With but a 5-4 majority, the state high court effectively rewrote a section of the state Constitution yesterday: Article I, Section 16
Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is publicMajority opinion in Sound Transit v. Miller lines 7 - 12:
Whether condemnation is necessary is a legislative judgment. Courts will overturn that legislative judgment only when the challenger can prove that it is the product of actual fraud, or is arbitrary and capricious enough to constitute constructive fraud, or when the government fails to abide by the clear dictates of the law.Stunning. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 17, 2006 04:23 PM | Email This
Only in Amerika!
Prediction: in the I-776 case that is up there now, ST will "lose." But that loss is really nothing because ST was given the big win in the Sheehan case last nov. That win let ST keep several years of the car tab tax it already collected. That ruling was totally BS, and what the judges are planning on doing now is using the second I-776 case to make a big show of "standing up for the voters." It is a total crock because it will allow ST to keep collecting the tax (at least for a while), whereas the vehicle owners in Sheehan should have prevailed which would have meant refunds and immediate cessation of the tax.
Here is a thread about the Sheehan case, posted in a frigging nest of ST supporters (the P-I's Local Transit forum).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=74290
That forum is almost totally populated by huge supporters and financial beneficiaries of ST, and none of those sycophants will touch that thread with a ten foot pole. It is radioactive to them.
Anyone who has any interest in illegal taxes by local governments in Washington should post questions or comments there. Asking good legal questions is highly recommended!
Posted by: oswald on February 17, 2006 05:23 PMI got my whopping new property tax bill today...
And Ron Sims took 60% of my property to boot!
Did anyone else notice the massive increase?
We get to vote in November and I say throw the bums out!
Posted by: GS on February 17, 2006 06:43 PMNotice of the proposed condemnation isn't even close to being constitutionally sufficient.
Posted by: don on February 17, 2006 07:40 PMThat is pretty scary. They have just made a law that puts themselves above the peoples elected officials.
Posted by: April Coggins on February 17, 2006 08:47 PMThe people should directly elect the board. The board could then be held responsible for its actions and kicked out of office when they overstep their bounds (and they will).
Posted by: Mike S on February 17, 2006 09:04 PMContrast this with the much-publicised Kelo decision last year, in which the US Supreme Court stated that it lacked the authority to second-guess local governments' determination of what constitutes the public good. In that ruling, the Court stated that individual States could enact tigher restrictions on eminent domain through their Constitutions and statutes. Washington State chose to do exactly that in its Constitution. Unfortunately, it appears the State Supreme Court has chosen to ignore it.
Definitely stunning.
Posted by: Patrick on February 17, 2006 09:44 PMIMO defeating Justice Owens in the coming general election is now one of the most important races this year. The one small bright spot in this huge move to the dark side by the Supremes, is that this travesty was a 5-4 decision. If we can just get ONE more justice on the bench like Justice Jim Johnson, it could make a huge difference.
I was tremendously impressed with Justice J. Johnson when he spoke to us at Farm Bureau Legislative Days back on 8 February this year. If we have any hope of reforming the current leftist (bare) majority on the Supreme Court, it will be to find and support more jurists like him....
Article 1 Section 29:
SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY.
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
I guess this new ruling "constitutes" "express words ..declaring otherwise..."
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 17, 2006 09:54 PMJustice Fairhurst comes from a large, loving family which places great value on fairness, service and the dignity of every man, woman and child. She is dedicated to insuring that our legal system treats people fairly, equally and protects everyone's basic rights.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=Fairhurst
Yeah She is Dedicated to protecting KENNETH R MILLER's basic rights. Yeah!
The state constitution says (emphasis added, so you might notice the important word): "...the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public...."
Did you see the word "public"?
Now, look at what the court's opinion said (once again, emphasis added so you might see the important word): "To do so, Sound Transit must establish, among other things, that the condemnation is necessary. Whether condemnation is necessary is a legislative judgment. Courts will overturn that legislative judgment only when the challenger can prove that it is the product of actual fraud, or is arbitrary and capricious...."
"Public" and "necessary" express two totally different concepts.
Your criticism of the court on this point appears to completely erroneous.
Posted by: Micajah on February 17, 2006 10:16 PMJeeze what a bunch of maroons!
Posted by: JCM on February 18, 2006 09:03 AMAs for ED in general it is a vital power of government that must be protected. While it is unfortunate that some people lose there home or business the benefit to the community is often greater. Remember that people effected by ED are justly compensated. While there should be checks on abuse, notably though the public requirement and the fact that legislators and local officials must stand for reelection, the right should always exist. Without it we would have no road system, no utilities, no public facilities, or any public transit system. On land owner could require a road to be diverted around them at tremendous cost or could even derail a project that is vital to the economy of a region.
Posted by: Giffy on February 18, 2006 10:05 AMED has been used for DECADES, and is used -- from the perspective of a public agency building transportation infrastructure -- when the negotiation for compensation of property breaks down. Compensation still has to occur, and the usual situation is that the parties throw it into the lap of a third party to determine the fair value of the taking. The thing that sometimes really hacks off the owner is that the agency MAY request immediate possession of the property if there is a timing issue related to the construction of the improvements.
Now, that doesn't mean that the Courts can't jump in. This ruling preserves the ability for an aggrieved owner to argue malfeasance, arbitrary and capricious actions, but the decision about the necessity for going to ED -- after the aforementioned negotiation breaks down -- is left to the people we chose to elect.
Re: public notice. Show of hands... how many reading this make the effort to read -- on a regular basis -- the public notice sections of the local papers or the websites of the various public/quasi-public entities....
Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by: FT on February 18, 2006 10:52 AMWhile you are correct that words matter, in the case of this condemnation the entire purpose of it was based on the concept that it was necessary for public use. The Constitution says that in cases where there is a question of whether or not a particular property siezure is public use that question is one for the judiciary. The court here disagreed--they said explicitly that all that matters is whether or not a public body determines necessity, and if they say the siezure of necessary it is not up to the courts to actually determine if the siezure in the name of "public use" actually was for public use. Essentially, the court said this: "if the legislature says they have eminant domain rights to your property due to the need for that property for some public use, then unless this determination was the product of fraud the question of public use was predetermined and the courts have no jurisdiction on whether the legislative determination of what is necessary for public use actually did constitute public use." In other words, they ruled that they have no oversight and present no check on the legislature in this area where the Constitution clearly reserves that power for them. That is why this is such an outrageous decision. I believe you and Micajah are cutting this far too fine and missing the forest for the semantic trees.
Posted by: Marc on February 18, 2006 11:25 AMAnd, assuming that they are all out to take advantage at every opportunity is paranoia. Of course, one could argue that one citizen's lower compensation is another citizen's prudence with taxpayer funds.
The basis of his dissent is that the property was "condemned ... contrary to requirements of public notice and without Sound Transit proving the public necessity of the condemnation". Justice Alexander wrote a separate dissent on the sole issue of notice, writing that Sound Transit "did not adequately inform affected parties before authorizing condemnation".
Posted by: Bob Edelman on February 18, 2006 11:31 AMI think I live in a pretty safe place that won't be subject to a road or train line, and I'll admit, I NEVER go to the Sound Transit website and look at the meeting notices and agendas.
