Is there anything that can (or is) being done about all the local city councils hurrying through last minute tax hikes to avoid a public vote? Surely if they thought the public was behind them they would not fear putting it to the voters. It seems that many if not most municipalities including Shoreline where I happen to live have no initiative process at the city level. How can they be allowed to so flagrantly flaunt the will of the people, this type of attitude is of course what propelled I-695 in the first place. I hate to say it but I feel that I was misled by the I-695 backers as well. It stated in the voters pamphlet as well as on this web page that I-695 would protect us from irresponsible politicians raising other taxes to offset their loses from the MVET. But this has proven untrue as we see city councils all over the State are now raising taxes and fees with wild abandon and nothing is being done. At least the Governor, to his credit has seen the light somewhat and has called for respecting the spirit of I-695 and not for any last minute tax increases at the State level.

-- Mike Smith (boyofwinter@aol.com), November 17, 1999

Answers

The politicians are all banking on the notoriously short memory of the average voter. They assume that by the next election all this maneuvering will be forgotton.

Unfortunately, based on most history, they will probably be dead accurate in this assessment.

-- Alber t Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), November 17, 1999.

Many people feel that I-695 sent the various city, county and state governments a message. Some felt the message was "Trim the Fat/Cut the Pork!" Others felt the message was "Reassess Sound Transit Funding!" Still others felt that the message was "That's for a stadium we didn't want in the first place!" While still others felt that the message was "No more government subsidies!" Some messages were conflicting ("Reduce Metro funding" vs "Keep buses rolling!"; "Cut transportation projects" vs "fix the traffic problem")

We sent a lot of messages (as you can see from this site). Which ones should these "irresponsible" politicians listen to? I-695 may have sent a very GENERAL message that the MVET was not fair, but it did not send any specific message on what to cut and what to keep. I-695 has passed and now WE MUST ALL learn how to work within the system to get it to work.

When WE elected these people to serve in OUR government, WE empowered them to make decisions in OUR best interests. Don't be surprised that they use this power, whether you agree with them or not. OUR system of government allows you the opportunity to give them feedback and the opportunity to elect someone else at the next election. Make good use of BOTH of these opportunities.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 17, 1999.

"Subject: Can anything be done about all the local pre Jan.1, tax increases? " Yeah. e-mail them, right them letters, call their offices. Tell tham that you intend to give money to and campaign vigorously for their opponents in the next election. If what they do is egregious enough, start a recall petition. The self-anointed are petty and arrogant, but easily frightened.

If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won't. -- Hyman Rickover

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Gene noted several possible messages the elected officials may get from the 695 vote. They could also understand, from the supporters of 695, that it was NOT intended to cut the local budget of cities and counties by more than 2%. Much of the support for 695 was about how little the impact was, and how the state could fix it by a reallocation of funds or spending down the reserves.

So, in those cities that would have a 25 - 40% revenue loss, and no help yet from the state; they may feel entirely justified in raising local taxes enough so that the budget loss is just 2%. That is what was being stated as the expected outcome, so why object if they make it happen?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 17, 1999.

"That is what was being stated as the expected outcome, so why object if they make it happen? " Let em. If they want to sky-dive without a chute, they can do that too. Both about as healthy to their political careers, in my estimation. That's why Locke has rolled over and Sims, after some early angry comments, is trying to adjust. If this gets into an escalating tit-for-tat, the big government people will end up getting creamed, and they know it. Better to slink away and fight another day, if they're smart. Course some of them ain't too smart!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

d

You write, "in those cities that would have a 25 - 40% revenue loss"

First of all, why are these cities getting 25-40% of their budget from the state i.e. state taxpayers. If the cities are so broke, maybe they should close their doors, instead of sponging off the rest of us.

When these cities were incorperated, did they write in their charters that for them to exist, they would have to rely upon every man, women, and child in the state for their existence?

And before you ask the question I'll give you an answer. No I do not want to support some poledunk town in Garfield County.

The officials of this state and the nation have items budgeted so that anytime a tax cut is brought up, it will hurt a "vital service". I say "To stinking bad." This state has the money to fund every cop, fireman and teacher in every city. Yet what do they want to spend the money on? Skateboard parks, light rail, art in schools, putting light on a couple of bridges for a Y2K party.

I'm sick and tired of it. If the city and county councils can't provide the "vital services" without cutting positions in Police and Fire, they should get the hell out of the job.

Ed - see that "theman" has a post about papers being filed to fight I-695. Anyone who has read the state's constitution could defend it in court.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 18, 1999.

Ed:

Most of the cities hit hardest by the loss o MVET funds, are the cities that depend on sales tax equalization for a significant part of their budget. They are not just in Garfield County, but all over the state; including the big King. Tax equalization was created for some good reasons, and the cities that have depended on that are not the hick bergs you seem to think they are.

Many are suburban communities with a large population of residents and "buyers", but not a lot of commercial areas and "sellers". Sales tax is collected in the communities that have the sellers, but is paid by the communities that have the buyers. The simple reason for the program is that suburban people who spend in urban areas should get some of the tax money they pay, back in the form of services. Those services are needed where they live, as well as where they buy. Sales tax is "equalized" by a state allocation of funds to residential communities that do not collect as much sales tax as their population would indicate they should if people were able to buy everything they needed locally. It is more complicated than that, but that is the basic idea. It seems fair to me.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 18, 1999.

What can be done? We have given our elected official a clear message: No more taxes and cut your budgets. It is funny how they cry that the sky will fall, but you never hear them talk about taking a pay cut. They will cut every service before they think of cutting their own salarys. Now that they want to raise every fee and property tax, Son of 695, will come to pass. They have made the electorate mad as hell. Instead of dealing with the wishes of the voters, they have forced this new initiative on to the ballot. Believe me, it will be on the ballot and it will pass. It is sad to see that the our elected officials will not abide by the will of the people. We will have to take matters into our own hands again and vote in Son of 695. Maybe then, they will understand this simple phrase: NO more taxes and fee increases, cut your budgets.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 25, 1999.

Rolex:

I don't know of any violations of state law that have been proposed or enacted. The initiative is not effective until 1/1/2000. The intent was a 2% cut in budgets, but that is not what would happen in many communities. If the "will of the people" was a 2% budget cut, what do communities do that would have a 40% revenue loss? They don't want EITHER a 40% service cut, or a 40% tax increase. I beleive Son of 695 has more unconstitutional provisions; but go ahead and spend your time getting signatures and running a campaign. In about 15 months, that too will be in the courts.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 25, 1999.

D, you keep throwing up these percentages, 2% ,25%,40%, etc. Then you say the local governments must make up for their short-falls. We agree on that point. The first thing they must do is cut their staffs and workers(since most of their budgets is labor).Their year 2000 budgets should be made with ,I 695, in mind. Since we both know this will not happen, fifteen months from now they will be forced to do it. I 695 will become law and Son of 695 will become law. Court challenges be damned. We the people will have the last laugh.

P.S.(Personally, I hope the government raises every tax and fee to the limit before 2000. This will bring more of the people out to vote for Son of 695 in November 2000.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 25, 1999.

"Their year 2000 budgets should be made with ,I 695, in mind."

They will be. With the knowledge that 695 is not effective until 1/1/2000.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 25, 1999.