Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Myth of Imminent Taxpayer Fatigue

Posted by on Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Ever since mayor Mike McGinn proposed asking voters to pay for a new downtown seawall last week, people have been wondering: Is he asking for too much?

The thinking goes that voters—supposedly overtaxed in a bad economy—would reject the proposal to pay for the $241 million waterfront project by hiking their property taxes. For instance, the Seattle Times writes in an editorial this week that McGinn “must consider the inevitable feeling in Seattle of too many money requests year after year — sometimes known as ballot overload.” From inside City Hall, the Seattle City Council chastised the mayor’s plan, arguing, among other reasons, that a property-tax hike now could jeopardize voters' willingness to renovate Seattle Center, invest in public safety, or pay for other expensive city projects. “We would like to work with you to make thoughtful and strategic decisions about what priorities we will ask voters to approve at the ballot box over the next four years,” the council wrote in a stern letter.

But despite how voters—or writers at the Times—may feel about the frequency of recent tax ballot measures, the actual dollars don't reflect a spiking tax burden if Seattle were to pass a seawall bond measure.

Here are the levies and local tax measures we’re paying for currently*:

current_levies.jpg

And here are the levies and local tax measures we’d be paying if we approved the seawall and renewed the school levies*:

potential_future_levies.jpg

We made these spreadsheets to examine all the levies we’re were paying now—using the best information we could find (see below*)—and compared it to the amount we’d be paying if we renewed both the school levies on the ballot next month and paid for a new seawall in spring. Our findings indicate that voter-approved taxes would increase about 2.6 percent from the amount we're paying now. Taxes would go up an incremental $45 dollars per year for the average household.

This is hardly McGinn rolling into office with a huge tax hike—and the levy isn't likely to break. The Times is deploying a rhetorical boogieman—the specter of tax upon tax, piling up indefinitely, old taxes never expiring and new ones always added to the stack. That's not true. Although taxes have risen over the last few years—we raised sales taxes for Sound Transit and property taxes for the Pike Place Market—most are renewals. The parks levy was a renewal of $50 million less than the previous parks levy. The housing levy we just passed replaces the old one, with a cost increase, true, but to provide the same amount of housing as the 2002 levy, and both the school levies are also renewals (one costs a little more and the other a little less).

But the issue isn't how many levies it feels like we're passing: It's about how much more we'd be paying than we are now, which isn't much. Despite rehashed arguments the from the Times—for instance, when the paper opposed light rail on the grounds that we couldn't afford the additional taxes—voters were willing to pay for things the region needs.

Christian Sinderman, a leading local political consultant who has worked on many of the levy campaigns, says the electorate here is willing to approve a levy for a worthy cause, like the low-income housing levy last fall (which won with 65.8 percent), but reject a frivolous tax hike, like the “latte tax” in 2003 (which lost with only 31.17 percent of the vote).

“I don’t think the seawall is enough to make people throw up their hands,” Sinderman says. “I don’t think any legitimate proposal would be rejected by voters in the near future.”

Another political consultant familiar with the habits of city voters, Sandeep Kaushik, echoes the point. “Obviously, there’s anxiety about the economy, and the unemployment rate is high, and the number of these measures gives some pause,” he says. “But if there’s a compelling case for funding these priorities in the city of Seattle, voters have a strong tendency to say yes.”

Realistically, the seawall will probably pass if put to a vote—considering that the "replace it or die in an earthquake" argument is pretty compelling—but McGinn's bigger challenge could come in fulfilling his pledge to put light rail on the ballot in the next two years. But even then, voters probably won't reject a light rail line simply because it's another tax hike—we love light rail—it's only when the proposal seems like a wasted expense. "Big infrastructure projects like the monorail, the advisory on the viaduct, or McGinn's proposal for light rail could touch off a debate about the cost overruns, routes, and financing," Sinderman says. "The challenge would be, similar to the monorail, the financial details, the cost projections, and time line for construction."

“I think for years the Times has presented the argument postulating that Seattle voters will throw up their hands and say, ‘Enough is enough,’" says Sinderman, "but they haven’t been right yet.”

Additional reporting by Sarah Anne Lloyd

* We believe this chart includes all the local voter-approved tax increases currently in effect (but it's possible we missed a couple). The median home value we used for this chart is $413,238, as used for the for the Parks & Green Spaces Levy. Note that Sound Transit 1 & 2 are based, not on property taxes, but sales and vehicle taxes. Sound Transit estimates the cost per average adult is $69 per year.

