Copyright ) 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Editorials & Opinion : Monday, October 16, 2000

Editorial Endorsement: No on I-722

Initiative 722, Tim Eyman's "Son of 695," plugs two holes in the tax-limitation regime imposed by his Initiative 695. The earlier measure rolled back the state's license-tab fee to $30 and required that all state and local fee and tax increases after Dec. 31, 1999, be approved by voters.

I-722 rolls back the increases imposed in the six months before 695 was to take effect. It also limits each property's taxable value to a 2 percent increase per year, and each jurisdiction's aggregate property-tax increase to 2 percent per year. Combined with the limits in I-695 on property tax rates, that effectively caps the property tax.

The first question is whether state government should be put in a corset as tight as this. Three other initiatives - on class size, school pay and roads - mandate billions more in state spending. Voters should at least be consistent, and not vote for them if they vote for this.

The second question is whether it's fair that property assessments should be fixed indefinitely to 1999 values. All properties do not appreciate, and those that do, do not appreciate at the same rate. To tax the old value but not the new value becomes less and less tenable each year.

The third question concerns I-722 as a fix for I-695. The question is whether I-695 will ever go into effect. Judge Robert Alsdorf of the King County Superior Court has already declared it unconstitutional. The matter is now before the Washington State Supreme Court. If that court upholds Alsdorf's ruling, I-722 makes little sense; it merely caps one kind of tax while leaving the others free to rise.

The fourth question is whether I-722 is constitutional. If 695 isn't, 722 may not be, either.

Eyman's answer is to swallow all these worries and vote yes, because it would kick the Legislature in the pants. It would do that. Unfortunately, it would also cause expensive and unnecessary confusion, which voters could prudently avoid by voting no.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000

Answers

"Unfortunately, it would also cause expensive and unnecessary confusion, which voters could prudently avoid by voting no. "

Gee BB, I think I'll take that risk. In a year that the Republican Presidential candidate is competitive in Washington State, I think the chances of 722 passing are EXCELLENT.

And when the bureaucrats and political elite attack it in the courts, the schism between the common people (read that VOTERS) and the self- anointed grows even greater, spawning............You guessed it, more and more citizen's initatives.

Your unwillingness to see the writing on the wall, just means that you are getting i deeper and deeper (to mix a metaphor or two).

Personally, I'm loving it!


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

>>Gee BB, I think I'll take that risk. In a year that the Republican Presidential candidate is competitive in Washington State, I think the chances of 722 passing are EXCELLENT.<<

I've never said that I don't think 722 will pass. Whether it passes or not is irrelevant, because it will never become law.

>>And when the bureaucrats and political elite attack it in the courts<<

The only reason legislation is attacked in the courts is when there's a chance that it's unconstitutional. If the people that drafted 722 had half a clue about what they were doing, there would be no need for it to be challenged. It's not "the bureaucrats and the political elite's" fault that 722 is poorly written and conflicts with the state constitution; it's the fault of the drafters of 722.

>>the schism between the common people (read that VOTERS) and the self- anointed grows even greater, spawning............You guessed it, more and more citizen's initatives.<<

And if they continue to be as poorly written as 695 and 722, they'll continue to be thrown out.

Regarding this "schism": If people spent half as much energy getting involved in their government, both state and local, as they do getting riled up over initiatives like 695 and 722, there would be no need for initiatives like 695 and 722. The problem is that people refuse to take the time to get involved and then complain that their voice is not heard.

Every time I've been to the monthly meeting of my fire district, or hospital district, or water district, the commissioners are generally shocked to see a member of the public. The number of people who actually attend such meetings in a year can usually be counted on two hands. If this is the level of involvement people have with their government (and I have no doubt it is all over this state), they have absolutely no right to complain about its course of action.

It's not government's fault when the public refuses to get involved and then complains about the result of their refusal to get involved.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

"And if they continue to be as poorly written as 695 and 722, they'll continue to be thrown out. " And if the legislaators then say, "Oh shit oh dear, the voters are upset, let's do something about contriolling property taxes" like they did for 695, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COURT RULING, we'll still be winning!

"The problem is that people refuse to take the time to get involved and then complain that their voice is not heard. " Oh yes, the bureaucrats perennial retort when people DO become politically involved where they have a chance to exercise real power, "Well why didn't you come to this meeting that we scheduled at our convenience where, if we decided to be charitable, we could have let you talk to object to the decisions we had already decided to make for our own political purposes?"

