I would like this board to be a little different. Simply post what your reasons are for voting Yes or No on I-695. DO NOT REPLY TO ANYONE'S post on this board. NO DISCUSSIONS, NO ATTACKS AGAINST POSTS. If you want to reply and debate with them, reply to their email address.

I'm thinking this will be a one stop area for reasons people are voting the way they are, a simple statement as to why the are voting the way they are. Thank you all in advance by not replying to other people's posts on this board.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999

Answers

I guess I will start the show. I am voting YES on I-695 because my tabs are due around Christmas time and $400+ dollars a year in tabs for my 1997 Ford Ranger XLT and it takes a lot from my shopping fund. I also don't like having to pay so much at one time. When I lived in CA I only had to pay about $100 a year, but we had a state income tax. I wouldn't mind shelling out $15 a month or so, but $400 at one time kills. I also like the idea that if the government want to get more tax money out of my pocket they need my approval to do it. As for making up the 2.2%, the government (or any funded program) should prioritize their budgets better and see where they can cut costs first before having something go to a vote and costing money just to get a vote. I don't think that the passage of I-695 will have the mega doomed impact the opponents are trying to say it will have on our state.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

I just re-registered my 93 Pathfinder (which I bought used, three years ago) this week. It's now down to about $180 of MVET. I don't begrudge the $150 extra if I believed it were being well spent. I just don't think it is. I think the voter approval requirement is necessary to get the politicians and bureaucrats thinking about efficiency. It's too easy now for them just to give a wasteful program more money, rather than making changes to make it more cost- effective. I also believe the taxpayer has been taken for granted. The politicians and bureaucrats need a wake-up call. Maybe several.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Sandy--Count me in for the public vote on tax/fee increases.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.

I will vote NO I despise the grip that the auto/petrol industries have on us and waving a $30 registration carrot at us is simply insulting. We do not need more or bigger cars on the road and we do not need to make it easier to get them on the road. I do not like paying alot for the priveledge to drive anymore than anyone else, but I understand that that is indeed what it is: a priveledge.

Requiring voter approval for ALL rate and tax increases is absurd. It is a nice idea and I would like to see more issues surrounding rate increases come before the voters, but let's be real, how many of todays taxpayers HAVE the time, much less take the time to fully understand the implications and intricacies that surround most tax and rate increases? I try hard to stay on top of what is happening and how one thing impacts another and I still have a hard time making sense of it. I think that if I were to have all day to sit and think about these things that i could make better decisions about such matters, but I don't. That is why I elect officials; to act on my behalf. I'm not always happy with the actions that they take on my behalf, but I certainly trust them to understand the problems facing our state more than I do the uninformed masses. Also, if a vote were required for every rate increase, we'd be down at the polls (those of us who could get there) an awful lot just to decide whether the library should raise it's fine on late-returns or whether or not the parking meters on 2nd between Pike and Pine should cost $25 for 15 minutes instead of 20 minutes. Frankly, I have bigger concerns to attend to, like how I'm going to breathe in 5 years once we've driven

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

I am voting yes on I-695 because I believe it will make governmental agencies more responsive, more accountable, and less arrogant. I believe with the huge state surplus and the strong economy, we can afford to take any risks the initiative might pose.

I could care less about the lower MVET. I am more than willing to pay taxes, as long as the following criteria are met: The politicians say what I want to hear and they do what they say. In other words, they're responsive and accountable.

I tried to be involved with the government on the proposed Tacoma Narrows Brdige. I found the DOT to be corrupt and arrogant. I wouldn't hire them to clean my spit from the road. When I communicated with my state senator (Bob Oke) and state representative (Tom Huff), they never even had the courtesy to respond in kind. Well, I won't have to worry about that in the future. After I-695, they'll hear my response at the polls.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 14, 1999.

take back some taxation control from local goverment, because in my opinon their priorities have become,conditional on whats is popular, instead of the hard decisions of what we can afford.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Matt and I are in rare agreement. Only I did get through to Oke (or at least his executive assitant) who told me that Oke was pro- bridge. He waffled out of that after finding out that 80% of his constituents voted against the bridge. Huff was also initially pro bridge. I also contacted them regarding I-695. Both were anti-695 (as was Patricia Lantz). Well Matt, despite our previous disagreements, maybe we can work together against them the next time they come up for re-election, you think?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 14, 1999.

