Text of I-747greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread |
Here is the text of I-747. It will withstand any and all court challenges.Monte Benham
"Spirit of 695" The Right to Vote on Property Taxes Initiative
Politicians still don't get it!
Proposed Ballot Title: This measure would limit property tax increases to 1% per year unless approved by the voters.
Complete Text of "Spirit of 695" The Right to Vote on Property Taxes Initiative I-747
AN ACT Relating to limiting property tax increases by amending RCW 84.55.005 and 84.55.0101; and adding new sections.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
POLICIES AND PURPOSES
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This measure would limit property tax increases to 1% per year unless approved by the voters. Politicians have repeatedly failed to limit skyrocketing property taxes either by reducing property taxes or by limiting property tax increases in any meaningful way. Throughout Washington every year, taxing authorities regularly increase property taxes to the maximum limit factor of 106% while also receiving additional property tax revenue from new construction, improvements, increases in the value of state-assessed property, excess levies approved by the voters, and tax revenues generated from real estate excise taxes when property is sold. Property taxes are increasing so rapidly that working class families and senior citizens are being taxed out of their homes and making it nearly impossible for first-time home buyers to afford a home. The Washington state Constitution limits property taxes to 1% per year; this measure matches this principle by limiting property tax increases to 1% per year.
LIMITING PROPERTY TAX INCREASES TO 1% PER YEAR UNLESS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS
Sec 2. RCW 84.55.005 and 2001 c 2 s 5 (Initiative Measure No. 722) are each amended to read as follows:
As used in this chapter:
(1) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published for the most recent twelve-month period by the bureau of economic analysis of the federal department of commerce in September of the year before the taxes are payable:
(2) "Limit factor" means:
(a) For taxing districts with a population of less than ten thousand in the calendar year prior to the assessment year, one hundred ((two)) one percent:
(b) For taxing districts for which a limit factor is authorized under RCW 84.55.0101, the lessor of the limit factor under that section or one hundred ((two)) one percent;
(c) For all other districts, the lesser of one hundred ((two)) one percent or one hundred percent plus inflation; and (3) "Regular property taxes" has the meaning given in RCW 84.04.140.
Sec 3. RCW 84.55.0101 and 1997 c 3 s 204 are each amended to read as follows:
Upon a finding of substantial need, the legislative authority of a taxing district other than the state may provide for the use of a limit factor under this chapter of one hundred two one percent or less unless an increase greater than this limit is approved by the voters at an election as provided in RCW 84.55.050. In districts with legislative authorities of four members or less, two-thirds of the members must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. In districts with more than four members, a majority plus one vote must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. The new limit factor shall be effective for taxes collected in the following year only.
CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. If any provision of this act of its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. The people have clearly expressed their desire to limit taxes through the overwhelming passage of numerous initiatives and referendums. However, politicians throughout the state of Washington continue to ignore the mandate of these measures.
Politicians are reminded:
(1) All political power is vested in the people, as stated in Article I, section 1 of the Washington state Constitution.
(2) The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, as stated in Article II, section 1 of the Washington state Constitution.
(3) Politicians are an employee of the people, not their boss.
(4) Any property tax increase which violates the clear intent of this measure undermines the trust of the people in their government and will likely to increase the likelihood of future tax limitation measures.
- END -
Paid for by Permanent Offense ú PO Box 1641 ú Mukilteo ú WA ú 98275 Ph: 425-493-8707 ú FAX: 425-493-1027 www.permanent-offense.org ú email: info@permanent-offense.org
-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), January 17, 2001
The initiative seems pretty cut and dried to me. Can't get much simpler than that. Property taxes will not go up more than 1% a year, unless the voters agree to it.I would expect this to pass with nearly 100% of the vote. How can anyone object to it? It's basically saying the voters are the boss. Talk about kissing up to the voters!
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2001.
I am suprised by the lack of comments on this Inititative.I am not about to jump aboard the band wagon of support....
Many of you seem willing to trust the schizophrenic voters. If Mark, Zowie and myself were the only ones allowed to vote, I would be comfortable with this Initiative. :-)
However, it has become apparent, (as some have predicted,) that voters are not neccessarily equipped, or informed enough to make a decision on taxes, programs or infrastructure. We could wind up with well supported schools, and over budgeted light rail, (duh) and very little in the way of Police, Fire, EMS, Road maintenance, so on and so forth.
For those of you who believe this is a good idea, please convince me why I should put my financial interests and health and welfare in the hands of a bunch of touchy feely liberal voters, (gullible enough to fall for WEA propaganda) who can't decide from one election to the next, what their priorities are.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 20, 2001.
"For those of you who believe this is a good idea, please convince me why I should put my financial interests and health and welfare in the hands of a bunch of touchy feely liberal voters, (gullible enough to fall for WEA propaganda) who can't decide from one election to the next, what their priorities are. "
Because the alternatives to democracy, Marsha, are worse.
It is unfortunate that you can indeed fool all of the people, some of the time.
But reality doesn't change to match liberal idealogy.
The people of California were told that they didn't need to build new power plants, that the dirtier ones they had should be shut down, that they could export the whole messy generation business to other states, They were then told that PG&E and SoCal Edison should be forced out of the generation business (too much like a monopoly if they both generated AND sold) , not allowed to buy long term contracts for power, and compelled to sell at low prices no matter what their suppliers charged them. Oh, and while we're at it, those people in the Northwest need to breach their dams in the name of salmon restoration. They convinced themselves, and their voters, that this could be done. Then REALITY bit them in the butt.
The result is that California is fast becoming like a third-world nation, with power only part of the day. Their economy is being hammered by rotating periods of unproductivity of their workers. Certain industries aren't even viable, until reliable power is available. Their two major utilities bonds have been reduced to junk-bond status, they've suspended their dividends, laid off many of their employees, and are staring bankruptcy in the face. And the high demand season, the summer, is yet to come. The politicians that caused this fiasco are even now trying to blame the soon to be broke companies, but that's kind of hard when their finances are an open book, available by SEC mandate. When AIR CONDITIONING season puts further demands upon our environmentalist friends who are largely domiciled in what Nature ordained to be a desert, we are REALLY going to see the impact.
And eventually, people learn. They learn that REALITY trumps spin, trumps DOGMA, trumps POLITICAL THEORY, and trumps SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
Democracy has lumps and bumps and imperfections aplenty, but it's far better than the alternative.
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.
Marsha,From my point of view, you answered your own question, "why should I put my financial interests and health and welfare in the hands of a bunch of touchy feely liberal voters, (gullible enough to fall for WEA propaganda) who can't decide from one election to the next, what their priorities are."