 

Comments (40) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"We"?

Do you own property in Seattle, Dominic?
Posted by $how me the money on January 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM
rob! 2
Jeez, if it's only $241, I'll buy it for you. I won't be spending the money on health insurance anytime soon.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM
3
when you actually have to write that property tax check it feels different. this is just one of many asks coming from the city and county
Posted by crew on January 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Will in Seattle 4
I see you guys don't have to pay property taxes.

If you did you'd realize that, of the $5000 I pay, more than half goes for courts, cops, and jails.

Which is why the MJ initiative the folks at sensiblewashington.org are pushing will pass overwhelmingly.

You may have $1000 extra to spare, but I don't.

p.s. The Billionaires Tunnel is still dead.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM
5
@2: in millions. i wish it only cost $241.
Posted by Unpaid Intern on January 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM
6
Something to keep in mind, Dominic, is that these Seattle-specific taxes are just a small portion of what property owners pay. The total property tax bill for my tiny townhouse is a lot more than $1768/year--for me, it's about $4200/year--and the property value isn't anywhere near $400K.

So I guess it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things if we're asked to pay an additional $45 by the city, but are we going to be asked to pass additional new taxes at the state or county level as well? God knows the state could use some extra cash right now... but the individual taxpayers are struggling just as much as the state is.
Posted by lily on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
MrBaker 7
The citizens would likely vote for both the seawall and light rail, but together on a Fall ballot would risk having voters, 9.2% unemployed, to choose what on face value could be a need vs a want.

Alone on a ballot, I think the risk to the rail is less.

You might want to include the Seattle Center levy in your list.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
8
Duh,... dur.... what's a property tax?

Is that, like, something that grown-ups have to pay?
Posted by Capitol Hill Hipster Punditry on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Baconcat 9
Thank god apartment owners don't pass on their heightened property taxes to their renters. They pay that out of their own wages, right? That would suck if the renters got those taxes foisted on them, since assessments on apartments typically outstrip those of private residences 2:1.
Posted by Baconcat on January 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM
10
Dominic: Don't hold yourself up as representative of Seattle voters. Whether you feel it or not, there is unquestionably a feeling of "too many money requests" among property owners. Politically, McGinn had damn well better be cognizant of that.

You don't address the other questions the Times asks: Why is this such a burning priority now, when he didn't even mention it during the campaign, and current plans call for fixing it within six years? Have you asked your friend Mike any of these questions?

Yes, voters will approve spending money on necessary and/or valuable projects. But I think a lot of people are questioning the timing and expense of this project at this time.
Posted by bigyaz on January 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM
11
#9 Rents have been flat or even declining in the past couple years as property taxes have increased in Seattle. Landlords cannot pass along costs to renters when the rental market is so soft.
Posted by ian on January 21, 2010 at 2:34 PM
12
According to Forbes, people in King County are 176th in the nation in the % of property taxes they pay as a percentage of their income.

One-hundred-freaking-seventy five counties pay more property taxes than us. Including about 15 counties in Texas, a county in Alaska, and counties all throughout the government-hating South and Midwest.

We're supposedly one of the most progressive cities in the country. We should be 2nd or 3rd on that list. We need to literally double our property tax rates.
Posted by more taxes please on January 21, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Sir Vic 13
I seem to remember a recent list of federal benefits that Washington's congressional delegation brought home to the state. Seattle's congressman-for-life, Baghdad Jim McDermott, has a very small pork-barrel footprint, it seems. The only significant thing on that list that he was responsible for was $10m for a "feasibility study" on the Seattle seawall replacement. With the way things work in the earmark scam, most of that $10m probably went to McD's supporters/cronies. The nice thing about "studies" and "consulting" is that you don't need to produce any results to justify the money spent. Who knows if any of the current discussion was influenced by this "feasibility study"?

The point is, other major cities can get significant federal dollars for a project like shoring up a seawall of a huge port. It doesn't even seem like an option for Seattle, as Jimmy McD seems to be more concerned with "fact-finding" trips around the world than helping his home city prosper. Sens. Murray & Cantwell appear too concerned with party matters right now to be of much use. Why do the property owners of Seattle have to foot the entire bill for this?
Posted by Sir Vic on January 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM
14
@9, Baconcat, can you explain what you mean or give some context to your statement that the assessments on apartments outstrip private residences 2:1?
Posted by lily on January 21, 2010 at 2:41 PM
15
@11 is right!

