Comments on: 11/7/2006 – General Election – Redmond, King County, Washington

By: Administrator

Administrator — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:17:31 +0000

I have my opinions, I like to think I’m fairly clear about what they are and why. Why is that a bias?

I am personally unaware of an inherent right to inherit vast fortunes, could you show it to me in the federal constitution? Maybe the state constitution? Perhaps arguments in natural law?

As for parks and such, I completely agree, one person’s benefit is another person’s bane. But we aren’t discussing ‘likes’ we are discussing financial benefit. The argument that 933 makes is that if the government causes someone financial harm then the government should compensate the harmed person. I’m arguing that to be fair 933 must also enforce the opposite.

If property prices in the neighborhood near the park go up (even if the property owner doesn’t personally like the park) then the government’s actions have disproportionally benefited the property owner and the property owner should have to pay up.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:58:45 +0000

You are so wrong about 920 and 933. Your liberal bias is clear. First of all it IS a right to inherit vast fortunes. This IS a free country.
Second of all, it is your OPINION that living next to a public park is a benefit. Some property owners may not like all the extra people and traffic it creates. So, NO they wouldn’t owe the government anything for building a park adjacent to their property. So your point is not logical.
Yet a property taking is a clear issue. Compensation must occur.

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:52:30 +0000

Initiative Measure 920 – This only hurts those who inherit over 2 million. Everyone else who did not get 2 million do not get taxed. I think anyone who suddenly becomes another million or more richer can cope, somehow, supporting better education.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:08:34 +0000

In the case of the Space Needle the costs were born by the builders, not the city, so there is no issue in terms of making people pay for the benefits of the Space Needle. The real issue is – when the city puts in new roads or helps to redevelop the neighborhood around the Space Needle therefore making the Space Needle a more compelling tourist attraction should the owners of the Space Needle have to pay for those extra services from the city?

I’m suggesting that following I-933′s logic the answer would have to be yes. After all, if the Space Needle can demand money from the state for laws that cost the Space Needle owner’s money then in the same sense the owners should have to cough up cash any time the city does something that brings them unique benefit. But that quid pro quo is completely missing from I-933. I’m not suggesting we want to start charging people but I am suggesting that it’s interesting that I-933 is happy to take money from the state but not so happy to give money back. Funny that.

By: Vickie

Vickie — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:46:12 +0000

I did a search for opinions regarding I-933, as I am currently undecided regarding this initiative and want to hear what others believe so I can make a determination on this confusing Initiative). To that end, I read your opinion regaridng I-933, and I fully agree with you regarding your send paragraph statement. However, I only half agree with your opinion covered in the first paragraph (reciprocal compensation–those in the immediate vacinity should shoulder the bulk of the funding of a park or such). I believe that argument would be quite valid for a small, local park or improvement of a residential road or such. In that case, then yes, the local residents within the immediate vacinity should be primarily (maybe wholly?) responsible for the funding of such a neighborhood improvement. But what about improvements to the Space Needle or other privately owned project of equal massiveness that is not used nearly exclusively by the residents in the immediate vacinity? (Unless it has changed in the last few years, the Space Needle is/was owned by the Space Needle committe, it’s not a city-owned entity/) Therefore, it would be covered under the impact of I-933. In that case, it simply would not be fair that the residents of Queen Anne primarily take on the financial responsibility when such a property clearly attracts residents from nearly all of the surrounding cities, and let’s face it…even other states and some foreign visitors. How does one iron out the impact of I-933 under such an issue? I realize that this is an isolated case, but still, I cannot decide on I-933 simply due to the fact that there are current laws within the U.S. as well as state constitutions that provide compensation for property owners in seizure disputes. So if that’s the case, what is the purpose of I-933. What does I-933 cover that current federal and state laws do not already provide property owners? Just my thoughts on a confusing initiative. Thanks

By: judith sussman

judith sussman — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:40:59 +0000

didn’t agree with everything but very helfull anyway…thanks for your input and for the time taken to sort all these issues out.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:36:16 +0000

Mr. Guthrie, thanks for dropping by! I do wish you would provide a few more details on your site (Toby Nixon and the first part of Tim Lee’s pages do a good job here) but overall I’m really glad you’re running. I don’t vote parties, I vote people and of the people running you’re the one I want to see elected. Thank you for providing us all with a ‘not lesser of two evils’ option.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:34:51 +0000

Hey Dennis! I have been silent mostly because I’m working my fingers to the bone getting out specs for the project I’m PMing.

In a few months when things ease up a bit I expect to have an explosion of things to blog about. But for now it’s shipping time!

BTW, I use the candidate statements more as a way to cut a candidate out than as a reason to vote for them. E.g. if they have an incoherent statement (like Robin Adair) or if they say things I find silly (like Mike McGavick) then I might visit their website but otherwise I ignore them. If the candidate statement seems reasonable then I check their websites, do a quick search on the PI, Seattle Times, the Stranger and the Internet. The websites are usually my primary source of data, I use the other resources mostly to see if there are things the candidate is trying to hide (although their opponents are usually happy to point out any issues =).

With the Internet it’s easier than ever for a candidate to make their voice heard, unfortunately many candidates don’t take advantage of the opportunity.

By: Bruce Guthrie

Bruce Guthrie — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:48:48 +0000

Thanks for your vote! It means a lot to me.
We must bring the troops home from Iraq, defend our constitutional liberties, reduce the deficit while maintaining our promises to our seniors and veterans, and defend marriage equality for all!

By: orcmid

orcmid — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:33:24 +0000

Wowza! First, you’re back at Microsoft, and silence, and then I get to learn something completely different from your world.

Fascinating. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. The lesser of n evils problem is every with us, isn’t it. I see that I’ll need to look at some web sites and not just read the candidate statements.