The Seattle City Council this week approved a "transportation" tax package, to raise at least $1.6 billion over at least 20 years. One ordinance in the package proposes a property tax increase, subject to voter approval in November. But the proceeds would not only be used for transportation. The ordinance also authorizes the funds to be spent on:
4. Urban Forestry (Trees & Landscaping)And as Erica Barnett at The Stranger points out, the proposal would authorize the Council to levy the tax in perpetuity. (The only thing limiting the tax to 20 years is this non-binding resolution) The Council also approved a new employee head-tax on businesses with employees in the city. The P-I reported that "employers who buy their workers mass-transit passes would be exempt". That's not quite accurate. The ordinance states:
* Landscaping Maintenance
* Tree Maintenance
B. Non Single-Occupancy-Vehicle Deduction. When computing the number of employees or employee hours, a business may deduct the number of employees, or their hours, for those employees who do not regularly commute to a workplace in the City using a motor vehicle occupied by a single person. The Director shall adopt rules to define eligibility for this non single-occupancy-vehicle deduction.The exemption should not be limited to companies who buy their workers bus-passes, but the "Director" [City Director of Finance] appears to have open-ended discretion to make the rules. And how would the proceeds from the employee head-tax be used? The instructions are open-ended:
The proceeds of the tax imposed herein and any interest or other earnings from their deposit or investment shall be used for transportation purposes.If the other ordinance can define "transportation" to encompass "Urban Forestry", then for all we can trust these people, "transportation" could also include the essential-for-public-safety Hip-Hop Contests. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 09, 2006 11:55 AM | Email This
Hopefully the 65% "no" vote on SMP last year was the turning of the tide. After all, we now know that the kind of transportation projects the politicos around here support end up bloated and ineffective.
The employer tax and parking tax revenues will generate money for street repairs. Those are ok. But no way on the property tax request - those taxes are too high already and I shudder to think how those duplicitous schmucks would end up spending that money.
Posted by: Torrance on August 9, 2006 12:07 PMSince such projects soak up much of the available funds such things as public safety and critical infrastructure Seattle needs the the citizen to pony up for those areas. They know we all what fire police and to have the roads fixed. If they say they don't have enough for those projects the situation must be grave, after all they would never mispend public funds.
The Seattle Sheeple will dutiful vote for new taxes and never examine the underlying spending issues in Seattle.
Until the people demand accountability, expect more of the same.
Either-
A-employ fewer people, leading to higher unemployment in Seattle; or
B-move their operations somewhere else, like Bellevue, Tacoma, or Everett, leading to lower tax receipts, on a number of different taxes, for the city of Seattle (meaning they'd need to up their tax rate to keep the revenue stream at the same level, which leads to more businesses leaving...nasty spiral there)?
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on August 9, 2006 01:37 PM 4. Urban Forestry (Trees & Landscaping)
* Landscaping Maintenance
* Tree Maintenance
Thank goodness! Seattle needs to ensure the Emerald City doesn't become the Gray Havens! What's dissappointing is there will be no money for cleanliness upkeep to deal with graffiti, or mowing, or roadside cleaning.
$1 million a year (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/streethorizontal08.html) is hardly a big investment in "Urban Forestry" over 20 years, but a welcome one.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 9, 2006 04:31 PM1. Seattle Transportation Levy - this fall
2. Sound Transit Levy - this fall?
3.Viaduct proposal - next spring?
4. School Board - next year?
5. Others?
My point being, there are lots of state, county, and city taxes being put on the ballots but I'm not sure anyone has added them all up to see the impact on the average homeowner. I'd love to see this kind of research. Anyone?
thx.
Posted by: Seattle on August 9, 2006 05:04 PM1. Seattle Transportation Levy - this fall
2. Sound Transit Levy - this fall?
3.Viaduct proposal - next spring?
4. School Board - next year?
5. Others?
My point being, there are lots of state, county, and city taxes being put on the ballots but I'm not sure anyone has added them all up to see the impact on the average homeowner. I'd love to see this kind of research. Anyone?
thx.
Posted by: Seattle on August 9, 2006 05:04 PMever notice they wil NEVER announce a cut or elimimation of a program or tax? just shuffle it around;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 9, 2006 06:00 PMCan one still call it a city when no children live there?
Posted by: Jericho on August 9, 2006 08:36 PMhttp://reservations.uhaul.com/(ztk14v55syrtlonvupyjvx2a)/quote.aspx?referenceNumber=1035287996&move=oneway
Two uhaul quotes. The first is nearly two hundred dollars less than the second.
Why?
The first is to move from Bozeman to Seattle. The second to move from Seattle to Bozeman.
All other factors are constant.
The reason for the higher price to move to Bozeman is that there are too many Uhaul's piling up in Bozeman from people fleeing Seattle. One gets a discount to move the other way since families (and individuals) in disproportionate numbers are wanting Uhaul's in Seattle in order to flee.
If you check most other inland cities within a state or two of Seattle you will find a similar pricing difference.
Seattle is dying. Not that its elites care.
But they better hope that somebody does.
On a historical note when I moved to Seattle in 1988 I initially considered Uhaul as a moving means. I recall that it cost a lot more to move to Seattle from Central Illinois then than to move to Central Illinois from Seattle. Central Illinois was where I was then located. The reason, as Uhaul related it to me, was that there were too many Uhauls piling up in Seattle from the large numbers of people moving there.
What a difference two more decades of elitist control makes, eeh?
What will an additonal two decades of elitist control bring? A Seattle that looks like NOLA before the hurricane - a cesspool of failure and corruption wearing lip gloss and whispering rotten nihilism to the air?
Somebody better care and soon, because you are not going to get two more decades - the Wicked Witch is over the Emerald City - time to wake up. Find your courage, heart, and brains lest you perish from The Way.
Posted by: Jericho on August 9, 2006 09:05 PMI suspect not many of those who have commented here have actually worked in public service, such as a municipality.
It's simple--when the population grows, more funding is needed to provide basic services. And do you think the only thing Seattlelites are demanding are basic services?? Nope.
I may have only been working for a city for two years now, but I quickly learn that people want EVERYTHING handed to them, and they feel they deserve it for nothing.
Now explain to me how that works-when demand exceeds willingness to pay, and yet the big, bad city is still supposed to provide it all to the highest level?
Posted by: Stacey R on August 10, 2006 08:22 AMWhy don't the politicians make the really hard decision to just say "No" to some programs? They always claim that raising taxes is the hardest thing they do, but they do it so often, I don't believe them.
In 2000, the median home price in Seattle was $221,000. In 2005, the number went up to $400,000. It's a safe bet that 2006 and the 2007 assesments are even higher. I heard the other day that up to 33% of the cost of a new home is due to all the permits required. I'm sure those numbers aren't "cost". The gas tax, of which the city gets a portion, has gone up, the sales tax is over 9%, not including all the sports excise taxes.
The city is collecting more and more money but they are also spending like crazy on non-essentials.
The proposed vote would equate to $640 dollars a year for a family of 4 (1.6 bill/500K/20 years).
Then you have the RTID, schools, and other taxation schemes coming up for votes in the next 18 months.
Fund safety, emergency, and health issues FIRST.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 10, 2006 09:01 AM