INITIATIVE 722

AN ACT Relating to limiting taxes; amending RCW 84.55.0101;reenacting and amending RCW 84.55.005; adding a new sectionof chapter 84.55; adding new sections 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 as long as the retail sales tax of chapter 82.08 RCW applies to vehicles.

(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 EXEMPTING INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAX VALUATIONS ABOVE 2% PER YEAR

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 84.36 RCW to read as follows:

(1) As long as the sale of property is subject to the real estate excise tax in chapter 82.46 RCW and unless otherwise exempt from property taxes, a person shall be exempt from any legal obligation to pay the portion of property taxes attributable to any increase in value of property (other than for new construction or manufacture) over its 1999 valuation level, plus the lesser of 2% per year or inflation.

(2) As long as construction materials are subject to the retail sales tax of chapter 82.08 RCW, a person shall be exempt from any legal obligation to pay the portion of property taxes on newly constructed or manufactured property after 1999 over the property tax imposed on the owner of a comparable property constructed as of 1999, plus the lesser of 2% per year or inflation.

(3) For purposes of this section: (a) "Property" means real and personal property;

(b) "1999 valuation level" means the correct valuation shown on the property tax statement in effect on January 1, 1999;

(c) "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;

(d) "New construction or manufacture" 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, doors, and parts of equipment; and

(e) "Person" means any person or entity which pays property taxes.

(4) This tax exemption is based on:

(a) The need to promote neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability by limiting the tax burden;

(b) The fact that many property owners have sold their property, or are considering the sale of property, because of the increased tax burden caused by rapid increases in property valuations; and

(c) All property owners are entitled to know that property taxes will be predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner.

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 84.36 RCW to read as follows:

(1) Increases in property tax attributable to maintenance improvements made after January 1, 1999, shall be exempt from property taxes. This exemption promotes neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability.

(2) This section applies as long as the retail sales tax of chapter 82.08 RCW remains in effect.

(3) For purposes of this section, "maintenance improvements" includes:

(a) reconstruction after fire and natural disaster; and

(b) replacement of existing components such as roofs, siding, windows, doors, and painting.

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), June 30, 2000

Answers

Eyman and Company seem to be getting their legal advice from the same people that gave us I-695 (Unconstitutional). It may help to also read the decision on 695, because this one will be unconstitutional for most of the same reasons, as well as a few more. It is also unfair; in that it favors the big companies that do not "sell" property to reset the value, and the rich who may transfer title of their estate to a family trust that will never die. The rest of us will be paying a greater share of the cost of government; because we will move, and we will die, and the value of our property will go up to the current market rate at that point.

The result is that (1) government will have less money to provide services we expect them to provide, and (2) similar property of the same value will pay different tax rates for the same services and (3) the taxes that are paid will shift from an equitable system based on value to a confused mess based on when the property was last sold.

This will be unconstitutional for at least one more reason that was not a problem for 695. The contitution REQUIRES an equitable property tax system based on value. An initiative can't change that without amending the constitution in this state.

Eyman will have more trouble getting the votes this time, for good reasons. Why waste thousands of dollars on a campaign and court case, that results in the whole effort being invalid? Last time they kept saying, "Trust me, it's constitutional." This time around the voters will know better.

P.S. Has another forum been created for these new initiatives, or is the debate going to continue under the defunct 695 banner?

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

"Eyman will have more trouble getting the votes this time, for good reasons. Why waste thousands of dollars on a campaign and court case, that results in the whole effort being invalid? Last time they kept saying, "Trust me, it's constitutional." This time around the voters will know better. "


Let's see, how much did I just pay for my MVET? Where is that checkbook? Oh, here it is!

Let me look that up........................, check 1242, $30.00.

Now let's see, if the Supreme Court finding goes against I-695, what will I then be paying???

Looks like it's still $30.00.

I'd vote the same way again, and will vote for I-722 (and I-745) in the upcoming election.

If you truly think that I-695 made no difference, dbvz, you haven't been paying attention.

Now I'll admit, it was half a loaf, but that's half a loaf more than out in-the-pocket-of-special-interests legislators have ever given us.

See you at the ballot box.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

dbvz:

There you go again trying to scare the people. You are commenting on I-722 without reading it first. You just blew any hope for credibility that you might expect to have. Here is why:

The legislative title of I-722 is: "An ACT Relating to limiting taxes... Clearly this is one subject.

You claim that I-722 will treat business property and trusts different than residential property because those properties are held for longer periods of time and that I-722 will revalue property after a sale.

Please identify where I-722 revalues property after a sale. I-722 does NOT revalue property after a sale!

Here is some additional information that you and other should consider:

The exemptions provided by I-722 are based on:

a. The need to promote neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability by limiting the tax burden;

b. The fact that many property owners have sold their property, or are considering the sale of property, because of the increased tax burden caused by rapid increases in property valuations; and

c. All property owners are entitled to know that property taxes will be predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner.

I-722 provides every property owner with an insurance policy that will protect them from being taxed out of their property while providing sufficent tax revenue to provide essential services.

