I have a concern about this initiative and the effects it may have on our state and directly on our environment. More cars, less buses, what ever the argument this is not along those lines.

In Tuesdays morning edition of the P.I. the Board of Natural Resources has raised the price tag on a section of the Loomis Forest which was to be purchased by a local ecology group. The intent was to preserve the forest, give the state it's money it needed at the value of the forest, but still keep the forest intact for all to have and benefit from. Now more money has to be raised to purchase the forest or it will be quickly sold to a logging company for removal.

Many times the BLM or the NFS has sold the land to a Logging company for the bellow market value, even when an environmental group had the fair market value money in hand to buy the property. A blatant disregard for the intrinsic and asthetic value of the land, and kind of a slap in the face to the people of Washington for taking a lower valued deal while loosing a resource.

How is I-695 connected? If this measure passes the state will look to other money making programs to make up for the deficite in the budget. I would rather see our representatives reorganize and find ways to do things better and more efficiently, and have the hope that they would seek out those opportunities. But we all know well and done that they do not, like our friend Slade Gorton who would sell his own grandmother to turn a profit. they will find a way to jack the prices out of other things, take more from the land, sell more mines in northern washington, or more forest land in the Olympics, or take more sand from the Islands (Murray or something like that).

That's why the initiative scares me. There are no concreate answers as to weather we will be better off or have made more of a mess. We will all have a little more cash, nice, but is it worth it. Do we have smart enough representatives to realy get the message we are sending them. It is a great idea, stop spending our money on wasteful programs and dead end projects that do not make a difference to the tax payers and the people of this state, but we must be careful where we tread for we may be creating a larger problem.

I am not convincing anyone to vote one way or another, but to be careful and study both sides when you go to cast your vote. Maybe our representative are smart enough.............do you think they are?

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999

Answers

"In Tuesdays morning edition of the P.I. the Board of Natural Resources has raised the price tag on a section of the Loomis Forest which was to be purchased by a local ecology group. The intent was to preserve the forest, give the state it's money it needed at the value of the forest, but still keep the forest intact for all to have and benefit from. Now more money has to be raised to purchase the forest or it will be quickly sold to a logging company for removal."

Facetiously, you better start passing around the hat.

Seriously, why'd they change the price? Was it sheer capriciousness or do they expect someone to come in with a better offer? In any case, the bottom line is that the environmental group better come up with the money if they wish to control the property.

"Many times the BLM or the NFS has sold the land to a Logging company for the bellow market value, even when an environmental group had the fair market value money in hand to buy the property. A blatant disregard for the intrinsic and asthetic value of the land, and kind of a slap in the face to the people of Washington for taking a lower valued deal while loosing a resource."

As this flies in the face of common sense, I'd like to see some evidence this is true.

As an aside, I find it amusing you think the BLM or NFS care about what Washingtonians think. These are both federal agencies without any direct accountability to the state of Washington (I'm now wondering if I should've just stopped after accountability :-)).

"How is I-695 connected? If this measure passes the state will look to other money making programs to make up for the deficite (sic) in the budget. I would rather see our representatives reorganize and find ways to do things better and more efficiently"

I don't think this generally has anything to do with I-695. In general, since organizations tend towards growth, I'd say your first statement is conceptually reasonable whether I-695 passes *or* fails. In other words, an organization will always be looking for new resource streams. The only thing I-695's passage would do is make one avenue for growth--increased taxation--more difficult to access.

I find your second point particularly ironic. Without I-695 (or something equally drastic), what external force would move them to reorganize?

"I am not convincing anyone to vote one way or another"

This agree with this whole-heartedly.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 06, 1999.

I guess I see this whole thing in two parts, not one. Don't take this as a flame, but I don't buy into the "if we vote for I-695 [ insert your disaster ] will happen". Decisions about state land will be made wether you vote yes or no, some you will like, others you won't. The question remains, $30 tabs/ vote for any further taxes, or the status quo. I know how I will vote. If that causes "elected" officals to cast stupid votes, and make rash, wasteful decisions then maybe they aren't smart enough, and that makes my point all the more.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

Yes,they are smart enough,but lack the political will to cut waste.This initiative will force them to prioritize spending instead of dishing out taxpayer money for any special interest lunacy that come down the pike.

My experience as a bureaucrat in Ca. during and after prop13 tells me it can and will be done.

One entirely unexpected development of the cuts in public budgets after prop13 was that it gave political cover to the elected officials who often voted for spending that was wasteful or for useless make work programs for people with useless degrees prior to prop 13 but became rigerous budgeters when forced to prioritize--- public safety and public works first,everything else,get in line

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 06, 1999.

