nplusm ([info]nplusm) wrote,
@ 2008-10-25 00:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Jake's Unpopular Opinion Hour
So, I think we should vote No on Seattle Proposition 1.

First of all, let's address the logic of their statement. This is the tax to support the Pike Place Market revisions and improvements.

"Proposition 1 is a one-time, 6 year investment in our market"

Then, on the same flyer it says "This is a timely investment in an institution that has repaid earlier support many times in creation of small-business opportunities".

Wait, earlier support? What happened to the one-time? Do we really believe there will never be a request for further revisions? Or do they hope by the time further revisions are requested, we'll have forgotten about this request.

Which brings me to the very popular "extension of levies" technique that is used so often in Seattle politics. When this levy is up, they will ask for a renewal for new purpose, and will say "No new taxes, just an extension of the levy"...this they have done several time, as we all know. You instantiate a levy by promising it to be a fixed amount of time, and then extend it by claiming it is "no new taxes". You can bet that when this levy is up, something new will come up to renew it.

Next point, there is no reason to create a new tax to support this. We can do it out of current funds. The stadiums have taught us that things can be built, fixed, and maintained without voter approval, sometimes in direct defiance of voters. There is no reason they can't perform these repairs out of the current tax base. This is basically a new tax using an emotional icon as the bait. Schools and historic institutions are prime candidates for opening wallets, and that's what they are doing.

For instance, let's say the public restoration budget for Seattle is 100 dollars a person, and Pike Place Market is on the block for restoration.

They can reduce the public restoration budget by 42 dollars a person, to 58 dollars, put that 42 dollars in some other area (let's call it the slush fund), and then put on the ballot an initiative for 42 dollars a person for restoration of Pike Place.

The total restoration budget is returned to 100 dollars, and the slush fund is increased by 42 dollars, and they will claim the extra tax is going to the restoration fund. Well, that would be true, except that money is fungible, and politicians know this. When ever you want to raise taxes, aim the taxes to some purpose that people are sympathetic to, and then drain the taxes out of that reservoir.

So, to reiterate, No on Prop 1. It's an emotional purse grab, using lies and dirty techniques.

That said, also vote yes on initiative 1000....because, duh!



(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]burgunder
2008-10-25 05:09 pm UTC (link)
One semantic point - I took "one-time" to be specifying "not ongoing", and not how you're interpreting it, although I think I understand your objection to it based on the whole renewal thing which, if it happened, would make it increasingly like an "ongoing" thing and hence not "one-time".

Other than that, I don't understand your argument. I'm not sure if it assumes a better knowledge of tax and levies than I have, but I didn't understand anything well enough to be swayed. (Maybe try again in person until it gets through my thick skull?)

(Reply to this)


[info]junoimelda
2008-10-25 07:00 pm UTC (link)
I am not especially well versed in local political stuff. however, I did hear a while back, when the PPM improvements were first being discussed, that a lot of the vendors there were really dismayed because the ensuing increased rents on the spaces would drive them out of business. Basically the concern was that the improvements would wind up equalling a gentrification/yuppification of PPM, which is currently such a wonderful, community oriented place. So, based on that alone I'd be unlikely to vote for a tax increase for improvements.

Part of the reason I don't pay a lot of attention to local politics is because it seems like there's a whole lot of dithering and not a whole lot gets done. money for transit vs. money for roads, no one willing to compromise, voters voting 3x for a monorail and having it shot down over and over again..... it irritates the crap out of me!! Perhaps it's a childish POV but I only have so much attention span for something so maddening as Seattle's hemming and hawing.

(Reply to this)

I Was Resisting Taking the Bait
[info]nihilistech
2008-10-27 07:17 am UTC (link)
Because some of this is clearly the kind of grandstanding you can be prone to.

But I have to say, it looks like your argument againsst prop 1 reduces down to, "Vote against it because the rhetoric of its flyers is misleading and besides politicians will do what they want to do anyway," which really isn't a particularly responsible argument.

And although I support Initiative 1000, I don't think there's anything "duh" about it -- no more than any kind of policy around life and death. If you need evidence of that, go check out the current controversy around the death of Daniel James (I think I've got his name righht) in Britain, and the take on it from somebody like William Peace at badcripple.blogspot.com.



Edited at 2008-10-27 07:19 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I Was Resisting Taking the Bait
[info]nplusm
2008-10-27 03:38 pm UTC (link)
Well, the prop 1000 duh argument is based off my general right to die rhetoric that I have made in the past. I have made posts about my membership to the Hemlock Society (which died and effectively became "Compassion and Choices") in addition to my discussion on my beliefs when I talked about my aunt's slow death. I was more indicating "duh" as, "well, of course I support prop 1000".

My argument against prop 1 is more based around that tax levies in this state are always given noble motives and reasons, but seldom actually result in increased funding to the ends it was initiated towards. Instead, existing funds for the purpose are diverted away, and replaced by the levy funds, causing zero gain for the noble motive assigned to the levy. Then, because the budget for that end (like education or historical preservation) is now dependent on the levy to maintain the same level of funding that existed before the levy (since the diverted funds stay diverted), the levies are pushed to get renewed.

This is a corrupt, manipulative, and misleading process that has become all too common. I believe the only way to end these corrupt processes is to make them ineffective.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thaen
2008-10-28 04:30 pm UTC (link)
wow, i sure don't get your hate for Prop 1. let's assume for a moment that you're correct -- that they're just using this "one time" contribution in the same way that levy continuation is requested.

you say: it's a slippery slope! they'll want more money later!

and i respond: ... so? it's the Pike Place Market. i'm happy to give them more money later.

it doesn't make sense to vote along principled ideals all the time. sure, we'd love it if all politics were straightforward, but sometimes you vote for something just because you support it, even if you don't support the methods by which they are requesting funds or support.

if you always vote only for things you think are perfect, you'll end up never voting for anything. maybe you're okay with that, i guess.

(Reply to this)


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…