INITIATIVE 710 AN ACT Relating to limiting taxes; amending RCW 84.55.0101; reenacting and amending RCW 84.55.005; adding new sections to chapter 84.55; adding a new section to chapter 84.36 RCW; creating a new section; and repealing RCW 84.55.092.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

LIMITING TAXES BY INVALIDATING 1999 TAX INCREASES IMPOSED WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 84.55 RCW to read as follows:

(1) Any tax increase adopted by the state from July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, is null and void and of no effect. All taxes collected as a result of such tax increases shall be refunded to the taxpayer.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "tax" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, sales and use taxes; property taxes; business and occupation taxes; fuel taxes; impact fees; license fees; permit fees; water, sewer, and other utility charges, including taxes, rates, and hook-up fees; and any other excise tax, fee, or monetary charge imposed by the state.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "tax" does not include:

(a) Higher education tuition;

(b) Civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract; and

(c) The price of goods offered for sale by the state.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax.

(5) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" does not include taxes approved by a vote of the people.

(6) For the purposes of this section, "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself and all its departments and agencies, any city, county, special district, and other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.

LIMITING TAXES BY EXEMPTING VEHICLES FROM PROPERTY TAXES

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 84.36 RCW to read as follows:

(1) Vehicles are exempted from property taxes.

(2) For purposes of this section, "vehicles" include all vehicles licensed under chapter 46.16 RCW including, but not necessarily limited to, personal and business owned cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, motor homes, campers, travel trailers, and mobile homes held as inventory.

(3) The purpose of this section is to exempt from property taxes all vehicles previously exempted from property taxes prior to the adoption by the people of Initiative Measure No. 695, the $30 License Tab Initiative.

LIMITING TAXES BY SETTING PROPERTY TAX VALUATIONS TO 1999 LEVELS

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 84.55 RCW to read as follows:

(1) The valuation of every parcel of property is set to 1999 levels.

(2) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Property" means real property; and

(b) "1999 levels" means the true and fair value of property on January 1, 1999.

(3) All real property not already assessed at the true and fair value of property on January 1, 1999, shall be reassessed to reflect that valuation.

LIMITING TAXES BY LIMITING GROWTH OF PROPERTY TAX VALUATIONS TO 2% PER YEAR

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 84.55 RCW to read as follows:

(1) The valuation of property can only be increased by the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2% per year and only if the value of the property increases.

(2) Property valuations shall be reset to reflect values on January 1, 1999, and thereafter, shall be reset to market value when a change of ownership occurs or the property is newly constructed or manufactured. When property valuation is reset due to new construction or manufacture, the new valuation may increase only to the extent the new construction or manufacture increases the present market value of the property.

(3) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Property" means real and personal property;

(b) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published for the most recent twelve-month period by the bureau of economic analysis of the federal department of commerce in September of the year before the taxes are payable;

(c) "Change of ownership" shall not include the transfer of real property to a spouse or to a trustee for the benefit of a spouse; and

(d) "Newly constructed" does not include reconstruction after fire or other natural disaster and does not include maintenance or replacement of existing components, such as roofs, siding, windows, and doors.

(4) Property tax valuations shall be reduced when there is a decline in value.

(5) This section is the method for determining true and fair value of property for purposes of chapters 84.40 and 84.41 RCW. By determining true and fair value of property in this manner, real property taxes will be stabilized, uniform, and predictable for all property owners because all property will be valued at 1999 levels and increased by the lesser of the inflation rate or 2% per year and increased only when taxpayers choose to change ownership or construct on the property. Therefore, all current and future property owners will have the same benefit of knowing that their property's valuation for tax purposes will not increase beyond 2% per year without a change of ownership or improvement to the property. This guarantees that property taxes will be predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner in this state. This predictability also promotes neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability in a manner which treats all property taxpayers uniformly.

LIMITING TAXES BY LIMITING GROWTH OF PROPERTY TAXES TO 2% PER YEAR

Sec. 5. RCW 84.55.005 and 1997 c 393 s 20 and 1997 c 3 s 201 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows:

As used in this chapter:

(1) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published for the most recent twelve-month period by the bureau of economic analysis of the federal department of commerce in September of the year before the taxes are payable;

(2) "Limit factor" means:

(a) For taxing districts with a population of less than ten thousand in the calendar year prior to the assessment year, one hundred (({- six -})) {+ two +} percent;

(b) For taxing districts for which a limit factor is authorized under RCW 84.55.0101, the lesser of the limit factor under that section or one hundred (({- six -})) {+ two +} percent;

(c) For all other districts, the lesser of one hundred (({- six - })) {+ two +} percent or one hundred percent plus inflation; and

(3) "Regular property taxes" has the meaning given it in RCW 84.04.140.

