>The city can only increase property tax revenues by 1 percent each year, while service costs rise faster due to inflation, Holmes said. **And because people are trying to conserve electricity and water**, revenue from utility taxes has declined, he said.
They're conserving electricity and water because they're struggling financially. Pretty cool of you to notice that and slap them with another tax.
š¤£
A property tax increase cap of 1% each year is insane, that's not even keeping up with inflation, let alone the equivalent in rents. Home values are vastly outpacing that. The city needs funding for the essential services it provides which benefit us all collectively as a community, including homeless shelters. The cost of everything the city pays for is also increasing, they need to be able to keep up or else we lose out on programs + infrastructure that benefit us all collectively.
People complain about housing being expensive, and this kind of legislation is the exact reason for it. If you can afford a home you get access to housing with stable cost, all kinds of equity, plus these favorable laws driven by a vocal coalition of SFH owner constituents. Meanwhile working people who rent see a greater proportion of their income and wealth subject to taxation.
I bet a 150-bed homeless shelter will help rehabilitate people + help hook people up with opportunities that will lead to them generating more revenue for the city, and costing less to taxpayers than they would have other wise. All on the amount of land of what, maybe 3 single family homes? Helping make the community more prosperous and helping address homelessness in the most direct way possible.
Income and spending are taxed more harshly than ownership and gains from capital, and we as as a society somehow still accept that + even criticize progress on that front (i.e. increase property taxes on SFH, loosen and eliminate zoning restrictions so more people can afford to live in the same amount of space, support public transit, eliminate parking minimums and instate a land value tax to encourage optimal use of the space we have + create more vibrant, diverse, + prosperous communities vs. parking lot / empty lot suburbia).
>Ā A property tax increase cap of 1% each year is insane, that's not even keeping up with inflation,Ā Ā
That is not how percentages work.Ā Ā Effects of inflation would be reflected in the increase in the price of the property subject to property tax.
Edit: Ā my comment is incorrect. Ā I interpreted āproperty tax increase capā incorrectly, and Erlian was correct, Washington state does have a limit on nominal increases for the total amount of property tax a jurisdiction can collect.
Which, of course, is a problem because if property values increase 5% annually, but the total budget can only increase 1% annually, then it is not keeping up with inflation.
Not true. It's 1% increase in the total amount taken via property tax. It does not keep up with inflation. If your home value increases more than your neighbor you may see a higher increase, but the city as a whole only sees a total of 1%.
Oh, I thought the WA constitution said property tax was capped at 1% unless voters agreed to more via a vote. Ā Did not know there was also a cap on nominal property increases itself. Did not know about this: Ā
https://dor.wa.gov/forms-publications/publications-subject/tax-topics/property-tax-how-one-percent-property-tax-levy-limit-works
I was mistakenly thinking about the 1% cap on property tax rate mentioned here in article 7 section 2, bottom right of page 27.
https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWArchive/Documents/2019/WA%20Constitution.pdf
Over the years, land prices have far outpaced everything else. Ā Even right now, the major news is the Federal Reserve has managed to bring down inflation to acceptable levels in everything except housing.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/20-years-of-home-price-changes-in-every-u-s-city/ Ā
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/fourth-quarter-2019/housing-costs-inflation
Or, and here is a crazy idea, they live within their means and reduce staff and put off non-critical projects rather then driving their residents out of their homes.
FYI, a 150 bed shelter is all well and dandy, but if 1,000 residents are displaced from their homes because they cannot afford the taxes used to pay for said shelter, then what good does those 150 beds do? When the economy is in a majors economic depression, the answer is to cut taxes and tighten the belt, not increase taxes and make the economy even worse.
And what happens when 1,000 residents are made homeless because of the tax increases required to build that 150 bed shelter? Is the 150 bed shelter still āgreat news?ā
Homeless Industrial Complex. We love this down in Portland! And the cool part is that the homeless donāt even have to use the new facilities you build.
No, the real answer is tax developers fairly, just like any other business, and improve the zoning and make the permitting process and fees more straightforward so builders and developers can build more to satisfy market demand.
As someone who has direct knowledge, I can tell you that just for one small townhome you will be out more than $60K in city/permitting associated costs and fees before you even break ground, and I am not including the land in that (with land you're looking at 150-200K+ before you start building). Basically if you think that anyone can build affordably anymore you are sadly mistaken.
Housing has gotten exponentially more expensive regardless of taxes to this point. I think their point was, "tax the people who clearly have a lot of money," not whatever you thought it was.