I-722 and I-745 will define the differences between those who wish to continue to grow government several times faster than inflation and popuolation and those who will provide esential services but will limit the growth of government. For example, during Gary Locke's four years the number of state employees have grown form 93,000 to 106,000. That's 13,000 new jobs to be paid for form our tax dollars.

The next Republican Govenor (to be elected in November) will not sign any legislation in the second year of the budget cycle that does not limit government. So get use to it dbvz. Start looking for ways to improve the level of government service with less money. LESS is MORE!

Monte Benham, CoSponsor I-722-745

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 01, 2000.

Monte writes:

>>I-722 provides every property owner with an insurance policy that will protect them from being taxed out of their property while providing sufficent tax revenue to provide essential services<<

Total BS. 722 would absolutely devastate fire districts by ruining their only revenue stream, property taxes. What services are more essential than that?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

BB:

We have heard your scare tactics before. It didn't work with I-695 and it will not work here.

I-722 allows property tax increases of the lesser of 2% or inflation plus it allows that new construction be added to this amount. The statewide average for new construction is 2.5%. So in total I-722 could allow revenue increases of up to 4.5% per year.

If more is needed, let them ask the voter. What a concept!

Do you get that kind of raise each year?

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 01, 2000.

Monte writes:

>>We have heard your scare tactics before. It didn't work with I-695 and it will not work here.<<

Blah, blah, blah...

I find it hilarious that whenever there is any legitimate, constructive criticism of any of your initiatives you immediately scream "scare tactics!"

>>I-722 allows property tax increases of the lesser of 2% or inflation plus it allows that new construction be added to this amount. The statewide average for new construction is 2.5%. So in total I-722 could allow revenue increases of up to 4.5% per year.

If more is needed, let them ask the voter. What a concept!<<

Unfortunately, you don't have a clue about the way the property tax system works in this state. Let's start over again.

You said that there will be enough money for essential services. 722 will devastate fire districts. Services don't get more essential than that.

Property taxes can only be 1% ($10/1000 AV) of your property's value by state law. If they're more than that, it's because the voters have approved additional taxes. Of that $10, a certain amount is reserved for the state for education ($3.60 I think), a certain amount is reserved for senior taxation districts, and then a certain amount is reserved for junior taxation districts, as long as the senior districts haven't used up all of their taxing authority.

If the senior districts tax at the maximum, and the juniors tax at the maximum, the total would be over $10/1000 AV. So if the seniors tax at the maximum allowed rate, the juniors lose a certain amount of their taxing authority, in order to stay within the $10/1000 AV.

Fire districts are junior taxation districts, which means that they set their tax rates after the senior taxing districts ahead of them. If all the senior taxing districts tax to the limit of their statutory authority, the amount of money that can be collected by fire districts is ratcheted downward, below their statutory maximum.

722 would cause all senior taxation districts to collect their statutory maximum, as it will be the only way they could come close to providing the services demanded by their citizens. When park districts, hospital districts, etc. collect the statutory maximum, fire districts won't be able to collect as much money as they normally would.

Combine that with reduced assessed valuations, and you have a vicious cycle that will destroy a fire district's ability to provide necessary services. They won't be able to have as high of a levy rate as they used to, and the property located within their district won't have anywhere near the same assessed valuation as it used to. Every year the amount of money they collect, relative to inflation, will decrease.

It's not scare tactics. If this passes, there will be immediate closures of fire stations. There will be immediate layoffs, and the cycle will continue, because their ability to tax will only decrease.

Dbvz has analyzed this issue many, many times, and you have never addressed it. You have never indicated that you have any understanding whatsoever of this state's complex property taxation system.

The last person that should be reforming this state's property tax system is somebody who has no understanding of how it works.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

BB:

Your long discussion pointed out that state and local government has the right to 1% of the value of property and that there is a "pecking order" for access to the money. Something that you did not mention that anything in excess of 1% requires 60 voter approval. Any taxing district can ask for more money (even fire districts).

I-722 limits and exempts increases above the 1999 valuation to 2% or inflation which ever is less. It allows all of the new construction to go on the tax rolls. This provides up to a 4.5% increase per year. You are afraid that the taxing districts won't leave any of the money for the lower districts. Doesn't that sound like outright greed on their part. In fact most taxing districts now never get the increases they ask for because of the greed of taxing districts that have a higher priority.

You need to spend your time and effort on convencing those taxing districts with a higher priority to be less greedy with our money.

Then if more money is needed, put the issue on the ballot and let the voter decide. It must really hurt you to know that the citizens are putting government on a budget.

Yes, you are trying to scare people. It didn't work with I-695 and it will not work now.

Don't forget during Locke's 4 years the state payroll has increased by 13,000 workers. Government is growing much faster than population and inflation and I-722 will hell control skyrocketing property taxes.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 01, 2000.

"722 would cause all senior taxation districts to collect their statutory maximum, as it will be the only way they could come close to providing the services demanded by their citizens. When park districts, hospital districts, etc. collect the statutory maximum, fire districts won't be able to collect as much money as they normally would. It's not scare tactics. If this passes, there will be immediate closures of fire stations. There will be immediate layoffs, and the cycle will continue, because their ability to tax will only decrease. Dbvz has analyzed this issue many, many times, and you have never addressed it. You have never indicated that you have any understanding whatsoever of this state's complex property taxation system. The last person that should be reforming this state's property tax system is somebody who has no understanding of how it works."