Until we get true and fair property tax reform/relief, I'm certainly not about to let "touchy feel liberal voters" have a free hand at calling the shots. Right now it's very flusturating, but I'm sure not about to join them.
At least we have gotten the pols attention, this is not the time to give up. Maybe a better initiative will be presented, but until then, we must work with what is out there.
Wayne A.
-- Wayne A. (wga1943@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.
to Marsha: You write: "For those of you who believe this is a good idea, please convince me why I should put my financial interests and health and welfare in the hands of a bunch of touchy feely liberal voters..."Marsha, you're not making any sense. The initiative merely limits the overall growth of property taxes to 1% per year. Right now the limit is 6%.
Why is 6% ok, but 1% is not ok? The fact is that any number is arbitrary. I will agree that 1% is too low, if others agree that 6% is too high.
There's nothing stopping the legislature from adjusting the 1% to say 2%.
People are overblowing the effects of initiatives. Initiatives merely help the politicians focus on our wants and needs. Utlimately, our elected officials are going to do what they want, anyway. But, for a moment, they pay a little more attention to the people.
By the way, these are the same officials who received the majority of the votes from the "touchy feely liberal voters".
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 23, 2001.
In section 2 above I read, "...a limit factor under this chapter of one hundred two one percent or less..." I assume the "two" should be a delete. Ok, if the above is accurate, I think I agree it will pass constitutional muster.I also agree with Marsha, that voters are giving mixed messages about services and taxes. They want the services, but they don't want to pay what it will cost to maintain them. This initiative is an example of tax cutting without consideration of the service consequences. It relies on taxing authorities asking for voter approval every year. That is certainly possible, but is it reasonable and necessary? How long will the ballot be if every city, county, and special purpose district has a revenue maintenance proposition on every November ballot? It will be a book.
The system in place is designed to allow the voter to set a level of service by the levy rate they authorize once; and after that the inflation in property values and taxes, and the new money from new construction, is intended to allow the taxing district to maintain that level of service as the service needs of the area increase due to new people and as the value of the taxes they authorized decreases over time due to inflation. It is assumed that the value of property goes up because the value of money goes down, and more money is needed to provide the same service to the same residents. If the community is asked to reset the level of service through a "lid lift" election, you begin again with maintenance increases from that point. A maximum of 6% was set as a resonable maximum in any one year. In fact, in some years in the early 80's, inflation (in property value and everything else) was well over 6%. When that occured, the cost of services increased faster than the 106% maximum tax levy would allow.
New construction was excluded from the 106% cap for good reason. When one community is growing rapidly due to new construction, those new resident need to pay for the increased services that they cause to be needed. If new construction were included in the base rate, the new people would be adding new service demand but providing no new money to pay for it. As a result, everyone would get a tax reduction because more assessed value would be available to pay for the same (or slightly increased) total tax amount. The effect is that the level of service is decreased because the increase in need is not matched by an increase in funding and capability. The existing residents suffer from a sevice level reduction, because the new people still need services even though they would not be adding new money to provide them.
The 1% limit simply makes it impossible to keep up with normal inflation, and will result in a reduction in service level as the normal course of events unless voters aprove a levy increase each year. It makes no attemt to maintain the level of service the voters want, between lid lift elections. Inflation has been more than 1%/year for as long as any of us have been paying taxes. I-747 makes annual lid lift elections the only way to maintain the service level a community wants and needs. As I said, that is possible, but is it reasonable or necessary?
Mr. Eyman may have produced one that is constitutional, though I am not yet sure of that. Do you really believe he has produced one that you consider a good idea?
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.
Matt Warren wrote, "Why is 6% ok, but 1% is not ok? The fact is that any number is arbitrary. I will agree that 1% is too low, if others agree that 6% is too high.There's nothing stopping the legislature from adjusting the 1% to say 2%."
Are you agreeing that I-747 should not become law, as it is written? You only get a yes or no vote next November. If you believe 1% is the wrong number, shouldn't you vote no?
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.
"Mr. Eyman may have produced one that is constitutional, though I am not yet sure of that. Do you really believe he has produced one that you consider a good idea?"No. This Initiative doesn't fly with me. If this wouldn't lead to a p!**ing contest, I don't know what would. As I stated in the other thread, there is nothing to prevent a local government from being punitive if a rate increase weren't approved by voters. There is nothing to prevent a 15% increase either, if that's what the majority of a district's voters wanted. Instead of Rolex seeing a 6% increase, he may see 8 or 10%, maybe more.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 24, 2001.
Just to avoid confusion, it is worth noting that governments can no longer automatically raise property taxes by 6%. They can only automatically raise the total amount of property taxes collected by the previous year's total multiplied by the IPD (an inflation measure that is widely acknowledged to be on the low end of the scale), excluding new construction.Should a supermajority of the particular government's elected officials declare a "substantial need," that government can then raise up to 106% of the previous year's budget. The state cannot raise property taxes by 6% no matter what; they may only raise them by the IPD. The only governments raising property taxes by more than the IPD are local ones.
Marsha:
>>There is nothing to prevent a 15% increase either, if that's what the majority of a district's voters wanted. Instead of Rolex seeing a 6% increase, he may see 8 or 10%, maybe more.<<
You are correct.
-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.
to dbvz: You ask: "Are you agreeing that I-747 should not become law, as it is written? You only get a yes or no vote next November. If you believe 1% is the wrong number, shouldn't you vote no?"I-747 is a reasonable starting point. I am confident that IF there are problems, the legislature will correct them, since they'll not miss an opportunity to take my money.
I do believe 1% is probably the wrong number for Fire Districts, but there may be a variety of ways to mitigate my concerns. But, again, the voters can always vote in a higher rate of tax to fund the Fire District, so I remain unconcerned.
However, for any other division of government, there are plenty of opportunities to make up the shortfall, such as eliminating unneeded services, raising existing fees, or charging a fee for a service which was previously covered by the taxes collected.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2001.
Matt Warrn wrote, "I do believe 1% is probably the wrong number for Fire Districts, but there may be a variety of ways to mitigate my concerns. But, again, the voters can always vote in a higher rate of tax to fund the Fire District, so I remain unconcerned.However, for any other division of government, there are plenty of opportunities to make up the shortfall, such as eliminating unneeded services, raising existing fees, or charging a fee for a service which was previously covered by the taxes collected.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2001."
Well, it sounds like your solution to the problems of I-747 is for local governments to ignore the direction given by voters in I-695 and I-722, and increase other taxes and fees without a vote to offset the taxes you are cutting. Some local governments are actually trying to do what the voters want, and they are being painted into a corner by these initiatives. And now you trust the legislature to fix the problem, when those here have been saying they are the primary cause of the problem. Why not admit that I-747 would be bad law if approved, and agree we should vote this one down? You sound like you have enough doubts, are reasonable, and are aware of the problems. Wouldn't you want the legislature to defeat a proposal that would not work, and is structured to create more problems than it solves? And shouldn't the voters use the same criteria to determine if an initiative should be approved?
