RSSEyman outlines latest initiative to council
I-1033 a ‘reaction to unsustainable growth’ in spendingYakima Herald-Republic
E-mail
Print
Comments
More 'Local'
- New concept and new look planned for State Fair Park
- Volunteer judges offer to ease backlog of civil court cases
- Hitchhiker? DNA leads to husband
- Home custody escapee back in jail
- Mabton mayor pushes to hire Selah ex-police chief
- Account to benefit Dale Carpenter
- Sunnyside hires firm to find new manager
YAKIMA, Wash. -- As promised, Yakima City Council took no position after hearing Tim Eyman outline his latest tax-cutting measure Tuesday evening.
In fact, council members hardly said a word during his presentation.
That was in sharp contrast to Yakima County commis-sioners, who expressed deep reservations after hearing Eyman outline his Initiative 1033 earlier in the day.
Commissioner Mike Leita called it a "simplistic approach" to limit revenues without considering rising expenses that local governments can't control.
Commissioner Rand Elliott said the initiative penalized local governments for the state's reckless spending.
While Yakima County has been conservative in its spending, it would bear the greatest brunt from I-1033, he said.
The measure, which goes before voters in November, pegs increases in tax revenues to the rate of inflation plus population growth.
He said I-1033 is basically an improved version of I-601, which he said has been mostly gutted by lawmakers in recent years.
Commissioners said capping revenue growth to inflation and population growth would likely mean cuts in services. Because of sagging sales tax revenues, Yakima County already faces a potential budget deficit of more than $3 million.
Commissioners warn they might have to cut law enforcement, courts and other law and justice and public safety programs, which account for 80 percent of the county's general fund.
Yakima County would have lost nearly $15 million had the measure been in effect since 2002, according to commissioners.
Eyman responded the projection assumes commissioners wouldn't have changed anything during those years.
"The idea is to change behavior," he said.
But commissioners remain skeptical, urging voters to be well-informed.
In other action Tuesday, the City Council adopted an ethics code.
The new code, an offshoot of the open-meetings controversy that rocked City Hall earlier this year, lays out a total of eight do's and don'ts. Violating the state open-meetings law is not one of them.
In a move that could be unique in the state, the council wants to screen ethics complaints in executive session. Penalties for substantiated complaints range from reprimands to possible criminal charges.
"Knowingly false" or harassing complaints could be subject to criminal prosecution.
The vote for adoption of the code was 7-0.
I attended the meeting - Mr. Zais indicated to the Council that without State level spending control, I-1033 will result in funding deficits that will impact basic services. He also indicated that labor was the City's greatest expense (as it is with most entities) - seeming to place the blame for out-of-control spending on State and Union policies and regulations. He then stated something that both Tim Eyman and I agreed was one of the most discouraging and basic problems with any type of reform: "we can't do anything about what the State (government) does".
The other thing of note at the Council Meeting was a presentation on a development debacle near 40th and Summitview that has been ongoing since 2003 - something the City has been involved in on some level for a while. When the development office officials were asked specific questions by Councilers regarding the issue - questions that were the result of information they had presented to the Council, they didn't seem to have the specifics and needed to do more research and report back. That seemed interesting to me - I mean, if you're going to present a certain number of recommendations to the Council, shouldn't you be prepared to answer specific questions about those recommendations? How much do these guys get paid? No offense to anybody, but it seemed rather sloppy to me.
Oh, and one last item - Mayor Edler w/ the support of Micah Cawley brought up the issue of panhandlers and his view that they give a bad impression of the City - he wanted to know if there was any resource to get them off the street. He was informed that if there is agressive or harrassing behavior, it is illegal, otherwise not. My thought was - do we want to spend limited law enforcement resources on this issue?
What this article leaves out is that I-1033 allows the voters to raise taxes if they feel it is needed. That is the way government is supposed to work. The people get to decide, instead of the government imposing higher taxes and fees at will.
Report ViolationYes, and how often do you think people will vote to raise taxes even when public education and safety are at risk? This is a loser initiative because it doesn't address the real problem, out of control spending and redundant, wasteful regulations. One look no further than a similar piece of legislation passed in Colorado to see the failure of such an initiative. As soon as the City is forced into a position of reducing services - for instance, no human being to answer the phones in the various departments, the community will be up in arms - we are mostly to blame for the costs associated with running government because we have become a society that requires continuous instant gratification - until we change this need, there will be no constructive change. What this initiative will do is cost the property owners more in the long run to undo the gutting of our basic services.
Report ViolationYakRob,
"Yes, and how often do you think people will vote to raise taxes even when public education and safety are at risk?"
