|
Initiative: I-713
Would ban certain types of animal trapping.
Paid or volunteer: Volunteer
Organization: Protect Pets and Wildlife
Contact: (206) 526-0949
Web site: www.bancrueltraps.org
What is it? Steel-jaw leg-hold traps and other body-gripping traps used by commercial and recreational trappers would be banned. The measure also would ban the use of certain poisons. Trapping of animals for public safety or wildlife management would be allowed, but only with a special permit or if wildlife managers first showed nonlethal measures were insufficient.
What effect would it have? Commercial trapping probably would be reduced greatly. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife licensed 609 trappers last year. They caught and killed 13,158 animals, primarily beavers and muskrats. All trapping, including body-gripping traps, would still be allowed to control damage to trees, property and livestock, to conduct research and to protect endangered species. The Fish and Wildlife Department and initiative supporters disagree on whether the measure would allow use of body-gripping traps to kill moles. The department estimates the cost of implementing the initiative would range from $120,000 to $561,000, depending on how strictly it was interpreted.
Who supports it? The Humane Society of the United States, eight Audubon Society chapters, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare of Massachusetts, the Fund for Animals in New York and an independent oil producer in Massachusetts.
Who opposes it? The Washington State Game Wardens Association, the Washington chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Ballot Issues Coalition of Minnesota (a national group that opposes management of natural-resources issues by initiative), Weyerhaeuser, the state trappers association, the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council of Spokane, an independent logging company, and many hunting and shooting clubs.
History: This is the first attempt to restrict trapping in Washington by ballot initiative. But it is part of a national trend by animal-welfare advocates who have been shunned by legislatures. Other ballot initiatives this year would restrict trapping in Oregon, ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts and end the hunting of wolves by helicopter in Alaska.
Back to top
Initiative: I-722
Would alter how property taxes are levied and how property is assessed. Would repeal tax and fee increases enacted from July through December 1999.
Paid or volunteer: Paid, under a contract with Washington Initiatives Now
Organization: Permanent Offense
Contact: (425) 493-8707
What is it? The proposal would limit tax increases on appreciating property. It would hold increases in property-tax levies to 2 percent per year or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, and it would exempt property owners from paying taxes on maintenance improvements to buildings.
Another provision would roll back all sales and use taxes, impact fees, license fees, permit fees, and water, sewer and other utility charges that were adopted between July 2, 1999, and Dec. 31, 1999, without a public vote. Money already collected on these tax and fee increases would be refunded to taxpayers.
What effect would it have? Some property owners would see their tax bills reduced and protected from huge increases in assessments. Some wouldn't.
Cities and counties would still need to generate property-tax revenue to pay off existing bonds and other debts. So the overall tax burden among property owners likely would be shifted among taxpayers.
The way it works now, taxpayers who own property that has rapidly increased in value pay more in taxes. Those whose property is worth less -- or that increase less in value -- pay less.
If I-722 passed, county assessors say, they would recalculate residential and commercial property that was revalued last year to the 2 percent growth rate allowed under the initiative. In some instances, they say, that would result in certain property owners having to pay more in taxes because of the recalculations in values.
"It should be noted that the tax benefit of the value limitation will tend to favor taxpayers that would otherwise have experienced large value increases more than it will favor taxpayers with slow growing or declining values," according to a nonpartisan report by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
There would be no fiscal effect on the state. Cities and counties could lose millions of dollars in property-tax revenues. Many local governments have taken the maximum amount in property-tax revenues allowed, 6 percent over the previous year's levies, and rely on that money for operating expenses and equipment purchases. The state Department of Revenue puts the loss at $21 million next year in King County.
As for a rollback in other taxes and fees, the Ways and Means report raises questions about whether it is constitutional for the state to require that taxes validly collected be refunded, and critics say there are other constitutional problems with the measure.
Who supports it? Permanent Offense, a citizens group led by Tim Eyman that waged the Initiative 695 campaign last year to slash motor-vehicle taxes and require that tax and fee increases go to a public vote.
Who opposes it? The League of Women Voters, the King County Municipal League, People for Fair Taxes and King County Assessor Scott Noble.