Sec. 6. RCW 84.55.0101 and 1997 c 3 s 204 are each amended to read as follows:

Upon a finding of substantial need, the legislative authority of a taxing district other than the state may provide for the use of a limit factor under this chapter of one hundred (({- six -})) {+ two +} percent or less. In districts with legislative authorities of four members or less, two-thirds of the members must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. In districts with more than four members, a majority plus one vote must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. The new limit factor shall be effective for taxes collected in the following year only.

LIMITING TAXES BY REPEALING LAW WHICH ALLOWS "STOCKPILING" OF FUTURE PROPERTY TAX INCREASES

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 7. RCW 84.55.092 (Protection of future levy capacity) and 1998 c 16 s 3, 1988 c 274 s 4, & 1986 c 107 s 3 are each repealed.

CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 8. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act.

SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 9. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. --- END ---

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000

Answers

Unnecessary. Unfair. Unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000.

Text source:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/inits/text/i710.htm

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000.

Marsha, all this still applies to 710 (written in December):

You stated the issue very well, and I believe I understand it. The way this has been addressed in the past, and the way 695 addressed it just last month, was to restrict the government revenue rather than the valuation of property. I thought 695 went too far, but "Son" goes much farther before anyone has an opportunity to see how the new restrictions on government tax increases will actually work to hold down the tax burden.

For many years the property tax increase was limited to a 6% increase, in addition to any increase that resulted from new construction. You may remember the Carter years when inflation was running up to 10 or 12%, and a 6% inflation factor in property taxes was unable to pay for the rapidly increasing cost of everything governments did, from personel costs to fuel to paper products. Recently the CPI measure of inflation, which drives most personnel costs, has been running around 3% and that is now considered the norm. The 6% limit was set when 6% was more like the norm. When inflation was higher than 6%, governments were in trouble for a few years until inflation came dow and they could "catch up" as Monte said.

Was it Referrendum 601 that set the IPD as the limit of the property tax increase, unless the elected officials found a "substantial need" for a greater increase, up to the 6% maximum? Again, this restricted the increase in the total tax revenue, and did not restrict the assessors valuations. This had two problems, in my opinion. One is that the IPD is not the measure of inflation most commonly recognized in labor contracts as the basis for a COLA. As a result, the expense item that causes most of any budget increase, has never matched the revenue increase allowed under the IPD limit. The second problem results from the first, and that is that elected officials have frequently had to find that a "substantial need" existed, and exceeded the IPD limit in order to maintain the staff needed to support the level of service provided to the community.

I-695 took that ability to increase the property tax amount, out of the control of the elected officials entirely. They can't levy an IPD size increase without a vote. They can't levy up to the 6% limit, even with the super majority vote of the elected officials. They can't increase the tax amount without a vote of the people at all. That is a huge change in how the property tax will be levied and collected in the future. The only way people will see the increases in the property taxes that you are concerned about, in the future, is (1)the community has voted to increase the taxes as required by 695 or (2) they add significantly to the value of the property by new construction (which son of 695 would also recognize should result in a tax increase), or (3) the assessor adjusts the value of your property upward with the market value at a higer rate than he adjusts other property upward to reflect market value. If the total tax amount has not increased because voters have not approved an increase, the value changes only determine the "fair" and "equitable" distribution of that tax on the property owners. That is what son of 695 would do. It would destroy the fairness and equity of the tax distribution system. In addition, over time, as the the taxable value gets more disconnected from the market value, it actually prevents voters from approving the tax increase they may WANT and NEED and SUPPORT in order to restore the level of service they want from some local government.

695 has already eliminated the problem you are concerned with. Property taxes can't even keep up with inflation unless the voters approve the increase. You asked for an alternative, well that is it and it has already been approved. It should be allowed to work for a few years to see if it is too much of a change, but it is certainly enough to deal with the problem you stated in your post.

Son of 695 attempts to attack the problem (though after 695 it can not really be called a problem anymore) of property tax increases at the individual property owner level, rather than at the level of the total tax amount that can be collected; and that is where it gets into trouble with the state constitution. If the total tax is not increasing without voter approval, tinkering with how property values are determined will benefit some at the expense of others. People who need to change locations for some reason pay more than their fair share, so that those who stay put or are corporate property owners can pay less than their fair share. If you support this proposal, you are actually betting on whether your personal situation will continue to let you stay in one place for the rest of your life. As time passes, the financial penalty for any relocation will get larger and larger; and that tax benefit for staying in one place will be paid for by those who had to move.

However this is rationalized, I don't believe anyone could say it will result in the property taxes being "uniform" on the real estate class of taxable property (as required by Article 7 of the constitution). 695 already took care of preventing tax increases, at the level of the government tax levy. Attempting to do it on an individual basis necessarily creates unacceptable inequities.

PS:

It may help if I mention that I am near retirement age myself, and my wife and I have no intention of ming from our home. Son of 695 would likely be of some personal benefit to me. That does not change the fact that the benefit would be at the expense of those who are buyers, as first time buyers or because of a job change or moving up. It would not result in a fair tax system, and would prevent voters from approving proposals for governments to "catch up" with inflation in order to maintain the level of service they want. The reduced assessed values would make catching up with inflation impossible, without use of excess levies.