I don't particularly consider myself to be an unreasonable person (but then, I suppose no one would). It seems to me, however, that we are again stuck in the same system where things of higher priority are held hostage to funding things that we would all agree are of lesser priority. This appears to be a system designed by the politicians and bureaucrats that you would leave in charge of us to assure that they can extort additional taxes.

We've had this technique used on funding Medic One, we've recently seen the technique used in funding the King County Sheriffs Department for only the initial 6 months, it seems to be a common, self-evident, cynical, and regrettably successful ploy.

I say it's time to say the hell with it! I don't care if we break your system, because it's a stupid and unfair system to begin with!

I'm tired of not being able to get anything accomplishedunless we pay 1% for art and pay "prevailing wage" and pay off the minority and disadvantaged. I'm tired of things that most of us value being funded after all the politicians pay off all the special interests that got them elected and all the bureaucrats feather their nests and build their empires. So I'll tell you what:

I don't mind it if the system breaks!
I don't mind it if the current crop of political "leadership" quits!
I don't mind it if the current crop of bureaucrats takes their (dubious) talents somewhere else!

I don't mind forming a fire brigade with my neighbors, and taking a chance until a better crop of political leadership understands that the voters have had enough of their self serving bullshit. I don't mind mind forming a neighborhood watch (hell, forming an armed and dangerous neighborhood watch, if need be) to hold down crime until a better crop of political leadership understands that the voters have had enough of their self serving bullshit.

So whine all you want, alphabet boys, we've been trying it your way for decades, and the government just keeps growing bigger, less efficient, and doing the things it wants to do, while doing the things we want it to do less and less well.

Time for the unwashed public to shake up Olympia a little bit. The people who run the place are just our employees, not gods, no matter what the name of the town is.



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

"If this is what you want, move there. "

There is a Socialist country just a few miles north, and even one last lonely Communist country about 90 miles southeast.

You move, if you don't like the way the voters are voting on I-695 and other initiatives

You've been an apologist for the bureaucrats and the politicians since day one, BB.

Read the paper, for crying out loud.
We've become the second most congested area in the nation.
The DSHS exhibits incompetence only exceeded by that of the AG's office in defending them.
And this is after decades of your precious politicians and bureaucrats being in charge.

There are likely to be more initiatives on the ballot than ever before precisely because the people are getting massively fed up with incompetence.

These initiatives aren't just coming from the anti-tax crowd, taxpayers of all political stripes recognize incompetence and arrogance in the government good old boys, both elected and "civil" "servant" (who are in fact rarely the first and never the second).

So EXCUU...UUSE ME! if the great unwashed are starting to step on the toes of you self anointed Mandarins.

Get used to it, or get the hell out of Dodge your own damn self!

Mark Stilson PS: Say Hi to Elian for me. Tell him he's welcome back to visit or to stay, anytime!



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

To BB....

"Unfortunately, you don't have a clue about the way the property tax system works in this state. Let's start over again."

You may be correct, but you have again reinforced my belief the current method of property taxation is broken. Also, I dont see the politicians moving towards restructuring the current taxing equation. I believe they, my representatives, satisfy the lobbyists first, then the populace.

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), July 02, 2000.

I think I have to agree with Doug on this one.
We have, both at the state and the federal level, a huge assortment of Byzantine rules that have evloved to serve the needs of the politicians and the bureaucrats, and only secondarily (if at all) the rest of the country.

Look at the truly ridiculous tax code we have at the federal level. with literally millions of little special breaks put in place to serve one constituent/supporter/special interest group/old buddy or another.
Your description of the arcane rules of our own state merely reinforces the idea that someone needs to take tax policy out of the hands of the legislators BB. It certainly doesn't give anyone reassurance that we've got a rational policy in place now.

I've said more than once that I don't believe the average voter is particularly enamored by the concept of big government, but he/she can be seduced into voting for more government "that works."

Our politicians have gotten lazy, IMHO. It has been far too easy for them to give the bureaucrats last year +5% and get back to playing politics, without any meaningful financial or policy oversight as to what kind of a job the bureaucrats were doing or what the results were.

The Wenatchee Witch trials should have been a wake-up call that things weren't going well in CPS or DSHS. But look what's been happening recently! Where is the oversight? Where is the government that "works."

Sid Morrison (another political hack) has been in charge of the DOT at a time that congestion has gotten nothing but worse. Most of us would have thought that his mission was to keep down congestion. From the publications on the WA DOT website it's obvious that congestion was accepted as a motivator to push the public into accepting more politically correct forms of transportation, except it didn't work. Where is the government that works?

Mark is right about the fact that more and more groups are turning to the initiative to bypass the politicians and make their cases to the people.
I too believe that this means that the voters have lost confidence in their politicians, and I believe they have done this for good cause.


the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 02, 2000.

More "government that works" for you Craig.

