I was given this second-hand, but I believe it is accurate based on the source:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. Any tax increase adopted by the state from July 2 through December 31, 1999 is null and void and of no effect.

(a) For the purposes of this section, "tax" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, sales and use taxes, property taxes, business and occupation taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, impact fees, license fees, permit fees, utility rates, including sewer and water rates, and any monetary charge imposed by government.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "tax" does not include:

(1) Higher education tuition;

(2) Civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract; and

(3) The price of goods offered for sale by the state.

(c) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax.

(d) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" does not include taxes approved by a vote of the people.

(e) For the purposes of this section, "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself and all its departments and agencies, any city, county, special district, and other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The growth in property taxes is limited by setting the valuation of every parcel of property to 1999 levels and valuations can only be increased by the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2% per year.

(a) Property valuations may be reset when a change of ownership occurs.

(b) For purposes of this section, "property" means real and personal property.

(c) For purposes of this section, "1999 levels" means the assessors' proper valuation of property in effect on January 1, 1999.

(d) For purposes of this section, "inflation" means the percentage change in the implicit price deflator for the United States for each fiscal year as published by the federal bureau of labor statistics.

(e) For purposes of this section, "change of ownership" shall not include the transfer of real property to a spouse or to a trustee for the benefit of a spouse.

(f) Nothing in this section shall prevent a reduction in property valuation when there is a decline in value.

(g) This section is the method for determining true and fair value of property for purposes of 84.40 and 84.41 RCW. By determining true and fair value of property in this manner, real property taxes will be stabilized, uniform and predictable for all property owners because all property will be valued at 1999 levels and increased for inflation up to 2%. All property owners will have the benefit of knowing their property's valuation for tax purposes will not increase beyond the inflation rate without the owners choosing to acquire ownership or build on their property. This guarantees that property taxes are predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner in this state.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. Motor vehicles are exempted from property taxes.

(a) For purposes of this section, "motor vehicles" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, personal and business owned cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, motor homes, and any other vehicles previously exempted from ad valorem taxes prior to the adoption by the people of Initiative 695, the $30 License Tab Initiative.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 01, 1999

Answers

This is a response I wrote to Monte on the above, before I saw the text, based on what Monte Behnam described as the content. I believe it still fits here:

Monte:

Lets address your points one at a time:

"Son of 695 does not freeze valuations." What does it do to property values? I note that in your prior post you wrote "It will limit the amount of tax increase that can be taken to the voter for approval. Remember the maximum amount of tax increase is 1% of the county's property valuation. Thus if property valuations are increased, more tax dollars can be asked for." If your objective is to limit the amount of money that can be generated by the property tax, under the constitutional 1% limit, how can that be done without limiting value increases? Do you have the initiative language anywhere for review, so we can see what the draft initiative actually states?

"It does not limit what can be asked for from EXCESS levies such as voter approved school levies." OK. That is true in one sense. If property values are restricted to less than market value, over time they may be 50% of true assessed value, and at that point schools are still legally able to ask for voter approval of an excess levy of $6.00/$1000 instead of $3.00/$1000 (to generate the same amount of money.) The problem is with the state levy for schools. It is not an excess levy, and it is set at $3.60/$1000 of the true assessed value. If that value is reduced over time to 50% of the market value, the state levy would generate only 50% of what it should collect under the present system. Many people believe the state is not providing enough funding to assure that basic education is being paid for for all children of the state. Your proposal seems to make that situation worse, and will make the poor districts that are unable to make up the losses with excess levies of $8 - $9/$1000 fall farther behind.

PS: You did not really address the issue of those local governments that are limited to a specific share of the the constitutional 1% limit. If values are not allowed to increase, their revenue can not increase even with a vote of the people, within the regular levy that is intended to be the funding for that service. Fire districts are allowed up to $1/50/$1000; but if the value is reduced over time to 50% of the market value, the revenue from that levy rate is 50% what it should be. That can be requested as an excess levy, of an additional amount; but that is unworkable as a reliable revenue source to hire staff and provide a service delivery system. An excess levy can be collected for one year only, and requires 60% voter approval. On both counts, it makes that a poor substitute for the stable funding needed to provide a critical and necessary public service. The same problem exists for library districts, EMS levies, and others that depend on the property tax for their basic operating revenue.

"It does not take anymore money away from government than it already has." No, this is just avoiding the question. What it does is prevent voter approval of increases in the operation revenue of governments, necessary to keep up with the increasing cost of doing business. In dollars, that may be true. In buying power, or constant-value dollars, it is not true. When the value of money is being reduced by inflation every year, getting the same amount every year is not stable funding. It is a budget that will support fewer and fewer people and supplies and services, and a lower and lower level of service to the public.

"It limits how much can be taken from the "automatic" 1% levy." How? The only way I see that working is by a restriction on property values. Tell me where I am wrong.

"In the long run it will provide more opportunity for junior taxing districts to get more money. Right now the senior districts get first crack at it. When they are done taking the money, the junior districts are left holding the empty bag. We plan to change the 6% levy to 2% or inflation." Here you show you just don't understand how the property tax system works. 695 already replaced the 6% inflation factor with a 0% inflation factor, unless approved by the voters. The 6% inflation factor WAS the limit on the amount of the property tax revenue that could be collected by a local government, without voter approval. What your proposal would do is set a limit on property value increases, and that is a different thing entirely.

In fact, if property values are not increasing, and the property tax revenue that can be collected by a local government can not increase without a vote, the tax rates of both the senior and junior districts would not be changing; and the same "pecking order" of senior and junior districts would be essentially unchanged. Whatever change did occur would happen to both, and is unlikely to change the relative revenue available to junior districts. If anything, the restrictions on value increases are likely to cause the senior districts to ask the voters to tax at the statutory maximum, and the voters will be more likely to approve that increase. In that case, the junior districts would be cut back to make room for the senior levies. In particular, fire districts would be rolled back to about half the levy rate they are authorized. Simple math. If half the levy rate is collected on property valued at half the market rate, the revenue for the fire district is a QUARTER of what is should be.

"Revaluation due to change in ownership will allow more money in the available from the 1% levy than the senior taxing districts can take. So it will provide the junior taxing districts more opportunity." Here you get to the unconstitutional part of the proposal. As I understand it, when property is sold it goes to the market value until sold again. That means one house that is not sold could be paying say $2,000/year in property tax, and one next door of the same market value could be paying $4,000/year in property tax. They get the same services, but one gets these services for half price. That is not tax equity. That is not what Article 7, section 1 requires.

