RSS
Forum Home | Politics & Government | Ballot Measures & Initiatives
Supreme Court Decision makes Prop. 1 passage irrelevant
 by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 9:56am |
The Washington State Supreme made a landmark ruling regarding state funding for schools which may invalidate the need to pass levies like Tacoma's supplemental Prop. 1. At this point it's too early to say what the ramifications of the ruling will be on local school districts, but it's probably a good idea to turn down Prop. 1 and examine the issue when the dust settles from the court's ruling. Even if Prop. 1 goes down to defeat, voters will be given an opportunity to revisit the issue. |
 by NineInchNachos on 2/5/2010 @ 10:00am | More like vindication. Why do they ask for more money all the time? Cuz they're way underfunded by the state! |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 10:24am | If the ruling forces the state to pay 100% for the operation of our schools, then why would we need a supplemental operational levy (aka Prop 1)? I must be missing something here. |
 by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 11:20am | Fredo, edit the fricking title and stop making stuff up.
While yes it's a good ruling, It's not a Supreme Court decision, it's a King County Superior Court decision, and you can bet it will get appealed. In addition to a lengthy appeals process, it won't actually have any real effect at all unless and until the legislature moves to establish more funding. Which could potentially take years. In the mean time, Prop 1 accounts for 22% of the district's budget and another 8% may potentially be cut at the state level. More than likely the only effect this ruling will have in 2010 will be the protection of that other 8%. So no, Prop 1 is not in any way irrelevant. |
 by Erik on 2/5/2010 @ 11:22am | The decision is not going to likely effect anything even if it stood. |
by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 11:24am | Yeeaaah, my international law professor put it this way: "Italy guarantees full employment in its constitution. Italy also has 20% unemployment." Yes the state constitution requires ample funding for basic education, but getting from that paper guarantee to real funding is a long and twisted journey. |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 11:30am | Sorry, Jen I guess I goofed. I meant to say King County Superior Court. Thanks for your correction. Nevertheless, the decision is bound to ultimately be upheld. Better that the voters don't make any hasty decisions at this point. We all know that Governor Gregoire will do the right thing and provide the funding that she is bound to provide. |
by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 11:32am | A hasty decision would be cutting the district's budget by a quarter because Fredo, Attorney At Law says not to worry about it. |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 11:45am | Jen if prop 1 is turned down it will be resubmitted to the voters. This would be a good opportunity for voters to take a step back. |
by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 12:13pm | No, this is a great opportunity for voters to do the right thing the first time around, so we don't have to raise another 50K for the campaign when our attentions should be on the kids.
If Prop 1 fails, which I don't think it will! We'll be privileged to see more complaining from you about the amount of money spent on promoting yet another levy campaign and the simultaneous inadequacy and extravagance of the campaign materials. |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 12:20pm | Jen, I'm not complaining.
I'm providing a voice for the poor people in Tacoma who can't afford the powerful internet access that you and I take for granted. It's hard for the voices of the little people to be heard amidst the cacophony of union propaganda. |
by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 12:32pm | Fredo, I don't care if you claim you speak for the trees, you're just wrong all. the. time on basic facts and I'm sick of it.
Also, it's unbelievably Orwellian of you to claim to speak for the poor and yet simultaneously advocate for the elimination of unions and the minimum wage. The little people get on just fine without you. |
 by david on 2/5/2010 @ 12:41pm | I like that cutting the education budget is for the benefit of the poor people! =)! Since the poor will pay a few bucks less in taxes (if they make enough to pay taxes!), they'll suddenly have awesome jobs thrown at them and all the poor can send their kids to private schools and will be able to afford cheap mansions! Down with the public institutions! Up with the free markets! It's the only way to get money out of the hands of the elites and into the hands of the poor! |
by NineInchNachos on 2/5/2010 @ 12:59pm | WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. |
 by seejane on 2/5/2010 @ 4:39pm | Goodspeak, NineInch, goodspeak! |
 by Thorax O'Tool on 2/5/2010 @ 4:57pm | Least we forget, Fredo is actually a self-made millionaire robber baron.