Saving $350,000 costs state $8 million by Catherine Tarpley Seattle Times staff reporter If the state of Washington had bitten the bullet for $350,000, it wouldn't now owe Dr. Tariq Ahmed $8 million. The state Attorney General's Office thought $350,000 was too much to pay Ahmed after he won his first federal jury verdict in a free-speech case. The state appealed and won a second trial. But the second jury thought the state should pay Ahmed, who claimed he'd been fired for pointing out substandard care at the Rainier State School, much more. On Friday, Ahmed was awarded $8 million.

If this were a real business, someone would be answerable. But the politicians blame the bureaucrats and then go right on giving them more money.
What a scam


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 02, 2000.

Monte wrote, "If more is needed, let them ask the voter. What a concept!" BB addressed the regular levy limits, and the concsequences of 722; and your response is to suggest using the excess levy proposition to supplement funding. Excess levies for operating revenue are limited to one year authorizations (two years for schools). No responisble manager would hire staff and plan service delivery systems that need to be maintained for decades, based on excess levies that need to be approved every year. Voters should have the ability to fund the level of service they want, with a funding system that will maintain that level of service. I-722 will eliminate that, if it is ever allowed to become law.

As I said originally, I doubt it will be law. Either the voters will reject this one (I predict less than 40% yes) or the court will throw this one out too.

As for revaluation on sale, that was from the earlier version proposed by Eyman (I-710). My mistake. Perhaps he is learning from some of the criticisms his proposals get. I-722 is still unfair, since it results in new homes worth $200,000 paying more for the same services than older homes worth $200,000; and the constitution still requires and equitable property tax system based on value and this aint it. Your "carefully writen" language to qualify this as an exemtion is just smoke and mirrors, and the court will rule accordingly IMHO.

Section 3 (4)(c) "All property owners are entitled to know that property taxes will be predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner." The initiative is internally inconsistent. "Uniform for every present and future property owner" will not happen, because every future property owner who buys new property will pay much more (based on value) than every present property owner.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 02, 2000.

Just so we know what the standard is:

ARTICLE VII, REVENUE AND TAXATION

SECTION 1 TAXATION.

The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership. All real estate shall constitute one class: Provided, That the legislature may tax mines and mineral resources and lands devoted to reforestation by either a yield tax or an ad valorem tax at such rate as it may fix, or by both. Such property as the legislature may by general laws provide shall be exempt from taxation. Property of the United States and of the state, counties, school districts and other municipal corporations, and credits secured by property actually taxed in this state, not exceeding in value the value of such property, shall be exempt from taxation. The legislature shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to exempt personal property to the amount of three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars for each head of a family liable to assessment and taxation under the provisions of the laws of this state of which the individual is the actual bona fide owner. [AMENDMENT 81, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4222, p 1551. Approved November 8, 1988.]

1. The power may not be surrendered.

2. The taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property.

3. Real property constitutes one class.

4. The authority to grant exemptions is limited to the LEGISLATURE.

So how is it that an initiative can usurp the power of the Legislature, and grant an exemption to the requirement of uniform taxes on all property in the state? It can't, and I-722 will be found unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 02, 2000.

dbvz:

There you go again trying to scare and confuse people. You obviously have not yet read I-722.

The owner of an older house valued at $200K will pay exactly the same in taxes as the owner of a newly constructed house. I direct your attention to sec 3 item (2) which reads:

As long as construction materials are subject to the retail sales tax of chapter 82.08 RCW, a person shall be exempt from any legal obligation to pay the portion of propoerty taxes on newly constructed or manufactured property after 1999 over the property tax imposed on the owner of a comprable property constructed as of 1999, plus the lesser of 2% per year or inflation.

This tax exemption is based on:

a. The need to promote neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability by limiting the tax burden;

b. The fact that many property owners have sold their property, or are considering the sale of property, because of the increased tax burden caused by rapid increases in property valuation; and

c. All property owners are entitled to know that property taxes will be uniform for every present and future property owner.

I-722 provides an "insurance policy" that guarantees property taxes to be reasonable and predictable.... Remember in the 1930's the sales tax and B&O taxes were installed to provide property tax releif. But since 1944 property taxes have doubled every 7 to 9 years just like they did prior to the 1930's. I-722 will finally provide lang lasting releif.

dbvz, you really haven't read or perhaps you do not understand the WA constitution. Your statement that only the legislature has the power to exempt is not true. I direct you attention Article II sec 1 of the WA constitution.

Art II, Sec. 1 "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shal be called the legislature of the state of Washington, BUT THE PEOPLE RESERVE TO THEMSELVES THE POWER TO PROPOSE BILLS, LAWS, AND TO ENACT OR REJECT THE SAME AT THE POLLS, INDEPENDENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND ALSO RESERVE POWER. AT THEIR OWN OPTION, TO APPROVE OR RECECT AT THE POLLS ANY ACT, ITEM, SECTION, OR PART OF ANY BILL, ACT, OR LAW PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

So, the people have the right to exempt property from taxation when they are acting in their legislative roll.

dbvz, you have squandered your credibility. You derive your income from the backs of the people who pay taxes, and are doing your best to scare and confuse people. It didn't work with I-695 and is won't work with I-722 or I-745.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 02, 2000.

dbvz:

There you go again trying to scare and confuse people! You obviously have not yet read I-722.

