I'm not against taxes, Supe. I understand the very real need for them as well as your arguments about the classic "develop and run" approach that leaves us in kind of a "rubber band" effect of revenues catching up to the needs of infrastructure. I have lived in Lynnwood for almost 20 years; this place should be a case study for this effect. That's not what is going on in this case, though. Has it occured to you that virtually everyone that is on a well is also on septic? That means their wastewater, for the most part, does not wind up at the treatment plants. Granted some septic tanks need to get pumped periodically. Mine had to get pumped about every ten years and it was far less than one tank truck load. When the local LID went through as a part of our annexation into this wonderful city, we also got sewer. I was made to pay a sewer bill to the city even though I was not hooked up to it, so I finally hooked up. Paying for and being taxed on services not rendered just does not sit well with most of us. Putting meters on private wells falls into this catagory. Tax me and bill me for what I use, and the shared services and infrastructure on which I depend, and I will happily (o.k., maybe not so "happily") pay. Tax me and bill me for components of that infrastructure for which I have supplied my own substitute, which places no burden on public resources, and I'm not so happy any more.

Understood, Jeff. And I mostly agree. I notice that municipalities and other taxing districts are assessing everybody they can, for water water treatment. In Thurston County, it's called "LOTT," whatever that stands for. Apparently, they'd like everyone to be hooked up to sewer, but the treatment and piping systems are collossally expensive. And, someone with septic (like me) might prefer to be left alone. Well, septic systems fail eventually and often don't get repaired. So now you've got systems in peoples' back yards that dump bacteria and other icky stuff basically into the groundwater and then into the aquifer that people actually use (my city supplies our water from city wells).

So again, as much as people what to reduce their taxes, the fact is there is stuff we need to do as a community. And this is what we call "government." Even if some people would prefer just to pollute and taint everyone's water supply. I have no desire to make government any bigger than it needs to be. But we do need to have one, and we need to make decisions together about what we're going to expect it to do, and then we have to pay for those decisions. Contrary to what you hear on a.m. talk show radio.

When I was in the planning stage of my shop, I'd asked the contractor what it would cost to add a bathroom. "A couple hundred bucks" was his answer, so I went for it. Silly me! Sure, the fixtures were a couple hundred bucks, but to hook into the sewer line was almost $6k! To add insult to injury, if I had hooked into the sewer right when I got my permit, as opposed to just before my final inspection (about 18 months) I would have saved $2000 due to the increase in fees! I know for a fact that it didn't cost $6k in T&M to hook things up. In addition, my sewer bill also went up. And on top of that, after my final inspection, I got re-assessed.

"Thank you Sir, may I have another."

Usage charges are very common and are separate from general "property taxes" because they can be identified. These include but are not limited to refuse collection, water usage, sewer treatment, street lighting, sidewalk repair to name a few. And, these charges are not eligible for exclusion on your taxes since they are "fees for use". An aquifer may be located on your property, but it is not necessarily "free" in urban/suburban areas because it is a common holding. If you pump it down, you deprive your neighbors of a source of water. If there are sewers, the sewer charge is generally based upon water usage, although not all water goes in the sewer (gardening, etc).

Given the above, I do wonder why a municipality should raise your actual taxes if you improve your property since most improvements (other than adding a new bathroom or such) do not add to the burden of the municipality to provide general services such as fire or police. One would think that municipalities would encourage improvements if for no other reason it makes a mor desirable area and encourages additional business and residential development.

As for a tp tax. Go back and review the history of sales taxes. They are a use tax and are no longer deductible. A tax levied on after tax earnings. Wasn't there a revolution partly based upon this concept?

When the LID (Local Improvement District) passed that brought sewer to our neighborhood we were charged by road frontage and acreage. Lucky me; I have a corner lot on a 1/4 acre. It cost me almost $9000 just to have the line in front of my house that I never intended to use. To add insult to injury, the city made it clear they would charge me to use it whether I hooked up or not. On top of that, they announced that no new or repair permits would be issued for septic systems in my area. With that hanging over my head (and some septic failures that neighbors had repaired previously) I decided to hook up. It cost another $5000 for a contractor to come out and collapse my tank and hook me up. It turned out my tank was in exceptional condition and should have lasted many more years. So, $14000 and brand new monthly use bills later, I have realized no net improvement in mine or my neighbors' lives. Thank you city of Lynnwood. It turns out in the end that the line had to run through my neighborhood to service a four or five acre lot further "upstream" that could not be subdivided and developed unless sewer went in. A big local developer was in cahoots with the city and rammed this LID through so he could develop these lots. Now I have never been an "anti-gubmint" kind of guy, but experiences like this do tend to make one question just who it is they serve.

Sometimes it makes one think they serve the rich and powerful a whole lot more than the public good.

Jeff - you should blame the developer and corruption too (not just gubmint)!

I wonder if you end up getting poor value on your waste water, but good value on your roads (I'm guessing a bit that you might live sufficiently rurally if you have a well/septic tank).