He started out poor, but worked his way out a a Chinese coal mine. Once he had a few $ to his name, he started a business ferrying "travelers" across the Pacific in his home-made bamboo boat. Once the passengers were safely within the US, away from the prying eyes of immigration, he used the very handsome fees he charged to set up an endowment fund. He now lives off the interest. What's made commentary on FeedTacoma so appealing for him is that he actually has no political beliefs or affiliation... kind of like a modern day Nietzsche. |
 by ixia on 2/5/2010 @ 6:20pm | The near constant barage of negative yack against all things public, teachers and taxes has no appeal left, Thorax. |
 by panachronic on 2/5/2010 @ 10:23pm | Just one question:
If Prop. 1 passes, and then the legislature is forced to fund the district at 100%, we'll get our money back, right? RIGHT? |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 10:43pm | "It's unbelievably Orwellian for you to speak for the poor and yet simultaneously advocate for the elimination of the unions and the minimum wage" Jen
That's so ironic, I was thinking the same thing about your postings. It's unbelievably Orwellian for you to speak for the children and yet simultaneously advocate for an increase in the cost of housing for people who provide homes for the children. The children can get on fine without you. Jen you claim I'm "wrong on all the basic facts". Except for the mistake I made calling a Superior Court ruling a Supreme Court ruling (I believe I apologized for this error) I'm not aware of any errors in my basic facts. Would you provide some examples? |
by jenyum on 2/5/2010 @ 11:17pm | Just in the past week:
- classified electricians salaries aren't published (they are) - the school levy campaign isn't listed at the PDC (it is) - the aforementioned supreme court/superior court mix up - the basic assertion of this thread, that prop 1 is irrelevant because of this decision, when in fact no actual funding or funding mechanism is anywhere near reaching the schools, and we have no idea how much of the current budget would be included even were the decision to stand. (That's not my opinion, that's fact) That's just this week. |
by fredo on 2/5/2010 @ 11:41pm | Jen,
You claim I'm wrong...where's your proof? |
by ixia on 2/6/2010 @ 8:35am | "It's unbelievably Orwellian for you to speak for the children and yet simultaneously advocate for an increase in the cost of housing for people who provide homes for the children." Fredo's assumption of property tax rises is uninformed nonsense. Our property tax rate has gone down EVERY year since we own our home (10 years). Actual tax amount is less now then it was 2006. Have a look at the auditor's website and find out fredo is wrong. |
by jenyum on 2/6/2010 @ 8:49am | There is no money. This is just one lower court decision, not a budget bill. Once again, this is not my opinion this is basic fact and civics 101.
|
by fredo on 2/6/2010 @ 9:14am | Jen@The state is required to fund education. Once again this is not my opinion this is a basic fact and civics 101.
Say, I'm still waiting for that "proof" that I'm wrong on all the basic facts. Ixia@ I'm happy that your taxes are dropping every year. You must have an unusual situation with respect to your parcel. My property taxes have gone from about $1200 in 1989 to about $3000 today. I think my experience is closer to what most Tacomans are experiencing. I don''t need to visit the auditors web site to have an informed opinion about the level of property taxes. I have 3 statements in front of me, and in my informed opinion, property taxes are too high. |
by ixia on 2/6/2010 @ 10:54am | Property values went up, tax rates went down. Actual tax amounts to be paid went down in recent years. And a sunny day just hurts your eyes, doesn’t it? |
by david on 2/6/2010 @ 10:57am | I pay only a couple thousand in property taxes yearly. There' s no way paying for your own schooling, own police, own firefighters, own roads, etc would be cheaper than that. Us pooling in together though taxes means poor people can survive by paying their percentage.
"Proof"? The court said we must pay for our schools. So why are you against voting to pay for schools? We vote for this, then we only need to find the budget for whatever more we need to pay for schools. If we don't vote for it, then we have that much less money ready to pay for the court's decision. There's no need to prove you wrong, just a need to vote for prop 1 to keep on the path towards fulfilling the court's decision. |
by fredo on 2/6/2010 @ 11:07am | Ixia, what is your point?
Here are some facts which should facilitate your resonse: If props 1 & 2 pass taxes will tend to go up for most property owners in the district. If props 1 & 2 fail taxes will tend to go down for most property owners in the district. The owner of a $200,000 home will incur an obligation of approximately $4,000 spread over 6 years if both levies pass. This is using the district's own figures. |
by panachronic on 2/6/2010 @ 1:56pm | The court said we must pay for our schools. No, what the court said is that the Legislature must make provisions for "ample funding" of basic education, and that it has failed to do so. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit tell us that this means the schools shouldn't have to rely on tax levies for their basic operating funds. Therefore, Proposition 1, which asks local taxpayers for basic operating funds, is unconstitutional, because it seeks to improperly place the Legislature's responsibility on the backs of Tacoma property tax payers. Perhaps the time, money and effort expended on Prop 1 would have been better spent on lobbying the Legislature. |
 by Mofo from the Hood on 2/6/2010 @ 3:44pm | When buying anything, who typically objects to tax? I've never heard anybody who bought a car or a pair of pants or a bag of groceries upon seeing the bill cry out that the sales tax is too high.
How is buying schools any different? But here's something that doesn't seem fair: Try going to the bank to get a loan and then tell them that for collateral you will put up your share of ownership of Wilson High School. You won't get any respect from the bank. Man, and you know what else, the initial cost of Wilson is killer enough, but the ongoing SOA (school ownership association) maintenance fees are a relentless beatdown. |
by Thorax O'Tool on 2/6/2010 @ 5:06pm | Problem is, nearly everyone, especially the government and schools look at money the wrong way. |
by fredo on 2/7/2010 @ 7:03am | Panachronic, you've really done a good job explaining the court decision.
