Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Prop 1
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 21, 2014 at 8:14 pm #612057
auParticipantI received a glossy ‘vote yes on prop 1’ advertisement in the mail the other day. This is one ugly disgusting piece of propaganda.
Not once, nowhere does it actually mention what you are voting for if you vote yes. You aren’t voting yes on prop 1, you aren’t voting ‘yes’ for parks, you ARE voting yes on a metropolitan park district. A new quasi governmental corporation.
35.61.040
Election ā Creation of district.
“…the metropolitan park district shall be created as a municipal corporation effective immediately upon certification of the election results…”
with much power
35.61.130
“A metropolitan park district has the right of eminent domain, and may purchase, acquire and condemn lands lying within or without the boundaries of said park district, for public parks, parkways, boulevards, aviation landings and playgrounds, and may condemn such lands to…”
Please! Read what a Metropolitan Park District really is. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.61&full=true#35.61.010
Don’t take anybody’s word on this issue but read it for yourself and then decide if creating this MPD corporation is the way forward for our city and parks.
July 21, 2014 at 11:07 pm #811198
metrognomeParticipanthere are two good sources of info on Prop 1:
Seattle Parks and Rec Legacy Plan, which explains the process that led to Prop 1:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/legacy/
the voters’ guide for the upcoming election:
July 21, 2014 at 11:51 pm #811199
skeeterParticipantSkeeter is rarely āon the fenceā with respect to propositions. But I must admit Iām not sure how Iām going to vote on this issue. Iād love to hear some opinions.
July 22, 2014 at 12:09 am #811200
miwsParticipant*Taps skeeter on shoulder*
Right here on the fence, with you, skeeter.
You and I would likely be (rather firmly, maybe) planted on opposite sides of the fence on most issues, and it usually seems that issues are pretty cut and dry, as to which “side” supports them, or doesn’t.
I plan on getting started around Wednesday or Thursday, on filling out my ballot, when things slow down a bit for me, and I can concentrate on everything.
I finally looked through the Statements For/Against/Rebuttals just a few minutes ago, after seeing a story on KOMO News about folks getting a bit rowdy today, when a meeting originally planned for outdoors in a Park, was moved indoors.
In getting just a little bit more of an idea of what Prop 1 is all about, from reading the Pamphlet, I’m starting to lean a bit one way, but am still somewhat undecided.
It’ll be interesting to read others’ thoughts on this.
Mike
July 22, 2014 at 12:30 am #811201
wakefloodParticipantOn the fence?? Why so?
Reading from the pamphlet:
The Comintern has decided that to better serve all comrades of the glorious Revolution in support of Mother Seattle’s Greenbelts, a vote of the peoples will be held forthwith to determine how much will be donated by our fellow comrades to the new Ministry of Grass & Leaves in our effort to expand and maintain the people’s…um…unlicensed off leash areas?? (Wait, what? Is that right??)
Comrade Chairman is pleased to note that the vote is purely ceremonial as People’s #1 will pass unanimously.
July 22, 2014 at 12:37 am #811202
auParticipantI think the actual code is a more accurate source than the very people that want the MPD or a guide of other peoples’ opinion.
This prop 1 is actually a vote for or against a Metropolitan Park District, otherwise known as a municipal corporation, “the metropolitan park district shall be created as a municipal corporation effective immediately upon certification of the election results…”
Opinions must be weighed with facts. Everybody should read the laws that they will be voting for or against. Those laws are the facts.
I have not seen one organization that is For Prop 1 advise a person to read the laws they are voting on.
Its important for the future of our city and our parks.
Unless of course you are ok with our city council having the right of eminent domain on your property.
You don’t see that on the well designed oversized heavy stock paper (hmmm)
Did you know that City council can also get a lil raise if they want to, you know for being on the park board, up $8640/yr adjusted to the consumer price index every five years.
Those are just two items that a yes vote will secure. What one is voting on is far more complex and important than is being portrayed.
In other words, don’t take peoples’ opinions(or endorsements) as truth, seek out the facts as well.
July 22, 2014 at 12:41 am #811203
metrognomeParticipantskeeter and miws – you’re what my dad used to call ‘mugwumps,’ i.e. birds that sit on a fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other.