In addition, the additional value would effect junior and senior districts in the same way. Neither would benefit, unless they get voter approval for the increase; or both could benefit if they get voter approval. Junior disrticts are still junior, and with much reduced revenue in constant value dollars.

"Son of I-695 will stop the ability of local governments from "catchin up" taxes from valuation increases that greatly exceed the rate of inflation. I am sure this is bad news to you but it is good news to the taxpayers." On this one, you lose me. The only way local governments can "catch-up" is by voter approval of the tax increase, under the requirements of 695. What you are telling us is that you want to prevent local communitites from making the decision to tax themselves to improve the service they want. What is wrong with local voters doing that? I thought that is the kind of control 695 was supposed to give you. Voter control of the level of taxes and service. Now you want to take away that control, and require local governments to provide less and less service to more and more people, without even the option to correct that problem and restore the service they want. Will you only be satisfied if everyone is required to live in a Washington with service levels no better than a third world country?

"I had a long talk with Sen. Loveland of Pasco who is committed to providing a long term fix for the smaller towns and counties." This isn't the fix they need, and with a very little analysis that should be clear even to a state Senator.

"So have a little faith in the government it will adjust." Not all adjustments are good, or reasonable, or prudent, or wise, or necessary. They will adjuct, if this were made law. I just don't believe that would be good, or reasonable, or prudent, or wise.

"The taxpayer can no longer allow the government to grow at the alarming rates of the past. (Gov. Locke has added over 10,000 employees since 1997)." I am not really all that concerned about the state. They have funding options not available to local governments. If you are referring to government growing faster than the rate of inflation, that is necessary to maintain the same level of service in a growing community. I covered that in a prior post, but the short explanation is simple: Budget growth at the rate of inflation is necessary just to keep the same staff and supplies to do what you were doing last year. An additional increase is necessary to provide the additional services to the new buildings, people and businesses that are added in the community every year.

"I do not have a lot of time to scan the discussion page. I would encourage you to read my previous post. Please do not try to continue to "wage a war of fear and terror" on the people of the state of Washington because we want those of you in government to be more efficient." I am not dealing in fear and terror. You are dealing in half truths and distortions. I just want the information to be complete, on what this new proposal will do. When I read you want government to be more efficient; from what I have seen that means you want government to be much smaller, and capable of doing much less. I don't, and I don't believe most of the population will agree with you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 01, 1999.

"When I read you want government to be more efficient; from what I have seen that means you want government to be much smaller, and capable of doing much less. I don't, and I don't believe most of the population will agree with you. " I do, and believe that most of the people also agree. We can still have reasonable services without bloated bureaucracies through privatization, but I don't believe we need subsidization of day care services, taxpayer supplied underground parking garages for park n rides on Mercer Island, or a bevy of other marginal or truly wasteful government functions. Time for the government to get lean, like private enterprise has been doing. Time to use new technology to decrease the growing number of government employees. Time to start realizing economies of scale, rather than just increasing overhead.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Mark:

Within reason, I also agree. This would go far beyond reasonable efficiencies.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 01, 1999.

d,

Forgive my stupidity on property taxes, since I thought I understood them and now it seems I don't. They more I read these posts, the more confused I become. Please feel free to talk down to my level, so I can understand the ramifications of the son.

Please also play devils advocate if you will and explain why you think *they* think section 2 is even neccessary. At this time there seems to be a very limited explanation coming from the pro side. I would appreciate it, as will others.

I can understand sections 1,3,4 and 5. It may well be that section 1 will be neccessary IMO. I'm not sure why section 2 was written/designed in this manner.

I have been operating under the assumtion that if your home had a fair market value of $100,000. You could not be assessed for more than the fair market value, correct? So if valuations could only be increased by the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2% per year, then does that mean eventually, your property tax is based more on inflation not to exceed 2%? Doesn't that actually do away with valuation based on value? What long term effects could we reasonably expect? Would people have a tendancy to hold on to their currrent home to avoid much higher property taxes if they traded up or down? Would this have a serious impact on construction? Would it also push property values even higher because of a shortage then? See, I am WAY confused now.

If you have the time, could you make a quick comparison as to the tax impact on a $100,000 dollar home, versus a $500,000 home? What I mean to say is, if we no longer can assess a home on valuation, (which always seemed fair), since the fair value of the three homes I have owned in this state were always assessed below fair value. Assuming an increase in property values is proportionate, does the more expensive home get a better tax break? Thanks in advance d, I know I am asking alot. And I am sure you know where I was headed with this last paragraph. PS. Feel free to jump in here at any time Craig!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

What I meant was, since a larger share of tax burden exists under the current property tax system for the more expensive home in relation to the cheaper home. How does this change with provisions of the son? It would seem to favor the more expensive home. Am I correct? At an increase in value of 10%, the $100,000 home is now worth $110,000. The $500,000 home increases by 10% to $550,000. So if it is limited to the maximum of 2% for both, does this change the equity of the taxation? Hence my question "does the more expensive home get a bigger tax break under the son initiative?" It would sure seem so. What is my point? I prefer voters get to decide, not have it predetermined.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Marsha, I can address one of your questions accurately, based on personal experience. You asked: "I have been operating under the assumtion that if your home had a fair market value of $100,000. You could not be assessed for more than the fair market value, correct?"

Not correct. There is a "secret" definition for fair market value. You may think that it's what you might be able to sell your property for, but that's not so. In King County, the assessor determines what fair market value is using a commercial computer program purchased from a software company on the East Coast. When I asked the assessor for details on the contents of that program, as it gave a value for my property that was significantly in excess of the asking price of my next-door neighbor, whose property is substantially identical, I was told that no one in the office knew what was inside that program. Of course, I was being given the run around. But the fact remains that fair market value as defined by the assessor can be larger or smaller or equal to what you can sell your property for, all depending on what is entered into and what is inside that magical computer program. And you will find that you can protest all you like, the assessor's position will not change.

-- clinton james (clinton_james@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

If you have the time, could you make a quick comparison as to the tax impact on a $100,000 dollar home, versus a $500,000 home? What I mean to say is, if we no longer can assess a home on valuation, (which always seemed fair), since the fair value of the three homes I have owned in this state were always assessed below fair value. Assuming an increase in property values is proportionate, does the more expensive home get a better tax break? Thanks in advance d, I know I am asking alot. And I am sure you know where I was headed with this last paragraph. PS. Feel free to jump in here at any time Craig! 

