Initiative organizer Tim Eyman yesterday turned in 313,000 signatures forTaxpayer Protection Initiative I-960. The number of signatures should ensure I-960's place on this November's ballot.
I-960 would raise the bar and increase public disclosure requirements for the state legislature to raise taxes.The initiative text is here. The campaign website is here.
It's amusing to note the liberal bias in the Seattle Times's characterization of I-960's advocates and opponents. Eyman is described as "earns a living trying to pass ballot measures". I-960 opponent Christian Sinderman is described as "a Democratic consultant involved in the No on I-960 campaign". A more even-handed newspaper would have described Sinderman in the same terms that it described Eyman, e.g. "earns a living trying to pass ballot measures that raise taxes and to defeat ballot measures that lower taxes".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 07, 2007 11:16 AM | Email ThisHe can't hep it.
He was born with a silver Selectric Ball in his mouth!
Posted by: Hinton on July 7, 2007 11:57 AMPosted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 7, 2007 12:12 PM
The bloom is off Timmy's rose, but he has carved out a nice cash cow for himself.
Posted by: Lawyer Zeke on July 7, 2007 01:04 PMInteresting to note that the EXACT SAME legal arguments being made against I-960 were made against I-601 (before and after voters approved it in 1993). I-601 survived ALL legal challenges and has been on the books for over 13 years. During that time, the Legislature has reaffirmed the 2/3's requirement for tax increases (once in 1998 and again in 2005). I-960 simply requires the Legislature to abide by the laws they've set for themselves. And it requires more public disclosure by the state budget office of the long-term costs to taxpayers on any tax increase bill during any legislative session in Olympia.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Lawyer Zeke (#8), but you are clearly unfamiliar with the policies in I-960 and are heavily burdened by a gross lack of knowledge of the topic.
We're very proud of I-960. We worked very hard to draft it carefully, in full compliance with, and mindful of, our state's laws, Constitution and recent court rulings. If the voters approve it in November, it will effectively protect taxpayers from Olympia's seemingly insatiable appetite for higher taxes.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on July 7, 2007 02:18 PMBut if it's unconstitutional, perhaps you could explain why every leftist whack job in this corner of the country is so upset about it?
I mean, if it's so obviously unconstitutional, then the "no" side oughta just pack it in and call it a day, right? You know, save their money for the next cycle?
Posted by: Hinton on July 7, 2007 02:19 PMMany people make a living engaged in politics including Eyman, Sinderman, Cathy Allen, Greg Nickels, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, et al. They should all be described as equally mecenary, or equally devoted to their ideals, not some mercenary and others idealist.
As for the photo, I think Mr. Eyman looks like an ordinary guy not a guy in a suit so it is probably a good shot. Just one reaction.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 7, 2007 05:55 PMEverybody please donate lots and lots and lots and lots of $ to this web site and I promise to give it all to Tim.
Cash, please.
www.PleaseDonateLotsOfMoneyToMeAndIPromiseToGiveItAllToTim.com
Posted by: Helper on July 7, 2007 09:25 PMTake the Great Seattle Monorail Rip-off for example. The SMPA took all that money never intending to build the Monorail system as mandated by people's initiative. They held a phony either-or vote to pull the plug on the project. The SMP is a designated essential public facility under the Wa. St. Growth Management Act and not subject to a vote (just like ST Link), and the media will not cover these facts.
Oh yeah. There are supposed to be 5 SPMA Board positions on the ballot this year per 2005 Prop. 2, and KC Elections is refusing to provide for that public election.
Posted by: Mark Mywords on July 7, 2007 10:34 PMThe best solution to control taxes in this state is for the people to elect a GOP majority. What's the sanity in electing a Democrat majority and having to pass initiatives like this, when we have the simpler solution?
Posted by: Manco on July 7, 2007 10:50 PMEssential Public Facility Has Kept Light Rail On Track
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - Page updated at 03:37 P.M.
"Essential public facility" label has kept light rail on track
By Eric Pryne
Seattle Times staff reporter
A little-known provision of the state Growth Management Act probably
saved Sound Transit's Seattle light-rail project from a serious --
perhaps fatal -- setback recently.
By a 6-1 vote, the Tukwila City Council last month approved the last
major permits for the 14-mile line, which would end at a station in
the South King County city. Joni Earl, Sound Transit's executive
director, called it a huge win.
But three of the six council members who voted yes say they did so
largely because they had no choice. Councilmen Jim Haggerton, Dennis
Robertson and Joe Duffie say that, if they could have, they probably
would have voted to deny the permits, either because they think the
light-rail line goes to the wrong place or that it simply isn't a
good idea.
What tied their hands? A section of the Growth Management Act
governing what the law calls "essential public facilities."
