Association to challenge Initiative 1033
July 17, 2009
By Michael Rowe
Suburban Cities Association Executive Director Karen Goroski told the Snoqualmie City Council July 13 that her organization is preparing to oppose Initiative 1033.
Goroski updated the council on what the organization was doing to advocate for the interest of King County’s suburban cities. Initiative 1033 seeks to limit the growth of city, county and state governments by not allowing general fund revenues to exceed the rate of inflation and population growth. The initiative requires that any revenue collected by the state, county, or a city government that is in excess of the rate of inflation and population growth would be used to reduce property taxes. Fund transfers to the state’s constitutionally required “rainy day” fund, federal funds and voter-approved revenues are exempted from the affects of the initiative.
Critics of the initiative say it will hamstring governments by not allowing them to put aside for future infrastructure improvements. The initiative was prepared by so-called initiative king Tim Eyman, who has brought many initiatives to voters over the years.
Eyman submitted over 300,000 petition signatures in support of the initiative to the state on July 10, which is more than the 241,153 signatures needed to get on the November general election ballot.
Goroski told Snoqualmie’s City Council that the Suburban Cities Association would help them get out the word about how the initiative would hurt local governments.
The council also heard the final report from University of Washington professor Jill Sterrett, who has worked with the city’s sustainability team and UW students to develop plans for improving Snoqualmie’s sustainability. The sustainability team has been working since last fall on the project and Sterrett presented policy and other recommendations from the group.
The presentation highlighted several things that the city could get started on right away. One of those things is increasing recycling rates in the city to 45 percent. Snoqualmie residents already recycle about 32 percent of municipal solid waste. Mayor Matt Larson said that he is looking at hiring an intern to coordinate recycling programs and community education with the county as part of a pilot program.
Sterrett said that there were other sustainability programs that the city could jump on, like conducting a greenhouse gas inventory, and using recycled cooking oils from local restaurants to power its bio-diesel shuttles.
Some of the other top recommendations for programs that Snoqualmie could pursue in the future include developing green businesses in Snoqualmie or attracting those businesses to the area. The team also recommended allowing greater density in residential developments, and helping residents with weatherization of homes to save energy.
Snoqualmie’s Planning Commission will study the sustainability team’s report and consider making its own recommendations to the council for implementation.
Reach reporter Michael Bayless Rowe at mrowe@snovalleystar.com or 392-6434, ext. 248.
Comments
3 Responses to “Association to challenge Initiative 1033”
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
What I-1033 would do is not clearly stated here. The statement that “Property tax revenues in excess of the rate of inflation and population growth would be refunded to residents under Initiative 1033.” is not correct. Eyman’s measure transfers all revenue in excess of that above a baseline adjusted each year for inflation and population growth to a special fund.
The revenue involved includes sales tax revenue and all other revenue to state, county and city government. No one will receive a property tax refund check. The excess revenue will go into a special fund which will reduce the overall property tax that can be collected the next year.
I-1033 is actual a reverse Robin Hood transfer of wealth from taxpayers who pay sales tax to those that own property. For example last year 57% of state tax revenue came from the sales tax. The reduction in property tax will affect both commercial and residential real estate taxes. So shopping mall owners and real estate developers and people with second homes and megamansions will all share in a reduction in property taxes if the economy picks up and more revenue comes in. If you own property you would benefit. The more you own the more you benefit.
Everyone pays sales tax yet the US Census Bureau says that only 65% of households in the state are owner occupied. So some 35% of the households will still pay sales tax but they will see no direct benefit like those that own property under I-1033. So instead of using increased revenues to fund schools or teacher pay or classroom reduction, Eyman measure transfer tax dollars, the majority of which comes from all taxpayers who pay sales tax to just benefit those that pay property taxes.
This is absurd. How about reducing sales taxes if you think taxes are too high? Sales taxes are regressive.. Or how about a Homestead Exemption to help reduce taxes on one’s principal residence? Why should my sales tax dollars go to help reduce property taxes for Boeing or Weyerhauser or Kemper Freeman’s Bellevue Square Mall?
Vote No an I-1033. Support real tax reform, not another tax break for the wealthy.
Initiative 1033 is not a simple measure in what it does. I urge people to read it and listen to the pro and con arguments carefully because it represents a radical change in Washington State tax policy and governance.
First off I-1033 is misrepresented as some type of control of state and local govenrnent spending but it is actually a no growth measure, freezing all spending to this year’s recession based level and only allowing a slight adjustment for consumer inflation and increased residents.
Only the state of Colorado has tried this approach and they have come to regret it as public services have continued to decline each year as costs of things like Medicaid and education have risen faster than the consumer inflation index.
Second I-1033 would change our governing power from one of representative democracy to budgeting by initiative and referendum votes. The only way to increase the budget under I-1033 is by a vote of the people. Elections cost money and are a poor way to make complicated budget decisions. California has tried this approach and we see where it got them.
Third I-1033 is a wealth distribution scheme, giving a special tax break to those that own property. Rather than increased tax dollars being used to fund education, or police or fire protection or repairing roads or keeping parks and libraries open I-1033 says it is more important to pay the property taxes of businesses and corporations. Some 40% of his lower property tax fund will go to help pay commercial real estate taxes.
The real losers here are renters – they will see no property tax refund or check and they will see no public services increased. But they will still pay the same amount of taxes.
I-1033 is a poorly thought out and complicated scheme that hurts renters and low income folks who pay sales taxes and rewards rich property owners with a special tax break. Vote No on I-1033. Let’s keep Eyman’s hands out of our wallets and pocketbooks. Times are rough enough as it is without having to contend with his pickpocketing ways.
Initiative 1033 is a freeze on public spending.
The Washington State Office of Financial Management says that Initiative 1033 would severely impact state and local government.
In their words “The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education, social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015″
This is the impact Tim doesn’t want you to see. Read it yourself.
see http://ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/i-1033_fiscal_impact.pdf
Vote No on I-1033!