Democracy for Vancouver

7 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. As usual, Charlie Stemper has his facts wrong and is pulling his conclusions out of thin air.

   QUOTE
   City Council must approve an increase in its regular property tax levy for 2008 in order to collect the allowable increase in City property taxes needed to fund the City’s General Fund Budget. On November 6, 2001, Washington voters approved Initiative 747 (I-747) which limits the allowable increase in the property tax levy to 1.0%, or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The July of 2007 implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures as published by the Department of Commerce is 2.084 percent. Staff recommends that City Council approve a 1.0% increase in the property tax levy. Since the inflation rate is higher than the 1.0% limit, this is the maximum increase allowed. Based on last year’s levy of $36,054,748, the increase will be $360,547. Authorization of this increase requires a simple majority vote of City Council. Staff estimates that the City’s property tax rate in 2008 will be $2.4 per $1,000 of assessed value. At that rate, annual City property taxes on a typical property ($277,000 assessed value) would be $665 or $12 less than the taxes paid to the City in 2006 on a home of the same assessed value.
   UNQUOTE

   That is very clear in it’s meaning in my view and unless Mr. Stemper can produce some concrete proof of some prosecutable misconduct, I suggest he also exercise his Fifth Amendment, and remain silent.

   These kind of mindless, spurious attacks against duly elected officials characterized your latest failed campaign Charlie; you lost the election because of it, and I for one have heard enough of your rants for at least a year.

   Nothing to see here folks…moving on…

   [Reply]

   1. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

2. I guess after the council meeting Monday evening, we will know who is stating the correct facts.

   Chief, if old Charlie is correct, I would expect, but won’t hold my breath, waiting for the apology you will owe him, and vice versa.

   Several years ago, at a neighborhood meeting, Julie Stanton, who was a county commissioner at that time, made a statement to the effect that not one homeowner had their house taken away because of taxes.

   I agreed with her, because my statement was that the average homeowner will sell before forecloses,so at least they would have a couple of dollars left for themselves.

   She never said a word, but the look she gave me spoke volumes. Now Chief, just how are people, on a fixed income, just barely surviving, suppose to pay more in property taxes?

   And why does the city need more money, why can’t the city really cut the waste? Why can’t the taxpayers of Vancouver vote on big budget items, like the hotel, the bridge across Hwy 14?

   Why are developers given a 10 year tax break? Why did the city sell a building for a measly $200K. I would have gave the city $205K for that property, and would have made a nice profit reselling it.

   I would appreciate you answering these question, Chief. Also, I’m not saying Charlie or you are correct, but since you more or less said Charlie was incorrect with his statements, please explain how I’m wrong with mine.

   [Reply]

   2. Above comment written by Allen on November 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

3. Guys, Charlie is taking the annual adjustment of the City’s books, and making something of it that simply is not true. Every locality in the State does this toward the end of the year to make sure that the books are balanced.

   It is reasonable and customary, and the City’s website is very clear about what they intend to do. Don’t take my word for it, go read the agenda for yourself.

   Charlie Stemper is known for instigating wild goose chases at City Hall. He did it during the campaign by falsely claiming at a Neighborhood Association gathering that someone had illegally cut down trees, and the resulting investigation tied up a bunch of City forestry assets, as well as Parks and Rec, who had to go out and prove he was wrong.

   Sorry, but Charlie Stemper lost the election for very good reason, not the least of which are inaccurate statements just like this one, that he has distributed via the Patella “Local Mailing List”. I for one will not allow these to go unchallenged.

   [Reply]

   3. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

4. [quote comment="42412"]I guess after the council meeting Monday evening, we will know who is stating the correct facts.

   Chief, if old Charlie is correct, I would expect, but won’t hold my breath, waiting for the apology you will owe him, and vice versa.

   Several years ago, at a neighborhood meeting, Julie Stanton, who was a county commissioner at that time, made a statement to the effect that not one homeowner had their house taken away because of taxes.

   I agreed with her, because my statement was that the average homeowner will sell before forecloses,so at least they would have a couple of dollars left for themselves.

   She never said a word, but the look she gave me spoke volumes. Now Chief, just how are people, on a fixed income, just barely surviving, suppose to pay more in property taxes?

   And why does the city need more money, why can’t the city really cut the waste? Why can’t the taxpayers of Vancouver vote on big budget items, like the hotel, the bridge across Hwy 14?

   Why are developers given a 10 year tax break? Why did the city sell a building for a measly $200K. I would have gave the city $205K for that property, and would have made a nice profit reselling it.

