contact the city or county and file an initiative with the city or county and you can get enough signatures to have a vote to overturn the tax raises, or if you don't get enough signatures it may delay the effective date of the ordinance till after Jan 1 thus forcing the city/county to honor the wishes of the voters to require a public vote

CHECK IT OUT. NOW!!!

-- roy (nannoook@aol.com), November 18, 1999

Answers

I don't believe you have a grasp of how things work.

You can petition the city or county, or speak at the public hearings; but an initiative petition could only have an effect after it is voted on in 2000. It can't delay the effective date of the actions of the elected council, taken within their current legal authority.

The initiative will become effective on 1/1/2000. Local governments knew that going in. Immediate application would give them no opportunity to even propose a tax increase before the 2000 budget decisions, because no election date is available until February. You seem to expect local governments to make huge cuts, even if they believe their local communities don't want those cuts and would approve replacement funding. I thought the intent was a minor 2% cut. What do you expect cities to do that are expecting 25 - 40% cuts in revenue? Close up or fire staff, before they even ask the voters what they want to do?

695 presents local officials with some hard choices, and they are not as simple as you seem to believe. Local communities don't want their services cut by 40%, and they don't want their taxes raised 40%. Elected officials may need to find a compromise that includes a smaller service cut and a smaller tax increase, to get through 2000 and sort out what to do over a longer time frame. They are elected to make those hard choices, and you grade them at the next election. They don't have an opportunity to propose replacement funding at an election, so they depend on the input at public meetings and hearings as they make the decisions in the best interests of their community.

Give them some credit, for the public service they are providing. Most local government elected officials are not making any money at it. Certainly not enough to compensate for the hate and discontent thay have to put up with from people who don't know what is really going on.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 18, 1999.

Attention dbvz: You state: "695 presents local officials with some hard choices"

That is completely incorrect. 695 presents ALL officials with extremely EASY choices.

And those choices are: "You told us you don't want us to rip you off anymore so we are going to break all your fingers to show you that you can't make demands like that."

Simple, easy and exactly like the mafioso they are emulating.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

The budget should be balanced, the treasury refilled, public debt reduced, the arrogance of officialdom tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. -- Cicero

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Roy's basic idea to get involved is correct. The answer that dbvz posted only clarifies what the correct procedure is. But the basic idea is... "If you have a concern and/or opinion, you have to get involved."

Some may consider the decisions that I-695 presented to the various governments may be simple and easy, and others may consider them to be difficult. But the government needs to make decisions. Name-calling, citing quotations and comments like "Cut the fat!" may be allowable under the constitution, but are not constructive. What is needed at this point is constructive input on where the government should focus their priorities. Citizens must now work with their elected representative to understand what budget resources are available and what are the priority items.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 19, 1999.

"Citizens must now work with their elected representative to understand what budget resources are available and what are the priority items. "

How about: Elected representatives must now work with their citizens to understand what services they are willing to pay for with the taxes that they choose to provide.

The elected representatives are THE HIRED HELP, not vice versa.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

We agree on the role of the elected officials, but we don't on how they should carry it out. They need to work with the local community they serve to reach decisions about just what that community wants and is willing to pay for. Until February, they don't have an election to help them make those decisions that must be made about the 2000 budget, so they need public input. Initiative 695 is not effective until 1/1/2000, so they have some options in how they respond to what the community wants.

Those who beleive the requirements of 695 should be followed now, in all communities, seem intent of punishing government and the elected officials for doing the job they were hired to do. In the process, you want to punish the communities and the public who live there, that happen to be the hardest hit by the MVET losses. The cry form all of the supporters of 695 before the election was that it would only be a 2% cut, and any government can cut 2% without cutting vital services. Well, some local governments will be cut by much more than 2%, and cuts of 25 to 40% would require cuts of vital services. Their communities dont want that to happen, and the elected officials are left with the responsibility for making some decisions about what to do about that.

Local elected officials need to be responsive to those that elected them. Each city has a different set of circumstances; including the size of the MVET loss, the size of any operating reserves, the urgency of any planned projects, the community support for the city and the work it is doing, etc. etc. How they decide to deal with the situation will be based on those local factors, and not any uninformed dogmatic rhetoric from anyone on this forum.

They are elected to deal with these decisions, and they will. If you disagree with the decisions, but don't live in the community, it is none of your business. If you disagree with the decisions, and live in the community, you get to grade them when they are up for election. If you agree with their decisions, let them know; now and at the next election. They need all the support they can find, as they try to fix the mess 695 has created.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 19, 1999.

