I am the communications specialist for our Chamber of Commerce. I am trying to put together factual information on the I-695 measure to help our business and residential community make an informed decision, whether they vote yes or no. I need actual FACTS that I can convey to our community. If there is anyone out there with FACTual information, please send it my direction.

-- Jodi Baker (JBaker@Chamberway.com), September 22, 1999

Answers

You will find a lot of opinion on this site, but few facts. Supporters dispute the "facts" put out by government sources, but those are still the most objective since they are prohibited from providing false information through their official publications, in support or opposition to a ballot proposition. I suggest you look at the web site of the Secretary of State, the State Department of Revenue, the Office of Management and Budget, and shortly the Office of the Attorney General. The AG is expected to issue an opinion soon that may help indicate what the initiative will actually do, at least until a court rules. The opinion of the AG will be used by every level of government to guide what they must do if 695 is approved.

Before anyone else comments, you should be aware that Ralph Munro, Secretary of State, is not running for re-election; and took that opportunity to be very open about his opinion of the initiative. He is not in favor of it, personally. Some editorials have been published in which he is specific about his concerns and objections. The web site still gives some basic information.

If you want to see how the direct MVET section 1 effects work out locally, one of the NO sites has listings of losses by county, and each city in the county. No source has detailed all the effects of section 2; like inflation and new construction increases that will not be realized without an approval vote, etc. No one can, because no one knows for sure.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 23, 1999.

http://home.earthlink.net/~thekaj/NoOn695.html

This is the location of the county information. Since it is on a NO site it should be considered somewhat suspect, but you can check out their data sources.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 23, 1999.

Jodi,

The following Chambers of Commerce have endorsed the DEFEAT of 695. You may want to get in touch with one of them.

Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce

Everett Area Chamber of Commerce

Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce

Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce

Kent Chamber of Commerce

Tri-City Area Chamber of Commerce

Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce

Note that it looks like not a single Chamber of Commerce has given 695 its support.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.

California's Prop 13 was endorsed by only state wide organization. It was approved by 65%. Prop 13 also had a voter approval provision.

The endorsements for I-695 keep rolling in. In fact as O Casey Corr's September 22 article in the Seattles Times States. "The campaign against Initiative 695 plays like a cheap horror movie."

Another statement "Opponents have squandered their credibility".

I-695 will pass overwhelming. It's just a matter of time before elected officials will be saying "vote for me. I cut your taxes and maintained essential services". The 2000 election is just around the corner.

There is enough room on I-695's victory platform for everyone. Even Govenor Locke. After all the liberal Govenor Jerry Brown shifted from an opponent of Prop 13 to a supporter of it.

Don't forget President Clinton said he could not balance the US Government's budget until 2007. Now he takes credit for a "surplus?"

I say to the opposition "Stop your war of FEAR and TERROR against the citizens of Washington!" Voters don't buy your arguments.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 24, 1999.

Benham:

You bring up Prop 13 as if it is some sort of model for I-695. They are very little alike. Prop 13 addressed property taxes, and did a much better job detailing how it would work. It still had some problems that went through the courts, but at least people understood what it was intended to do (unlike 695). As for the voter approval requirement; it also has a 2% per year inflation factor without voter approval, which is inadequate but better than zero inflation under 695.

Do you still believe 695 will result in a Prop 13 type freeze of assessed value until it is improved or sold, or have you changed that opinion? You quit responding to me just when that opinion was stated.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 26, 1999.