Eyman Files Two New Initiatives
 
November 16, 2000 

 OLYMPIA - "The spirit of 695 not only lives on but is moving like a freight train through the state of Washington." 

It's not too hard to figure out who was out expressing that sentiment Thursday. 

Yep, Tim Eyman, the king of initiatives, was it it again. 

As promised, Eyman filed two new initiatives with the secretary of state Thursday. 

The first one would require voter approval for all local tax and fee increases. The second one would limit total state tax revenue to the rate of inflation, and require that any excess revenue be returned to property-tax payers. 

These initiatives are a follow-up to Initiative 695, which passed by a wide margin in 1999. The state Supreme Court recently struck down I-695, which would have required a vote before all tax and fee increases. 

Eyman's last initiative was I-722, which limits property taxes and rolls back some tax and fee increases. It passed last week. 

"The enthusiasm for these new initiatives is clearly fueled by the arrogance of city and county government throughout the state that have ignored the mandate of 695 and 722," Eyman said. 

Eyman will have until the end of the year to collect 200,000-plus signatures for each of the new initiatives. 

If he fails, which is likely, he'll file them again in January as initiatives to the people. That will give him until July to collect signatures. 

 

So you see, BB, DBVZ, and the rest of you pro-bureaucrat types, WE CAN KEEP CRANKING THESE OUT UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER OR UNTIL THE BUREAUCRATS GET THE POINT!!!

Let's hear it for the NEXT (but not last) round!

Hip hip.....hooray!
Hip hip.....hooray!
Hip hip.....hooray!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 16, 2000

Answers

BREMERTON Council nullifies I-722 tax relief By Elena Castaeda, Sun staff Bremerton residents won't see any tax relief from Initiative 722 under a series of votes taken by the City Council on Wednesday.

Council members voted to reaffirm and reenact eight existing tax ordinances retroactive to the date of the tax increases' original passage last year.

The action nullifies I-722, a tax rollback initiative sponsored by Tim Eyman and passed by voters across the state Nov. 7.

No members of the public commented on the action during the City Council meeting.

Instead, most of the public speakers asked council members to consider funding their nonprofit groups with funds earned by the city's hotel-motel taxes. The council is in the midst of deciding how best to spend those funds.

The tax ordinances approved Wednesday pertain to greens fees at Gold Mountain Golf Course; water and sewer rates; municipal license and permit fees, parking fines and user fees; fees for noncity residents who use city services; commercial parking tax; penalties for misdemeanors and civil infractions; stormwater program taxes; and fees for inappropriate stormwater discharges.

Reach reporter Elena Castaeda at (360) 792-9210 or at ecastaneda@thesunlink.com.

Published in The Sun: 11/16/2000

I guess I will have to agree with Mark. I will have to continue supporting Tim Eyman's Initiatives....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 17, 2000.

I can see it now.

Fire trucks and police cars with

"We take Visa/Mastercard/American Express"

on the sides.

Actually, what I like about this latest round is that it does exclude fees and non property tax charges. When my city increased those before I-695 took effect, a lot of people complained, though.

One other question would be, what will happen to the portion of property taxes that currently fund road projects. In other words, presumably a given city/county will retain fire/police protection at the expense of other projects.

If fees are the answer how would you tax people for sidewalks?

Road usage?

Plus, what happens to the more rural areas of the county/state?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 17, 2000.

Well I will say that Tim actually can learn from his mistakes. Neither one of these look completely unconstitutional on the surface.

I do find the state one interesting though. Basically, it's I-601 but removes population growth from the revenue cap calcuation. So if another million people decide to move here the state will still only be able to spend enough money as it did before they moved here. Seeing as the constitution mandates a certain amount of school funding per student, that will of course have to take up an increasing portion of the budget, making funding for things like, oh I don't know, TRANSPORTATION, decrease.

Just think of it. A million more people driving around would certainly increase gas tax revenue, therefor increasing road construction funding. But this little gem of an initiative would require the state to send all that money back, and make it try to maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure for six million people with the funding that they couldn't make do with for five million people.

I can see that Mark here hasn't connected the dots yet to understand that this little initiative would signify the end to any possibility of increasing road construction, but I wonder if Tim has thought it out. I imagine that he has. After all, he's pretty good at creating the problems that a year later he needs to "solve."

-- Informed Citizen (ic@ic.com), November 17, 2000.