I don't subscribe to newspapers anymore. I think the notification aspects pointed out by this case are very lacking...
I am disheartened by this ruling because of the way it gives appearance that a supposedly clear check and balance on the legislature is being given away out of "deference".
The Millers may actually lose their land anyway, but the process used must be ABSOLUTELY clear, fair and in compliance with the spirit of the Constitution and law. This ruling is a bad one because it fails that test.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2006 01:01 PMIn the immortal words of Sherman T. Potter, "Horse Hocky."
Justly compensated? When one party holds the ultimate hammer over another party - like condemnation - do you honestly believe they'll negotiate justly? When government dictates the assessment, ie, valuation process? Uh-huh. Suuure.
Government entities are clearly favored in this process. It's "take what we offer, or you get nothing." Compensated? Yes. Justly? Not on your life.
Posted by: jimg on February 18, 2006 01:45 PMThat being said if the government is abusing this right or doing it for nefarious purpose the judiciary can get involved a the majority opinion said. They can also get involved if the determinations were the result of constructive fraud, which includes things like arbitrary decision making.
As for the notice requirement, it does make sense to only directly notify people when a decision has been made. Honestly property owners have almost no say in whether their property will be condemned or not, it is a decision that is made with regard to the project. If advanced notice was given it would just lead to consternation and difficulty for both property owners under consideration and the agency doing the condemnation.
Posted by: Giffy on February 18, 2006 01:59 PMChallenge 2) Show me every the website of every local, regional, or state agency that might be considering taking my property.
Posting something on their website is NOT notification.
Posted by: Michael on February 18, 2006 03:59 PMI'm not even going to bother with the others.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2006 04:32 PMMr. Sharansky puts up a misleading story that makes one think that the Supreme Court of Washington is ignoring the Constitution. He does this only because it serves his political interest. As his post makes clear, he has no knowledge of the law, nor has he even made any attempt to talk to someone that does. If he had, he would not have made such a simple mistake.
What were the questions that the Court addressed in this case? The Court does not hide this, and in fact has a section that makes clear what they are discussing:
II. ISSUES
A. Did Sound Transit adequately notify the community of the meeting
agenda where the necessity for condemning the property would be discussed?
B. Did Miller establish that Sound Transit committed actual or
constructive fraud in determining that there was public necessity for
condemning the Miller property?
Do you see the words “Public Use” anywhere in those questions? No, you do not.
That is because (as Micajah and a few others have pointed out) the Millers were not appealing that issue. If they had raised that issue at all, they were so fully defeated at the trial court that they did not even think to challenge it on appeal. At this point, they have agreed that their property was being taken for a public use.
Note well: This was determined (if it was challenged at all), at the trial court, as the Constitution, Article I, Sec. 16 requires.
So the entire basis of Mr. Sharansky’s post is false.
Will he retract it? Will he update it? A extra section “Sorry, I didn’t got to law school, and I made a big mistake. My bad.”?
Of course not. The truth doesn’t serve his purposes.
Now, understand, you can still disagree with the Court’s opinion, four justices did after all. However, search the dissents, and you will not find a single justice who argues like Mr. Sharansky that giving deference to the government’s determination of necessity has any effect on the courts determination of whether or not a taking is for a public purpose.
In fact, a quick read of the dissents indicates that none of the Justices disagreed with giving the government deference when it comes to determining if an action is “necessary.”
If Mr. Sharansky was at law school, he would be lucky to get a D for his legal reasoning. The only reason he wouldn’t get a F is because he at least showed he read the material. However, everything he says is wrong from a legal perspective.
There is on argument about this. This is as clear as anything gets in law.
So, Mr Sharansky, please so some honesty and post a correction. I would suggest something like “I posted this article without an understanding of the law. I have since been informed that my reasoning is flawed. My statements in this article, and the entire article itself should be disregarded. I regret my error.”
A little honesty would go a long way.
First off, whether or not ST did/did not notify the people was not the question of this post. It was whether ST had the authority to keep collected taxes for a system that was cancelled.
Second , is it for "public use", if the system in question is not going to be built.
Nice try, how about you apologize now.
Just wonderin'.
You are simply confused. Sound Transit is not cancelled, and no one is arguing that. You are thinking about the Monorail (different thing), which has nothing to do with this case.
Whiny Grammar Nazi:
If he wants to be correct, yes.
I would think the truth is more important than two typos and using a man’s real name over his marketing hype.
Hopefully, government would not unnecessarily take land for public use.... :,(
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2006 05:55 PMYou miss Stefan’s point. He expresses disgust and concern about the Supreme Court. It swallowed ST’s thin pretext (“we posted something about the meeting on our website, so, uh, they COULD HAVE seen it).” I’m with Stefan.
Well, good for Sound Transit. It won. It now will give “notice” to condemnees that way when it wants to condemn land.
So lets see if any of you three have talent at legal analysis. Here’s a new opinion:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365MAJ
The court went Sound Transit’s way in that one too. Show us your chops! Go into detail about the Sheehan case. For example, why was the Supreme Court justified in holding the kind of excise tax the legislature intended in the tax grants ST and SMP are relying on is a 1) car tab tax, but not 2) a mileage-based tax? And, is there any good reason the percentage figures in the two statutes could not be applied as lifetime per-vehicle caps, as opposed to annual caps?
You can explain your reasons. If you are wrong, I’ll explain why.
Posted by: marley on February 18, 2006 07:46 PMMaybe you want to do this a different way.
Here are propositions. In Sheehan, the Supreme Court a) lied about what the vehicle owners contend, then struck down those contentions it fabricated in order to dispose of key challenges, b) completely failed to address the key claim in the case – that ST and SMP implemented the wrong kind of excise tax under the two statutory grants they are relying on, and 3) disregarded a series of rules regarding how statutes must be applied by courts in order to avoid forcing refunds.
Can you argue against those propositions?
Posted by: marley on February 19, 2006 08:47 AMYou state: "You miss Stefan’s point. He expresses disgust and concern about the Supreme Court. It swallowed ST’s thin pretext (“we posted something about the meeting on our website, so, uh, they COULD HAVE seen it).” I’m with Stefan. "
Where did Mr. Sharansky make that point? Oh, that is right, he didn't. What he said was:
"With but a 5-4 majority, the state high court effectively rewrote a section of the state Constitution yesterday."
And this was based upon his faulty reasoning that the legislative determination of necessity is related to the judicial determination of public purpose. The Court did not rule on that issue, no one argued that issue, and the case has nothing to do with that issue. Therefore the post is completely false.
No one has even tried to challenge that. If the best you can do is tell me what Mr. Sharansky really means, as oppose to what he actually says, I'm not that impressed.
As to Sheehan, I note that you do not post the dissent, here it is:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365DI1
I post it to point out that 1) Justice Johnson does not agree with you as to a), and that otherwise I would need the briefing to know if you are just making things up like you did with what Mr. Sharansky was really arguing, as above, if the court twisted the issues they claimed, or if they simply twisted the issues and the court set them right (both happen, by the way, although a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder.)
But since you are so charged up on this case, please explain how the majority is wrong. If you simply agree with Justice Johnson, fine, say so. However seven justices disagreed with him, and have explained their reasoning. That is how the system works. But if you have something to add, please feel free. I'm waiting.
