Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Republican Tax Proposal Would Screw Seattle

Posted by on Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM

For those who haven’t been following the tax fight on the King County Council, you should tune in now for three reasons: The battle between Democrats and Republicans is getting hilariously—and somewhat tragically—absurd, there’s a lot at stake in finding public-safety money, and time is slipping away to find a solution.

The county estimates a $60 million shortfall next year; the largest drain would be $47 million from sheriff’s deputies (70 layoffs), prosecutors (36 layoffs), and county firefighters—with potentially dire and obvious ramifications.

The most recent proposal—the third of late—in the partisan war was pitched by Republican council members Reagan Dunn and Kathy Lambert late yesterday afternoon. It would raise the sales tax by 2/10 of a percent. Fair enough, so far.

Then it gets weird. You see, Republicans don’t like simply raising taxes, so they propose offsetting the sales tax increase by reducing or eliminating voter-approved property tax levies (cutting the parks levy, flood-district levy, and fingerprint ID system levy). Voters would have to ratify it in a vote pitting public safety against flood protection.

"Protecting public safety by cutting roads, voter-approved parks, and flood prevention is not the kind of choice we think voters want to be offered," says Frank Abe, a spokesman for King County Executive Dow Constantine.

And then, on further inspection, the insanity of this proposal really begins to shine.

The property tax cuts would only apply to residents outside city limits.

In other words, people outside incorporated cities (the areas represented by Republican council members) would get a tax break, while people inside the cities would have no tax breaks but would get an added sales tax. And that sales tax would go largely to police and fire services outside the city—in places that rely on the county for public safety—so city residents would be accepting a tax hike to subsidize rural folk.

“Give me a break,” says Bob Ferguson, chair of the county council and representative of northeast Seattle. “You are proposing a tax break for your constituents and asking my constituents to foot the bill for your constituents. What kind of a deal is that?”

Ferguson calls the deal a “nonstarter.”

County council member Larry Phillips, who represents northwest Seattle, adds, “We already pay a pretty penny for our [Seattle police] officers and then we would be raising our taxes to pay for sheriffs officers in unincorporated King County.”

The reason this measure exists at all is because Republicans have been called on the carpet to produce some kind of measure (although I don’t think anyone was expecting something as plainly absurd as this) after killing other proposals. Republicans formed a bloc to shoot down two previous tax measures, and then when questions arose about what they were for—not just the taxes they were against—they produced this rotten egg.

What's frustrating in all of this is the obvious stubbornness that Lambert and Dunn are exhibiting here. Democrats made concessions by reducing the size of a previously proposed sales tax and including a sunset provision. But Republicans have rejected those sensible measures and—despite claims that they want to find a bipartisan solution—now all they can produce is an idea that is so absurd it's a joke.

But all is not lost.

The previous attempts to ask voters for a tax hike—see here and here—went down in part because the council lacked a six-vote majority to push the measures through at the last minute for the August ballot. But now Phillips predicts the council may consider an across-the-board sales tax hike (also 2/10 of a percent), which would only need five votes if the council acts by July 26 to make the fall ballot. Voters would be able to approve or reject it in November.

Lambert and Dunn did not respond to requests to comment.

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Can't we just secede, form our own Sealth County and our own state Seattle, and let them starve in the dark?

We'll still own all their water and power.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 15, 2010 at 4:07 PM
2
Everyone outside of Seattle...hates Seattle.

/stupid liberals
Posted by jns on June 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM
theophrastus 3
What would be delightful (so may never occur) is to have Seattle declared its own county like San Francisco. For starters, Seattle wouldn't be almost single-handedly supporting transit for Carnation (for example)
Posted by theophrastus on June 15, 2010 at 4:16 PM
4
Everyone outside of Seattle...hates Seattle.

yeah, til they get floated by our taxes. fucking douchenozzles.
Posted by holz on June 15, 2010 at 4:18 PM
gloomy gus 5
Nobody trusts anybody even a little any more.
Posted by gloomy gus on June 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Vince 6
Republicans never solve problems. They only create more of them.
Posted by Vince on June 15, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 7
True, Vince. But Democrats don't solve problems either. They just throw money at them, in the mistaken belief that it will solve them.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Will in Seattle 8
You mean people in Carnation actually use transit, @3?

@6 ftw. @7 for the America-hating epic fail.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 15, 2010 at 4:38 PM
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 9
"The county estimates a $60 million shortfall next year; the largest drain would be $47 million from sheriff’s deputies (70 layoffs), prosecutors (36 layoffs), and county firefighters—with potentially dire and obvious ramifications."

