Done!

Looking forward to not having to vote every year or two on this.

And tell Eyman to move back to Idaho.

Too late!

I already voted -- for parks. ;>

Wait a minute, the Council can dissolve the district? That's not what I have been reading. Hmm.

If passed by the voters, Prop 1 will dedicate nearly 2/3 of the funding to “fix it first,” so we are investing in our existing parks and community centers to make sure they meet our needs for the long run.

Bullshit.

There's a reason "Parks for All" doesn't link to the actual ballot measure that will be voted on.

Because it contains no such language. Even Parks for All doesn't stretch the truth like this. Councilmember O'Brien, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Lying about what's in the proposition before it's even passed is a pretty good indicator of what's to come.

Cheerfully voting yes, to get rid of one more endless cycle of voting on levies. Let's get rid of all school funding votes next.

Mike O'Brien's math is wrong! This needs to be checked.

See the King County Voter Pamphlet, page 89. They use an example of a $440,000 assessment for their example. The assessment would be $0.33 per $1,000 (up to .75 per $1,000) But using O'Brien's $400,000 property, which is getting tougher to find in this town, that can be up to $132- $300 per year additional property tax EACH year for the property owner This can be permanent, unless the rate is changed. If property assessments go up that is even more. If you are a renter these costs will be passed along to you the next time your lease is renewed, and it will be passed along in businesses in the costs of goods and services. ONLY the Council can dissolve the District. Read the Proposition, or better yet, just Vote NO! Wait for a better thought out proposal that has been properly vetted for accountability.

The Seattle Times, which some Stranger readers hate, has at least two very critical analyses of the Proposition and comes out against it, because of lack of accountability. It has no priority for identified projects and the Council has no accountability.

Please don't vote for the Parks! This will give the council carte blanche on spending for the waterfront park and nothing for all the other parks! Please vote no, they should not be able to spend the money the way they want! We need the levies!

"La Cosa Nostra Park Authority" - I love this country!

@5 The promise isn't in the ballot measure. It is in Council Bill 118056 which is referenced by the ballot measure. Look at Appendix A for the "Fix It First" items in the first six years budget which O'Brien is referring to.

direct link for @5: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~ordpics/118056…

now who's a liar? Besides @8 I mean.

@7 The 2014 levy rate is $0.27 per $100k or $188.80 on a $400k home. The proposed levy rate is $0.33 per $100k or $145.20 on a $400k home. The proposed rate is $43.60 more than the current rate, a bit less than $4/month. Seems to check out.

@12 per $1,000 of course. Meant to shorten that to $1k.

@7: $4 MORE, jackass.

A parks dept. that criminalizes the good work of a volunteer deserves NO support! Vote NO!

@14 Yes, that's more succinct. :)

An MPD would be great - if it was structured like Tacoma's and didn't put all of the power in City Council's hands. Why would you want to give the people already doing a poor job managing Parks MORE control? Because you like the idea of building hot tubs and floating pools on the waterfront? That's what you will get if Council controls the MPD and the proposed Waterfront redevelopment plan is executed at exorbitant cost.

Reluctantly voting NO on Prop 1.

O'Brien: screw you, and McGinn. Posing as the fuzzy nice dads that every hand wringing leftie wished they had, you in reality are a huckster for developers, muni bond brokers, hedge fund managers, and every other corpo that wants to eat at the public trough filled with taxpayer dollars. Not everyone is fooled by your phoney "green" credentials, posing as a high priest of the city's civic religious of "green First" and ask questions later. This proposal is a piece of crap designed to hurt small property owners and home owners who can't simply pass their costs onto tenants, and will result in increased rents for everyone else: all to feed you insatiable desire to bow down to your sweet talking money overlords, while the Stranger keeps everyone distracted with The Big Party. You, Mike O'Brien, are a phone, and your MBA doesn't cover for that; it's not even an economics degree.

Pardon the typos.

@19 how about a "pardon the bullshit"?