I am voting yes. I can afford my current Tabs. I can afford my property tax, sales tax etc. My 22 year old Son cannot. It has nothing to do with who should pay how much for what services. It is simply that State and Local Governments are not spending my tax dollars the way I think they should be spent. It is time to prioritize what we, the Taxpayers want and how much we are willing to spend.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

I will vote yes on 695 for several reasons. For two vehicles, I now pay over $800 a year MVET. Not only is this too much, I resent that motor vehicle use fees go to pay for non-transportation-related items like health care immunizations and sewer hookups. It is obvious to me that although MVET was originally established as a transportation tax only and may have had good intentions, over the decades it has become a distorted grab bag of money for all sorts of non-transportation uses. The Wall Street Journal editorial rightly calls it a "slush fund." Our legislators won't take the initiative to change these obvious problems, so we have to do it with an initiative that gets their attention, which 695 does. And by the way, cars are not "necessary luxuries." In our society they are necessary period. Almost no one in Washington can get around conveniently without personal transportation.

We are also taxed too highly. At the sixth highest per-capita, this is too much. What the politicians couldn't get via income taxes, they have squeezed from residents in other ways. They don't see the need to change this, so we must. As a Washington State resident all my life, I can't see that these taxes have improved the quality of life in this state at all. The opposite is the case, and it doesn't have that much to do with the increase in our population that has occurred.

Speaking of politicians and their response, I have written letters of complaint to Sen. Jim West, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee after he badmouthed 695 in the local paper, and also to the two Spokane County Republican delegates who last month voted against state party support for 695. West will respond, IMO, but I don't know about the others.

And since we are naming politicians, I have sent

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), October 14, 1999.

Im voting YES on I-695 because the tax burden on Washington residents is too high. This is a good tax to reduce because it has grown unabated, and is grossly unfair. As much as we would like to think that our legislature would work to lower the tax burden on us, we cannot depend on them to do so. Republican or Democrat, theyre too busy handing out this money to gain the support of the organizations they give it to. The only way to put an end to this endless cycle of tax and spend is for the voters to put a lid on it.

-- Craig Peterson (ccpeterson@home.com), October 14, 1999.

I agree with Matt and Gary. I voted no on the bridge issue as did most of the people that the bridge impacted! The only reason it passed was because people that it didn't affect or had to pay for it got to vote and they weren't sure which way to vote. I am voting yes on the I-695 because I don't see where all that money goes too for major road construction. We still have to pay a toll-to a private company-to have the new bridge built. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is not being funded by any money from tabs or from the state. If it was I might think differently.

-- Kari R (Scoobybuny@aol.com), October 14, 1999.

I've heard alot of talk about how I-695 will change our Representation in government. That is why I am voting for it! I am sick and tired of our so called elected officials, our representatives in government shoving there hands in my wallet. Stealing my hard earned money from me and my Family!! Election 1998 saw 5 Snohomish County Property tax increase Propositions voted down, only to have the Snohomish county Council turn right around within weeks of the election, and raise our Propert Taxes 6%. With representation like that why VOTE!! Thomas Jefferson said " If the people don't control the government, then the government will control the people." How can I not Vote for I-695. maybe someday we can REALLY own our homes outright!!

-- (waterfront@integrityol.com), October 15, 1999.

I am voting yes on I-695 for several reasons:

1) I own 4 vehicles (I'm a car nut, what can I say?), and the total licensing fees I paid this year alone amounted to well over $1,300. Yes, having 4 cars is excessive, but, if I choose to spend my money on cars, and pay the sales tax at the time of purchase, why the heck should I keep paying what amounts to sales tax year afeter year???