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.
to dbvz: You write: "Well, it sounds like your solution to the problems of I-747 is for local governments to ignore the direction given by voters in I-695 and I-722, and increase other taxes and fees without a vote to offset the taxes you are cutting."I have no objection to local governments putting tax and fee increases on the ballot, which, if you recall, is what I-695 demanded. The local governments could have an item on the ballot giving the voters a choice between fewer services or higher fees, with the services to be cut and the fees to be raised clearly listed in the voters' handbook. Why is this a problem?
So, once again, your complaints seem rather shallow and easily dismissed.
You also write: "And now you trust the legislature to fix the problem, when those here have been saying they are the primary cause of the problem."
I trust the legislature to raise the 1% limit to say 2%, if it becomes apparent that 1% is to strict. In other words, I trust the legislature to RAISE MY TAXES. The legislature wouldn't be FIXING a problem, rather, they would be watering down some badly needed medicine, because the government's addiction MAY be too strong to cure with a simple initiative.
You also write: "Why not admit that I-747 would be bad law if approved, and agree we should vote this one down? You sound like you have enough doubts, are reasonable, and are aware of the problems."
It's like buying a used vehicle. You come across what you think is a good value, but it doesn't have all of the features or options you want. But, still, overall, it is a good value.
Likewise, I-747 could be better, I suppose. But, then, by making it better, it becomes UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, overall, I-747 is a good starting point. The constitution permits the legislature to fine-tune the initiatives after they are passed. So, why can't YOU admit that I-747 isn't that bad, after all, and can be EASILY improved by the legislature.
You also write: "Wouldn't you want the legislature to defeat a proposal that would not work, and is structured to create more problems than it solves? And shouldn't the voters use the same criteria to determine if an initiative should be approved?"
No, the voters use different criteria. One criterion for the voters is to send a message to the legislature. The initiative represents the first step, the identification of direction. It is then up to the legislature to take the next steps in fine-tuning the initiative over time. If the voters are to use the same criteria as the legislature, then we don't need a legislature, and we should pass all laws via initiatives.
You still haven't adequately explained why I-747 won't work. You have not explained why it creates more problems than it solves. I-747 only fails to work if the government and its citizens are completely dysfunctional. But, then, that means the government never worked in the first place.
Eventually, I-747 will force Fire Districts to ask the voters to approve special levies. But, this is not necessarily a disaster, although, if the voters vote it down, then it could be suicidal. But, that's the way democracy goes.
I usually support levies for Fire Districts, EMS, libraries, and parks. I'm skeptical of the police because they waste money fighting a "war on drugs", which seems to spawn crime. I'm skeptical of school levies, because there is no link between pay and performance. So, I'll more enthusiastically support a school district when test scores are above the national average.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 26, 2001.
Matt, wrote, "You still haven't adequately explained why I-747 won't work. You have not explained why it creates more problems than it solves. I-747 only fails to work if the government and its citizens are completely dysfunctional. But, then, that means the government never worked in the first place.Eventually, I-747 will force Fire Districts to ask the voters to approve special levies. But, this is not necessarily a disaster, although, if the voters vote it down, then it could be suicidal. But, that's the way democracy goes."
See my comments on January 24. I don't feel it won't work, exactly. I think it is clear it will cause a lot of unnecessary and problematic ballot propositions and intentionally produces a reduction in the level of services as the "normal" course of events. Perhaps that can be considered "working", but it would not be working the way government services ought to work. If a local government hires staff and developes program delivery systems, the mainenance of the level of service and the retention of staff should not depend on the annual lid lift election. What you will get is a lot of good people reluctant to work for government, a lot of aggressive campaigning by government employee groups to preserve their jobs, and a lot of uncertainty about long term service plans. Everyone loses.
Democracy does not need to work the way I-747 would require. For all the complaining I have heard here about property taxes, the tax increases that have created the dissatisfaction are mostly increases the voters approved. If you look at what you paid 20 years ago and what you pay today, in constant value dollars adjusted for inflation, any increase in taxes will likely be almost entirely due to increases approved by the voters. The normal increases to adjust for inflation, which this initiative is intended to address, are not the primary cause of property tax increases. Setting a funding level for basic government services (including an allowance for inflation) has been the method used to establish the level of service for centuries, and that is the way democracy has worked and should continue to work.
Your earlier comment about local governments increasing taxes and fees as the solution did not mention a vote of the people. If that is what you meant it was not clear. If that is what you meant it is not a solution to the problem, since a vote of the people would also restore the property tax. The problem is that making service delivery dependant on frequent voter approvals, creates unworkable uncertainty; whether the vote required is a property tax lid lift or some other tax or fee proposal.
The state legislature is considering some proposals that would reduce the state portion of the property tax levy from the current $3.60/ $1000 to about $3.00/ $1000. That cut would not reduce the abilitiy of local governments to provide local services. The federal government is now arguing about whether the income tax cut will be a bit over a trillion $ or a bit under. I have long felt that the local governments closest to the people provide the most important government services, and should be funded first. Big government wastes big money. Rather than cutting your police services, fire protection, EMS, roads, and other local government services; why not be content with the other tax cuts that are already in the works that will not harm your local service levels? With local taxes you get something of local benefit; and even if you are not personally aware of being saved by your local Police/Fire/EMS/etc. services every year one of your friends, neighbors or family will be.
As for the standard for initiatives being to "send a message" and let the chips fall where they may, that is just (excuse me) stupid. Initiatives become state law if passed. If it is a bad idea, it is bad law. Period. Send your messages by E-mail, phone, or the U.S. mail. Don't write them into bad laws we all suffer under and/or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money to argue about in courts.
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.
dbvz wrote:"Don't write them into bad laws we all suffer under and/or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money to argue about in courts. "
It is this attitude by our "public and elected" officials that prompted I-747. We are outraged that our tax dollars are being used to circumvent the will of the people. Twice the people have voted for reduced taxes and twice our public officials have dipped into the tax payers pocket to circumvent the will of the people.
I'm glad that you agree that I-747 is constitutional. It will not cripple government. It will force government to prioritize their services or justify to the voters the need for more money.
There are MANY abuses of our taxes. One simple example is the city of Kennewick declared a substantial need to raise property taxes to the maximum and then to raise the real estate excise tax to the maximum to improve Columbia Park. Two months later they said they could hire 7 new city employees without raising taxes because they found new money. They ended up hiring 11 new employees. This year they are forming a Public Facility Taxing district that will allow non elected officials to tax the property owners. Why do they want to do this. They want to put in ANOTHER convention center and a HOTEL in Columbia Park.