Posted by: JDB on February 19, 2006 11:35 AMYou state: "You miss Stefan’s point. He expresses disgust and concern about the Supreme Court. It swallowed ST’s thin pretext (“we posted something about the meeting on our website, so, uh, they COULD HAVE seen it).” I’m with Stefan. "
Where did Mr. Sharansky make that point? Oh, that is right, he didn't. What he said was:
"With but a 5-4 majority, the state high court effectively rewrote a section of the state Constitution yesterday."
And this was based upon his faulty reasoning that the legislative determination of necessity is related to the judicial determination of public purpose. The Court did not rule on that issue, no one argued that issue, and the case has nothing to do with that issue. Therefore the post is completely false.
No one has even tried to challenge that. If the best you can do is tell me what Mr. Sharansky really means, as oppose to what he actually says, I'm not that impressed.
As to Sheehan, I note that you do not post the dissent, here it is:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365DI1
I post it to point out that 1) Justice Johnson does not agree with you as to a), and that otherwise I would need the briefing to know if you are just making things up like you did with what Mr. Sharansky was really arguing, as above, if the court twisted the issues they claimed, or if they simply twisted the issues and the court set them right (both happen, by the way, although a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder.)
But since you are so charged up on this case, please explain how the majority is wrong. If you simply agree with Justice Johnson, fine, say so. However seven justices disagreed with him, and have explained their reasoning. That is how the system works. But if you have something to add, please feel free. I'm waiting.
But on the other hand, in the hands of the right kind of government it could be fun! What's that, you missed the only hearing that was allowed on that EIS? Didn't you see our posting on the website? I know you wanted to prevent that road from being built because of that class 4 ditch but we gave you notice on our chinese language website, didn't you check there? Too bad, the Supremes say they will defer to our definition of necessary taking and we can convey that information in whatever form "we the government" feel is appropriate. Yep paybacks could be sweet under a different State government, we could call it "MILLER TIME".
Posted by: What Notice on February 19, 2006 12:01 PMPrior to making a decision the agency may be considering numerous properties that will not ever be condemned. For example ST had a few routes in mind before they settled on one. Hell at one point you could say that just about every house East of I-5 between Seattle and the airport was under consideration. To require individual notification wood be over burdensome on the agency and cause property owners undue grief. It would also not change a single thing in terms of who gets condemned because the agency does not consider individual circumstances (that would be subjective and open to abuse). Instead they are looking at the best for the project. Also, as the decision gets closer it is highly likely that the agency would seek to inspect the land thereby giving some degree of notice.
According to the record ST sent out a blanket of potential ED notifications to properties which were in the path of the three final route plans they had in the area of the Miller property. Staff made a determination far in advance of the final meeting as to which the route ST should take and the properties that would need to be acquired. I assume these people are not idiots and had made sure they done a title search on the afore mentioned properties so as to serve various other government agencies notice of their intended acquistitions to give notice about use of right-of ways and other technical issues that would certainly arise. Bottom line is ST and it's staff would have been laughed out of court if they were thinking of crossing a fish bearing stream with a bridge, or filling in anything remotely construed as a "sensitive area" in this City, County, State without giving formal notice to any potential stakeholders in the NEWSPAPER OF RECORD for the jurisdiction and giving them a resonable opportunity to attend any public hearing regarding this matter. Taking this persons land makes them a significant stakeholder wouldn't you think? I guess the Supreme Court would have us believe that ST and other government agencies are just to Stupid and Lazy to follow the same laws the rest of us have to abide by and according to their own ruling, they are right.
Posted by: What Notice on February 19, 2006 07:42 PMTwo examples of where the majority in Sheehan puts false words into the mouths of the vehicle owners are set out in the Feb. 15 posting here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=74290
The court then disposes of claims in the case by holding that those two contentions it made up are unreasonable.
The Dec. 31 posting there contains a five page verbatim excerpt from the briefing filed in the Supreme Court. This is part of where the vehicle owners set out their legal arguments regarding their claim that ST and SMP each implemented the wrong kind of excise tax. Any comments you might have about the arguments raised in that excerpt would be welcome!
Do you see any flaws in the arguments that are presented in that excerpt? That entire contention was ignored by the Court so it could go with its bias and give the case to the governments. But maybe you disagree – please explain any problems with the contention that ST and SMP implemented the wrong kind of tax.
The dissenting opinion makes several points. It does not point out the vehicle owners argued a different kind of tax should have been implemented under these grants, it does not point out the majority lied several times about what the vehicle owners contend, and it does not allude to all of the faulty statutory analyses the majority engaged in. It does point out that reading in an unprecedented term of art to a tax grant statute, and then ascribing supposed legislative intent to that term of art, is a stunning break with precedent.
Now, JDB, why don’t you try engaging in a little legal analysis about Sheehan? Is there any reason that a mileage based tax could not have been implemented under either of the statutory tax grants at issue? The majority acknowledges in footnote 3 of the opinion that the vehicle owners contend a mileage-based tax WOULD be authorized.
If your conclusion is that a mileage based tax could have been implemented under either or both of the grants, doesn’t that mean that the vehicle value percentages specified in the two statutes could have been imposed as per-vehicle tax limits, and not annual tax limits?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Posted by: marley on February 20, 2006 08:21 AMThe Supreme Court of Washington's decision is not inconsistent with the Washington State Constitution. The issue in the lawsuit was NOT whether the taking was for public, as opposed to private use. The issue was whether Sound Transit had the authority to condemn for public use, which is an entirely different question.
Next time, read the opinion.
Posted by: Lee Rousso on February 20, 2006 01:48 PMFYI. The Appellants in the Sheehan lawsuit point out that Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project do not have statutory authority for car tab taxes under the grants they are relying on.
Here is a link to a bill, SSB 6247:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6247-S.pdf
That bill passed the Senate and is in the House. Look at sections 3 and 6. Those sections would ADD language to the RCW's that would allow Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project to legally impose taxes implemented under the grants they rely on as car tab taxes.
They do not have that kind of statutory authorizing language now, and they have not had that kind of authority since they started imposing their car tab taxes. But they might get that authority later this session.
Looks like the Legislature is covering up these local governments' lack of statutory authority now. This is after the Supreme Court "explained" away this lack of statutory authority by using the new term of art it invents for the purposes of the Sheehan opinion.
Posted by: marley on February 20, 2006 02:16 PM
One of the underhanded techniques he Supreme Court uses in Sheehan to avoid bringing justice to many, many people in this region is by ascribing manifestly false contentions to parties in a case before it.
Two of the spurious contentions falsely ascribed by the court to the vehicle owners in the Sheehan opinion are:
-- “If, as Appellants maintain, the legislature authorized taxes that are based purely on the value of a vehicle . . ..” The truth is that the vehicle owners contend that taxes based on the amount of vehicle use, and NOT on the vehicle’s value, should have been implemented under these two grants.
-- “[The vehicle owners] suggest[] that the legislature simultaneously authorized DOL to collect the Authorities' MVET and preempted those taxes under the vehicle licensing statute . . ..” The truth is that the vehicle owners maintain neither ST nor SMP has authority to impose an “MVET.” If these governments had implemented the right kind of excise tax (like one based on odometer readings), there would have been no problem with DOL collecting it. The preemption statute would not prohibit DOL from collecting a tax based on the amount of actual vehicle use.
