Search This Blog

Thursday, September 9, 2010

No on Prop I Shoreline- News Announcement

This message provided by the NO on Prop 1 Shoreline Committee

32nd District Democrats Join Opposition To Tax Increase In Shoreline

Last night (Wednesday) the 32nd District Democrats voted to endorse the No on Proposition 1 position, which opposes increasingproperty taxes, in order to compensate for the City’s projected shortfall.

Their decision follows a similar choice by the 32nd  District Republicans.

The No on Proposition 1 group advocated budgetary restraint, rather than increased tax revenues. They argued that Shoreline taxes, when combined with increases by King County and the State would affect those who could least afford them, and would divide the city into haves and have-nots.

The Democrats were especially anxious about the open-ended nature of the City’s proposal, which would have tied the property tax to the Consumer Price Index of Seattle for five years. There would be no guarantee of how high the index might go, and no public scrutiny of the annual changes.

Lavish expenditures during the past decade on Aurora Avenue and a new City Hall,  have given pause, as did the fact that they have been achieved partly by diverting millions of dollars from operating budgets.

The Democrats were persuaded that fiscal austerity and a review of salaries and benefits, such as other cities have practiced, should produce more than enough resources to carry on the services that make Shoreline a good place to live.


Dwight Gibb 206 546 1864


  1. At least get some of your facts straight instead of spinning propaganda for your view. The monies for Aurora came from FEDERAL grants, not from city coffers.

    And not only did the city start saving for a city hall of it's own from it's very inception, the building and owning of it's own land and offices actually SAVES MONEY EVERY YEAR OVER RENT THEY WERE PAYING.

  2. Dear Anonymous,
    I'm just reporting on a press release from one side. I am happy to provide space for opposing views.

    At this time I taking a neutral position on this matter.


  3. Why are you taking a neutral position? You do realize that the City supports the Shoreline Historical Museum on an annual basis ($60,000 in 2010). I am not sure what percentage of the Museum's annual budget this equates to, but I would guess it is significant. If the Operations Levy fails, there is no question that this support will disappear. With this support gone, would the Museum's Executive Director be forced to work part time? Be laid off? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I am curious. If you truly care about the museum, wouldn't you support the Levy, which maintains current levels of service, such as cultural services support for the Museum? I am confused.

  4. Dear Anonymous,

    I do realize that the city supports the Museum along with other entities like 4Culture, etc.

    It IS a definite concern that their funding might be lost. So while I'm concerned about the impact of the LLL on the average taxpayer, the Museum is just one city sponsored program that might affected by not passing the Levy.

    This is why I'm currently "neutral" and on the fence. I think it is wrong for the Pro supporters and City to use the Museum as an excuse to pass the levy, when the Museum has already been victimized without any logic by the SSD Bond election. The School District's duplicitous treatment of the Museum after stating it would be saved, is one reason to have a jaundiced view of ANY of these proposed tax measures.

    We should analyze them very carefully before voting for them.

    Of course the Museum's piece of the budget is miniscule compared to the many other categories that are much more significant.

    It is very confusing and I'm not certain which way I'll go yet.

    However, I've said I'm willing to provide space on this blog for opinions on all sides of the issue. That is why I posted the news release from the Con group.

    Thanks for your question.

  5. The city just took $25,000 from the operating budget last week for the debt service on the new city hall, it is not saving money as promised.

    If you go and read the agenda (including staff reports) for the special meeting on 9/7, you will find they had to reshuffle monies from the operating budget to cover capital projects at Hamlin Park and the the new City Hall.

    Poster @11:26 am needs to become more well-informed and keep up.

  6. Since when did any Democrat organization ever oppose a tax increase? So hypocritical that a group (32nd district Dumbocrats) that were part of the bloated state tax increases of the past year (bottled water, candy, soda, state controlled liquor, etc.) now oppose a relatively miniscule tax increase. Even a cynical Republican like myself finds this insulting and is obviously a self-serving power play by those controlling the 32nd district Democrats.

    p.s. to the person who thinks it is wrong to cover debt service from an operating budget, please compare what amount was being paid in leases before the new City Hall building was built.

  7. Crime is down. The Shoreline police recently got new police cars together with new uniforms.

  8. It is hardly a miniscule tax increase! Shoreline taxes keep skyrocketing