The owner of an older house valued at $200K will pay exactly the same in taxes as the owner of a newly constructed house. I direct your attention to sec 3 item (2) which reads:

As long as construction materials are subject to the retail sales tax of chapter 82.08 RCW, a person shall be exempt from any legal obligation to pay the portion of propoerty taxes on newly constructed or manufactured property after 1999 over the property tax imposed on the owner of a comprable property constructed as of 1999, plus the lesser of 2% per year or inflation.

This tax exemption is based on:

a. The need to promote neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability by limiting the tax burden;

b. The fact that many property owners have sold their property, or are considering the sale of property, because of the increased tax burden caused by rapid increases in property valuation; and

c. All property owners are entitled to know that property taxes will be uniform for every present and future property owner.

I-722 provides an "insurance policy" that guarantees property taxes to be reasonable and predictable.... Remember in the 1930's the sales tax and B&O taxes were installed to provide property tax releif. But since 1944 property taxes have doubled every 7 to 9 years just like they did prior to the 1930's. I-722 will finally provide lang lasting releif.

dbvz, you really haven't read or perhaps you do not understand the WA constitution. Your statement that only the legislature has the power to exempt is not true. I direct you attention Article II sec 1 of the WA constitution.

Art II, Sec. 1 "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shal be called the legislature of the state of Washington, BUT THE PEOPLE RESERVE TO THEMSELVES THE POWER TO PROPOSE BILLS, LAWS, AND TO ENACT OR REJECT THE SAME AT THE POLLS, INDEPENDENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND ALSO RESERVE POWER. AT THEIR OWN OPTION, TO APPROVE OR RECECT AT THE POLLS ANY ACT, ITEM, SECTION, OR PART OF ANY BILL, ACT, OR LAW PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

So, the people have the right to exempt property from taxation when they are acting in their legislative roll.

dbvz, you have squandered your credibility. You derive your income from the backs of the people who pay taxes, and are doing your best to scare and confuse people. It didn't work with I-695 and is won't work with I-722 or I-745.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 02, 2000.

Db is doing a great service to the voting populace of Wash. state. He is unwittingly showing the arrogance of public servants, whether he knows it or not. They will say and do anything to keep their high salaries, with little work attached. The more he posts, the more people will vote yes on the two initiatives to limit taxation in November. Thank you, Db.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), July 02, 2000.

Cedibility? What credibility??

Lawyer offers explanations for $17.8 million mistake Janet Capps speaks out on missing appeal deadline 07/01/2000 Rebecca Cook; The Associated Press The lawyer blamed for making a mistake that could cost the state $17.8 million has broken her public silence, saying in a series of signed statements that she did not deliberately misplace key documents. Janet Capps at first blamed the mistake on attention deficit disorder, in a declaration dated May 2000. The former assistant attorney general said her medical condition may explain why she did not pass along a document that would have told the attorney general's office of an impending deadline to appeal a $17.8 million verdict. But then Capps withdrew that declaration and filed another on June 23, deleting the information about attention deficit disorder. In the second signed statement, Capps said simply that she can't remember ever seeing the document and did not deliberately misplace it.

These excuses are right up there with the ever popular, "The dog ate my homework!" but our politicians are too much in bed with the bureaucrats to effectively supervise them.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 02, 2000.

Monte wrote, "dbvz, you really haven't read or perhaps you do not understand the WA constitution. Your statement that only the legislature has the power to exempt is not true. I direct you attention Article II sec 1 of the WA constitution.

Art II, Sec. 1 "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shal be called the legislature of the state of Washington, BUT THE PEOPLE RESERVE TO THEMSELVES THE POWER TO PROPOSE BILLS, LAWS, AND TO ENACT OR REJECT THE SAME AT THE POLLS, INDEPENDENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND ALSO RESERVE POWER. AT THEIR OWN OPTION, TO APPROVE OR RECECT AT THE POLLS ANY ACT, ITEM, SECTION, OR PART OF ANY BILL, ACT, OR LAW PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

So, the people have the right to exempt property from taxation when they are acting in their legislative roll."

Except that the Constitution Article 7 does not say the power is a legislative power, which could be excercised by either the people or the Legislature. It says it is a power of the Legislature, which is a specific legally constituted body of elected officials. Your reference to the authority of the people to pass other laws does not conflict with the specific limits on the taxation authority reserved to the Legislature. The people can't rule by Initiative, much as Eyman ans you would like that to be the case.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 02, 2000.

P.S. You have almost convinced me you and Eyman have addressed the fairness issue among property tax payers. Congradulations. 722 seems to have been written with better advice than 710. Keep working on the problem of the authority of the Legislature to control exemptions to the property tax though. I don't believe you are out of the woods on that problem yet. In any case, your reliance on the excess levy to deal with maintaining essential services still makes this an unworkable proposal, and one that should be rejected. I came to this debate late, and appreciate being brought up to date on the intent of these provisions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 03, 2000.

to dbvz: Won't I-722 be ruled unconstitutional for similar reasons as I-695? First, the initiative contains two topics. One topic covers rolling back taxes and fees to the beginning of 1999. The other topic covers limiting increases in property taxes to no more than 2% per year.

