Anyone living in Seattle - the city government wants higher property taxes in order to rebuild an opera house that only a tiny portion of the population is ever likely to use, and to replace a flag pavilion with a new, smaller flag pavilion in Seattle Center. These two projects will cost the taxpayers $36 million.

First off - why can't opera fans pay for their own opera house? Since when is supporting the opera a legitimate role of government?

Secondly, this whole plan rests on the government's promise that they can raise matching private funds - why don't they get the private money first, before extracting cash from us?

So, if you're going to the polls to vote "Yes" on i695, make sure to vote "No" on Prop. 1 (in Seattle, of course).

Swell/plc.

-- Paul (pcallo@mindspring.net), October 29, 1999

Answers

I have to agree. This is a perfect example of the types of projects YOUR tax dollars are paying for (for everyone). Of course, exactly how much of the $36 Million comes from each person is not known, but even if it's $100 of my money, I could use it for THUNDERBIRDS TICKETS!!!! GO T-BIRDS!!! VOTE YES ON I-695!!!!!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

I agree. I heard a pro-Prop.1 ad on the radio this morning that is a blatent lie. It said passage of this would not cost the taxpayers any more money. EXCUSE ME!, but the current property tax assessment for Seattle Center improvements, etc.. is due to expire on 12-31-99, which would mean the bill for this would no longer appear on property taxes. The city simply wants to extend this tax for an add'l 6 years! I'm sure after another 6 years they'll find some other reason not to rescind the tax...maybe to build a new food court or add add some more rides at the Fun Forest.

This is another example of the mentality of the pols. Once a tax is added, it's impossible for it to go away, even after it's initial purpose has been satisfied. The pols just find another use for the money, rather than giving it back to the taxpayers. Sort of like the rental car and hotel tax extension that was used to pay for Safeco Field.

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

I haven't decided whether or not Prop 1 is a good thing.

I'll probably end up voting for it, but it kind of annoys me that the Opera house and Hall of Flags funding was combined with funding for community centers. I surmise the community centers were added to "sweeten the pot." I only say this because it's not obvious (at least to me) that the levy would pass if it only benefited the Seattle Center.

Speaking of proposition I, did anyone read the op-ed piece by a UDUB professor emeritus of public policy (or some such thing), I was kind of surprised at what he wrote. I expected to see a cogent argument brimming with relevant quotes. Instead, I found a rambling article as meaningless as any other (for *or* against) written so far. Interestingly, the only quote he used (from one of the founding fathers. . .Franklin?) appeared to be out of context. When he said "A republic if you can keep it," I find it more likely he (the founder) was more worried about government despotism than direct democracy.

Back on topic. . .In general, the professor railed against I-695 and the proposition designed to screw with Ron Sims (I don't remember the number). At the same time, he campaigned for the passage of proposition I. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 29, 1999.

Brad - I completely agree that the community centers were added in order to make Prop. 1 more appealing. While I'm dead-set against using public funds to support opera or ballet, I'm undecided about community centers. On the one hand, it seems that the private sector does a pretty good job of providing all the services one gets with a community center. On the other hand, free community center activities for kids who can't afford better options can't be a bad thing. But the bottom-line is that the majority of the funding from Prop. 1 will go to support an enterprise that rightfully ought to derive it's revenues from ticket prices, not taxes. So, it's gotta be No on Prop. 1 in Seattle.

-- Paul (pcallo@mindspring.net), October 29, 1999.

It seems to me Seattle is just doing what 695 will require al governments to do, in the future. Package a proposal that appeals to enough voters to be passed.

As for the statements that the tax will not cost any more, that sounds like it is true if it is extending an existing tax. How else would you have them explain it, if it is not going to increase the annual tax bill?

I don't live in Seattle, so it is really no concern of mine what they decide to vote for. They need to evaluate their own costs and benefits.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 29, 1999.

If, on Jan 1st, the property tax bill on a house should have been $1000 (for example), but because of Prop 1 it is $1025, then the passage of the proposition just cost the taxpayers more money. What the city is doing is the proverbial shell game with our property taxes.

Vote NO on Prop. 1

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

dbvz writes:

"I don't live in Seattle, so it is really no concern of mine what they decide to vote for. They need to evaluate their own costs and benefits. "

Got to be careful with that kind of thinking, folks. You may just get hit with a tax you don't want, to pay for a stadium, opera house or some other building or service you don't want/won't use, disguised as some other tax or levy.

I don't live in Seattle, either, but I'm sure that there's plenty of my tax $$ being put to work for things I'll never SEE, let alone use.

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 29, 1999.

db -

By the way, that was in no way intended as a slam towards you. Just pointing out that we all need to be careful, as sometimes things affect us in ways we don't perceive before-hand.

Diane - "Sick of all the people-bashing going on in this forum"

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 29, 1999.

Diane:

Seattle can tax itself all they want, for things in Seattle. I don't need to go to Seattle for anything. Are you advocating statewide approval of local funding proposals now?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 29, 1999.

Diane:

Seattle can tax itself all they want, for things in Seattle. I don't need to go to Seattle for anything. Are you advocating statewide approval of local funding proposals now?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 29, 1999.

d

You write "Are you advocating statewide approval of local funding proposals now?"

I am, if they want to use state matching funds. That would be my tax dollars. And I would like to vote on whether or not I thought it was a worth while item.

Ed - why don't they ask Boeing or Microsoft for the money. they've got enough for other things the people don't agree with

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 30, 1999.

Sorry for the re-post of your reply to Diane

Ed - had my coffee, but not enough

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 30, 1999.

Ed:

State matching funds would be a statewide issue, but if they don't require a tax increase 695 would NOT require a statewide vote for their approval. A local vote on a local tax is a local issue, not a state issue. The way to control the availability of state matching funds is through the legislature that makes them available to encourage local communities to participate.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 30, 1999.