If the "Son" of I-695 and the Traffic Improvement Initiative are such bad ideas, don't you think the voters will realize it and vote accordingly?

Judging by the hostile reactions from the "anti" crowd, you would think they all stood to lose something personally. Like a government job, or some type of preferential treatment by the government.

They obviously think these initiatives have an excellent chance of making it on the ballot and passing. Good work Tim, Monte etc... And Michael, the new site looks great!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999

Answers

Marsha:

You seemed to have some of the same concerns I have, and indicated you were waiting for revised language to address the problems. What happened? Did you decide to go along with this unnecessary and damaging proposition in spite of the problems, or have you seen some revised language that deals with the issues we discussed?

PS: I beleive this has a lower chance of being approved than 695, and a higher liklihood of section 2 being declared unconstitutional even if it were approved. I am not that worried about it going into effect, but it will create unnecessary uncertainty and unfounded expectations until it is defeated or a court decision is issued. Even that is more damaging that I believe is good for the state and local governments.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 24, 1999.

d,

After considering the effects of current property taxes, and the increases in the valuations, which ARE driving people out of their homes, (whether you choose to believe it or not), I have decided it is in my own best interests to support this initiative.

Did you review the link I posted for you on a previous thread? The person providing that information is just your ordinary taxpayer, not affiliated in any way with any of these initiatives, or any other tax cutting measures, for that matter. Hers was an observation, posted for thought. If that persons valuation doubled from one tax year to the next, (1995-1996) and you still maintain (from previous thread) that the persons property is now being valued at what it should have been all along, then I am really sorry that such an intelligent man as youself, sees no injustice in the current system of assessment. Real Estate values have not risen to the level of double since 1995, in the area in question. Not even for waterfront acreage. Yet you don't acknowledge any inequity in valuations?

Let me see if I got this right. It is OK for one house to be assessed at $250,000, and an identical one next door, to sell for $200,000. Same condition. You told someone on an earlier post this was OK, because there was an appeal process for him to utilize, did you not? The appeal process made that OK? You complain about a tax inequity, only if it reduces taxes? d, that seems mighty bureaucratic of you.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 24, 1999.

Marsha, my concern over the so called traffic improvement initiative is that it includes a regional issue in a statewide election. The RTA was passed by the voters in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, paid for by those voters, and is primarily used by those voters. Now, with this initiative, the possible elimination of that system WOULD NOT be decided by those people, but by a majority who live outside that area.

For those outside the RTA zone who are perfectly comfortable with that, let me remind you that it isn't your money. It's the same as if some politician from Olympia who you didn't elect told you that some of the money you elected to spend on hiring more police officers now has to go towards a new art project downtown. Gee, a LOT of you supporters out there were certainly hot under the collar about how greedy politicians were spending YOUR money, but it's funny how you're all oh so willing to play around with other people's money if you have the chance.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 24, 1999.

Marsha:

My position can be stated very briefly:

1. 695 already addressed the growth in the total tax amount. All the comments by Monty about property taxes doubling over some period of time that we can dispute, are moot. The situation has changed with 695, and that can't happen in the future.

2. Assessed (or market) valuation is the required method to allocate the total tax to be paid by property owners. That determines the fair share allocation of the tax to each property owner, and if signigificant increases in value occur because an individual property has been under valued in the past, they are just catching up to what they should have been paying. Every home is different, and noting it is in hte same heighborhood and next door, does not mean it is of the same value even if it is the same size home on waterfront. The assessor is required to assess at as close to 100% of market value as they can, but an appeal process is available if they get it wrong. If anyone is assessed at less than the market value, for any reason, it results in their neighbors paying part of their share of the cost of the services. That is the tax inequity that "son" would create.

3. In addition to being unnecessary (item 1), and unfair (item 2), I believe it will be determined to be unconstitutional.

4. It would transfer more of the tax burden from business, that does not change property ownership for decades, to individuals that must change locations and sell their holdings on an average of every 5 years.

