Council votes to oppose I-1033

October 10, 2009

By Warren Kagarise

NEW — 3 p.m. Oct. 10, 2009

City Council members voted Monday night to oppose a statewide property tax measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. Officials cited the potential impact the measure, Initiative 1033, could have on city services.

I-1033 would limit the growth of city, county and state revenue to inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue. Any revenue above the I-1033-mandated cap would be used to lower property taxes.

“This is a bad idea at the wrong time,” Councilman Fred Butler said before the 7-0 vote.

Learn more about I-1033, and the other King County and state ballot measures, in the Oct. 14 edition of The Issaquah Press.

Bookmark and Share
Other Stories of Interest: , , ,


4 Responses to “Council votes to oppose I-1033”

  1. Steve Zemke MajorityRulesBlog on October 10th, 2009 8:09 pm

    Issaquah City Council members are right to oppose I-1033. Here are three reasons why I-1033 is bad legislation and should be rejected.

    1. I-1033 IS A BUDGET FREEZE. There is no “growth” in public services if all you can do is buy the same service next year at its inflated price. A similar measure in Colorado resulted in continued severe cuts in public services. Voters recently suspended it because of all the cuts.

    2. I-1033 IS A WEALTH TRANSFER SCHEME. Renters who comprise 35% of households in the state will pay the same sales taxes and other fees as before but will get no tax rebate. One third of the tax rebate goes to corporations and businesses not homeowners. And what homeowners get is not dependent on the sales taxes they paid but on the amount of property they own. I-1033 is a reverse Robin Hood scheme taking tax dollars from renters and using it to pay property taxes for property owners. The winners are wealthy property owners.

    3. I-1033 TAKES AWAY LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC SERVICES BY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REPLACES IT WITH BUDGETING BY REFERENDUM. This is a wasteful and costly process that has contributed to California’s budget woes.

    I-1033 is a scheme dreamed up by conservative anti-tax, anti government fanatic Tim Eyman to sneak in another measure to reduce government without consideration for the costs or impacts on the public.

    Times are tough enough for the public and I-1033 will make them worse by locking us into a permanent recession. Vote No on I-1033.

  2. Steve Zemke MajorityRulesBlog on October 11th, 2009 7:27 pm

    Tim Eyman is promoting a myth that Washington State taxpayers are overtaxed. No one likes to pay taxes but it is the way we all pay for and share public services like roads and police and fire protection and libraries and schools and parks and much more. There is no free lunch but some do pay more than others. We are not one of them as a state.

    The conservative Tax Foundation ranks Washington State’s local and state tax burden in the BOTTOM THIRD OF ALL STATES. They rank Washington State as 35th (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local tax burden.
    You can check the results yourself here:

    Of course if you are trying to claim that Washington State’s taxes are obscene and unsustainable and out of control, 35th lowest is not a number you want to use. That’s why Eyman adds in our Federal income tax and says in the Voter’s Pamphlet that we are the eighth highest taxed state in the county.

    Of course he neglects to add two other facts. We are also the eighth highest state in terms of income per capita according to the Tax Foundation and the fact that I-1033 is not a Federal initiative and can do nothing to change Federal taxes.

    I-1033 only affects state and local taxes and does nothing to change sales taxes paid. We have the highest sales taxes in the country. The Tax Foundation says on property taxes we rank 25th. And remember we have no income tax unlike 43 other states.

    I think we get quit a bit for being 35th lowest in terms of state and local tax burden.

    Times are tough right now with the current recession. I-1033 will make things worse by locking us in a permanent recession. Vote No on I-1033.

  3. Peter Barron on October 12th, 2009 9:06 am

    A city that wants as much tax revenue as possible opposes limits on taxation? I’m shocked!

    How about reducing spending so measures like this aren’t necessary.

    Send a message. Vote YES.

  4. Steve on October 13th, 2009 4:45 pm

    The Colorado example being used in opposition to I-1033 constantly tells only half of the story. Read up on the TABOR legislation in Colorado, and you will see that it was successfully adjusted shortly after it was passed.

    The pendulum swings back and forth to keep us on an even keel. We sorely need it to swing fiscally conservative. Vote YES on I-1033 to reign in government spending. Don’t worry one bit: Following Colorado’s precedent, it can be quickly adjusted if it is found to be too restrictive for our needs.

Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.