>>So you see, BB, DBVZ, and the rest of you pro-bureaucrat types, WE CAN KEEP CRANKING THESE OUT UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER OR UNTIL THE BUREAUCRATS GET THE POINT!!!<<

Get what point, Mark? That we want more spending because of 732 and 728? That we want less spending because of 722? That we want higher taxes because of 732 and 728? That we want lower taxes because of 722?

With budget-by-initiative sending conflicting messages to Olympia and elsewhere, how are politicians supposed to hear a single voice telling them what to do?

Marsha writes:

>>No members of the public commented on the action during the City Council meeting.<<

>>I guess I will have to agree with Mark. I will have to continue supporting Tim Eyman's Initiatives....<<

Maybe you should spend some time commenting to the City Council about their actions, instead of sitting back and doing nothing and then complaining about the outcome when it doesn't go your way. You hardly have a right to complain about the actions of your City Council if you didn't show up and use the opportunity you had to tell them how you felt.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 17, 2000.

"Maybe you should spend some time commenting to the City Council about their actions, instead of sitting back and doing nothing and then complaining about the outcome when it doesn't go your way. You hardly have a right to complain about the actions of your City Council if you didn't show up and use the opportunity you had to tell them how you felt."

That would be an entirely inappropriate thing to do, since I don't live in that City, or even County. In fact, the type of attitude they have is one reason I moved away from there.

I-722 passed, by a large majority. It would have been nice to see that city council at least pretend an attempt to comply. (Like many local goverments are doing) This just tells voters they will do whatever they want.

Ingnore the will of the voters at your own peril! I can't wait to read the letters to the editor!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 17, 2000.

"You hardly have a right to complain about the actions of your City Council if you didn't show up and use the opportunity you had to tell them how you felt. "

Not to worry!

The initiatives that I support in the future will leave them with no doubt how I felt!

;-)


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 18, 2000.

to Informed Citizen: You write: "Seeing as the constitution mandates a certain amount of school funding per student, that will of course have to take up an increasing portion of the budget, making funding for things like, oh I don't know, TRANSPORTATION, decrease."

Yes, education is the highest priority. It's time for society to set other priorities. When we get to the point that all other "lower priority" programs have been eliminated, then your argument might hold water.

Right now, society continues to operate buses on the weekend. Even though the cost benefit analysis must be dismal, indeed. So, when I see weekend bus service eliminated, then I'll believe the government warrants my respect and trust.

Additionally, follow-on initiatives can provide for NON-COERCIVE fees, which will provide the additional needed funding. For example, we can "privatize" the HOV lanes, and, eventually, rush-hour transit.

Your scare tactics are shameful. Why can't you resort to sound cost benefit analysis? Simply show why it makes sense for governmental agencies to raise COERCIVE fees and taxes faster than the rate of inflation.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 20, 2000.

Mark,

Just two quick points:

1. The new initiatives are initiatives to the legislature and not to the people, which is a MUCH better approach to the process of sending a message and getting the results proposed. It gives the legislature the chance to review the proposal, debate it, and offer an alternative that deals with any problems it would create. I may even sign these so they DO go to the legislature rather than direct to the people.

2. The proposal that all tax increases must be voted on by the people, will be just as unconstitutional in 2001-2002 as it was in 1999-2000. The Supreme Court did not just rule I-695 unconstitutional because of the two subject rule, as Eyman has been saying. They ruled that it was unconstitutional for several reasons, including that requiring voter approval of tax increases was effectively a Referendum without the constitutionally required petition process. We can go through the process again, and get it thrown out of court again, and eventually Eyman and Co. may get the message. You can't change the constitution through the initiative process.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

"The new initiatives are initiatives to the legislature and not to the people, which is a MUCH better approach to the process of sending a message and getting the results proposed. "

Actually, no. There is very little chance of getting the signatures in time for them to get to the legislature. It's pretty well assumed that these will wind up being initiatives to the people. But feel free to go collect signatures if you want!

"We can go through the process again, and get it thrown out of court again, and eventually Eyman and Co. may get the message. You can't change the constitution through the initiative process. "

Ah, but you can motivate your base and send shivers through the elected elite. I-695 got thrown out, but I'm still paying $30 for tabs. Prior to 695, we were looking for increased taxes. Now, even if 722 gets shot down, the legislature is likely to put in property tax relief.

Permanent Offense is about controlling the agenda, and so far it's working real well, IMHO.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

Whoa!!!!!! Has anyone read the text of these initiatives?

