I have been following the discussion regarding Kirkland’s Proposition 1 with interest.

At risk of being accused of “fearmongering,” I would like to point out some reasonable concerns from a homeowners’ perspective. Property taxes have been increasing at a double digit pace the past three years. For example, after returning to pre-recession highs in 2012, my property taxes have increased by 33 percent or 11 percent per year. Based on the most recent valuation, I expect the increase in 2016 to be at least that much.

While the additional tax envisioned by Proposition 1 may seem modest, it adds to an already heavy tax burden on homeowners. And there is the cumulative effect of multiple proposals constantly presented to voters. For example, on the same ballot this November is King County Proposition No. 1 which, if approved, would add another 14 cents to home owner tax bills. As others have pointed out, Kirkland Prop. 1 will implement a permanent tax that, as with most taxes, is likely to increase in the future. And taxpayers will be relegated to an advisory capacity only.

I agree with opponents of ARC that this proposal has the wrong funding mechanism. The last thing Kirkland homeowners need right now is another taxing district. Once in place it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. While a traditional bond proposal may be more palatable, we should keep in mind that ARC is a “nice to have,” not a necessity. This project should to be weighed against other needs that continually arise and are probably higher priority. Who knows what funding requirements will come up in the future for education and other essential services that homeowners will be called upon to approve. There is a limit to what taxpayers will tolerate, and no one should be surprised if they do not approve additional taxes for anything other than basic, high priority projects.

David Crooker, Kirkland