They used our tax dollars to replace a duck pond in Columbia Park (fed by springs near the river) with an overnight motor home park.
The city of Kennewick has harassed one of it's councilmen over a water heater permit. In essence the City of Kennewick has demonstrated that they have too many people on staff. As such they attempt to dream up ways to increase the size of government with services that the people do not want or that will justify more people on the city payroll.
I-747 allows up to a 1% increase while allowing more revenue to be collected from new construction, improvements, and increases in value of state assessed property. Don't forget they also get the real estate excise tax (up to 1.78% of the sale price of property and that the average property changes hands every 6 to 8 years).
Local government staffs need to focus their attention on providing services with economy of scale. Many people (including myself) feel that with more property on the tax rolls that taxes should go down because there are more people to share the tax burden.
Threatening the loss of police and fire protection when there is plenty of money available will no longer work. I-747 is a very reasonable proposal. The Tacoma News Tribune quoted our opponents as saying "It looks like Eyman is going for a sure thing with I-747".
Don't forget that state and local governments were largely financed by property tax until 1933 when the sales tax was introduced (promised never to be raised). Then in 1935 the B&O tax was introduced for the purpose of reducing property taxes. The sales tax is now up to 80 times the first sales tax and property tax revenue has doubled every 7 to 9 years since 1944. Its time for the people to see a reduction in property tax.
People like you dbvz need to get the message. "Quit fighting the will of the people. Quit using our tax dollars in the courts to circumvent the vote of the people." Until you learn that lesson we will continue to the fight for lower taxes.
-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), January 27, 2001.
"Don't forget that state and local governments were largely financed by property tax until 1933 when the sales tax was introduced (promised never to be raised)."
How many are old enough to remember the 1 to 10 mil tax tokens, Aluminum coins with a small hole in the middle?
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001.
Monte Benham,1. A 1% limit on property tax "increases" is not an increase at all when inflation is 3% or more. It is a steady decrease in the funding for government services over time, in constant value dollars, that must cause a reduction in the level of services unless annual lid lift elections are approved.
2. The spending of thousands of public dollars fighting over Eyman's initiatives was not about trying to, "circumvent the will of the people". It was about making sure that the laws of the state are constitutional. The constitutional challenges were upheld by the court, and 695 was thrown out. 722 will be thrown out, not because the courts are against the will of people, but because the courts are against unconstitutional laws.
3. Not all local governments gets revenue from other sources. Fire districts get no sales tax or B & O tax or any of that. The regional EMS levy for paramedic services is entirely based on the property tax. Funding for the library district is entirely property taxes. Funding for schools is entirely property taxes. You can't argue that an unreasonable reduction in the property tax (in constant value dollars) is OK, because other funding is available. It is just not true.
4. You stated that, "Local government staffs need to focus their attention on providing services with economy of scale. Many people (including myself) feel that with more property on the tax rolls that taxes should go down because there are more people to share the tax burden." You just don't get it do you? When more people and property are added to the tax rolls; it results in more people, and property, and the roads to serve them, being added to the service demand. When a district population increases by 50% over 10 years, do you think the need for police, and fire protection, and roads maintenance etc. is unchanged? Be realistic. When you are not it just undermines your arguements.
I-747 needs to be defeated. I think it is constitutional, but it is not reasonable or necessary. If it passes, it will cause problems primarilly in the suburban and rural areas of the state that depend on services from special purpose districts funded by the property tax and nothing else. State law applies statewide, and this initiative is not good for the entire state.
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.
to dbvz: You write: "Rather than cutting your police services, fire protection, EMS, roads, and other local government services; why not be content with the other tax cuts that are already in the works that will not harm your local service levels?"Not true. My "taxes" are going to be inreasing significantly in the near future, when I have to start paying to cross the Tacoma Narrows. Currently, I pay no special fees for the privilege of traveling to the Tacoma Mall, handing over my hard-earned money to "local government" in the form of sales taxes. If the government is going to prey on me and my family, then I'm going to fight back by voting for I-747.
You also write: "As for the standard for initiatives being to "send a message" and let the chips fall where they may, that is just (excuse me)stupid. Initiatives become state law if passed. If it is a bad idea, it is bad law. Period."
You also had similar views about I-695. Result? Citizens now save hundreds of dollars a year. The state constitution permits the legislature to amend any initiative the people pass. You are over-reacting.
You also write: "Not all local governments gets revenue from other sources. Fire districts get no sales tax or B & O tax or any of that. The regional EMS levy for paramedic services is entirely based on the property tax. Funding for the library district is entirely property taxes. Funding for schools is entirely property taxes. You can't argue that an unreasonable reduction in the property tax (in constant value dollars) is OK, because other funding is available. It is just not true."
Odd. I could've sworn I voted for an initiative to increase spending on schools, and there was no mention of increasing my property taxes. But, according to you, "funding for schools is entitrely property taxes".
It sounds to me that if we vote for I-747, then sales taxes, B&O taxes, real estate excise taxes, etc., will now be used to support fire districts, libraries, schools, etc. So, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 29, 2001.
Matt,You wrote, "It sounds to me that if we vote for I-747, then sales taxes, B&O taxes, real estate excise taxes, etc., will now be used to support fire districts, libraries, schools, etc. So, THERE IS NO PROBLEM." Fire districts, schools, libraries, etc. ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO USE THE B&O OR SALES TAXS, ETC.!!! Do you want to include in I-747 an authorization for these local governments to charge a sales tax or impose a B&O tax? I didn't think so. So, THERE IS A PROBLEM.
Schools are funded with a state property tax levy of $3.60/$1000, and a local excess property tax levy of whatever the local voters authorize. I think it was Initiative 601 that limited how much the state could spend on anything, including school support, and the revenue collected by the state could not actually be paid to the schools. The recent increase in school funding, as I understand it, authorized and directed the state to spend some of the funds collected for the schools in excess of the 601 limits. The money still comes from the property tax. What it did was reduce the potential for the state to reduce the state property tax levy. They had been talking about a major reduction, but are now considering something like a 60 cent reduction in the rate. The local property tax levy is is the only local funding voters control, that funds their schools.
You say you are going to vote to reduce funding for fire protection, EMS, etc. because you expect to pay a toll on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? Does that actually make sense to you?
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.
to dbvz: You write: "You say you are going to vote to reduce funding for fire protection, EMS, etc. because you expect to pay a toll on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? Does that actually make sense to you?"I was merely pointing out that you are wrong when you claim that my family will receive tax relief through other means (e.g., lower federal income taxes; lower state property taxes, etc.). The fact is that my family will be facing higher costs as a result of a predatory government.
