Forum Home  |  Politics & Government  |  General Politics

MIA Anders Ibsen: Tacoma's Champion of Affordability

by fredo
on 3/17/2012 @ 8:26am
During the campaign Ibsen emphasized how important it was to him that Tacoma be an afforadable place for people to live. He was the Champion of Affordability.

Our beleagured citizenry just had to suck it up to pay a .01% tax increase in November and now the council wants to put ANOTHER .01% sales tax.

Why isn't Ibsen sounding an alarm about the impact these tax increases will inevitably have on our cities affordability?

Our Champion of Affordability is MIA.   

Something else is also MIA, and that's my dog Daisy. If you've seen Daisy would you please contact me? I would be forever greatful.

by Jesse on 3/17/2012 @ 9:42am
@ $10,000 a year spent on items that are taxable, the total, for BOTH tax increases is $200.

Now name a poor person who spends $10,000 a year on taxable items.

This is a small price to pay for both services.

by cisserosmiley on 3/17/2012 @ 11:19am
Every poor person spends more of a percentage of their income on taxable items than wealthy folks...why attack poor folk again???

A picture of daisy? A part of the N.End where she was last seen?

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 12:24pm

does an increased sales tax make Tacoma MORE affordable or LESS affordable?That's a simple question. 

(Daisy lost near N. 42 and Orchard. Picture at left. thanks cissero)

Also, a slight correction: the tax increase for $10,000 worth of taxable sales would be $20, not $200. Anders said he would make Tacoma more affordable. Will an extra $20 make living in Tacoma more affordable?

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 12:54pm
I think that we should vote down any and all tax increases for city services so that we can spend the tax savings on $4 - $5/gal gas this summer. That makes the most sense.

This message was brought to you by your friendly local multinational oil company.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 1:39pm

The druggie/drunk tax proposal in Tacoma doesn't have anything to do with the price of oil. Voting yes won't increase the price of oil and voting no won't decrease the price.  But I would agree with your conclusion tacoma1 that we should vote down any extra taxes at this time. Thanks for your comment. 

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 3/17/2012 @ 1:52pm
Ok, we starve government and everyone's life in Tacoma will be better.  Thank you, fredo, I get it.  It is magical thinking, but I get it.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 2:05pm
  If the council fails to pass the .01% sales tax to assist the drunks it isn't going to "starve the government" Crenshaw.

But if taxes are lower it WILL make everyone's life in Tacoma better. No magical thinking required, just ordinary common sense. Get it? 

The thread is actually about Anders Ibsen. He recently claimed he was going to work to make life in Tacoma MORE affordable. The issue is this: Is increasing the sales tax in Tacoma going to make the city MORE affordable or LESS affordable?   

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 2:10pm
If you could provide a link to which tax proposal you are opposed to now, it would be helpful. It gets sooooo confusing trying to keep track of all your individual tax whinnings, that when you don't provide an itemized list, I tend to just lump them into the same anti gubmnt anti tax rant.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 2:20pm
There's more information about the proposal at:

Look for the recent story entitled:"Is sales tax for mental health conversation going too fast" the story is dated 3/16/12 so it's right at the top. 

I keep forgetting that some people don't follow current events. Sorry about that.  

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 2:38pm
fredo, this is what a link looks like

"19 counties altogether have implemented this measure, the counties are:
• Clallam
• Clark
• Ferry
• Grays Harbor
• Island
• Jefferson
• King
• Lewis
• Mason
• Okanogan
• San Juan
• Skagit
• Skamania
• Snohomish
• Spokane
• Thurston
• Wahkiakum
• Walla Walla
• Whatcom

Pierce County is the only urban county in the state to not adopt the 1/10 of 1 percent sales tax option."

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 2:44pm

  I didn't know Tacoma was a county. Thanks for the heads up.

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 2:52pm
If I have the wrong link, maybe you could provide the link. Exit 133 is just another blog without a link to the tax proposal. It's your issue, you should be able to provide the link.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 3:01pm
  I've provided everybody with plenty of information.

The city wants to increase the sales tax and at least one city councilman is on record stating that he wants to work to keep Tacoma an affordable place to live.  These two objectives are inconsistant so I'd like comments on that inconsistancy.

There's no purpose in cluttering up a simple discussion with a bunch of links. 

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 3:08pm
I don't know why I always have to do your research for you, but here it is:

"Ordinance 28057 (see below) proposes the implementation of a 0.01% sales tax to support mental health and chemical dependency services. The majority of commenters, including Representative Darnielle, were in support of this increase. Many speakers testified to the importance of the funded services to individuals and the organizations serving them, and to the value of long-term case management for individuals needing such treatment. We repeatedly heard that treatment mental health services represent the most important need for many individuals receiving other human services. Another message was that aside from the compassionate reasons, providing these services means a bottom line reduction of need for other services, including law enforcement, emergency room visits, and others."

"Ordinance No. 28057 Amending Chapter 6A.70 of the Municipal Code, relating to Local Option Taxes, to impose an additional sales tax of one-tenth of one percent to fund the provision of mental health services, effective July 1, 2012. [Linda Villegas Bremer, Director, Human Rights and Human Services]

This proposal is based on the RCW code that allows for counties to collect a tax for mental health services. Because Pierce County has chosen not to collect that tax, the RCW allows Tacoma to do so. The proposed 0.01% tax, which would work out to be one penny on a $10.00 purchase, is projected to bring in over $1 million the first year. This is a part of phase two of Tacoma’s quest to raise revenue to fix the budget gap."

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 3:19pm
tacoma1, the thread isn't about the authority the city has to impose the tax.

the thread is about Anders Ibsens failure to speak out when given the opportunity about the importance of maintaining the affordability of living in Tacoma. He campaigned on this issue and he owes it to his constituents to raise the objection on their behalf. 