It may be pre-mature to assume the initiative dealing with local fees and taxes won't pass constitutional muster.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 20, 2000.

Mark wrote, "Actually, no. There is very little chance of getting the signatures in time for them to get to the legislature. It's pretty well assumed that these will wind up being initiatives to the people. But feel free to go collect signatures if you want!"

You may be right, that they will fail to get the required signatures in time. My comment was that an initiative to the legislature is a MUCH better process to use and still get the message delivered. Your "Actually, no" remark seems to have missed the point of the comment. If they go direct to the people, I renew my general objection to that method of passing legislation is inherently prone to bad law, unconstitutional proposals, and unintended consequences - some of which are very damaging to the delivery of basic government services.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

>>Now, even if 722 gets shot down, the legislature is likely to put in property tax relief.<<

How? They've got a mandate from 728 and 732 to increase spending on education. How are they supposed to offer property tax relief while at the same time needing more money to fund education?

This is the problem with budgeting by initiative. You can't have madates for both tax relief and increased spending without major trouble down the road.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

"This is the problem with budgeting by initiative. You can't have madates for both tax relief and increased spending without major trouble down the road. "

Sure you can- You just have to ACTUALLY DO some of all the things they talked about doing to live with the results of I-695. Things like out-sourcing, smaller state government, getting rid of prevailing wage rules on public works projects, etc.

But unless they are in a pinch, the bureaucrats are going to keep the same bloated bureaucratic status quo they have now.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

>>Sure you can- You just have to ACTUALLY DO some of all the things they talked about doing to live with the results of I-695. Things like out-sourcing, smaller state government, getting rid of prevailing wage rules on public works projects, etc.<<

Answers 1 & 3 are good, but they don't save anywhere near enough money to fund the increases in the budget that will be required by 732 & 728. And neither of these two solutions give any help to those local governments that whose funding has been reduced by 695 and will be even more dramatically impacted by 722 (assuming it is implemented, which it won't be).

The problem is that budgeting by initiative is proving to be a schizophrenic exercise. We want less spending but then we want more. We want less taxes but then we don't. This is not the way to run a system effectively, and will eventually lead to decreased levels of service in areas that people don't want to see impacted, particularly local governments, if things continue the way they are going.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

What we want is more effiency, accurate accountability, and a whole lot less arrogance from our elected officials. Eyeman has proved his point. Without voter approved tax hikes to cover car tab reductions, he predicted the beauracrats around the state would just jack up other taxes. Voila'! The cities and counties did just that. Voter approved tax hikes is the ONLY way to get our officials to respond to us, the electorate. As for conflicting opinions as to what the voters want, I do not see any conflict when 98% of the voters of this state are saying: Keep Your Grubby Hands Off Our Wallets... When will our elected officials get the message? These initiatives have passed overwhelmingly, but they just cannot figure out what we want. I cannot wait to see eyemans initiatives for next year. I have my pen ready to sign up.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 20, 2000.

"And neither of these two solutions give any help to those local governments that whose funding has been reduced by 695 "

Excuse me!

Did I miss something here?

What part of I-695 has not been over-ruled by the courts?

OH, I GET IT! You must be talking about the law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor that decreased the MVET on motor vehicles.

Talk about ironic. First you harp about Eyeman's lack of understanding of your precious bureaucracy and tout the alleged suoperiority of the "standard" legislative process, then you complain about the effects of a law passed by just such a process, and try to blame it on an initiative that you correctly predicted would be ruled unconstitutional in the courts, and never implemented.

Your BS approaches the level of AlGore.

Admit it BB. You don't object to initiatives because there is anything inherently wrong with initiatives, you object to them because they are successfully mobilizing voters and pressuring the legislature and governor to do things that the bureaucratic insiders don't want done.

BB, you are so full of it, it's amusing.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

"And neither of these two solutions give any help to those local governments that whose funding has been reduced by 695 "

>>Did I miss something here?<<

Yes, as is typical.

>>then you complain about the effects of a law passed by just such a process, and try to blame it on an initiative that you correctly predicted would be ruled unconstitutional in the courts, and never implemented.<<

I have every right to blame reduced funding on 695. It passed in November. Many local governments had to start cutting services as soon as it passed, because it was clear that there was no longer going to be $ coming from the state at that point.

And despite your claim that it was "never implemented," 695 in fact was implemented in January. An injunction preventing it from taking effect was never granted or sought. Local governments had to immediately deal with the consequences. 695 wasn't thrown out until March.

