Here's what's likely to happen - much like the bus initiative, this is going to fail because folks are TOO FUCKING LAZY TO FILL IN AND RETURN A BALLOT.

@2 where did you learn math?

The median home price in Seattle right now is about $465,000. Under Prop 1, that would give the parks taxing authority to raise a MAXIMUM of $349 per year on said median priced home. That isn't anywhere close to a mortgage payment (which would probably be around $2000 p/mo or more on a house this price).

This isn't necessarily more money than you're paying now (although it might be, eventually).

I'm really torn on this one. I don't mind the exercise of democratic accountability asking for a levy renewal every six years produces. I'd amenable to being convinced to vote yes, but I need to hear a more detailed case about the harms of relying on levy funding, above and beyond "but someday it might not pass".

Well I love our parks and community centers and use them all over the city, all the time. So I have no problem taking the property tax hit. Pay to play I guess.

My question is this: would the city council be able to take funds from this tax district and use it to pay for other municipal needs? The park tax can be raised up to 75 cents per 1k of assessed value, I feel like they are creating a back door fund for something else.

As long as it doesn't have the power to close or sell parks.

Seattle parks: What's with a mid-summer vote on a long-term change?
Voting Yes on Prop 1 Means Loss of Voter Control Over City Parks

http://crosscut.com/2014/07/11/op-ed/120…

Just say 'NO' to creating another un-elected panel with little public oversight.

The Seattle City Council has turned a deaf-ear to voters for too long. The City Council's near-Royal behavior may be the result of their top-in-the-nation-salaries & benefit package, and a too-cozy relationship with developers.

Voters tossed Councilmember Conlin out of office last year for wrong-thinking and bad policies. More of the city council need to follow Conlin out the door.

This MPD proposal is wrong for Seattle, wrong for taxpayers, and more evidence that top-down change is needed in City Hall.

Save "OUR" parks, keep voters in the driver's seat, and vote NO on the MPD.

Speaking from a town that has an independent park board: you should want this. An independent park board gets insulated from political gamesmanship at City Hall, and the parks aren't in danger of being defunded every time the economy hits the skids.

Yes. I'm tired of the unhealthy way we have to constantly renew directly all these different individual funding mechanisms. The claim that the MPD will have no oversight is absurd; the City Council is it's oversight and we elect them. Things work perfectly fine in jurisdictions where the elected officials directly oversee budget and tax matters.

"Representative Democracy".

@11 Joe is correct. The City Council's oversight is why the public is so pleased with their performance. The Seattle City Council is the model by which all oversight should be patterned.

@4: But thousands of retired folks in Seattle have mortgages half what it would be for a new buyer today, but they're living on fixed incomes or only social security. Hence, property tax increases affects them more.

@10 YES!

Hence, property tax increases affects them more.

No, it doesn't. It increases the amount they pay by the same amount. Just because they pay less money to the bank doesn't mean it affects them more.

(And to anticipate the predictable response: Yes, yes, some poor people have extremely valuable property they don't want to sell. Property taxes are progressive but imperfectly so. No one disputes this. But the "this tax will be difficult for someone, somewhere" line of reasoning plays right into the republican anti-tax, anti-government playbook.)

I will continue to trust the city council with Parks oversight once we stop electing council members who refuse to do their jobs. When was the last time anyone say Sawant at any of her committee assignments? When was the last time anyone heard her speak of anything but minimum wages / economic equality?

@13, you and @2 are perfect for each other. You should start a blog together, far far away from here.

@18: I'm sorry, could you please be specific about what you're so upset about, without generalizations and straw man references?

I can't speak for JonnoN, Phoebe, but I presume he's making a connection between the misleading use of math to promote an anti-tax agenda. Your comment was more in the "highly misleading" category rather than the "flat-out wrong" category, but they're both attempts to exaggerate the impact of taxes to promote an anti-government agenda.

Vote YES on the Proposition 1 to ensure we have safe, welcoming parks and recreational opportunities so everyone can lead healthy lives. This is an excellent solution to the funding challenges parks has experienced. And why on earth would be want a separately elected board to create more bureaucracy when the City Council can be held accountable. The opponents say they are for parks, but they aren't. They are just against taxes. Period. Over 60 non-profit organizations have endorsed this measure along with our current Mayor and five past mayors. I strongly support Proposition 1 and I hope others will too.