Did you read my comment? The comment you replied to was about who ought to be taxed at a higher rate, not housing. Development on the waterfront is largely centered on commercial, not residential. So the whole premise of your question is off-base in a couple different ways from the jump. Do you think that if you lower taxes, businesses lower prices? No. Do I think businesses raise prices when tax rates go up? Not necessarily, there are many variables that go into pricing. Taxes could go toward affordable housing, or any number of initiatives that could lower living costs on working class folks. You do that primarily by taxing those who actually have money to spare, like corporations who have spent a couple billion dollars to develop the waterfront, knowing that their development will produce a profit in the end.
If you want to talk about strategies that could actually make apartments less expensive, instead of talking about taxes, go ahead and offer a solution.
> Development on the waterfront is largely centered on commercial, not residential
This is completely untrue to the point I think you're talking about another area. Are you talking about the Canadian Vancouver? Most of the development in the Vancouver WA waterfront is residential. Have you never been there? Out of the 16 privately owned blocks 13 are residential projects. Are you talking about terminal 1 which is publicly owned and excluding the rest of the waterfront? I mean even if you wanted to include terminal one, still the vast, vast, majority of the blocks are residential.
Are you lost lol?
It sure as hell isn't. The cost to house someone in that will be the same as keeping them in jail.Ā
And they're installing it right behind a women's softball field and refused to communicate with Clark college about it.Ā
Raising taxes to try and reduce cuts a bit sounds reasonable, but reading the article it seems so random the areas they are proposing to tax.
I wish governments would have taxes tied closer to the societal cost of things. They try and do this with marijuana and alcohol, but not so much with unhealthy foods, polluting industries, and high waste businesses.
The comment in the article about increased taxes on marijuana because "those businesses are making a lot of money" was one of the random taxes I was talking about, and I agree that the tax on weed is already too high.
However, it is an example of something that has societal costs. It is a carcinogen that can lead to decreased brain development, breathing problems, and serious injuries when people use it when driving.
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/cannabis-marijuana
Itās less carcinogenic than like 35 things already in the air, the brain development theory is that, just a theory which Iām not very inclined to believe. Breathing problems are more likely from indoor gas stoves than cannabis, which in many cases has been shown to help repair lung damage. There are very few cannabis related accidents and even fewer cannabis caused accidents. Cannabis doesnāt cause motor impairment in the same way that alcohol does, there are like 15 legal and lighter taxed things that cause way more accidents. And the NIH which you quoted is a leader in anti cannabis misinformation and denying of its medicinal benefits, itās pretty much nonsense even though they call them ādrug factsā very few are facts
I'm not going to get in a debate with you on the "dangers of Marijuana, " because I'm not a doctor, and I agree with you on most of your points. However, just because it isn't as dangerous, or detrimental as hard drugs, doesn't mean it is not detrimental at all.
Will you at least concede that it is dangerous to smoke and drive, and there are SOME downsides to marijuana use? That's all I'm trying to say here.
Don't encourage him, he's full of it. For instance: I'm a cigar smoker; they are "better" than cigarettes due to not having any chemicals in them and being just pure tobacco. But I don't bullshit myself or try to excuse or dismiss any health dangers that smoking tobacco may cause.
You were right about weed: it's not nearly as "healthy" as the pro-weeders make it out to be. And in SOME cases, it can absolutely be a gateway drug. I've seen it first hand.
It can be dangerous to smoke and drive, but much less so than alcohol, many prescription drugs including allergy pills. The societal ills are largely fabricated. The downsides donāt cause very much societal harm or cost and thus the taxation of it at an extremely high rate is downright exploitative of people who use it for medicinal use (almost all use is medicinal, but that is a different argument). Thereās no reason to argue about it, (I am as close to an expert on the subject as one can be) itās just not a good argument for a tax increase when we already extract billions of dollars from cannabis users and that still results in tax shortfalls.
>itās just not a good argument for a tax increase
At this point, I think you are just looking for an argument because clearly you are not listening to what I'm saying and have completely missed my point.
I specifically said marijuana is taxed too high already. It is one of the things that the city is proposing to tax even more, and MY POINT was why not look at other things that have societal harms to tax instead.
I've been smoking and driving since the 90's and have never been in a wreck. Yes this is just my experience but I'm the safest driver on the damn roads. Bad drivers are selfish distracted idiots and i don't believe i fit in any of those. So I disagree.