"They are elected to deal with these decisions, and they will. If you disagree with the decisions, but don't live in the community, it is none of your business. " If they spend ONE DIME of my money, it's my business, no matter WHERE I live. If they get NO STATE MONEY WHATSOEVER, and I'm not in their jurisdiction, I'll only kibitz. But it's my right to kibitz. Freedom of speech still exists in this state, d.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

I was speaking of their decisions to increase local taxes to deal with MVET losses. As for the availability of state money at the local level, that is really an issue to address at the state level where the decision was made to offer it, and with whatever conditions are attached. Local elected officials have NO obligation to take your kibitz seriously, but they do have an obligation to listen to those they represent.

Exercise your free speech all you want. That is not what my comment was about.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 19, 1999.

Which is precisely why we will be tracking Who voted for What increases and Where.

Our work here has only begun. It is time to take names folks. If your elected Representitives vote on Tax or Fee increases, keep track. We will soon have a site available for this IMPORTANT information!

Let us send the message that there is no greater wrath, than that of a voter scorned!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Yes. Reward the elected officials who take reasonable actions to minimize the damage being done, by the irresponsible provisions in I-695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 20, 1999.

Yes. Reward the elected officials who take punitive actions to punish the voters, maximizing the damage being done, by the reasonable provisions in I-695. 2% d, the sky is falling!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 20, 1999.

Marsha:

2% for some. 40% for others. The sky isn't falling, but in some communities they just feel like it is.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 20, 1999.

D, You do not seem to get it. A majority of Washingtons voters, voted for a tax cut and NO new taxes or Fees without our permission. 2% or 40% reductions is not our concern. We have mandated they cut their budgets and they should be competent to do just that. They have slapped the voters in the face with these pre-emtive Tax and Fee increases. I and many others are mad as hell about our government who will not abide by our wishes. I cannot wait for the petition and vote for "son of 695", to come to my town. Mr eyeman is a true Washington Patriot, and a Man of the People. God Bless him.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 23, 1999.

Rolex:

You are right. I don't get it. Local governments are following the law as it exists. Much of the comment before the election sounded like, "Don't worry, its only 2%, and nothing important will need to be cut." For many communities, that is not how it will work out, unless they take some drastic action. For communities that voted for a 2% cut, they have some work to do to make that mandate happen. As I said before, communities don't want EITHER a 40% cut in services or a 40% increase to fund replacement taxes; but that is the situation they are in. Local elected officials need to be responsive to their local voters, and give them what they want. It may be some compromise between a big service cut and a big tax increase. BUT THAT IS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR LOCAL VOTERS!

You are right, that I don't understand why another state initiative is needed to punish the communities that are taking reasonable actions to minimize the damage done by 695. I don't understand why it is any business of the state voters, if the revenue is from local taxes and fees. If you don't like what your community is doing, deal with it locally; but why try to undo solutions that may be supported by local communities that are simply trying to solve a big problem? Remember that they have not election opportunity available until February, and the decisions that are needed about the 2000 budgets must be made based on the input they get at public meetings an hearings.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 23, 1999.

PS:

2% or 40% is not "our" concern? It may not be YOUR concern, but it must be the concern of the elected officials who must deal with it, and the communities that will experience it. This is why the supporters of 695 sound so irresponsible. You just don't care what damage this is doing, and you are offended when reasonable people try to do something about it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 23, 1999.

db--"2% or 40% is not "our" concern? It may not be YOUR concern, but it must be the concern of the elected officials who must deal with it, and the communities that will experience it. This is why the supporters of 695 sound so irresponsible. You just don't care what damage this is doing, and you are offended when reasonable people try to do something about it."

Oh please, how exactly is it irresponsible to not "care what damage this is doing?" In my mind, if you understand the issues likely to occur and willfully accept the consequences, you're much more responsible than the person who favors the ever comfortable status quo.

FWIW, I'm not offended that communities have decided to raise taxes to remedy *their* particular situation. That being said, it does seem like a solution lacking in creativity.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 23, 1999.

D, You sound like an elected official with a little fiefdom to protect at all costs. You are correct that they are following the law. I believe any, "reasonable" elected official, would wait until this law goes into effect before asking the voters for a tax hike. At that time, I would fairly look at their p proposals and vote, for or against, according to merit. Since they have chosen to ignore the spirit of 695, son of 695 will be voted on. I have a feeling, "reasonable" people, will pass this by a landslide also. The needs and votes of the many, outweigh the arrogance and fiefdoms of a few. We shall see...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 23, 1999.