Your apparent confusion about the facts aside, 695 cut funding to local governments before it was thrown out. Even if I was going to blame the legislature for the impacts on local governments caused by reducing tabs, the damage was already done to local governments by 695 before the Legislature did anything.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

"Your apparent confusion about the facts aside, 695 cut funding to local governments before it was thrown out. Even if I was going to blame the legislature for the impacts on local governments caused by reducing tabs, the damage was already done to local governments by 695 before the Legislature did anything. "

What was that? Did I see you ADMIT that the legislature was actually the culprit?

The reality seems to be that the local governments ought to THANK Tim Eyeman, since I-695 allowed them to start their budgeting early for the cuts that the legislature and governor were going to cause, when they, not Eyeman orr I-695, took away their MVET derived funds.

I fail to see how you can blame I-695 or fault the initiative process, for a result that is unequivocally the result of an act of the legislature that you advocate, being signed into law by the governor, just as you indicated was your preferred way of making law.

Evidently when reality differs from your philosophy, you simply ignore reality.

Sounds pathological to me. I wonder what Zowie would diagnose?
;-)

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 23, 2000.

Hmmm... Since 722 and 745 passed overwhelmingly and they are unconstitutional. Why can't Olympia simply vote to make these two intitiatives law? Just like they did with the mvet tax. Instead of following the will of the people and helping us, Olympia is filing every lawsuit in the world to stop these two fairly elected initiatives. They can vote to tax the hell out of us, every day of the week, and we are supposed to shut up and keep on paying. Hmmm....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 23, 2000.

>>Since 722 and 745 passed <<

Rolex,

Not to be picky, but I believe 745 failed. 60%-No, 40%-Yes

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 23, 2000.

Jim Cusick writes:

"Rolex,

"Not to be picky, but I believe 745 failed. 60%-No, 40%-Yes"

Jim...

It's new math. I-722 passes by a landslide 57% while I-745 barely fails by 40%.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), November 23, 2000.

Does it really matter if they passed or failed? Olympia will find a way, any way to discard any initiative that gives voters some voice. When have they or local governments cared about the sacrifices we as citizens have to make , each time they raise our taxes? Enough is enough. We need to have voter approved tax hikes or all of us citizens are doomed to the poorhouse. How many of you people out there, feel you are not represented, and are paying too much in taxes with no accountability from the people that raise those taxes? Be Honest. If not to me , to yourselves...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 23, 2000.

>>Does it really matter if they passed or failed? Olympia will find a way, any way to discard any initiative that gives voters some voice. When have they or local governments cared about the sacrifices we as citizens have to make , each time they raise our taxes? Enough is enough. We need to have voter approved tax hikes or all of us citizens are doomed to the poorhouse. How many of you people out there, feel you are not represented, and are paying too much in taxes with no accountability from the people that raise those taxes? Be Honest. If not to me , to yourselves... <<

Rolex, Do you live within city limits? (or town or whatever local jurisdiction smaller than a county)

I have to admit, before we were annexed I would say that I had a less positive take on government when we were under county jurisdiction. Back then, it was more likely that tax money taken from my more populated area was going to get spent in less populated parts of the county that didn't benefit me.

The council meetings, while public, were at inconvenient times, and a distance away, although not a great distance.

Now that we are within city limits, I have definitely seen improvements in representation, police protection, services, and public works that I feel have been a benefit to those of us in the area. The council meetings are in the evenings, at a convenient after- work time, and the council members are all accesible. I've gotten to know a few, and they do respond to public input. However, if I don't give my input, then they respond to someone elses.

Years ago, when the city was working on it's 20 year comprehensive plan in response to the Growth Management Act I attended the planning commision meetings, just so I could see if and how they might screw things up. Well guess what, even though they had 'official' public participation meetings, they also encouraged members of the public to give their input during some of the informal sessions that they were having. They weren't required to ask us, but they, being citizens like me, and some even being neighbors, valued our input. Now, some of the council members have moved on to the state legislature. Having seen how they voted on local matters, I trust their judgement in Olympia. I can also follow how they vote, and when they have held 'town meetings' I've gone to them, I've asked questions, and I've spoken with them afterwards. Do they vote every way that I would, NO, of course not, because the other guy at the meeting also gets to talk with them, and then someone else.....