   I would appreciate you answering these question, Chief. Also, I’m not saying Charlie or you are correct, but since you more or less said Charlie was incorrect with his statements, please explain how I’m wrong with mine.[/quote]

   I re-read this Allen and wanted to address at least two point you make.

   First, I will correct my statements here and apologise for any innaccuracies, at such time as a single one of Charlie’s accusations are definitively proved to be right, with as much vigor as I denounced them with in the first place. Fair enough??

   Next, if you really think that we should vote on every big ticket item that the City faces, where do you draw that line?

   Would you impose a dollar limit on the items City Council should be allowed to approve on their own, or would you use some other means? I need those kinds of details to fully understand your position.

   Are you aware of what the City is entitled by Law to approve on our behalf right now? the revised Code of Washington clearly defines what City Governments can and cannot do, and I see no evidence yet that Council has violated the RCW in any way.

   How shall we conduct these votes that you want, how often should we hold them and how should we pay for them?? For example, when the IDD Levy went to a vote during the Special Election, the Port of Vancouver paid out over $100,000 to cover the expenses the County incurred to put that one issue on the ballot. Someone has to pay for the election, including printing of the required Voter’s Pamphlet, the salaries of the Poll workers and all expenses incurred by the County Elections Department. the City can call for an election, but the County is legally responsible for conducting it.

   I am not dismissing your valid complaints and/or concerns Allen; I am saying that the solution is already in your hands, and that is to get involved with your local Government, court a meaningful conversational relationship with your favorite City Council Critter, Port Commissioner, State Legislator, et al; and express your concerns and ideas for fixing them through your duly elected representative.

   Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a pure Democracy; we live and operate in a Representative Republic form of Democracy, and that is the way we have all agreed to run our local Gubment. Nobody is going to agree with you, me, or anyone else all of the time, but I submit that the compromises we forge are more important than “losing” an argument over one issue.

   Hope that helps to clarify my thinking on this issue, and I honestly welcome your thoughts on what I said here. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you on these questions, but I am very tied up at my own blog daily aws well as real life issues. (Shameless plug time) And all of you are welcome at my place, and I’m sure we will respect each others opinions there too…

   [Reply]

   4. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

5. Chief,
   You are correct on most of your points. When I mean big ticket items, I am referring to the Hilton, the bridge across Hwy. 14, that is for people and horses.

   A lot of taxpayers money was spent on those two items alone. And more taxpayers money will be spent up keeping those items. And if the two ladies hadn’t started a petition against the port jacking up our taxes more, we and especially retired people on fixed incomes would be hurting more so than now.

   And it comes to light that the Port will find another way to finance that project, although at the time of trying to jack up our taxes, it wasn’t able to find it’s way to do so before.I am not, by meaning big ticket items, referring to the daily running of city or county gov’t.

   But the money spent on those two previous mentioned items would have gone a long way in helping the police dept, fire dept, street repair, etc.

   This is why I feel the people should be able to vote on big ticket items. After all, it is our money these elected bottom feeders are spending.

   [Reply]

   Chief posted a reply on November 20th, 2007 at 8:18 am:

   Allen, I share your disapproval for the Confluence Project Landbridge, but for additional reasons, the most important being that the location it is at could not interfere more effectively with the Columbia Crossing replacement bridge. That aside, how it was funded was 100% in accordance with Washington Law, whether we like it or not. Nothing the City did was against the rules, so maybe the rules that allow this need to be changed, and that means Jim Moeller, Jim Dunn, Deb Wallace, Don Benton, et al, would make more effective targets if you are serious about effectively preventing things like this in the future.

   But again, where do you draw the line on your insistence on public votes?? What if circumstances for a vote under your guidlenes, resulted in 10 different financial matters arising that required a public vote in one year, here in America’s the ‘Couv??

   Here is a thought problem: Considering the things on Council’s agenda recently, in theory and for conversational purposes only, let us say City Council could not have approved the higher fines for parking violations last night because the dollar amount involved exceeds your threshold. Instead, all Council could do is pass a resolution to put that matter to a Public Vote as soon as possible.

   1. What would be a reasonable time frame for the Clark County Elections Office to draft, approve, publish and distribute a local voter’s pamphlet for just that one item? (It cost the Port $100 Grand for their portion of the costs of the election, not the cost of the entire election, becasue there were multiple measures on the ballot. A single ballot measure would be much more expensive by itself.)