You are correct.

Government exists, theoretically, to serve the needs of the public but has morphed over time into an entity that serves itself.

The latest bankruptcy bill is an excellent example of this. And this trend is making its way down to the locals who hide behind "the laws" that they have adopted.

Denis I never said anything about being in the export business, or that deficits were good. There are domestic economy benefits to a weaker dollar.
If you compete with foreign product or service, your product is now a better deal than it was before. More American workers working and buying made in America products. Is that a bad thing? Capital flows are chasing bang for the buck. We now get a little better bang here, realtive to "there" than we used to.

Maybe they will make more films here Vs going to canada. And wouldn't that benefit you and a whole lot of working folks out in LA?


Macro econ is fun eh ? It's been many years since my school days but I still have some econ stuff in my melon


regards Dave

Jeff, this post and the following one by Cam are, I think, a more insightful view. This is precisely the reason I am not a Republican. I believe commercial interests should not wag my government back and forth. This developer who is behind these shenanigans.......is not a liberal. And what you saw on your street, is what Dubya is doing across the nation. I know I'm going to be ignored once again, but if someone just looked at the record with an objective viewpoint, at the decisions Dubya has made and is still making, you'll see this common thread. Whatever business wants, business gets. And I'm not even saying the Dems are not beholdin' to business interests. They are. But at least people are at the heart of their political thinking. Not so with Republicans. I wish we could all agree that its' a bad thing for government to be "captured" by industry but sadly, some of you overtly agree with that agenda.

Diesel fuel used for Agricultural purposes is dyed. Floridians should have the opportunity to buy two types of toilet paper (taxed TP and non-taxed red toilet paper). If you use the public system, you must use the taxed TP. Have road blocks where officers check your back side. If you arse is red and your house is hooked up to a sewer system, you get 30 lashes.

Citizens have different perceptions of public services. Your neighbor may be dumber than a pile of horsesh~t, but he pays taxes, too. We will continue to irritate each other, because we all think we are in the right. The choices are: 1) suck it up, 2) move out to the sticks, 3) change the system.

Here in florida we have no large resevoirs so we suck all our water out of the ground. Between the cities, industry, farmers and all the little guys we are sucking more out of the ground than can trickle back down. The result is the destruction of our aquifer through contamination and the occasional sink hole or two.

Some of the states greatest springs have also been effected or destroyed by their sources of flow drying up.

Anywhere you go fresh water is a limited resource, and many experts say that in a few decades it will be an even more vital and valuable resource than petroleum.

The sad part is that for the sake of development and business as usual the state really doesn't put much of a premium on water besides the basic cost it takes to deliver it to the user.

This is already changing. The newest target of 'privatization' are water utilities. I can bet you that we will eventually long for the days when water was cheap and abundant, before privateers got a chance to gouge the public for a basic resource that they took for granted.

Not to say that privitization of natural resources would be an ethical thing, but it would lead to more individual responsibility in usage as people won't fall asleep in the shower if they have to pay for it. Sad to think in such finite terms.

I think it boils down to the fact that both sides of the aisle are there more to serve the big money interests that funded their efforts to get there that they are to serve us. The Democrats have done a wonderful P.R. job of convincing the public they are there for the people, all the while matching or exceeding the big money contributions received from corporate America. That money buys something from them, that much is undeniable. Believe it or not Supe, I still divide my vote between the two parties. Many of us that used to vote primarily Democrat that now include Republicans in the mix (often, like me, as the majority in that mix) do so because we see through the Dem's P.R. smokescreen. I know I come accross here as some arch-conservative but I'm really not. Another place the Dems have really lost my support is in their "moral compass" so to speak. I'm a family man and a Christian with some pretty stodgy old-school values there; the "peoples' party" has swung too far left, for the most part, for my taste. I do very much resent the Republican's greater big-business focus and the fact that they do cow to them to the detriment of the little guys like us. The fact of the matter today is, though, that both parties owe allegiance to the same sources of money to one degree or another. In the end, I see them as merely two sides of the same coin; both serving big money interests more than serving us. My local sewer issue doesn't even boil down to one side or the other; our city council members do not run under any party affiliations. I don't think it matters who is in there; the LID would have gone through regardless. 350HP930, I couldn't agree more with your assesment of our fresh water situation. Neither side has the answer, either. The Republicans push unrestricted growth that consumes water and probably, in the end, privatization (can anyone say Wateron?) that will cost us a fortune and breed even more corruption. Back room deals and back scratching that will line the pockets of their rich cronies and leave us broke and even more subserviant in our need to buy water. The Dems allow development, albiet to a lesser degree, but go so far on environmental laws that it makes it impossible to tap needed new resources. Then they will tax it to provide funding for some completely unrelated item that the people don't support, but in their endearing paternalistic manner, will ram down our throats anyway because they are smarter than us and know what is good for us. Either way we are stuck.