The transit package aims to raise $5 million per year, and the Third Bridge package aims to raise more than $45 million per year.*
|Maybe you're a design wiz|
and can come up with a better infographic?
There is no way it makes sense to add to our deferred maintenance and seismic liabilities by building a shiny new bridge we are nearly certain will not make it out of a big seismic event.
|The Salem Alternative is still in a liquefaction zone|
(via N3B, adapted from chapt 3.18 of the DEIS)
One problem for the comparison with Cherriots might be one of casual magnitudes.
The Cherriots tax can be expressed as $2.10/$1,000 of payroll. The proposed bridge property tax component is $0.37/$1,000 of property (plus the other stuff).
That's a difference in rate of an order of magnitude - but of course they are taxing very different things, payroll vs. total property value.
I don't know how to make a better comparison there. Comparing the two tax packages is complicated, and doesn't seem to resolve to a witty soundbite. (Maybe you can think of one?)
But the fact is, proponents of the Third Bridge want to suck out of the community a whole lot more in taxes than do proponents of good transit.
And whether that is a good investment deserves more scrutiny by those who are inclined to oppose new taxes.
* The December 2014 Funding Booklet assumes that to service a debt of $430 million, $46.4 million is required annually. The toll, tax, and fee breakdown comes from the March 4, 2015 Funding Strategy Memo.