Tax levies expire. This piece of crap Proposition 1 is perpetual with little to no accountability. Wait for a levy proposal with specific projects and that can be measured against other places to put limited dollars of taxpayers. If it doesn't work and the stewards of our tax dollars don't do as they say, then it goes away.

Mayor ED and this Council are on their way to making Seattle a very expensive city in which to live, especially when you tack on the $15 NOW minimum wage thing in a few months, and the City Light increases in electrical costs for the next 6 years. All this will hit the cost of rent, and the amount we all pay for various goods and services. These Utopian social engineers without a clue about economics or how to lead need to be stopped. Get some common sense back into Council decision-making.

I'm on a fixed income so I'm voting no. Otherwise, I'd vote yes.
I also pay my property taxes sans escrow with the mortgage, so I am very aware of how much I'm paying.

I have already voted No to you, Mike, and Sawant, and Nick, and Jean, and Tom, and Sally, and Sally (pick which ever one you think you are), and Bruce, and the other Mike, and the guy that beat Mike.

I like democracy and this group within a group isn't it.

Council member O'Brien is spouting the generic rhetoric favored by supporters of Prop 1. We have heard it all before. He is just one of many politicians following the herd because they want to be with the "in" crowd, which will hopefully garner them votes and funding in the coming district election.
I wonder how much he really knows about Prop 1. Could he answer 5 basic questions about how a parks district would work?

Two statements he made are not true: 2/3 of the $267 million is not going to the Fix it First category. The official number is smaller but if you read through the document listing where the money is going, you will see it is going to be used to buy more land, develop more parks, hire more people and create new programs.

If Community Center hours are based on the income of people in the neighborhood, tell me why Rainier, Jefferson, Garfield and the International District are open more hours than Ballard, Laurelhurst, Magnuson and Miller. And Rainier got a new swimming pool last year.

While the increase in property tax on the ballot to establish a park district may seem insignificant today, the City Council can and will triple it ASAP. And if you read the explanatory statement carefully, you will find the caveat "As a separate taxing authority from the city of Seattle, the park district could levy additional property tax
above the current lid restrictions that state law impose on Seattle.

Aside from this voters should also take into consideration the loss of accountability and control of how parks spends the money.

Read the list of reasons why you should not vote for Prop 1 that appears in the Seattle Times on 7/9/14, which came out against it. Read the editorial that appeared yesterday (7/23) chastising Ken Bounds, big mover and shaker behind Prop 1, for misleading the public

@24 the group you just described is democratically elected. If you don't like how they're administering an MPD, then you can vote for their opponents in Council elections.

There are some problems with Mike's thinking.
The local economy has improved a lot and property tax revenues have as well. The rapidly rising price of rent and real estate show this. Apparently, people are also lining up to buy marijuana as well which should add another very, very large bundle of cash to the city coffers. Tim Eyeman is an easy boogey man but he was not on the city council when budgets were passed that passed over the needs of our parks. In fact while Tim was causing trouble with Olympia, Seattle voters were happily passing levy after levy. Tim Eyman wishes he was the cause of Seattle's budget problems. He's not. It's the City Council that created the mess. I don't think giving the City Council more power will solve anything when they have done so little with what we have trusted them with.

I like you O'Brien. You are the first politician or notable who has sorta explained that Prop 1 is is all about raising taxes. You write, finally:

"Prop 1 would help correct this injustice by creating a Seattle parks district with taxing authority..." This new taxing body will allow you to go beyond the State-mandated levy lid. Smart but tricky.

Prop 1 is a tax increase.
Prop 1 is a tax increase.
Prop 1 is a tax increase.

The discussion fostered by you and your colleagues is that "It's for the children" without explaining that taxes will go up if you vote for Prop 1.

You folks haven't presented it honestly.

That is why I am voting NO!

And I have voted for every parks levy for ages.

And btw a tax increase for specific projects -- I assume that you want the $$ for the WaterFiasco Park -- may or may not be a good idea.

But the way Prop 1 is presented is dishonest.