Are you saying that it is against the law or unconstitutional for the state legislature to allocate sales tax revenue, B&O tax revenue, etc. in support of schools, fire districts, police, etc.? If not, then there is NO PROBLEM.
If it is against the law, then you've made an excellent point.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2001.
As far as I can tell, I-747 exists to be punitive. Let's punish them because the other Initiatives that were approved by voters were Unconstitutional.Instead of getting smarter, we got dumber?
I-747 does not include a provision to prevent increases elsewhere. Instead of a $1000 building permit, it's $10,000? Did any of you think of that? A $200 parking ticket?
I-747 deals with Local Government in a more extreme manner and ignores the less accountable and less responsive State Government. You can expect they will fight back. Where is the incentive to do a good job with budgets? The cuts will have to come, as their costs go up. In order to pay for higher energy and fuel prices, you can expect to see the cost for services go sky high. Imagine getting a bill of $5000 from the fire department when they had to respond to a stove fire in your home. You all need to do a reality check here.
The allowable increase went from 3% or the rate of inflation under I- 695, to 1% under I-747. What the hell is the point of that? I thinks it's obvious.
There is no way to tell if your taxes will go up. Sure, they may go down, but you want to trust voters who elected a majority of big spending Democrats? These same voters who gave teachers and schools and transit MORE money?
Sorry, this Initiative will only send a message that we don't care how bad we mess things up, and how stupid we can be, we want revenge. I don't. I want a workable plan to reduce spending and my taxes. This isn't it.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.
to Marsha: You write: "Instead of a $1000 building permit, it's $10,000? Did any of you think of that? A $200 parking ticket?"Those sound good to me. What exactly is the problem, here?
Do we really want more construction, when the transportation infrastructure is already too dilapidated to handle the population? If someone parks illegally, why shouldn't they pay for their criminal behavior. Don't forget the towing and impoundment fees.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2001.
I don't know what I expected in the way of a response from you Matt, but I would hope that it would have been a bit more thoughtful, resourceful and less sarcastic. If we reduce local funding, you will feel it much more than your willing to admit.Stop being a sheep. Collectively, all of you are far more capable of writing a better Initiative than this one.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.
to Marsha: I think you're over-reacting. I-747 will result in higher fees or reduced services. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I can see how it may adversely affect a particular group, like seniors. But, society already does a lot for seniors.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 31, 2001.
Is 747 a Bad Idea? Lets vote it into law and find out... As for Teachers raises, I find it appalling. Except for the fact my wife is a teacher, then, I could not agree more with it.
-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 31, 2001.
People like you dbvz need to get the message. "Quit fighting the will of the people. Quit using our tax dollars in the courts to circumvent the vote of the people." Until you learn that lesson we will continue to the fight for lower taxes.-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), January 27, 2001.
Monte you ignorant slut. Do you support the Constitution and rule of law, or dont you? Do you support all court decisions or only the ones that you agree with? I'm sure you would agree that tax dollars were not wasted by fighting to elect President "W" in the courts.
The constitution has always been there to protect freedom: and sometimes that means AGAINST the will of the people. (ie Al Gore with the popular vote). This is not a defect, this is the way freedom is preserved! And yes Monte, sometimes this means that a court will find against your omniscient opinions.
Would you have preferred that the will of the people be upheld in Nazi Germany? I think not ...just pointing out the difference between Constitutional rule and MOB RULE.
Nice euphemism though: "circumventing the vote of the people"... (translated out of newspeak: we tricked the masses, but we couldnt trick the courts)
There is no right or wrong, there is only partisan paint.
-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.
-- Merciful Nate You seem to be frustrated and have resulted to name calling. And like dbvz are distorting the truth.Our tax revolt has more in common with the colonist's complaint against King George of England than is has do to with Hitler.
Bush and Gore paid for their own lawyers. Our elected officials are using our tax dollars to fight the will of the people.
You still don't get it. It's not the courts fault. It's the elected officials fault for using OUR tax dollars to fight the will of the people. And for our elected officials placing a greater tax burden on the people when they have said at least times: "limit spending and cut taxes!".
The AG's opinion before I-695 went to court was that it was constitutional.
Some elected officials rushed to push through excessive property tax increases (19% in Sedro Wooley) in November before I-722 took effect. The county commissioners in Jefferson County tried to do the same but the court house was picketed for three days and 1500 signatures presented to them. They finally accepted the will of the people.
The I-695 and I-722 campaigns accepted the courts ruling. We filed I- 747 to tightens the belt one notch tighter on our elected officials.
If government wants to continue to find ways to "make up the difference" when the citizens demand a tax cut. Then the citizens will find away to take away the tax increases imposed by lawmakers.
Merciful Nate, your final comment that "There is no right or wrong, there is only partisan paint," is unbelievable! If that is what you are teaching your children and they accept it, they will be headed to free room and board in our jails after the police and court teach them that there are rights and wrongs.
Mercifial Nate, it's time to reconsider your positions, I would encourage you to do the right thing and apologize to me and all who have read your post for name calling and distorting the truth.
-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), February 03, 2001.
Monte,Nate seems to have stated the facts more accurately.
You blame local governments for bringing before the courts, an initiative that is unconstitutional. What did you expect them to do? Enforce an unconstitutional law? As for the AG opinion, you may remember that the Attorney General was required, as a matter of law, to defend the initiative in court whether the office actually agreed with it or not. They made the best arguement they could with a bad law, and properly lost the arguement in court. If you go back to before it was approved by the voters, no responsible official that I know of considered it constitutional. Just because the AG was compelled to support it in court means nothing. The fact is it is unconstitution, and the governments that brought the issue to the courts did their job by protecting us from that poorly written initiative.
As for local governments that exercised their legal authority to meet local service needs by approving tax and fee increases, they are accountable to their local voters for those actions not to you. If they violated the law, the state auditor and the courts are capable of correcting that. What you have always failed to see is that local conditions in each local government are different. In some cases, locally, the initiative you and Eyman proposed failed because of the severity of the local impacts. The local voters, even where it won, may still have urged the elected officials to preserve local programs after they began to see the actual effects of the revenue losses. In any case, the local elected officials are in those positions to provide local services, and not to enforce your vision of their responsibility - to cut taxes regardless of the consequences. If they did not confirm to the desires of the LOCAL voters by their LEGAL actions, those voters can deal with that at the next election. Your opinion is, frankly, irrelevant.
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.
dbvz:The point of my previous posting is that an apology is in order for name calling and misstating facts. And it's not "all partisan paint." There are "rights and wrongs."