2) The taxes I pay on my vehicles is grossly inflated. My 1996 Mustang Cobra is worth $25,955 (Per Kelly Blue Book - Retail), yet I am taxed as if the car were worth $28,000 - THIS IS ONLY $2,000 LESS THAN I PAID FOR THE CAR, 3-1/2 YEARS AGO!!! Not to mention the fact that, if I were to sell this vehicle, I'd be lucky to get $23,000 for it! If the values were even remotely CLOSE to realistic, I'd have a much easier time swallowing it.

3) My mother needs a new car... one that is less than 20 years old, reliable, and with some of the newer safety features - air bags, anti- lock brakes, etc. HOWEVER, even if I bought the car for her, she'd be stuck with rediculous licensing fees, on top of higher insurance rates. My mother is living in a subsidized apartment, stretching a meager Social Security retirement income. There is no way she can afford to shell out $300 - $400 - $500 a year, just to license a newer car.

4) I live in Vancouver -- right across the river from Oregon, our neighboring state to the south, where residents pay only $30 FOR TWO YEARS' worth of vehicle license tabs. The folks over there have squawked for years about having to take their cars in for emissions testing, but their tabs cost almost nothing. Now, for the last several years, in Clark County, we have to subject our cars to emissions testing every other year, at an additional $12 fee, PLUS the tabs cost an outragous amount on top of that. I used to work in Oregon, and every day, I'd be in a huge pile of traffic, as I looked around me, I'd see an awful lot of "oregon" plates on cars leaving Washington to work in Oregon, and on the way home, I'd see the same "Oregon" cars headed back to Washington. This state is losing tens of thousands of dollars, every year, due to people beating the system. I pay my dues, even when it means giving up something somewhere else in my life.

Last but not lease) It's time for everyone to be able to afford to drive the nicer cars they all work hard for and deserve to own.

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

I am voting yes on I-695 for several reasons:

1) I own 4 vehicles (I'm a car nut, what can I say?), and the total licensing fees I paid this year alone amounted to well over $1,300. Yes, having 4 cars is excessive, but, if I choose to spend my money on cars, and pay the sales tax at the time of purchase, why the heck should I keep paying what amounts to sales tax year afeter year???

2) The taxes I pay on my vehicles is grossly inflated. My 1996 Mustang Cobra is worth $25,955 (Per Kelly Blue Book - Retail), yet I am taxed as if the car were worth $28,000 - THIS IS ONLY $2,000 LESS THAN I PAID FOR THE CAR, 3-1/2 YEARS AGO!!! Not to mention the fact that, if I were to sell this vehicle, I'd be lucky to get $23,000 for it! If the values were even remotely CLOSE to realistic, I'd have a much easier time swallowing it.

3) My mother needs a new car... one that is less than 20 years old, reliable, and with some of the newer safety features - air bags, anti- lock brakes, etc. HOWEVER, even if I bought the car for her, she'd be stuck with rediculous licensing fees, on top of higher insurance rates. My mother is living in a subsidized apartment, stretching a meager Social Security retirement income. There is no way she can afford to shell out $300 - $400 - $500 a year, just to license a newer car.

4) I live in Vancouver -- right across the river from Oregon, our neighboring state to the south, where residents pay only $30 FOR TWO YEARS' worth of vehicle license tabs. The folks over there have squawked for years about having to take their cars in for emissions testing, but their tabs cost almost nothing. Now, for the last several years, in Clark County, we have to subject our cars to emissions testing every other year, at an additional $12 fee, PLUS the tabs cost an outragous amount on top of that. I used to work in Oregon, and every day, I'd be in a huge pile of traffic, as I looked around me, I'd see an awful lot of "oregon" plates on cars leaving Washington to work in Oregon, and on the way home, I'd see the same "Oregon" cars headed back to Washington. This state is losing tens of thousands of dollars, every year, due to people beating the system. I pay my dues, even when it means giving up something somewhere else in my life.

Last but not least) It's time for everyone to be able to afford to drive the nicer cars they all work hard for and deserve to own.

