**Reader Note: See updates below original post.**
Yes, I know, somewhere in Mukilteo someone's head just exploded at the thought.
But, it looks like the Legislature has authorized cities and counties to add $20 to car tab fees at their discretion, obviously creating controversy in some circles.
Certainly, some will object to this in the wake of Tim Eyman-lead $30 tab initiatives. By the same token, there is a reasonable degree of accountability involved. Local governments shouldn't have to spend money on elections just to raise necessary taxes for transportation needs, which would be roads in most localities. At the same time, the local officials who make such a decision would presumably do so in a public vote, and either way have to be accountable to the electorate.
Given a choice between raising property taxes or paying an additional $20 car tab fee I'll take the latter. Impact fees and the like are already a problem for affordable housing so it's fair for local governments to draw the line somewhere. This seems like the closest thing to a user fee that can be implemented at the local level.
Obviously, local officials should implement the added fee judiciously. But it does seem to make sense in rapidly growing jurisdictions.
Your thoughts?
UPDATE: Tim Eyman responds at #5. I utterly reject his notion of "no new taxes ever" for transportation, which is about what he's saying. Reasonable people should be able to argue about whether a jurisdiction should raise taxes for a given cause, not hamstring those governments in perpetuity.
For example, If King County said they wanted to raise tabs to pay for even more transit, even before the pending Sound Transit vote in November, that would be highly objectionable. If, however, Snohomish County or a fast growing city in the exurbs voted to add the fee to pay for the expansion of arterials and formerly rural roads now under heavy use then that seems reasonable. For example, though it's unclear whether they would support such a fee, even staunch Republicans on the Snohomish County Council such as John Koster have acknowledged the yawning gap between road construction needs in a growing county versus the paucity of available funding, which state gas taxes do not address.
Personally, I oppose high tax burdens, would like to see total reform of the state's tax system, and am particularly hawkish on lowering tax rates of all kinds at the federal level. Local transportation taxes are one I can stomach though. Car tab fees are as close to a user fee as local governments can achieve. Local control over user fees: that should be a conservative position.
Instead, Eyman continues to trot out the "hell no" philosophy that served a good purpose for I-695, but now isn't doing anyone any favors in actually paying for long overdue transportation projects or getting Republicans elected in the suburbs. Eyman's latest initiative, I-960, has some validity in theme (the ongoing lack of restraint in the state budget being a serious issue), though I'm not sold on all the particulars. But on transportation, his thinking is merely a recipe for unsolved policy problems and Democrats sitting in offices once held by Republicans.
UPDATE II: And as I finish the first update, I see Stefan as some thoughts up too. My only response is, much like my take on the original fee option in question, is that if people don't like the actions of elected officials then vote them out. In the case of local elected officials having an option of raising a tax to pay for legitimate needs in the community, then they certainly have to be accountable to local constituents for that action. That seems a better recipe for accountability than relying solely on Olympia or ridiculously having a public vote on the matter every time someone gets their undies in a bunch. Why do we have elections for public office anyway if we always have to have plebiscites on major issues too?
UPDATE III: One additional thought in the midst of the outrage: it will be interesting to see which counties and/or cities actually pursue such an addition to the car tabs paid for by their citizens. I suspect it will be pretty selective, for obvious reasons. Those officials who might consider it will want to be exceptionally forthright in explaining the need to the community and specifically where their money would be going. As of now, the complaints are about a possible fee, not an actual one.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 06, 2007 09:16 AM | Email This$47.75
Posted by: John Bailo on May 6, 2007 09:51 AMHow much is he being paid to throw his support behind the upcoming RTID plus Sound Transit measure? Eyman says he’s fine with it, because it is a ballot meausre.
Nevermind it is filled with doublespeak that nobody voting on it will know is even in the hidden documents . . . . Nevermind that it would mean unending taxes for unaccountable governments . . . .