The initiatives won voter approval! Local governments were told to cut taxes and they raised them instead and now they are tax payer dollars to oppose the will of the people.
Below is another update from a very concerned citizen from Sedro- Wooley (a city that raised property taxes 19% in November and now is spending tax payer dollars to fight I-722.
"Dear Monte, Please send me lots of I-747's to ____________. ... .Our city joined the lawsuit so they wouldn't have to comply with I-722's spending limits without a public hearing, council discussion or vote. The Mayor and City Attorney thought it was "best" for the City to spend taxpayers money stopping a taxpayer passed initiative. By the way 60% went for I-722 in our City so next elections I hope we can vote some people out."
I am promoting I-747 which will "tighten the belt one notch tighter" because I accept the courts decision. This time the courts will not be able to overturn the will of the people. Local government will be forced to cut taxes. And if they raise taxes to compensate for revenue loss, we will follow up with other belt tightening measures.
We are winning!
dbvz, I can agree with you on your point that "My opinion is irrevelant." But the opinions of the over 1.3 million people that voted twice for our initiatives are not irrevelant. More than $2.5 million has been spent for radio and TV ads to oppose I-695 and it still passed overwhelming. Next week I have Jury duty and will not have time to respond to anymore postings. It's time to get signatures for I-747 "the Spirit of 695."
-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), February 03, 2001.
Monte:>>Below is another update from a very concerned citizen from Sedro- Wooley (a city that raised property taxes 19% in November and now is spending tax payer dollars to fight I-722.<<
Of course, as is typical, you don't tell the whole story. Prior to this year, Sedro-Woolley *never* took the full 6% property tax increase, instead either not increasing property taxes at all, or only increasing them by around 3% or less.
As a result of the initiative that you co-wrote, they were faced with a budget shortfall, and had two choices: raise taxes and continue to fund the services they had been providing prior to the decrease in their funding, or don't raise taxes, lay people off, and provide a lower level of service than had been previously done. Their citizens told them that they wanted the higher level of service, so they raised property taxes to maintain that level of service.
While you obviously don't care about levels of service, and want to reduce taxes no matter what the consequences, lots of people want their local governments to maintain a high level of service, and are willing to pay for it. That's their choice, and you have no business telling these local governments that they should listen to you, and not their own citizens.
-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.
BB,Can you imagine Monte on a jury? The government is always wrong, and the citizen is always right. It should be a slam dunk for the prosecution to get him removed for prejudice.
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.
What I would like to know from Monte is why 1%, and not more. I was comfortable with I-695. The State Government would have shared the pain, where I think most of the problems are anyway.The way I understand it, you can't write a Constitutional Initiative to limit State funding as easily as you can write one to restrict the local funding.
I-747 looks like sour grapes to me. I don't believe I want to live with the consequences. Make it 3%, and you will get my support.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), February 05, 2001.
"Can you imagine Monte on a jury? The government is always wrong, and the citizen is always right. It should be a slam dunk for the prosecution to get him removed for prejudice. "
Can you imagine dbvz on a jury? The government is always right, and the citizen is always wrong. It should be a slam dunk for the defense to get him removed for prejudice. Of course, jurors of his type were in great demand in both Germany in the 30s and the deep South throughout the 50s and early 60s. Of course, he imagines his prejudices are "truth" but then so did these people.
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.
Mark,Nice comeback. So, you support the Monte perspective that government is always wrong? Local government councils and boards are elected by local residents, and live in the community they serve. They make mistakes, but for the most part they make them while trying to meet local needs as they have been presented to them. The new programs you may see as waste and abuse, are most often being proposed and supported by a vocal core of local voters. These initiatives begin with the assumption that local government is the enemy, when they are most often just doing the job they were elected to do. I don't believe government is always right, but for the most part they are trying to be right - unlike Eyman and Co. Local voters should know those local officials that are working for them, and those that are working for themselves; and can vote the latter out. What really bothers me is that the initiatives are statewide, and make no allowance for these differences and for the ability of local voters to deal with their local issues. I don't think the citizen is always wrong, but I think the statewide voter is often uninformed about how the initiatives will actually work in all the local communities across the state that they know nothing about. Leave local decisions to local voters, and quit trying to dictate a one size fits all for the entire state.
-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.
to dbvz: There's nothing stopping the state legislature from amending I-747, allowing local voters to raise the 1% limit to say 3%.You have yet to present a coherent argument on why anyone should oppose I-747.
You have yet to explain why higher fees are worse than higher taxes. You have yet to explain why government-provided services are superior to private businesses competing for your business.
I-747 may have some flaws. But, the state legislature can easily "improve" the initiative, once the voters approve it.
If you end up being unhappy with the way the state legislature does or does not amend I-747, then you and your fellow voters can vote them out!!!
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 06, 2001.
dbvz- "So, you support the Monte perspective that government is always wrong? "
Oh come on and quit the whining, db. That is NOT his perspective and I said NOTHING that would justify the above comment.
You made a ridiculous and unsupportable statement criticizing Mr Benham. I turned it around to the corresponding statement relevant to you. What I said was no fairer (but indeed no less unfair) than what you said about Mr Benham. Apparently the sarcasm was lost upon you.