5. Over time it will substantially reduce the total taxable value of all property, such that all local governments will have a reduced tax base on which to fund the services being provided. If the total taxable value is reduced by 50%, local governments that depend on the property tax will have their budgets cut by at least 50%, which results in staff and service level cuts of 50%. That will happen even if voters approve regular levy tax increases in order to try to maintain the service level they want. The constitutional 1% limit, and the statutory maximum levy rate of each local government, will force that to occur even if the local community objects.

6. The hardest hit local governments will be the fire districts. As one of those high priority and necessary service (I did not say "essential") this is the last place cuts should be made. The pecking order local governments means that when taxable value declines, and local government tax rates increase to the statutory maximum, fire district tax levies would be reduced from %1.50/$1000 to as little as about 46 cents/$1000.

7. If broader credits and exemptions are needed for seniors on fixed incomes, that can be addressed by legislation. If additional procedures are needed to assure that the assessed value is actually the market value, that can be addressed by legislation. Those are minor process and procedure changes, if they are needed; and would not damage the existing tax system as this "son" proposal would.

As for the person whose value doubled in one year, what happened in the prior ten? What improvements were made on the property? No one can make a judgement about how fair that was without looking at the specific situation, the house and lot, the location, the market situation, the frequency of assessor visits, etc. etc. The bottom line is, if the assessment is not fair they should appeal. If it is fair, they should pay the applicable tax their neighbors have been paying on the market value of thier homes and appreciate that they have been getting a bargain rate for those years they were under valued.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 24, 1999.

Perhaps I should start proof reading this stuff before I hit the submit button. I think you can still understand it. Sorry about the typing errors.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 24, 1999.

d,

Craigs not looking, (I hope)

So let's see if I understand you correctly.

It is perfectly OK if skyrockeying property values, and the accompanying increase in valuations is fair and equitable to someone who is struggling to hang on to their home. The community they live in raises property tax at the maximum allowable 6%, even though wages in the area have not kept pace.

You assume only seniors on a fixed income may need assistance. There are lots of variables here that you ignore. Do you deny there are other catagories of homeowners that may need relief? What about the young couple starting a family? Should they forgo property ownership? How about someone who had the misfortune to buy affordable property only to see it's value explode due to location or other factors beyond their control? Is it conceivable to you that the majority of citizens could benefit from lower taxes? Local Governments will still have the option of increasing revenue through higher user fees, with voter approval.

As for saying I-695 is taking care of future increases, maybe yes, maybe no. Earlier, your contention was that it was unconstitutional. Now, you use it as a basis for your argument. Is this inconsistant? In any case, it did not address valuations, the "son" does.

I am not saying the "son" is perfect. But being given no other alternative to control taxation and spending, (other than a silly rebate of around $27 dollars offered by Governor Locke), I will take my chances with this.

If there is no perception on the part of the voters that something is seriously wrong with property taxes, then I doubt this initiative would have gotten much notice.

Fight it all you like, or give me a better alternative. Your choice.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 24, 1999.

Marsha:

I thought 695 went too far, and it may be unconstitutional, but if it is in effect it will prevent the increases it government taxes you are concerned about. They WILL NOT be able to increase taxes by 6%/year without voter approval, and voters can decide if local conditions support the need for the increase.

As for those hurt by a revaluation to the current market value, you are correct that I am not very sympathetic. The only way they someone undervalued can get a lower tax is because everyone else is paying relatively more. Why should one get a tax break at the expense of the others? It makes no sense. The purpose of the rate being applied equally on all property valued at the current market value, is so that the tax is apportionaed fairly. Those with bigger than normal increase are unusual, and result from three basic causes: 1. They made some improvements on the property that the assessor found out about and included 2. It was an assessment error that should be appealed and corrected, or 3. The property was under valued for some time and was just discovered and corrected. As I said before, if the assessment is wrong, appeal. If the assessment is right it is properly the basis for determining the fair share of the total tax.