Both RTID and ST will be able to cut back on the “promises” they make after the vote. Plus, citizens won’t be able to vote in anyone to represent their interests onto either of those governments’ boards for the five decades they would be imposing their taxes. And Eyman is FOR that kind of unending abuse of taxpayers.
Eyman lost his credibility long ago. Now he’s backing a limitless tax grab attempt by unaccountable local governments.
The extra local $20 tab fees are nothing compared to the huge tax hits on families that would take place over the next fifty years if the ballot measure this fall is approved.
VOTE NO IN NOVEMBER.
How 'bout politicians not raising taxes at all and just spending the already astrononically high tax burden more effectively? And if politicians fail to do that, then propose a tax increase and convince the taxpayers who'll pay the tax that it's worthy of their support at an election. Short of that, politicians deserve nothing but our contempt.
There's something particularly pathetic about the author of this posting blithely accepting tax increase after tax increase after tax increase with a simple shrug of the shoulders. Pathetic.
Here's what we sent to our supporters:
Gregoire took away our right to vote on Friday. She also took away our $30 tabs.
In 1999, the voters approved I-695 which required $30 car tabs. In 2000, after the court overturned it, the Legislature and Locke adopted it anyway and promised "$30 license tabs are here to stay." In 2002, the voters approved I-776 and repealed vehicle taxes and fees exceeding $30, including a $15 fee imposed by counties, and said vehicle charges above $30 must be voter approved. In 2004, candidate Gregoire promised, if elected, not to increase taxes. In 2005, Gregoire and the Legislature passed a bill that required a public vote for any increase in local vehicle charges.
Two votes by the people, two votes by the Legislature, and a no-new-taxes promise by a Governor -- all five were chucked aside yesterday.
The only effective way to respond is for all of us to redouble our efforts to donate dollars and gather signatures for Initiative 960 which makes it much, much tougher for state government to take more of the people's money. I-960 also makes it totally impossible for the politicians to jack up taxes and fees without the public knowing about it (like they did with this car tab increase).
Don't get mad, get even.
Associated Press: "Eyman fumes as Gregoire signs tax bill -- Gov. Chris Gregoire on Friday approved legislation to allow Washington cities and counties to impose a vehicle fee of as much as $20, without voter approval, to help finance transportation projects and transit. Tim Eyman, sponsor of the initiative that brought $30 car tabs, said the measure disregards voters' clear demand for a public vote whenever an increase is proposed. He crashed the bill-signing ceremony at the Capitol, standing near the governor. He grimaced and gave a thumbs-down gesture to the TV and still cameras as Gregoire signed the measure. Afterward, the governor asked Eyman if he wanted a souvenir pen like the bill backers were getting. He said yes, and she gave him one, along with a big smile. He departed, still frowning. Later he said he'd use the pen to gather signatures on his latest initiative, to make it harder for state lawmakers to raise taxes. The measure passed the Legislature on a largely partyline vote, and both supporters and critics had speculated that Gregoire might veto it. During her 2004 campaign, she had promised to resist tax hikes, but later supported a transportation tax package and taxes to close a spending gap in 2005, including 'sin taxes' and restoring the estate tax on large estates. But Gregoire said in an interview that she had no qualms about signing the measure, viewing it as strictly a local-option tool for strapped governments to consider. 'It's not Olympia imposing taxes, it's allowing local governments to do what they want to do for local roads,' she said. 'It's not me imposing taxes. I've always had an attitude that Olympia ought to allow local governments more authority. I've said to the cities and counties, 'Come to us with proposals for more options to use at the local level, closer to the people.' I don't think you should have to constantly come to Olympia for more authority. So this is in keeping with that.' Eyman said lawmakers quietly slipped it through without much public awareness that it was even pending. Voters have said repeatedly that they want $30 car tabs and that any proposed increases should go to the people for a vote, he said. He noted that the 2005 legislation specifically requires a vote for any of the revenue options. 'We've been working for 10 years for $30 car tabs and with one stroke of the pen, it's gone,' he said. Eyman said he'll use this new bill as 'the poster child' for his Initiative 960, which would require broad public notice for all tax increases proposed in the Legislature."