2% or 40% is not "our" concern? 

d-

Im fairly sympathetic with you on this issue. These small cities were lead down the primrose path by the perverse economic incentives applied by subsidizing them. They wound up making commitments and contracts that were both morally and legally binding, based upon resources that they really didnt possess. By not holding a special session when I-695 qualified for the ballot, the guv and the legislature left the small cities out in the lurch. While I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE PAYING SALES TAX EQUALIZATION TO THESE CITIES, I also believe it is fundamentally unfair to simply jerk the rug out from under these people. I still support I-695, but believe that the additional $200 million that just showed up ought to be parceled out on a diminishing basis, say 80% of projected MVET revenue in 2000, decreasing by 20% annually until gone.

Right now the small town mayors and city councils are feeling the wrath of people that is more appropriately directed at the guv and legislature. The best they can do right now is make all possible prudent cutbacks, determine what is left unfunded, and communicate the results to their voters, indicating that they will accept any suggestions. Id tell the rowdy citizens that the books are open, the state sponsored free lunch has gone away, and they are going to have to pay this much for prior commitments that its too late to stop. Explain that if any one can see a way out that the city council hasnt seen, all helpful suggestions would be gratefully appreciated. Lacking any miraculous cures, the town would be appealing (with all the other towns in the same boat) for relief from the state. If none was forthcoming, a plebescite woulf be held at the earliest possible election to decide if the people in the town wanted to live with the higher taxes, or dis-incorporate.

I realize, d, that you are in favor of a far higher level of government services than I am, and your attitude is typical of those more politically active in our society. The old saying goes, Its a participatory democracy, and if you dont participate, dont expect it to be a democracy. That saying is true only for the short term though. What the pro-government people have been doing for years, IMHO, is leveraging the interest groups to keep government growing. This occurs in two ways, one is tying things that may not have a majority of support to other things that have wide support. I may think that tax equalization shouldnt be funded, but I might not be willing to sacrifice transit by killing the MVET. Through such bundling mechanisms you may wind up paying for something you dont feel you want or need, just because youve got no choice (Microsoft Internet Explorer comes to mind). This happens all the time in the federal budget. The other way is by funding non-essentials first, pretty much extorting additional funds to cover essentials. Weve agreed to disagree on the Medic one issue, but even the King County newspapers are admitting that this is what the King County Council is doing.

Now the problem with this, like with leveraged investments, is that if you over-extend, you can lose A LOT. And that is what is threatening to happen right now. Governor Locke knows this, even if most of the politicians do not, and he is trying furiously to pour oil on troubled waters, as we used to say in less environmentally aware days. Because once you get 50%+1 of the voters to say, Im sick and tired and Im not going to take it anymore, the leverage that was your friend becomes your worst nightmare. If you really do allow the essential services to get picked off, you enrage the voters even more. If you maintain ANY nice-to-haves, that enrages them further still. If you take the cuts in the nice-to-haves, you enrage THEIR advocates who have by now come to see it as an entitlement. Everybody winds up turning their rage into a vote against government. The vote on I-695 was more than enough to convince the governor and those few politicians with real insight that it was time to compromise. Im sure Governor Locke would be glad to accept a 5% cut, if it could buy him a two year cooling off period before getting back to business as usual.

But the leverage is working against big government now. Its not just arrogance (Ron Sims comes to mind) that will have a high price, but even the local politicians who are caught in a box by the disappearing tax equalization will be required to do things that they have no option not to do, which will nonetheless rally the opponents of big government and discourage the advocates.

I dont like leveraged investments, dont do futures trading. Unless youve got Tysons to place a big order to coincide with your option trading, its just too risky. And if you do have inside help, Janet Renos successor will prosecute you. I fear the big government advocates reached too far this time, and unless they start listening to Locke, theyre likely to be hammered in the next several years. IMHO that is.

?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 23, 1999.

Craig:

We disagree on some basic points, that's clear.

1. I don't believe "we" are paying small cities sales tax equalization. I believe they should get the share of sales tax that their residents ARE PAYING as sales tax. The fact that it is collected through the seller, is just a convenience for the state as a collection method. The buyers pay the tax. Sammamish residents should get some of the sales tax thes pay when they buy in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond.