Think of it in the future, rather than the past. If voters don't approve a tax increase, the changes in assessment just shift around who is paying and how much. The total tax does not increase. If someone is not assessed at full value, like everyone else, they get a bargain rate at the expense of the others. If they begin to pay their fair share, everyone else gets a tax cut because they are finally paying their share. It gets more conplicated, but that is the basic situation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 24, 1999.

d,

You avoided several of my main points.

You assume only seniors on a fixed income may need assistance. There are lots of variables here that you ignore. Do you deny there are other catagories of homeowners that may need relief? What about the young couple starting a family? Should they forgo property ownership? How about someone who had the misfortune to buy affordable property only to see it's value explode due to location or other factors beyond their control?

For example, say I buy a modest home in a rural area. In ten years time, the land surrounding me is bought up and very expensive homes are built. The value of my home has been inflated by the developement around me. The taxes I am now paying are far greater percentage than what I initially payed. My income level has not kept pace, with the INFLATED property values. And while I could afford the mortgage and taxes at the time I purchased it, I now am forced to sell my home because I can no longer afford it. If you have no sympathy for homeowners in such a situation, then I am wasting my time with my responses.

Like it or not, the perception of the majority of voters as to whether or not a tax is fair or too high is what led to the passage of I-695. The other Initiatives have a decent chance of passage as well, as long as no middle of the road alternative is offered. They will get that opportunity in November, AFTER a decision is expected on I-695. That may have an adverse or positive impact on the outcome of the last two Initiatives.

In this, you appear to take the same "attitude" as the majority of Legislators and Governor Locke. Just ignore it and it will go away. If you continue to defend your positions, instead of offering up alternatives, you will wind up with another I-695.

When you attack the initiative on a section by section basis, it seems you do not get the overall message. What is the point of these initiatives? You do get it, don't you?

Ignoring the voters demands for lower spending and less taxation will only lead to more Initiatives and less trust. When moderate voters like myself, have the perception that government is getting to big, and we are being taxed too high, arguing your case will have little or no impact. You need to change your tactics. Think of it in the future, rather than the past.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha, although your homeowner example certainly would gain a lot of sympathy, you are basically advocating an artificial restraint of the free market in order to keep life fair.

Yes, it certainly would be sad to see a family forced to move out because of rising property values. But that is an unfortunate reality of inflation. Buying property is a risky venture, as is the case with all major purchases. It may seem unfair to that family that their property value is going through the roof, but would it be any more unfair to the other families who own the exact same valued land but pay more in taxes for it?

You're also ignoring the benefits involved. That family now forced to move will be selling their property at a sizably larger dollar amount than what they purchased it for. If they sell it at the right time, then they'll stand to make a tidy profit. They can then buy another property on the speculation that its value will rise, and sell that property when the price is right. A lot of people make a living doing just that. Son of 695 would amount to a gigantic tax subsidy for these people on the backs of others whose only crime was that they didn't buy the land earlier.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

Patrick,

The post was a response to d, but since you have (not so graciously) decided to respond to my response to him, then let me make the same challenge to you.

Give us an alternative. (or shut up). All I see from the anti crowd, is criticism. The voters obviously aren't happy with the status quo, so what alternative do you offer? Where is your Initiative? Pun intended!

Stop trying to influence (brow beat!) everyone to your way of thinking and get off your butt and offer an alternative more to your liking.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Wow, someone certainly got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Offer a critique of someone's example and get attacked! I'll take comfort in the fact that the critcism is apparently sound since you didn't even bother addressing it.

I'm not exactly sure what the underlying problem is. Are "the people" angry at rising property values, or are they angry at rising property taxes? If they are angry at the first, then essentially they are angry at the economy and capitalism in general. There are several methods of "solving" that problem. Most of them are fairly extreme, and like Son, involve a type of price fixing. This kind of smacks of socialism, and although I've been accused of being one on this board several times, I generally do oppose price fixing. So basically, my solution to fix increasing property values is to do nothing. It might be painful, but the other solutions are downright anti-capitalistic.

