Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Prop 1
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 28, 2014 at 8:38 pm #811247
acemotelParticipantI am guessing all the council members support it because it solves a lot of problems for them. They won’t have to make those hard decisions during the budget process about parks vs. police vs. social services. The MPD proposal mandates that current general fund allocation levels to parks not be reduced. They will have a nice consistent revenue source to fund parks, especially maintenance backlogs, until the end of time, and not only that, they get to administer it too. It’s efficient! (democracy isn’t) They won’t have to go to the voters every 7 or 5 years. I can’t imagine any council member being opposed, because parks needs are great. It’s unfortunate, the structure of the proposed MPD, because it could have been a great idea.
p.s. Jan, I just saw your post that you wrote while I was writing this. Totally agree with you.
July 28, 2014 at 8:58 pm #811248
skeeterParticipantGosh I go back and forth a lot on Prop 1. Still on the fence. Currently I’m asking myself whether an imperfect solution is superior or inferior to what we’ve currently got. I’m also asking myself if city council members will make better decisions (under prop 1) than voters would make (through, presumably, levy decisions.)
Wakeflood, just make this easy for me and tell me how I should vote. I’m only half-kidding.
July 28, 2014 at 9:05 pm #811249
skeeterParticipant“I am guessing all the council members support it because it solves a lot of problems for them. They won’t have to make those hard decisions during the budget process about parks vs. police vs. social services.”
I agree acemotel. I think you’re right.
Isn’t that what most progressive Seattleites want though? Increased taxes providing for adequate long-term funding of our shared priorities? And absent an income tax, increased property taxes are about as progressive as you can get. Certainly more progressive than increased sales taxes or car tab taxes which is what we might end up with if prop 1 fails. I guess I just can’t believe what I’m reading on this thread. I’m not upset. Just surprised.
July 28, 2014 at 9:27 pm #811250
wakefloodParticipantSkeets, I was about to ask you. ;-)
Actually, I still go back and forth. Today, I was leaning for it, as was my default, pre-research position. Why? Well, I’m generally in favor of trying to NOT make the perfect the enemy of the good. And as you note, this is more progressive than other options and there ARE some provisions for citizen oversight.
If I do my usual, “what’s the worst case scenarios?” either with a Prop 1 passing or failing, I feel worse (today) about what will happen if we don’t take the opportunity to make the funding stable and predictable. (There is a max assessment rate so that’s something to keep in mind.)
Or maybe I’ll just get reminded how underfunded our transportation infrastructure is again by something and decide that should be priority one? I do have a small park for a yard anyway! :-)
July 29, 2014 at 8:36 am #811251
metrognomeParticipantHas anyone seen anything from the ‘No on Prop 1 Committee?’ Is their even such a group?
au keeps poking the Yes committee for not telling the entire tale. In the political world, it’s not their job. When have you ever seen Tim Eyman be completely honest about the potential impact of his initiatives? That’s the job of the No folks.
And JanS, yes there is recourse if this passes and we the people aren’t happy with the CC/Park Board. We unelect them as we have many times in the past 25 years. Generally, the next PB could reverse almost any tax hike unless the money is dedicated to construction bonds (see Pierce County v State Dept of Licensing, 2006 State Supreme Court; if there is an actual lawyer or finance person out here, please chime in.)
answered my own question; here’s the No site. Couldn’t find info on donations and expenditures.
July 29, 2014 at 1:50 pm #811252
TanDLParticipantAgree with JanS. Until the current political administrators in this City deal with issues around traffic, Bertha’s waterfront mess, school board and education issues, upset business owners, crumbling streets, parking, growth that outpaces the infrastructure to handle it and a myriad of other issues, I for one will not vote to give them one more once of power without full accountability to the citizens of this City. Yes, we can vote in Prop 1 and then vote out the politicians, but then we’ll still be stuck with Prop 1 and higher taxes levied at the whim of the whomever happens to be running the new Parks Board at the time. I’ve already voted “NO” and will patiently wait for a parks funding measure that allows for oversight AND accountability to the people of Seattle.