Ah Avocado man. All your fears just make me want I-695 even more.... By the way who edited your post for you? I know you didn't correct all those spelling and grammitcal errors..

You couldn't get a job in the private sector....you ain't smart enough

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

Whoa there, AC.

First of all your cousin Mitch is not local nor is the group of greenpeople trying to buy the Loomis Forest. If by some chance you dont know, he lives in Bellingham, thats on the westside, the Loomis Forest is on the eastside. Then take a moment to see where the money to purchase the school trust land is comming from. It reads almost like the list of donations against I-695.

Second, I agree with you, that no state land should be sold below its value. So instead of the $13.1 million that the so called Friends of the Loomis Forest tried to steal it for or the $16+ million that BlM has now tried to vaule it at, maybe we should average the appraisals and get it up where it should be or better yet, leave it where it is and let it help support schools.

And, "stop spending money on wasteful programs".... Yes please do, and include in wasteful spending, the money that the greenpeople tried to get the state to cough up to help them meet their amount to buy the forest. Makes perfect sense to me, have the state use tax dollars to buy their own land.

Sorry,, I know it not really on the subject, but it hits very close to home.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), October 06, 1999.

grammitcal errors..

Jack, I couldn't have said it better myself.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

ac-

How about we sell the environmental group Seattle Light's property up in the Skagit? That's pretty nice property. That would enable Seattle to get out of the energy business and buy from commercial sources, generate significant cash for roadway improvements (Seattle Light claims a capitalization worth in excess of a billion dollars), and put all this property back on the tax rolls, so we could all benefit by the property taxes paid by the new owners?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

"grammitcal errors"

On behalf of the Linguistic Society of America, I second that emotion.

-- laffinjeff (chez@u.washington.edu), October 06, 1999.

Careful Jeff-

d worries about people who worry about spelling, grammar, etc. But I'll let you be deputy spellmeister if you want. Or we can even trade off being spellmeister, one take odd days, one take even.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

Craig,

How about if, in the interest of fairness and keeping the flames at a low temperature, we each "take care of our own": I correct the spelling mistakes of anti-695er's, and you correct the spelling mistakes of pro-695er's.

I know, I know, that's awfully disingenuous of me, giving you all the work!

-- Greedo the Liberal Galactic Tax-and-Spend Mercenary (chez@u.washington.edu), October 07, 1999.

Jeff-

OK. But can I still correct Star Trek related spelling mistakes, no matter who posts them? I'll give you all the Spanish and most of the French derivatives for either pro or anti to make it come out even. Latin too. I don't remember much more Latin than Carthage delenda est. Seeing as how Carthage is long gone, that doesn't come in handy real often.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

"Star Trek related spelling mistakes"?

Tell me what in-joke I've missed here: is this a tribute or some kind of blasphemy? You can make fun of Alan Alda and Jane Fonda all you want, but nobody -- NOBODY -- gets away with making fun of William Shatner in MY backyard, mister!

-- Where's The Rest Of Me? (chez@u.washington.edu), October 07, 1999.

Quick review of bidding: What provoked this, Oh Jefe, was the phrase, "Resistence is futile," repeated numerous times. This comes from one of the Star Trek derivatives of the post-Shatner era (A Borg warning). That prompted me to correct it to "Resistance is futile." This prompted d to allege that I had a spelling fetish. When you also indicated that you were amused by a spelling error, I cautioned you about d's concern about spelling fetishes. The rest is immediately above. I did not at ANY time make fun of William Shatner (albeit, the classic episodes of Star Trek are becoming increasingly dated by more modern computer generated special effects. It is hard not to giggle when everyone throws themselves back and forth on the bridge, every time the ship comes under attack). We may well choose to agree to disagree over I-695 but I would not go so far as to abuse Star Trek. ;) Live long and prosper, Jefe.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

Jeff, re: star trek related spelling mistakes

This is in reference to the "Eyeman is a nitwit" strand (first response). Craig "Super Star" Carson took it upon himself to ignore any arguments and correct spelling mistakes instead. He was then formally presented with a "super speller award" by Tim Eyeman AKA "Nate the Italian menace". Apparently he doesn't understand sarcasm and has continued his campaign against bad spellers in the forum. Dont worry, Maddjak-off, Craig's campaign wont cost you anything. We wouldn't want to deprive you of any "hungry man" dinners.

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

"Craig "Super Star" Carson took it upon himself to ignore any arguments and correct spelling mistakes instead. " The "arguments" were less worthy of response than the spelling errors.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.