@22,

I guess that depends on where the $135 million is coming from. Is it funded by general taxes/fees, or does it have its own funding source that's drying up? I genuinely don't know the answer to this, so if someone could fill me in...

@22, 23:

That money, I believe, comes (primarily? perhaps entirely?) from the 2008 Parks levy, which is expiring. Instead of seeking a new levy, they're trying to create this district instead.

For / just to stick it to the Suburban Times!

I always vote yes on these, but i'll tell ya, I'm sick of them. voters are flibberdigibbets, and the less opportunity they have to defund needed civic assets, the better.

@8
I agree. I would like to know more about what kind of power this district will have. Will they be just about maintenance and a few park policies (like opening times or dogs on leashes) or will they have power over public property?

I'm voting YES on Prop 1 because it's dedicated, protected revenue for parks, trails and urban forests, the main reasons my family and I love this city. These dollars couldn't be diverted to other uses and would be solely for Seattle's parks. Yes, the city council would oversee the Seattle park district but they already do that today by developing and approving our city's budget - not too much would change there. I don't see any reason to create more bureaucratic layers of government with the creation of an independently elected parks board of commissioners. Everyone, please get everyone you know to get and vote! We can't let this fail from lack of participation among our younger voters.

6 year levies are inherently inefficient. No way to manage a park department without long-range planning, since revenues drop off after the levy ends. The park district creates a stable funding source that is dedicated to parks. And the ordinance behind it ensures general fund contributions to parks stay steady, so funds can't be sent to other departments.

Neighborhood parks make Seattle great. That means taking care of them, for the long term.

Please vote YES on Prop 1.

@7 nope, they can't take the money that comes from this and spend it elsewhere. Another reason to vote FOR this: it frees up money in the general fund for other purposes.

@20: Thank you. I would caution, however, that debate over taxation is no more anti-government than debate over wages is anti-business. People should think about these things in parallel.

King County offers a property tax deduction (sometimes amounting to 50%) for property owners who make under $39K a year. If you qualify, instead of the deduction, you can postpone tax until the house is sold. KC does not publicize this for obvious reasons, but it's on their website.

The deduction/postponement mentioned above is for individuals 62 or older.

Who is pushing for this? The lawyers who also want to form a nonprofit corporation to control the new downtown waterfront (google Gerald Johnson). That's where this money will go. At least a parks levy requires that the money be spread around so the voters will renew the levy. This is a sham.

From Linked In: Gerry currently serves on the boards of the Seattle Parks Foundation, the Downtown Seattle Association and the Friends of Waterfront Seattle. He also serves on the Seattle Central Waterfront Committee advising the Mayor and City Council. The proposed central waterfront project, designed by renowned architect James Corner, will transform the relationship of the Seattle Central Business District with its historic waterfront following demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2016. On the Central Waterfront Committee, he co‑chairs its Finance and Partnerships Subcommittee.

Responding to various comments above:

The parks vote is not another levy! Instead, it creates a permanent corporation under state law, not subject to any citizen votes to change it or shut it down in the future.

The state gives this Parks District corporation almost unlimited power… After 180 days, it could make your favorite park a Disney-sponsored amusement place, or spend all the money on a new waterfront park.

It takes away citizen influence over uses of funds. The levy process has served well to direct money to the places the citizens want it to go. Let's have another levy!

Takes away citizen control of taxes. This corporation will start off increasing taxes to about twice as much as the current levy for parks, and has authority to increase it much further... again, without any input from citizens!

Most of the funding for our parks has come from, and will come from the city's budget. However, the city council will have incentives to REDUCE the amount it allocates from the regular budget, and make up for it by increasing the Parks District taxes. So they will be avoiding one of their primary responsibilities... allocating funds among competing priorities.

It creates an administrative nightmare. The mayor has responsibility to run the parks now. But the city council will have responsibility to run the parks money that comes from this corporation.

Please vote NO on the proposal to create the Parks District corporation. Then the city council cal put a levy on the ballot. and the parks can get funded with ongoing citizen input.

@21: Paid-for shills like you make me laugh.

debate over taxation is no more anti-government than debate over wages is anti-business. People should think about these things in parallel.

