MVN Letters To Editor - 9/20/2023

[Jingles]

Yes and as the saying goes the sign of idiocy is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
And yes I'm past the point of trying to keep it civil, when an individual / group / organization is trying to do harm ( physically or financially) it is time to wake up, take the gloves off, get dirty like the opponent, and start street fighting where everything is fair. Fight this war to win not a draw, and send the opponent packing home to their momma. If it means naming names so be it let the people know who is trying to screw them over

[PAL]

Why? Why would they do that? I guess they want to shove it down our throats, try to beat us down. That's what organizations do, you know.
Organizations, when there is a difference, will hope that people will give in and relent. I was trying to keep this civil. But what are they thinking?

[Fun CH]

I honestly believe if (HOPEFULLY) this attempt fails they'll try again to saddle the dead horse.

when I spoke with Justin Porter last Saturday he indicated that if this proposition 1 fails, they will try again and still pushing for a Metropolitan Park District.

[PAL]

Jingles, you put it well, especially about saddling a dead horse! Made me laugh and I needed a laugh after the fiasco I went through at the PO to sign for a registered letter on their computer screen designed for right handed people. I'm a lefty.

[Jingles]

Yes, they are good people. I know some of them. They mean well. But they dug a hole and need to start digging out by, as you say, working on proposals the community can get behind. And they can think about the whole community, not just what they want. This is what disappoited me when I learned about the MPD.

While I agree they have dug a hole and from what they presented and what their intentions are ,( from their own statements) they dug the hole into the septic tank cuze it sure smells schitty. Maybe instead of trying to dig themselves out they should just quit digging, they might be able to save face and at least maintain some sort of integrity the next time they try again and I honestly believe if (HOPEFULLY) this attempt fails they'll try again to saddle the dead horse.

[PAL]

Yes, they are good people. I know some of them. They mean well. But they dug a hole and need to start digging out by, as you say, working on proposals the community can get behind. And they can think about the whole community, not just what they want. This is what disappoited me when I learned about the MPD.

[SOulman]

Excellent letters.

Good people have unfortunately advanced a seriously flawed tax proposal for an inappropriate indoor aquatic center.

Proposition 1 is a train wreck.

It's time to start work on the next proposal that the community can rally behind.

Steve Oulman

[pasayten]

A great batch of Against Proposition 1 letters this week...

Letters to the editor: September 20, 2023
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 BY METHOW VALLEY NEWS

Consider the costs

Dear Editor:

Take a look at your real estate tax statement. Note the levy amounts on each of the services (divide by property value). There will be two new services to vote on: The Hospital District 1 (Three Rivers Hospital) bond issue and Twisp pool (formation of a Methow Aquatics District). Let’s compare the two as the net taxpayer cost will be about the same: more or less $500.

Renters, your landlord will pass these increased onto you in rent increases. It’s very important to note, the pool directors will be appointed thereby limiting accountability. This will be the only recreation district with appointed directors (why?), all other recreation districts have elected directors. They also will have unlimited authority to determine the levy amount, whereas all others local services require a public vote and directors are subject to open election.

The hospital directors have outlined specific costs of the new facility. All pool costs are conjecture. If the pool advocates want a pool, they should examine rebuilding an outdoor facility; as Tonasket has done for considerably less money.

Duncan Bronson
Winthrop



Better ideas needed

Dear Editor:

While I believe Friends of the Pool (FOP) has good intentions in their attempt to build a new pool in the valley, what they’ve presented to us has become a mangled mess that has caused nothing but confusion. t doesn’t help that recent public statements made by FOP are in conflict with their own feasibility study and ballot proposition.

Voting for a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) is a huge ask of taxpayers. An MPD is a permanent and unnecessary taxing authority that has enormous power. The vast majority of MPDs in Washington state have mitigated the inherent lack of accountability of MPDs by allowing voters to elect its board members. FOP chose not to give taxpayers that right. Taxpayers will be paying for the expenses of the pool(s) and should be treated as partners, not cash cows to be milked.

FOP seems unaware of the effect of increased regressive taxes on lower income families. FOP’s feasibility study shows that 20.3% of the households in the Methow School District have a median income of less than $25,000. In her book “Dividing Paradise,” sociologist Jennifer Sherman writes about “the clash between long-standing residents in the Methow struggling with economic precarity and well-heeled urban newcomers who are attracted to the community’s amenities but blind to their own class privilege.” An expensive taxpayer-funded amenity like the mega-pool complex and future taxpayer-funded recreation facilities planned by FOP may only increase this divide.

Without lifting the MPD’s levy lid, FOP’s dream of a mega-pool complex may only be a pipedream, as FOP’s feasibility study uses words like “unlikely” and “difficult” to describe many potential sources of capital for indoor recreation projects. In my opinion, a lot more thought and discussion was needed before FOP’s proposition was rushed to the ballot. Almost everyone wants a pool in the valley. The current pool will need to be operating for a couple of years no matter if the proposition passes or doesn’t. If the proposition fails, I hope a pool with a more taxpayer friendly recreation district and levy rate will be proposed.

Dave Hopkins
Twisp

About tax exemptions

Dear Editor:

Friends of the Pool is always hyping the property tax exemption program for fixed-income folks so as the Proposition 1 tax levy burden will be lessened on them. There are a few factors they do not openly disclose.

If you are a renter, you will most likely not realize any exemption as the full amount will most likely be passed on to you. This is basically a senior citizen exemption only — no exemption for low-income families.

To qualify, you must be at least 61 years of age; or be at least 57 years of age and the surviving spouse or domestic partner of a person who was an exemption participant at the time of their death; unable to work because of a disability; a disabled veteran with a service-connected evaluation of at least 80% or receiving compensation from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs at the 100% rate for a service-connected disability.

Level 1 income seniors will get no exemption as Proposition 1 would be a regular levy and not an excess levy. Level 2 and 3 will get only partial exemptions, 35% (maximum $70,000 and 60% of assessed value respectively).

There are three levels of property tax levies eligible for exemption depending on your final calculated combined disposable income: Level 1 $30,300; Level 2 $35,350; Level 3 $41,000; Deferral $45,450.

Level 3: You are exempt from paying excess levies and Part 2 of the state school levy. Generally speaking, excess levies are the voter-approved levies.

• Level 2: You are exempt from paying excess levies, Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies on $50,000 or 35% of the assessed taxable value, whichever is greater (but not more than $70,000 of the taxable value).

• Level 1: You are exempt from paying excess levies, Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies on $60,000 or 60% of the assessed taxable value, whichever is greater.

Read the rules of the program! Fixed/low-income seniors, individuals and families would still be significantly burdened by Proposition1!

Ray Peterson
Winthrop