It defines them as "those facilities that are typically difficult to
site." While there's no all-inclusive list, they include airports,
garbage dumps, jails and halfway houses -- things that everyone
agrees we need but that no one wants as a neighbor.
The law gives such facilities special protection, severely limiting
local governments' power to say no to them.
On the first night Tukwila council members took up Sound Transit's
permit applications, the city attorney told them that, because the
project had been designated an essential public facility, they
couldn't turn Sound Transit down or change the route the agency had
selected through the city.
All they could do was impose reasonable conditions.
"There was nothing our council could do except make it more
palatable," Haggerton said after the vote.
"It totally framed the decisions we had to make," Robertson
agreed. "It probably appeared that I'm supporting something I'm
not."
The light-rail line isn't the only high-profile project that has
benefited from its status as an essential public facility. The law
has helped Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's third runway and
King County's proposed Brightwater sewage-treatment plant in
Snohomish County overcome potential obstacles. It could help save
Seattle's embattled monorail.
NIMBY and LULU
Seattle attorney Richard Ford, who chaired the state commission that
paved the way for the Growth Management Act, says the essential-
public-facilities language was drafted to counteract rampant
NIMBYism -- "Not In My Back Yard." For the most part, he says, it has
worked just as its authors intended.
"Without it, we'd have complete gridlock," Ford says. He likens the
provision to eminent domain, government's legal right to buy private
property for public use, even if the owner doesn't want to sell.
But others wonder whether the balance has tilted too far. Poorer,
less-powerful communities have been forced for years to swallow more
than their fair share of projects no one else wants, says Seattle
land-use lawyer Peter Eglick.
"The essential-public-facilities provision makes it even easier to
shove it down their throats," he says. "It can be used as a tool to
make the disadvantaged communities swallow that much faster."
When the Growth Management Act passed in 1990, planners in
Washington and across the country were grappling with the "essential-
public-facilities" problem. One professor dubbed them
LULUs: "Locally Unwanted Land Uses."
Environmental laws had given opponents of such projects powerful new
weapons. In King County, officials were reeling from political and
legal flare-ups over where to put garbage incinerators and suburban
jails. More big decisions loomed, including airport expansion.
NIMBYism threatened to paralyze regional decision-making, says Ford,
who once supervised Sea-Tac Airport as executive director of the
Port of Seattle. "We couldn't live with it. That's just the
reality."
So the Growth Management Act required each city and county to
establish a process for identifying and siting essential public
facilities. More importantly, it said local officials couldn't adopt
plans or regulations that precluded them.
That language has been interpreted broadly by regional growth-
management hearings boards and courts over the past decade. They
have ruled repeatedly that state or regional interests trump local
or neighborhood objections.
The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has cited
the law in overturning locally adopted restrictions on work-release
centers in Tacoma, group homes in Bellevue and rail yards in Auburn.
Des Moines Mayor Bob Sheckler says board and court rulings that the
third runway was an essential public facility helped frustrate
neighboring cities' long struggle to stop the project, a fight they
recently abandoned.
"The Legislature gave it a lot of deference just because it was an
essential public facility," he says. "It gave the airport certain
rights and ammunition that others didn't have."
A King County judge ruled in August that Seattle voters couldn't
vote on an initiative to kill the proposed monorail, in part because
the City Council had designated the project an essential public
facility. While a higher court later placed the measure on the
November ballot, it didn't address the underlying question. If
courts later rule the monorail is indeed an essential public
facility, the recall initiative's outcome could be moot.
Exceptions rare
Designating a project an essential public facility doesn't
necessarily remove all obstacles. A judge ruled earlier this year,
for instance, that San Juan County couldn't build a garbage-transfer
station on farmland where such uses otherwise are prohibited by
county law.
But such rulings have been rare.
If the Growth Management Act didn't include special protection for
essential public facilities, "I think we'd be worse off," says Joe
Tovar, who left the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board earlier this year after 12 years.
"The decision-making would be like it was before: case by case,
lawsuit by lawsuit, battles of attrition. You'd have even more
political decision-making, deals being made outside the public
planning process. ... "
But even some supporters worry that, while it may be easier to build
needed facilities now, there's no mechanism in the law to assure
that those projects will always be built in the right place, rather
than the site that is cheapest or most politically expedient.
Nor, they add, is there any assurance that affected communities will
be compensated fairly for their pain.
"They need to get some of the goodies along with the tough stuff,"
says Mary McCumber, former executive director of the Puget Sound
Regional Council. "Right now, there's no rational way for
determining where these things get sited and how they are
mitigated."
A state commission that reviewed the Growth Management Act in 1998
suggested that a state board decide where some essential public
facilities get built, and under what conditions. The Legislature
hasn't acted on that recommendation.
