Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In a Conflict Between People/Voters and the State, Who Wins?
Last year, the Voters of Washington State approved an Initiative that reduced car-tab taxes to $30. This same initiative has been voted on at least three times and the state managed to get it overturned twice. The third time, a coalition of cities, counties, and transit agencies has sued in an effort to keep it from taking effect, claiming the initiative is unconstitutional and would have a devastating impact on transit projects statewide. The units of government immediately sued, stating that because the initiative would reduce funds to themselves, it was unconstitutional. They are basically saying that because they are entitled to those funds for transit projects, the People’s approved initiative could not stand.
The state agencies have claimed that the ballot title was misleading, and the Voters didn’t understand what they were voting for. If the ballot title had NOT been “misleading” then the people would have understood the effects on all those transit projects, and would never have approved that initiative. Assumption: The voters of the State of Washington are too stupid to read the detailed initiative that was pretty clear what funds might be reduced, and whose ox would be gored. Actually, most Washington voters understand very well that a goodly portion of their auto registration fees goes not for maintaining highways in the state, but for transit projects that few of them actually use. The voters are pretty smart about this, and are continually beating down the doors of the Department of Transportation, and insisting that their car-tab fees should go primarily for road maintenance and not for public transit.
Every time the people approve a similar initiative, the affected agencies sue to overturn the will of the People. Once again, the Seattle Supreme Court is considering the question of who should win when the People approve an initiative affecting state agencies, the People or the State. We can, once again, guess where this will be heading.
Published in General
As a general principle, earmarked ‘windfall’ money does not supplement taxes, it replaces them so that the original taxes can be diverted elsewhere for ’emergency measures’.
Windfall money is also eminently divertable.
The true tax miracle, though, is the way a budget battle immediately affects firemen, policemen, and other emergency workers and no one else.
I suppose that will change now that police are no longer desirable – might be a fun time for one of these budget battles, now that I think of it.
I just got an email that the mayor wants to decrease the police budget by $76mil and move 911 calls, parking enforcement, etc. to another agency staffed by civilians outside the police department.
Which will cost, what… $176 million? Maybe $760 million?
Good old Democrat “cuts.”
Those last two things might be a good idea. But considering the source, probably not.
Many cities, if not most, already have 911 calls (as in, taking the phone calls, not responding to them) and parking enforcement handled by non-sworn-officers. If Seattle doesn’t, they’re way behind.
Apparently we do not. This information just came to me in an email from the Seattle Times, so it will be a while before it all shakes out and actually goes into effect, if ever. We shall see what pushback the mayor gets. I have no opinion as I’ve never thought about which department supervises which and the ramifications of moving one function to another.
I understand someone has a recall petition circulating. I have no idea who, but a judge gave them the go-ahead last week. No way will it get on the ballot, much less pass.
Let people mail in their signatures. Watch the Dems pretzel themselves on that one.
Re bold The petition seeks the recall of Mayor Jenny Durkan. In order to qualify to be on the ballot, it needs something like 85,000 verified signatures of Seattle residents (must they be registered voters? — I’m not sure), the number required being a certain percentage of votes cast in the last mayoral election.
This mayor is loathed by the rising socialists, especially city council member Ksharma Sawant. Sawant personally led an invasion by a mob of the locked-down city hall for one stunt, and then apparently was also involved in a mob’s marching to the mayor’s own house.
In turn, Durkan called upon the council to investigate and expel Sawant, which of course ain’t happening.
If Sawant’s minions can get the signatures, then maybe Durkan gets recalled for poor performance in CHAZ/CHOP, leading to a Sawant ally from the council becoming mayor.
I would not count out the possibility out that Amazon gets involved bigly, as the council seems determined to drive it out of the city through new, creative” (read, illegal) kinds of taxes on companies with highly paid employees. Durkan also wants to slow walk the council’s cuts in police budgets (but they apparently have a veto-proof majority so she’ll have to thread that particular needle).
Popcorn, please.
Just having the signatures to put a recall on the ballot, doesn’t mean the mayor is immediately removed from office. I suspect that even if they get 85,000 valid signatuures (and who decides if they’re valid, hmmm???) to put it on the ballot, a lot more people would vote to keep her than to replace her with someone much worse.
Now, if they actually had someone decent running against her in the recall election, it could turn out differently. But it’s Seattle, so I won’t be holding my breath.
I never pass up an opportunity to point to this sort of thing as an example of corporate greed.