So, in response to your question "How many of you people out there, feel you are not represented, and are paying too much in taxes with no accountability from the people that raise those taxes?" I would say that 1), YES I feel I'm being represented. At least as far as my area is concerned, but 2), I don't think they are distributing the services fairly. I think more money should be spent over here.

The problem is, your representative thinks it should be spent over there.

" You can observe a lot by watching". - Yogi Berra

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 25, 2000.

What planet are you living on, Jim? A person can attend all the public meetings he wants. The councils have already decided what they are going to do and how much they will raise our taxes. These, "meetings", for the public, are a required facade that somehow the voter thinks he has an input into how things are run. What a Crock. Why should I or anyone, go to a public meeting when I know I have absolutely no voice and my input does not matter?

This is why we have initiatives now. This is why we will continue to have initiatives. If our public officials listened to us, there would be no need for Mr. Eyeman, or his Brilliant tactics.

You go to all the meetings you want. I will wait patiently for the next initiative, with my pen ready to sign...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 26, 2000.

>> A person can attend all the public meetings he wants. The councils have already decided what they are going to do and how much they will raise our taxes. <<

Maybe my council meetings are different than yours. Then again, I knew/know a few of the participants.

>>You go to all the meetings you want. I will wait patiently for the next initiative, with my pen ready to sign... <<

I will continue to go. What I'm telling them to do is give me everything I want, and TAX that ROLEX guy to get it.

You weren't there to defend yourself.

While I was there, I also happened to find out who else was petitioning them. It was my other neighbor, asking them for everything he wants and TAX that ROLEX guy to get it.

You know when I found out a lot about who is asking for what? When I went to meetings that I didn't have any specific axe to grind. It was quite interesting. Entertaining actually, since it wasn't my ox that was getting gored at that one.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 26, 2000.

Jim, why should I as a citizen, have to, "Defend Myself", from my own city council? Are you telling me they are the "Enemy"?

I will wait for the next initiatives and sign them whole-heartedly...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 27, 2000.

Initiatives for me thank you. 90% of the meetings I have attended, the majority of the governing body did not heed the wishes of those in attendance. Whether it was to raise taxes, or add fluoride to water, these people have already decided, and the only purpose for hearings is to fulfill a requirement. So now, I will just make their jobs harder with initiatives, until their arrogance is overcome by their fear.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 27, 2000.

>>Jim, why should I as a citizen, have to, "Defend Myself", from my own city council? Are you telling me they are the "Enemy"? <<

Well, if they decide to TAX ROLEX, because the majority of citizens that came to them think that's a good idea, then .. NO.

>>Initiatives for me thank you. 90% of the meetings I have attended, the majority of the governing body did not heed the wishes of those in attendance. Whether it was to raise taxes, or add fluoride to water, these people have already decided, and the only purpose for hearings is to fulfill a requirement. So now, I will just make their jobs harder with initiatives, until their arrogance is overcome by their fear. <<

Marsha, maybe you should run for a seat on the council. That would certainly make for more entertaining meetings. Really, the citizen- activist turned council-members on my council were the most effective at putting issues in front of the public for public scrutiny. Some projects have changed their look in response.

Frankly, I'd rather have a group of citizens with opposite viewpoints hashing out the details, than having everyone throw up their hands and say "Forget it!", which ends up leaving those with a very narrow agenda to control things.

The problem with Tim Eyeman's initiatives, is it's letting him become the lightning rod.

At the very least, you can't let your local councils off the hook. You've got to still be around to annoy them.

Right now, my council isn't taking the direction that I think they should. Not all the candidates I wanted were voted in this election. Heck, even the ones that I did vote for make some decisions that I don't agree with. That's the breaks for me. Next go round, maybe things will be different.

Most of the time, I go to these meetings just so I can keep my eye on them.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 28, 2000.

Jim,

I don't live within a city jurisdiction.

We have just elected two (out of a total of three) new County Commissioners. Both Republicans. We shall see what the future holds here, but I am hopeful.

In addition, My State Senator has recently been in the news, saying he was considering switching parties. He was highly criticized by many for his tactic, but in our email exchanges, it made perfect sense to me. I agreed with his decision to announce his dissatisfaction, but alas, he decided to remain a Dem. In any case, he has always tried to represent his constituents in a moderate position, reflecting the values in our community. I don't always agree with him, but he is trying.

I am too new to this area to inflict myself on the community! One reason we selected this community, was because of the live and let live philosophy here.

I would not rule out becoming more involved in politics in the future.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 28, 2000.