PPS:

One final note. If values go back to 1/1/1999 as proposed, what happens to the value errors the assessor found and corrected this year? What happens to the value errors that are found and corrected every year?

Consider the property owner who has a home or warehouse, or something that had an assessed value 20% or more below the actual value for the last few years. While it was under-valued relative to other taxable property in the community, that owner is paying less in property taxes than he should, less than his fair share relative to his neighbors. When the assessor corrects the error, the property goes up to the market value; but the assessor does not try to collect the taxes that should have been paid in prior years when the property was under-valued. Holding the taxable value of property to a maximum 2% increase in value each year, perpetuates the existing inequity in the property tax on the under-valued property. It means that owner will continue to pay a bargain rate, at the expense of his neighbors. Remember that the total tax is already controlled, so that the tax value determines how much each owner pays of that total tax. If some get a bargain, it is because others are paying part of their share.

From the point of view of the owner of the property that was adjusted upward by the assessor, it seems like a big increase in tax burden; but in fact it is just what he should have been paying all along. From the point of view of the neighbors, they get some tax relief because their under-valued neighbor is finally paying his share.

THIS IS UNNECESSARY, UNFAIR, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000.

d,

And I may very well decide not to support this initiative. There is a long time between now and November. It seems right now that Locke and the Legislature want to give me a property tax cut. This is meaningless to me. I want them to control SPENDING now. So that future tax increases are not neccessary. Will 695 accomplish that? I am waiting to see. If I am forced to be petty and vindictive and vote for 710 because the second part of I-695 is found to be Unconstitutional, I most assurdly will. I wish to STOP the rapid growth of Government. I do not see big Government taking care of all those in need of services first. That is their secondary goal. Their primary goal is their own desires and needs. At whose expense? Mine? You bet I will support 710, If I am forced to.

I can't tell you the frustration I have felt at seeing our tax money wasted on pretty stupid things. The taxpayers of this State work hard to earn a living. They deserve to have that money be spent wisely and prudently by Politicians and Bureaucrats. If the "arrogant ones" don't get the message, then Initiatives like the three from Tim Eyman will be my plan of action. And no, I won't really care about whether or not these Initiatives may be (maybe not) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because I don't believe they are UNNECESSARY and I think the current status quo is what is UNFAIR!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

A substantial side effect of the success of this initiative will be the stabilization of property prices. As it now stands, when my neighbor lucks out and sells his property for a mind-blowing price, all of us in the neighborhood get the benefit of an increased valuation by the assessor, although none of us has done anything to our property that we can view as having increased its value. The assessor's rationale is that all property in the neighborhood has the potential for duplicating the astonishingly high sales price. The argument that none of us want to sell doesn't count. The real estate salesman, of course, promises to get an even higher price from the next sucker to walk through his door. So the effect is to encourage me to sell and let the remaining neighbors suffer yet another tax increase, because evaluation increases always result in increased taxes.

Now enter I-710. What intelligent buyer will offer an outlandish price for a property that he knows is valued at much less? Yes, there will be a few 35 year-olds who just made a killing on stock options who will do it, just because they can. That individual will be the only one, under I-710, who will pay for that conspicuous consumption. Keep in mind that the actual count of stock option millionaires is small. In general, the in-the-market buyer will hold his offer to what the seller knows his property to be worth. The gotta move before the price goes up buyer will disappear. This message will spread rapidly. The ever- escalating property price will be a thing of the past.

Why do I think this will happen? Same reason as all those car owners waited for 695 to go into effect before licensing. Same reason the car salesmen had to pay for tabs out of their pockets to get folks into the showrooms. It's the rare person who is anxious to shell out when a short wait will remove the reason.

The developers, the builders, the real estate salesmen will all find lots of reasons for opposing I-710. I'll bet none of those reasons will include the obvious one - prices will stabilize for existing properties, so why should new stuff be that much more expensive?

Once the voting (and buying) public realizes the implication of this point, there will be long lines waiting to sign the initiative and even longer lines waiting to check the YES box on the ballot.

-- Clinton James (clinton_james@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

Is anybody ever going to address the constitutionality of this initiative? Or are you just going to plug your ears and hope those little questions go away?

R-47 tried to do something similar and it was thrown out by a unanimous decision of the State Supreme Court. R-47 also doesn't appear to be anywhere near as far reaching as this would be, which makes it even more likely that 710's property tax limitation would be found unconstitutional.

The law is clear: you have to value properties equally. 2 identical properties next door to each other cannot be valued differently, as 710 would cause them to be. What makes you think that the Supreme Court will reverse itself?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Using Clinton's scenario above, stable home prices would mean stable property taxes. Both homes valuation would stay the same. Hence, 710 would be Constitutional.

