Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« John Travolta: Man Smooch! | Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief »

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Vote Yes on I-88

Posted by on August 31 at 10:40 AM

I-87, the initiative that would have directed local property taxes (about $156 a year on a $400,000 home, raising $40 million a year) to smaller class sizes has been yanked from the November ballot by King County Superior Court.

(The judge sided with the city, which argued that city taxing authority could not be used to fund schools, a state responsibility…nor could citizens dictate city budgeting through initiative.)

In this week’s issue The Stranger Election Control Board endorsed I-87’s counterpart initiative, I-88, which is on the September 19 primary ballot. I-88 authorizes the ability to levy the tax. I-87, the one that got thrown out, directed the funding.

The I-88/87 campaign is appealing the decision to the Washington Supreme Court…and so, we still urge you to vote yes on I-88.

City Council Member Peter Steinbrueck has pledged, if I-88 passes, to propose council legislation enacting 87—which directs money to smaller class sizes, all-day kindergarten, and arts and music education. “I’m damn mad that the mayor and the city atorney are trying to to stop the school levy,” Steinbrueck told me this morning. He thinks the mayor is fighting the levy because it’s a funding package that competes with Team Nickels’s road maintenance levy. (I agree.) If I-88 passes, Steinbrueck says, “the city must keep faith with the voters who want to tax themselves to fund schools…and pass the money through.”

The Stranger Election Control Board agrees that these school initiatives aren’t pretty (although, neither are schools without money: We rank 46th in the nation in class size). But we had initiative supporters (funded by the WEA) in to our offices last week facing off against Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. Ultimately, we were swayed by the logic of a Garfield Highschool parent, Beth Sanders, who told us: “It’s a choice between neat public policy and failing schools, and messy public policy and better schools.”


Footnote: City Hall should take over the schools. In our ed board meeting, Ceis kept stressing that he didn’t want to throw city money at the Seattle schools because he thinks the school board is incompetent. This undermined his other argument…namely that it was the state’s responsibility to fund schools. So, Ceis is a-okay with giving state money to incompetent leadership? At that, we pressed Ceis to have the mayor take over the schools. He laughed that off, telling us if he did that we’d probably accuse Team Nickels of conspiring in a big power grab. Actually, he’s wrong… we’re already on record supporting a city takeover.

The L.A. mayor just joined NYC, Chicago, and Boston in a similar takeover.


CommentsRSS icon

Wait, how can we afford this and an underwater tunnel that costs ten times more than the green line monorail would have?

Nickels wants to control schools about as much as Della wants to have a say in the city's energy policy. Pissing off parents is just about the only thing Nickels could do, short of losing the support of Paul Allen or getting caught smoking crack, that would endanger his bid to be Seattle's Mayor-for-Life.

Ceis really doesn't seem too bright in any of the discussions with him that make it into the paper or Slog...

I'm a liberal, and happy to pay taxes for stuff that makes civic sense. However, elected liberals too often take that to mean that EVERY idea that makes any kind of sense at all, or not, deserves a new tax. This is bound to eventually create a reaction in otherwise happy taxpayers where they stop voting for ANY taxes because they are being abused, and because the elected leadership shows not even the slightest bit of interest in prioritizing. It's all "hey, let's do THIS!" "Okay, and then, let's do THIS TOO!"

In short, Mr. Mayor: accomplish something with what you've got first, THEN come back for more.

The schools on the other hand are doomed. The leadership IS incompetent, but that's because all of the competence has fled its responsibilities to the community and taken up residence in the private world. Private schools should be ILLEGAL. That would FORCE the public schools to get real, and inject a huge amount of money, energy, and intelligence into them. But that's not going to happen.

Um, FNARF, you're supposed to stop after one double shot latte. Not down three or four in a row. You're babbling man ...