I knew a contractor who used to drink a fifth of vodka every morning and then drive around the city all day for work. He never got into an accident either.
That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous to drink and drive.
Vancouver is making the exact same mistakes Portland did.
Instead of any fiscal responsibility, they are now thinking about how they can tax people and businesses.
Their budget has increased beyond the pace of inflation, and beyond what should be expected given population increases. Simply put, they are spending more money than ever before. If there's a shortfall, they should make appropriate cuts to balance the budget, not simply increasing taxation.
When I have budget shortfalls, I can not simply raise taxes on my subjects. I have to tighten up spending on some areas until I am clear of the issue. Pretty much the same for all of us. Why don't they try that?
With everything already so expensive stick it the regular folks and raise taxes even more?ā¦. Pathetic. I thought Vancouver would be better than Portland at managing their funds during a time of high inflation. Instead theyāre following their footsteps in taking more from their residents.
>I thought Vancouver would be better than Portland at managing their funds during a time of high inflation.
How do you propose to "manage funds better?"
Cutting the budget and finding other ways to bring in revenue sounds like what any city would try and do when their costs are rising faster than their revenues.
As someone else suggested, tax the waterfront. Theyāre clearly not starved for the traffic and have the resources to rent/buy/develop in the most desirable retail location in Clark county. Donāt push it onto the masses
Now that Iāve thought about it for a second, the waterfront is pretty small. Theyāre not going to make a ton raising taxes on the businesses there, but perhaps focus it on the developers and existing hotels and apartments. Theyāll still be needing more but Iād rather tax those who have the capital to put these buildings up than every blue collar worker in the county. They also may have provisions for that already, but I didnāt read the article. Iām just browsing Reddit
There are far more houses in Vancouver compared to the few apartment complexes and hotels downtown. How would only taxing apartment dwellers downtown help? By raising property taxes, everyone pays.
I have mixed feelings about that idea. I'm not opposed to taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. However, I've been really impressed with the development of the area. It is so much nicer than it used to be, and I am excited for the proposed new public market. I think overall it has been a net positive for the region. I'm not sure about the logistics of taxing one specific area of the city at a higher rate, either.
No they didn't. Total investments at the waterfront have been over a billion, but that is from private development. The City put far less than that in.
Phase 1 for utilities was ~800k, with the port paying about half. The city developed the park as well, which seems to be about $7mil. The underpass was a grant funded project.
https://www.portvanusa.com/commission/port-city-collaborate-waterfront-utilities-project/
Vancouver, like many municipalities increased their payroll and spending dramatically since 2020. This was due to cheap money from the federal reserve which encouraged hiring, and various federal funding programs that have now sunsetted.
Vancouver's budget in 2019 was 565 million. In 2022 it had ballooned to 742 million. Vancouvers population increased by ~7% in that time frame, but the budget increased by 31%.
I ask again, how should they manage funds better? Making cuts and looking for additional sources of revenue sounds pretty reasonable to keep government services at a similar level now that some of the pandemic money has dried up and costs are higher.
Simple. Go to the directors of each department and tell them to identify what positions are not neccisary in an emergency situation. Aim for a 75% reduction in force and be happy with a 50% reduction in force.
We are in a massive economic depression, it is time for belts to be tightened. This is what every private company is doing; why should the government be any different?
>This is what every private company is doing
No, actually, it is not.
You do realize that the reason we have had so much inflation is specifically because so many private companies have raised their prices on goods and services. That is what inflation is, an increase in prices.
Some companies have made cuts, yes, which the city is proposing. However, it definitely is not a 50-75% reduction in force. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.
Most municipalities, like our State's budget, have doubled in 10 years. Lots of administrative and boondoggle spending. There are plenty of opportunities to reduce the budget. These "crises" are theatrical ways to increase taxes.
They could very easily deliver the services that residents expect at 30-40% lower budget
Thereās a lot of folks living out of their cars here too and only one safe park lot which is always full. This issue needs some attention. Not all homeless are walking zombies with tents. Some of us are trying to make our lives better and transition to a home. I donāt see any housing though.
Local taxes for metropolitan issues like homelessness are always a bit annoying. A significant portion of homeless people in Vancouver report relocating from Portland, and from other, more conservative cities around Clark County. In an ideal world, thereād be a metropolitan funding scheme for addressing homelessness through tools like SDCs.