Regarding your recent comment: The RCW doesn't require Tacoma to impose the tax increase, it merely allows it. Also, I didn't ask you do any research "for me." If you want to post research that's your call.

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 3:29pm
I know that there is no reason to research facts once your mind is already made up, but since you didn't provide any details, I had to do the research.

This is what I found: "Another message was that aside from the compassionate reasons, providing these services means a bottom line reduction of need for other services, including law enforcement, emergency room visits, and others."

It looks like by spending money on mental health and drugs, we will be freeing up the police and hospital ER's to do more important work. By supporting this ordinance, it sounds like Anders Ibsen is keeping his end of the bargain of keeping Tacoma affordable. Visits to the gray bar motel, and ER aren't cheap. And us tax payers are getting stuck with those bills. The mentally ill, and drug dependant aren't paying them.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 3:44pm
According to your posting when we increase services for the drunks and druggies we

*save money on law enforcement
*save money on emergency room visits
*save money on others
*save money on gray bar motel visits

Sounds like we could use the money that we saved on all these previous expenditures and use that to fund the new services. Why bother the taxpayers and make life less affordable for them? 

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 4:17pm
The more that I think of it, I'm pretty sure Anders Ibsen never promised to keep Tacoma "afforadable".

If he did, I would have asked him what "afforadable" means.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 4:44pm
Anders champions the cause of affordability:  

"If we want to attract them (armed forces families) to live in Tacoma, we have to ensure that there are safe, clean and vibrant communities where they and their families can afford to live". Anders Ibsen 8/3/11 (responding to a question on Fredo's candidates roundtable 

Is that good enough?

by tacoma1 on 3/17/2012 @ 5:02pm

I still think that spending a little money on social services vs a lot of money on incarceration is the most affordable thing to do.

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 5:19pm
 " I still think that spending a little money on social services vs a lot of money on incarceration is the most affordable thing to do." tacoma1 

Therefore if we spend a little money on social services then we'll be saving even more money on incarceration? I'd love to see the figures on that. 

by Jesse on 3/17/2012 @ 5:55pm
@Fredo:  I am horrible at math.  Sorry about the $200 figure.

But, $20?  That's 1/10 of what I thought it was!  You're complaining about $20 to clean up drug messed people and take them off our streets?  What is the value of helping people or the thinking about it the straight logical route of the fact that with far less of these types of folks around, would your property values go up more than $20 a year?  Uff-da!

My (soon to be) wife is a county prosecutor.  Many of the people she sees are people with mental problems or drug problems.  Doesn't it make sense to help them avoid the legal system in the first place than to spend a ton of money on it later?

I am sorta with you on one thing: I don't like the idea of throwing money at people with self caused problems like the druggies and drunks.  It's not a "disease" --- it's a character flaw.

And... sorry about your dog... =(

by fredo on 3/17/2012 @ 7:03pm
  "You're complaining about $20 to clean up drug messed people and take them off our streets?" jesse

So if we each spend $20 that will clean up all the drug messed people and take them off the streets?


The existance of a drug program will mean MORE drug messed up people will be gravitating to Tacoma where they will be on the streets. So the $20 may be making our druggie problem even worse and your wifes prosecutions are going to skyrocket.

Well, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

by Non Sequitur on 3/17/2012 @ 9:03pm
They see me Trollin'
They're hatin'
Reading the blogs, tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
My posts so loud
I'm hatin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'
Tryin to catch me trollin'

by fredo on 3/18/2012 @ 7:37am
NS, why are you trollin' and hatin'

Don't you have anything better to do, or anything to contribute?

by Non Sequitur on 3/18/2012 @ 12:39pm
Nope. My weekends are pretty empty.

by JoeAtkinson on 3/27/2012 @ 9:09am
Before you start reading too deeply into such statements, maybe you should actually read policy objectives (rather than relying on broad rhetoric). As far as I recall, he supported a triple tiered tax increase (property, sales and business). Your interpretations are flawed (in my opinion).

by fredo on 3/27/2012 @ 9:18am
He supported tax increases AND he supported affordability.

Clearly, its not my interpretation which is flawed but the candidates own position. I listened to Councilman Ibsens comments at the city council meeting. Not once did he allude to the subject of affordability although he campaigned on the topic. You can't make life in Tacoma more affordable by increasing the cost of living. Or maybe I'm missing something.  

Thanks for your comment Joe, good to hear from you again.

by JoeAtkinson on 4/2/2012 @ 7:38am

That’s right, though there should be no surprise. I’ve nary
met a person so enthusiastic about tax hikes without considering the
consequences on the working class and small businesses.


I was a little appalled about our most recent correspondence
where he said “It makes much more sense to raise
investment money from public taxation instead. Replace the corporate income tax
with an assets tax on capital. Distribute the money to regions on the basis of
population, so there’s no more destructive competition for capital. The money
would be regionally administered by local public banks”.


a little closer to communism than I would like to see from anyone, and reflects
a gross misunderstanding of the American economic engine, as well as the plight
of the poor and struggling middle class.


course anyone who disagrees with such radical ideological enamorations will
quickly be told to ‘go back to your tea party rallies’ (a rude remark).  I was also surprised he used China as an
example to emulate.  The government there
has the bulk of the power and control over capital, and as I see it is a
self-serving oppressor of freedom.

by fredo on 4/2/2012 @ 8:36am

Ha, good stuff Joe. You've noticed that anyone who provides an opinion at variance with Anders is labeled a "tea partier." By doing this it gives him a convenient excuse for failing to respond to criticism.