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

I am voting YES on I-695 because:

1) I don't believe in licensing tab fees in the first place, so getting down to an affordable $30 is the best way to deal with it in my opinion. Taxes are coerced giving and so it's kind of like being forced to give something you wouldn't want to give. It wouldn't be so bad if the taxes were put to efficient use, but they're not. Government wastes money and politicians especially waste government money to promote their own agenda to help their political careers. Few politicians think in terms of utilitarianism when it comes to government spending.

2) I would love to be able to vote on any new tax increases the government was considering. Some here have said it would be too tedious to have a vote on every new tax and fee increase and that they wouldn't have time to go to the polls every time. I think that's a stupid argument against this initiative! Even if we have to vote all the time on tax increases, so what? That's a good thing because at least it will give US the PEOPLE the POWER to decide. It will make OUR VOTE COUNT FINALLY! A lot of people, including me, hardly ever vote anymore because we don't believe that it makes any difference. Well this way, our vote finally will make a difference, and we will be motivated to come out and vote! Who cares if some people don't have time to go to the polls a lot, well then fine don't go! That doesn't mean that others can't be allowed to vote on lots of other tax increases! So this is really a silly argument against I-695. I-695 is all about making our vote count for once.

Winston

-- Winston (WWu777@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

I am voting for I-695 because we NEED to gain some control over the way our money is being used in Olympia. The people working in government tell us there will be to many issues for us to vote on, I feel if that is true, we REALLY need the opportunity to vote. More important, we are being manipulated by interested parties that simply put a "Spin" on anything that the general public disagrees with and proceed with any plan they choose as valid. Shouldn't our government operate within their budget the very same way we citizens are obligated to do every month? I know people will vote for projects they feel are necessary, and this will give US a chance to vote against those that are being done by elected officials because it gets them re-elected. Jim

-- Jim Latshaw (latshawj1@juno.com), October 15, 1999.

Here's how I'm going to vote in I-695:

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES.

Any questions?

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 15, 1999.

Still undecided...

I would vote NO because I feel that the public vote requirement for all tax or fee increase is not a good idea. There are other methods to get our elected representatives to follow our wishes.

I would vote YES, not just for the lower MVET, but because it could force the government to better align the state tax structure to the services that they provide.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 15, 1999.

Voting yes is the only way for this State to finally realize that the people want change. And not just pocket change.

I posted an article on Locke saying he will look at changing MVET if I-695 fails. Why didn't he and the rest of the theives look at it last year when this was brought up?

Because it didn't make it on the ballot. Now its on the ballot and the polls show 67% of the people are for it. Their scared their going to lose their unlimited supply of funds for their pet projects. So now if we just vote no Locke "MAY" call a special session to deal with the MVET. And the legislatures are saying that it "COULD" be looked at if a special session is called. But they also have to look at giving a tax break to business. Which one do you think will happen.

Ed - new Anti I-695 tactic - Oh my god, they killed Kenny

-- ED (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

I am voting yes.

Because, the gov't runaway freight train has to be stopped. 6000 new state employees added this biennium...gov't agencies totally out of control and doing anything they wish...more taxes...higher fees...working nearly 6 mos per year to pay my tax bill and not getting ahead...polititians promising to do this...and promising to do that and NOTHING HAPPENING, JUST ALOT OF FINGER POINTING...if it makes government squeal...IT HAS TO BE GOOD!!! Think back to 1992 when I-601 was passed by the voters. Gov't said nearly IDENTICALLY the same thing they are about I-695...AND NOW WE HAVE A BUDGET SURPLUS. If this initiative failes...Katie Bar the door, because they are comin' at us, FULL STEAM AHEAD!! The message we will have sent is we like taxes, we like big gov't and like fees, and they will whack us harder than before.

-- dee jay (angus@eburg.com), October 15, 1999.

I'm voting YES!

To vote otherwise is to tell the politicians that we are not being taxed too much, so they'll find some way to tax us more. I'm sick and tired of the county declaring an emergency and continuing to raise property taxes at the 6% rate. I'm sick and tired of the politicians voting to fund sports stadiums (by raising all kinds of taxes and fees) after the voters say "NO!" I'm sick and tired of the politicians not having enough money for essential services like police, fire, and EMS because they fund stadiums and other non-essential items instead requiring that special levies and taxes have to be raised to get more from the taxpayer to pay for the essentials. A message must be sent that enough is enough!