Quick question. What's the difference between the property value freeze in Son of 695 and rent control? Both attempt to keep people from being forced out of their homes due to economic conditions. Both attempt to do so by placing a cap on rates that are normally set by the free market. The only difference I can see is that one is pushed by urban (and more liberal) tenants, and the other is pushed by suburban (and more conservative) home owners.

As for property taxes, I would tend to agree with d. First of all, they were already capped at a 106% lid, and secondly, 695 might just knock the lid down to 100%. The only other solution that I would consider would be the elimination of the state portion of the property tax combined with a reduction of the sales tax, which would be replaced by an income tax. I know, I said the "I" word. But it is by far the most equal tax out there, and would go a long ways towards making Washington's tax structure less regressive. It also would be less of a burden on those in the middle class who may not make as much, but, through years of saving, manage to buy a home. Plus, its also federal income tax deducatable.

You know Marsha, good things do come through criticism. You find mistakes that way and avoid falling into a groupthink mentality where you believe that you can do no wrong. Simply telling people to shut up if they're not saying what you want to hear is a good indication that you have your own doubts about the strength of your argument and just don't want to address them.

It's also funny that you think that the opponents are only offering criticisms and no solutions. I considered 695 to be one BIG criticism without a solution. Basically most supporters' comments here were of the: I want my money back and it's up to the government to figure out what to do next variety.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

Not much sympathy here. If they have the rapid increase in value you described they should pay the tax, or consider the increased value a bonus and sell if it is more than the general rate of property inflation. Anything else us unfair to all the other property owners who are paying their fair share, and some of what the undervalued property owner should have paid.

I bought into an inflation in value twice. In one case my home increased in value by about 60% in two years. After I paid off the bank, the rest of the profits were mine to use as a down payment on the next house. That one doubled in 5 years, and when I sold it I had accumulated "capital gains" that were about 20 times my original down payment on the first house. I just wish I could buy into that kind of value inflation again.

As for my alternative, I don't think any more change is needed. As I said, I believe 695 went too far. With it, local voters have more than enough tools to keep all taxes in check. "Son" is unnecessary, and will create many other problems. I note that Governor Locke is proposing a constitutional amendment to mandate using a 4 year averaging method of setting property values. The idea is to temper the value fluctuations, and spread any major change over a few years. Funny how the Governor knows it will take a constitutional amendment to tinker with property valuations, but Eyman and company think they can do it by initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 27, 1999.

Patrick,

Just as I thought, all talk. Your purpose is only to criticize. Not offer anything constructive. Your statement "Basically most supporters' comments here were of the: I want my money back and it's up to the government to figure out what to do next variety," tells me you are of the "whiner, sour grapes variety". You know, the minority type, who can't abide a majority decision!

D,

If Governor Locke is proposing a constitutional amendment to mandate using a 4 year averaging method of setting property values, then at least HE is aware of public perception regarding property taxes. Glad to see you benefited from skyrocketing real estate values. Since you feel no change is neccessary, and you are happy with the status quo, my suspicions grow as to YOUR occupation (bureaucrat) and income level, (overpaid).

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

"I note that Governor Locke is proposing a constitutional amendment to mandate using a 4 year averaging method of setting property values. The idea is to temper the value fluctuations, and spread any major change over a few years. Funny how the Governor knows it will take a constitutional amendment to tinker with property valuations, but Eyman and company think they can do it by initiative. "

Funny how the governor, whose been in politics since Christ was a corporal, only got around to addressing the need for this amendment to the state constitution AFTER Eyman proposed an intitiative for property tax relief.

I believe the Governor is a more astute politician than you are, D. He realizes that if this initiative passes, and is thrown out by the court, that will irritate and energize the populist movement even more. He wants it placated, not energized. He will benefit from a complacent electorate, and is willing to give them part of what they want now to discourage them from further participation.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha, what part of my suggestion to replace the state property tax and majority of the sales tax with an income tax did you consider all talk? Is that not a valid solution to solve the issue of rising property taxes?