Well, Im still making up my mind about the son. If you read John Carlsons column in the Tacoma News Tribune today, it would appear that he believes that the only way to control government growth and force efficiencies is to put it on a diet, ie., decrease the revenues going to government. He proposes decreasing property taxes as a way to do that.

I hesitate to get into debates where fair comes up, because fairness is defined differently by different people and the one framing the question usually wins the debate. An example: a. Is it FAIR that older people should be forced out of a house that they have lived in all their lives by increasing tax bills caused by increasing the assessed valuation of the same home? b. Is it FAIR that young people who cannot afford to buy a home and older poor people who rent get their housing costs raised every time there is inflation, while people who have bought a home get tax- subsidized mortgages, have no costs other than taxes once their mortgages are paid off, and now want no increase in their taxes for the rest of their lives? Since both of these statements refer to the same issue, its obvious that the person who asks the question can relly slant the picture.

As for my humble opinion, clearly any restriction on the rate of increase in assessment favors the people who just stay put. The more expensive the home and the faster the increase in assessed valuation in an area, the more the people who stayed put would benefit. To the extent that you keep a given level of service, decreasing costs to one group means increasing costs to another. Now we do this all the time for political reasons, whatever taxing strategy we use.

That is the MAIN reason that Id like to see as many government functions privatized as possible, because Id like to see as much as possible being set by market forces. Government policies are SO amenable to manipulation, much more so than the market. And there is a cottage industry of bureaucrats, lobbyists and political advisors that exists just to do the process of government. Id like to see as little process (which is inherently overhead) and as much production (services) and that to me argues for privatization of all non inherently governmental functions.

But how to collect the revenue that is needed.. thats more difficult.

One thing that makes this difficult is the decision regarding what things ought to be paid for by users and what things ought to be paid for by common taxes. Most people would argue for a mix of both. Certain low probability high-potential cost issues (war, crime, disaster, and fire) most people believe ought to be commonly funded, sort of a self-insuring process. Other things that are necessary and appropriate functions (animal licensing or building electrical inspections, for example) would seem to be more appropriately user funded. The reason to not fund EVERYTHING in common is because of what economists refer to as the commons problem. It is why collectivization in the Soviet Union didnt work well, and why rental vehicles take a beating. There is little adverse consequence to an individual for inappropriate use of common property, equipment, or financial resources, so they can exploit the commons for very small marginal self gain. Conversely (in the case of the collectivization example), they can cheat on the effort they give to the commons (the collective farm) and devote more time to their own small plot because the adverse consequences of the collective farm being unproductive affect them less than the marginal gain by applying that level of effort to their private plots. To avoid abuse of commonly held property or commonly provided services is more difficult than avoiding abuse of private property or public services provided through user fees, since these tend to be self policing.

If I ruled the world, wed tend to fund more services through user fees (recognizing that short term help for everyone and long term help for those unable (not unwilling, but unable) to provide for themselves are legitimate self-insure functions) and fewer through common taxes.

Id tend to fund auto use with auto derived revenue. Id tend to fund truck transport use with truck transport derived revenue. Id tend to fund transit use with transit derived revenue, etc. Id tend to fund schools with sales taxes and business taxes. Id tend to fund police, fire, and other essential (sorry d) services with a mixture of property taxes and sales tax revenue. But thats just me. Its a political process that has to consider two factors always; #1 What does the MAJORITY want, #2 What response will the MINORITY make if the majority gets it their way. There are indeed often situations when the majority ought to give way, if the reaction in the minority will be so detrimental to the society as a whole if the majority gets its way.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 01, 1999.

James,

Thank you for the correction. It would seem, on the surface then, that the son initiative would solve the assessed value problem.

However would it be prudent or beneficial to limit increases by initiative for every community? My personal feeling is that you would be better off if no increase were allowed at all, except for what your local voters would support. The method for assessing value should be dealt with in a totally different manner in my opinion.

My reasoning for maintaining local control over property tax increases is good old fashioned common sense. People are more aware of community needs or excesses at the local level and can make a better decision than this initiative would allow.

If any of our Legislators take the time to read here and stumble on this post, what can you do for homeowners who are unfairly assessed? Do we need to kick you in the head with another initiative to get this fixed?

Craig, so I am not the only one who hasn't made up my mind on the son? I will read John Carlson's column you mentioned, thanks.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

"If any of our Legislators take the time to read here and stumble on this post, what can you do for homeowners who are unfairly assessed? "

Simple. Pass an initiative or law requiring the assessing county to BUY the property at 94% of the assessed value if the owner desires to sell it. Since a realtor would probably charge the owner 5% to sell it, that ought to be about 99% of what the owner would realize in the free market, and about 99% of what the county could expect to realize if they sell it through a realtor. If the assessor values it properly, no one will want to sell it to the assessor, because they can make MORE money selling it themselves. If the assessor over values it, the county gets to OWN a lot of over-priced property. Ain't the free market wonderful??

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 01, 1999.

Craig-

This points out a major problem with our elected officials...... no individual responsibility. When you or I foul up, we pay. When the Mayor decides that WTO protestors are harmless and they trash the place, the public pays. Even where their is gross malfeasance (the Pang warehouse fire comes to mind) and people die and the court DOES assess liability, does the mayor or firechief pay it? Nope. The taxpayers get hammered again.

What we ought to do is have an initiative against sovereign immunity and immunity of elected officials. If Hizzoner fouls up, Hizzoner gets sued, and if he loses, Hizzoner pays. But I like the idea to have all assessed valuation be an implied offer to buy. It'd keep them honest! Not a trivial feat, these days.

"Monica whooo????" - Persident Bill (Slick Willy) C

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Marsha:

You asked some good questions, and so far the answers are a little misleading. Let me say first that I support expanded tax relief for those seniors on a fixed income. They should not be taxed out of the family home even if they are not at the poverty level. As I noted before, that does not justify property tax relief for everyone. Some of us need to pay for the services, or we will not have the services.

As for the assessors values of property, they can be appealed to a Board of Equalization (I think they call it) that will review the evidence and will overrule the assessor if necessary. County assessors are currently required by state law to assess as nearly as possible to the market value, in order to provide the equitable basis for distribution of the tax levy "fairly". Some counties assess annually, others every two years, and some used to do it every 4 years. On the longer revalue cycles, the revalue year resulted in a huge increase and all kinds of appeals, rate adjustments, and unstable revenue to governments. The computer programs are used to make the interrum adjustments between actual inspections. In King County, the value is adjusted annually, but the inspection is done in different parts of the county each year to "reset" the value model for that area. The value model uses sales data in the area, and the relative values of other property in the area, to adjust property value to the current market.