Also, like I-695, I-722 fails to individually list all of the taxes and fees which are being reversed. I-695 failed to individually list all of the taxes and fees requiring voter approval for future increases.

However, even though I-722 will very likely (i.e., PROBABLY) be found unconstitutional, I will still vote for it because of the way the government is shafting my community in terms of proposal for a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I will take advantage of every opportunity to vent my anger and frustration towards the government.

I don't feel like Tim Eyman is doing me a disservice, nor is he "tricking" me. I am opposed to "taxation without representation", and the proposal for a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has made me extremely upset towards the governor, representative, and beaureaucrats in Olympia.

I view Tim Eyman as a "gun". Just like one would by a "gun" for home protection, voting affirmatively for Eyman's initiatives is a form of family protection, too.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 03, 2000.

Matt Warren,

Since you agree with me it will probably be found unconstitutional, you should also consider the consequences of going through the motions of voting for it, defending it, and then elimnating it through the courts.

First, a lot of time and money is wasted on both sides of the arguement. If you are satisfied with "sending a message" for all that effort and time, I guess it could be worth it to some - but that is not all that happens.

Second, the election in November is just before the budgets and tax rates are set for 2001 for every local government in the state. It may be that a court would approve an injunction on the implementation of the initiative until the merits are considered, but if not we get into a lot of legal issues about whether local assessors will be using the January 1999 values + 2%/year, or the real values set and noticed to tax payers during 2000. If it is unconstitutional, they ought to know that and ignore it for 2001 tax collections.

Third, and perhaps most important, the presentation of unconstitutional initiatives adds to a public expectation of direct controls that just do not exist in a representative democracy. When such initiatives pass, and are invalidated; people blame the judge or the judicial system or special interests or politics or government in general. When the ruling is made, it does not reflect badly on the judge or government, but on those who wrote the initiative. The result is still the same - people get more alienated from their government. Instead of working within the system, and following to rules established to protect everyone; they become frustrated with the rules and the process itself. I am more concerned about the damage to the institutions of government that Eyman has/may cause(d), than any actual effects of his initiatives.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 04, 2000.

" I am more concerned about the damage to the institutions of government that Eyman has/may cause(d), than any actual effects of his initiatives. "

I think you confuse cause and effect. As with the MVET which the political establishment largely defended before the initiative passed, but everyone wanted to get rid of after the voters had spoken, despite what the court said, the political establishment brings this upon themselves.
There refusal to get rid of the MVET, despite the fact that it was roundly despised, and then their utter caving on it after the initiative is part of a pattern of lack of leadership.

You see it in their failure to control DSHS, corrections, the AGs office, and most especially in transportation.

This abysmal failure of leadership is the reason that initiatives will get on the ballot, and will pass.

The public having a p***-poor opinion of politicians isn't caused by the presence of initiatives or the decisions of courts.
BR>It's caused by the politicians doing a p***-poor job!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 04, 2000.

to dbvz: You write: "I am more concerned about the damage to the institutions of government that Eyman has/may cause(d), than any actual effects of his initiatives."

The institutions of government will ultimately reflect the spirit and good-heartedness of its citizens. I am optimistic that our society will survive any angst as a result of the courts overruling Eyman & Co.

As for your claim that assessors won't know what tax rate to send out. I don't see how this harms my family. If the assessors decide to use 1999 levels plus 2% or 4%, sounds like we accompished a little something. If they get an injunction, then no "harm" is done.

The bottom line is that the politicians and beaureaucrats are going to "pay" for what they've done to my community vis-a-vis the proposal for a new Tacoma Narrows bridge.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

Mark wrote: "The public having a p***-poor opinion of politicians isn't caused by the presence of initiatives or the decisions of courts. BR>It's caused by the politicians doing a p***-poor job!"

Your comments help make my point. If, in your opinion, we need to replace them you vote them out of office. Since most are reelected, it seems your opinion is in the minority.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 05, 2000.

to dbvz: You write: "...Since most are reelected, it seems your opinion is in the minority."

This is neither here nor there. It would take a long time to affect change by voting our representatives out of office. First of all, you're assuming that there is a better choice than the incumbent.

In many ways, choosing a representative is choosing the "lesser of evils".

Therefore, the only way to champion the cause of justice is through the initiative process.

You would have us be enslaved for eternity.

It did no good for us on the Peninsula. The overwhelming majority of the people who will pay the overwhelming amount of any new tolls, voted against having a new bridge with unlimited tolls. Guess what? Our cries for mercy are being ignored.

Your logic is more believable for a race like the governorship.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

dbvz,

Vote them out of office? Maybe....

Just because YOU don't care for the initiative process doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly acceptable means of controlling Government, and/or guiding the elected body.

As Mark stated, the Governor and the Legislature knew how citizens hated the MVET and they did nothing about it. Something you have been reminded about many times.

We dealt with the issue, not elected Representatives that may or may not bear some responsibility.

Would you sell your house just because it had a stain on the carpet?

You can bet every time the Initiative process IS used, it WILL have impact on many of those Representitives, and may help them to make better decisions in the future. If they don't learn, then yes, vote them out of office. I see no reason to replace a Representitive every time I disagree with him/her on one issue! Get real!