@27, I can do that without creating a MPD, too. See how that argument works both ways?
The difference between a levy and an endless MPD is that a levy is a short term that prevents very long-term mistakes no matter how long the term of the politician.

I think this would just encourage a developer-lobbyist-politician merry-go-round (I mean, more than it already is.)

@27, it's possible that all the candidates for a particular seat (and remember, next year we're going to be voting by district except for two seats) will make their own minds up how they want to spend this money. We give them that power by voting for this thing. Voting Councilmembers in or out is an ineffective (to put it mildly) way to try to determine how a permanent pot of money is spent.

Grambo @15: You're being played by the anti-tax agenda of the Seattle Times.

Thanks Mike, for a clear and coherent statement of the case. We'll be voting YES for stable, sustainable funding for Seattle's parks and recreation centers!

I am opposed to this new taxing district on many counts, most especially because it will take away my right to vote on parks and it lacks true accountability, a point made abundantly clear by the League of Women Voters.

But I must point out something that has been missing about this taxing ability that would be given to the City Council. They would have the power to raise your taxes 21%... That's what the ballot measure says: up to $0.75/$1000 over and above the levy lid.

Read the ballot measure carefully folks. There is nothing in it about accountability, how they would manage the Parks District, nothing about oversight committees, nothing about what projects they would fund.... nothing! The only thing you are voting for or against is the creation of a new permanent tax district.

@fletch3r: That attachment to a council bill isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on. The council can (and will) change it any time they want to shovel more money to the private downtown waterfront foundation. What Councilmember O'Brien said in the post is that Proposition 1 (the ballot measure itself) requires that 2/3 of the money be spent on Fix it First. That is a complete lie. Even Parks for All isn't shilling for their own scam with this level of dishonesty. VOTE NO unless you favor handing over tens of millions of dollars per year and control of our parks in perpetuity to a sorry bunch of lying liars.

VOTE NO .... reserve your right to vote on a levy in February... a levy that defines for 6 or 8 years how much your taxes will be... a levy that defines what projects your tax dollars will go to.... a levy that we can hold them to! A Yes vote now guarantees nothing but their right to increase your taxes and their right to use your tax dollars however they please. I like accountability, something the MPD lacks.

I've already voted NO because I recall all to well the floating swimming pools and other crap being called for as a waterfront park post-Bertha. I'm also recognizing that we already voted to tax the whole city to replace the Seawall, something that protects some of the city's most expensive private property already. It's time for the waterfront owners, in a post-Bertha-dig/new seawall feeling of being flush with wealth, to pay for whatever Local Improvements happen in their District. The last thing I want is for more Council oversight of the parks district, of the same type of council oversight that puts before the public park levies that don't account for maintaining newly purchased park properties.

As much as I love Seattle parks, and would like to see steady funding for them, the tight ties to the city council make this a strong "No" from me. Watching how the city council played politics and completely ignored and overrode the objections of the park board on off-leash areas made it clear to me that the last thing Seattle needs is the council's direct involvement in parks issues.

Voting NO on this one. O'Beerin is misleading us when he says that 2/3 will go to fix it first. Only 58% will go to maintenance, but we have no way to enforce that as voters. Within 180 days, the City Council can change the entire agreement with the Metro Parks District and direct the monies to whatever projects they choose. One of the SPRD priorities is developing 15 new parks (read the report). Huh? We can't keep up with the parks we currently have and they want to develop 15 more? The total tax that can be levied is $0.75/$1000, even though the City Council says they will start at $0.33/$1000. However, they can choose to raise that rate at any time without a vote of the citizens, so the $150 extra for a $400K home becomes $350 extra. By the way, once this sucker is voted in, there is no way to dissolve it, absent a vote of the governing board, who just happens to be... wait for it.... The City Council. Well, no wonder Mr. Obiren is all for a Parks District. He would be on the Board, and most likely getting paid a bit more, and would never have to worry about getting me to vote for another Parks levy. Clever.
By the way: I've voted for every Parks and School levy for over 40 years. Voting NO on this one will be a pleasurable first time.