In your Feb. 19 post, JDB, you say: “I would need the briefing to know if you are just making things up like you did with what Mr. Sharansky was really arguing, as above, if the court twisted the issues they claimed, or if they simply twisted the issues and the court set them right (both happen, by the way, although a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder.)”
The vehicle owners’ briefing in the Supreme Court is posted here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=80829
Can you identify any assertions made by the Appellants that possibly could warrant the Supreme Court in making the statements quoted above? As you can see from the opinion, a major part of the analysis the court uses to dismiss the case is based on those statements. Those quoted statements materially misrepresent what the vehicle owners contend. The ones in the robes abuse their position.
These absurd rulings issued by the Majority have a resounding impact on the interpretation of State Law regarding public notification and eminent domain. One diminishes public involvement and the other changes onus.
It appears that the Washington State Supreme is reduced to nothing more than a rubber stamp. Citizens be afraid, be very afraid. Property rights is a cores to our society's foundation. Absent property rights, absent other rights, including public notification of public meetings.
To paraphrase one from Sound Transit, "it is unseemly to notified the property owner of our intent to seize his property."
Posted by: Snuffy on February 21, 2006 10:32 AMI've had a chance to read over your multiple posts at the PI and to briefly read over the decision. It would appear that the court has ample precedent that states that an agency is allowed ample room for interpretation when setting up an excise tax. Sure, the appellants wanted to make an argument over the nature of the tax, but the fact that not a single justice agreed with that argument shows that the case law does not support it. In another forum perhaps we can get into this deeper, but it appears that the case law does not support your opinions.
I've had a chance to read over your multiple posts at the PI and to briefly read over the decision. It would appear that the court has ample precedent that states that an agency is allowed ample room for interpretation when setting up an excise tax. Sure, the appellants wanted to make an argument over the nature of the tax, but the fact that not a single justice agreed with that argument shows that the case law does not support it. In another forum perhaps we can get into this deeper, but it appears that the case law does not support your opinions.
Will a retraction be printed by Mr. Sharansky? Does the truth matter to him at all?
Perhaps I should post this at HA. At least we know Mr. Sharansky reads that blog.
Posted by: JDB on February 21, 2006 10:40 AMThe claim that public notice of public meetings is too expensive is akin to the claim by Democrats that the high cost of the third recount should be paid by taxpayers. And when the final bill is tally the taxpayers will be paying much more than the cost of the recount. And the Judge ruled that the citizens must prove how they voted in a secret ballot. It was not enough to prove that the process was flawed. Just mistakes.
Burying notifications of public meetings in websites is actually defeating the very purpose of the posting. Regarding the question of who reads the postings in newspapers? The answer is interested parties routinely pay newspaper clipping services to read the papers and report topic of their interest. What concerns me is the capricious nature of posting on a given website. If, for example, ST decides to post notifications on their website, will this be done on a consistent basis in a timely manner. And may the same be said of other meetings by other agencies. And what about people lacking access to websites. At least 20 % of society lack access. How are they notified? Seems this may be an opportunity for a centralized privately operated service bureau. But wasn't that the purpose of newspapers?
Property values are $millions
Stamps value a 39 cents.
Lack of public participation priceless.
Thank you to the Supremes for reducing notification of public meetings to a moot point.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 21, 2006 11:26 AMWe are going to discuss the taking of property in your neighborhood to build a hotel which pays greater taxes than currently collected in your neighborhood. the meeting is schedule for February 30th at 3 AM. This posting serves as an official notification of that public meeting.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 21, 2006 11:31 AMYou say “not a single justice agreed with that argument.” The opinion does not even acknowledge that that argument is an issue in the case.
What the opinion does suggest is that the majority decided the case based on spurious contentions of its own creation, coupled with improper statutory analyses.
Posted by: marley on February 21, 2006 11:48 AMLet’s say the Sheehan opinion had not been filed. How would you argue these propositions:
“These two local government car tab taxes are legal despite the holdings in Covell, Harbour Village Apartments, and Arborwood Idaho because [ ];”
“Per-mile taxes, capped on a per-vehicle basis, could not have been implemented under these two grants because [ ].”?
TIA
A core feature of our society is supposed to be judicial integrity. In this case, the bench lied about what the vehicle owners claim in the lawsuit. They dismissed the case based on false “contentions” they invented, and they never addressed the merits of the vehicle owners’ legal arguments. When JDB says “That is how the system works,” he smugly congratulates himself for being aligned with those above the law.
Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project were given enormous, unjustified victories. The losers here are hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners, and anyone who would believe the Supreme Court is capable of acting without bias if upholding individual rights would mean goring oxen like these.
"Mike P:
You are simply confused. Sound Transit is not cancelled, and no one is arguing that. You are thinking about the Monorail (different thing), which has nothing to do with this case."
My quote: "First off, whether or not ST did/did not notify the people was not the question of this post. It was whether ST had the authority to keep collected taxes for a system that was cancelled."
I wasn't confused, you were.
I guess being a Republican apparatchik means never having to say you are sorry.
Posted by: JDB on February 22, 2006 12:39 PMThis decision has nothing to do with “whether ST had the authority to keep collected taxes for a system that was cancelled,” nor did Mr. Sharansky’s post.
The decision dealt with the determination of necessity (left to the administrative body unless arbitrary and capricious), and what the notice requirements of eminent domain are.
Mr. Sharansky’s post clearly states that he believed that the Court leaving the decision of “necessity” to the administrative body had something to do with the court’s determination of “public use.” This is simply and clearly untrue. The issue of public use was not even a question before the court in this case. Mr. Sharansky’s post is either a lie, or shows no understanding of the law. Given his track record, neither would be a surprise.
However, having been shown to have been completely wrong, it is surprising that he has not posted a retraction or a correction.
You, on the other hand, are simply making things up. Sound Transit is not cancelled, and the decision had nothing to do with the collection of taxes, but with the condemnation of land under eminent domain. You are either very confused, do not read, or are simply making things up. I am beginning to believe that it is more and more the later.
I note that you cannot point to a single section of the Court’s decision or Mr. Sharansky’s post to back your claim. Heck, you cannot even point to a single post that agrees with yours. I will take your word that you were not confused, and assume that you are simply a liar or a fool
They say that a little learning is a dangerous thing; one should drink deep from the well of knowledge, for shallow draughts intoxicate the brain and drinking largely sobers us again.
You have clearly spent too much time obsessing over these issues. We all have our obsessions, but surely you can find something a little more interesting, or where you have a better understanding. The main problem for everything I have read of yours (and, goodness knows, you have posted a lot on this subject), is that you desperately want something to be true, and gladly ignore what the legislature and the courts clearly have said to reach your goal.
Having read the briefing of the Appellants that you have posted, and having skimmed the reply briefs, I have two impressions. I hope that you did not spend a lot of money for that briefing (although I guess when one has lemons…., ) and the Court was actually quite kind in their decision. I note that you have not put up the Respondent’s briefing, which is probably smart as they surely made mincemeat of the weak arguments contained in your briefing.
First, let us ignore for the moment that both the Monorail and Sound Transit took both taxes to the people and were only able to collect them after explaining exactly what they were and getting the peoples’ approval. If you really wanted a “better” tax, instead of hoping that you could prevent any tax, this is where you should have been involved.