I noted that the county assessor is required to value at near full value by state law, and that needs a little more explanation. The state levy for schools is $3.60/$1000 on all property in the state. If a county is assessing at less than the market value, the property owners would not be paying their share into the fund that is returned to school districts to fund basic education. As a result, it would cause a tax inequity since the other counties would be paying part of the share that should be paid by the under valued county. The state Department of Revenue keeps their own records of values, and makes a determination on whether the county is accurately assessing property at full value. If they are over or under, the rate that the state requires the county to collect for the public schools could be changed. If the county is assessing more than 5% under market, the state school levy in that county could be increased from $3.60 to $3.75 (or more). That increase in the state rate for schools, collected in the under valued county, restores the equity of the tax collected statewide.

The constitutional limit is 1% of value for the "regular levy" of all taxing districts. That is $10.00/$1000. Excess levies, for bonds and local school taxes, etc., are in addition to the 1% limit on "regular" levies, and they require 60% voter approval, usually validation, and have other limitations. A maintenance and operation levy can only be collected for 1 year (2 for schools I think). A bond issue levy can only be used to pay off voter approved bonds, as that expense becomes due; and are not limited as to rate or amount in order to guarantee the bond holders that they will get paid no matter what happens. Interest in government bonds is not subject to federal income tax, and that along with their security is why governments can borrow for public improvements at less than the market rate for a home mortgage.

Within the constitutional 1% ($10.00/$1000) "regular" levy limit, each kind of local government has its own statutory limit. The legislature allocates that levy authority, to assure that every kind of local service has an appropriate share of the available levy authority to do their job. They allocate more statutory levy authority than is available within the $10.00, on the theory that most of the time some of the local governments will not exist at all, or will not need to levy the entire amount of their statutory authority. The (former) 6% limit on property tax increases, the more recent IPD limit on increases, and now the effects of 695, would prevent the tax amount from increasing as fast as property values sometimes increase. If the values go up faster than the tax amount, the tax levy rate is reduced, and more "room" is left between the total of all local levy rates and the $10.00 limit. That "lid" on the tax amount (the 106% lid or the IPD lid or now the 695 lid) can be "lifted" by a majority of the voters, to restore the levy rate of a taxing district to something up to a maximum of the statutory limit for that local government. That is the origin of the term "lid lift election". It requires just a 50% (+ 1) vote for approval, because it is a "regular" levy and not an "excess" levy.

Within the $10.00, some levies are more senior than others. The legislature authorized a $9.50 statutory maximum, and the $.50 between $9.50 and $10.00 is a special case area, and is where the EMS regular levy is located (60% approval required). I already noted that the state levy for schools is $3.60 (or possibly more). Cities can collect up to $3.60 (less the levy of the fire district and or library district if they have annexed into those districts instead of providing those services directly). The County levy is in two parts totaling $4.10, but part of that is not collected within cities. I believe they collect up to $2.25 and $1.85, with up to $2.25 collected everwhere for coutywide "regional" services, like the court system and county prosecutor, etc.; and they collect up to $1.85 only in unincorporated areas, to fund road maintenance and other "local government" type services like the police. The library district, metro park district, and public hospital district (if they are organized) can collect up to $.50/$1000 each for their services. All of the above are "senior" districts, higher in the pecking order than a fire district.

Fire districts are kind of a special case. They are authorized to levy up to $1.50/$1000, but that authority is in three equal parts. The first $.50 is essentially equal with the library district and hospital district. The second $.50 is authorized only if the more senior districts don't levy at the maximum. The third $.50 is also only available if others don't need it, and is also conditioned on the fire district having at least one full time employee. After the fire district comes the flood control districts, and in some cases weed control and cemetary districts, etc.

If you add up the statutory maximums, a fire district could be reduced to $1.35 if they have just a library district overlaping, or $.85 if they have a library district and a hospital district, or less than $.50/$1000 if they have a library, hospital and metro park district overlaping the fire district. If a hospital district were to overlap just one small part of the fire district, and the fire district levy rate were reduced as a result for that small area, that reduced levy rate would apply throughout the fire district to maintain tax equity. You can't have part of the district paying less for the service than the rest, so everyone pays less and the level of service is cut for everyone equally.

WITH ALL THAT IS BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE TAX SYSTEM, WHAT DOES "SON" DO?

1. If AV (assessed value) does not go up with market value, you get a lot of inequities. Houses that have sold have a tax value that is higher than identical houses that have not been sold. Houses in depressed areas that would not have increased in value anyway, would benefit much less than houses in growth areas that are appreciating. The incentives will be to hold property instead of trade up, so the new construction market will be depressed and the remodel contractors will be busy.

2. If the past predicts the future; property values will increase more than 2%/year, and average inflation will be more than 2%/year. So what happens to taxable value and government revenue? Over time, most property will become more and more disconnected from market value, but others will be at market value because of a sale. So what property does not sell? Big business property rarely changes ownership, so Boeing and Microsoft, and Weyerhauser will have property that would benefit greatly. Some people will establish a family trust, to hold ownership of property through several generations without a sale or title transfer of any kind, and they will benefit. Most people change homes about every 5 years, and they will benefit for a short time, but not like the business property owners. The result will be that the total AV of a taxing district will reduce over time, with the inequity in taxable value going to the long term owners who legally never die, and the tax revenue and service levels will be severely cut.

3. If the AV declines, the maximum tax levy under the 1% constitutional limit also declines. In 10 or 20 years, depending on the rate of market value change, the taxable value of a communty may be 50% of the actual market value. Some will be at market value, but others will be far below the market price. That means that the local government will not have kept up with the inflation in the cost of providing services, so the level of service will have declined over time. And those services that are being provided, are not being paid for through an equitable, market value system. Business will be paying much less than their fair share. New buyers will be paying much more than their fair share.