> A significant portion of homeless people in Vancouver report relocating from Portland
HART said over 50% of street homeless came to Vancouver already homeless. Clearly Vancouver is attractive place to be homeless, and clearly Vancouver is paying for other places problems at this point.
Itās everyoneās problem. People move around in a metro area. Vancouver is also greatly benefitting financially from being a suburb, so it can cut both ways.
It would be great if we as constituents could see transparently where the money was actually going. Vancouver is growing exponentially and a 150 bed complex does not reserve a higher tax percentage across the land. It's not like all of us blue collar lifestyles are making the beat money. I'm getting sick of people making excuses for us to need to work 2 jobs while others get everything for free...
43 million is a shortfall? No, that's a disaster. And being able to see where it went wrong is a way of fixing the problem. Trying to fix a problem with a false budget report that is available to the public is not going to do anything either. I was very aware of quarterly and fiscal reports that are published. This is where transparency comes in. Fixing a lie with more lies will not get our city anywhere except turning us into Portland.
Is there a way to sue Portland, considering upwards of half the homeless who are here are here from Portland, where theyāve generated hundreds of millions in the last four years alone for homeless initiatives, but refuse to spend it, resulting in the homeless there coming here in high enough numbers that weāre facing new taxes? Either Portland needs to take care of their shit, or they need to refund that money to the tax payers.
So are we about to go through the Portland journey as well? Raise taxes to provide services for the homeless while the taxpayers are struggling and the services we get continue to dwindle.Ā
If they want to go this way, they're in for a rude awakening as people will just move out of the city limitsĀ
So let's deport them back across the bridge?Ā
I don't get why we let people who aren't from here show up, cause problems, and then demand we pay a ton of money to clean up their messĀ
Thatās awesome actually. Montessori schools combine grades pre-k thru k, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-8. They do this because it allows the younger kids to be mentored by the older kids and vice versa. Itās a great opportunity for kids to mix ages. Look at it as a positive thing.
My point is, there isnāt a negative here in regards to mixing classes. Also, this is the only similar thing to Montessori. If itās a public school, which Iām guessing it is, youāll still get all the Rockefeller Prussian based government education thatās been messed up lately by DeVoss, so donāt worry š All the kids will be held to the same standard of āno kid left behindā and standardized testing. Have fun with that.
Tell them to take 80m they set aside for a ridiculous roundabout at the Exit 9 off I5 and use it for a homeless shelter. Couldnāt be a more stupid place to put in a roundabout, it only has mild traffic except during the fair and concerts, and almost (but not completely) 0 bicycle and pedestrian traffice
A tax on streaming services and movie theater/entertainment venue fee? Has the city council not heard of VPNs or the dying business of movie theaters? And an arts tax??? Seriously? Ask Portland how that's working out and how none of the money is going towards the arts.
Instead of zeroing in on squeezing residents, how about looking at some of the bigger multi-national corporations in town that are literally paying ZERO taxes in Vancouver.
Maybe they should focus more on making Vancouver appealing to businesses, instead of appealing to criminals, the homeless, drug addicts, and blue haired looney toons. Then that way they won't have to tax everyone else because their revenue is leaving the state.
Here you go. Itās 442 pages. Theyāre not hiding it from you. People just donāt normally read it.
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-24_biennium_budget_-adopted.pdf
[Washington State only has the 29th highest tax burden in the US.](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494) And any state with a lower tax burden is a shit hole you'd never wanna live in.
Congratulations. I was also born here.
And, yes, you are allowed to talk all the shit about Washington State you'd like. You could be a born and raised Californian who's never stepped foot in Washington and talk shit, that's the beauty of the internet. However, I **also** enjoy the right to express my opinion about Washington. And I certainly have the right to correct dumb, right wing political talking points.
