That's Mike Cooper's answer at least. Last week at an affordable housing forum he left even his fellow Snohomish County Democrats behind in saying he would "support a tax increase to fund affordable housing."
By itself this is a bit odd since Brian Sullivan, Cooper's fellow Democrat running in the 2nd Council District (the most liberal in the county) - said, "'There are a lot of options we can look at before we think about raising taxes.'" Likewise County Executive Aaron Reardon (D) has made an annual habit of NOT requesting property tax increases in his annual budget.
Yet Cooper's cognitive dissonance on affordable housing runs deeper. We've already discussed here at Sound Politics that Cooper wants to limit the supply of new housing construction that is actually providing something of an option for middle-to-low income buyers otherwise priced out of the market. He calls such new homes "substandard" and "not livable." That's offensive enough. Saying he supports a moratorium on the construction of new housing and wants to raise taxes to fund affordable housing is nonsensical.
Snohomish County may have rejected I-912 decisively, but it also approved I-747 limiting property tax increases by a crushing 59% - 41% margin. The people of the county, particularly southwest Snohomish County where Cooper is running against Renee Radcliff Sinclair, are willing to tax themselves for certain things, usually schools and transportation. They're not willy-nilly inclined to pay taxes for problems just because elected officials can't figure out another way to address the issue.
Snohomish County does have some profound issues with growth. The way to address them is by better overall planning by cities and the County. Given the current refusal of many cities to accept much in the way of new density, the County has to find ways to allow for the construction of new and affordable housing that respects the quality of life local citizens appreciate. Neither building moratoriums nor unnecessary tax increases fit that bill.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 12, 2007 07:19 AM | Email ThisDem's & taxes, Stalin's best friend.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2007 08:49 AMRenee served her legislative district well and in most part is respected for her voting (she has not always voted party line, but always for her constituents.)
Brian is as far left as Mike. I see no redeeming value of either of them in our representative republic. In my opinion people in Snohomish county, who are not socialist, will not be served well with Brian or Mike.
Posted by: Ken Howard on September 12, 2007 08:52 AMMike got it from our fire fighters union. They are SO far left it's down right scary and pretty damn sad.
They send us a voting list every year on who to vote for. I've never seen a REP on it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2007 09:09 AMSo, where does that leave affordable if you intend to increase the cost of construction to meet your definition of "affordable"?
And Mike, people love those crackerjack boxes called rabbit hutches, er, houses, because they don't have lawns to mow, they are building equity, their energy bills are lesser than older homes, etc. etc..
Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2007 09:12 AMMaybe it's because the firefighters are afraid they'll loose all their perks like training facilities, number of people sitting in a truck per call, bigger more modern fire engines, quality protection gear. The Fire Dept. relies on taxpayer money to stay funded, it's not exactly a revenue generating service.
PS Cato, your city taxes pay for most of our stuff, that is unless the city spends to much on worthless stuff and then has to come back for a levy to support the FD.
But you know this don't you cato. (Medic1)
It's not all free bud!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2007 10:11 AMHmm, could there be a GOP Congress in power when those funds were cut? Pres. submits a budget, Congress passes the budget, President signs off. Checks and balances. Did the GOP fight to keep the funding in? Did a quick Google search couldn't find much about it.
I'm personally surprised that you belong to a quasi-socialist institution like a Union.
your city taxes pay for most of our stuff, that is unless the city spends to much on worthless stuff and then has to come back for a levy to support the FD.
Or the FD's demand more OT, more people per truck, more equip, more stations. Fire Dept. employees require a lot of training because they put themselves at a lot of risk. They don't charge you a dime for putting out your house fire. FD's are not cheap, neither is creating the infrastructure to properly support them. With this in mind I could see why they would be a subject of cost-cutting measures.
Go ride in a Aid unit or Medic and see the bill we send you.
True, but you could go work in a hospital. Doubt it would be as fun or as unique an experience but the Hospital admin's would be much more willing to back GOP candidates.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because we are FORCED to Cato. I know many FF who would love to get away from this corrupt union.
You may wish to read up on the JFK and RFK and how they fought with the teamsters.
But YOUR Dem's & state officals will not give us the option to get out.
so much for my rights cato.
Calling Tim Eyman, Army M/V has a new crusade and possible costume change for you.
Showing your foolishness there Cato.
Can't answer what I wrote, so you say something stupid.
Right on track as usual.
I dunno, I'm not in your union. Why don't you answer my question instead of ignoring it.
Why did YOUR GOP rep's did not fight to keep that money in the budget that they were in charge of passing?
Did the FF union not scratch the backs of the GOP enough?
Maybe they didn't hire the right amount of GOP lobbyists to please Dick Armey or Trent Lott?
What's your theory?
Because they have been large federal funding, that's why.
Didn't think it would be that hard for you to figure out.
LOL my God cato just keep digging a deeper hole.
Ok just for the fun of it, let's try the 1996 money scandal with the Clintons/China and now Hillary with the $850.000 nightmare from Hsu.
If your going to try and fight me about money scandals you should really try another topic.
Cause you losing bad.
I don't think so. You said "Clinton cuts our Fed funds before he left and our union tried to blame Bush" and then they kept their mouth shut.
You implied funds were cut, you never implied the funds were replenished under the Bush Administration. Since Google doesn't have a lot to say about Fire Fighters funding I really can't argue with first hand experience of you and your union politics.
All I could find was COPS, I did not find a catchy named bill to add more firefighters / medics. The only bill that kept popping was for Chaplain Mychal Judge which 'expands the list of those currently eligible for federal death benefits to include those officers whose relations may not qualify under the current guidelines'.
I don't have the time to hunt down anything more than a basic Google search. In this case I'd have to take your word for it. Google can't trump an insiders knowledge about what crooked deeds go down on on your behalf.
The union shut their mouths after the Clinton budget blame to Bush because the REP & Bush gave fire depts around the country MORE Fed funds.
Remember Bush had just taken over when 9/11 happen and NO budgets had been offered by him yet.
Our union got blasted by us because they tried to blame Bush thinking we would never ask.
WE ASKED and they shut up.
PS did you Google teamsters & the mob?
Would he have done the same had 9/11 not happened? Guess we'll never know.
Your union should switch targets and work on the GOP Congress folks who did not try and reinstate the cuts in Clinton's budget. After all the GOP was in charge of both the Senate and the House at the end of Clinton's Presidency.
Like I said the President proposes the budget and signs it, but Congress re-works in both chambers before it lands back on the Presidents desk. The question then would be did Clinton's budget call for the funding cut? Were the funds cut during the Congressional revision process? If so by who? Once that's answered then you can start laying the blame.
Army M/V, since you can't seem to grasp the idea of the basic idea of Separation Of Powers maybe you should take a refresher course in civics.
You can paint the broad stroke that it's Clinton's fault but the real budgetary power lies in the hands of the Congress.
But I should not be surprised. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 13, 2007 02:06 PMI watched Hoffa on TV a couple of years back, does that count?
It's also not my fault your Union can't do their homework. I don't plan on doing it for them. Needless to say they can blame the GOP Majority who at the time were ultimately responsible for passing the budget. If the GOP majority can't secure the FF's funding it then becomes Clinton's fault? Seems a rather trivial item for Clinton to veto a whole budget over if it even got noticed.