Gee, the pig is getting skinnier with each Initiative.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

BB GUNN "The law is clear: you have to value properties equally. 2 identical properties next door to each other cannot be valued differently, as 710 would cause them to be"

In reality it is virtually impossible to find 2 identical properties unless they were built at the same time, on identical lots by the same people and then after a period of time the two properties will lose their identical value because of varying amounts of wear and tear. The values that are assigned to properties by the government are artificial.

And it would be easy to get past your problem..

Value them the same just tax them at different rates

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

any discussion of constitutionality is academic at best. Its mute till its law, and when its law, the state supreme court, with all its human fralities gets to decide...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

The real problem here is not 710. It seems clear to those who have looked it over that it is unconstitutional, and will be thrown out. The problem is that the initiative process is being used to send a message, raise expectations, and increase public frustration with government institutions (like the state Supreme Court) when they are doing what they are intended to do. In this case, protect the state from a stupid idea that has some surface appeal.

If this were allowed to become law, it would not stabalize prices. Market forces set prices, and the assessor is REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION to reflect those values in the assessments.

Assessments simply allocate the tax among the property owners using a fair and equitable allocation mechanism - market value. All this does is destroy the fairness of the allocation method, shift the load from business to residential property, and from the retired owners who do not move to the first time buyers and those that move up or move for a job.

I am not worried about this becoming law. I am concerned about the waste of time and energy on both sides, and about the damage this kind of message-sending does to public support for political institutions. This is a bad idea that will never become law, and I believe even those who wrote it know that already. They want it to damage public support for political institutions. That may be their primary goal, and the real message.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000.

PS for Maddjak: Tax then at different rates? Ever hear the phrase "equal taxation"? That is also a violation of the state constitution, and causes problems with the statutory limits on tax rates for each local government. This is another simple solution, to what is not even a real problem; and the tax system is just to complex for these half-baked ideas to be imposed without any thought about the consequences.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 21, 2000.

"Equal taxation?"

We're eagerly awaiting your condemnation of the latest Senate boondoggle, the tax cut bill THEY approved... which, if I'm not mistaken, changes the Constitution to allow the very thing you're complaining about.

For you to tell us "THIS IS UNNECESSARY,"

is bizarre on it's face. The size of the government's budget is exploding... assessments explode due to artificially imposed restrictions (growth management comes to mind... when there is a limited area to build houses... guess what happens to the value of the property?) and you call it "unnecessary?"

The voters spoke, and various munincipalities and local governments ignored that voice, and increased taxes before 1 Jan DELIBERATELY to avoid concerning themselves with the will of those they would govern. You know it as well as I do, and you call it "unnecessary?" If these taxes are so needed and so wonderful, then why weren't they put to a vote of the people? Why is are our various governments afraid of their constituencies?

No... this initiative is VERY necessary... unless, of course, the democrats and out esteemed governor can get off their respective butts and legislate to forstall the NEXT wave of governing BY the people. Clearly, the choice is up to government... if they don't respond (as they have yet to respond) to the will of the people, then 710 is, if you'll pardon the expression, a "lock."

"UNFAIR?"

Perhaps. It does tax different people at different rates... I can just imagine 710 and this bill passing at the polls at the same time.

But the Senate has no problem with the unfairness issue, even though the democrats voted down an amendment that would have withdrawn the state from the property tax business altogether... the SAME amendment that they all voted FOR in the 97 session!

Nah... we can't let partisanship intrude, can we?

"UNCONSTITUTIONAL?"

Gee... do you think?

One wonders how that position will stand up to scrutiny if the Senate bill passes at the polls. The mind bogles.

Westin

HYERF (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) TRT?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 23, 2000.

Westin:

Equal Taxation:

What I was refering to was your suggestion that property could be taxed at different rates. The Legislature is not doing anything like that. It is a constitutional problem, and the main purpose of the assessor is to avoid having some property in a taxing district paying a different rate for the same services as other property. The assessor assures that all property in the same district pays at the same tax rate to that district, that the district tax rate does not exceed the statutory maximum, and the tax was approved according to law (including 695 after 1/1/2000). 710 would make that difficult, but your idea would make it impossible. It can't be done, as you so casually suggested.

Unnecessary:

710 damages the tax allocation method. The amount of taxes is already limited by 695 unless approved by the voters. Did you just forget that? The effects of 695 have not been applied to the property tax yet, since the 2000 taxes were all approved in 1999 before that initiative was effective; but it actually does more than 710 proposes to do concerning the growth of government. 710 allows for 2% growth, and 695 already limits tax growth to 0% without voter approval. You either don't understand, or choose to ignore, how the property tax system works.

As for those local governments that passed tax increases, the local voters may have encouraged them to do that and support those increases. The way you will know is if the local voters remove the local elected officials from office. Some local governments faced either a 25 - 40% increase in local taxes, or a 25 - 40% loss of local services; and neither choice was attractive to anyone, so thay made some hard choices that they need to be accountable for to the local voters who elected them to office. State voters have no basis for second guessing the decisions of local governments, all of which faced differing local situations. Local voters have sufficient tools to deal with their elected officials if they made choices that a majority of their constituents do not agree with.

