As the Spokane Transit Authority returns to the drawing boards following a razor-thin defeat of its Proposition No. 1 ballot measure, the organization should listen carefully to its harshest critics and those who backed the proposal with reservations.

With the ballot measure, STA proposed raising the sales-tax rate by three-tenths of a cent—3 cents on a $10 purchase—to fund both existing operations and capital and service improvements. It projected that the tax increase would raise $275 million over the course of 10 years. 

In the April 28 special election, Proposition 1 garnered support from 49.6 percent of voters, falling short by 572 votes. 

Some of the criticism questioned STA’s projections, which assumed a 2.5 percent annual increase in sales tax revenue over the course of 10 years. 

The most vocal criticism of the proposal leading up to the election, however, revolved around the proposed Central City Line element, which involved developing a rubber-tired trolley to serve a six-mile route between Browne’s Addition and Spokane Community College. Critics called out the Central City Line as being too expensive and said there were too many uncertainties about what types of vehicles would be used. 

STA reports that in a poll following the election, 47 percent of voters who came out against the measure cited opposition of higher taxes as the top reason. Only 5 percent said the Central City Line was a factor in their decision to vote no. 

One could theorize from those poll results that the measure failed not because it was flawed, but because of a principled stand against new taxes. Making such a conclusion would be a mistake, and STA should look critically at many components of its proposal, including the size of the proposed increase. The Central City Line was a divisive element, and details of the project—and projected demand for the service it would provide—should be clarified before it’s included in STA’s next proposal for a tax hike. 

Prior to the election, the Journal supported STA’s measure, saying the benefits outweighed the flaws. In the editorial of support, however, we said we shared some of the concerns and would have preferred to see the tax increases phased in over time. It was a tepid endorsement that ultimately came to the conclusion that the plan in its entirety was laudably progressive.

But it’s clear that there’s room for improvement, and while the measure lost by a narrow margin, the result should be seen as a clear message from voters. 

STA says its board of directors will put together a workshop—or multiple workshops—this summer to review the election results and consider alternatives. The organization says that could include analysis of financial projections and a timeline for next steps. 

This is a good opportunity for STA to regroup, then return to voters with something more plausible for more people—or at a minimum, something that’s easier to defend when detractors emerge.