July 29, 2014 at 2:26 pm #811253
wakefloodParticipantI have to chuckle when people (including myself) get righteous about the accountability to the people. Don’t get me wrong, we strive for some kind of representative governance but let’s not forget how truly fickle “we the people” can be when it comes to giving direction to our electeds.
My use of “fickle” being the milder term for hypocrites off our ADD meds. Ever read the comments on the main page of this very blog? Try and derive anything cogent out of that blather, I dare you. Well, unless you suggest the singular message is “I want it the way I want it and I don’t think it should cost anything”.
I’m not saying we’re incapable of providing a solid consensus on any topic, just that it’s pretty hard to parse most of the time.
July 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm #811254
WSBKeymasterTo MG’s question:
We have received two mailers from Yes and just the other day one from No.
Meantime, we’re always glad to see people discuss local politics here too.
BTW – we covered two forums with reps from both sides, both hosted by local community councils.
And re: contributions, Our Parks Forever is here on the city Ethics/Elections site:
http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/eldata/filings/campaignhome.asp?elcycle=el14a&campuni=372
The sidebar list includes the yes side and other active campaigns in the city.
-TR
July 29, 2014 at 5:45 pm #811255
acemotelParticipantSkeeter says: Isn’t that what most progressive Seattleites want though? Increased taxes providing for adequate long-term funding of our shared priorities? And absent an income tax, increased property taxes are about as progressive as you can get. Certainly more progressive than increased sales taxes or car tab taxes which is what we might end up with if prop 1 fails.
All true, yes. Good point.
July 29, 2014 at 7:44 pm #811256
WSBKeymasterIf anybody interested in this issue sees this before 1 pm, the Times is having an online chat with a supporter, an opponent, and a few of its staffers. I’m not usually one to jump up and say HEY! GO OVER TO SOME OTHER WEBSITE! but this is a REALLY REALLY important issue and if you have a burning question, they might be able to answer it in real time.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/07/27/prop-1-seattle-discussion/
live until I think 1 pm.
TR
July 29, 2014 at 7:44 pm #811257
skeeterParticipantIf prop 1 passes I’d like to throw my hat in the ring to be on the citizen oversight committee. I think I have some talents and skills that would make me a good candidate. Actually there are several folks on this forum who would be good in that role.
July 29, 2014 at 7:53 pm #811258
TrileighParticipantThanks for the alert, TR. Just saw your message and it’s almost over, but I’ll be interested to read the comments.
.
Do you know whether the transcript will remain available after the show ends at 1:00? I’d like to have time to digest the comments.
July 29, 2014 at 9:15 pm #811259
charlabobParticipantHere’s a link to a no brochure. Full disclosure, I’m a 100 proponent and this link comes from horsesass blog which has more raw (almost libelous) data about the no folks. Proponents aren’t the only ones being accused of lying :-)
July 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm #811260
anonymeParticipantThanks to au for opening this discussion. I’d already decided to vote no, but when I received a third gross & glossy “Yes on Prop 1” ad in the mail today, that sealed it.
July 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm #811261
TrileighParticipantI think the glossy brochures are just a standard part of any campaign; I’m not going to decide for or against a position just based on the glossiness of the brochures, and the “no” brochure is misleading as much as the “yes” one doesn’t include all the details.
.
I’m still on the fence, now leaning toward Prop 1 – glad I have a few days left to make up my mind! I think Wakeflood has a good point about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would have designed the proposition to include more direct citizen input and a trial period, but I think it’s still better than the levy system. If I’m going to pay more taxes for anything, I’m happy for them to help parks.
.
The transcript of the Seattle Times online chat session about Prop 1 yesterday (which TR mentioned above) is still available, and you all might be interested in reading it. The proponents for each side are asked to address specific challenges from the other side. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/07/27/prop-1-seattle-discussion/
July 31, 2014 at 5:20 pm #811262
auParticipantThe new ‘yes on Prop 1’ mailer arrived yesterday. Yippy, so cheerful. It’s a deceptive lie but I guess that’s fine by lots of you.