Unfair:

You actually admit that. Why is that a good idea, again?

Unconstitutional:

If the legislature approves a constitutional amendment to do this, and it is approved by the voters, a constitutional amendment is automaticly constitutional. That is why a constitutional amendment is necessary, rather than a simple bill or initiative. See how that works? You can't use the fact that the legislature is considering an amendment that does something similar, as an indication that an initiative is constitutional. It indicates the exact opposite. The difference between what the legislature is doing, and what 710 would attempt to do, is very instructive: 1. The legislature has the authority to initiate a constitutional amendment, and the initiative process does not. 2. The legislature will work through all the complications resulting from a constitutional amendment, and 710 did not. 3. The legislature could actually craft something that could become law and be upheld in court, and 710 did not. But I don't believe the legislature would, or should, propose an amendment that causes property to be valued on a different basis than market value. It is an ALLOCATION METHOD, and whatever is selected needs to apply to all property equally so that whatever tax is approved is distributed fairly on all taxed property. Market value works for that, and works better than any other method I have heard of.

A Lock:

Hardly. 695 only had 56% approval and this has even more problems. Even if it is approved by some miracle, it will never be upheld by the courts. It is a waste of time, money, and energy. It does not matter whether the legislature does what you want them to do, or not. Whatever happens, 710 will never be implemented. It is an emply threat; because it is UNNECESSARY, UNFAIR, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 23, 2000.

d took a really good shot at it by telling us:

"Equal Taxation:

What I was refering to was your suggestion that property could be taxed at different rates. The Legislature is not doing anything like that."

Except, of course... they are.

Your wandering attention is directed to the just-passed SJR (Senate Joint Resolution) 8212.

And what, exactly, does 8212 do, you might ask?

Well, contrary to the position asserted above, 8212 will do that which d assures us is not being done: It will allow, with a vote of the people, real estate to be taxed at... you guessed it, different rates.

Where I pointed out that the issue of "fairness" did not deter the Senate, I wasn't making it up. "It is a constitutional problem, and the main purpose of the assessor is to avoid having some property in a taxing district paying a different rate for the same services as other property. The assessor assures that all property in the same district pays at the same tax rate to that district, that the district tax rate does not exceed the statutory maximum, and the tax was approved according to law (including 695 after 1/1/2000)."

I appreciate the explanation of what an assessor does. I could care less, you understand. The issue is out-of-control property tax rates and increases. If the legislature doesn't respond to this problem, then the people will.

The $200 tax credit for owner-occupied property, obviously an election year gimmic, does not address the issue in question. 710 will send yet another message to that august body that seems to have ever so much difficulty "getting it." Like 695, it will make a dandy litmus test next November.

"710 would make that difficult, but your idea would make it impossible. It can't be done, as you so casually suggested."

You know, during 695, it never ceased to amaze me how, during the 695 campaign, so many of you in the opposition assured us that 695 was unconstitutional as well.

Knowing it to be unconstitutional as you do, I have to wonder at your opposition to it. After all, it's doomed to be thrown out once its adopted (as we both know it will pass) so why did you all spend $2 million in such an abysmal effort when you knew it to be "unconstitutional?"

And if 710 is "unconstitutional," then why are you so concerned about it? It's just going to be tossed anyway, isn't it? So why do you care?

"Unnecessary:

710 damages the tax allocation method."

I guess a lot of it depends on your perspective. If 710 reduces taxes, I don't give a damn if it eliminates the tax allocation method altogether. Your perspective here does not make 710 unnecessary. The people of this state will determine the necessity for it.

"The amount of taxes is already limited by 695 unless approved by the voters. Did you just forget that?"

HHHmmm... I missed the part where 695 limitted property tax assessments... so that the homeowners and others won't get popped with double diget assessment increases every year.

I'll risk it... just like I'll risk 695.

"The effects of 695 have not been applied to the property tax yet, since the 2000 taxes were all approved in 1999 before that initiative was effective; but it actually does more than 710 proposes to do concerning the growth of government."

Then what are you concerned about?

"710 allows for 2% growth, and 695 already limits tax growth to 0% without voter approval. You either don't understand, or choose to ignore, how the property tax system works."

Are you being disingenuous on purpose?

695 ONLY limits tax and fee INCREASES. It DOESN'T limit increases in revenue due to, among other things, increased property tax assessments. If I'm not mistaken, 710 limits increased tax assessments ("tax valuations") to 2%. I like it.

"As for those local governments that passed tax increases, the local voters may have encouraged them to do that and support those increases."

By all means, show us proof that this was the case ANYWHERE.

"The way you will know is if the local voters remove the local elected officials from office."

Actually, the surest way we'll know is when the voters pass 710.

A yes vote kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it? Your way is just A way.... not the ONLY way.