In other words, the voters are too stupid to know what's best for them, so we need government bureaucrats to determine how much of our income we get to keep. Typical liberal condescension.
Yes, there are some voters who can't/won't think for themselves. These are people who need to start reading, learning and getting informed. History repeating itself. Eyman and car tab fees. I did not vote for that initiative as I knew how the state would respond. If the state can't get your money one way, they will get it another way. I was paying $23.00 for my vehicle. I now pay $55.00 plus.
"...urging voters to be well-informed."
DON'T LET OTHER PEOPLE THINK FOR YOU, THINK FOR YOURSELF!
kat,
So the reason you didn't vote for the car tab initiative is because you knew politicians would ignore the will of the people and steal our money through other methods. That is exactly why we need I-1033. The politicians have no restraint and no respect for the tax payers' wallets, so this is an attempt to empower the tax payers. I have no doubt that the politicians will try to circumvent this law as well, but does that mean we should just roll over and hand them our wallets?
sjuan,
No, don't hand the politicians our wallets. Hand them their walking papers when they run for reelection. We need to start cleaning house. For example, how many years was Kennedy a senator? He had the backing of his family money and the backing of the old rich. When will we vote these rich pos's out of office and put in people who will listen to us? I know, I know, money talks. But, some how we need to change the system. We have to start some where.
sjuan is exactly right. I-1033 prevents them from raising taxes or fees without a vote of the people. They got around voters' twice-approved $30 tabs by raising taxes and fees someplace else. I-1033 prevents that.
I-1033 renews the growth limit of I-601, approved by voters in 1993, and that worked well for 12 years, then Gregoire and the D's got rid of it in 2005. The result? a $9 billion deficit inflicted on the state BECAUSE THEY PROVED WITHOUT A LIMIT ON GROWTH, THEY WILL ALWAYS ADOPT UNSUSTAINABLE BUDGETS AND PUSH FOR HIGHER TAXES.
As for Colorado, here's what was included in our information to the council:
Opponents of I-1033 want higher taxes and a state income tax – they oppose ANY limit on government’s power to take as much as they want – here’s several of their false assertions:
Opponents claim: “I-1033 is just like Colorado’s TABOR amendment.” Not true. Colorado voters approved the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in 1992 – Washington voters approved I-601 in 1993. They’re very different. TABOR was a constitutional amendment -- it couldn’t be amended by the Legislature; I-1033, like I-601, is a law, providing the Legislature with flexibility to change it. TABOR encompassed every government – school districts, library districts, fire districts, etc. I-1033 focuses only on the state, counties and cities. TABOR put a limit on every governmental account and every tax dollar received, including transportation funds, pension funds, capital budgets, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance funds, federal funds, etc. I-1033, like I-601, only addresses the general fund. TABOR didn’t allow rainy day funds. I-1033, like I-601, gives ‘first bite’ of excess tax revenues to the rainy day fund. TABOR didn’t exclude federal funds; I-1033 explicitly does. TABOR was very, very broad and inflexible – I-1033 is very focused with plenty of flexibility.
...
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Eyman gets my vote every time.
The initiative process is the only thing on the horizon that may limit government from taking EVERYTHING you can't hide or bury. It is hard to believe that liberals posting here can be so morally corrupt and contemptuous of the "will of the people" as to advocate for unlimited government taxation.
I wonder at the sanity of a population that despises freedom this much.
And yes, Mr. sensitive, let's get those drug addicts off the street. This city supports missions that can cater to any genuine emergency needs these "people" may have.
Someone at the council meeting last night, I can't remember if it was Dick Zais, but I think so, that property taxes have raised an average of 2% over the last, I can't remember how long - how does that compare to the increase in inflation and the amount you pay for other services, I wonder. I will say this again, the big problem with this initiative is that it does not nothing to control spending. Tim says it is designed to encourage government to curb out-of-control spending, but the response was that what the State mandates is out of the City's hands - they can't do anything about it. Does that sound encouraging? Did I 601 work in the long run? My opinion is that this is the wrong approach to spending control. Why not concentrate on eliminating redundant programs and poor management, steamlining operations and develop and implement efficiency standards? Why not independent audits of all departments within government with a mandate that findings of correction be implemented immediately. Did anyone read about the King County audit finding that indicates Metro Transit could save a possible $24 million with some schedule changes. How hard is that? I know - it may be have an expensive initial price tag to audit all governmental departments and implement changes, but in the long run? Isn't this a more practical solution that could possibly save us far more then I 1033 ever will?
Report ViolationI'm going to bed now - my written grammar sucks. Sorry - I hope the last post made some sense when you put in the missing words - if you can guess what they were, are??. Good night.