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

Marsha,

My comments were about the negative effects of submitting clearly unconstitutional initiatives. I prefer the legislative process because it more easilly allows all points of view to be accomodated as much as is reasonably possible. Initiatives have their uses, but the creation of unrealistic expectations, frustration, and public anger at government are not the most health of them. Some here may not agree. Perhaps they prefer people to be frustrated and angry.

As for not having a viable alternative at the polls, if you feel that way run for office yourself. You may find out that in order to get elected you have to consider someone elses opinion besides your own.

As for getting real, the purpose of an election is to select candidates that will represent your views. If the issue is not important enough for you to reconsider who you will vote for, what is all the fuss about?

It is still my opinion that the initiative process has the potential to produce some monumental errors in public decision making. It is fortunate that the biggest errors can be derailed by the Constitution and the courts.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 05, 2000.

"Since most are reelected, it seems your opinion is in the minority. " And you obviously believe that the patronage system and the sale of legislative favors to special interest groups confer no advantage on the incumbents.

RIGHHTT!


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

Mark writes:

>>You've been an apologist for the bureaucrats and the politicians since day one, BB.<<

I certainly have not been an apologist for bureaucrats and politicians. But I suppose I shouldn't expect facts to get in the way of a good rant.

>>We've become the second most congested area in the nation.<<

And 695 defunded billions in road construction. So we would have become less congested if not for the initiative you supported.

>>assorted usual anti-government rants snipped<<

I've never denied that there is incompetence throughout government. Of course, Eyman's various initiatives, which is what we're supposed to be talking about here, do nothing to solve that problem.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>Your description of the arcane rules of our own state merely reinforces the idea that someone needs to take tax policy out of the hands of the legislators BB. It certainly doesn't give anyone reassurance that we've got a rational policy in place now.<<

Just because the property tax is a complicated (not necessarily arcane) system doesn't mean that it doesn't function well, and doesn't mean that it isn't rational. How else do you propose that local taxation districts fund their services?

The only constant among them is that they provide services to property within a geographic area. Property taxes are the fairest way to fund such services.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

"Just because the property tax is a complicated (not necessarily arcane) system doesn't mean that it doesn't function well, and doesn't mean that it isn't rational. " BB, the transportation blue ribbon commission couldn't even figure out where the transportation money provided by the state actually went, because the system wasn't even auditable. How do you know what kind of a job you are doing when a system is too complicated to even be understood by the average person. And moreover, why should it be so complicated?

"The only constant among them is that they provide services to property within a geographic area. Property taxes are the fairest way to fund such services. " Why would you say that? What if I am making huge profits (and generating huge requirements for government services) with very little rel estate, or a small storefront with a HUGE virtual business, for that matter? I am not necessarily opposed to property taxes, but I don't really understand why you consider them superior to other taxes. And I have no idea why you don't think the public would be served by a less arcane system.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 07, 2000.

to dbvz: You write: "I prefer the legislative process because it more easilly allows all points of view to be accomodated as much as is reasonably possible....It is still my opinion that the initiative process has the potential to produce some monumental errors in public decision making."

I disagree with you. The initiative process does not preclude the legislative process from doing all the good things you claim it can do. In fact, the initiative process helps the legislature to set priorities.

The legislature is free to fine-tune an initiative. So, there's no excuse for "monumental errors" as a result of the initiative process. Any "monumental errors" can be easily corrected by our wise legislators who "accommodate all points of view as much as is reasonably possible".

Tim Eyman & company have brought to the forefront some important priorities: 1) lowering the rate of increase of taxes; 2) making the government more accountable by, in effect, forcing the government to get voter approval for tax increases and; 3) forcing the government to prioritize its transportation dollars by focusing on the most cost-effective methods.

I may not agree with Eyman & Co.'s solutions. But, I sure as hell agree with their priorities.

Lower taxes and attack congestion. Works for me.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 07, 2000.

Matt wrote, "I may not agree with Eyman & Co.'s solutions. But, I sure as hell agree with their priorities."

The issue in an initiative IS the proposed solution. If passed and ruled constitutional, it becomes the law in this state. So far Eyeman's proposals have all been monumental errors, and it is fortunate his group has been inept enough to write in constitutional problems that will continue to prevent them from becoming law. My point was that the Constitution is a valuable safeguard, and that initiatives are often errors that could not get passed through the debate of the legislative process. In some cases the errors are easilly identified, and the initiative is defeated or does not get enough signatures. In some cases the title sounds good, and we get a bad law. Rarely an initiative may actually pass good law, that does not need to be fixed at the first opportunity.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 07, 2000.

"that initiatives are often errors that could not get passed through the debate of the legislative process."
Oh yeah, we never see legislative passed laws that are thrown out as unconstitutional.

By the way, think we'll have an open primary this year?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), July 07, 2000.

Mark,

I didn't say the legislative process didn't make mistakes, but only that by its nature it eliminates more of them than the initiative process does.

On the primary, I understand the intent is to wait until the legislature meets in 2001 to make any changes so they can define the rules. I actually agree with the court decision, but it may be a little late in the season to resolve how that should be done. Proceeding as we have done it in the past opens up the prospect of the result being challenged here, however. I don't know how a challenge could be resolved between September and November.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 10, 2000.

