32nd District Democrats narrowly vote to oppose Shoreline Proposition 1
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
After an hour-long forum at the September meeting of the 32nd District Democrats, members narrowly voted to oppose Shoreline Proposition 1, which will be on the November ballot. The Proposition asks the citizens' approval to raise property taxes above the one percent mandated by Tim Eyman's tax initiatives.
The resolution to oppose the Proposition was introduced by Wendy diPeso, who said that we did not need another regressive tax, particularly in this economy. The resolution to oppose Proposition passed 15 to 14. About one-third of those voting indicated they did not live in Shoreline. The 32nd legislative district includes part of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, and Finn Hill.
Posts
12 comments:
A favorite item for the Shoreline Area News to report upon is who donates to political campaigns. You are slacking since the city employees have donated over 90% of the money to the yes on the levy lift campaign and they started to donate SIX WEEKS BEFORE the city council pass the resolution authorizing the levy lift for the November ballot.
Most the city employees don't live in Shoreline and they are trying to buy the yes campaign votes, why don't you report on that?
Oh the irony.
They vote to oppose a tax increase that would have been automatic 10 years ago and CONTINUED to be automatic were it not for the "Eyman Initiative" that they opposed.
Ten years ago the economy was not in the toilet, poster @8:25 am, in case you haven't noticed. Tell me, did you foresee ten years ago the economic meltdown that the US is presently experiencing, for if you have, I'd think you should open a business as a bookie in Las Vegas for your special skillset.
A sneaky bit of propaganda in this article needs to be exposed:
"About one-third of those voting indicated they did not live in Shoreline."
Obviously, the Shoreline Area News wishes to imply that those who were voting to oppose the proposition weren't Shoreline residents, while those who are residents are overwhelmingly in favor of it.
But without asking how those out-of-towners voted, there's no grounds for supposing that they tilted the outcome one way or the other.
I am a Shoreline Voter and a Democrat. I also oppose the Levy Lid Lift because:
1. This is the worst time in our memory to be raising our taxes. Many of our seniors and low income families are trying to keep their homes and trying to age in place. If more of our residents are turned out of their homes, who will make up the taxes they have been directly or indirectly paying through their landlords?
2. Moving out of Shoreline because we can't afford to stay in Shoreline is not an option the Democrats should push onto the most vulnerable. Bravo, Democrats - not everyone wants to forfeit on their mortgages; they just want a fighting chance to live in their homes.
3. Property taxes are regressive and not fair and obviously Democrats understand this point.
The 32nd District Democrats do not pretend to only live in Shoreline, do they? If they made sure those voting had the rights to vote on issues brought forth by their members, what business is it for anyone else?
It's ridiculous for the poster to even bring up this point. If an issue before the organization only applied to men, then are the women not allowed to vote?
A thinking Democrat, and proud of it.
A Shoreline Democrat once told me that she abstains when an endorsement issue comes up from Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Edmonds or Woodway. For example, she abstained when the organization voted to recommend a "no" vote on a similar proposition in Lake Forest Park. That seems fair.
Why are so many of these comments anonymous?
Mr. Smith:
There were four abstentions last night I believe, something left out of the original report.
It was not my intention to be sneaky, it was my intention to be plain that among those voting for and against the resolution were many people who would not be affected by it.
Before the vote, one of the members asked that people identify who lived in Shoreline. The chair asked people to raise their hands. I counted 8 people in the back of the room who did not live in Shoreline (and didn't see who raised their hands in the front of the room). As far as I could tell, most of them chose to vote. The vote was by a show of credentials - hands in the air.
As an organization which spans 5 cities and two counties, it is fair and according to the rules of the organization that if you are a member, you can vote. The presiding officer said that she did not vote because she lived in Snohomish County and another woman at the front of the room said she did not vote because she lived in Edmonds. That was their choice. But they were not included in the 15-14 numbers in the article.
When a resolution which reflects an entire organization passes by one vote, these details are important.
Diane, it is equally important for you to report that you arrived in the company of the city contingent and sat at the table with them. This detail is important to the story.
You did not report in such detail the vote on the Lake Forest Park vote by the 32nd District, which makes one wonder if you even bothered to attend the meeting.
Previously you have posted a "story" in which that did not disclose you were a member of a political committee advocating for the passage of the school levy until challenged in the commentary section. A "story" recently was not properly attributed as an editorial from the Yes on Prop 1 for Shoreline once again until the comments flagged as such.
Most of those who are employed as journalists take pains to appear as unbiased as possible in the stories they cover.
And Mr. Smith wonders aloud why there are so many anonymous comments...
When you have the bully pulpit, people are unlikely to speak up.
What city contingent? I arrived alone and chose a table in the middle of the room. I knew a lot of people at the meeting and met more at my table, which was mostly Senior Center folk, but people kept coming and going as chairs were available.
You are correct that I was not there for the LFP vote. Can't be everywhere, and I missed seeing it was on the agenda.
The article http://www.shorelineareanews.com/2010/01/vote-yes-yes-yes-and-yes.html was clearly labeled a commentary. It did not pretend to be a news article. Titling it "Vote Yes, Yes, and Yes" might give one a clue that the writer has a point of view. I didn't see the need to put my resume with it, but saw no harm in adding a note when you brought it up. In fact, I thought it was a good idea.
I suppose it is a bully pulpit, but we have published a lot of letter from lots of people who were expressing strong views on many subjects, so we are providing a bully pulpit for everyone. And people do not seem to be shy about posting comments.
--Diane
Any chance the SAN can add a user specific option to ignore annoymous posts? I've found this to be a useful option on other blogs where you get annoymous trolls. If a poster isn't willing to claim their words, do they really expect others to seriously consider their POV?
Maggie Dean
Post a Comment