History: Eyman calls I-722 "Son of 695" and considers it a continuation of his crusade against taxation. He wants to return to voters money collected under taxes and fees that would have been illegal under I-695's provisions but were adopted in the months before it was to go into effect. Property-tax relief was a hot issue in the 2000 legislative session, but lawmakers didn't pass any of the several relief bills that were proposed.
Back to top
Initiative: I-728
Would increase education spending.
Paid or volunteer: Volunteer and paid
Organization: K-12 2000
Contact: (206) 283-5549
Web site: www.k122000.org
What is it? The initiative would generate money for public schools by redirecting a portion of state property-tax revenues, the emergency-reserve fund and lottery proceeds.
What effect would it have? State funding for school operations would be increased by more than $1.8 billion over the next six years.
School districts could use the money to hire teachers, teach children outside regular school hours, create pre-kindergarten and all-day kindergarten classes, offer advanced teacher training and enlarge school buildings to accomplish these goals. I-728 would give school districts considerable discretion over how to spend the new money. Hiring teachers to reduce class size -- a key goal of the initiative -- would be one option, but it would not be required.
The money would be phased in over time, but the Legislature eventually would be required to fund schools at a level at least equal to 90 percent of the national average of per-student funding.
Because the initiative would require that a large portion of state reserves and property-tax revenues be dedicated to schools, the Legislature would need to reduce spending in other programs or raise taxes to make up for the money that would be earmarked for schools.
Initiative 728 would get around Initiative 601's spending limits by diverting property-tax collections and money from the state's emergency-reserve fund to a new Student Achievement Fund, instead of the general fund.
Who supports it? The Washington State PTA, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Education Association, Gov. Gary Locke, Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, telecommunications billionaire Craig McCaw and the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Who opposes it? House Appropriations Committee co-Chairman Tom Huff, R-Gig Harbor; House Revenue Committee co-Chairman Brian Thomas, R-Renton; People for Fair Taxes; Washington Health Care Association member Terry Mace and Independent Business Association member Diane Symms; representatives of the Washington Health Care Association; the Independent Business Association; and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
History: School supporters began drafting the proposal early last year, complaining that Washington classes are the third-largest in the nation and that the Legislature has failed to give schools the support needed for education reform. Locke's nearly identical proposal was rejected by the Legislature.
Back to top
Initiative: I-729
Would allow institution of publicly supported charter schools.
Paid or volunteer: Paid, under a contract with National Petition Management
Organization: Good Choices for Public Schools
Contact: (206) 442-9160
Web site: www.yes729.org
What is it? It would allow charter schools to open here. Charters are independent public schools that would be exempt from most state laws and rules governing other public schools. They would be run by private, nonprofit organizations under a contract with a sponsor -- a school district or a state university.
Charter schools would receive the same amount of tax dollars, per pupil, as other public schools, although they wouldn't receive a share of locally approved bond or levy money unless they were sponsored by a school district. They couldn't have restrictive admission policies or charge tuition.
I-729 is more moderate than a 1996 ballot measure that was rejected by voters. It would start slower, capping the number of charter schools to 80 in the next four years. An unlimited number of existing schools could convert to charter status, but only if their district sponsored them. It also would give school districts more leeway over which schools to approve. The earlier measure would have required districts to approve charters that met prescribed criteria.
What effect would it have? It would give students tax dollars to attend charter schools, which, in concept, are designed to provide some of the benefits of private education, coupled with public accountability.
In the 2001-03 budget cycle, I-729 would cost an estimated $8 million to $16 million depending on how many charter schools were created and how many students enrolled in them, according to an analysis by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
If I-729 is passed, the school-administrators association says it will sue, arguing that it violates the state constitution. The constitution says that only "common schools" can receive state education dollars, and the association says charter schools wouldn't fit that definition.
Who supports it? Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and his family (the main financial backers of the initiative), Gov. Gary Locke, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Carlson, former Superintendent of Public Instruction Judith Billings, El Centro de la Raza Executive Director Roberto Maestas, former Washington State University President Sam Smith, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, House Education Committee co-Chairwoman Gigi Talcott, R-Tacoma, and co-Chairman Dave Quall, D-Mount Vernon.
