- 07/29/2014 at 6:25 pm #70697
I love Ballard, will always love Ballard, born & raised in Ballard, it was my home for 27 years, love the people, the atmosphere, the views (best on earth!), the women (could go on all day about a few of them), the locks and waterfront, list goes on and on…
I hate the weather in winter and most of all
I hate the chickenshit politics!
Will probably never live there again but will visit any chance I get.
End of rant.07/30/2014 at 5:51 am #70711
I thought the 20% tax increase claim by the no side was pretty much bogus. At least the Seattle Times called them out on that: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024193629_parksneedle1xml.html
Still undecided, though leaning no at the moment.07/30/2014 at 9:44 am #70715
Here is the paper put out by the League of Women Voters:
http://www.seattlelwv.org/files/MPDopp.pdf07/30/2014 at 9:51 am #70718
That’s very well stated and gets to the heart of things. My problem in stating my opposition is that given today’s context its hard to make a tax/government argument that does not make one sound like a tea-bagging wacko.08/06/2014 at 11:52 am #71008
Sunset Hill DavidParticipant
Wow, once again Seattle voters really surprised me by voting for this one. All I’ve been reading is negativity and outright lies by the “no” people. I get really tired of outsiders funding campaigns full of mistruths. Thankfully most of us were able to see through that.08/06/2014 at 12:25 pm #71013
Whatever was said in the campaign, I really appreciate the fact-based political discussion on this issue. Didn’t change my mind, but made me think. :)08/06/2014 at 12:47 pm #71015
I think the hyperbole on the No side was insane, but the misdirection of the Yes camp was pretty upsetting.
Yes, the grassroots of the No side were f*cking nuts, as was some of their direct mail, but the Yes camp did not take the highroad. The yes camp over emphasized this as a simple levy, minimized the distance created between the new Park District and direct action, failed to address the complexities of transferring city land to such an authority, and painted all the nays as if they were right wing freaks. Even if the No side was led by tea party wackos, there are/were principled and substantial reasons to be against this.
I believe we will find the Parks district is not nearly as accountable to the people as the city council. I believe over time some parks are going to disappear and be sold with minimal public engagement. I believe that in the long run people will pay much more than was advertised by the Yes side, not only for their parks but for other functions as well. It’s my belief that the Park District will not only be the mechanism to pay for the new waterfront, but quite possibly more… think tunnel.08/06/2014 at 1:26 pm #71018
The new waterfront/seawall/viaduct replacement park(s) will suck up nearly all the newly available funds(*). They will be very expensive. I’m not sure what other source of money will be used for them. Pretty sure the downtown biz’ won’t want to pay extra for the amenity. Take a look at smaller neighborhood parks like the recently developed Kirke and Crown Hill Parks and multiply those amounts by the sheer scale. It will be interesting to see it duked out among the newly minted district elected city council.
(*) IOW, the initially low rate will increase substantially.08/06/2014 at 7:15 pm #71031
The old levy at .19 per thousand in property value ends, .33 per thou begins. That’s $70 per year for me. That’s $93 more per year, $7.78 per month. Not really a big deal.08/06/2014 at 9:17 pm #71032
Since this funding model seems to be the wave of the future, I envision the formation of other districts to fund otherwise chronically underfunded city departments … the MSPD, and the MSFD for example. Then the money in the general fund could be freed up for … something or other.
The forum ‘Open forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.