Off the table
Tukwila's reluctant approval of Sound Transit's light-rail permits
was preordained five years ago. The Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board all but ordered the city to do it in a
ruling on a dispute between the city and the transit agency over
what route the line should follow through Tukwila.
The project was an essential public facility, the board decreed in
1999: Once Sound Transit -- a regional agency -- settled on a route,
Tukwila had an obligation to accept it.
That ruling helped Sound Transit secure $500 million in badly needed
federal grants for the $2.4 billion line, even after a hostile
Tukwila City Council rejected an agreement with the transit agency
on permit-application processing two years ago.
Sound Transit convinced federal officials that Tukwila couldn't
block the project, even if it wanted to.
In negotiating the permit conditions, Sound Transit did agree to
provide some "goodies" to Tukwila, including a new firetruck. The
City Council added more conditions that Sound Transit ultimately
accepted.
"The law has done what the Legislature intended, which is getting
people together to decide tough issues," says Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound
Transit's communications director.
But Councilman Robertson, a light-rail opponent, says he was
frustrated that the big questions weren't even on the table.
He says he can understand the need for something like the essential-
public-facilities law. But South King County already hosts a
disproportionate share of projects that benefit the region at the
expense of neighborhoods, he contends.
Those neighborhoods have become less stable, Robertson says,
creating more problems: "Somewhere along the line you have to look
at the cumulative effect of what you're doing."
Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231 or epryne@...
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
Global warming
Light rail
Nationalized health care
90% marginal tax rates
and on and on...
Let's just hope he runs again.
Posted by: GS on July 8, 2007 12:14 AMThe fact is that when it's a matter of .1% the Republican will always lose due to Seattle area voter fraud. We need larger margin to overcome the fraud factor.
Posted by: Manco on July 8, 2007 01:06 AMVoters vote based on the policies, the principles, and the provisions of initiatives, not who the sponsor is. If you've been paying attention, you'd recognize that by now. Of the 10 initiatives we've gotten on the ballot, voters have approved 7. I-960 will be the 8th. Our initiatives have saved taxpayers over $9 billion so far. We're pretty darn proud of our track record. But hey, if you think you can do it better, then feel free to do your own political activism and we'll see how your results compare to ours.
P.S. Stefan already stepped up to the plate BIG TIME by helping ensure the success of I-25 getting on the ballot (which requires a publicly elected official, not a Ron Sims' crony, to count the votes in King County).
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor of Taxpayer Protection Initiative on July 8, 2007 05:12 PM"murtz"'s comments are usually dripping with irony, but I'll take his question at face value.
It's the ideas of the "anti-tax, smaller gov't movement" that the liberals in government and media hate. But they have difficulty arguing against the ideas, so they make ad hominem attacks against the messenger. Whether it's Tim Eyman or if it were someone else leading the movement, the establishment liberals would have invented an excuse to "discredit" that person.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 8, 2007 05:37 PMJust like me!
Next year we're gonna write an initiative against excessively high tides.
Or something.
Posted by: Tim Eyeman on July 8, 2007 08:56 PMThat's true. All you have to do is draft an initiative, like I-960, that will draw support from over 1700 donors, like I-960 did, and earn the voluntary signatures of over 300,000 voters (like I-960 did).
Sure, anyone can do that. Since it's so easy it sure is strange that none of our critics ever do that. Hmmm, I wonder why? :)
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor of the Taxpayer Protection Initiative on July 8, 2007 09:06 PMAt the same time, we liberals need to do a better job of articulating the value of government. If Eyman weren't pushing these damaging initiatives, someone else would.
Posted by: Bruce on July 9, 2007 01:58 AMBruce, you may wish to brush up on our framers, you know them old white men who wanted liminted goverment.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 9, 2007 06:40 AMWhat do you think of the policies in I-960? I-601 passed in 1993 and has worked really well over the past 13 years, but the Legislature has put various loophole in it when they've found its policies inconvenient. I-960 closes those loopholes. And it makes legislators' votes on tax increases more public. Is I-960's loophole closing and more public disclosure a good thing or a bad thing?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on July 9, 2007 07:45 AMOnly people who own property can vote on ballots that will affect their property taxes.
Only people who drive cars can vote on ballot issues that cause them to pay more in vehicle related taxes.No more free rides so to speak for non-car owners.
What do you think of the policies in I-960? I-601 passed in 1993 and has worked really well over the past 13 years, but the Legislature has put various loophole in it when they've found its policies inconvenient. I-960 closes those loopholes. And it makes legislators' votes on tax increases more public. Is I-960's loophole closing and more public disclosure a good thing or a bad thing? I'm voting yes because it's good public policy. How will you vote on it and what's your reason?