Who opposes it? The Washington Association of School Administrators, the state PTA, the League of Women Voters, the Seattle Education Association, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, the Washington State Special Education Coalition, Public School Employees of Washington, the Washington State School Directors' Association, Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
No position: The Washington Education Association and the Association of Washington School Principals, which both opposed the 1996 initiative, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
History: The state Legislature has declined to approve charter-school legislation despite a number of efforts over the past several years. In 1996, Dick's Drive-in executive Jim Spady sponsored a ballot initiative that would have allowed an unlimited number of charter schools here, but it failed by a 2-1 ratio. Since then, proponents from both political parties worked to pass a more moderate bill in Olympia.
Back to top
Initiative: I-732
Would mandate annual cost-of-living increases for public-school teachers and other school employees.
Paid or volunteer: Volunteer
Organization: Citizens for Quality Educators
Contact: (206) 256-0245
Web site: www.yeson732.com
What is it? An initiative to provide automatic cost-of-living raises for teachers, other public-school employees, community- and technical-college faculty members, and technical-college staff members.
What effect would it have? Currently, teachers and staff members receive pay raises only if the Legislature approves one. This initiative would require state lawmakers to approve cost-of-living adjustments for these employees every year based on the rate of inflation in the Puget Sound region.
The Legislature would need to find more than $300 million over the next biennium for pay raises. Rather than using the national consumer price index, I-732 would peg raises to an index derived from a rate of inflation in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Island and Thurston counties.
If teachers want a bigger pay raise, they would still need legislative approval. (Teachers also get annual raises for the first 10 to 15 years of their careers, but those are meant to reward increased experience and/or additional education.)
Because of the state's Initiative 601 spending limit, some lawmakers say cuts in other programs would be necessary to pay for the raises.
Raises for K-12 and community-college teachers and staff members would cost a total of $412 million in 2001-03. Though the state would be responsible for more than $300 million of that cost, the initiative does not specify where the rest of the money would come from.
Who supports it? The Washington Education Association (the union representing about 70,000 teachers and other school employees), Gov. Gary Locke, Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, the state PTA and the Association of Washington School Principals.
Who opposes it? The Washington Public Employees Association, whose salaries would not be covered under I-732, and the Municipal League of King County, a civic organization that evaluates candidates and initiatives.
History: This initiative was first proposed in spring 1999. But it died after 66 percent of the delegates at the Washington Education Association's representative assembly voted against pursuing it. The association filed the measure this spring, and by July, supporters had garnered enough signatures for the initiative to qualify for the ballot.
Back to top
Initiative: I-745
Would require that 90 percent of government transportation funds be spent on roads.
Paid or volunteer: Paid, under contract with Washington Initiatives Now
Organization: Permanent Offense
Contact: (425) 493-8707
What is it? The proposal would require the Legislature to adopt laws requiring "90 percent of transportation funds be spent on construction of new roads, new lanes on existing roads, improvements to the traffic-carrying capacity of roads or maintenance of roads." The remaining 10 percent could be spent on other transportation, such as public mass transit.
What effect would it have? It's unclear what effect the initiative would have on transportation because the Legislature would decide how to achieve the 90-10 split. There's confusion now over how much state money is spent on roads. One state analysis found that either 61 percent or 80 percent of all transportation money is being spent on roads, depending on the definition of road expenditures. The 80 percent figure, for example, includes money spent on State Patrol highway enforcement.
The state Office of Fiscal Management estimates I-745 could shift between $700 million and $2 billion from areas such as public transit to the road budget every two years. However, the estimate assumes that money approved by voters for specific purposes, such as the light-rail project in Seattle, could be shifted to roads. According to the state Attorney General's Office, it's unclear if that would be legal.
About $7 billion is now spent on transportation by state and local government every two years. The campaign cites a study by Seattle transportation consultant Bill Eager, which concludes that traffic congestion could be reduced 25 percent in the Puget Sound if 1,400 miles of new road were added to the system. Accomplishing that would cost an estimated $12 billion in new spending.
A Washington Research Council report concludes that the Legislature would be unable to meet I-745's objective without cutting transit spending sharply and increasing taxes.
The initiative has a provision requiring performance audits of state and local transportation agencies to ensure they are spending tax dollars wisely.
Who supports it? Mukilteo businessman Tim Eyman is pushing the initiative. The Asphalt Paving Association of Washington is part of a political-action committee that has contributed $500,000 to the I-745 campaign.