Keep whining, BB, I enjoy hearing it!


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

>>And if the legislaators then say, "Oh shit oh dear, the voters are upset, let's do something about contriolling property taxes" like they did for 695, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COURT RULING, we'll still be winning!<<

Guess what: there are already a number of sensible laws controlling the growth of property taxes on the books, such as R-47, the 106% rule, etc. 35% of the average property tax bill in this state comes from non-permanent voter approved tax measures. If people really wanted to control property taxes, they wouldn't vote for so many tax measures that increase their taxes.

>>Oh yes, the bureaucrats perennial retort when people DO become politically involved where they have a chance to exercise real power, "Well why didn't you come to this meeting that we scheduled at our convenience where, if we decided to be charitable, we could have let you talk to object to the decisions we had already decided to make for our own political purposes?"<<

This is the typical excuse for people who are too lazy to get involved in the political process to get their point across, and then just sit back and complain about the way things go anyway. You've clearly never actually been to one of the meetings which you speak of, because if you had, you'd know that your description of things is totally inaccurate.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

to BB: You write:

"Regarding this "schism": If people spent half as much energy getting involved in their government, both state and local, as they do getting riled up over initiatives like 695 and 722, there would be no need for initiatives like 695 and 722. The problem is that people refuse to take the time to get involved and then complain that their voice is not heard.

Every time I've been to the monthly meeting of my fire district, or hospital district, or water district, the commissioners are generally shocked to see a member of the public. The number of people who actually attend such meetings in a year can usually be counted on two hands. If this is the level of involvement people have with their government (and I have no doubt it is all over this state), they have absolutely no right to complain about its course of action.

It's not government's fault when the public refuses to get involved and then complains about the result of their refusal to get involved."

I'm sorry, BB, but you are incorrect. I've attended several meetings dealing with transportation issues. Meetings held by the Department Of Transportation (DOT); the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation; the Puget Sound Resource Council. I've also e-mailed Pierce Transit and Sound Transit on suggestions for improving the value of their services. I've also e-mailed and phoned the DOT on issues regarding the HOV lanes. I've even spoken with an HOV engineer (did you know there was such a job), but he represented Pierce County (where there are no HOV lanes!), assuring me he would pass the word to the King County rep.

I can tell you that all my efforts have resulted in nothing. Not a single, modest modification by our supposed servants and representatives. In fact, there was even an advisory vote on the Narrows Bridge. And, even though an overwhelming majority of the people who will ACTUALL PAY THE TOLL rejected the proposal, the DOT made no effort to mitigate the harsh economic consequences of their plan. As a result, the City of Gig Harbor is appealing the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Ironically, the City of Gig Harbor is the only agency which acted upon the inputs of its citizens, and they allowed me to speak, even though I live just outside the city limits!!!

Over and over, at the different meetings, people expressed outrage at the state forcing people to pay a toll for the MAINTENANCE of EXISTING bridges and roadways. Yet, the state appears hell-bent on pursuing the policy, even though the people who use the roadways are oppose it. As a result, the hardworking activists at Citizens Against Tolls are collecting signatures for an initiative to stop the state from abusing its coervice powers.

It is flat-out wrong for the state to charge a toll for the maintenance of an existing free roadway, especially when there is no practical alternative to use of the tolled roadway.

I have personally witnessed all the proof I need, showing the government to be predatory, corrupt, and cancerous entity.

Please vote for I-722 and I-745, sending a positive message on behalf of freedom and personal responsibility.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 20, 2000.

"Guess what: there are already a number of sensible laws controlling the growth of property taxes on the books, such as R-47, the 106% rule, etc. "
That's great and with 722 there'll be one more! "This is the typical excuse for people who are too lazy to get involved in the political process to get their point across, and then just sit back and complain about the way things go anyway. "

Complain? We aren't complaining. We are exercising our constitutional right of initiative to bypass your stacked bureaucratic deck and give the priority to the people rather than the self-anointed. I could as easily say that defending the stacked deck of most meetings is the typical excuse for self-anointed Mandarins who are too lazy to get their point across to the people (or who can't admit that their opinion has been BOUGHT by the special interest group) and then just sit back and complain when the serfs come up with an initiative.

Hell, they are lucky it's just an initiative people come up with, and not a guillotine the way they used to overthrow aristocracies.

Lets see, how did that go.....?

Allons enfants de la patrie, la jour de glorie, est arrive'........


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 20, 2000.