"Landlords cannot pass along costs to renters when the rental market is so soft. "

That's why in my rent of $1200, absolutely NONE of it goes to pay the landlord's cost of buying the land and building the building and paying the janitor service and paying the insurance and trimming the bushes and paying for vacancies and putting in new light bulbs and repainting every few years and reparing appliances, and paying people to interview tenants and show the place. All these costs just disappear into the air! Renters are 100% insulated from any costs of landlords, true word!
Posted by Another English lit major speaks.... on January 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Matt the Engineer 16
Come on, people. It looks like we're paying half of the cost of the sea wall on something called an "Automated Fingerprint Identification System." What the hell is that? I don't remember voting for that. And I would think us tech-savvy Seattlites could have built one for far less that $102M.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on January 21, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Martin H. Duke 17
You forgot the tax for the King County Ferry District and Metro
Posted by Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com on January 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM
18
What happened to the taxing district of all the property directly connected to the waterfront? Mc Ginn just chopped the legs off the fiscal stool to fund most of the waterfront change stuff.

Not too bright.

Dom, you left that out of your story?
Posted by R G B on January 21, 2010 at 3:01 PM
19
Let's put a tax on skinny jeans and fixies.
Posted by john cocktosin on January 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM
20
@1 and @3, renters feel property tax increases as a contributing factor to rent increases.
Posted by skiplogic on January 21, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Will in Seattle 21
Anyone who has ever invested in REITs knows that the carry charge of rent depends more on the economy and disposable income and vacant rental units in the neighborhood and region than on the base cost to own the property. Comparing property taxes with rents is a fool's game - and usually leads to people going broke.

But then, my brother owns apartment buildings in Spokane, parts of Idaho, and so on.

Remember the total cost of a levy is over the district that votes it - ST is a multi-county tax, the Port is too, and Seattle taxes only impact us in Seattle.

Do property taxes carry too much of a burden here? No, cause we rip off the middle and lower classes by sales taxes so that the rich people pay very very little as percentage of income/assets.

But if you think the Billionaires Tunnel is going to pass a vote of the people - well, you're on drugs. Probably legal ones like alcohol, but you are definitely out of it.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 21, 2010 at 3:15 PM
crazycatguy 22
You miss the point, Dominic. In a time of recession, people want to see their taxes go down, not up. And many wonder why we have to spend an extra million dollars on a special election just because the mayor thinks waiting 24 months is too risky. They think that million dollars might be better spent on fixing potholes, replacing burnt-out street lights (remember City Light informed us, because of their budget woes, we will have to wait longer to have them replaced) or new sidewalks. You know, stuff that needs to be done now.
Posted by crazycatguy on January 21, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Fnarf 23
The thing is, the city (and the county, and the state, and the entire country) is spending lots of money on vanity stuff like park and library building, because it's easy to do, and lots of money on social stuff, because the need is right in your face, but they're completely ignoring infrastructure. The western half of America was basically built in 1900-1950 (the eastern half a half-century before that), plus the freeway system, with a lifespan of about 50 years. Do the math. Sewer and water systems, roads, bridges, and seawalls are crumbling all over the place.

But because water still comes out of the tap (most of it), and the bridges haven't actually fallen down yet (most of them), and the buildings downtown are still standing, nobody cares. People talk about "sustainability", but if sustainability really means maintaining a place where lots of people are able to live, infrastructure is hugely important. You can see problems all over Seattle if you know where to look for them. The seawall is part of this. I don't think anything's going to happen until some serious mega-failures take place. The freeway bridge collapsing in Minneapolis apparently wasn't big enough.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM
24
Just a couple of words on the school levies. One, they are two separate levies; please consider that when you vote.

Two, if you look closely, the most money levy/bond money is going to schools (at a little over $900 a year). That's fine, but just so you know.

Third, all the school levies have been steadily going up. The Operations levy, prop 2, was at $338M in 2204, $397M in 2007 and this year's is $442M.

The BTA levy, Prop 1, is going from $178 in 2004 to $270M in 2010.