And actually you might want to check with Eyman, Craig, and Westin about abiding by a majority decision. The so-called traffic initiative would circumvent a majority decision in which both Eyman and Craig were in the minority on. Now they'd like to rig another election in order to have better odds of being in the majority.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

Patrick,

I do not consider an income tax an alternative to lowering taxes or even maintaining existing funding. Even though I personally would favor the change, the majority of voters don't trust that it would result in lower taxes. And they may be right. It could quite easily be manipulated into more taxes.

You really have a problem sticking to one topic. (And actually you might want to check with Eyman, Craig, and Westin about abiding by a majority decision. The so-called traffic initiative would circumvent a majority decision in which both Eyman and Craig were in the minority on. Now they'd like to rig another election in order to have better odds of being in the majority.) I have not addressed that particular topic, and your not going to drag me into it. (Although, on at least one particular thread, I had a hard time not jumping out of my seat to give Westin a standing ovation in his response to you).

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Patrick,

One more thing. You get the responses you deserve. If you post like a jerk, I will treat you like a jerk. I disagree with d alot of the time, but I give him the respect he deserves.

Your comment "You know Marsha, good things do come through criticism. (NOT OFTEN!) You find mistakes that way and avoid falling into a groupthink mentality where you believe that you can do no wrong. (GROUPTHINK, That is your response to my personal feeling that taxes are way too high, You must be smoking something!)Simply telling people to shut up if they're not saying what you want to hear is a good indication that you have your own doubts about the strength of your argument and just don't want to address them" (MY PEROGITIVE. IF YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, SO CAN I.)

YOU ARE SO STUPID THAT YOU CAN NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN CRITICISM!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

Back to the subject of the thread, I didn't say no changes were needed. What I stated in several different ways is that "son" makes the wrong changes in the wrong way. The Locke proposal may help ease owners into paying their share, and that may be worth something even though it perpetuates the inequity by allowing an under-valued property to continue to be taxed at the reduced rate for 4 more years. The point I was making was that the intentional creation (or perpetuation) of a valuation inequity, would be a violation of the state constitution unless it is done by a constitutional amendment. That is what Governor Locke has proposed. That is how California did it with Prop. 13. Somehow Eyman and company don't see that as a problem, and as a result we may go through the whole process again only to have it thrown out in court.

In addition, I believe that most of your concerns have been resolved by passage of 695. Even though I opposed it, that will be in effect in another 4 days. When it is, increased property values will not produce increased tax revenue to any level of government; and if all property values are going up at about the same rate, it will not even cause much of a shift in who pays. If everyone in the taxing district had their value double, the property tax rate is simply cut in half so the same amount of money is collected. It is only when something unusual happens to cause a few property values to go up faster than the others, that a shift in who pays would occur. As I said, in that situation I would call those who bought property that appreciated rapidly the lucky ones.

"Son" is not so mild, as a property tax control measure. It really does shift the taxes from some property owners to others. From commercial property owners and those who can stay put for decades, to residential property owners and those who must move about every 5 years on average. What is good about that? Why would we want the taxing system to relieve business of much of their responsibility to support the services they need? Why would we want to penalize those must change locations for work, or are new buyers?

Remember that the total amount that can be collected is already controled by 695, so it is a matter of who pays. You mentioned young people having trouble buying a home, well "son" will make that worse. Home prices will not be any less, but the taxes when they buy will be higher for them than if "son" were not in effect; since they will be taxed at the purchase value, at the higher tax rate that will result from the effects of "son".

You were getting a little surly with Patrick. I hope we can continue to address the issues, and not use personal attacks. I have given my reasons for opposition to the "son" proposal. Show me where I am wrong. Nothing stated so far has changed my opinion that it is unnecessary, unfair, and unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 27, 1999.

d, Your points, as usual, are well taken. My major disagreement with your views is, and always will be on the general issue of limiting goverment and taxes. I have no sympathy for those who expect government to support their every desire, at my expense.

In regard to Patrick, when his posts are negative and rude, he will receive same. If he decides to be civil, as you are, he will be treated with civility. I doubt he is capable though. We shall see.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

We shall see. As for restricting government revenue, 695 already did that. Let that work for a year or two before another wrench gets thrown into the gears. Like I said, unnecessary.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

d, you have it slightly mixed up. It's not a wrench getting thrwon into the gears..It's an atempt to actually convert the chaotic mees of government into a machine that functions properly.