‘au keeps poking the Yes committee for not telling the entire tale. In the political world, it’s not their job.’
That’s basically it, isn’t it? So go ahead and trust the politicians who are telling you this is a good thing. I, for one, cannot tolerate lying by omission or deception (or any form). It’s everybody’s job to be honest and truthful always. The fact anybody would defend lying let alone support it!
This isn’t about funding for parks, that is the diversion. Prop 1 is about the creation of a MPD which authorizes the city council to have much power over our (tax monies)and parks. Our voice, our collective say for our parks will be reduced to one vote every four years.
What does one imagine is wrong with levies? They pass in Seattle. Perhaps what really is wrong is the way the money was spent. Has anybody seen Parks financial books for the last 10 years to determine where the problem lays?
Prop 1 is NOT what the Yes campaign says it is.
July 31, 2014 at 5:29 pm #811263
wakefloodParticipantWell, that’s a pretty standard Seattle Passive/Aggressive way to look at it, au.
“I have no evidence to support that our money’s been unwisely used (and just exactly who gets to make THAT determination?) or what’s REALLY going on with the Parks but I’ll force you to prove a negative anyway!”
Boy, we never hear that argument around here.
And since you asked, waiting on levies to do our business has lead to a several hundred million dollar backlog of park upkeep and projects. Part of the reason they pass is because they have to pare them down to below the actual need to GET them to pass.
I’ve gotta’ say that you’ve pushed me more toward voting YES, au. I’m tired of innuendo and want to get something addressed for more than a couple years at a time. We as a society are seemingly locked into thinking for the short term. I wouldn’t mind NOT seeing another Parks levy on the ballot again and again and again…
Thanks for helping me make up my mind.
July 31, 2014 at 6:32 pm #811264
tom kelleyParticipantDoes the City Council have the time to administer the parks and run the city?
July 31, 2014 at 7:01 pm #811265
wakefloodParticipantDunno? Does the Board of Directors of Exxon have the time to do their job?
There’s a Parks Dept. with an Exec. Director and staff to run the Dept. who would prioritize and submit the budgets and projects for the Parks Board (City Council members) to review and make decisions on, with the advice and consent of the Citizen’s Oversight Committee.
July 31, 2014 at 8:58 pm #811266
skeeterParticipant“Does the City Council have the time to administer the parks and run the city? “
Also note that all nine city council members favor Prop 1. So they must be comfortable they have adequate time to do their jobs properly.
July 31, 2014 at 9:33 pm #811267
wakefloodParticipantWell, remember Skeets, that some on this thread find that terribly conveeeeenient. Using my Dr. Evil voice. ;-)
The Council also have staff with areas of expertise that they advise their members on. They’re responsible to do the due diligence with the budget and capital expenditure proposals that come from the departments. There’s several levels of scrutiny since the budgets are always tight and departments compete for $.
July 31, 2014 at 9:38 pm #811268
wakefloodParticipantAnd before someone posits that I’m an apologist for the Council, a Pollyanna or a spendthrift, I’ll offer that I care just as much as the rest of us here about taxes. I’m just willing to assume at least a little goodwill on the part of the process outlined. As I’ve said before there’s a max taxing authority and some citizen oversight.
I’m sure that the Times and the Stranger and the Weekly and King 5, etc., etc. will happily inform us of whatever project they find objectionable. (And lest I forget, WSB will keep us well-informed about any and all issues that affect our pleasant burg.)
August 1, 2014 at 4:04 am #811269
JoBParticipantAugust 1, 2014 at 3:43 pm #811270
wakefloodParticipantReluctant concession triumphs over experiential cynicism, eh JoB? ;-)
August 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm #811271
TanDLParticipantStill on the fence about Prop 1? Support Woodland Park Zoo’s chained elephant program? If you vote for Prop 1 you WILL be supporting the Zoo’s abysmal elephant program, per Ron Judd’s column in the Times this morning. The Zoo continues to operate this program, against the advice of experts, which goes against every possible natural inclination an elephant could have.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.