Spokane7
59°
February 11, 2012 in Opinion
Letters
Don’t limit right to appeal
Regarding Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke’s testimony in Olympia in favor of SB6154 (The Spokesman-Review, Jan. 28). If passed, this bill would severely limit a citizen’s right to appeal and it would charge a fee if they were allowed to do so, all under the guise of budgetary constraints. This bill has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with attempting to silence citizens.
Passage of this bill would limit or even eliminate citizens’ involvement in protecting their own community from egregious acts by their local officials. The Growth Management Hearings Board is the people’s court and is used to enforce Washington state law through the Growth Management Act. Any citizen or entity could be affected by a precedent set by a decision of the Hearings Board, whether in their county or not.
To charge $400 for the right to speak before a public board is not a price any citizen should have to pay to exercise his or her First Amendment rights. It is frightening that one of our public officials, Mielke, is not working on behalf of all citizens and wants to charge certain citizens for the right to speak up.
Kathy Miotke
Spokane
Probe these associations
In Ed Simpson’s Jan. 21 letter (“Diatribes not persuasive”), he implies that citing sources (Gary Crooks’ editorials) equals truth, while lack of sources (Curtis Stone’s Jan. 12 letter) equals untruths. Simpson says Stone “makes several … allegations both about the paper and President Obama.” Actually, aside from his letter’s title, which was, most likely, worded by The Spokesman-Review editorial department, he makes no references to the paper!
Gary Crooks’ editorials tend to promote one particular political ideology, and his cited sources, not coincidentally, share and support that same ideology. As regards Simpson’s allegations of credulous claims by Stone, I would challenge him to research those claims to determine their validity.
In addition to Stone’s claims, I suggest you check out Obama’s relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Dr. John Drew. Also, check out the ideological leanings of Obama appointees Ben Scott and Justice Elena Kagan, and czars Ron Bloom, Kenneth Feinberg, John Holdren, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, and Anita Dunn. You’ll have to find the sources yourself as, unlike Gary Crooks, I’m allowed only 200 words.
Don Hood
Spokane Valley
Clark is bad for city
It was my choice to return to Spokane 14 years ago. I didn’t want to leave when my parents relocated us to Seattle while I was still in elementary school. I have never known a more friendly, generous or compassionate town. Spokane is a town where organizations and individuals strive to increase economic development and where being a volunteer is an occupation.
Doug Clark’s column negates all the hard work we do as organizations and individuals to bring new business to our city which in turn spells jobs for our citizens.
I, for one, am embarrassed when some of my friends who are chief executive officers of large corporations visit from out of town. Many who own their own businesses compare the content and the language within his column to the best example of yellow journalism they have ever seen.
Continued disrespect for our way of life, for our elected officials, for our first responders – fire and police – is not a calling card or an invitation for relocation of new businesses to our great city.
As long as we as individuals in both the public and private sectors continue to participate in his activities and antics, and remark to each other “just don’t read his column,” we can be assured that our city and its citizens who work so hard to make a difference will be portrayed as buffoons.
Relocation of new business, which can mean new jobs to Spokane?
Why, when we as citizens allow these perceptions to go unchallenged and accepted by others?
Karen Kearney
Spokane
Replace important parts
Levies are like tires. They wear out after a while.
So we replace our tires with new ones. We don’t go too cheap, or they’ll wear out too fast. Nor too expensive; we’ve other things to do with our money. So we get just the right ones for the car to perform as designed.
If we don’t replace our tires, we won’t have a car to drive. And the tire sellers would have to move out of their big houses in the hills and down into the valleys like the rest of us. If we don’t replace the levy, our schools will have to run on four flats.
If you wonder why we old folks should spend our hard-earned money on taxes for another generation: The younger generation might just wonder the same thing as they pay for our Medicare and Social Security!
Jeff O’Connor
Spokane
Maintain support for schools
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose.” – Dr. Seuss
As parents and members of a community, we care not only about our own children but for all children. One of the most basic necessities for children to reach their potential is an education.
Our public school system has been giving children this steppingstone to reach their potential and to achieve the American dream. A good education gives all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background, an opportunity to do and be whatever they choose.
I have been involved as a volunteer in the Central Valley School District and am amazed by the dedication and perseverance of the teachers, staff and administrators. My children’s teachers have not only inspired my children, but they have inspired me as well.
Please remember, this is not a new tax, it simply replaces the expiring levy.
Join me in voting yes for children.
Petra Hoy
Greenacres
Impact is widespread
I am writing to urge the public to vote yes on the replacement levy for Spokane Public Schools on the Feb. 14 ballot. The levy provides almost one-fourth of the money needed to offer Spokane’s children quality educational and support programs. It is not an additional tax; it replaces the 2009 levy to sustain current funding.
Spokane’s public school district is one of the largest employers in the city and serves 29,275 students. Levy funding supports teachers, counselors, nurses, librarians, art/music, dropout prevention, security, support staff, sports, clubs, transportation, special-ed, advanced programs and more. School budgets over the past 10 years have been cut by $45.1 million, eliminating positions for teachers, staff, administration and student programs.
Spokane schools depend on the levy to maintain current programs and avoid additional losses. This crucial funding helps to provide students with a well-rounded, safe, successful education. If the levy does not pass, the budget for Spokane Public Schools would be reduced by $74 million over the next two years. Voting yes means supporting our children for the next three years; reducing future expenditures resulting from delinquency, drug use, teen pregnancy, gang involvement, unemployment, welfare, etc., that are linked to school failure.
