In reading the text of I-695, we find that RCW 85.44.025 is "repealed" by the passage of the initiative.

This citation is titled as "Exemptions--Vehicles of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office"

Now my first question is: Why was there even an exemption for this very specific classification of "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office" to be repealed in the first place?

Why Taipei?... Why not Japan, or Hong Kong, or Australia, why specifically do we have this exemption for "Taipei"?

Second, if the initiative (695) was to specifically "repeal" this "excise tax" citation of law found in the RCW at 85.44.025, can anyone explain why there was no "repeal" of the similar type "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office Special Plates and Fee Exemption" laws still "on" the books, found at RCW 46.16.374 & 46.16.376??

(RCW 46.16 being the law for "vehicle licensing", which I might add the initiative dealt with in the beginning of its wording, with the repeal of 46.16.060, 061, and 650).

You may find these laws at the state's website; www.access.wa.gov

Any response would be appreciated.

K :)

-- (nondyoak@gte.net), November 29, 1999

Answers

As I understand it, the exemption was introduced as a result of Taipei losing it's diplomatic status. The other countries you mention receive automatic exemptions via their respective embassies, but due to the nonsensical idea of giving Taiwan less then full diplomatic status, they lost this exemption along with their CD (Corps Diplomatique) license plates. The two laws in question (8*2* (not 85)44.025 and the law it references (46.16.374 - intoduced by then Rep. Benton, and pivotal in securing the $1.2 billion dollar WaferTech plant for Clark County) were a result of the diplomatic issue.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), November 29, 1999.