Who opposes it? A coalition of groups including the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Amalgamated Transit Union, 1000 Friends of Washington, the League of Women Voters of Washington and the Puget Sound Council of Senior Citizens.
History: Eyman led last fall's Initiative 695 campaign to slash car-license taxes. He's also leading the campaign for I-722 this year.
Back to top
Seattle Initiative: 53
Provides for the planning, funding and possible construction of a monorail.
Paid or volunteer: Volunteer
Organization: Rise Above It All
Contact: 206-632-8140
Web site: www.riseaboveitall.org
What is it? The initiative requires the city to give $6 million to the Elevated Transportation Co. (ETC) to develop a "Seattle Popular Transit Plan." The plan's purpose would be to "cause a monorail system to be built serving a wide area of the City of Seattle." It would detail proposed routes and how the expansion would be paid for (possibly including a mix of public and private dollars). The plan, to be completed within two years, would be submitted to voters. I-53 would require the city to set aside $200 million of its borrowing capacity for monorail construction.
What effect would it have? I-53 could settle the long-running Monorail debate once and for all. The measure would reverse recent actions by the Seattle City Council, which disbanded the ETC - an independent organization created by a 1997 initiative to pursue a Monorail expansion. State analysts say it is not clear how I-745, if passed, would affect the monorail initiative.
Who opposes it? No organized opposition has emerged, though some city officials say voters will be turned off once they learn the cost of building a monorail and the impact it would have on neighborhoods.
Who supports it? A grass-roots organization called Rise Above It All, using all volunteers, gathered the 18,800 signatures needed to get I-53 on the ballot.
History: I-53 is a follow-up to Initiative 41, a measure approved by voters in 1997 which called for an expanded Monorail but provided no money to build it.
Back to top
Seattle: Proposition 1
Would raise money for park maintenance and expansion in Seattle through an increase in property taxes
Paid or volunteer: Volunteer
Organization: Neighbors for Seattle Parks
Contact: (206) 342-9988
What is it?: The money would be used to improve park maintenance, boost funding for the Woodland Park Zoo and add recreation programs for children and senior citizens. There would be 113 acquisition and development projects, wetland restoration and more frequent cleanup of parks and striping of ballfields. The levy sets aside $22 million for the zoo.
What effect would it have? The levy would cost homeowners $35 per $100,000 of assessed valuation in the first year, dropping to $33 per $100,000 by the eighth year. Still, the average annual bill would likely increase because of rising home values. For a $261,900 house, which Seattle officials figured as the average for next year, the cost would be $91 in the first year and $113 in the eighth year.
Who supports it? The plan is endorsed by Mayor Paul Schell and the City Council and follows more than a year of study by a citizens committee.
Who opposes it? Citizens Working for a Better Tomorrow opposes the measure, saying maintenance costs should be paid from the general fund rather than from property taxes.
History: The eight-year levy represents the biggest effort to expand the park system in a century. Spending is aimed at keeping pace with a growing city population and with commercial and residential construction that is taking over open space.
Back to top
King County: Proposition 1
Would boost sales tax in King County to raise money for transit projects
What is it? County Proposition 1 would raise the sales tax in King County by two-tenths of a cent, from 8.6 percent to 8.8 percent, to help make up about $110 million from vehicle-licensing fees lost when Initiative 695 passed in 1998. The tax would also expand bus service and improve bus facilities.
What effect would it have? The sales-tax increase would cost about $30 more a year for a household earning $23,000, $77 more for one making $100,000. The tax would raise about $80 million a year. Most of that, combined with a proposed bus-fare increase, would keep current Metro bus routes intact. The rest would go toward adding 575,000 service hours a year over the next six years, improving and adding park-and-ride lots and bus shelters and synchronizing traffic lights along busy bus corridors.
State analysts say it is not clear how I-745, which would require 90 percent of transportation funds to be spent on roads, would affect the sales-tax proposal.
Who opposes it? No opposition groups have registered yet.
Who supports it? Supporters include transportation advocates and elected officials. Campaign co-chairmen are King County Executive Ron Sims, Metropolitan King County Council member Louise Miller and Jim Ellis, a founding member of Metro.
|
Election 2000 : Ballot Measures