Still, after the people approved an excise tax, the briefing tried to argue that the legislature did not authorize a vehicle excise tax. This is necessary, since if you admit that there was a grant to authorize an excise tax, your entire argument falls apart. Unfortunately for you, the enabling legislation clearly did, and even calls it that:
“In this instance, the legislature granted Sound Transit the power to 'levy and collect an excise tax . . . of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the taxing district.' Former RCW 81.104.160(1). Similarly, the Monorail has the power to 'levy and collect a special excise tax . . . on the value of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the
authority area for the privilege of using a motor vehicle.' RCW 35.95A.080(1).”
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365MAJ (Majority opinion at Analysis 1.(a.) second paragraph.
As the court correctly noted:
“Such an exceedingly rigid view of the constitutional analysis would be antithetical to the legislature's ability to delegate its authority to tax. In sum, we conclude that the plain language of the tax authorization and collection statutes satisfy the constitutional requirement that the Authorities' use of vehicle registration as the taxable event is done 'in pursuance of law.'”
Id. at last paragraph.
You also have to ignore that “'{s}ince 1937, a 'motor vehicle excise tax' has meant a tax on the privilege of relicensing a motor vehicle for use on public roadways collected by DOL at the point of annual registration.' Majority at 14.
For Appellants’ argument to work, you would have to assume that the legislature passed a bill for absolutely no reason. The act itself is clear, and it is very telling that Appellants’ cannot sight to a single bit of legislative history, or even produce one affidavit of a legislator that supports your theories.
This is especially true when it comes to your idea of an odometer tax. First, there is even less support of such a tax in the legislation. And clearly not a single legislator ever stated that it was the intent of the legislature to impose such a tax. Second, even if you think this is a better tax, there is no requirement that the agency agree with you. Finally, unless you are in favor of an activist court, the courts should defer to the agencies decision of what tax to impose. It is hardly the place of the court to decide which tax is better. This is especially true in light of the states history with an MVET, and that there is no indication what-so-ever that the legislature ever intended a mileage based tax.
Much like how you initially posted that we all missed Mr. Sharansky’s point that he was disgusted with Supreme Court accepting Sound Transit’s notice argument (which was easy to do, since he did not make that point), your ability to divine what the legislature really means, as opposed to what they actually said and did, while undoubtedly a marvelous power, isn’t all that helpful when trying to understand the law. Most of us are stuck with what is actually written and said, and cannot divine the secret meanings behind these words.
But take your victories where you have them. The delay and expense you made the Monorail undertake to fight a loser suit probably helped in getting it cancelled, so in the end you were successful.
So, in closing, the court did not lie about what the Appellants’ contended, they simply made clear the only logical contention the Appellants had. Second, the law clearly authorized a MVET, and there is no indication that anyone ever thought of a mileage based tax or intended such a thing to be collected. Lastly, the case law supports the Courts reasoning. The fact that you want it to be otherwise, doesn’t mean that you are right.
And, again, I point out that Justice Johnson in dissent doesn’t agree with any of your contentions. I find his dissent interesting, although his argument, like that of all activist judges and like yours, assumes that he knows better than the clear intent of the legislature. And that is the basic problem with your arguments and your obsession, unless you assume that the legislature has no idea what they are doing, it cannot be maintained.
If you want a more detailed analysis, I would be more than happy to give you my fee schedule.
As for your ability to do a detailed analysis of this issue. If you had been able to keep the basic facts straight, maybe. But pay for this level of incompetance, you must be kidding.
Face it, JDB. ST is doing this to show everyone in the state that they can do it.
And nothing you say will make it right, although for now it is a legal action.
And you still owe me that apology.
Posted by: Mike P on February 22, 2006 10:08 PMYou stated that "the legislature granted Sound Transit the power to 'levy and collect an excise tax . . . of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the taxing district." This may be true. However, it was discovered several years ago that Sound Transit did not draw a map clearly showing the boundaries of the taxing districts subject to the collection of an excise tax as required by state law. This was no accident. This resulted in many people paying an excise tax even though they did not have the option of voting on the measure. I discovered this when checking on neighbors questions. And later hearing from Sound Transit employees that confirmed my suspicions.It appears that Sound Transit did not respect the law at that time. Sound Transit continues to disrespect the law at this time with regard to collections of excise tax within a taxing district. The State of Washington continues to collect on behalf of Sound Transit even though the tax payers live outside the taxing districts which voted on the measures. It is this type of arrogance which creates the problems. Why is Sound Transit or any other agency above the law?
I was once told that the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In Washington it seems their are many scoundrels.
Judge Bridges infamous ruling will have far reaching affect. It did little to earn the respect of the voters. The corrupt culture continues.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 22, 2006 11:34 PMNow you are just making things up. Let’s look at the first two sentences of the Court’s decision:
“Kenneth R. Miller and Barbara I. Miller and Miller Building Enterprises, Inc., a construction company (hereinafter collectively Miller), own a large parcel of land in Tacoma near a railroad line. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, commonly known as Sound Transit, seeks to condemn this property to build a park-and-ride for a commuter rail transit station.”
Boy, you really do not know what you are talking about. This case deals with a heavy rail station (Sounder) in S. Tacoma/Lakewood area. Sound Transit has nothing to do with the Monorail. No one claims this case has anything to do with the Monorail. However, given that Mr. Sharansky’s post was equally incorrect in its reasoning, I can see why you might have thought that no one would notice if you just made it up.
Now who owes who an apology?
JDB wrote: “Still, after the people approved an excise tax, the briefing tried to argue that the legislature did not authorize a vehicle excise tax.” No, the briefing argued the two statutes authorize an excise tax like a sales tax. Since that kind of tax could have been implemented, a more burdensome kind of tax (like a car tab tax) was not a proper type of tax to start imposing (irrespective of whether voters approved it). Local governments do not have discretion to interpret tax grant statutes in ways that are more burdensome on taxpayers than necessary: “if any doubt exists as to the meaning of a taxation statute, the statute must be construed most strongly against the taxing power and in favor of the taxpayer.” Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 153 Wn.2d 392, 396-397, 103 P.3d 1226 (2005).
If JDB or anyone else can argue that an odometer-based tax could not have been implemented under either of these grants, I would really appreciate them setting it out.
Another of JDB’s statements is: “You also have to ignore that “'{s}ince 1937, a 'motor vehicle excise tax' has meant a tax on the privilege of relicensing a motor vehicle for use on public roadways collected by DOL at the point of annual registration.' Majority at 14.” That particular statement by the majority is a reference to the Hansen opinion of 1937. The reasons nothing in that opinion justifies a car tab tax being implemented under the two tax grants at issue are set out in the January 16 post here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=74290. The Hansen opinion certainly was not ignored by the vehicle owners. There is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with any holdings in Hansen and the contention in the Sheehan case that the kind of tax these two grants authorize is a tax like a sales tax, where the more you drive the more you pay (for example).
JDB says: “For Appellants’ argument to work, you would have to assume that the Legislature passed a bill for absolutely no reason.” Not at all. The legislature enacted both of the statutes at issue for perfectly good reasons. ST and SMP just implemented the wrong kind of tax under those grants. The legislature did absolutely nothing wrong – perfectly legal excise taxes could have been implemented under these two grants.
