...at least a little bit. Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon is proposing a modest cut in general property taxes paid to the County. Having seen first hand the conservative manner in which the County budgets, especially with its robust general reserve fund, I'll say it's more than appropriate.
In the end, it won't amount to much in the way of savings. Moreover, the dedicated property tax that goes to pay for local transportation projects should probably be raised given the significant, unmet needs there. But it's significant nonetheless to have the general property taxes going down, not up.
Personally, knowing Councilman Dave Gossett's just-below-the-surface annoyance with Reardon, it makes the proposal all the more fun since Gosset let on in the Herald article he wasn't too thrilled with the idea. Policy proposals are great, but sometimes it's just fun to watch elected officials push each other's buttons.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 30, 2007 05:21 PM | Email ThisNot that I particularly care about his motivation as long as his policy is good, just noting the obvious. He's been known to have statewide ambitions forever.
Posted by: cliff on September 30, 2007 05:30 PMOnly when they are running for office. After which as Gregoire did, they tax the crap out of everyone.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
It'll never happen, their spending just keeps them on a tax more roll!
Re Elect Rossi in 2008!
Posted by: GS on September 30, 2007 06:30 PMDhimmy's will say just about anything as it gets closer to election time!
Posted by: dcat on September 30, 2007 06:33 PMIf Rossi runs and wins, he can run as the sane, sensible Democratic alternative in a state that, if all else is equal, would prefer a Democrat. It would be somewhat similar to Booth Gardner in 1984. Of course, Rossi is not likely to do stupid things that Spellman did(i.e. Jets anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?), but he'd certainly have a shot at it.
If Rossi wins and loses, it seems very unlikely that Gregoire will run for a third term. Dan Evans was the last person to run for a third term, and that was 1972. Since then, we've had 3 one-termers, and if Gregoire were to win, 3 two-termers. If Gregoire does run, he could even consider challenging her in the primary, especially if her current policies of reckless spending, interest group pandering and punting on important issues catch up with her. It was well known, for example, that Locke was planning on challenging Lowry in the primary if he decided to run again.
Either way, his moderate record as a County Executive, far away from the controversies of Olympia or Washington D.C., would make him a very attractive candidate, especially considering how much Washington seems to like electing County Executives to statewide offices (see: Spellman, Gardner, Locke, Sutherland). He's much more attractive, both personally and professionally, then other possible candidates such as Reps. Rick Larsen or Jay Inslee or other back benchers like Mike Kreidler or yet another run by Ron Sims.
Basically, is what I'm getting at, is that Rossi better win this time, because we are VERY unlikely to beat him in 2012 unless we have the advantage of incumbency, and he'll be a tough candidate either way.
Posted by: cliff on September 30, 2007 06:39 PMI must be having flashbacks of 2004!
Posted by: cliff on September 30, 2007 06:42 PMthen, i remembered my practical life experiences; the "balloon principle"--pinch one end, and the other end swells--same balloon; same voluume; different shape;
thus it is with taxes and governments; none disappear; just reshuffled;
i'll believe it when i see it on my bill; just like the "$30 car tabs" i just bought--funny--they were $61 after all the smoke cleared; who do they think they are fooling?!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 30, 2007 07:29 PMSo Aaron Reardon wants me to be able to buy one extra gallon of milk per year.
$2.39.
Two dollars and thirty-nine cents.
Eric, I just don't know how you can write "But it's significant nonetheless to have the general property taxes going down, not up" with a straight face, when it's not going to make a lick of difference to ANY taxpayer. If it were significant it would be more than $2.39.
How is this worth even talking about? How is this anything more than symbolic, and what is it even intended to symbolize? This is the least serious tax cut I have ever seen in my life.
People say to not look a gift horse in the mouth, but the wrapping paper costs more than the horse!
What would REALLY help property owners is to do something to lower assessments, which have gone up astronomically: I did add an addition, but even without it, the "value" of my home has doubled since I bought it in 2002.
