Should the State Close Rest Areas? 445 Reasons to Consider an Alternative
Officials at the Department of Transportation (DOT) recently announced their intention to close 20 of the 41 rest areas throughout the state due to the impact of Initiative 695. We suggest two alternatives, one of which we highlighted several years ago. (Parts of this idea have already been floated in some form this year by Senators Benton and Johnson and Representative Bush.)
First, privatize the rest areas as has been successfully done in the Midwest and East Coast. Let businesses in the communities surrounding the rest areas run them. DOT officials say this cannot be done because the rest areas were built with federal dollars. But other states have done it, and we should find out how it has been accomplished. As a bonus, if the state allowed gas stations, restaurants and other services to run and maintain the rest areas, it would receive revenue and the rest areas would be safer and more convenient for drivers and passengers.
A spokesman for the Washington State Federation of State Employees says the union will fight this type of privatization. He claims taxpayers will lose accountability and services would be diminished. Apparently this spokesman has never traveled in states with privatized rest areas where a weary traveler can pull in to a well-lighted parking lot, buy hamburgers for the children, use a clean restroom, gas up the car, get cash for the rest of the journey, make a telephone call, and walk the dog.
Second, DOT says it will need $1.5 million to avoid closing the rest areas. Consider the fact that for more than five years, audits of DOT reveal what one newspaper called "sloppy management and misspending." Also consider the fact that in the midst of the DOT behemoth are 444 DOT employees who earn $60,000 or more per year. The total annual salary of just these 444 employees is $31,281,733 ($31 million), not including benefits. A reduction of only 5% of these top money-makers would provide the necessary funds to keep the rest areas open. Surely, in an agency troubled by sloppy management and misspending, the 5% can be found.
It seems to us that before DOT officials ask drivers to "just hold it," they ought to "just hold it" themselves while they figure out more efficient ways to manage the taxpayer funds entrusted to them.
Prepared by Bob Williams, Senior Research Analyst, (360) 956-3482 or effwa@effwa.org
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"