Here is a whole paragraph from JDB, with comments:
“This is especially true when it comes to your idea of an odometer tax. [It is not my idea]. First, there is even less support of such a tax in the legislation. And clearly not a single legislator ever stated that it was the intent of the legislature to impose such a tax. [When applying statutes, courts are required to ascertain legislative intent only from the terms of the statute, and related statues, (absent an ambiguity). Statements by legislators would not have been admissible in the case]. Second, even if you think this is a better tax, there is no requirement that the agency agree with you. [Local governments are REQUIRED to implement tax grant statutes in the way that is most favorable to taxpayers. For example, applying the percentage figures in the grants as per-vehicle caps, instead of as annual caps, would have been considerably more favorable. Can you identify a single reason why the figures in the grants could not have been applied as per-vehicle caps?] Finally, unless you are in favor of an activist court, the courts should defer to the agencies decision of what tax to impose. [Hell no. What courts are SUPPOSED to do is make certain that the least burdensome tax possible is implemented by local governments. Courts should be there to protect citizens in situations exactly like this, when local governments go too far and overreach in how they impact taxpayers. The Supreme Court’s bias in this case prevented it from serving justice. One of the primary roles that only a court can serve is striking down illegal local taxes. Lots of local governments in Washington have tried before to enact taxes that exceed what their statutory grants authorize. Justice was served by illegal taxes being struck down in Covell, Harbour Village Apartments, and Arborwood Idaho. Do you agree? In light of those opinions, why should the so-called excise taxes SMP and ST now impose be legal?]. It is hardly the place of the court to decide which tax is better. [The relief sough was not for the court to decide which tax was better. Because a different type of tax COULD HAVE BEEN implemented, and that other type of tax was more favorable to taxpayers, the Court should have struck down the more burdensome tax that the two local governments erroneously selected to put before the voters.]. This is especially true in light of the states history with an MVET [??], and that there is no indication what-so-ever that the legislature ever intended a mileage based tax. [Sure there is, “using” a vehicle is specified as what was to be taxed in SMP’s grant, and a “rate” (such as a nickel a mile) was required to be approved by the voters in the ST area under that grant. Also, all the related statutes show the legislature was not intending to authorize an MVET in the two grants at issue. For example, the legislature did not use any of the language in the two grants that it always uses to authorize local governments to implement annual car tab taxes].”
JDB says: “So, in closing, the court did not lie about what the Appellants’ contended.” Sure it did. You read the briefing. What did you see that possibly could justify either of the following:
“If, as Appellants maintain, the legislature authorized taxes that are based purely on the value of a vehicle . . ..”
“[The vehicle owners] suggest[] that the legislature simultaneously authorized DOL to collect the Authorities' MVET and preempted those taxes under the vehicle licensing statute . . ..”
The Supreme Court of Washington flat lies about what the Appellants argue in the case. Nothing in the briefing justifies those assertions about the vehicle owners supposedly contend.
The vehicle owners NEVER argued 1) taxes based on vehicle value were authorized, 2) “MVET’s” could be collected legally under these two grants, or 3) the preemption statute would prohibit DOL from collecting the right kind of tax.
The corrupt judges use these fabrications as key reasons for why they dismiss the case. That is contemptible pandering.
I can understand having a problem with the notification argument. I have not looked into it in depth, and it is my understanding that we are talking about the very early part of the agencies review (It is not like they come to knock down your house and say, “Oh, didn’t you look at the web site?”), but I would understand not agreeing with the courts decision.
I do note that my point has been that if Mr. Sharansky had posted that, I would have no problem. Instead, he made up a claim about the court re-writing the constitution. This is simply, demonstrably and clearly untrue. I still await a retraction of his claim. The fact that Mr. Sharansky allows this lie to continue tells you a lot about his lack of integrity. Either he cares about the truth or he cares about making a political point. So far, he clearly cares only about making a political point.
As to the MVET. It is true that the legislature granted the authority. You may be right about how it was implemented (however, again, that is not the subject of this case or the Sheehan case above). If it is true, a legal challenge would be worth it. I would guess that it is not as clear cut as you think it is.
As for Judge Bridges, he did what a judge should do, and applied the law to the facts. You have to accept that 1) the GOP put on a very poor case, and could come up with no proof to support their claims and that 2) showing errors (which is all the GOP did), is not the same as showing criminal intent or fraud. There is a reason Dino Rossi did not appeal this case, and that is because he would have been laughed out of court. If he really believed in his case, and he had the courage of his convictions, he would have appealed. But, the trial was not about winning (any good lawyer would have known going in, especially after the judges preliminary rulings, that they had no case), but about making political points. If you are going to be angry, be angry at the GOP for having wasted their political capital on this case and making so little of it.
It is fitting that you bring up Judge Bridges, though, since the GOP’s case, like Mr. Sharansky’s post, had nothing about determining the truth but was only about making a political point.
It has been a week since he published his mistruth. It has clearly been pointed out that what he posted was untrue, and no one can defend it. If Mr. Sharansky does not post a retraction and correction by tomorrow it is clear that the truth does not matter to him.
I have a feeling what will happen, but let’s hope I’m wrong.
Your problem is that you see what you want to see, not what is there.
A Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is a known quantity in the state of Washington. When the legislature uses those words, they mean a tax like the MVET that has been around since the 1930s. They clearly did not mean for a brand new tax to be made up on the fly. It is quite clear from the briefing and the laws passed by the legislature that when they said vehicle excise tax, they meant vehicle excise tax, not an odometer tax.
Your own briefing makes this clear, as there is only one paragraph wasted on the idea. Whoever wrote the brief was stuck because the rest of their brief falls apart unless they can come up with an alternative to try to make the statutes look ambiguous. Nice try, but you can only get to that conclusion if you ignore that there had been an MVET in this state for 70 years, and that no one, no one ever mentioned an odometer tax until forced to make one up.
I also note that you insist that an odometer tax is less burdensome, but that the brief contains no facts to support this, and I suspect that no facts were put before the trial court to support that contention. I would tend to think that an odometer tax would in fact be more burdensome. Without any facts to support you contention, it is not for the court to decide.
The laws passed in question referred to a grant to enact an excise tax. The legislation paralleled the old MVET, and everyone proceeded assuming that is what was granted. That was what was presented to the voters, and that is what they voted for. No one, at any point in that process ever popped up and said, “Wait, by MVET, we didn’t really mean MVET.”
For the courts to have granted you relief, they would have to ignore the clear intent of the legislature and the people, or assume that they all had no idea what they were talking about.
“If JDB or anyone else can argue that an odometer-based tax could not have been implemented under either of these grants, I would really appreciate them setting it out.”
Simple: There is absolutely no facts that support that the authority granted was intended for an odometer based tax. To impose such a tax would be to violate the principals you claim to uphold. You would have to ignore the clear meaning of the statute (which granted the ability to impose a motor vehicle excise tax), and you would have to have the taxing agencies ignore the grant and make up a tax that was not granted or even contemplated by the legislature when it granted the taxing power. Finally, you would have to have the courts ignore seventy years of precedent to suddenly fine that they knew better what the legislature meant than the legislature did.