I’m inclined to vote for it even tho parks, by their very nature, are mostly not accessible to wheelchair users to begin with. Lack of adequate maintenance tends to degrade those accessibility features that are there.
However, I tend to vote for school levies even tho I don’t have children, won’t have grandkids, etc.
I’ll have to look at the Legacy process more closely to see how we got here before I make up my mind. A lot of well-respected people were involved in that process. I also think it is important that we protect the capital investments we’ve made over the past century plus rather than being pennywise and pound-foolish.
btw, the city has nothing officially to do with the ‘yes’ campaign altho individual elected officials can get involved to a point. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ groups (and there may be more than one of each) are groups of interested citizens and businesses (cuz remember, corporations are people too.) Other than basic libel laws, there is no rule in this state that campaigns be honest or forthright, as that is a matter of perspective.
July 22, 2014 at 12:44 am #811204
wakefloodParticipantEminent Domain always comes with strings attached and generally gets used sparingly due to the legal hassles that usually come with it.
I’m just saying its not something done in an offhanded manner – even if the power is available.
And while I’m not lobbying either way, I’m not sure how often ANY promotional materials suggest you READ the law. That’s participatory democracy, and so passe’ in our post-civics country.
July 22, 2014 at 12:55 am #811205
JayDeeParticipantLook, we all agree (I think) that the Parks have been getting the shaft in terms of maintenance funding.
–
That being said, the process that led here means little: what we are voting on is a funding and independent governing mechanism with no public input after we approve it: No buyers remorse allowed. Sure, we can vote the City Council out, but frankly, we won’t. A city council seat is near a life-time appointment in Seattle.
–
So we have no guarantees that the Park District won’t tax to the limits of it’s authority and nor what they will spend it on.
–
Why not a new levy, designed to address the maintenance backlog, with a 6 to 8 year period? Sticker-shock? Sure, but at least it would be an honest way to get the funds and we would vote on what was to be paid for.
—
IMHO
July 22, 2014 at 12:58 am #811206
metrognomeParticipantalso, Metro Parks Tacoma is a municipal corporation
http://www.metroparkstacoma.org/history/
Metro Transit and Metro Water Quality were part of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle before it was ‘absorbed’ by the collective … I mean King County. Resistance was futile.
There are 75 public port districts, which seem to be similar to municipal corporations and 35 general-aviation airfields operated by public port districts.
Here’s an overview of ‘special purpose districts’ in Washington.
July 22, 2014 at 1:25 am #811207
JayDeeParticipantTacoma’s board is separately elected–even their board expressed surprise that Seattle proposed park’s district would be governed by the City Council. The first link is to where Tacoma’s Parks Executive Director disagreed with the Seattle model. The second is an article that expresses my concerns. My last objection is why schedule this for August? Why not November? That in itself colors my perception.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024057364_parksmetroboard1xml.html
–
http://crosscut.com/2014/07/11/op-ed/120970/seattle-parks-whats-mid-summer-vote-long-term-chan/
July 22, 2014 at 2:47 am #811208
auParticipantThis is NOT a levy. That’s part of the issue. And what’s wrong with reading the actual laws that will be put in place with this ordinance?
But if you do base your vote on others perceptions, Earl Bell has opinion piece at http://crosscut.com/2014/07/11/op-ed/120970/seattle-parks-whats-mid-summer-vote-long-term-chan/#comments that sums it up quite nicely. Ken Bounds also has a pro Prop 1 piece. It’s pointed out though in the comments that he has a conflict of interest.
July 22, 2014 at 4:21 am #811209
wakefloodParticipantI’m generally in favor of taxing myself as a homeowner for infrastructure and livability stuff. I think that’s what makes urban life a good life for all. And we have some of the best parks in the state right here in the city limits.
But I AM pondering how I feel about this particular Prop in that it allows the new board to tax us for the parks. Tax JUST homeowners? Many, MANY people don’t own homes in our urban space and more and more are renting condos/townhouses/apts. Many of those dwellers are big park users as well as they generally don’t have yards for outdoor hanging and dog walking, etc. Shouldn’t they help foot this one too?
I get that renters are transitory but they use them while they’re here and this isn’t about user fees, now is it?
