Why is it that local Government wants to only raise taxes and not look for Creative solution to fund services? When we are short money for our home or business we can't just ask for a raise, we look for cuts that have the least amount of impact on our over all performance or life style. Government leaders only look to scare tactic as a means of raising taxes to get more money as their solution. . We elect them to make the hard decisions and if their only solution is to raise taxes Then it is time to replace them. Tom Tinker tdtinker@nwlink.com

-- Tom Tinker (tdtinker@nwlink.com), November 29, 1999

Answers

Let me submit the following excerpt from the Olympian, Saturday Nov. 27, by Brad Shannon. I-695 BATTLE LOOMS OVER RURAL FUNDS.

One proposal by Sen. Valoria Loveland, D-Pasco, chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, would give the state's 31 Rural counties more of the state's sales tax revenue.

But Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlach, said he's already written Loveland a letter vowing to fight the proposal because it would divert local- option sales taxes earmarked by a 1999 law for economic development in rural counties.

My answer to your question is thus; The state government "earmarks" much of the funding Local Governments receive for certain projects/purposes. The Local Government has their hands tied when it comes to changing priorities and making adjustments, with alot of the revenue they receive.

An unfortunate side effect of passage of I-695, is that Local Governments who have been the most efficient with their funding will be hurt the most, as they may already have eliminated alot of "pork", and truly have a budget shortfall. (Now d, I'm not through!)

Caution (threaten) your Local Governments about raising taxes at this time. Take Names! When the State allocates money to bail out Local Governments, It could turn out to be a windfall if Locals also raised taxes and fees. And they da** well know it.

It is the fault and the responsibility of State Government. Time to get on State Legislators cases, and force them to deal with the shortfall, and give Local Governments more control over how they budget, spend and govern. Thereby, giving US more control!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Marsha:

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. To the extent possible, local governments should have asked for voter approval of tax increses in the November election as a procaution. Some fire districts did, and I believe all of them passed. If they can wait until the February election, that would add local credibility, and increase the liklihood the issue would pass when proposed for a vote. Some things can't wait for an election next year, however; and when the choice is a service cut or the normal tax increase that would have occured without 695, elected officials have some hard decisions to make.

They have not asked the voters in an election if they want a service cut or a tax increase, so they don't officially know the answer to that question. They may know the unofficial answer, from the public hearings and comments at public meetings in their community, however. My only point has been that the decision between a service cut and a legal tax increase before 1/1/2000 is between the elected officials and those who vote in their district. Some decisions, like setting the property tax levy for 2000, had to be made in 1999. They will be accountable to the local voters for the choices they make. That is one of the reasons I do not favor the Son of 695 that has been discussed on this site.

Most fire districts did not ask for a tax increase in the November election. But a tax increase may be necessary to maintain the current number of firefighters employed, and the current level of service provided. Everyone for 695 kept saying it is not intended to cut essential services, like police, fire and EMS. Most fire districts will be increasing the property tax levy in order to maintain service in 2000, because that is what they believe their voters want them to do. Are the state voters going to tell them they are wrong? Or leave that to the local voters to decide?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.free.net), November 29, 1999.

d,

There was an EMS levy in my district. It failed for the second time. The majority of the funds were for new equipment, not additional personnel. I voted FOR the increase, (now I will get slammed!) because I have had some experience with well maintained, yet old equipment and thought the amount was worth it. If memory serves, it was an extension of the current levy, about to expire, not an increase. I have no problem with it failing however, because the majority made the decision.

I posted on another thread, my opinion of son of I-695. I think it is a lazy way to deal with tax increases, since I favor personal involvement in Local and State issues. It would seem we agree. I will hold elected officials accountable if I feel they have punitively raised taxes and fees, without showing cause. I reserve the right to change my support of the son, if things get out of hand and the local elected officials go too far (or not far enough, in the case of Locke and the Legislature). Or if Craig tells me to change my mind. :) Just kidding.

As for I-695, I gave it my support for many reasons. MVET was too high IMO. Craigs transportation related posts only supported what I knew to be true. My personal experience sitting in on Transit Board meetings, and reading transit documents taught me a great deal.

You know where I live I think. (same place as your Son) Transit makes no sense here, except on a very limited basis. MVET created this Transit Beast in this community. Since it is a relatively new program, there were no Transit dependants. They were created. This community jumped on the Transit bandwagon because the State money was there. Earmarked. It was a use it or lose it program. If local voters had a say in the amount of taxation needed for this transit funding, and had to pay it for it post I-695 it would fail at a higher rate than the EMS levy. When the Transit issue was brought up for a vote previously, the money was already available. Why let the State keep it?

Which is the main reason I-695 got my support. More control by the voters. We should have the right to decide how much we pay and for what purposes. I find it insulting that anyone would think most voters won't do what is neccessary to be informed on tax and fee increases. In my discussions with people over the years, they DO take the time to be informed. The level of information obtained may not be what you personally think neccessary, but it is THEIR money. I have no problem if the majority decides not to raise or increase a tax or fee. Even if it means I may personally do without something I thought was essential. I would rather place my trust in the voters than the electeds.

I do have a problem with a Government making all our decisions for us. It is far easier to research a tax increase than a candidate. Would we have elected Bill if we knew EVERYTHING? Even when you know the candidate personally, they can be deceptive. They can change on a whim, they can be easily influenced by special interest groups and lobbyists. Controling the money will help control special interest groups, lobbyists AND those who decieve us to get elected. Just my opinion.

Please do not respond to this post if you are only trying to deal with bad ideas that take more time than it should away from other, more important things. Borrowed from another thread, sorry.

Going to shop for Christmas presents now. (online) One of MY other, more important things.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Marsha:

It looks like we agree on "Son". Don't let Craig or anyone talk you out of it. I will keep this short. See my comment to Monte Benham in the thread about a freeze on property taxes, for more discussion of the "Son" proposal. If you want local voters to have more control, Monte would reduce that control to a significant extent by the stated provisions of it. Does anyone know where a draft can be reviewed?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 01, 1999.

db--truly scary. . .I think son of I-695 is a non-starter as well.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 01, 1999.

Actually, since I read the following article

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/init_19991121.html I am even more concerned than ever about the son.

Perceptions may turn voters against the son based on the following excerpt:

Even Eyman doesn't expect this effort to succeed. It is an initiative directed at the Legislature, rather than the voters, and sponsors will have only about two weeks from mid-December, when petitions will be ready, before the Dec. 31 deadline to get enough signatures. The target is about 220,000.

But Eyman said the filing would expedite reviews by state bill- drafters and the Attorney General's Office and give organizers a leg up for their real goal - to launch a separate initiative in early January aimed at voters.

This may appear to voters that they are being manipulated, which could damage any and all efforts to lower taxes. More information is needed regarding the son.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.