IBJNews

Mass-transit bill amended, ready for House vote

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill to let voters authorize higher taxes in central Indiana to pay for an expanded mass-transit system is ready for a full vote in the House after an amendment restricted who would be affected by it.

House Bill 1011 would now apply only to the more urban and suburban areas of the region and exempt rural townships from both voting on whether to authorize the taxes and paying the taxes.

Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, offered the amendment to exempt rural areas — those farthest from Indianapolis — from the legislation. Supporters of the change said the mass-transit program won’t reach those areas and, therefore, the people who live there shouldn’t have to pay the taxes to support the program.

Turner said it’s likely many of those residents would have voted against the tax hikes and could have made the $1.3 billion project less likely to succeed.

“Even the proponents would say that the opportunity to move to mass transit might actually be enhanced because those in the perimeter would not count,” Turner said.

The House approved the amendment on a voice vote and the bill is now eligible for full House passage. A vote could come as early as Thursday.

The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee a week ago on a 20-2 vote.

The bill creates a referendum that — if approved — would let counties raise income taxes by 0.3 percent to pay for more buses, more routes to more places and, eventually, the construction of a commuter rail system between Marion and Hamilton counties.

For a family with taxable income of $75,000, the potential tax hike would be roughly $225 per year.

The earliest possible date for ballot issues in Marion and Hamilton counties would be the 2014 general election.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • a joke
    they dont even fill the available mass transit that is in place now, just another thing to say "they have", but can't pay for or keep safe
  • Community benefit
    I do not have any children, yet I pay taxes to support our public schools. (And I am happy to do so as a public duty.) There is such a thing as a social contract. Still I do see the argument that it might actually help transit succeed if the rural areas aren't included in the referendum because those voters might put the kibosh on it. (I just wonder how much of a revenue hit this would be.)
  • Wow
    MrGadget that is laughable! Name one public transit system in the country that is completely fee funded... There isn't one. People who think like you are the reason we have the worst public transportation system of any large city in the nation. Ridiculous....
  • User Pays
    Let the users pay for mass transit and let it be privately operated without subsidy. If there is sufficient demand, the busses will roll, 'till the wee hours even. If there isn't, call a cab (the on demand public transportation service). Too expensive? Perhaps consider getting a job closer to home, or a home closer to work.
  • Another amendment...
    We who do no have children and choose not to own a motor vehicle want to make sure that any part of our paid taxes currently used to fund public education and build/ maintain roads are diverted to fund mass transit, instead. Lol...
    • You're already exempt
      There are no rural roads in Marion County, where you live. We pay for the roads in our county through our county of residence taxes.
    • Another amendment
      We who live in the downtown area would also like an amendment allowing us to opt out of paying for rural roads that we too will never use. Can Representative Turner put that one in for us?

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

      2. Shouldn't this be a museum

      3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

      4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

      5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

      ADVERTISEMENT