If the decision is ultimately upheld then the state legislature is going to have to send the district the funds to operate. The taxpayers are already paying the full cost of operating the Tacoma Public Schools when they pay sales taxes, shop at liquor stores, purchase lottery tickets, etc. The problem as I see it is that governor Gregoire and her democratic legislators have been diverting $80,000,000 per year that was supposed to go to Tacoma and spent it on other pet projects.Prop. 1 really is an effort to get the property tax owners to pay a second time for the same services. Voters, if you have already marked your ballot yes on Prop 1 and have now changed your mind it's not too late to amend your decision. As long as you haven't submitted the ballot you have Monday or Tuesday to go the elections office and explain that you've mismarked the ballot and get a new one. |
by jenyum on 2/7/2010 @ 9:13am | One more time with feeling.
This week's court decision has 0 practical effect on our school budget. Any effect it might theoretically have someday is far down the road. Actual money requires an act of the legislature and a huge restructuring of the state budget. If Prop 1 were to fail (which it won't because you are filling out your ballot, marking yes, and sending it in - or already have? Yes? thank you!) our schools, your child's school or your neighbor's child's school or that school down the street from you. YOUR neighborhood school, which is a central part of YOUR COMMUNITY would lose one quarter of its budget. That is the truth. |
by Mofo from the Hood on 2/7/2010 @ 9:34am | And remember people, you have options.
If taxes increase, you can move somewhere with less taxes. If schools wear out before the State of Washington performs its proper responsibilities, you can move somewhere outside the state. Or, the citizens themselves can take responsibility to provide the checks and balances needed to operate all systems properly. Flight or Fight. |
by panachronic on 2/7/2010 @ 9:55am | @ Jenyum: Wow. How far out there on the lunatic fringe of liberalism do you have to be to argue in favor of DOUBLE TAXATION??? |
by fredo on 2/7/2010 @ 10:07am | "you can move somewhere outside the state" Mofo
For transient type people Mofo this is probably OK advice. For many of us with property holdings and long term employment in the region it's just not that practical to move when you don't like a government policy. The correct option for people in such a position is to organize on a grassroots basis to propel fundamental change. That's occurring right here on Kevin Frietas splendid feedtacoma website. Why should people who want lower taxes have to move? Why don't the people who favor higher taxes move? I suggest California or New York. These are liberalism's "promised lands." |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 10:48am | It's funny that you call Jen's call to pay for schools fringe liberalism. You probably think Warren Buffett's a communist! hahahahahaha! |
by panachronic on 2/7/2010 @ 11:00am | It's funny that you call Jen's call to pay for schools fringe liberalism.
If you would like to offer an alternate characterization for a proposal to pay twice for the same government service, I'm all ears. |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 11:28am | First, we're not already fully paying for the service. Second, Prop 1 is replacing an existing levy. |
by panachronic on 2/7/2010 @ 11:39am | Are you saying that the state doesn't have enough money to pay for basic education? I'm pretty sure that it does. |
by fredo on 2/7/2010 @ 12:01pm | David, yes Prop 1 does replace an existing levy. The problem is, we shouldn't have been paying the existing supplemental levy which was approved in 2006. Two wrongs don't make a right.The state is obligated to fund education. We are paying all the taxes necessary to operate the Tacoma School System through the state tax system. If you have a problem with the misappropriation of the state tax money the correct avenue for remedial action is in Olympia. As Panachronic has succinctly stated, Prop 1 if approved, will continue the policy of double taxing the citizenry for the same service. |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 12:29pm | The government is being run like a corporation that wants to expand its services but wants to make them as profitable as possible by prioritizing easily measurable financial savings over common sense, higher longer-term savings, and public service.
So of course now we're just OVERFLOWING with money for basic education! Now we have TOO much, which is why all our roads are new, we have a modern train system, our sewer systems are all up to date, and little Timmy didn't have to break the bank to fix his broken leg! I hope everyone in the world can one day live in a world where saving $20 today over $100 tomorrow has made everyone happier, healthier, and sexier. God bless us. Every one. |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 12:32pm | @Fredo: So we already have 100% of our education costs budgeted and ready to go eh? I didn't know! Why is the court wasting our time making decisions that don't apply to us?? Wait a minute, the existing levy that's being replaced is currently providing 22% of education costs... Doesn't that mean to keep 100% of the current budget, they must either keep that levy or take that money from someplace like the transportation budget? Court decision of no, the money must come from somewhere to reach 100% right? Also, if we're currently paying for 100% of education costs without the levy, then doesn't that mean that money is being taken OUT of the education budget for something else??? Should you be wasting your time fighting to get that back in? Then we'd only need a transportation levy to pay for the hole there right? But at least we won't be "double" paying to reach 100% of our current (already under-funded) education budget. |
by panachronic on 2/7/2010 @ 12:52pm | Public schools accounted for 23.9% of the state budget in 2009.