I am not alone in my opinion that the elected officials are not all- knowing while the great unwashed are not all-ignorant. Here is a very apropos column from today's Tacoma News Tribune:Initiative reins? All depends on how your bread is buttered Peter Callaghan; The News Tribune It wasn't about margarine; it was about political power. Before 1952, the state's dairy industry was strong enough to prevent the sale of yellow margarine. Instead, margarine was sold in clear packages with a spot of dye in the middle. Only after kneading the package to mix the two did it resemble something you might actually eat. The rationale for such a state law was that consumers could be fooled into mistaking margarine for the higher-priced spread. The real reason was to keep down sales. And dairy farmers had enough juice in Olympia to keep it that way. Until 1952. That's when legendary Tacoma populist A.L. "Slim" Rasmussen and his wife, Eleanor, filed Initiative 180 - the so-called Oleo Initiative, that allowed the sale of yellow margarine. Think of Slim and Eleanor this morning as you butter your muffin with margarine. As I said, this isn't about margarine. It's about political power, most of which still lies with the Legislature and the special interests in Olympia. But occasionally, Washington voters yank a little of it back using the same tool that Slim used 50 years ago and that other Slims have used since 1912. Which is why we should be attentive when legislators attempt to restrict (they say "regulate") the initiative process. A batch of bills have been introduced to make it more difficult to propose and pass initiatives. Several are based on the premise that voters aren't well-enough informed to make sound decisions on initiatives. Senate Bill 5136, for example, would create a special review commission to pronounce whether a measure is constitutional. Three bills would require that the governor prepare an analysis of a measure's fiscal impact. House Joint Resolution 4200 asks that initiative sponsors specify which spending cuts should result from their proposed tax cuts. All of these analyses would appear in the Voters Pamphlet. According to this uninformed voter theory, Washington voters undergo a strange and disturbing transformation in the midst of voting. They are lucid and brilliant when they decide which candidate to send to the Legislature. But when they begin acting on the initiatives, they become mouth-breathing zombies. How can that be? Voters learn about initiative campaigns the same way they learn about candidates. Brochures. Ads. Newspaper stories. The Voters Pamphlet. If all that's enough to help voters make solid judgments about candidates, why is it inadequate for initiatives? In his research about initiatives, Western Washington University professor Todd Donovan found that legislators and voters alike use some of the same techniques to make up their minds about issues. Neither tend to read the text of the measures first. Instead, they rely on summaries. They also make judgments based on other shortcuts - who is for a measure and who is against; where the money is coming from; who will benefit; how does it jibe with their general attitudes or values. "To use an analogy," Donovan wrote, "they don't have to understand how the internal combustion engine works to know how to drive a car." Is our system flawed? Absolutely. It is flawed for the same reasons the legislative process is flawed - corruption by special interest money. But the federal courts have ruled against the only reforms that would matter - spending caps in initiative campaigns and a ban on the use of paid signature-gatherers. With those off-limits, any reform is superficial. Most of the complaints of late have come from those on the political left, probably because of their opposition to successful measures on affirmative action, taxes and government spending. It was not that long ago, however, that the protests were coming from the right, probably because of their opposition to successful measures on abortion and environmental regulation. It shifts back and forth depending on the political makeup of the Legislature. The ins use the legislative process; the outs use the initiative process. But common to all anti-initiative movements is the presence of special interest lobbies. They would just as soon have all matters decided in the Legislature, where they have the most influence. They hold much less sway with voters. So while the initiative system is troubled, the only thing worse would be no initiative system at all. - - - * Reach Peter Callaghan at 253-597-8657 or peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com. © The News Tribune 02/06/2001
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.
"According to this uninformed voter theory, Washington voters undergo a strange and disturbing transformation in the midst of voting. They are lucid and brilliant when they decide which candidate to send to the Legislature. But when they begin acting on the initiatives, they become mouth-breathing zombies. "
Sounds like something dbvz would say and BB would second.
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.
Matt
You have yet to explain why higher fees are worse than higher taxes. You have yet to explain why government-provided services are superior to private businesses competing for your business.
I-747 deals with limiting tax increases to 1% per year. It does not deal with higher fees or privatization. Higher fees and/or privatization may be possible side affects of I-747, but neither is guaranteed. The issue should be what will occur if I-747 passes.
So, let us suppose that I-747 passes. The tax increase ballot measures one would expect to see would be to maintain or increase a level of service. When such a ballot measure is rejected, no assumptions can be made. The amount of services needs to be set to the given budget. Government should not speculate that an existing or increased service level is still wanted or necessary and automatically implement higher fees or taxes somewhere else to provide the necessary funds.
If higher fees can be collected, then an increase may be an option, but don't expect higher user fees to be implemented without public input or discussion. Privatization may also be an option, but that is something that will need even more public input and discussion. However, discussions on higher fees and/or privatization will take time. Meanwhile, the service level still has to be geared to fit within the allotted budget.
It may be that maintaining an existing service may not be placed up as a ballot measure, but a 1% limit makes such ballot measures that much more likely. Additionally, if you don't trust government, you can expect to only see "essential" services show up as ballot measures. Stuff that might be questionable would be safely kept away from the voting public.
-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.
to Questioning: You write: "Higher fees and/or privatization may be possible side affects of I-747, but neither is guaranteed. The issue should be what will occur if I-747 passes."By your own admission, higher fees and/or privatization may occur. None of us can say for sure "what will occur if I-747 passes".
You write: "The tax increase ballot measures one would expect to see would be to maintain or increase a level of service."
No, one could just as easily expect to see a measure that asks the public whether fees should be raised or services be cut. Or, even better, no ballot is necessary, since there could be public meetings to obtain the appropriate input. Why waste money on a ballot issue, when the solution is pretty straight-forward - RAISE FEES!!!
You then write: "If higher fees can be collected, then an increase may be an option, but don't expect higher user fees to be implemented without public input or discussion. Privatization may also be an option, but that is something that will need even more public input and discussion. However, discussions on higher fees and/or privatization will take time. Meanwhile, the service level still has to be geared to fit within the allotted budget."
How much time do the discussions take? It didn't take the State of Washington very many meetings to decide to shove an unwanted BILLION dollar bridge down our throats. I'll tell you how much time it takes for local government. The government will have one meeting, probably on Christmas Eve, and they'll do whatever the HELL they want, like they always do. But, this time, the only option will be to INCREASE FEES!
The bottom line, Questioning, is that I-747 is a harmless initiative at worst, and, in the best case, it will force the politicians to set priorities, thus spending our money more wisely.
Any long-term damage which might be set in motion as a result of I-747 can be easily remedied by the state legislature. They have the authority. If they fail to act, you and other reasonable people can vote "the rascals" out. Do you have a problem with that?
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 07, 2001.
By your own admission, higher fees and/or privatization may occur. None of us can say for sure "what will occur if I-747 passes".
The only point here is that if you want higher fees and/or privatization to occur, then I-747 is not it.
...one could just as easily expect to see a measure that asks the public whether fees should be raised or services be cut.
The only ballot measures I have seen, are ones that only offer a yes-or-no choice. It might be interesting to see a ballot measure that offers multiple options. Just remember that the available options go beyond 'raising fees' or 'cutting services'. What about property tax increases which is what I-747 is all about. What about increasing the sales tax or gas tax or implementing some other tax structure? Do we go forward if the most picked item only gets 30% of the vote? What about combinations (e.g. sales tax and property tax)?
Or, even better, no ballot is necessary, since there could be public meetings to obtain the appropriate input. Why waste money on a ballot issue, when the solution is pretty straight-forward - RAISE FEES!!!
The problem with fees is that some people can afford them and some people can't. Increasing fees decrease the number of people who can afford that service. Often , those that cannot afford it are the ones that need it the most.
How much time do the discussions (on higher fees and/or privatization) take.
I would make a ballpark guess that it 6-12 months to gather requirements and to develop a funding package proposal for a simple item. A more complex item would take more time.
It didn't take the State of Washington very many meetings to decide to shove an unwanted BILLION dollar bridge down our throats.
I had thought that the Second Narrows Bridge was voted upon a couple of times? Is the bridge itself unwanted or is it the TOLL? I am sure that there are many people who want the bridge and are only against tolls being used to fund it.
