From the South County Journal

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/31424

Our View: Initiative 722 a hodgepodge of unsound ideas 2000-10-12

There are so many things wrong with Initiative 722, it's difficult to know where to begin. Under the guise of property tax relief, the measure offers several changes to existing law -- some of which would create inequity in our tax rolls and others that are constitutionally questionable.

I-722 has been dubbed ``Son of 695'' after the successful initiative that prompted the Legislature to reduce the vehicle license fee and, if courts uphold it, require a public vote on all tax increases. Like 695, this initiative attempts to do too much. That, by itself, makes it open to serious legal challenge. Worse, it seeks to end Washington's uniform property-tax system. That progressive policy, in place since Washington's statehood, has protected all property owners from government favoritism in taxation.

Let's review the promises and flaws of I-722's many provisions:

I-722 would repeal tax increases made without voter approval in the last half of 1999. We were among those criticizing local governments for passing tax increases late last year in an obvious attempt to raise more revenue before 695's restrictions took effect. But the proper way to deal with that is at the local level, through elections or other means of redress. I-722 would have state voters revoke decisions made by our locally elected officials. That's an alarming usurpation of local decision-making authority.

I-722 would exempt vehicles from property taxes. The Legislature already has done this, making this part of the initiative unnecessary.

I-722 would limit the assessed value of property to a maximum of 2 percent per year. This is the measure's most flawed provision. It mandates that government, not the free market, establish the true value of property. In other words, county assessors would be required to ignore the reality of the real estate market.

Limiting the increase in a property's value would provide a huge tax break for owners of more expensive homes. The value of their property has been rising at a rate much higher than most because of market demand for waterfronts, view lots, gated communities and homes with abundant square footage. As their property values have increased faster than most, so have their property taxes. That's a reasonable and just result.

I-722 would interfere with this balancing mechanism by assessing all property at the same low annual rate of increase. Owners of more expensive property would end up paying less than they would under the current system, effectively shifting the tax burden to middle-class and low-income property owners. Eventually, this disparity would create two classes of real estate taxation: one for the rich, another for everyone else. This is precisely what Article 7 of our state Constitution prohibits.

I-722 would also amend current law to lower the limit on local tax levies and prevent local governments from recapturing unused levy capacity. This provision changes restrictions voters already placed on local government under 1997's Referendum 47. That measure limited the total amount of property taxes local governments could raise without a vote of the people. It also alleviated huge spikes in assessed values by phasing in large increases over several years.

Referendum 47 provided a reasonable check on property taxes while respecting the constitutional requirement that all property be treated the same for taxing purposes. Unlike I-722, it did not discriminate against some taxpayers in favor of others.

Washington residents deserve property tax relief. But it must be accomplished through legislation that respects our state Constitution, protects the decisions of local voters and treats all taxpayers equitably. I-722 meets none of those requirements.

The South County Journal urges voters to reject Initiative 722.

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