Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, July 25, 2014

Vote For a Fuckin' Parks District Today!

Posted by on Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:49 PM

The Yes on Prop 1 campaign has a shiny new mailer out, and guess whose endorsement they're now touting? Why, it's the Stranger Election Control Board's! We're so proud. But wait—hmmmm, you guys, something looks a little different about that second-to-last sentence there...

We elect leaders who set taxes and build budgets and then when they [mess] it up, we vote them out.
  • Mailboxes everywhere
  • "We elect leaders who set taxes and build budgets and then when they [mess] it up, we vote them out."

What'd it say in the original again? Oh, yeah. Guess they didn't want to print a cuss word on the front of the adorable-children-playing-in-the-park mailer. Sorry, kids!

In other parks news, Mike McGinn has an endorsement for the parks district over at PubliCola, and it's a really interesting read.

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Gern Blanston 1
Think of the children Stranger!
Posted by Gern Blanston on July 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM · Report this
2
No. Finally disagree with you.
Posted by teasea on July 25, 2014 at 5:18 PM · Report this
3
It's going down faster than a young buck fresh in from Iowa in a bathroom at Cal Anderson at 2am when you wave $20.
Posted by Sugartit on July 25, 2014 at 5:21 PM · Report this
Gern Blanston 4
@3 Sounds like someone speaking from personal experience.
Posted by Gern Blanston on July 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 5
Welcome teasea, dear. It's always nice how subjects like this bring all sorts of new friends to Slog.

And troll, really - back in those dim dark days beyond recall, when I was a "young buck from Iowa", it took at least $50 for me to go down on someone in a park at 2am. Happy Hour didn't start until 4.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 25, 2014 at 7:25 PM · Report this
6
No on the creation of the metro parks district.
Posted by westello on July 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM · Report this
JonnoN 7
Yes on the creation of the metro parks district.

Tim Eyeman put us in this mess, this is a decent way out.
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on July 25, 2014 at 8:06 PM · Report this
8
I like Goldy. I like McGinn. I like O'Brien. I'm still hoping this goes down. Jack up the property taxes even on fixed-income folks? Create an all-powerful body to make major funding and park decisions that will not be held accountable to the voters? You're telling me to trust the Council not to squeeze tax dollars out of the populace to benefit rich Downtown developers?

NO. No no no.

I like parks; I use them all the time. But this isn't the way to fund them. I want accountability to how government uses tax money, goddammit, especially in this post-Citizens United America where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.

And the best answer McGinn has to this is that we can vote them out in district elections? Give me a fucking break. How many options of candidates will voters have? And how can even the very few qualified, well-intentioned citizens willing to make the major sacrifice involved in running for office even get a fair shake when campaigning is a money game and the rich people (including corporations, ahem) hold all the purse strings?

And what's with the emotional sales job constantly bringing up Tim Eyman?

Fucking bullshit. I hope this goes down.
Posted by Your specious peer pressure doesn't work on me on July 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM · Report this
9
" when I was a "young buck from Iowa", it took at least $50 for me to go down on someone in a park at 2am"

Supply and demand.
Posted by Sugartit on July 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM · Report this
10
Prop 1 is a tax increase of unknown size.

And since many renters don't get it, please understand that all/most landlords will pass along tax increases to renters.

Prop 1 means higher rents.

Posted by caution&daring on July 25, 2014 at 8:59 PM · Report this
11
"And since many renters don't get it, please understand that all/most landlords will pass along tax increases to renters."

Which is why I itemize the property tax to my renters so they see how much they are paying.
Posted by Because some renters are that dumb on July 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM · Report this
michaelp 12
@10 - It's not unknown. It's $0.33/$1k of assessed property value. It's buying back a small amount of revenue capacity slashed by Tim Eyman, and upheld by a spineless Legislature, and dedicating it to parks.

