PACs, ARCs and fearmongering, oh my | Letter

Published 9:54 am Monday, September 21, 2015

The proponents of ARC now wish to create a PAC so they can fund the push to build a municipal park district solely for the purpose of giving us yet another taxing entity. The city limits would be the boundary and the esteemed council the governing body. This is the same body that had a $2 million deficit at the time of the recent annexations. This is the same body that was recently awarded a stewardship award from the King County Council.

Dave Asher, a member of this same council that would govern this MPD, is telling us that if we disagree with this decision it is due to fearmongering. This same Dave Asher, when many of us attended a public forum on the ARC and other items said, those of you who are objecting now are coming a little late to the party and have no idea how much time and money this council has put into this project; it is a little late to be objecting now. I think it is time we, as a rational community push back and say no to new taxes for recreational special interests.

My property tax breaks distribution is like yours and is distributed as follows: State 21 percent, local school 30.5 percent, county 12.5 percent, city 13.5 percent, port 1.7 percent, fire 1.1 percent, hospital 3.7 percent, library 4.7 percent, EMS 2.8 percent and fees and charges 7.1 percent. As the current market prices on housing continue to escalate the actual dollars flowing to Kirkland is continuing to grow without adding additional taxes. It seems if they were true stewards of the funds they could find a way to afford what is essential and like the rest of us, save for what is a want and not a need.

This issue is not simply about having two Olympic-sized pools and other facilities on the seven-to-eight acre parcel, it will also create an infrastructure that the city will then need to support in perpetuity. There will has to be a manager, staff and pensions factored into this. These will become unfunded costs that will have to be met at future dates and cause this current want to become a very expensive cost item that future councils and tax payers will have to address long after this “feel good” initiative is put into place. It is this kind of shortsighted planning that continues to cost all of us.

I want the council to focus on the essentials of government not frivolous items that benefit a few at the cost of everyone. Now if this kind of rational thought is classified as fear mongering by those who would spend our money on expensive, none essential items then I am happy to be viewed a fearmongerer. I am still waiting for these same leaders to address the substantive issues and questions that arise when they spend money to make themselves feel good and then resort to name calling and bureaucratic petulance insisting voters who disagree are coming too late to the party.

Stan Olson, Kirkland