-- Bill Wakeley (bwakeley@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

I'm voting HELL YES:

Because governments on all levels (federal, state, and local) are flush with cash and can easily afford to trim 2% of their budgets.

Because 44 other states provide the same or better services than ours with less taxes and lower license tab fees. Many of these states do not have the economic advantages we do (Boeing, Microsoft, gateway to Pacific Rim trading . . . )

Because the MVET is excessive and fraudulent. Almost ten years ago, the politicians got greedy and decided to charge us based on an inflated figure that nobody pays and a depreciation schedule that in no way reflects the true value of a vehicle.

Because, for the first time in my 26 years, I have the opportunity to slam-dunk the Washington Extortion (oops, Education) Association and the various and sundry other state employee unions. These unions get rich on the backs of all us taxpayers by stopping privatization, keeping competitive bidding out, and "prevailing wage" laws in. Quite literally, their existence depends on governments being as fat, expensive and inefficient as possible.

Because the Wall Street Journal accurately describes the MVET as a "slush fund." Black's Law Dictionary defines a "Slush Fund" as "Money collected or spent for corrupt purposes such as ILLEGAL LOBBYING and the like." (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1990, emphasis added.)

Because Washington is the highest taxed state west of the Mississippi. We have 45 different state and local taxes, and God- only-knows how many separate user fees.

Because this is our chance to finally get government spending under control. I-601 started the job, I-695 finishes it.

Because this initiative will succeed in finally bring the spiraling property taxes under control where so many others have failed.

Because this will finally drive home the point to the socialists who run this state that it's OUR money. We EARN it and we MAY choose to give you SOME of it for LEGITIMATE PURPOSES, if and only if you can justify it in an election.

For all of these reasons, I'm voting HELL YES and have already bought my champagne and cigars for the victory party.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 17, 1999.

Joe

What kind of cigars

Ed - mooching

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999.

I vote no because:

I-695 forces more cars on the road, mostly by cutting transportation and transit programs as widely advertised in the press (see for instance http://www.researchcouncil.org/briefs/PB99-29/I695- 7Transportation.htm). I don't enjoy sitting in traffic or looking for parking spots. I'd much rather read or think on a bus, or bike to work in lighter traffic.

I believe cars should pay their own way. Roads and parking lots are unbelievably expensive to build and maintain. I-695 is making government look for taxes other than car taxes. I don't think my rent should be paying for wider roads.

I-695 advertises misleading numbers: the $30 figure ignores the reinstated property tax on cars, the 2% figure counts hundreds of non- transportation services that have nothing to do with MVET, etc. I'm not giving up 1 and 2 to get, um, screwed by 3.

-- Jeffrey Belt (jeffounet@msn.com), October 21, 1999.

To answer Ed's question:

Partagas #10s, Padron Churchills, and the grand poobah of them all, the Hoyo De Monterrey Excalibur #1 in Maduro.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 22, 1999.

Joe

Got some Jose Marti pyramids, LaGloria Cubana Wavells (maduro & natural), pyramids, Havana Sunrise churchills & pyramids. Also one real Cohiba

Like maduros the most, more flavor. Have to stock up before Y2K though, can't trust the shipments after Jan. 1. Down to my last 400 in the chest-a-dor.

Ed  lighting up a wavell maduro as we type

-- Ed smoke-em if you got-em (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 22, 1999.

Poorly written. Bad law. Vote NO.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.

i'm voting yes the cost of tabs is way to high if gary and company is so worryed about the loss of the 2% then thy should take a 15% pay cut thay make to much money any ways

-- paul ross (lumpysworld@hotmail.com), October 24, 1999.

Ed:

Your email that I sent you came back. Could you please email me your correct email address? Thanks.

Yer Pal in Pullman.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 25, 1999.