4. If the property values are held to less than market value, over time the tax levy of the senior districts will not generate enough funding for even the most necessary of the high priority services. They will ask voters to increase their levy rate to the statutory maximum, and voters will tend to approve because the need will be clear and at the reduced taxable values the increased tax rate may not mean very much in actual tax amount. So the senior districts will tend to increase their levy to the maximum, and that will reduce the fire district levy to a maximum of $1.35, or $.85, or $.43/$1000 instead of the statutory $1.50. And that reduced tax rate will be on a reduced taxable value. As I noted earlier, if the taxable value is at 50% of market value, and the tax rate is rolled back to 50% of the statutory amount, the fire district would get only 25% of the amount they should get under the present funding system.

5. For fire districts, and all local governments, a reduced total taxable value that is below the market value will remove the option that local voters have to authorize a tax increase to maintain or improve the level of service they want. It can still be proposed and approved as an excess levy, but as a regular levy the reduced taxable value means that even with voter approval a local government could not restore the budget losses that are due to inflation and the loss of buying power.

This is getting very long, and it just begins to address the issues in the property tax system that will be upset by Son of 695. The draft is another example of a simplistic "solution" to a complex "problem". I may address some other related issues, in response to other posts, but I think this will serve to give you a summary explanation that should help to understand what is wrong with Son of 695. If you have a specific questions after reading this, I will try to answer them.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 01, 1999.

d, I will need to reread your last post several times more before absorbing most of it. I do have more questions.

In the text of the "son" I see no mention of assessment increases in regards to property improvements. So If, for this 1999 tax year, my land plus well and septic are assessed at $29,000, and I built a house in 1999 that will not be assesed until the tax year 2000, (maybe, if they get around to it) my assessed value can only increase for inflation up to 2% on the $29,000? It would remain so until I sell? Or did I just find something they failed to take into account that could be a future headache? Or cause it to be challenged in court?

Section 2,g last two sentences state:

All property owners will have the benefit of knowing their property's valuation for tax purposes will not increase beyond the inflation rate without the owners choosing to acquire ownership or build on their property. This guarantees that property taxes are predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner in this state.

What on earth does this mean? I have been able to come to several conclusions, and probably none of them right.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.

Craig,

Why would I want my taxes to be used to purchase over assessed property? I really don't like your idea too much. People who want to dump property could take big advantage of this Craig.

I have an idea regarding the assessed valuation problem. Instead of an appeal to the Board of Equalization, we have an initiave to do the following.

Step 1. You feel you are assessed too high. You collect information to support your case and the Assessor or his Rep. come to your home to reevaluate and give you an opportunity to make your case. You either come to an agreement, or take the case to arbitration.

Step 2. Arbitration, a random selection of three licensed Real Estate Appraisers is sent to your home to make an independant appraisal. An average is then taken. They are forbidden to know what the assessed value is.

You have a $1000, leeway in the price. If your appraisal falls within $1000 of assessed value, then the cost of appraisals is split. If you were wrong, you pay for the appraisals, and your property is retains original assessment.

If the Assessor is wrong. The cost for the appraisals is paid out of his budget, and the average of the Licensed Real Estate Appraisers becomes your assessed valuation.

If it is not too late, may I suggest changes be made to the "Son's" text. I can not support it with it's current language. All of Section 2 needs to be changed, or better yet, written up differently as the "Daughter" initiative.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.

Marsha:

I agree the language of Section 2 is unclear on new construction, and if it is not final yet perhaps the authors will clean that up. My preference is that the clean Section 2 out entirely.

2. (g) seems to be a statement of intent or purpose, but does not seem to have any specific effect. It has a reference to a change in ownership, or construction; but that seems to be intended to refer to other provisions to find the legal effect. And as you noted, new construction is not effectively addressed in this draft. They may be depending on how new construction is treated under existing law; but the initiative would overrule existing law, and Section 2 does not provide an exception to the 2% limit, to permit an adjustment in value due to new construction.

Also, I simplified some information about junior taxing districts, and should have calculated the lowest rate of a fire district instead of depending on memory. It is actually $1.85/4 = $.4625/$1000. In the worst case situation, the four equal junior districts are rolled back equally until the total fits within the $9.50 statutory limit.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 02, 1999.

"Why would I want my taxes to be used to purchase over assessed property? I really don't like your idea too much. People who want to dump property could take big advantage of this Craig." Not if their property was appropriately assessed to begin with. If it was, they'd lose money on the transaction. If it was over-assessed, the assessors office would lower the assessed value rather than buy above market price. I think everyone ought to be honest, no matter if anyone is watching them or not. It's the moral thing to do. Bureaucrats, in my experience, tend to be honest more often if the benefits of being dishonest are decreased, and the costs of being dishonest are raised. The proposal would set the incentives correctly, although in fairness the posting was somewhat tongue in cheek. The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 02, 1999.

I received a response to my questions regarding the "Son" from Monte. and when revisions to the above posted text are made, I believe I will be able to support the initiative.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 03, 1999.

Marsha:

What changed your mind? Did he give you any specifics? Section 2 would need to be changed very significantly if they are to overcome the tax equity problems.

I still don't like Section 1 either; but 1. (d) gives local governments the opportunity to get voter approval before (or in the same election as) this initiative would be voted on. My objection here is that local elected officials should be accountable to those that elected them, and not to the state voters. Section 1 would overrule what may be supported locally.

So what did he tell you, and why didn't he let the rest of us know? I noted in a prior post that I thought Monte was dealing in half truths and distortions. Perhaps it was just incomplete information and misunderstandings. I they have "fixed" any of the problems with "Son", it would help if we all knew about it.

PS: This kind of prior review of 695 could have resolved some of the problems it has created, and with some adjustments even I may have supported it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 03, 1999.

d,

Monte's response was not the only thing that changed my mind. I really don't feel enough Legislators have taken the intent 0f I-695 seriuosly. I sincerely believe that Washington and Washington are taxing more than neccessary to provide the services needed.

If I and others like me hope to have a chance at saving for retirement to offset the puny amount we may be fortunate enough to receive from social security, we need to get the tax burden reduced as soon as we can. I am more than willing to pay my fair share, but not to the point that I may become a burden in my retirement years. Our children and grandchildren will be faced with some very difficult futures if we don't slow this tax train down. So there's my main reason. Do it for the kids. I know, it's overused, but this time I think it fits. Here is the response from Monte.

Marsha:

Son of 695 was filed as a "shot across the bow" to let the local governments know that if they pass tax increases without voter approval they will be forced to give the money back to the taxpayer. The final version of "son of 695" will be filed in January as an initiative to the people. So right now we are refining the concept. Several people are involved including our legal team.