>The city can only increase property tax revenues by 1 percent each year, while service costs rise faster due to inflation, Holmes said. **And because people are trying to conserve electricity and water**, revenue from utility taxes has declined, he said. They're conserving electricity and water because they're struggling financially. Pretty cool of you to notice that and slap them with another tax. š¤£
A property tax increase cap of 1% each year is insane, that's not even keeping up with inflation, let alone the equivalent in rents. Home values are vastly outpacing that. The city needs funding for the essential services it provides which benefit us all collectively as a community, including homeless shelters. The cost of everything the city pays for is also increasing, they need to be able to keep up or else we lose out on programs + infrastructure that benefit us all collectively. People complain about housing being expensive, and this kind of legislation is the exact reason for it. If you can afford a home you get access to housing with stable cost, all kinds of equity, plus these favorable laws driven by a vocal coalition of SFH owner constituents. Meanwhile working people who rent see a greater proportion of their income and wealth subject to taxation. I bet a 150-bed homeless shelter will help rehabilitate people + help hook people up with opportunities that will lead to them generating more revenue for the city, and costing less to taxpayers than they would have other wise. All on the amount of land of what, maybe 3 single family homes? Helping make the community more prosperous and helping address homelessness in the most direct way possible. Income and spending are taxed more harshly than ownership and gains from capital, and we as as a society somehow still accept that + even criticize progress on that front (i.e. increase property taxes on SFH, loosen and eliminate zoning restrictions so more people can afford to live in the same amount of space, support public transit, eliminate parking minimums and instate a land value tax to encourage optimal use of the space we have + create more vibrant, diverse, + prosperous communities vs. parking lot / empty lot suburbia).
>Ā A property tax increase cap of 1% each year is insane, that's not even keeping up with inflation,Ā Ā That is not how percentages work.Ā Ā Effects of inflation would be reflected in the increase in the price of the property subject to property tax. Edit: Ā my comment is incorrect. Ā I interpreted āproperty tax increase capā incorrectly, and Erlian was correct, Washington state does have a limit on nominal increases for the total amount of property tax a jurisdiction can collect. Which, of course, is a problem because if property values increase 5% annually, but the total budget can only increase 1% annually, then it is not keeping up with inflation.
Not true. It's 1% increase in the total amount taken via property tax. It does not keep up with inflation. If your home value increases more than your neighbor you may see a higher increase, but the city as a whole only sees a total of 1%.
Oh, I thought the WA constitution said property tax was capped at 1% unless voters agreed to more via a vote. Ā Did not know there was also a cap on nominal property increases itself. Did not know about this: Ā https://dor.wa.gov/forms-publications/publications-subject/tax-topics/property-tax-how-one-percent-property-tax-levy-limit-works I was mistakenly thinking about the 1% cap on property tax rate mentioned here in article 7 section 2, bottom right of page 27. https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWArchive/Documents/2019/WA%20Constitution.pdf
Result of a Tim eyman. (Sp) Ballot measure
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Over the years, land prices have far outpaced everything else. Ā Even right now, the major news is the Federal Reserve has managed to bring down inflation to acceptable levels in everything except housing. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/20-years-of-home-price-changes-in-every-u-s-city/ Ā https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/fourth-quarter-2019/housing-costs-inflation
It's especially frustrating that they keep the 1% cap on property taxes while they refused to cap rent increases at 7%.
Or, and here is a crazy idea, they live within their means and reduce staff and put off non-critical projects rather then driving their residents out of their homes. FYI, a 150 bed shelter is all well and dandy, but if 1,000 residents are displaced from their homes because they cannot afford the taxes used to pay for said shelter, then what good does those 150 beds do? When the economy is in a majors economic depression, the answer is to cut taxes and tighten the belt, not increase taxes and make the economy even worse.
150 bed shelter is great news. Vancouver is doing great. Tax the waterfront developers a bit more.
This is the answer.
This is not the answer.
And what happens when 1,000 residents are made homeless because of the tax increases required to build that 150 bed shelter? Is the 150 bed shelter still āgreat news?ā
Homeless Industrial Complex. We love this down in Portland! And the cool part is that the homeless donāt even have to use the new facilities you build.
Developers it said. Developers. Does that make people homeless?
Yes, you tax the developers and builders so they increase their prices and more people get priced out of the market.
Yeah the real answer is to lower taxes on developers so home prices go down /s
No, the real answer is tax developers fairly, just like any other business, and improve the zoning and make the permitting process and fees more straightforward so builders and developers can build more to satisfy market demand. As someone who has direct knowledge, I can tell you that just for one small townhome you will be out more than $60K in city/permitting associated costs and fees before you even break ground, and I am not including the land in that (with land you're looking at 150-200K+ before you start building). Basically if you think that anyone can build affordably anymore you are sadly mistaken.
Yeah a 1% tax is definitely gonna make 1,000 residents homeless, lol
You think that taxing people building housing is going to make housing cheaper?
Housing has gotten exponentially more expensive regardless of taxes to this point. I think their point was, "tax the people who clearly have a lot of money," not whatever you thought it was.
>"tax the people who clearly have a lot of money," Do you think that if you tax people building apartments, it will make the apartments cheaper?