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/05/05/100wir_b6eyman001.cfm
-- END --
Here's our website for Initiative 960:
http://www.TheTaxpayerProtectionInitiative.com
You seem to have tunnel vision.
The key word is Ballot. Ballot means Vote. Vote means voters get to VOTE.
What Gregiore did on Friday did not include a VOTE by voters. She circumvented the voters once again.
BTW wasn't the Viaduct is Falling Vote of 9.5cent gas tax suppose take care of our failing roads statewide? Why do the counties need more. Can't they utilize their current budgets as planned?
but never do I hear of a SLASHED program or sunset limit on some program or outsourced program resulting from an independent performance audit. example: art commissions, diversity programs, sister cities. why? when we could use new fire equipment or police enhancements or hospital enhancements? when roads are failing?
every city wants a state of art rec center & other independent amenities like self-contained micro worlds. little regional stuff or shared facilities.
example--my city voted into the regional library--ok for efficiencies (? maybe) of scale; what not said: it removed the scrutiny of my local officials & their budget decisions to some faceless (unelected) taxing authority.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 6, 2007 10:43 AMAlso, your library example confuses me. As you say, the change apparently increases efficiency. Isn't that what you want?
Posted by: Bruce on May 6, 2007 11:03 AMI've lost total faith that this Governor and legislature give a rip about the will of the people of this state.
Vote Hell No in November
Posted by: GS on May 6, 2007 11:44 AM
Sure. If you believe the only choices are raising taxes and raising taxes.
Nothing is ever slashed? Have you talked to anyone working in social services in recent years? Bruce
Name one. Just one instance where a social service has been cut. Any social service. Anywhere. Just one. Keep in mind - a reduction in the amount of a requested increase is not a 'cut'.
Local governments are some of the biggest money wasters around. Municipalities, junior taxing districts, PTBAs, you name it.
Take a look at some of their cars and trucks sometime. Not law enforcement, but the parks crews, the fire districts, the code compliance officers. Top-of-the-line F350s, the latest GMC SUVs, Chrysler 300s ... in short, brand-new cars and trucks.
Never fear. Local government is alive and well. And now they have additional authority to tax even more.
A pox on the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties. They've never, ever met a tax increase they didn't like, push or support.
Posted by: jimg on May 6, 2007 01:22 PMThey do for emergency services like fire departments. Why shouldn't emergency services come out of the general fund first?
*****
Just under 19% of my property tax is designated as for SnoCo roads. I have no other idea of how that money is actually spent. Whenever we seem to get a road repaved, new development comes in and tears it up to get to water and sewer and the "repairs" never leave the road in as good of shape as it had been.
There are over 100 new homes going in near me. If all the new homes going in in the area have 19% of their property taxes going to roads, why is there a shortfall?
I pay the 52.4 (soon to be 54.4) cent a gallon tax on gas.
I pay a $20 vehicle weight fee and a $52 RTA excise tax on just one of my vehicles, not to mention the $30 tabs.
Plus, the every other year $15 or $18 fee for emmissions, the drivers license fee.
I get to vote for another $33 billion for transit and HOV lanes. If passed, how much more will that add to my tax bill?
In addition, people are talking tolls and transponders.
Why do I have yet another roads tax?
I will have freedom of movement - as long as I am wealthy enough.
As for voting out the politicians that raise taxes - I do. Not enough other people do the same, though.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 6, 2007 01:52 PMThe absurdity of such an observation absolutely astounds me.
What good would it do to "vote them out?" How could that "unfire" the bullet?
The FIRST thing these towns and other municipalities will do is enter the time-tested King-Co dodge: If you bond out a tax increase, it cannot be repealed.
Do you GET THAT, ERIC? It CANNOT BE REPEALED.
The ONLY thing "voting them out" would do is to make you FEEL better, but it would NOT, because it COULD not, get rid of the $20 fee they're ramming down our throats.