"Some local governments faced either a 25 - 40% increase in local taxes, or a 25 - 40% loss of local services; and neither choice was attractive to anyone, so thay made some hard choices that they need to be accountable for to the local voters who elected them to office."

Bully for them. I personally don't have a problem with the people telling their elected officials to take the increases off. You see, that "politicians are accountable to the people so we don't need 695" argument didn't get anywhere then... and it ain't going to get anywhere now.

"State voters have no basis for second guessing the decisions of local governments, all of which faced differing local situations."

Where, exactly, does it say that? I have the RIGHT to "second guess" my elected officials. And the BASIS to "second guess" them is whatever WE say it is.

Of course, those elected officials who don't like that can, well, quit. We won't miss them. Or, at least keep their word.

"Local voters have sufficient tools to deal with their elected officials if they made choices that a majority of their constituents do not agree with."

According to you.

Actually, as an auto-hobbiest, I've found it impossible to have too many tools. The issue of sufficiency is hardly to be left up to you, and it is rather presumptuous of you to make that decision for me. I run my own life, thank you.

Nothing you wrote here detracts from how very necessary it is to send yet another message to the various governmental bodies that have in the past, and still, continue to ignore us.

"Unfair:

You actually admit that. Why is that a good idea, again?"

It's a good idea because those on fixed incomes don't get nearly enough relief as property tax assessments increase with the same arbitrary methodology as the arbitrary nature of the MVET. It's a good idea because we are ALREADY taxed unfairly in a variety of other areas... or haven't you been asked if you were an Oregon resident while making a purchase?

And, as I have proven, the issue of "fairness" was no deterent to the Senate. If situational ethics in pursuit of lower taxes is good enough for them, well, then... you know the rest.

"Unconstitutional:

If the legislature approves a constitutional amendment to do this, and it is approved by the voters, a constitutional amendment is automaticly constitutional."

Really?

"That is why a constitutional amendment is necessary, rather than a simple bill or initiative. See how that works? You can't use the fact that the legislature is considering an amendment that does something similar, as an indication that an initiative is constitutional. It indicates the exact opposite. The difference between what the legislature is doing, and what 710 would attempt to do, is very instructive: 1. The legislature has the authority to initiate a constitutional amendment, and the initiative process does not. 2. The legislature will work through all the complications resulting from a constitutional amendment, and 710 did not. 3. The legislature could actually craft something that could become law and be upheld in court, and 710 did not. But I don't believe the legislature would, or should, propose an amendment that causes property to be valued on a different basis than market value."

I hope, once you complete reading 8212, that you'll get over your disappointment in what the legislature IS "considering."

You see, even if the issue of property tax valuation is declared unconstitutional, the tax roll back, for example, won't be.

I am willing to risk it... and I still don't understand your concern over an issue that, according to your perspective, is doomed to be thrown out anyway. If that is to be the outcome, then what difference does it make to you? You wouldn't want it to happen regardless of Constitutionality, so you get what you want. I get at least part of what I want. And I find that getting part of what I want is far better then getting nothing of what I want.

"It is an ALLOCATION METHOD, and whatever is selected needs to apply to all property equally so that whatever tax is approved is distributed fairly on all taxed property. Market value works for that, and works better than any other method I have heard of."

Then you would support doing away with assessments while relying solely on the sales price?

"A Lock:

Hardly. 695 only had 56% approval and this has even more problems."

Where does it say that?

"ONLY" 56% approval? After a campaign that outspent the yes side by at LEAST 5 to 1? Please... I thought more highly of you then THAT.

Do you REALLY believe that they'll put yet another 2-4 million together in yet another losing campaign in an election year?

Give me a break. "Only." You can be a funny guy, d.

"Even if it is approved by some miracle,"

Nope. It will be approved by a simple majority... UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE FIXES THE PROBLEM FIRST.

"it will never be upheld by the courts. It is a waste of time, money, and energy. It does not matter whether the legislature does what you want them to do, or not. Whatever happens, 710 will never be implemented. It is an emply threat; because it is UNNECESSARY, UNFAIR, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

The problem with your protesting, d, is that you're doing far too much of it.

If the reality were anywhere near what you think it to be, then you wouldn't be expending all this energy to attack it. You wouldn't need to. Your, uh, vociferous opposition would be UNNECCESSARY," know what I mean?

I for one never see the vote of the people as being a "weaste of time and energy." Regardless of the issue, we have the right to express our views... even if you don't happen to agree with the method to do so. But then, only one of us believes in the people... right?

Westin

HYERF (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) TRT?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 24, 2000.

to dbz: People perceive so much waste, arrogance, and unresponsiveness in government, it is inevitable that the initiative will succeed.

As long as there is a huge state surplus and a strong economy, it is reasonable for people to rein in the huge appetite of governmental beauracracies. Otherwise, you'll reallu have a severe problem when the country finds itself in a deep recession.