"I don't know how a challenge could be resolved between September and November. "

What absurd hypocrisy!

You rail against initiatives that you believe to be unconstitutional while touting the advantages of representative governance.

You then acknowledge that our elected representatives have created an unconstitutional situation, but see no way that this can be corrected by these oh-so professional representatives before the primary?

What a crock!

What happens if we go through all the expense of a primary and general election, and then the election is invalidated by the complaint of some minor player that was eliminated in the primary, and we get to go through two elections again?

Weren't you the one who previously complained that I-695 would cost us too much money for extra elections?

Time for the governor to show a little leadership, explain to the party leaders (who never much cared for open primaries anywhere) that they need to have a working lunch to put something together, then he calls everyone back in for a special session next Sunday after church to vote for it.

That would seem the responsible thing to do, if you don't want to place every elected position in doubt in November. Unless you don't think elected officials are all that important, that is..............

Mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 10, 2000.

Here again we see the inate superiority of highly skilled elected officials futzing all over the place because they don't know what to do without p***ing off special interest groups that they are in bed with.

Northwest Briefing

Monday, July 10, 2000

SEATTLE

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Public will weigh in on Patient's Bill of Rights The public will get a chance today to tell state officials what they think of the rules that will help govern the relationship between consumers and their health-insurance carriers. The hearing on the rules to implement the Patient's Bill of Rights will begin at 9 a.m. in the Fidalgo Room at the Seattle Center.

The rules will cover such issues as how much information about a patient's treatment health insurance carriers really need to know, what reasonable limits insurance companies can set when patients want to select their own health care providers, and ways carriers can streamline grievance procedures.

SEATTLE

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

$10 drug deal may have led to killing of man An argument over $10 worth of crack cocaine allegedly prompted a Tacoma drug dealer to shoot and kill another man. That was the contention of King County prosecutors who Friday filed findings of probable cause that Leonard S. Underwood, 31, shot and killed 45-year-old James W. Heard Jr.

Underwood is to be arraigned on charges of second-degree murder tomorrow. He was ordered held in lieu of $500,000 bail.

Although the homicide occurred in Tacoma, the case is being charged in King County Superior Court because Heard's body was discovered near Enumclaw.

A motorist found Heard's remains July 2 on state Route 410. An autopsy revealed he had been shot four times.

According to documents filed in court, a witness reported seeing Underwood shoot and kill Heard following a drug deal that went sour on June 26.

The witness told detectives that Heard had hoped to buy $10 worth of crack, but did not like the amount Underwood offered for the price.

When Heard tried to leave, Underwood shot him, the witness said.

Police set up a surveillance of Underwood's home and eventually were able to arrest him.

Investigators have found traces of blood in the trunk of Underwood's car and ammunition in the man's home that matches the bullets that killed Heard, prosecutors said.

WOODWAY

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Woman is hit by train as she walks her dog A train struck a woman who was walking her dog yesterday along the tracks in Woodway, near Edmonds. Edmonds police officer Jim Lawless said the woman apparently attempted to call her German shepherd as a Burlington Northern freight train approached at about 6:15 p.m.

When the woman tried to pull the dog from the tracks, she was struck by the train's guardrail. Her injuries were not life-threatening, he said.

The woman, who was in her mid-20s, was taken to Stevens Hospital. The dog was taken to a veterinarian.

KENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Teen gets year in jail for beating of teacher A teenager has been sentenced to a year in jail for his role in a beating that left a substitute gym teacher with fractured facial bones that required surgical repair. William Joseph Clark, 18, was sentenced Friday by King County Superior Court Judge Philip Hubbard Jr. Clark had pleaded guilty earlier to second-degree and fourth-degree assault in the attack on Gerald George, 57, a retired Renton High School teacher and wrestling coach.

George, who is still recovering from his injuries, submitted a written statement to the court saying he hopes Clark "can turn his life around."

"I apologize. It was a mistake," said Clark, who has a 1998 conviction for fourth-degree assault.

Another teen accused in the attack, 16-year-old Kurtis Boycan, has pleaded guilty to second-degree assault. He faces up to a year in detention at sentencing Thursday. Boycan also has apologized.

SEATTLE

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Council to hold hearing on monorail proposals Seattle City Council members, already inundated with telephone calls and e-mails over the monorail, will hold a public hearing on the subject July 27. Several proposals are working through the council, from repealing voter-approved Initiative 41, which called for a city study to build a monorail system, to sinking $5 million more into the study.

The hearing will begin at 6 p.m. in the City Council chambers, 11th floor of the Municipal Building, at 600 Fourth Ave.

-- (MARK842@HOTMAIL.COM), July 10, 2000.

Sorry, only meant to post that last item about the monorail.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 10, 2000.

Mark,

See, "Will the primary election results be thrown out?"

If Locke can get the Legislature to make the necessary changes in state law, great. I believe that is unlikely. As I understand it, our Washington process was NOT ruled unconstitutional by any court. Until it is, or the law is changed, Ralph Munro has no choice but to follow existing Washington law.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 10, 2000.