Hmmmm…
July 22, 2014 at 5:54 am #811210
auParticipantNot all renters are transitory. But you got me thinking if its required to have x amount of green/open space per y amount of people and massive amounts of apts/condos/townhouses are being built, why aren’t those who are creating these conditions required to pay more for the privilege of developing here? There is so much money coming into Seattle right now in the form of new development. It doesn’t seem the citizens of the city are seeing much, if any of this revenue stream in the terms of basic infrastructure including parks.
Instead they want to ask the homeowner to not only pay more and more but to also give up any say in where and how that money is spent. Sure the proponents will tell you it will go to this that and the other, and it may for a minute. But what the actual law says is the 5 person board of commissioners aka the city council can do as they see fit with the money collected without any vote whatsoever from the people.
“Proposition 1 will provide stable, dedicated funding to take care of Seattle parks and continue investing for the future. Period.” Ken Bounds from a Crosscut OpEd. Oh there will be dedicated funding alright from us to them, the municipal corporation to spend however they see fit.
How about when parks tried to hire a company from the UK to run a zipline thru Lincoln Park? If I recall they spent $60,000 before the public even found out about it. With a MPD we, the people, will have no power to stop whatever the board decides to do. They don’t have to ask. They don’t have to tell us. They can do whatever they want with our money and we will have no say. None!
July 22, 2014 at 7:52 am #811211
metrognomeParticipantwake — unless the property owner is a complete incompetent, money-wise, renters do indeed pay taxes as part of their rent. And having a vibrant city is part of what attracts worker bees and businesses to this area as part of the economic re-growth that is happening. While dot.com hierarchy might be able to buy a house quite easily, their employees, not to mention the folks who cook their lunch, drive their cabs or Ubers, do their dry cleaning and make their espresso or microbrew, can’t. Of course, that begs the question about at what point taxes make housing unaffordable or small businesses not viable. And then there’s the tourists. Governing is complicated!
I think stable operational funding for our incredible parks is crucial. The reason for (hare-brained) ideas like ziplines is because Parks was desperate for long-term sources of cash and some people prefer going with privatization and ‘fun’ over tranquility, listening to the birdsong and watching the waves.
The question is whether Prop 1’s ‘benefits’ override it’s risks. I am not as concerned about the ‘permanence’ of the change. I’m also not too concerned about the City Council vs independent board issue, having seen the pros and cons of both as a Metro employee in the 80’s and 90’s. I’m not sure which Seattle JayDee has been living in, but we’ve been tossing out mayors and councilmembers with some regularity over the past 15-20 years.
I kinda wish voters had line-item veto authority or were offered a choice between Prop 1A and 1B, like a cafeteria benefits plan offered by employers. Too often, voters end up making decisions based on a single section of a proposal.
au, I’d like to thank you for starting this thread. Lately, when people whine about fixing politicians, my response is to ask how we fix the electorate, as we are as broken as our political system. Too many either don’t vote or don’t take the time to gather the info to truly understand an issue and where it fits in the bigger picture. Too many knee-jerk voters *and* politicians.
July 22, 2014 at 5:47 pm #811212
auParticipantThe entire key to Prop 1 rests in the sentence
“The Seattle Park District would be a distinct municipal corporation with ALL THE POWERS GRANTED BY STATE LAW in RCW 35.61 …” (emphasis mine)
Don’t ya think one MIGHT want to know exactly what those powers ARE before voting?! Its dangerous to base your opinion on someone else’s opinion without researching the facts first.
Thank you for thanking me, metrognome. So correct about the knee-jerk reactions. I can usually gauge where the truth is by observing which side resorts to personal insults yet little presentation of facts. (a generalization, not a reflection of this specific thread). That is why I will keep telling people just read the dang law that is to be voted on. There is no way to know what it says otherwise.
Many people seem to be making their decision based upon highly biased and distorted information. I feel it important to let people know that there is a lot more to this than we are being led to believe.
Just take a look at the layout of the voters pamphlet.(which is completely lame in that people should be able to trust the voters pamphlet to be unbiased) Look at what has larger text and is highlighted. That is fluff n stuff! All the warm and fuzzy do good everybody loves parks so vote yes is utter nonsense. That’s NOT what this is about!It’s about granting a bunch of power to a very few people to do as they see for our parks with OUR money and we have NO say. Whose to say for example that Me Kwa Mooks isn’t declared surplus and sold to the highest bidder. (they would have to take an extra step but it actually could happen and we would have NO say.
