Below is a recent post of Tim Eyman's that he shared with his subscribers about this issue:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Monday, November 6, 2017
Local
government politicians have been whining to newspaper editorial boards
lately about how tough it is with "Eyman's 1% property tax cap."
The Spokesman Review published my defense of it in their Sunday edition -- let me know what you think of it:
Guest Opinion: Tim Eyman: Don’t get rid of property tax cap
There is no decision that government makes that has a greater impact on our lives than taking more of the people’s money.
By Tim Eyman For The Spokesman-Review
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2017
Next
year, everyone’s property taxes are going to go up a lot. During this
year’s session, the Legislature exempted state government from the 1
percent property tax cap for the next four years to dramatically raise
property taxes to fund education and to get the state Supreme Court off
its back concerning the McCleary lawsuit.
So that’s now a reality that property owners have to deal with moving forward.
But
one exception invites more exceptions. The Spokesman Review’s recent
editorial “Tax limit continues to erode services” argues that since the
state government has sidestepped the cap, then counties and other local
governments ought to be able to sidestep it, too.
So
because the Legislature exempted itself from this voter-approved law,
we should allow local governments to be exempt, too? I doubt voters
want that.
We
are at the 16-year anniversary for the 1 percent property tax cap.
Voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 747 in 2001, and a
Democrat-controlled Legislature overwhelmingly reapproved it in 2007.
It’s working exactly as voters intended. It gives governments an
automatic increase every year and if politicians want more, all they
have to do is ask voters for it. Prior to this law, state and local
governments could just take the money; now they have to ask our
permission.
The S-R editorial stated, “A county plan to ask voters to approve a tax increase this November was scuttled.”
Voter
approval is the safety valve built into this law, and it’s the reason
every government has complete flexibility but only if they can convince
voters to agree. Politicians always say that asking for permission
before taking more of the taxpayers’ money is too inefficient. But the
reason 58 percent of voters in 2001 and 90 percent of legislators in
2007 approved this cap was to make it tougher for governments to raise
taxes. Why? Because politicians at all levels of government have
repeatedly illustrated their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. And
so, the people have rightly insisted on a greater voice in these
all-important tax decisions in their communities.
The
editorial highlighted this year’s House bill to get rid of the property
tax cap. And it’s true that it was originally co-sponsored by two
Republicans. But after hearing from their fellow Republican legislators
and constituents, both GOP legislators abandoned their support for it.
So there is no “bipartisan bill” to reopen Pandora’s box.
There
is no decision that government makes that has a greater impact on our
lives than taking more of the people’s money. Voters and legislators
agreed to let the people have a greater voice in that decision. This law
has worked for 16 years and because of the safety valve of voter
approval, it’s perfectly OK to continue for another 16 years.
It’s
true that local government officials, both Republicans and Democrats,
are annoyed by the cap. That should shock no one. No politician likes to
have their power diluted. But the entire reason our state constitution
guarantees the right to initiative is to give the people the opportunity
to pass laws that politicians never would. And the 1 percent cap on
property tax increases is a law that the voters passed and still
support. It should not be taken away just because local politicians say
it makes their jobs tougher.
Last
time I checked, being an elected official is optional – if they’re not
up to the challenge, then they can step aside and allow a new generation
of leaders to take over.
If
the automatic increase in property taxes for local governments in and
around Spokane isn’t enough, election leaders can always ask local
voters’ permission for more. That’s been true for 16 years and it is
still true today.
This is a proven, effective, flexible property tax limit. I seriously doubt that voters want it taken away.
Tim Eyman co-sponsored Initiative 747, along with Spokane’s Jack and Mike Fagan.
-- END --
Like I said, let me know what you think of it.
The 1% cap has saved taxpayers $12.6 billion since it took effect.
So
no matter how much your property taxes have increased, they could have
gone up 6 times higher if not for the passage of our 1% cap in 2001.
