Seattle voters are generous. When asked to approve tax levy packages, they have said “yes” to every measure on the ballot involving our schools, housing needs, libraries and transportation measures. Yet, as every mayor has upped the ante on the most popular measures, it has become increasingly difficult to fully understand what promises are attached to any given levy — or, in the end, whether the department responsible has the capacity and fiscal responsibility to manage meeting them.
At a time when affordability is a key concern, piling on with ever-increasing tax levies has a real impact on the cost of living in Seattle. A close look at the transportation levy going to the ballot in November demonstrates the point. Today, the median home value in Seattle is $804,000, which means that the $1.55 billion levy will cost the average homeowner about $499 annually — on top of what they are already paying in property taxes. No one is immune from the impact of this measure, because any increase in our property taxes translates into increased costs for housing, food, clothing, household goods and services.
I write this not as a right-wing anti-taxer, but as someone intimately involved in the successful development and passage of many levy and bond measures for our city and county, including efforts to raise needed funding for our schools, libraries, emergency medical service delivery and a first-class transportation system.
There is no question that levies are a critical tool to fund improvements that are beyond the reach of the general fund, but that tool can — and has been — abused. When levies are routinely supersized and sent to the voters with little scrutiny, the transparency and accountability that help ensure levy dollars are well spent is lost.
Whether you are a City Council member or an average citizen, it becomes hard to judge if levies are delivering on promises made. From the supersized levies funding our libraries, families and education, low-income housing and now transportation, once measures are adopted, it becomes a mystery as to how the funds are managed — and what results are achieved. Our governing structure presents additional challenges. With seven of the nine City Council members elected to represent and raise resources for their individual districts, expecting that body to weigh priorities from a citywide perspective is, at best, complicated — at worst, simply unrealistic.
It doesn’t have to be this way. When Norm Rice was sworn in as Seattle mayor in 1990, our city faced a deep and painful divide over how to resurrect our public schools and better prepare our children for lifelong success. Though some advocated he go for broke, Rice proposed a lean measure aimed at providing city resources to the programs and services much needed to free our K-12 teachers to do their job: Teach.
The restraint inherent in the development of the first Families and Education levy passed in 1990 offers an important lesson for City Hall today. What was once a thoughtful and rigorous process, balancing our needs and priorities against our ability to pay, has seemingly morphed into an unsustainable practice, channeling taxpayer dollars into government coffers with little scrutiny or accountability.
The proposed transportation levy begs a number of questions that we deserve to have answered: Have priorities and costs been carefully weighed? Have cost-cutting measures or other funding sources been considered? Will it truly fund projects we need, or will the funds be spread around like pork, paying for projects that have little or nothing to do with mobility for all? Finally, given challenges with implementation of the last transportation levy, if Seattle voters do approve $1.55 billion for the Seattle Department of Transportation, is that department truly capable of delivering on the promises being made, on time and on budget?
Now that the decision is in our hands — positive polling data aside — we would all be wise to pay heed to the caution that guided Rice when considering whether to add any additional tax burden to people of Seattle: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”