Oh dear God, the paranoia and victimization is rich and creamy in this thread.

I'm voting for the parks thing. So is Mr. Vel-DuRay. So there.

YOUR LAST PARKS VOTE: You who are voting in favor of PROP 1 are casting the last vote you will ever cast on Parks issues, priorities, projects, or taxes--if the MPD (aka Parks District) prevails. PROP 1 is a political power grab and a money grab. Sadly, even electeds I've otherwise respected find the proposed gusher of new tax dollars irresistible. Accountability? Well, we'll never again vote yea or nay, if this passes. VOTE NO.

weird how the astroturfing trolls are coming out of the woodwork. Thanks for joining us on slog GailChiarello, parks.advocate, Aerie View, WM, and angeldove.

Said it before, saying it again: All these excuses are just cover for not wanting to pay taxes. Just be honest.

@41 Hurrah for Mr. & Mrs. Vel-DuRay!

I'm a Yes vote on Prop 1 as well. It's the right way to move forward & provide sustainable funding for our Parks.

@27 so I take it you are a single issue voter, that's sad.

Prop 1 would create a PERMANENT Metropolitan Parks District that can never be voted out. This is a money grab by organizations like WPZ, who stand to get even more money if passed. Instead, they could save $1 million dollars/year by retiring their elephants to a sanctuary. Unlike a levy, MPD could buy, sell or even build a sports arena on parkland without voter approval. Don't give away your vote/your voice in what happens in our parks.

48

A levy is "sustainable" because Seattleites love their parks and have always voted to support parks' levies (and have expressed willingness to do so in the future).

Many "safeguards" are guaranteed in a levy that are not inherent in an MPD.

Most importantly---------

A levy will include a specific list of projects that will be funded and citizens will be assured that there will be a balanced representation of neighborhood projects.

Neighborhoods will know that money that should go to their needs will not be diverted to the "pet projects" favored by wealthy, well-connected supporters of City Council/MPD Board members i.e. the elaborate waterfront park that will cost approximately $500 million dollars to construct.

City Council-acting as the MPD Board-is not obligated ( by mandate) to fund any specific projects. They will decide-after our August 5th election-how our taxes will be appropriated.

Remember the MPD is a state chartered, PERMANENT taxing authority that can never be dissolved by voters. The MPD is not mandated to observe Seattle's charters and ordinances. It does not have to abide by Seattle's Initiative 42 which ensures that our City doesn't sell any of our parks property. The MPD may sell parks and parks property if it feels the sale will financially benefit the parks system. The general public doesn't have influence to prevent the sale, for example, of a beloved, neighborhood park.

Furthermore, taxes will be PERMANENT and will be raised without any further vote. Your "Yes" vote in Prop. 1's MPD gives the City Council/MPD Board permission to raise your parks', property taxes up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation. (CITIZENS NOW PAY 19 CENTS PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE FOR OUR CURRENT PARKS LEVY.)
So---parks' property taxes may quadruple with an MPD.

You can still love our almost 500 wonderful parks and be concerned about the huge tax increase you may incur!

Most of the most vocal opponents of an MPD are people-like myself-who have been involved in parks' policies, procedures, and projects and have had many ways available that have allowed us (average citizens) to influence decisions about Seattle's parks.

An MPD will -virtually-exclude meaningful participation by average citizens and will eliminate many resources that allowed people to advocate for neighborhood projects.

THERE ARE NO POSITIVES FOR AN MPD-FOR AVERAGE CITIZENS-THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH A LEVY.

ONLY CITY OFFICIALS AND WELL-CONNECTED "INTERESTS" LIKE THE SEATTLE PARKS FOUNDATION, THE WOODLAND PARK ZOO, THE SEATTLE AQUARIUM, THE GROUP ADVOCATING FOR A GRAND WATERFRONT PARK, ETC, BENEFIT FROM AN MPD!

Vote "NO" on Prop. 1's MPD.

Be assured, if Prop 1 for the MPD fails-next week-City Council will put a levy on an upcoming ballot.