The city should take over the schools! This does not mean that Mayor Nickels should take them over, but the city government. The Seattle School Board is ineffective and can't even realize it. I sent a letter this past month to Terry Bergeson and the Seattle School Board explaining why we were leaving the Seattle School system. Of course one board member wrote back defending the great operation and financial success of the district-what a joke. Keep up the call for the takeover!!!

WF Wrote:
"Nickels wants to control schools about as much as Della wants to have a say in the city's energy policy...."

On the contrary, WF. I think Nickels and the city council would love the opportunity to control the schools. A little known and/or remembered fact is that Seattle Public Schools is the single largest landowner in Seattle.

Do you really trust them to oversee this public trust?

---Jensen

PS, Will: lattes and espresso shots have hardly any caffeine in them, at least compared to a good old pot of strong coffee. Or two. Lattes are milk, not coffee. Hot sweet milk, just like momma used to serve from her big ol' titty. I'm a grownup.

I wonder if Tim Ceis remembers that school board members are UNPAID volunteers. The school board is well intentioned, but the members who don't quit their day job to devote a full-time effort to the board are at a disadvantage.

The public gets what it pays for. World class public education can not be pieced together on the cheap.

I have read the statement against Seattle Initiative 88 in the Primary Election Voter's Guide. The Statement was written by Mayor Greg Nickels, and former mayors Norman B. Rice and Charles Royer. They say that we should vote no on I-88 because it is the state's job to fund education, because Seattle Public Schools are poor financial managers, and because it would create inequities for children.

The State constitution says that the state's paramount duty is to make ample provision for education. That may be true, but the state hasn't done its job. If your child was drowning in a pool and the lifeguard refused to take action, would you dive in and save your child yourself or would you refuse to do it because it is the lifeguard's job? How long would you refuse to save your drowning child while you stood on the principle that it is the lifeguard's job? It appears that Mayor Nickels would let your child drown because to rescue the child would send the wrong message to the lifeguard. The Mayor's position puts turf wars ahead of the needs of children and reflects callousness almost beyond imagination.

These are Seattle's children that are suffering lifelong disadvantages due to the inadequate funding of their education. Seattle can't wait any longer for the state to do their job - it has been years and years already. Seattle needs to step forward and rescue Seattle's children from harm.

Every part of Mayor Nickels' argument against I-88 would also apply to school fundraisers, school levies and the Families and Education levy. The Mayor must oppose those for exactly the same reasons he is against I-88. After all, it is the state's job to fund education, so buying that wrapping paper, contributing to that auction, and voting for those levies all send the same message to the state as I-88: that we don't need more money. All of those other efforts must hurt our chances of getting more. In fact, if the Mayor's logic is correct, those revenue sources for the District must be the reason that the state is underfunding K-12 education right now.

Mayor Nickels also suggests that District leadership are incompentent financial managers and it is foolish for us to put more money into their hands. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he certainly implies it. That analysis would apply equally to the Family and Education levy, the E and O levy, and the capital levies. The Family and Education levy does nothing to solve the District's money trouble and probably makes it worse in the same way as I-88. I'm not exactly sure how sending money to the District worsens their annual deficit, but that's what the Mayor says. I look forward to reading his statements in opposition to those in future voter guides.

Mayor Nickels poses as if he were very concerned about educational equity and social justice that provides low-income children with equal access to education. At least he appears concerned about children who live outside Seattle. He is concerned about the sanctity of the state's strict education funding laws that provide equitable resources for all students across the state. Mayor Nickels must therefore strongly oppose school fundraisers since they create huge inequities. Some Seattle schools have annual PTA fundraisers that bring in six figures while other Seattle schools don't even have PTAs. Where is
his outrage over that inequity right here in his backyard? Where is his concern for equity for Seattle's children from low-income households? It appears that he reserves his concern for children in other parts of the state.

If Mayor Nickels believes his own argument then he should be honest and open about his opposition to school levies, the Family and Education levy, and school fundraisers for all the same reasons that he opposes I-88 – or is his opposition to the initiative really because he is afraid that it threatens his turf and authority?

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).