As for the constitutionality of it, I'm not that knowledgeable. I only know that the constitution forbades the issuance of a monopoly to private interests, yet this is what the government is doing vis-a-vis the proposal for a new Narrows Bridge. So much for the constitution.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2000.

Westin and Matthew:

I finally checked this forum again, and find your notes. As usual, you have some of your "facts" wrong again.

Matthew:

You note the economy and the state surplus, but 710 is aimed at local governments. Only $3.60/$1000 of the property tax goes to the state, and the legislature IS seriously considering cutting that. Because of the 401 restrictions they can't spend it anyway, so it is a major source of the current surplus. Local governments will be cut, that don't have a surplus, don't have a history of waste, and are in the business of providing the services their communities want. I disagree with your statement that approval of the initiative is "inevitable". What is inevitable, is that it will never go into effect.

Westin:

SJR 8212, lets see if you are right. Who are the sponsors? Did it pass, or are they just making a record to run on in November by introducing something they know has no chance of approval? A joint resolution that does what, propose a constitutional amendment? I have not read this yet, so I would approciate some specifics. If the Legislature were to approve something that calls for the same taxing district using different tax rates on different property, that would also be unconstitutional unless it were done through the amendment process. That won't happen.

You wrote, "I appreciate the explanation of what an assessor does. I could care less, you understand. The issue is out-of-control property tax rates and increases. If the legislature doesn't respond to this problem, then the people will." As I already noted, the people did with 695. The property tax does not increase because of inflation at all, without a vote. See section 2 of I-695.

The $200 tax credit is out of the state revenue from the property taxes of everyone. The state can allocate their revenue within the constitutional limits. That does not change the fact that the basic tax is calculated the same for everyone, in each taxing district of the state.

You wrote, "Knowing it to be unconstitutional as you do, I have to wonder at your opposition to it." I already explained that. It is a waste of time, money and energy. Most of all, I believe it is INTENDED to fail so that people will be more dissatisfied with the institutions of government. That is the only explanation I can think of for running something so obviously in conflict with the constitution.

You wrote, "HHHmmm... I missed the part where 695 limitted property tax assessments... so that the homeowners and others won't get popped with double diget assessment increases every year." Read the initiative you were so vocal in supporting. It prevents any increase in the rate OR AMOUNT of a tax without a vote of the people. The Department of Revenue was clear as early as October, 1999, that means that the AMOUNT of the property tax levied by a local government can't be increased without a vote. It is still uncertain if the tax can be increased by the application of the last years tax rate on new construction, but at this point that seems to be the only revenue increase that can occur without a vote; and that does not increase the tax on existing property. The valuation only allocates the local government tax amount among the property owners in a fair way. If your property were under-valued, and the assessor doubled it to the market value (like everyone else), then you tax would about double. If everyone's value doubled because of inflation, the tax rate would be cut in half in order to collect the AMOUNT of the local government tax levy (that 695 prevented from increasing without a vote). Is this starting to make sense to you yet? You wrote, "695 ONLY limits tax and fee INCREASES. It DOESN'T limit increases in revenue due to, among other things, increased property tax assessments." That is just wrong.

You wrote, "I have the RIGHT to "second guess" my elected officials. And the BASIS to "second guess" them is whatever WE say it is." My point is that not every local government elected board and commission is accoutable to every state voter. I have no problem with you second-guessing YOUR elected officials, but you have no right to secong-guess MINE. That is my job, and those others who live in the city, county, and districts I live in. 710 is aimed at local government, and state voters should consider that local voters in many communities may have local conditions that differ from their own.

You wrote, "I run my own life, thank you." That is all I ask. Let local communities make their own decisions about whether local taxes were increased inappropriately, or spent in a way a majority disagrees with.

You wrote, "Nothing you wrote here detracts from how very necessary it is to send yet another message to the various governmental bodies that have in the past, and still, continue to ignore us." Prove that. State and local governments are responding to 695 with drastic changes. They got that message, and are dealing with it. Sending messages by the initiative process is costly.

You wrote, "It's a good idea because those on fixed incomes don't get nearly enough relief as property tax assessments increase with the same arbitrary methodology as the arbitrary nature of the MVET. It's a good idea because we are ALREADY taxed unfairly in a variety of other areas... or haven't you been asked if you were an Oregon resident while making a purchase?" So everyone should get tax relief because some are on a fixed income? Are you serious? What kind of relief is that, when everyone is effected the same? 710 does not do that anyway. The relief has nothing to do with being on a fixed income. A senior who needs to move from a high maintenance home to a low maintenance condo, would be just as harmed by 710 as the first time buyer who may buy the home from the senior. Market valuation is NOT an arbitrary tax allocation method. It is a consistent and fair method, that would become arbitrary and unfair if 710 were approved and upheld. Fortunately, that won't happen. I wrote, "You can't use the fact that the legislature is considering an amendment that does something similar, as an indication that an initiative is constitutional. It indicates the exact opposite. The difference between what the legislature is doing, and what 710 would attempt to do, is very instructive: 1. The legislature has the authority to initiate a constitutional amendment, and the initiative process does not. 2. The legislature will work through all the complications resulting from a constitutional amendment, and 710 did not. 3. The legislature could actually craft something that could become law and be upheld in court, and 710 did not. But I don't believe the legislature would, or should, propose an amendment that causes property to be valued on a different basis than market value." Nothing you wrote addressed these issues directly. You wrote, "You see, even if the issue of property tax valuation is declared unconstitutional, the tax roll back, for example, won't be." Don't count on it. You wrote, "Then you would support doing away with assessments while relying solely on the sales price?" No. The point of assessments is that all property is taxed this year, based on the value this year, so that the tax amount is allocated fairly.