1. Of course debate over taxation isn't inherently anti-government. How we fund government, and what government activities to fund, are central questions in any democratic societies. What is "anti-government" is the style in which you chose to engage in the debate, in which you mislead about disparate impact to oppose a relatively progressive tax.

2. What, in your mind, is the connection between funding parks with property taxes and minimum wage policy? Why, precisely, are these issues so interconnected that they must be considered "in parallel"? Please be specific.

@40: By parallel I mean it in a very broad way - that the discussion or rates of taxation and the discussion over wages (I chose that as an example) are not inherently hostile to the functioning of government and business, and in fact refine it for the benefit of society.

I quite like the current parks system. What I don't know, and what hasn't been effectively argued to me, is whether the goodness of the current system is better secured by levys under periodic voter oversight or an independent permanent funding source. I'm pro-funding parks but I want the people to occasionally have a say; I imagine (though I can't be sure) that this encourages the money to be spent in a way that benefits the most people. I think for that reason I will vote No, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

@41:
that the discussion or rates of taxation and the discussion over wages (I chose that as an example) are not inherently hostile to the functioning of government and business, and in fact refine it for the benefit of society.

Of course! Who would deny such an obvious truth? My point wasn't that we shouldn't discuss it, but that we should do so in less manipulative, more analytical way than you were doing it, not that we shouldn't do it at all.

@42 well said, that captures my ambivalence as well. I suppose I'm probably leaning the other way. I'm very interested to see where The Stranger comes down on this, and how they make the case.

Can't remember the last time I went to a Seattle park and saw the effect of a lack of maintenance, which is the point of this district as I understand it. I fail to see what's wrong with the status quo.

Learn from Mercer Island. King County Library System is governed by a board of trustees beholden to nobody directly. Their administration is trying to remodel the Mercer Island library. Many people have objected to this desecration (see libraryremodel.org). and even Deputy Mayor Dan Grausz testified that he often has to deal with two opposing community groups, but here there is no person nor group supporting the remodel as being pushed by the KCLS. KCLS Board of Trustees is a taxing authority, but has no accountability to the voters, or to any other governmental agency. So if I were a Seattle voter, I would be voting against this proposition, because it seems to be creating an unaccountable governmental agency.

@43: I don't see anything manipulative in @13. I was pointing out facts. The only thing you can quibble about is the last sentence, but its hardly manipulative.

The reason I will be voting No on the Seattle Metropolitan Parks District is that the currently levy system that requires the city council to have citizens approve major capital purchases for a set amount of taxes discourages abuse.
The new district would hand continuos and unending control of property taxes to the city council that calls itself the district committee.
It would then become ripe for quid pro quo.
I'm voting No on forming a quid pro quo slush fund, with the fig leaf of "Parks" in its name.
Failure of the city council to include maintenance in the budget and, when needed, levy, is not a valid reason to institutionalize that failure into a "Parks District" where the only people the committe answers to on discrete decisions are themselves.

I've always thought Parks, Fire, Police and a few others were basic government services. Sure doesn't make sense creating a "special taxing district" for a basic government service. Because the Port generates revenues, I can understand that as a "special taxing district". But what revenues can Parks generate to pay off the revenue bonds they will sell? I'm more comfortable with Parks funded with levies and general obligation bonds. Revenue bond authority means I'll be paying a kiosk for a stroll around Greenlake someday. No thank you.

I agree with @48. Parks are a basic government service and should not be part of a special taxing district - let alone the purview of an unaccountable Board.

Bring back a levy measure

The method that has worked best for about 100 years is the tax levy. Each levy lists specific projects that will be financed and at the end of the levy, citizens have the opportunity to evaluate its success. Citizens can then help to prioritize projects for the next levy and can be assured their top priority projects will be actualized.

None of these “safeguards” are available with the MPD because the City Council will prioritize projects and allocate funds.

There will be no list of guaranteed projects for the voter to assess before the August 5th election. The voter will not know how his tax dollars will be spent

Inherent in that process will be the ability of wealthy, well-connected people to influence the projects that are to be funded such as the $400 million-plus, grand waterfront park that will benefit downtown property and business owners.

The informed citizen will vote “no” on the MPD proposition and tell City Council to put a levy on an upcoming ballot!