So it's kinda like adding a gear to the pile of broken wrenches...

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

Mad:

Did you have some information to add to the discussion, or was the comment just smoke?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

Marsha, I tend to follow the same standards as you do in that I treat people with the same respect they show me. With the exception of Westin, who seems incapable of understanding anything but insults, I do not call people names, nor do I intentionally try to insult them unless they have already insulted me.

Although I admit to being biased, after looking back over this particular thread, it's my opinion that it was you that initiated the hostility. Yes, I did comment on a question you posed to d, and although I was critical of your example, I did so in a civil manner. You chose to attack me personally along with your challenge. When I accepted your challenge (with a bit of a retort to your attitude) you again chose to ignore what I had to say and resort to a personal attack. I am here to discuss the merits and the deficiencies in the proposals brought forth by Eyman & Co. Personal attacks get in the way of that, and serve no constructive purpose. However, if someone choses to respond using them, I will sometimes respond in kind, but NOT if it is the only basis behind my post.

Before I get into the real discussion at hand, you made some statements that I'd like to address.

If more than one topic is brought up at a time, then I respond to them. You said I was of "the minority type, who can't abide a majority decision!" Truthfully, I'm not sure how a critique of 695 supporters is an example of my willingness to abide by 695. In a few days it becomes law, and unless the courts overturn it, I will abide by the majority decision. Since I was unsure why you would consider me of this type, I offered a suggestion as to who I considered to belong to that group. It also fits with your original question of "So what's the big deal?" in that my original response was that the transportation initiative overturns a majority decision. I believe that remained on topic.

I stand by my comment that good things can come from criticism. Take for example the repeal of the personal property tax exemption. It is a generally accepted fact that 695 accidentally repealed this exemption and would have reinstated it. However, throughout the campaign many of the supporters on this board vehemently denied that such a reinstatement could take place. Had Eyman NOT listened to the criticism, and instead relied on only the comments made by supporters, he would not have included it in Son. And had the legislature not decided to make this correction themselves, we all would have received a not so pleasant surprise in the mailbox come tax time.

My comment on groupthink was not directed at your comments on taxes. It was an explanation about what happens when a group lacks any sort of critical review, thus falls into the mindset that it can do no wrong, and starts making some major mistakes. Imagine what would have happend had someone on the Titanic said "Don't you think we're going a little too fast?"

You're right, it is your perogitive to tell someone to shut up. However, as I stated, such a decision often is an indication that a person doesn't want to listen out of fear of learning that the assumptions that he or she believes in may not be as believable as that person hopes.

That being said.

Notice that we do agree with the change to an income tax. I agree that the voters would currently not likely favor such a change. Any tax can be manipulated into increased taxes; however, if the change would include the elimination of state property taxes and possibly sales tax, then I would think that it might become favorable. We would be talking about the elimination of two taxes for the price of one. Most certainly it would not result in lower taxes for some. The higher wage earners would take it in the chin, BUT the vast majority of the middle class would most likely see a substantial reduction in their overall tax burden. The benefit from switching from a regressive to a progressive tax structure.

From where I see it there are two reasons that individuals like yourself would favor such a move. A) it would mean an end result of one less tax that the government could raise, and B) it would mean that the family you mentioned earlier would have a LOT more money and would not be greatly affected by rising property values.

If more than one topic is brought up at a time, then I respond to them. You said I was of "the minority type, who can't abide a majority decision!" Truthfully, I'm not sure how a critique of 695 supporters is an example of my willingness to abide by 695. In a few days it becomes law, and unless the courts overturn it, I will abide by the majority decision. Since I was unsure why you would consider me of this type, I offered a suggestion as to who I considered to belong to that group. I believe that remained on topic.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 28, 1999.

Please forgive the repeate last paragraph. I must have hit control-C when I should have hit control-X.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 28, 1999.