We have corrected the problem you mentioned with the statement: "Property valuations shall be reset to reflect values on January 1, 1999 and, thereafter, when a change of ownership occurs or the property is newly constructed."

Question: All property owners will have the benefit of knowing their property's valuation for tax purposes will not increase beyond the inflation rate without the owners choosing to acquire ownership or build on their property. This guarantees that property taxes are predictable and uniform for every present and future property owner in this state.

What on earth does this mean? I have been able to come to several conclusions, and probably none of them right.

Answer: Property taxes are doubling about every 7 years and have done so since 1944. Something must be done to "defuse the property tax time-bomb." The only clear way to do this is by limiting valuations and with voter approval of all tax increases.

The US Supreme Court has already upheld this method of valuation by a vote of 8 to 1. But to claim our rights under the US Constitution and perhaps the WA Constitution a rational basis must be established. The statement you question is put in the initiative to satisfy this requirement of a "rational basis." However we are refining the statement.

Some will say the Washington Constitution will not allow this method of valuation. Our reply is that the WA constitution allows "credits and exemptions of property already taxed if it is done in a uniform manner. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting neighborhoods. (That's a nice way of saying they should not be allowed to tax you out of your home.)

Many will say that son of 695 is not fair because two properties can be taxed at different rate. This will only occur if one property is sold and then revalued according to current valuations schemes.

HERE IS PART OF A COURT RULING that may be of interest to you that explains why this method of valuing property is fair to every property owner . "However the state may deny a new owner at the point of purchase the right to "lock in" to the same assessed value as is enjoyed by an existing owner of comparable property, because an existing owner rationally may be thought to have vested expectations in his property or home that are more deserving of protection than the anticipatory expectations of a new owner at the point of purchase. The new owner has full information about the scope of future tax liability before acquiring the property, and if he thinks the future tax burden is too demanding, he can decide not to complete the purchase at all. By contrast the existing owner already saddled with his purchase, does not have the option of deciding not to buy his home if taxes become prohibitively high. To meet his tax obligations, he might be forced to sell his home or to divert his income away from the purchase of food, clothing, and other necessities."

I hope this answers your questions and that you will support "Son of 695." We are working on a Question v. Answer flyer to help explain the concepts.

Sincerely, RD (Monte) Benham, CoSponsor "Son of 695"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 03, 1999.

Marsha:

Thank you for the copy of the message from Monte Benham.

I believe it is premature to make any judgements about how the legislature will react to 695. "Son" is aimed at local governments anyway, and not the state. The only state property tax levy I am aware of is the levy for schools, and that is returned to local school districts.

You indicated you are willing to pay your share, but you want the tax burden lifted so you can save for retirement and not be a burden for your kids? Do it for the kids? If you consider the kind of state this would be in 15 or 20 years if "Son" is approved in the current form, I could say the same thing. Defeat it for the kids. Also, senior citizens are the population group that uses EMS services, and the fire districts that provide those services will be the hardest hit by the property tax changes. They are nearly 100% property tax funded. Monte wrote, "Son of 695 was filed as a "shot across the bow" to let the local governments know that if they pass tax increases without voter approval they will be forced to give the money back to the taxpayer. The final version of "son of 695" will be filed in January as an initiative to the people. So right now we are refining the concept. Several people are involved including our legal team." As I thought, state voters will be asked to overrule decisions by local governments without knowing if those decisions were made with the support of local voters. The choice before many governments is a 40% revenue and service-level loss, or a 40% tax increase. Local residents don't want either choice, and that requires some creative solutions at the local level. Some of those solutions may require tax and fee increases, and some of those may have had to be acted upon before 1/1/2000. Local governments had no election opportunity, but did hold budget hearings and public meetings. Why not let the local voters determine if the local decisions on local taxes are in the best interests of the local community? Why should state voters get in the middle of this?

Monte wrote, "We have corrected the problem you mentioned with the statement: "Property valuations shall be reset to reflect values on January 1, 1999 and, thereafter, when a change of ownership occurs or the property is newly constructed." That is better, but is still a little unclear. Does that mean only when a new building is built, but not to include a remodel or addition? If that is the intent it should be made clear. We have a "remodel" of a commercial building in progress locally. Half the building will be removed in phase one, and rebuilt on the old foundation. When that is finished, phase two will do the same thing to the other half. The revised language partially fixes one small problem, but leaves several other bigger ones.

Monte wrote, "Property taxes are doubling about every 7 years and have done so since 1944. Something must be done to "defuse the property tax time-bomb." The only clear way to do this is by limiting valuations and with voter approval of all tax increases." If Monte is talking about total property tax collections, he may be right. They could double every seven years. That does not mean that the property tax of an individual owner is doubling every 7 years. That would require that the value of each property had to double every 7 years, and that has definitely not been happening. The explanation of the difference is that the state is growing, and much of the increase in property taxes results from new construction. That new value is part of the base for the next year, and more new construction is added. My property situation may not be typical, but the value has doubled from the assessed value of about 14 years ago. In that time, the value of money has declined about the same amount, and my income for doing the same job I did 14 years ago about doubled. The bottom line is, in constant value dollars, I don't think I pay any more in taxes now than I did 14 years ago.

Monte wrote, "The US Supreme Court has already upheld this method of valuation by a vote of 8 to 1." I would like to see the legal citation for that statement. I suspect it may be concerning a challenge to Prop 13 in California. If that is the case, it is not applicable to our situation. Prop 13 was a state constitutional amendment, so was not subject to challenge on the grounds of being unconstitutional except at the federal level. Any state court looking at conflicts within the state constitution, would be obligated to find an interpretation that upheld both the conflicting provisions.

Monte wrote, "Some will say the Washington Constitution will not allow this method of valuation. Our reply is that the WA constitution allows "credits and exemptions of property already taxed if it is done in a uniform manner." " Monte should re-read Article 7, section 1, and get another opinion on what that reference is all about.

The quote he provided of a court ruling, is again without a citation; and may be about Prop 13. From the specific language in OUR state constitution, I doubt the quote is applicable here.

I continue to believe Section 1 is an inappropriate interferance in local decisions by state voters.

I believe most of Section 2, even with the modifications, is in conflict with the tax equity requirements of Article 7, Section 1 of the state Constitution. I provided that language in another post, but I could move it here if that helps others see the problems.

It would help if Monte Benham would address these issues direcly, and give the legal citations and the basis used for the conclusions he has stated.