www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Docu... So, in order to make up the 22% shortfall, the state would need to increase that share of the budget to 29.1% (extrapolating the 22% figure statewide for the sake of simplicity, mind you). Arguably, the state has more than enough to pay for 100% of basic education. That the money is not currently budgeted that way is of no import. The court said as much when it reaffirmed the "paramount duty" language that is in the State Constitution. If increased funding for schools means that other state programs suffer, so be it. The constitution is very clear on this. In other words, if they have the money (which they do), they MUST fund public schools at 100% of what is needed to provide a basic education for all students. Period. End of story. Since we already pay enough taxes for the state to fund basic education, any additional taxes raised for that purpose are, in fact, double taxation for the same service. |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 1:33pm | @Pana: double taxation? hahaha. oh boy. so what you're saying is the court said the state must pay for schools, but they must lower taxes to do it huh? They must then take any money needed from another, equally underfunded, area like transportation? OK, I guess I have to issue an apology. I just looked up the court decision and you're absolutely right. The court specifically said."the state must pay for schools, but can only pay for it through the means Pana says" |
 by marieantoinette on 2/7/2010 @ 1:45pm | Fredo is champion of the poor and saving we billionaires money at the same time... our schools are overflowing with funding Hey, why not just outsource our teachers? Like parents can contact India and have rtheir children tutored for $10.00 an hour in math over the computer? Perhaps we could just set up HUGE computer conferencing with India and have the $10.00 an hour worker tutor a whole room of Americas? In fact why have school buildings at all. Couldn't we put the kids in the prisons too? We'd save a whole bunch of money that we billionaires need to trickle down to the poor in the long run. |
by marieantoinette on 2/7/2010 @ 1:47pm | www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p01s01-legn....
No more American Teachers needed! Go India |
by marieantoinette on 2/7/2010 @ 1:52pm | Teabaggers obviously have a plan for American education and literacy...because President Obama would not have gotten elected had Sarah Palin been around sooner.
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0207...)/2 |
by panachronic on 2/7/2010 @ 3:48pm | I just looked up the court decision...
Doubt it. |
by david on 2/7/2010 @ 5:55pm | Oooooooh, I think I was looking at my Invisible Guide to All Your Base Handbook. My bad. |
by fredo on 2/7/2010 @ 9:43pm | "couldn't we put the kids in prison too?" marieantoinette
The school board isn't really interested in considering any efficiencies but I do like hearing from someone who can think outside the box. Thanks for the comment, Marieantoinette. |
by jenyum on 2/8/2010 @ 12:38pm | I just finished reading the decision, and frankly, I cannot wait to join panachronic and fredo in Olympia, as we lobby the legislature for greater school funding and higher taxes to pay for it. Join me in the fight, comrades. Anywho, since we had this little conversation about whether or not the ruling will have any effect and when and how, I thought I would share some of the ruling as it pertains to the actual remedy:
That's it! So in other words the remedy is to get the legislature to do something. Which I'm sure will happen with all due haste *and* take effect well before the expiration of the 4 year replacement levy. It's only taken since 2005 (excuse me, actually since 1978) to define what "basic education" means, so I'm sure they'll just speed right through it. Also, pana and fredo (allies in school reform) I thought you might enjoy the constitutional definition of "ample" as provided by the judge.
(vote yes) Last week's ruling (which is a great read if you skim over the description of the plaintiffs) www.educationvoters.org/~/wp-content/upl... |
by fredo on 2/8/2010 @ 12:47pm | You people who voted for Chris Gregoire must really be proud. |
by jenyum on 2/8/2010 @ 12:49pm | Yeah, I don't know what's up with people who voted for Kris Allen on the last season of American Idol, either.
WTH does Chris Gregoire have to do with it? Last I checked, she wasn't in the legislative or judicial branch. |
by fredo on 2/8/2010 @ 12:55pm | Well, for starters, she signed off on a budget that provided underfunding to the local school districts that occasioned the lawsuit under discussion.
Furthermore, she negotiated unsustainable payroll increases for state workers which made it impossible to fund education in the manner provided by our constitution. Do you want me to go on? |
by jenyum on 2/8/2010 @ 2:23pm | Well, I am sure a republican governor would be kinder to the education budget. That has always worked out to be the case. |
by david on 2/8/2010 @ 4:41pm | Jen is yum. |
by Thorax O'Tool on 2/8/2010 @ 5:07pm | Partisan politics is harmful to the people and to the state/nation.
I think this topic can pretty much be seen as proof of that. |
| Post Reply: |