Or maybe a REAL rate cut.
Posted by: pudge on October 1, 2007 12:42 AMOctober 1, 2007
Politics is a contact sport. That's not news to Tim Eyman or Mike and Jack Fagan, who run Voters Want More Choices, the Washington State group behind the Taxpayer Protection Initiative, known as I-960 on this November's ballot.
Thirteen years ago, these gents helped pass Initiative-601, requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any tax increase. Says Eyman, "Despite repeated Chicken Little, sky-is-falling predictions by opponents and many in the media, I-601 has worked well. But during the past 13 years, the Legislature has punched loophole after loophole into it."
Legislators have gone so far as to declare tax bills to be emergencies and even placed tax increases off-budget to avoid the controls of I-601.
I-960 closes the loopholes. It allows tax increases only by two-thirds legislative vote or a vote of the people, mandates public notice of any pending tax legislation, and ensures at least an advisory public vote, even when the Legislature attempts to block a binding one by declaring a tax increase to be an "emergency."
Now, the usual suspects (politicians and special interests) are kicking up a fuss. For instance, they claim in the state voters' pamphlet that I-960 will leave state government "vulnerable" to "recession, pandemic flu, or even terrorist attacks."
What I-960's opponents truly fear, of course, is vulnerability to the voters.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Click here to listen to an MP3 audio file of this episode.
I think it would be a mistake to assume Reardon would be a good Governor. He 'may' be a decent Governor, but make no mistake: His ultimate constituency is himself, and he'll do what in his own best interest. He's smart enough to realize that he'd be better off being a moderate, but don't trust him as far as I could throw him past that.
Anyhow, if he ever is elected Governor, I hope I'm wrong, but every single person I know who's ever dealt with him says he's an empty suit. And empty suits are only good if the right people are filling them up.
Posted by: Cliff on October 1, 2007 01:49 PMSorry, I think you are way off in left field on this one. (Speaking of which, Go Red Sox!)
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2007 10:51 AMIn 2003 he voted to increase the B&O tax.
Please...he's no fiscal conservative. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing...the very worst kind of democrat....one who will say anything to get elected and forget everything they said...oh wait, that's every democrat!
Posted by: drw on October 2, 2007 12:24 PMIt's obvious that GS, dcat, jhyd, pudge, cliff and drw listened in math class.
When Aaron does run for state or federal office I expect Eric will be his campaign manager. I hope he'll take a basic math class by then.
Posted by: Silkworm on October 2, 2007 02:23 PMIf you have yearly assessment upgrades, your tax bite shouldn't be bad from one year to the next, or so the theory goes.
I am living in new construction, so I saw the monster increases while the appraisers sorted it out.
Posted by: swatter on October 2, 2007 03:39 PMI forgot to add his recent comments about how electing democrats to the council would add "maturity which is much needed" or something to that affect.
This from a person who is supposed to work WITH the council and instead works against them at every turn. A person who refuses to even negotiate with the clerks and gets beat down in court (at taxpayer expense) because of it!
This man is very dangerous and could be the 2nd worst county executive in the state after Sims. But he does give Sims a run for his money.
Posted by: drw on October 2, 2007 04:02 PMHowever it shakes out, next year's bill will probably represent about a 25% increase over this year, an increase of 38% in three years. If I take out the money I actually put into the house, it falls to about 24% over those three years, which is still insane.
So call me crazy, but I am not going to get excited about a drop of a few bucks, when it is increasing hundreds of times that.
Symbolism can only take you so far, Eric.
My levy rate, actually, went down last year in two locations of property I own. So, the overall effect was a slight increase in taxes. I am still fighting the new construction thing though.
The other thing of importance are the special levies which I don't think are governed by the 1% property tax increase. I have a new school and fire levies to pay off, so I don't think those levies have to pay less, but I am not 100% sure of that.
Also, where I am at, my properties get reassessed every year instead of every four years, so the increases should be lower.
Posted by: swatter on October 3, 2007 02:19 PM