Please keep thinking about this, Monica. The proposal, and its effects, are still far from clear.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 03, 1999.

Monte Benham:

I am no lawyer, and you may be right, but it does not look constitutional to me. You quoted part of the section, but here is the rest:

"ARTICLE VII, REVENUE AND TAXATION

SECTION 1 TAXATION.

The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership. All real estate shall constitute one class: Provided, That the legislature may tax mines and mineral resources and lands devoted to reforestation by either a yield tax or an ad valorem tax at such rate as it may fix, or by both. Such property as the legislature may by general laws provide shall be exempt from taxation. Property of the United States and of the state, counties, school districts and other municipal corporations, and credits secured by property actually taxed in this state, not exceeding in value the value of such property, shall be exempt from taxation. The legislature shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to exempt personal property to the amount of three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars for each head of a family liable to assessment and taxation under the provisions of the laws of this state of which the individual is the actual bona fide owner. [AMENDMENT 81, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4222, p 1551. Approved November 8, 1988.]"

http://www.wa.gov:80/courts/educate/wacon/art7.htm

1. The above states that taxes must be uniform for one class of property.

2. It states that all real estate shall be one class.

3. The legislature may exempt property from taxation. It does not say anything about a freeze of value, partial exemption, or that the people may do it by initiative.

I also note you made the comment, "It will limit the amount of tax increase that can be taken to the voter for approval. Remember the maximum amount of tax increase is 1% of the county's property valuation. Thus if property valuations are increased, more tax dollars can be asked for." What is that about? You want to intentionally limit the right of the people to equitably tax themselves? Over time, this will severely reduce the revenue of fire districts, library districts, Emergency Medical Services levies, and school districts.

Monte has yet to respond to this directly.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 03, 1999.

I should have said he responded to it, but did not address all the issues directly.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 03, 1999.

d, Who is Monica?

Most of your points can not be refuted. So I make the following case.

I don't believe that property tax relief should be reserved for low income/elderly taxpayers. There are many categories of homeowners in need of relief. Those people who have the misfortune to own a home in some areas of our state that have sky rocketing property values are only one of those. While you can dispute Monte's 7 year figure, you can not dispute peoples own experiences. Over the last several months, I have been reading letters to the editor in major state newspapers and three local papers, and I just don't think these people are liars, nor do I think it is an exaggeration. I also know from first hand experience. I sold my home and moved to this rural area because I could not afford to remain in my last home. This same concern has been repeated in both my former community and in my present one to the extent that I firmly believe some of us are near a breaking point.

When taxes become 1/3 or more the cost of your house payment, and the interest you pay is no longer enough to be a federal income tax deduction, you start to ask yourself serious questions. Is it worth trying to maintain ownership? The water bill is up, the sewer rate has doubled, electricity rate just went up again, the garbage rate is up. Insurance costs are up as well. Next to your mortgage, property tax is the next highest expense. You can attribute rising costs to whatever you like, but it still adds up. While some people have the incomes to keep up, but many do not. I can't help but feel your viewpoints come from a different economic perspective than the majority of the middle class taxpayers, including mine. If you feel I am resorting to class warfare to make my point, that is not my intent. I just want to try to make you understand.

Our incomes had not kept pace with the rising cost of owning our previous home, and it was a very small moderately priced 3 bedroom in a 25 year old development. Our first six or seven years in that home we were financially comfortable, and our incomes continued to rise every year, but it just did not keep pace with the expenses. There was no way to remain in that home and save for retirement.

Everything you stated regarding the funding distribution from property taxes is true. But that doesn't make it right. Changes need to be made, and the only way it will happen is if we force it to happen. Many local governments are underfunded, and the "Son" will probably hurt rural counties the most. I fully recognize that. But it is crucial to stop taxing hardworking middle class people out of their homes.

I am frustrated by someone as intelligent and apparently compassionate as you wanting to maintain the status quo, and I do not understand why you fail to recognize this problem. I can't debate with you, facts and figures like Craig can, but I can tell you what the reality is for some of us. If you give me a better alternative to the "Son", I'm all ears.

I really had tried to remain impartial, but my past frustrations came back to haunt me.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 04, 1999.

Marsha:

I have no idea why I wrote "Monica". Sorry. I had a foster child by that name some time ago, but I think I just spaced out when I was typing.

You stated the issue very well, and I believe I understand it. The way this has been addressed in the past, and the way 695 addressed it just last month, was to restrict the government revenue rather than the valuation of property. I thought 695 went too far, but "Son" goes much farther before anyone has an opportunity to see how the new restrictions on government tax increases will actually work to hold down the tax burden.

For many years the property tax increase was limited to a 6% increase, in addition to any increase that resulted from new construction. You may remember the Carter years when inflation was running up to 10 or 12%, and a 6% inflation factor in property taxes was unable to pay for the rapidly increasing cost of everything governments did, from personel costs to fuel to paper products. Recently the CPI measure of inflation, which drives most personnel costs, has been running around 3% and that is now considered the norm. The 6% limit was set when 6% was more like the norm. When inflation was higher than 6%, governments were in trouble for a few years until inflation came dow and they could "catch up" as Monte said.

Was it Referrendum 601 that set the IPD as the limit of the property tax increase, unless the elected officials found a "substantial need" for a greater increase, up to the 6% maximum? Again, this restricted the increase in the total tax revenue, and did not restrict the assessors valuations. This had two problems, in my opinion. One is that the IPD is not the measure of inflation most commonly recognized in labor contracts as the basis for a COLA. As a result, the expense item that causes most of any budget increase, has never matched the revenue increase allowed under the IPD limit. The second problem results from the first, and that is that elected officials have frequently had to find that a "substantial need" existed, and exceeded the IPD limit in order to maintain the staff needed to support the level of service provided to the community.

I-695 took that ability to increase the property tax amount, out of the control of the elected officials entirely. They can't levy an IPD size increase without a vote. They can't levy up to the 6% limit, even with the super majority vote of the elected officials. They can't increase the tax amount without a vote of the people at all. That is a huge change in how the property tax will be levied and collected in the future. The only way people will see the increases in the property taxes that you are concerned about, in the future, is (1)the community has voted to increase the taxes as required by 695 or (2) they add significantly to the value of the property by new construction (which son of 695 would also recognize should result in a tax increase), or (3) the assessor adjusts the value of your property upward with the market value at a higer rate than he adjusts other property upward to reflect market value. If the total tax amount has not increased because voters have not approved an increase, the value changes only determine the "fair" and "equitable" distribution of that tax on the property owners. That is what son of 695 would do. It would destroy the fairness and equity of the tax distribution system. In addition, over time, as the the taxable value gets more disconnected from the market value, it actually prevents voters from approving the tax increase they may WANT and NEED and SUPPORT in order to restore the level of service they want from some local government.