   2. Considerng that by Law, the voter’s pamphlet must be in front of the voters for a set peiod of time preceeding the election itself, Is it reasonable and customary for City Council to sit on their hands, while we voters take out time trying to figure out what the decision we are being asked to approve, really means?

   3. If voters are already so confused as to not be able to interpret things like I-747, as the WSSC just ruled, how can they be expected to understand and approve multiple, overlapping ballot measures in the same year??

   It’s big news right now when we can muster 1/3rd of the vox populi to correctly fill out and mail back a ballot for the “Election Season” we already have…how much turnout would you honestly predict for the third of those kind of ballots you got in your mailbox by March?? How much would the turnout be on the fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth ballots that same year??

   At what point would you start throwing those monthly incoming ballots away without even opening them, and how could that ever be considered a responsible use of Public Money by anyone??

   At at least $100 grand a pop, how much money did we just save, by short-circuiting our form of local government by attempting to conduct that many elections in a year??

   As a medically retired 52 year old regular voter on a fixed income myself, believe me I share your fear of being taxed out of my home. But I suggest a better target for your wrath on this just came in your mailbox, if you “own” your own home; in the form of your annual demand for more turkey fat from the Clark County Assessor’s Office….

   Let me set the record straight about my thoughts on your comments about the IDD Levy.

   Like it or not, approve or disapprove of the way the decicion was made, the way the Port approved the IDD Levy in February was 100% in accordance with Washington Law, and I believe the applicable section is RCW Chapter 53.

   The petition was also required by Washington Law, and there was no other Constitutional way of putting the measure before the voters.

   Where the Port erred in my view was the way they chose to educate the Public. I think the Commissioners gave the Public far more credit than many were due, in assuming that there was wide knowledge about the content of the measure itself, or about the way the Ports really operate under Washington Law. I beleive that had the Port Commissioners chosen to take more time, and committed to a three month conversation in the Community about that Levy, before they voted to approve starting the misunderstood legal process that led to the election, that levy would have passed resoundingly.

   Instead, the Port Commissioners tied their own hands and short-circuited their public education campaigns, and inadvertently handed Larry Patella an issue to trumpet on a silver platter. I think an honest assessment of that election is that the resounding “NO!” vote on the IDDL was a direct result of people who yielded to the influence of people like Patella, who approve of absolutely nothing, and disapprove of virtually everything.

   I will not agree to refer to all of our duly elected and re-elected representatives as “bottom feeders” either. Those kinds of blanket accusations are the hallmark of Larry Patella and his band of C.A.V.E.* conStemperaries, and I will not allow them to characterize my comments.

   *…Citizens Against Virtually Everything…

   [Reply]

   5. Above comment written by Allen on November 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

6. Chief,
   I am not saying, nor have ever said they were doing anything against the law. However, your comment on the raise of the parking meters makes me wonder. Do you know that parking meters are illegal? Yes, they are illegal, due to double taxation. Reference this to the state of North Dakota. There is not one meter in the state.

   It went all the way to the state Supreme Court, and they (meters)were ruled illegal taxation. The precedent has all ready been set. But most people do not realize this.

   Not to change the subject, but do you think $200K for the old building was a good selling price. Just wondering your thoughts on that.

   [Reply]

   6. Above comment written by Allen on November 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

7. Which old building Allen? If you are referring to the fire sale of the old VPD building, my objections to that sale are well documented. I had enough questions about it that I requested, received, and still have all of the public documents that the City had on it. I offered those up to all of the City Council candidates, only one took my offer to review them and he lost the election anyway.

   Let me know if you would like to review all of those docs, and i will make arrangements for you to do so. I read through them and could not find anything that violated the law.

   Just because you, I, or anyone else disagrees with a decision made by the City , does NOT automatically make that decision illegal.

   If you wish to provide me with any evidence you have that is prosecutable, I would be honored to help you get that to the DA, and will join you in calling for the full prosecution of whomever you can prove is culpable.

   If you are referring to the sale of the former site of the old Monerey Hotel that council approved this week, yes, I think that was as good as we could expect, and closes the entire subject in the best way possible.

   As for the illegality of parking meters in North Dakota, that is a very interesting opinion, but an opinion noe the less, and I suspect if there was anything to it here in Washington, those meters would have gone away some time ago.

   Please re-read my thought problem again, and tell me how you would conduct those elections you said you wanted on money issues before Council…

   [Reply]

   7. Above comment written by Chief on November 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).