I do not attack this paper because it's "fun." I attack these efforts because they typically either manipulate the facts or leave them out altogether. The self-serving pap of this editorial is the latest in examples to which I speak.
It starts with an absurd and false premise:
Hypothetically, should Yacolt voters get to vote on a library in Ridgefield when only Ridgefield taxpayers would pay for it and only Ridgefield residents would use it? Of course not.Using a lie to support a lie is done at the expense of the people. There is no way "Yacolt voters" could or would pay for a "Ridgefield library." Libraries are not paid with sales taxes at every retail center in the county, as a gerrymandered taxing district, solely designed to extract the most amount of money with the approval of the least amount of voters, arguably is.
Secondly, of course, this newspaper's moronic support of an unneeded, unnecessary, colossally wasteful I-5 Bridge replacement certainly WOULD requite "Yacolt voters" to pay... and pay... and pay.
Ultimately, the C-Trans vote that this paper is so proud of excluded 51,000 voters from having a say in whether or not we wanted to pay for those "improvements." Then, as now, this fraud known as a newspaper failed to point out that those drawing the lines have the ability to, and will again, draw their boundaries in such a way that every tax generating facility of any size within this county is INCLUDED while dramatic efforts will be made to insure that likely areas of opposition are EXCLUDED.
What this means is the same thing it meant last time: "Yacolt voters" will be paying for this particular "Ridgefield library" because everywhere they shop will be included within the district. What that ultimately means is that while tens of thousands of voters will have no say at all in this offense to democracy, they certainly WILL "pay for the Ridgefield library," because they won't have anywhere they can shop where the payment isn't extracted from them.
Unless, of course, this paper begins to advocate for a dual tax system, where those of us not included in this moronic taxing district will be identified by zip code or something, and not be required to PAY their tax.
Herrera and Orcutt are, rightfully, against this plan by Pridemore, Jacks and Moeller, a plan applauded by this newspaper.
If Herrera and Orcutt were more open-minded, they would heartily support these two bills for one compelling reason: Their constituents essentially would be "subdistricted out" of higher local sales taxes for light rail. Light rail would be built nearby, just a few miles away, but taxes would increase only in Vancouver's core. What a deal for north county residents!
Maybe I missed it. Has this newspaper published the boundaries of this district somewhere?
This is no "deal" for anyone but the morons supporting this unnecessary bridge replacement/loot rail project that so many of us do not want.
But the last line of this corrupted and twisted editorial reeks most of all.
The principle is sound: Those who would directly receive a new service — and who would have to pay for it — would get to decide.
Does this newspaper advocate that the 60,000 or so forgotten commuters who will have to pay this outrageous toll that few, if any, of the bridge replacement/loot rail supporters will pay should somehow have a say in this whole project? Hardly. Yet somehow, "the principle is sound?"
Whether or not WE want ANY of this is a crucial question... a question that neither the bridge/loot rail supporters nor this newspaper have ever demanded that we all be allowed to answer.
Who speaks for the commuters in this matter?
And that's the problem with true "principles." By their very definition, "principles" must apply ALL of the time.... or they're not "principles." They're something else... something dark and twisted and self-serving to the Downtown Mafia and this newspaper.
Odd, isn't it? The "principle" is sound when this paper wants to twist it into an outcome they support. But in the minds of a bridge replacement/loot rail fanatic, the "principle" is silent.
So, to directly answer the question of "who decides?" it certainly isn't the people of Clark County.
And that is the most despicable and hypocritical element of this garbage of all.
In our view Feb. 24: Who Decides?
Light-rail vote should be extended to those who would use it and pay for it
Tuesday, February 24 1:00 a.m.
Hypothetically, should Yacolt voters get to vote on a library in Ridgefield when only Ridgefield taxpayers would pay for it and only Ridgefield residents would use it? Of course not.
This is why taxing entities create "subdistricts," to allow well-defined group of voters to decide if they alone will be taxed to pay for something that they alone would use. Critics call this gerrymandering, which it is not. Allowing people to decide their own taxes for their own services is pure democracy. Devotion to that concept sparked the American Revolution.
Creating subdistricts has succeeded and failed here in recent years. In 1998, 70 percent of voters in the Salmon Creek and Felida areas approved creating the Three Creeks library district, and more than 60 percent approved a tax increase of about $27 a year on a $150,000 home for 10 years to pay for it. The next year, a similar effort failed in Battle Ground. These decisions are neither good nor bad; they are what they are. Three Creeks voters said "Yes," Battle Ground voters said "No," and that's the way democracy works.
In 2004, voters approved creating another library subdistrict that would increase taxes by $20 a year on a $166,000 home. The results were new libraries to be built downtown and in Cascade Park.
In 2005, voters OK'd shrinking the C-Tran district (not the drawing of a subdistrict) from a countywide transit district to one that included about 82 percent of the county's voters. A sales-tax increase later was authorized by voters in the smaller district.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Remember, PG 13 is the limit.