We recently received our King County year-2000 property tax. The total tax increase was $468.93. The "voter-approved" portion of the increase was $220.30. After a careful reading of the text of I-695, we are convinced that we do not have to pay the difference, as the difference represents a "tax increase". Even an increase in assessed value of our property constitutes an effective "tax increase". We are choosing NOT to pay the difference and will explain to King County why their "tax increase" is illegal. Do you agree?

-- Rich Thomasy (rich.thomasy@vwr-inc.com), March 09, 2000

Answers

Rich,

You are wrong. King County likely approved whatever tax increase you're referring to (which is probably actually an increase in $ paid because your AV went up) *before* 1/1/2000. 695 didn't go into effect until 1/1/2000.

You've got to pay the whole bill.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000.

to Rich: This came up in the debate over I-695, prior to the November election. However, you have to "interpret" the words of the initiative to come up with your conclusion. Also, Eyman now has "Son of I-695", which addresses your concerns. Why do we need the "son", if I-695 already took care of the problem?

You should be able to take your concerns to court. Good luck!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 09, 2000.