2. We almost agree on Medic One. I recognize the county funds other services first, and considers Medic One an add-on optional service. Where we differ is that I believe that is appropriate, and consistent with how that service was created, and the fact that 37 of the 39 counties do not provide the service at all. How "essential" is it if it is not even offered in most of the state? It IS an optional additional service, and that does not change because it is a popular optional additional service.

3. I note that your options for local government to use in dealing with a financial crisis, did not include use of the authority they still have until 1/1/2000 to increase taxes and fees. They knew going into the election that the initiative would not be in effect until 1/1/2000, and the information being circulated by everyone was that it would not take effect until then; but you want them to act as if it is in effect. The elected officials have a responsibility to the LOCAL citizens for the tax and service decisions they must make to deal with this financial crisis. The fact that it may anger the pro-695 activists is not a reason for them to abdicate their responsibility, and ignore what may be best for the LOCAL community. As far as you know, many of the communities that have raised a tax or fee may be doing exactly what a majority in the local community want them to do. They are the ones who held the budget hearings and community meetings, and will have to answer to the voters for their decisions if they get it wrong.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 23, 1999.

1. I don't believe "we" are paying small cities sales tax equalization. I believe they should get the share of sales tax that their residents ARE PAYING as sales tax. The fact that it is collected through the seller, is just a convenience for the state as a collection method. The buyers pay the tax. Sammamish residents should get some of the sales tax thes pay when they buy in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. [I think well just have to agree to disagree on this, unless you can come up with some more convincing argument than you have so far]

2. We almost agree on Medic One. I recognize the county funds other services first, and considers Medic One an add-on optional service. Where we differ is that I believe that is appropriate, and consistent with how that service was created, and the fact that 37 of the 39 counties do not provide the service at all. How "essential" is it if it is not even offered in most of the state? It IS an optional additional service, and that does not change because it is a popular optional additional service. [Perhaps ESSENTIAL is too strong a word. Certainly nothing is essential but air, food, and shelter. But I think your argument overlooks demographic, logistical, and practical realities. If I choose to live in the outskirts of Tonasket, I choose to accept a certain level of service for many governmental and non-governmental functions. It would be unreasonable to expect to have ACLS services available within 8 minutes of a telephone call. The demographics and logistics of a metropolitan area make certain things (like transit) economically viable at levels that would be non-starters in Tonasket. So to be more precise, in the hierarchal scheme of needs, I believe Medic One would generally be considered by the vast majority of people to be on a higher scale than many of the things that are funded first, and, however you may perceive this, I believe that most people see this as a cynical ploy to extract more money from the taxpayers by holding this hostage to things of lesser importance]

3. I note that your options for local government to use in dealing with a financial crisis, did not include use of the authority they still have until 1/1/2000 to increase taxes and fees. They knew going into the election that the initiative would not be in effect until 1/1/2000, and the information being circulated by everyone was that it would not take effect until then; but you want them to act as if it is in effect. The elected officials have a responsibility to the LOCAL citizens for the tax and service decisions they must make to deal with this financial crisis. The fact that it may anger the pro- 695 activists is not a reason for them to abdicate their responsibility, and ignore what may be best for the LOCAL community. As far as you know, many of the communities that have raised a tax or fee may be doing exactly what a majority in the local community want them to do. They are the ones who held the budget hearings and community meetings, and will have to answer to the voters for their decisions if they get it wrong. [I believe that if you reread my postings, IVE SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT. They have a legal obligation to make their programs executable, that is, to pay for or buy off contracts, bonds, etc. I was lamenting the fact that they ARE taking the heat, that more appropriately ought to go to the ones who set up the incentives. My sympathies are with the local people, although some of them are their own worst enemies when they dont communicate well why they are doing what they are forced to do, and some who have become publicly petulant (whoa, almost sounds like Spiro Agnew and natterring nabobs of negativism) have embarrassed themselves. ]

The point Im trying to make is that when you leverage your demand for increased government artificially, when you fund things that do not have a general consensus, especially through what appear to many people to be gimmicks and trickery, it costs you two ways. One is the erosion in confidence in government, the growing cynicism that the will of the voters really doesnt matter to the politicians. Thats a price you are guaranteed top pay. The second is the price that you pay if you face a tax revolt. Your losses are even more highly leveraged than your wins.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 24, 1999.

Craig:

OK. I agree to disagree.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 24, 1999.