I hope the Stranger will write more closely on these levies. The BTA levy is for good things. Problem is, the district has gotten itself to a $500M (yes, half a BILLION dollars) in backlog maintenance. How did that happen? They basically don't do basic maintenance. Their own head of maintenance told the Board this last spring. His budget is almost half of what it was in 1979 (and I know many of you weren't even around then).

So Prop 1 is basically telling you, the taxpayers, to pay more for repairs that would have cost less in basic maintenance. Nice, huh?

Almost half the district's buildings are over 50+ years. That's a lot of old buildings that are NOT all seismically sound. Plus we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new buildings. Great, huh? Except that, because they do little basic maintenance, what do you think that the taxpayers' investment in buildings will look like in 10, 15, 25 years? My kids will be long gone from those buildings, what about yours?

I try to tell Seattle School parents that it's easy for use to say "It's for the kids!" but what about our friends and neighbors who DON'T have kids. Is it really okay to ask them to spend more for deferred repairs? To not take care of the multi-million dollar investments in new buildings? (Fun fact: after San FRancisco, Seattle has the smallest kid population of a major U.S. city. We are dependent upon our friends and neighbors to pass our school levies/bonds (thanks).

But folks, we can't "levy" our way out of the backlog. And our district will suffer for it.

My only choice, the only real choice, is to get their attention by saying NO to the Prop 1, the BTA levy (but for God's sake, vote for Prop 2, Operations as it is nearly 25% of our operating budget).

I wish there another way - a petition, go to School Board meetings - but I know this district well and only the cold splash of water to the face that is a defeat will make our district become accountable for taking care of our buildings and for the money we invest in them.
More...
Posted by westello on January 21, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Will in Seattle 25
Whatever. I'm still voting for the school levies.

So you hate kids. Congrats. I hope you die alone.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM
NaFun 26
I am a mid-30s hipster that owns a house in the CD. Chipping in $40-$50/yr so downtown doesn't get swallowed by Elliott Bay seems like a pretty good idea. I do work right over the seawall and everything. Of course, downtown businesses and residents maybe should pay a bit more for living right on top of the damn thing, but whatevs.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on January 21, 2010 at 3:47 PM
27
I'd pay $1 a year extra in taxes if "Will in Seattle" was limited to one Blog post a month.
Posted by Does That Guy Have A Job? on January 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM
28
10
yeah, Dominic-
if you're ever in hizonor's exalted presence and don't have his dick shoved in your mouth ask him about that
Posted by dominic is bholden on January 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM
MarkyMark 29
My King Co Property Tax breakdown for 2009 is:

State $1,350.34
Local School Support $1,181.57
County $755.23
City $1,775.91
Port $135.54
Emergency Med Svc $188.54
Ferry $34.52
Flood Control $62.76
Nox Weed $2.10
Drainage $347.13
King CD $9.98

Total $5,843.62
Posted by MarkyMark on January 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Sargon Bighorn 30
Those two little words you all love to hate, "Tim Eyman". And I don't want ta hear none o'your complainin!
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 21, 2010 at 6:10 PM
31
Oh Will, that means I hate my kids.

No, I love kids and that why I want safe, secure buildings for them and the staff who call those buildings their workplace.

You like paying more for repairs which would cost less if done earlier? Really? You like paying $119M for Garfield and they won't be doing much basic maintenance on that investment?

Good to know taxpayers are so generous.
Posted by westello on January 21, 2010 at 6:33 PM
32
Domenic -- your simple reprinting and accepting McGinn's talking points truly question whether you should be covering him in office. Its time for someone else to take the beat, you simply have lost any level of objectivity and critical analysis.

Because if you asked ANYONE that why would McGinn propose a 60% bond issue in a special election in 100 days about restoring the seawall, when it was NEVER mentioned by him in the 9 months he campaigned. In your chart did you notice the 30 year number and wonder why that LEVY's with 50% are the most likely approved. That he never asked ANY one on the council about this and did it while they were on a retreat. That the entire world knows is a ploy to kill the tunnel in a classic passive aggressive Seattle tactic. The list goes on and on. But you talked with Aaron Pincus and got the talking points. I have seen more objectivity on FOX.
Posted by West Seattle Waiter on January 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM
33
#32: I'm sure you watch more objectivity on Fox News. Every night. For several hours. Go to sound politics and stay off our light rail.
Posted by No tip on January 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM
34
Great post, Dominic.