Report Violationto: YakRob (and anyone 'listening in')
none of your ideas are bad -- maybe you can push legislators to do those things, do your own initiative to do those things, or ...
but your ideas don't preclude the people from bringing back a proven successful policy mandated by I-601, approved by voters in 1993, and in effect for 12 years -- limiting the growth of government to the inflation rate and population growth, just like I-1033 does. I-601 worked for many years. But when Gregoire and the Democrats in 2005 got rid of that inflation/population limit, they went hog wild and created unsustainable government growth that predictably led to a $9 billion deficit. without I-601's reasonable cap, they were like kids at a Toys R Us - they wanted it all and couldn't control themselves.
they need the fiscal discipline of I-601 to ensure sustainable growth and to get off the fiscal roller coaster.
I-601 worked, it can work again with the voters approval of I-1033 in November.
and let's not forget, I-1033 also provides meaningful property tax relief. property taxes have been a growing, HUGE problem for years and yet politicians at the state, county and city level HAVE DONE NOTHING.
Now with I-1033 on the ballot, none of them are providing an alternative. zip, zero, nada.
the trump card for I-1033 is that OPPONENTS HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE. They don't have an alternative way to lower property taxes -- they're saying Washington's out-of-control property taxes are fine 'as is'. They don't have an alternative way to control the growth of government -- they oppose ANY limits on government's growth. They don't have an alternative way to deter tax increases -- opponents say 'trust the politicians', despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents actually say that taxpayers are UNDERTAXED -- opponents believe in higher taxes and desperately want a state income tax.
315,000 citizens signed on to I-1033 because it lowers property taxes, it controls the growth of government, and it stops politicians from unilaterally raising taxes and fees. And most importantly, I-1033 puts citizens in control -- under I-1033, it's the people, and not the politicians, who will decide how big the government should be and how big a tax burden we can afford. And really, that's the biggest reason opponents are freaking out about I-1033 -- special interest groups can bully politicians, but they know they can't push the people around.
Tim. Was my statement regarding the average rate of property tax increase (2%) acurate? How does that compare to the average rate of inflation and the average rate of increase in other services like electricity, gas, oil, food, healthcare, etc.? How much will it cost to implement I-1033? And, when you say that the most important thing this initiative does is give control back to the citizens, which citizens are you talking about? If this initiative benefits anyone, it benefits the property owners, but what percentage of our electorate are property owners? Will renters see a decrease in their payments? These are some of the questions I, as a voter, would like answered before I support this initiative - I don't like high property taxes, I don't like people being driven out of their home because they can't keep up, but convince me this is really going to help those individuals. You also claim that I 601 worked well - do you have statistics to support that conclusion? Did it really save the taxpayers money in the larger scheme of State government economics? In what way?
Report ViolationAlso, aren't property taxes based on assessed property value? How does this intitiative address the basis for valuation? Who controls that? With that in mind, is it possible that some property owners who are struggling with their taxes, doing so because they are in a living situation that is outside their means? Isn't that a personal choice and, consequently, a personal responsibility?
Report ViolationOne last thing - as a property owner, the largest increase that I have seen in my property taxes during the last four years was the result of an approved levy to support our local schools - in your initiative, you are clear that if local governments do not feel they are receiving enough revenue they can ask the voters for more money - isn't that suggesting the very thing that raises my taxes the most? Why not concentrate on getting the State to support public education at a sustainable level via a State Income tax or increased sales tax so that my property taxes will decrease and everyone helps pay for public education, not just property owners?
Report Violationto: YakRob
You're opposed to I-1033 and will vote against it -- that's fine, it's your right to do so. All the questions you ask (about us convincing you to support I-1033) are not real -- you're against it and again, that's fine.
everyone pays property taxes. renters pay their landlord's property taxes, everyone pays the property taxes of businesses they frequent, and yes, homeowners pay property taxes. everyone will benefit from reducing the property tax burden in Washington state. Property taxes have been getting more and more out-of-control and no one in government will do anything about it. I-1033 substantially lowers property taxes, not by slashing government revenues, but simply by controlling the GROWTH. this has the added benefit of preventing politicians from unilaterally raising taxes and fees (only voter-approved taxes and fees are exempt from I-1033's limit) and it encourages politicians to use existing revenue more effectively because they can no longer view taxpayers as an automatic ATM machine.
If history is any guide, a very large majority of Yakima's voters will vote 'yes' on I-1033. so that means you're beliefs have merit, they just aren't shared by most of the people in your community.
Nice Tim. The minute someone has you on the ropes you refuse to answer the questions.
Go back to the drawing board this initiative is a big loser.
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?