To get to your point, you have to argue in circles. The Legislature used a term (excise tax), which has for seventy years meant the same thing in this state, but didn’t mean an excise tax, but an odometer tax (which is really just an excise tax, never mind that excise tax means something else for seventy years), and we do not care that the legislature clearly meant an excise tax, as the legislative history makes clear, because it is not ambiguous that excise tax means odometer tax, even though excise tax has not meant odometer tax for the last seventy years. You also have to make up a lot of facts (about what the legislature meant, about what the people voted on, about what words mean), that are not supported on the record in any way.
Or you can do what the Court did, which is assume that excise tax means excise tax, as it has always been used before, which explains why the collection mechanism is exactly the same, and why the legislative history is in accord. The Court does not have to divine the intent of the legislature, does not have to make up a new tax that was never discussed at any point in the implementation of the tax, and doesn’t have to ignore years of precedent. Most importantly, all the facts in the case are consistent with the decision the Court reached.
If you look at the case this way, and follow that logic, you will see that the courts decision is in accord with the cases you have tried to rely on. Further, you will see why the dissent avoids your arguments like the plague. The only way you get to your solution is to ignore the plain meaning of words, seventy years of court and legislative precedent, and clear intentions of all of the parties all the way through the process including when the people voted to support the tax.
Just like you saw what Mr. Sharansky actually meant, not what he actually said, your argument is based upon what you want to be true, not what is in fact true. If the only way you can live with your failure is to assume that the judges are corrupt because they do not agree with you, fine. But you will not convince many minds with those kind of arguments.
The Miller property location was part of the original monorail proposal. After the first admission that the costs were spiralling out of control, the line was shortened. That is when the process should have been stopped.
However, what happened was now this location was brought to ST attention as a possible expansion location. What ST did was continue the original "eminent domain" process, that the monorail commission had started.
What they should have done was start the process anew. And then they would have gone through the proper process including holding public hearings, etc..
have a nice day
Posted by: Mike P on February 23, 2006 05:37 PM
“A Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is a known quantity in the state of Washington”
Right. And neither of the two tax grants authorizes a motor vehicle excise tax. Those words were not used. In each case the kind of tax authorized was an excise tax, capped at a set percentage of vehicle value. An excise tax is a tax like a sales tax. Excise tax has a plain meaning, and that plain meaning was disregarded. One of the characteristics of an excise tax is that the bigger the underlying transaction (for example, a bigger purchase, more driving on a specific highway, more total vehicle miles traveled in a year, more use of certain lanes), the bigger the tax would be. That is not the kind of tax that ST and SMP implemented. They implemented a vehicle value based car tab tax and the legislature did not use language in the grants they rely on like it always uses when it authorizes a local government to implement a car tab tax. Plus we know the legislature did not intend a tax like an MVET, because different taxes enacted in the same statutes WERE taxes that were to be triggered by the act of vehicle licensing. The legislature intended that something other than vehicle licensing would trigger the excise taxes it was authorizing in the two relevant grants because it used different words in those grants. That is a presumption that should have applied in this case, but it did not. Plus the preemption statute evidences legislative intent, and the court misconstrued that statute as well to give the case to these governments.
“Whoever wrote the brief was stuck because the rest of their brief falls apart unless they can come up with an alternative to try to make the statutes look ambiguous.”
In the opening brief there are seven opinions cited where the courts found the taxes to be valid excise taxes. Those cases show what an excise tax is. That is the kind of tax that should have been implemented. An example would be one where total miles traveled in a year determines the tax amount. That is using a vehicle. The legislature simply did not authorize car tab taxes in these two grants. However, SSB 6247 (now in the House) would ADD exactly the type of language that would be necessary for ST and SMP to legally impose taxes under the grants they rely on as vehicle license taxes. Sec. 3 of that bill would make paying these taxes a necessary precondition to vehicle licensure. That language would be totally superfluous if the legislature thought ST and SMP already had proper authority to impose taxes under these grants annually as a condition of DOL issuing a vehicle license.
“I also note that you insist that an odometer tax is less burdensome, but that the brief contains no facts to support this, and I suspect that no facts were put before the trial court to support that contention. I would tend to think that an odometer tax would in fact be more burdensome. Without any facts to support you contention, it is not for the court to decide.”
A tax that has to be paid annually, in perpetuity, or use of the vehicle becomes illegal immediately is far more burdensome than a tax that can be reduced by driving less, avoided altogether without losing the ability to use the vehicle legally in short order, and that is capped at no more than .8% or 2.5% during the entire period you own it (in contrast to owing that amount EVERY YEAR). Also the Reply Brief references how affidavits from ST and SMP state that a per-vehicle tax cap would result in far less revenue in comparison with how ST and SMP implemented those caps, which is as annual limits.
“The laws passed in question referred to a grant to enact an excise tax. The legislation paralleled the old MVET, and everyone proceeded assuming that is what was granted.”
Totally wrong, my friend. The legislation the two grants at issue parallel is the one at issue in the Whatcom County v Taxpayers case and the one in the Arborwood Idaho case. All four of those are virtually identical. All four are excise tax grants to local governments that authorize sales tax type taxes. This fact is discussed in both of those opinions. That is why I keep asking you to try to distinguish the situation here from those in the Whatcom County and Arborwood Idaho cases – this is the same kind of case. The court refused to address that contention.
You mention the State MVET. That tax was not authorized by any statute (the state has inherent authority to condition the use of its roads). In addition, the statutes relating to the state MVET specifically called for an “annual” imposition of that tax, and specifically stated that the tax was to be collected as a condition of vehicle licensure. Neither of the grants at issue have any terms like that, and no related statutes provide taxes implemented under those grants are to be that kind of tax. But SSB 6247 would change that . ..
“For the courts to have granted you relief, they would have to ignore the clear intent of the legislature and the people, or assume that they all had no idea what they were talking about.”
If the court had applied the plain meaning of excise tax, which is exactly what the legislature intended when it used that term, then ST and SMP would have had to pay back what they illegally confiscated because vehicle owners around here never should have been forced to pay those amounts – backed up by DOL’s threat to refuse issuance of the car tabs that are required for a vehicle to be legally operated. Refunds would have been justice. It is not the voters fault ST and SMP put the wrong kind of tax on the ballot. As I am sure you know, a local ordinance (whether approved by voters or not) can not expand the grant of taxing authority that the statute (narrowly construed) affords.
““If JDB or anyone else can argue that an odometer-based tax could not have been implemented under either of these grants, I would really appreciate them setting it out.”
Simple: There is absolutely no facts that support that the authority granted was intended for an odometer based tax. To impose such a tax would be to violate the principals you claim to uphold. You would have to ignore the clear meaning of the statute (which granted the ability to impose a motor vehicle excise tax), and you would have to have the taxing agencies ignore the grant and make up a tax that was not granted or even contemplated by the legislature when it granted the taxing power. Finally, you would have to have the courts ignore seventy years of precedent to suddenly fine that they knew better what the legislature meant than the legislature did.”
Completely wrong. All the terms in the two statutes, and all the related statutes, clearly indicate that the kind of excise tax the legislature intended is one where the size of some underlying transaction determines the tax amount (like a sales tax). That is what excise tax means. That is always what excise tax means when the legislature uses it in a tax grant to a local government. When the legislature wants to authorize a local car tab tax, it uses completely different language. You can see this in other grants enacted in the same statutes as the grants at issue. What SSB 6247 does is amend the statutes that previously established payment of the State MVET as a licensing condition so that they now refer to taxes implemented under the grants at issue.