I agree with Matt the Engineer - wtf is an automated fingerprint identification system? While I don't receive any direct benefits except the parks levy, I understand the importance of paying for them and happily concede. This includes the seawall. But an AFIS? That's not something that I would have agreed to six years ago, today, or six years from now.

Any chance we can swap the AFIS and seawall?
Posted by hayduke on January 21, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Rotten666 35
Death and Taxes, fuckers.
Posted by Rotten666 on January 21, 2010 at 9:55 PM
36
that tunnel is unneeded and dead. 520 and more transit is what we need. slap a light rail line on the the waterfront and Ill go full steam ahead. vancouver's line through downtown is sooo nice and convenient--everyone who is bitching here needs to hop up there for a weekend without a car. if we rebuild 520, light rail to bellevue then we can LOOK at a tunnel downtown. as for the seawall, it can wait a couple of years, but those multi-million dollar businesses and the downtown residents that will greatly benefit from a takedown of the viaduct can pay with a LID, same effing way we got the slut. ...perhaps the streetcar should be trucked up to the ID until more folks start living down in SLU and using it. that might save a couple mil. you all know if that thing was running (regardless of the route) it'd have a thousand riders a day toot sweet.
Posted by get on it! on January 21, 2010 at 11:02 PM
doesurmindglow 37
@22: People always want to see taxes go down. A recession is no different. You could argue they hate them more in economic bad times, but I'd challenge this too on the basis that they also need services more in economic bad times. But rarely does the argument prevail that: "Times are good right now, how bout we raise some taxes?"

If I remember correctly, the non-recession argument goes more like this: "Now that we have a surplus, we think the government should give it back to the people - in the form of a tax cut." and less like this: "We should save this surplus to pay down debt, and for a economic bad times, so we won't have to cut services or raise taxes at a time when people can't afford either. (And thereby wisely avoid deficits, either in creating them through this tax cut, or in making them worse with future stimulus/tax cuts.)" Too bad no one ever made that argument.

So I think it's safe to say we can assume one constant: everyone hates taxes always. Some people may weigh their hatred of taxes more reasonably against the value of services which, in aggregate, constitute a civilized society; but even those people don't like taxes.

@most everyone else: Can we mutually agree to call off this "renters vs. owners" argument? It's sooo 15th century:

/begin Glenn Beckesque straw man vignette, preferably with that dream sequence harp sound:
Oh, these noble lords, paying from their dear, esteemed coffers so that we lowly peasants may partake of their alms! What a kind and majestic gesture of these fine, landowning gentry!

How dare a mere renter peasant such as Dominic challenge their lordship! What blasphemy! If only he understood the aristocracy's great burden, and was a landowner himself! If only he was born of landed blood, then he might realize his great folly! But no, of course, he is a mere renter peasant, he shall never appreciate the greatness of his noble landlord.

/end Glenn Beckesque straw man vignette...
More...
Posted by doesurmindglow on January 22, 2010 at 12:52 AM
38
Median price $413,000 times city of Seattle combined levy rate is $3,291. Add surface water management fees, noxious weeds and conservation and now you are around $3,500.

Not sure how you calculated your totals; is that just for the first half of your property taxes?
Posted by dogpatch on January 22, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Will in Seattle 39
@31 - well congrats. You managed to convince my son, who is 18, and he voted for the small levy but not the big one.

Oh, he just graduated from public school.

You must be oh so proud of yourself.

P.S.: He won't pay your Social Security when you retire either.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM
40
Announcing two online surveys and one online petition addressing the school levies.

1. Express your position for or against the capital (BTA III) levy in an online survey; view survey participation rates; view other's comments and position: www.petitiononline.com/srvysea1

The results of this survey and comments from participants will be shared with the school board.

2. Express your position for or against the Operations levy in an online survey; view survey participation rates; view other's comments and position: www.petitiononline.com/srvysea1

The results of this survey and comments from participants will be shared with the school board.

3. Sign and comment on a BTA III Voters' pledge. In this pledge, the signatory declares that s/he will vote in favor of the BTA III levy only if the Board agrees to hold itself legally bound to the provisions in the petition. The petition calls for a strong, parent-dominated oversight committee for the Capital Levy, should it be approved by voters.
Posted by joan_ne on January 27, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy