherwise could have funded. We appreciate that Councilmember Clark lays out her analytical approach to the issue and candidly admits the pros and the cons.

Of course, this refreshing honesty does not make up for the negative effects of her preferred policy. As a direct result of losing this funding, Seattle residents will have fewer clean, green transportation chocies. Consider that the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, which in 2007 adopted the goal of tripling the amount of bicycling in Seattle by 2017, would cost $240 million (in 2007 dollars) to fully implement by 2017. Consider further that the City does not have adequate funding identified to implement the draft Pedestrian Master Plan. Seattle has ambitious plans for alternative transportation, but no real ideas for how to actually implement these great plans. Friends of Seattle urges the Council to show leadership on this issue.

Further, we would like to see Councilmember Clark---along with Councilmembers Conlin and Burgess---cite one single example of how cutting the Commuter Tax would create jobs in Seattle. Councilmember Clark claims that the tax sends a "negative signal," but we find it hard to believe that, say, a 10-person company would not locate in Seattle merely because the Commuter Tax would subject the company to a commuter-tax bill of as much as $250. It seems far more likely that a business chooses where to operate based on things like commercial-lease prices, utility rates, and the quality of the transportation system.

Unfortunately, the Council is sending a negative signal: that the City is not taking seriously its fundamental obligation to ensure Seattle has an adequate transportation system. Councilmembers Clark, Burgess, and Conlin are terrific; we just have higher expectations of them.