Fuck Tim Eyman. YES for Prop. 1!
Posted by michaelp on July 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM · Report this
13
@10, possibly result in higher rents. The business model of a rental is a long one, resulting in profits later down the line after a mortgage stays the same (or is paid off and goes to $0). Rent and costs have extreme elasticity and are more related to "what the market will bear".... unless you think I can find an older building with a paid off mortgage that will charge me rent of only taxes/utilities/insurance costs.
Posted by ChefJoe on July 26, 2014 at 3:27 PM · Report this
14
I'm inclined to Yes and even more so after receiving the "Vote NO" flier in the mail, because I think it contains a big stinkin' lie. At least I hope it's a lie! They say "your property taxes would increase by 20%". I find that hard to believe. I'm not much of a researcher (plus I'm lazy) so I'm hoping someone here can confirm or deny that. It just doesn't pass a sniff test for me. Do the math for me?
Posted by bulgie on July 26, 2014 at 8:24 PM · Report this
15
maybe they mean your property tax paid for parks??

regardless of what side says what, look at themerits.

this is combining a revenue measure, a tax, with a new form of government. this is an unfair package. what if I want the form of government but don't want the revenue? what if I want the revenue but don't want this form of government which btw can lead to much higher revenue a/k/a taxes?

we continually decry the cruel nature of state and local taxes. today, propety tax is REGRESSIVE when rents are 45% of some folks' income. yes, renters pay this tax! renters pay more as a percent of their income when we add property taxes, because hello, howard schultz and steve ballmer are worth bazillions yet only live in a house that's like $5 million. you, the renter? you making $40K paying outrageious rent in seattle? 1500? $1750? you pay more as a percent of your income in state and local taxes including property taxes then the upper 20% do.

vote no. if you vote no, they will be back in feb. with a levy that comes with a specific list of mandated projected including the one in your neighborhood you care about -- the recurring levies are always APPROVED in seattle, we will be funding parks. but we will have more accountability. remember, these are the people who propose that madison park beach NOT HAVE A LIFEGUARD half the swimmable season, yet they have money for a fucking waterfront swimming barge ship that will cost $30 million or so! to help developers downtown sell their new vista condos (when the viaduct is down!) at $3 million a pop, not just $1.5 million a pop! vote no now, then vote yes in february, if you love parks AND accountability.
Posted by vote no to vote yes on July 27, 2014 at 9:31 AM · Report this
16
Love parks, never mind paying my share of taxes for all the things that make this City great. VOTE NO on this bill. It's a terrible piece of legislation and one that will make you very sorry if it passes. Tell them no. Give us a better designed, more controlled. When people say, oh, we just vote the counsel out if we don't like their decisions, it is clear they absolutely do not understand the percentage of incumbants winning elections. VOTE NO.
Posted by Liberal fiscal conservative on July 27, 2014 at 11:49 AM · Report this
17
The opponents have no problem lying. Don Harper should be ashamed of himself.
Posted by Just saying on July 27, 2014 at 2:09 PM · Report this
18
I will be voting no on Prop 1 - Creating a Seattle Park District. It contains some good ideas but no realistic public oversight and no public option to terminate. It would leave the people of Seattle subject to the whims of the council and whoever's pockets they happen to be in (that's right, democracy replaced by ca$hocracy). If the proposition included some kind of quality review system, such as regular public votes to decide if the district is behaving in accordance with the desires of the citizens, I could get behind it. Barring that, I have to say no. The current system of levies is irritating and could be better and more creatively managed, but at least it does not leave decisions about taxing and funding to one small group of people. No public review or clear process for shutting it down if it does not perform... No Prop 1. We can do better than this.
For those of you who support this, here are a couple of things to think about:
1. You may be in alignment politically with the current council. What happens when you're not? Things change.

2. This proposition is a huge incentive for corporate and political interest groups to "fund" their favorite city council candidates. See #1. Yeah, no take backs.

3. There is no explicit due process for the council when they ignore the "advice" of the citizens advisors.

4. Who do you think is going to filling those advisory roles? Regular Joe's and Jane's from every person's land?

5. Why can't we just modify the prop to include regular public votes of confidence every couple of years? That would bring all of the people who like democracy on board.

If you disagree with me that's cool. I'd love to hear your rational argument. If you agree with me, please share. Because for better or worse, on this one, once it's done it's done.
More...
Posted by AndreH on July 28, 2014 at 1:21 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

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