The Statement in favor and the rebuttal of statement against; I don’t understand how some people can even sleep at night. I mean, I am seriously considering printing off the 22p 35.61 RCW, take my voters pamphlet and the oversize mailer ad and start door knocking. When are we going to start saying enough is enough. Honesty is NOT a perception!
July 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm #811213
JoBParticipant” unless the property owner is a complete incompetent, money-wise, renters do indeed pay taxes as part of their rent.”
we are long term renters by choice..
our rent goes up every time the taxes go up
our rent has gone up a little over a $100/mo+ in five years.
July 22, 2014 at 8:54 pm #811214
wakefloodParticipantI haven’t rented in decades, JoB, how does a rent increase happen? Can they change your rent during the term of a current lease? Do they have to wait until the lease renewal period?
If this passes and the owner’s tax bill goes up $120/yr. starting at the next quarterly tax statement, will you see that $10/mo. happen during that quarter or do they have to wait until your lease is up (say a year) and add it then?
July 22, 2014 at 9:03 pm #811215
JanSParticipantthey have to wait until lease is up for renewal, or if you go on month to month. Go up 10 bucks? not on your life. It’s more likely to go up $25 bucks…$50 bucks. Ten is chump change, to coin a phrase. I suppose they can do it when they feel like it…that’s what happens now.
July 22, 2014 at 9:41 pm #811216
skeeterParticipantThe old question āDo renters pay property taxā is actually quite complex. Hereās the way I see it. Renters do not pay property tax. However, renters do reimburse property owners for either a portion or all of the property tax that the owners are paying. If the owner of the home or apartment is making a profit, the renter is essentially reimbursing the owner the full amount of property taxes. If the owner of the home or apartment is not making a profit, which is often the case during the earlier years of ownership, then the renter is only reimbursing a portion of the property taxes and the owner is still bearing a portion of the property tax. So I think *both* wakeflood and JoB are correct. Renters do āpayā property tax, but they pay it as a reimbursement to the owner, and not always the full amount that the owner pays.
July 22, 2014 at 10:15 pm #811217
Ms. SparklesParticipantJayDee sums thing up nicely-
Read the law and statements for and against-I’m voting no. I really don’t like that the only thing keeping the City from deciding not to allocate any funds to parks based on the MPD having its own taxing authority is City Counsels agreement with itself. If the MPD was to be governed by a separate elected board I’d be for it, but it’s essentially City Counsel creating a a work around to the cap on RE taxes- one that will be very difficult to undo if they abuse it.
July 22, 2014 at 10:22 pm #811218
skeeterParticipantSo lets have some fun and make predictions! Here’s mine.
If this was a standard levy with a fixed amount of tax for a fixed period of time I think it would pass with 57% approval. But since it is a MPD with ability to raise taxes beyond the initial amount with limited oversight I think it will only get 48%.
July 22, 2014 at 10:26 pm #811219
wakefloodParticipantIt makes me wonder why they chose to diverge from a system that functions reasonably well with a history (Tacoma’s elected separate board) vs. a system that has the potential for conflict of interest or lack of accountability?
If anyone knows any of the backstory on that, I’d be curious to know why. Did they even discuss the issue of the relative merits of one over the other?
July 22, 2014 at 11:25 pm #811220
skeeterParticipantWake, this article addresses your questions:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024057364_parksmetroboard1xml.html
I won’t say it will *answer* your questions. But it does address them.
I have an online subscription to the Seattle Times. I don’t know if you can read the article without a subscription. Let me know.
July 22, 2014 at 11:50 pm #811221
wakefloodParticipantThat’s very helpful, Skeets! I at least get the rationale and that it was discussed. Good stuff to ponder.
On one hand, I’m sensitive to the issue of needless layers of bureaucracy and staffing cost and on the other, the desire for some functional accountability.
Whatever I decide, I’m a fan of the parks system here and want to see it stay in the best shape we an afford to keep it. We were gifted with the foresight to have the Olmsteads design several of our most prominent parks and I’d like to think we can maintain them and keep that tradition going forward.
(On a semi-related note, I think that the Lake Union Commons was a badly missed opportunity.)
I guess I’m leaning for it at this point. More pondering to do…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.