Meredith Thompson
Spokane
EV aid far-reaching
The East Valley School District’s maintenance and operations replacement levy: What do you know about it? Do you know that it funds programs that benefit my children’s education and growth, and perhaps your children or grandchildren as well?
On the EVSD.org website, under the tab “Levy Information,” there is a breakdown of the expenses of this levy and a complete list of the programs that would be lost. This district has been one that has never lost levy dollars, and I would hate to see that happen now.
Not only do these programs educate, but fulfill outside needs of children involved. Can you imagine a football game without cheerleaders or marching band or necessary equipment? Music without instruments? A library without books? Higher-level learners without Advanced Placement classes?
These and more would be lost if the levy fails. Our family does not want this to happen. My children love orchestra, band, football, soccer, basketball, library and even the challenging advanced placement classes.
I want my children to excel and be the best they can be. I want my school district to do the same. I anticipate voters would want children to flourish, with activities they can be proud of.
Tonya Plunkett
Spokane Valley
Retirees voting for Mead
As retirees and conservatives, we do not vote for taxes. However, the replacement levy for the Mead School District will be a necessary exception. They have made their case, and the facts are clear. Mead schools are highly rated by various outside evaluators, and the results speak for themselves: consistently high test and SAT scores, low dropout rates and a 91 percent graduation rate, with a high percentage going on to college. This has to be the result of robust programs, reasonable class sizes, and quality teachers. Why would we want to change that?
Mead spends less per pupil than 90 percent of Washington school districts and has low debt, at 18 percent of what is allowed by law. With other debt soon to be paid off, and no new taxes with this replacement levy, our actual school taxes will decrease. The high quality of the Mead district also adds to our property values.
Look beyond the deceptions in the negative ad campaign and vote with the facts to maintain the high quality of Mead schools.
Our problems with taxes are at the state and federal levels, not with replacement levies for high-quality local schools.
Mark and Linda McFall
Colbert
Not a new tax increase
I support the “Yes for Kids” maintenance and operations levy. With every election, there are many initiatives worth consideration. However, when it comes to providing the children of our community a continued opportunity for personal growth, achievement and success, support of this initiative is critical!
With families feeling the pinch of the economic downturn, it is important to note that this levy is not a proposed tax increase. It is a replacement levy, which means it replaces the expiring 2009 levy which is already funding basic education and learning. Funded services included in this budget are reasonable class sizes, counseling, nursing, library, gifted programs, electives, Advanced Placement, elementary band and strings, art, online learning, dropout prevention, special education, student transportation, sports, clubs, intramural programs, security and support staff.
This is a very long list of essential needs that the children in our community benefit from every day!
For voters who do not have children in public schools or do not have children at all, I ask that you consider this levy to be more than just designated public school dollars. This levy is our tax dollars being spent to foster educated, well-rounded, confident and successful leaders of tomorrow.
Callie Bendickson
Spokane
MAC firing begs explanation 
flyerd1 on February 13 at 3:57 a.m.
It’s interesting, sad (we seem to have such a biased newspaper) & funny all at the same time: The Spokesman posted they were NOT accepting any more levy related commentary about a week ago and yet the pro levy rhetoric continues… It’s also very interesting that they waited to publish the vast majority of anti-levy letters until the very last few days after most people have already voted…
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around?Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…
flyerd1 on February 13 at 4:00 a.m.
What?… It most certainly IS a new tax. If the old one didn’t have an expiration date we wouldn’t be voting on a NEW one now, right?… Levies are meant to be one time fill-gap revenue streams that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. They’re “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when districts have gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending portion (1/4) of their budgets.
Anything with an expected END date (like a “3yr” levy tax or a mortgage) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax. What if, after paying off your mortgage, the bank said “we don’t want you to pay a new mortgage, we’d just like you to pay on this replacement mortgage” for another mortgage term…? How would that go over?
If we paid levy taxes on a monthly basis, and there was a 1 month break between the old and new levy (meaning the tax would be gone for 1 month), would you agree that the new levy is a new tax? In other words, would you have to actually “See” at least 1 month of taxes “without” the levy to agree that the new levy is a new tax? Exactly what would be the difference between that scenario and having no 1 month gap (aside from the 1 month tax savings) in regard to it being a new levy? Just because these new levies take over with no break, as opposed to the 1 month break in the example, doesn’t change the fact that they’re a new levy/tax (it just makes it “less noticeable” than if there was a break period).
The less noticeable taxes may be easier to get people to accept but there’s no disputing that it also makes them the most hidden and therefore tricky/dangerous (ALL somewhat hidden taxes, not “specifically” school levies). Taxes should be extremely noticeable so as not to become forgotten or simply seen as replacements, continuations, etc…
––
Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly (plan worst case scenario). That would cause the amount taken by these levies to be approximately 22% more than the school dist claims.
flyerd1 on February 13 at 4:05 a.m.
Despite how some people may chose to interpret these posts, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding would be to request it via a sales tax (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to “increase their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. If it’s going to be a property tax then either A) only property owners should have the levy on their ballots or B) it should be a supermajority vote. Right now many people vote who don’t even pay property taxes… Otherwise this type of a levy tax should require a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (explained below).
A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. If you’re thinking “levy $ doesn’t pay for those things”, please review the previous post’s bucket example. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the private & charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote: A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).
If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from the Idaho/Oregon borders allowed to vote (if they were you’d want a super majority vote) on it because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase in Washington.
The counter point of “renters pay levy taxes via rent” is ridiculously simplistic because only in a perfectly linked system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent in order to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy…