They all had interesting and thoughtful things to say. Really. All of them.
When The Columbian’s Editorial Board interviewed six of the seven candidates for Position 6 on the Vancouver City Council last week (one candidate canceled because of an emergency), we were faced with an informed and articulate group of aspirants. Regardless of who comes out of the election, the position — Bill Turlay is not seeking re-election — will be in good hands.
That is not always the case when the editorial board conducts its annual interviews of candidates for a variety of elected positions. But between the school board candidates and the city council candidates we have met in preparation for the Aug. 6 primary, we have been impressed. Perhaps the contentious political climate is, indeed, drawing engagement from smart, motivated citizens; or perhaps we have just been fortunate thus far.
Anyway, as to be expected, the Stronger Vancouver proposal took up a big chunk of the interview. That proposal would generate an additional $30 million in annual revenue for the city to pay for items such as parks and public safety. As you might have guessed, “revenue” in government parlance means taxes, and that means the proposal has generated much discussion among the people who would pay those taxes.
A lot of details are still being worked out, and a lot of public input is still being culled. So the candidates were insightful but understandably noncommittal. The crux of the issue, however, was best articulated by the question: “What kind of city do we want to have?”
Indeed. What kind of city do we want to have? Do we want adequate police and fire protection? And reliable water service? And well-maintained parks? These things cost money, but for the past 20 years or so, cities and counties throughout the state have seen their ability to fund such services steadily erode.
Since 2001, local jurisdictions have been limited by a maximum 1 percent annual increase in property-tax levies. That is for the total levy, not necessarily each individual property. Considering that property taxes are the primary source of income for these jurisdictions and considering that inflation increases by more than 1 percent each year, government’s purchasing power has been diminished.
All of this is the work of anti-tax maven Tim Eyman, voters, and the Legislature. In 2001, 58 percent of statewide voters approved Eyman’s Initiative 747 to limit the annual increase. Six years later, it was overturned by the state Supreme Court, but lawmakers quickly reinstated it in a one-day special session.
There was clear support for the limitation. In Clark County, it was approved by 71 percent of voters, which is the kind of margin you would expect if “free ice cream” was placed on the ballot. And the legislative chambers reinstated it by a combined vote of 125-17.
There are valid reasons for that support, with no shortage of examples of governments conflating “wants” with “needs” and digging into the wallets of citizens. But at some point we have to recognize that the math doesn’t add up. The annual U.S. inflation rate since 2001 has been about 2 percent; if the city takes its allowable 1 percent increase each year, it still falls behind.
That was the impetus behind creation of the Stronger Vancouver committee, which spent nearly two years figuring how to create the kind of city we want to have. The proposal would spread the increases among business taxes, property taxes and various other taxes and fees. Diana Perez, a city council candidate who was on the Stronger Vancouver committee, said, “We have a very disproportionate, unbalanced payment between residential and commercial.”
That might or might not be accurate — at least in the minds of taxpayers. And it will be up to city leaders to effectively sell that idea to those taxpayers if they wish to move forward with the proposal.
That might be a hard sell. But the guess is that it will result in an interesting and thoughtful community discussion.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