It never ceases to amaze me how much fringe-left whackjobs fear the will of the people. Which, of course, causes me to wonder why YOU, Eric, fear our will on tax votes?
At the end of the day, if transportation improvements are so important... so vital... then it is incumbent upon the government officials that desire these improvements to get off their collective asses and convince us they're needed and then convince us to pay for them.
The judgment of those in government will NEVER be superior to the judgment of those they would govern.
Your support of this action is despicable... utterly despicable, as you applaud the erosion of our democracy one step at a time.
Posted by: Hinton on May 6, 2007 02:25 PMTypical of [strike]Communists[/strike] Democrats.
Do you GET THAT, ERIC? It CANNOT BE REPEALED."
That statement is only partially correct. In the case of local governments, they can be limited in how much tax they can pledge to bonds. That is the case with Sound Transit, for example.
That is why the ST2 measure calls for additional taxing for Phase 1. ST pledged to the bondholders (in 1999 and 2005) that it would collect the taxes at the current rates through 2028 and 2030, respectively. ST does not have the right to collect those taxes at those rates for so long (under Sound Move). That is why the measure this November seeks additional taxing power for Phase 1 projects, as well as for additional taxes for spending on Phase II projects and long term debt.
You understand that, right Hinton?
And Giffy - do you agree or disagree that approval of the November ballot measure would provide ST with unlimited additional taxing authority relating to Phase 1?
I'll bet you all the west sound counties will raise the fee within 12 months. Additionally, more than 3/4's of the counties will enact the fee.
Posted by: Kitsap Voter on May 7, 2007 09:11 AMand as for social service cuts, that's almost entirely from bad "priorities of govt" spending choices--we have money for illegal aliens, art mandates and sister city junket trips, yet none for our own truly needy LEGAL citizens. also comes from no implementation of performance audit changes. look at the ferries--20+ years of bad audit reports--yet no changes.
also ask your union friends if they didnt contribute to bureaucracies, waste, wage demands and lack of accountability for results.
most people arent knee-jerk anti tax, they just want value and the state to run its spending & budgets like we do in our own houses. disclipline, saying 'no' to things, doing without or belt-tightening. stores cant always raise prices as a solution without bad impacts. they cut costs first.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 7, 2007 10:35 AMI didn't get an $18,000 dollar raise this year like she did, or did I get a $16,000 raise like the legislature did.
What did I get this year, no wage hike, a $1000 per year real estate tax hike (11.4% higher), a 9.5 cent never-ending gas tax hike, the highest gas prices in 49 of the 50 states, Boat tax hike, Fishing license hike, insurance hike, postage fee hike, electricity hike, College fee hikes, College tuitian hikes, etc etc etc, just to name a few.
I wish I had a public booty I could dip into when I needed to fix my driveway, or home, or roof, or send my kids to college, but it isn't there.
This governor and state legislature have been spending and taxing with a vengence like none I have seen in 50 years in this state.
They need to show some creative thinking, as was shoved down their throats in the Viaduct - Tunnel issue. They didn't get either of their prefered options, after spending literally millions in meetings and planning, because the public said Hell no to their expensive options. The surface street option is cheaper and the only option left to explore. It will cost the least and accomplish what is necessary in that area.
We just built a new Narrows bridge, 5400 feet long, for about 800 million. The current 520 bridge is 7700 feet long. Has anyone thought about maybe looking at the prospect of a Narrows style bridge, one section longer, at a cost of sayyyyyy 1.2 to 1.5 million, as a new maybe cheaper idea than a new floating bridge?
I have not heard any of those kinds of thoughts coming from the Governor or DOT, only a major emergency 3.3 Billion down payment with no end point to cost, likely double any of their estimates, no start date, no end date, and most of all no end in site for the tax hikes from it.
Enough is enough! I will happly vote Hell no on the RTID/ST boondoggle. It is just another never ending tax.