You wrote, "Do you REALLY believe that they'll put yet another 2-4 million together in yet another losing campaign in an election year? Give me a break. "Only." You can be a funny guy, d." I REALLY believe that will not be necessary. With enough local examples of the impacts on local services (fire districts, EMS, schools, etc.) this will be defeated. And if I am wrong, it will be declared unconstitutional by any judge who can read.

You wrote, "It will be approved by a simple majority... UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE FIXES THE PROBLEM FIRST." No problem needs to be fixed. 695 did it already.

You wrote, "The problem with your protesting, d, is that you're doing far too much of it. If the reality were anywhere near what you think it to be, then you wouldn't be expending all this energy to attack it. You wouldn't need to. Your, uh, vociferous opposition would be UNNECCESSARY," know what I mean?" I agree my opposition is unnecessary, and will not be effective in stopping the initiative. That was not the point. I can still state my opinion on what I believe is a waste of time, money, and energy on an initiative that is UNNECESSARY, UNFAIR AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what the forum is for, isn't it? Opinions?

You wrote, "But then, only one of us believes in the people... right?" Wrong. I believe voters can and should use all the tools they have to control government. I also believe the voters should be informed about the missuse of the initiative process when it occurs as in this case. A proposed initiative that can't work is just a waste, and damaging to the credibility of the process and of government; and that is bad for all of us.

PS: Thank you both for your comments. 695 is what it is, and we will not know what will be declared unconstitutional until about June. This one could still be withdrawn if the proponents realize it is a futile effort.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 29, 2000.

to dbvz: A lot of people are getting screwed by their companies in terms of how much more they have to pay for health care. Every year, we're expected to pay more. If I have a chance to vote on an initiative to limit the growth of my property taxes, I almost have no choice but to support it.

The voters can't afford to separate local governments from the fraud and oppression directed by the state and the feds. There is so much corruption and immorality at all levels of government. Even though local government may be the least deserving to be punished, we will fire a shot which will be heard, if not round the world, at least round the state.

I personally don't mind paying taxes. But when I witness the depravity of our nation, I can only conclude that I am a co- conspirator in crimes against humanity. In my lifetime, I've witnessed an explosive proliferation in gambling, an activity which is inherently unethical and immoral. We are encouraging the strong to prey upon the weak. Shame on all of us.

I've witnessed an exponential growth in SSI disability payments. It was only a few years ago that Congress amended the law, preventing drug addicts and alcoholics to claim their condition as a disability. Until then, it was perfectly reasonable for a self-made screw-up to take my hard-earned tax dollars.

Now I know that local governments have no control over things like SSI disability and Medicaid. But they have more control over things like gambling, though not lotteries.

I wish Tim Eyman would put out an initiative to raise the gambling (lotteries included) age to 25.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2000.

Matthew:

Your approach is like firing a shotgun in the general direction of a thief, running through a crowd. You may hit the thief, but what about all the by-standers? Frustration at work does not give anyone a justification to beat the wife and kids. Frustration with the federal and state governments is not a justification for indiscriminate harm to local governments doing a good job.

The great strength of our representative institutions is that those who make the local decisions are accountable to the local voters, and not to some distant agency director from a division of a department of the central government. Can you imagine what would happen if the police worked for the federal government, and the way to get improved service was to petition Washington D.C.? The employees of large governmental institutions feel insulated from public criticism, but local government employees know the local elected officials are available in the community to anyone with a gripe. That changes things. The best government, is the government closest to the people, and accountable to them for their actions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 30, 2000.

to dbvz: It's more like I'm chasing a murderer, and the crowd of bystanders is full of thieves.

For the most part, the politicians of Pierce County remained silent while the DOT plotted our demise with the new Narrows Bridge. It isn't just the politicians, but the groups supporting them - teachers' unions; chambers of commerce; etc. All either remained silent or actually came out in support of the new bridge.

The irony is that the new Narrows Bridge will result in at least a one million dollar drop in sales tax revenue due to the loss of discretionary income. I'm not sure how much of that sales tax would've gone to Pierce County. But their silence isn't just cutting my community's throat, they're cutting their own as well.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 31, 2000.

HJM 8212 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would give a $200 tax credit, out of the STATE property tax revenue.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 31, 2000.