The Eastside Journal came out this morning with a headline article discussing how Bellevue is planning to immediately hike a group of city fees to beat the limitations of 695. They included a partial list of all Bellevue fees, which total to the amazing number of 1,871 separate fees. And remember, this is just fees. City taxes are not included. This is one of the plusses from I-695, anyway. At least we are now finding out the total ways we're being gouged by government. Although I knew that we were nailed in a lot of places, I had no idea of the total extent.

They don't give all the fees that are going to be raised, but do list several, one of which is the fee for water. They are planning to raise this one by 15%, effective in 2000, and by another 5.4% in 2002.

Absolutely no mention was made of ANY reduction is salary or number of city employees.

As an aside regarding the dramatic increas in taxes recently, just before the election I checked my real estate tax bills for the years 1994 (when I retired) thru 1999, a period when inflation went op by a toal of 11.5%. My R.E. taxes during that same period went up a total of 31.5%, almost three times the rate of inflation. At that rate they will double every 12 years. And the elite wonder why we voted for 695!

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), November 14, 1999

Answers

Albert, How much did the value of your house go up? If R.E. taxes were figured on value when the primary domicile changes ownership, then that would help with retirees, such as youself, and long-time residents, and even the low-income segment of the population wouldn't get squeezed out by all these dang Microsoft millionaires! It would also help with the growth issues, since those that move into the area would be more likely to be paying the lions share of property taxes. And presumably, if we've done it right, our children will be making lots and lots of money, and they would be able to handle the difference (along with taking care of us in our old age!)

I-795?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 14, 1999.

is it possible that we could be paying more in taxes after 695 than before?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 14, 1999.

Jim wrote, "And presumably, if we've done it right, our children will be making lots and lots of money, and they would be able to handle the difference (along with taking care of us in our old age!)"

This level of optimism is not justified by recent history. As I noted in another thread, a system that requires a differential tax rate for properties in the same taxing district, would conflict with a constitutional provision requiring tax equity. To change that you need a constitutional amendment, as was done in California with Prop 13. In this state you cna't change the constitution by the initiative process.

What you suggest would create a fundamentally unfair situation, in which property owners on the same street of a subdivision, perhaps living in the same model of a home valued the same, would be paying a much different amount for the same services. In effect, those who are paying based on current value would be paying a share of the taxes for the services being provided to those who choose to stay in the same home for decades. I don't mind the senior citizen/low income tax reduction programs, but I don't see much community benefit to subsidize inertia. It is a subsidy, and I though you did not want to subsidize anything.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 14, 1999.

Especially roadways.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 14, 1999.

This is where those elected to lead our city and state government will be showing us they know how to lead. Priorities will be needed and there will be those against any changes to those areas. That is normal. True leaders will be made and will stand out. Bad leaders will not be re-elected.

-- KC (kellrs@msn.com), November 15, 1999.

The property tax is a mechanism that allows the community to pay for services that the community desires. The issue I was trying to raise was that there are those who have no way to realize the 'profit' in their property, unless they liquidate it. This does cause a problem for those who want to live at that address. However, I agree with the statement that these costs should be evenly distributed. The issue really is what formula should be used to determine how much people should pay. Does the value of the property correctly determine that? Interestingly, privatizing every service would. Is that what people really want? What that takes however, is time and effort by the citizens. Time to go down to your local library and read the budgets for your municpality that are available in the reference section, and the effort to understand what those figures mean. Therin lies the rub. I have been to too many of my council meetings where these decisions are being made, IN PUBLIC, where hardly anyone that was going to be affected showed up. How do I know about these meetings and what going on? Because I show up to them, and request mailings be sent to me. I voted NO on I-695, because if the idea was to limit goverenment spending, then SPENDING is what should have been the target. I also thought it was poorly written, as evidenced by the "are cars property?" question. Section 3 of the initiative specifically repeals the RCW that prevented them from being taxed that way (amongst others), and what's even more interesting is I couldn't see where that particular RCW imposed any fee. I actually look forward to a post I-695 Washington, and hope to see more people INVOLVED in coming to a consensus with their neighbors. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised, not necessarily by how much information they need to review to become informed, but also by what some of your neighbors think.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 15, 1999.