And nothing you said there suggests that a mileage-based tax could not have been implemented under these grants, which is the real issue. Had ST and SMP implemented mileage-based taxes under these grants it would have not been contrary to any precedent (unless you have some case in mind that I don’t know about). Nothing in Hansen (from 1937) would require that a car tab tax, but not an excise tax like a sales tax, be implemented under these grants.
“To get to your point, you have to argue in circles. ------------snip--------.”
No circles necessary. Excise tax means what it meant in the definition the court lays out in the Arborwood Idaho case in 2004. That is exactly the same plain meaning as excise tax has in the seven cases cited on that point in the opening brief of the Appellants. It is a tax like a sales tax. None of those taxes are annual, property value based licensing taxes whose amounts are unrelated to how much some property was used, or the size of some transaction. One of the things the court obviously did wrong in the statutory analysis in the Sheehan opinion was to disregard that plain meaning, and instead take words out of context from the statutes to create totally unprecedented and unjustified terms of art. A less burdensome tax could have been implemented, so it should have been. The statutes don’t justify what ST and SMP did, and the court blessed their taxes anyway.
Posted by: marley on February 23, 2006 06:01 PMNo, my problem is that I actually read.
“The Miller property location was part of the original monorail proposal.”
Nope, it wasn’t, and no one other than you claims it was. If you have a citation that backs up your contention, please post it.
“[The monorail] line was shortened.”
Yes it was, but it never extended to Tacoma. Never. The route was always from West Seattle to Ballard.
See: http://archives.elevated.org/project/faq.shtm (2002, “The Green Line route was chosen as the first route because it will serve many major destinations, including Downtown, Key Arena, Seattle Center, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square, Seahawks Stadium, Safeco Field, the International District, and SODO, along with the communities of Ballard and West Seattle, which the City of Seattle identified as needing higher capacity public transit service.”
See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001795319_monorail19m.html (2003, “the Seattle Monorail Project has unveiled its preferred route for the 14-mile Green Line,”)
The monorail project was always a Seattle thing, never a Tacoma thing. The Miller property was never part of the Monorail as it is in South Tacoma, and is intended for a Sounder Station. Heck, Mr. Sharansky has provided a link to the Courts decision. Please quote the section that talks about how the Miller property was originally part of the Monorail. No one claimed that Sound Transit should have started anew, since the Monorail had nothing to do with the Miller’s property. However, if you can point out where I missed that section, please quote it.
Whatever you do, read the decision, you might find the truth interesting.
But, if you have a single fact to support your position, please post it. However, I suspect like Mr. Sharansky, the truth is just an inconvenience. Why worry about the truth, when you can make things up. So, either provide a link or citation that supports your position, or provide me with the apology you owe me.
The difference between you and me, is I go back to the beginning of this project, not 2002. And I have watched the comedy of errors grow at each turn.
At more than one time LR and MR were in a turf war. Who could build what, where. Now most of this stuff is has been lost in the mist, so to speak.
But don't believe me, read it for your self.
http://www.monorail.org/discussions/2004/12/06/2
note this comment, "By 2010, the
entire 80 mile Commuter Rail line should be complete, along with expanded Amtrak service"
Yes, there was a conflict between the monorail people and ST, but that dealt with downtown Seattle where they would be covering the same ground. Nothing in the post you link to (which is just a blog entry, the person posting, Michael Arnold doesn’t appear to have any specific knowledge and is not an insider) talks about a monorail to Tacoma. All it talks about is that the heavy rail system should be in place by 2010, which is true as far as I know. Sounder is the heavy rail system, and is run by Sound Transit. Which brings us back to the case at hand, which had nothing to do with a cancelled system or ST taking over the condemnation of land from the Monorail. As the court case and your post makes clear, the heavy rail line was always ST, and ST was the only player involved.
I believe you are an intelligent and reasonable person, so don’t worry about apologizing, I know that is hard. But I will ask you that if your facts were so wrong on this issue, and if Mr. Sharansky was so wrong as to both the law and the facts in his post, does it not make you wonder what else you may be incorrect about? And doesn’t it make you question anything that Mr. Sharansky posts? Isn’t it clear by now that he posts for political and propagandistic reasons? Clearly, since he hasn’t retracted this post, or posted a correction, the truth does not matter to him.
If you really care about the truth, you have to admit, you cannot rely on a person like Mr. Sharansky who either doesn’t correct his errors, or simply lies because that is how he makes his points. If there is any value to this thread, it is that it proves that you cannot take at face value anything you read at this blog.
Posted by: JDB on February 24, 2006 10:11 AMDoes Mr. Sharansky care about the truth? Will he post a retraction or a correction of his post? Or does he not care about the truth and only cares about propaganda?
If there is no retraction posted on his blog by the end of the day, I think we will all agree that we have our answer. I also think that we all can agree that nothing on this blog can be taken at face value, for we know that the truth does not matter here.
As I said before the original pre-1995 plan was to route a system similar to BART for the entire Puget Sound. Including plans to expand across to the peninsula at the narrows.
Most of this was done before there was an internet. But you would have known that if you had you been involved, inquisitive enough to look into it or at least paying attention. The monrail plan was a direct outcome of the 1962 Worlds Fair and the opening in 1972 of BART. Yes, it has been in the works for 40+ years.
Just when you think it dead, it rises again.
Too bad JDB.
Now granted, I haven't actually read all of his crap, and always believed that the only point that JDB/Biteme/Toadstool has ever had is the one on the top of his little wooden head, but I'm sure that there is some sort of point in there (somewhere) (maybe).
So let's all raise our glasses to the hero of the day, JDB/Biteme/Toadstool and pay tribute to his astonishing agility in making a point (about something).
Bravo JDB/Biteme/Toadstool!
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 25, 2006 12:09 PMYou are trying awfully hard to impress. Use a little basic moral sense and understanding of constitutional intent sometime; it works.
The solution to this whole issue is far simpler than you attempt to make it appear . . . but then that is how you justify your time.
By the way, who did you fu@k out of the hours of billings required to write all of this arcane nonsense?
For the sake of consistency, I just hope it was one of your liberal clients.
We are getting a little far a field, are we not? Yes, there were discussions of a wider monorail plan (one of the links I put up above makes that clear), but that has nothing to do with this case, and none of the “greater” monorail plans had anything to do with Pierce County. Heck, there has been discussions about extending I-90 across Puget Sound on a floating bridge to the Kitsap peninsula. Interesting tidbit, but nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Amused:
My simple point is that Mr. Sharansky was totally in error when he made his post. I note that you nor anyone else can argue otherwise. So why has there been no retraction or correction published?
Well, we all know why, don’t we. It is because Mr. Sharansky and most of his readers do not care about the truth, just about feeling good about their position. The shame is that they have to lie to back up their beliefs, as this thread has made clear.
Makes you question how much else on this board is a lie.
Over a week, and still no correction, and now the post has spooled off into the archive. But at least we know one thing: That the truth doesn’t matter here and that Mr. Sharansky will not correct his lies.