Not knowing what these layoffs actually represent as a percentage of service provided it is not "obvious" that these layoffs are "potentially dire" (if that's what you were trying to say (as opposed to potentially dire and potentially obvious)). If this translates to a 5% reduction in service... I can live with that. If it translates to a 40% reduction in service... maybe "dire" is "obvious". Factual content & perspective please...

Make you assumption obvious to us instead of just telling us it is obvious to you.

You report, we’ll decide.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on June 15, 2010 at 4:43 PM
10
Suburban and rural politicians scoring points by shitting on the "the big bad scary other" (i.e. the city that is in fact the region's economic engine and net tax donor) is so 1950s-1980s.

Seattle's problem is that even our Democrats put up with and/or partake in it.

Urban Democrats need to draw the line. Withhold support for all of Gregoire's policy priorities (jury's still out on Constantine) until this particular brand of intra-party douchebaggery is put to sleep.
Posted by d.p. on June 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM
COMTE 11
So, let me get this straight: The Republican members of the County Council are floating a proposal whereby the incorporated parts of the county contribute more into the general fund, but the unincorporated parts receive more?

Hm, this sounds vaguely familiar. How does that go again? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Now, where have I heard this before?
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on June 15, 2010 at 4:45 PM
12
You want to complain, Seattle? Three little letters for you to suck on: CAO. You think this proposal screws you? How about the rural areas getting to tell you urbanites that you can't use 2/3 of your apartment/condo/home? It has to remain open and unused, but guess what? We're still going to tax you on it, because we out in the rural areas want to be able to come ride on our bikes and enjoy the open space on the weekend.

Posted by blehblah on June 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM
emor 13
@8

One time my bike broke while in North Bend and I was able to take a couple busses and got off within a mile of my house in central Seattle*. So rural bus service is something that I have benefited from to a very small degree. I've also planned bike rides with rural bus service cutting out dozens of hideous suburban miles.

*For what it's worth, there were about 10 total other riders from North Bend to Issaquah, and it wasn't even a peak time!
Posted by emor on June 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Will in Seattle 14
I say we defund the rest of King County and let them whine more about Seattle.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Toasterhedgehog 15
Why are Democrats proposing an increase in sales tax that will hurt poor people more than rich people anyway?
Posted by Toasterhedgehog on June 15, 2010 at 5:07 PM
elenchos 16
No thanks. More sales taxes means more regressive punishment of the poor.

Needs to be income tax. Try harder, guys.
Posted by elenchos on June 15, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Etherite 17
Why is anyone trying this bi-partisan crap anymore anyway? It hasn't worked for about five or six years now. Ignore the Republitards, increase the income tax and be done with it.

Also, I really like the idea of Seattle being its own county.
Posted by Etherite on June 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Joe Szilagyi 18
The idea to secede sounds good.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on June 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM
COMTE 19
@12:

Aw, boo-hoo Mr. developer wannabe, I feel so sorry for your plight, just like I did 15 years ago when I moved away from East King County because the unchecked explosion of suburban development was making it literally impossible to continue maintaining a rural existence. When newbies move into their cookie-cutter McMansions then immediately start complaining about the smell from the dairy farm next door that's been there for 50 some-odd years, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize something is out of whack.

What the CAO does is tell developers hell-bent on paving over the last few acres of rural land, wet lands, working agriculture, etc., in unincorporated parts of the county that building inefficient suburban sprawl miles and miles away from where people work, then forcing them to drive even more tens or scores of miles in pollution-spewing single-occupancy automobiles to get to said work, or even the grocery store for that matter, isn't a very efficient use of limited natural resources.

You want to develop your land - buy in-city and build away.
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on June 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM
20
@16, @17: Sure, sales taxes suck. But getting a county-level (this is a King Co issue, remember) income tax just isn't going to happen, at least not in the short term.
Posted by shabadoo on June 15, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Max Solomon 21
explain to me why 70 less king co sherrifs is bad.
Posted by Max Solomon on June 15, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 22
And yet the most important issue for all is building a 5 billion dollar tunnel through a quarter mile of what seems to me like a relatively abandoned downtown:

"Rush hour" 4 pm for second and third avenues:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47446064@N0…

Third avenue:

A veritable "gridlock"!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47446064@N0…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on June 15, 2010 at 8:38 PM
23
What good are public servants who only perform during good times?
Posted by countermeme on June 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM
Will in Seattle 24
@18 - first, we need a flag.

I'm thinking a gay panda bear romping on a field of sunflowers ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 16, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


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