A glass half full

The first step in solving a problem is having the desire to solve it. City leaders apparently have lost the desire to have an affordable mass transit system in the city.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority wants to cut seven routes and boost fares in an effort to save $2.9 million. For a city the size of Nashville, $2.9 million is a modest amount of money, especially considering the impact such cuts and fare increases will have on the population.

Well, I have a solution. It took about 15 minutes, but I was glad to invest the time. With about 482,000 households in Davidson County, according to the 2000 census, it would cost about 50 cents a month each to raise the cash needed to keep the buses running.

But I can do better than that.

The trick is to raise the water rate by 0.0009 cents per cubic foot. That would actually generate about $4.7 million. If the increase was added to industrial and commercial rates, the increase could be much, much less. It makes sense increase all rates because employees use mass transit to get to work. I'd guess it would cost each household and business about 25 cents a month if we all shouldered the responsibility.

And it's cost effective. Using the water system, the money is easy to bill and collect. Very little will be lost to administrative costs.

In doing so, we help deal with climate change by putting fewer vehicles on the road. We help those who need mass transit to get to and from work. We'll probably also save some people from losing their jobs because buses will continue to run at night and the disabled will have access to the transportation they need. That saves money in unemployment wages and other social services.

I understand there are issues dealing with utility rates and transfers of money between the water department and the general fund. But there are smart people who work in Nashville's government and I believe they can come up with a solution.

But first, our leaders have to want to solve the problem.

The point here isn't to say raising water rates is the best idea for saving transit. There could be any number of viable solutions, but we can't let vital services like mass transit, which has a huge impact on people's lives, be cut back because we didn't try to find an answer. Most of us could easily kick in 50 cents a day to solve a problem like this. When it takes less than 50 cents a month, the decision should be a no-brainer.

No one likes tax or fee increases, but sometimes doing something small, like boosting water rates by 0.0009 cents per cubic foot, can make a big difference. We deserve more effort from Metro government to solve problems rather than just declaring defeat.

    -- Jim Grinstead

Note: Figures are based on Census reports of 2.5 persons per household. Water rates are $2.01 per 100 cubic feet for residential customers and generally accepted usage of 90 gallons of water per day per person. There are 7.48 gallons per cubic foot.

Comments

[kate]

Interesting idea...

[Emily Evans]

Jim,
I appreciate your support for Mass Transit. It is a very important and under funded service. However, using water and sewer rates to pay for it is a violation of state law and possibly the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Spring Hill TN has been directed by state auditors to return $3 million from the water and sewer fund to the general fund.

Even if we were to find a way to skirt state and federal law to do so, it is lousy public policy. What would begin as a subsidy for Mass Transit will turn into one for the Convention Center or Economic Development or a gazillion other things that vie for the public's money.

As it is, Metro Water pays $4 million a year in Payment in Lieu of Taxes and another $10 million in LOCAP to fund shared services like Finance, HR and ITS. These expenses are allowed under state law. I would suggest that is enough of the camel's nose under the tent.

[Jim Grinstead]

Ms. Evans, thanks for your comment.

A closer reading of the piece will show that the point was that $3 million is a modest amount of money to save a very important service and that with some thought, I believe our leaders can find a way to come up with the necessary revenue.

It doesn't have to be water rates -- it was an attempt to illustrate just how little money is required from us to fix this. And you're right -- that's bad public policy. But so is cutting a vital service like transit.

As I said, what we need are people who first want to solve the problem, and then are willing to find some way of doing it.

I'll take the blame for using a bad illustration of the issue, but can't we get past that and get to what's really important -- helping the people who need transit?

[Emily Evans]

Mr. Grimstead:

With all due respect, I did read the piece very closely and I do ackowledge that you were offering up an example. However, I felt you used the example of water and sewer as an "easy fix." There is nothing easy about raising water rates. Water, sewer, and hopefully, stormwater rates are paid by everyone in proportion to their use of the system. So, there is little room to apply a progrssive rate structure that relieves the economically disadvantage of the burden. (We do this to the extent possible but we cannot, for example, give free water to people below a certain income level)

So, raising rates to pay for mass transit won't be a good thing for the economically disadvantage no matter how you slice it.

Three million may not seem like a lot of money but let me tell you that it is a very large amount of cash to find in a tight budget. Even if we were to reduced the waste folks love to gripe about, it would not amount to $3 million. The only way to find that kind of money is to reduce services like recycling, garbage pick-up, brush collection, fire, police and sheriff.

I agree MTA is very important. But property taxes are the only source of revenue to fund it.

Respectfully,

Emily Evans
Metro Council District 23
Chairman, Public Works Committee

[Jim Grinstead]

Well, I don't know how many ways I can say it -- water rates were an illustration and probably not a good one.

The sad thing is that the mayor and council are throwing in the towel, saying it's too difficult of a problem to solve.

It is a difficult problem. Regardless of the solution, some people will be unhappy.

So where is the desire to solve it? There's no need to run straight to the fear tactics of cutting police, fire and health funds. How about raising fees on items that feed into the general fund? Is there the possibility of refinancing bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates? Could we dip into economic development funds so that we protect jobs people already have before spending money for new ones?

I don't think my faith is misplaced in believing that there are very smart people in Metro government who can solve this problem. It just takes the desire to solve it.

Times are difficult now. They may even get worse. Until things improve, those who have the least will suffer most. Government should do all it can to protect those most in need.

That was the point of the illustration I have come to regret -- a small sacrifice from those of us who can afford it can have a huge impact on those who desperately need it.

I know you don't take these cuts lightly and that you understand the impact they will have.

So why not give it one more try? The council can ask the Finance Department to take another look at how money might be diverted from the "haves" to the "have-nots" or how we can impose a non-regressive fee. It's not over until we give up.

Thank you for this discussion.