I'll tell you how much time it takes for local government. The government will have one meeting, probably on Christmas Eve, and they'll do whatever the HELL they want, like they always do. But, this time, the only option will be to INCREASE FEES!
I'm missing your point here. You actually want?? government to have only one option which is to increase fees?
The bottom line is that I-747 is a harmless initiative at worst, and, in the best case, it will force the politicians to set priorities, thus spending our money more wisely.
The harm in I-747 is that many people will expect essential services to be funded using the existing tax revenue and "pork" projects will show up as ballot measures. Just because some politicians may be corrupt does not mean that they are also stupid. The only ballot measures that you will see are those that increase or maintain critical services (e.g. police, fire, EMT, etc.) which places those services at risk each election. Don't expect to find "pork" items on the ballot.
Don't expect politicians to improve how they prioritize or spend money or communicate. This initiative does not address those items. Anything beyond what is specifically stated by the initiative is only speculative.
Any long-term damage which might be set in motion as a result of I-747 can be easily remedied by the state legislature. They have the authority. If they fail to act, you and other reasonable people can vote "the rascals" out. Do you have a problem with that?
The contradiction here is that I-747 was written by people who do not trust the government. You support I-747, yet you trust government enough to fix the damage I-747 may cause. You don't trust them with 6%, but you trust them with 1% and the authority to change it back to 6%? Does that make sense?
-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 07, 2001.
to Questioning: You write: "The problem with fees is that some people can afford them and some people can't. Increasing fees decrease the number of people who can afford that service. Often , those that cannot afford it are the ones that need it the most."Society has a variety of programs to assist those at the bottom. Furthermore, as property taxes rise more slowly, people will have more money to give to charities.
You also write: "I had thought that the Second Narrows Bridge was voted upon a couple of times? Is the bridge itself unwanted or is it the TOLL? I am sure that there are many people who want the bridge and are only against tolls being used to fund it."
No, it is the bridge project which people oppose. Even though laws require the WSDOT to perform a cost benefit analysis in order to justify the project, the WSDOT has failed to do this. This is what people oppose. Not who is going to pay for it, but how much does the project cost vs. its benefits. It makes no sense to build a new Narrows Bridge, until several criteria are met, including: 1) widening I-5 nortbound between Hwy 16 and the Port of Tacoma Rd. (this is about 5 miles) and; 2) redesigning the eastbound Hwy 16 to I-5 interchange, so traffic does not have to slow to 35 mph. Of course, in order to widen I-5, it would probably be best to build a bypass highway, connecting I-705 to Hwy 18, via Hwy 509. Additionally, the Park'n'Rides in Gig Harbor have limited capacity, and there is very little useful bus service from Gig Harbor.
You then write and ask: "I'm missing your point here. You actually want?? government to have only one option which is to increase fees?"
Yes, higher fees in exchange for lower taxes is a sensible approach.
You also write: "Don't expect politicians to improve how they prioritize or spend money or communicate. This initiative does not address those items. Anything beyond what is specifically stated by the initiative is only speculative."
I will continue to "believe" and "speculate" on whatever I want. I believe I-747 will put pressure on the polticians to use our tax monies more wisely. For example, there is a real estate excise tax. Is the excise tax being spent as wisely as possible?
You finally conclude: "The contradiction here is that I-747 was written by people who do not trust the government. You support I-747, yet you trust government enough to fix the damage I-747 may cause. You don't trust them with 6%, but you trust them with 1% and the authority to change it back to 6%? Does that make sense?"
I "trust" the politicians to RAISE my taxes, if I complain that my taxes are too low. I "trust" the initiative process to make the politicians listen to me when I want taxes to be LOWERED. There is NO CONTRADICTION.
Look at the recent events with the license tab fees, whereby the voters approved an initiative, I-695. I-695 was found unconstitutional, but the legislature went ahead and lowered the license tab fees, anyway. However, they carefully crafted the legislation to minimize the pain to the transit agencies, leaving approximately a third of the license tab fees to be still intact. And, the remaining license tab fees are dedicated to the transit agencies, which, based on the people's rejection of Tim Eyman's Transportation Initiative, seems to be a reasonable approach.
This proves my point that the initiative process in combination with the state legislature provides workable solutions.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 08, 2001.
"You then write and ask: "I'm missing your point here. You actually want?? government to have only one option which is to increase fees?" Yes, higher fees in exchange for lower taxes is a sensible approach. You also write: "Don't expect politicians to improve how they prioritize or spend money or communicate. This initiative does not address those items. Anything beyond what is specifically stated by the initiative is only speculative."
They say there is a time for all things. Maybe that's so. I find myself in rare agreement with Matt of al people.
I think that the reason for our burgeoning and inefficient governmental bureaucracies, and the fact that apparently irrational things are approved by voters is because of the disconnect that politicians have managed to build in peoples minds between taxation and expenditures by the politicians. It is in fact the converse of the "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree," whining that the politicians and their apologists do.
The fact of the matter is that politicians take the heat off themselves by doing things that DISGUISE taxes. Witholding of income taxes, for example, is much more psychologically palatable than demanding a lump sum payment at the end of the year, although the total resources extracted is the same in either case. Taxing THE EMPLOYER as in the part of social security witholding that does not even appear on your check is another way that politicians hide things. Heck, several years ago, airline personnel were prohibited by law from telling people what part of the ticket price went to boardig fees, because it was much easier for the government to demagogue that the high prices were the evil airlines fault.
Perhaps nothing would be as effective in controlling the runaway growth of government as just making people pay up front in fees for the things that they want. I imagine if the taxpayers just had to right a check at the end of the year for the LINK light rail program the million or so people who will ultimately pay for it would feel that the $1 billion overrun (a THOUSAND DOLLARS PER PERSON IN THE SERVICE AREA) was a far more serious matter than they currently do. Nothing like having to write a check to focus one's mind on the true costs of doing business with the government.
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 08, 2001.
Hmmm...As usual, Zowie finds a way through the fog. I could get behind this Initiative, but a change to 2 or 3 percent would make it easier.
-- Marsha (on vacation in Minnesota) (acorn_nut@msn.com), February 09, 2001.
Vacationing in Minnesota in February????????
That almost meets criteria for a mental health diagnosis, all by itself.
Zowie (who is originally from Wisconsin (Go Packers), but had the good sense to leave after a tragic ice-fishing accident.
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 09, 2001.
I'm visiting my new Grandaughter. This place sucks. You should see the transportation mess in Minneapolis/St. Paul. I forgot how bad the roads were out here. Did I mention it is cold? Old Jesse isn't as popular as the press would have us believe.There's no place like home..... (forgot my ruby slippers)
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), February 09, 2001.