Patrick,

Lets see, you posted how many times directly to me, when my responses were to d? You were being ignored. Your past responses on previous threads were not the type of dialog I cared to engage in. See ALL your posts to Westin as an example. Perhaps if you don't care for the responses you get from me, you will refrain from addressing your responses to posts intended for someone else. I am certain you wish to argue the finer points further (as in your posts to Westin), but since that seems to be your entire purpose, I will not oblige.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

d Since you are too thick to comprehend almost anything that messes with your GOD government it must just be smoke.

Your deities in Olympia are not a fine-tuned and well-oiled machine whose gears will be damaged by a 'wrench' of initiative.

What is you you just don't get anyway??

The 'PEOPLE' speaking and attempting to actually be governed by their own ideas and needs instead of being dictated to by despots like Locke, Sims and the legislature is not screwing things up.

It is the way this country was designed. Even though over the years misguided people like you have helped shove it into the trashcan of socialism

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

Mad:

I don't have any problem with the initiative process. I have a problem with initiatives that don't make any sense. We were discussing what it does, and whether it is a good idea. If you have comments about the issues we are looking at, great. If I am being criticised for holding a contrary opinion, I will just ignore the smoke.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

Marsha, it is unfortunate that you choose to be rather petty in this matter. I find a rational debate to be both thought provoking and enlightening. I'm disappointed that you'd rather hold a grudge against me for entering into your debate with d. I thought that it was a very facinating exchange, and was hoping to be a part of it. If you honestly want to have a private debate with someone without others offering their opinion, then might I suggest you do so over e-mail instead of a forum that is designed to foster open debates.

In my defense, you weren't exactly ignoring me. Had you just simply not responded to my comments, I would have taken the hint and moved onto another discussion. But instead you DID respond, and you DID ask me questions. When I responded, you replied with little more than attacks.

Although it may seem hard to believe, I did try to have a rational debate with Westin when this forum first started. And I quickly learned that if you agreed with him he found you okay, but if you questioned his comments or disagreed with him, he'd let loose with a avalanche of insults. So yes, I have given up on rational debates with him, and only engage him when I'm looking for comedy relief.

Again, I am sorry to hear that you'd rather not discuss the issues with me. As I said, I found your discussion with d to be quite interesting. I will welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with you in the future if you decide to not take the Westin/Maddjak approach to debate with me.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

Patrick,

You obviously did not take the hint very well, better go back and re- read.

I don't think just because I agree with Westin, he thinks I am OK. I think he ignores me.

I just never cared to debate with you based on responses Westin, and others have recieved from you.

The Westin/maddjak approach? Do I now get to create a forum phrase of a Patrick approach? (someone who uses criticism and ridicule when he doesn't get his way?) I am far more moderate than either of them on many issues. I have developed a fondness for maddjak as I think everyone has failed to see the humour and sarcasm in many of his posts and I think most of you over react.

I also get quite irratated when you attack Tim Eyman. I think there is great benefit in having anyone like him involved in this political process, because like it or not, he got off his **** and did something instead of whine and complain.

I have already pointed out to you two things. People want lower taxes, and they do NOT favor an income tax. So, if all you can do is critcize all of Mr. Eymans Initiatives, and not come up with anything OTHER than the unlikely income tax, there is no good reason for me to respond, in my opinion. I am NOT here to argue. I am looking for real solutions. This place is an education in itself. Both d, and Craig have contributed much to that. Both sides. They don't seem to resort to ridicule, like you do, the minute someone disagrees with them.

If it is your desire to contribute, then do so, without your air of superiority, arrogance and ridicule, and you WILL be treated with some respect by me.

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

Marsha:

Have you changed your opinion of "son" yet?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 04, 2000.

d,

I think the best course of action for me is to wait on the outcome of the upcoming Legislative Session and the Court Challenge to I-695 before we continue to debate the issue. As far as I can tell, we covered everything thouroughly, and I don't have anything further to add. Do you?

In any case, I'm glad to see your still with us.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.