695 has already eliminated the problem you are concerned with. Property taxes can't even keep up with inflation unless the voters approve the increase. You asked for an alternative, well that is it and it has already been approved. It should be allowed to work for a few years to see if it is too much of a change, but it is certainly enough to deal with the problem you stated in your post.

Son of 695 attempts to attack the problem (though after 695 it can not really be called a problem anymore) of property tax increases at the individual property owner level, rather than at the level of the total tax amount that can be collected; and that is where it gets into trouble with the state constitution. If the total tax is not increasing without voter approval, tinkering with how property values are determined will benefit some at the expense of others. People who need to change locations for some reason pay more than their fair share, so that those who stay put or are corporate property owners can pay less than their fair share. If you support this proposal, you are actually betting on whether your personal situation will continue to let you stay in one place for the rest of your life. As time passes, the financial penalty for any relocation will get larger and larger; and that tax benefit for staying in one place will be paid for by those who had to move.

However this is rationalized, I don't believe anyone could say it will result in the property taxes being "uniform" on the real estate class of taxable property (as required by Article 7 of the constitution). 695 already took care of preventing tax increases, at the level of the government tax levy. Attempting to do it on an individual basis necessarily creates unacceptable inequities.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 04, 1999.

PS:

It may help if I mention that I am near retirement age myself, and my wife and I have no intention of moving from our home. Son of 695 would likely be of some personal benefit to me. That does not change the fact that the benefit would be at the expense of those who are buyers, as first time buyers or because of a job change or moving up. It would not result in a fair tax system, and would prevent voters from approving proposals for governments to "catch up" with inflation in order to maintain the level of service they want. The reduced assessed values would make catching up with inflation impossible, without use of excess levies.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 04, 1999.

PPS:

One final note. If values go back to 1/1/1999 as proposed, what happens to the value errors the assessor found and corrected this year? What happens to the value errors that are found and corrected every year?

Consider the property owner who has a home or warehouse, or something that had an assessed value 20% or more below the actual value for the last few years. While it was under-valued relative to other taxable property in the community, that owner is paying less in property taxes than he should, less than his fair share relative to his neighbors. When the assessor corrects the error, the property goes up to the market value; but the assessor does not try to collect the taxes that should have been paid in prior years when the property was under-valued. Holding the taxable value of property to a maximum 2% increase in value each year, perpetuates the existing inequity in the property tax on the under-valued property. It means that owner will continue to pay a bargain rate, at the expense of his neighbors. Remember that the total tax is already controlled, so that the tax value determines how much each owner pays of that total tax. If some get a bargain, it is because others are paying part of their share.

From the point of view of the owner of the property that was adjusted upward by the assessor, it seems like a big increase in tax burden; but in fact it is just what he should have been paying all along. From the point of view of the neighbors, they get some tax relief because their under-valued neighbor is finally paying his share.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 04, 1999.

Marsha? Monte? No comment?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 08, 1999.

d, I am waiting to review the changes made to the son. I see no point in commenting until that time. It is possible our previous comments may be taken under consideration.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

Just to keep this one on the page.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 11, 1999.

Eyman seems to be pushing this without any changes that I have seen. Does anyone want to address the tax equity issues this will cause, as described above?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 16, 1999.

I STILL think our comments are being taken into consideration. Since the "son" is in the refining stages, perhaps you should email them with your concerns. I did.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

An excerpt from the thread; Since when is Eyman such an expert on traffic planning?

But neither will be successful in its current form, Eyman concedes. Both are initiatives to the Legislature and would need 179,248 signatures by Dec. 30 to be considered during the 2000 session.

Eyman says he proposed them almost as market research and to help raise money for the new PAC. It also allows the measures to be reviewed by state attorneys and to be given official ballot titles.

So d, here is your chance to let Tim know what YOU think. Upfront and before hand. If you don't do it, then I guess you will be stuck with your one no vote, and little reason to gripe.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

E-mail address?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 16, 1999.

d,

I would send it to tabs@lifetel.com or Monte and ask him to forward it. I think they will at least hear you out. Of all the "anti" folks posting here, you are the only one who is able to communicate in an intelligent and effective manner. Good Luck.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Marsha:

Thanks. I sent off a long message to the address you gave. I would like to se how Benham or Eyman respond to the equity issue. Simply saying California did it, is no arguement. It is still a bad idea, and they did it by constitutional amendment; which would be needed here also, and is not possible by the initiative process.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 17, 1999.

d,

If they did it in California, you'd think that it would be a good reason not do the same here. ;)

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Marsha:

Agreed. Still waiting for some kind of response.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 20, 1999.

Discussion of "son" has started on another thread. I don't want to cut and past all this, but many of the problems with "son" are identified above with information about how the property tax system works. None of my concerns have been addressed with anything like a meaningjul response up to today. Could it be they have no response, and will try to sell this "load" anyway with misinformation?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 23, 1999.

Still no response to the equity issues, constitutional issues, and the need for this initiative. Monte, where are you?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 29, 1999.

Monte:

Where are you? Can you get a response to these issues from your "legal team"?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 04, 2000.

Monte:

Still looking. Who moved this thread? Isn't anyone going to defend the need, fairness and constitutionality of this proposal?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 06, 2000.

Perhaps I should just conclude there is no defense for the, "need, fairness and constitutionality of this proposal."

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 12, 2000.

The revised text is posted here:

http://www.epinay.com/695/sonof695.htm

I still have not seen a defense of the need, fairness, or constitutionality of this one.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 17, 2000.

This is actually Initiative 710, with the official version of the text here:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/inits/text/i710.htm

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 17, 2000.

d,

I would like to note here, that 5 of 15 Initiatives to the People deal with Property Tax Issues. So regardless of how you feel about the 710 Initiative, I would at least like to see you admit that there is a perceived problem.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Marsha wrote, "I would at least like to see you admit that there is a perceived problem."

Perceptions today are based on the situation before 695, or before it will apply to the property tax to be collected in 2001. Whatever "problem" may have been "perceived" has been "solved". Not needed, unfair, and probably unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 17, 2000.