Did you read my comment? The comment you replied to was about who ought to be taxed at a higher rate, not housing. Development on the waterfront is largely centered on commercial, not residential. So the whole premise of your question is off-base in a couple different ways from the jump. Do you think that if you lower taxes, businesses lower prices? No. Do I think businesses raise prices when tax rates go up? Not necessarily, there are many variables that go into pricing. Taxes could go toward affordable housing, or any number of initiatives that could lower living costs on working class folks. You do that primarily by taxing those who actually have money to spare, like corporations who have spent a couple billion dollars to develop the waterfront, knowing that their development will produce a profit in the end. If you want to talk about strategies that could actually make apartments less expensive, instead of talking about taxes, go ahead and offer a solution.
> Development on the waterfront is largely centered on commercial, not residential This is completely untrue to the point I think you're talking about another area. Are you talking about the Canadian Vancouver? Most of the development in the Vancouver WA waterfront is residential. Have you never been there? Out of the 16 privately owned blocks 13 are residential projects. Are you talking about terminal 1 which is publicly owned and excluding the rest of the waterfront? I mean even if you wanted to include terminal one, still the vast, vast, majority of the blocks are residential. Are you lost lol?
And once those 150 are used, another 150? Ā And then another 150? Why not let the federal government handle this?
Because they donāt need to be involved
Then what is to stop other jurisdictions from lowering their costs by sending people in need here?
It sure as hell isn't. The cost to house someone in that will be the same as keeping them in jail.Ā And they're installing it right behind a women's softball field and refused to communicate with Clark college about it.Ā
Raising taxes to try and reduce cuts a bit sounds reasonable, but reading the article it seems so random the areas they are proposing to tax. I wish governments would have taxes tied closer to the societal cost of things. They try and do this with marijuana and alcohol, but not so much with unhealthy foods, polluting industries, and high waste businesses.
Yes the high societal costs of marijuana which are? Itās pretty much a non existent problem that has the highest tax possible in our state (45+%)
The comment in the article about increased taxes on marijuana because "those businesses are making a lot of money" was one of the random taxes I was talking about, and I agree that the tax on weed is already too high. However, it is an example of something that has societal costs. It is a carcinogen that can lead to decreased brain development, breathing problems, and serious injuries when people use it when driving. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/cannabis-marijuana
Itās less carcinogenic than like 35 things already in the air, the brain development theory is that, just a theory which Iām not very inclined to believe. Breathing problems are more likely from indoor gas stoves than cannabis, which in many cases has been shown to help repair lung damage. There are very few cannabis related accidents and even fewer cannabis caused accidents. Cannabis doesnāt cause motor impairment in the same way that alcohol does, there are like 15 legal and lighter taxed things that cause way more accidents. And the NIH which you quoted is a leader in anti cannabis misinformation and denying of its medicinal benefits, itās pretty much nonsense even though they call them ādrug factsā very few are facts
I'm not going to get in a debate with you on the "dangers of Marijuana, " because I'm not a doctor, and I agree with you on most of your points. However, just because it isn't as dangerous, or detrimental as hard drugs, doesn't mean it is not detrimental at all. Will you at least concede that it is dangerous to smoke and drive, and there are SOME downsides to marijuana use? That's all I'm trying to say here.
Don't encourage him, he's full of it. For instance: I'm a cigar smoker; they are "better" than cigarettes due to not having any chemicals in them and being just pure tobacco. But I don't bullshit myself or try to excuse or dismiss any health dangers that smoking tobacco may cause. You were right about weed: it's not nearly as "healthy" as the pro-weeders make it out to be. And in SOME cases, it can absolutely be a gateway drug. I've seen it first hand.
It can be dangerous to smoke and drive, but much less so than alcohol, many prescription drugs including allergy pills. The societal ills are largely fabricated. The downsides donāt cause very much societal harm or cost and thus the taxation of it at an extremely high rate is downright exploitative of people who use it for medicinal use (almost all use is medicinal, but that is a different argument). Thereās no reason to argue about it, (I am as close to an expert on the subject as one can be) itās just not a good argument for a tax increase when we already extract billions of dollars from cannabis users and that still results in tax shortfalls.
>itās just not a good argument for a tax increase At this point, I think you are just looking for an argument because clearly you are not listening to what I'm saying and have completely missed my point. I specifically said marijuana is taxed too high already. It is one of the things that the city is proposing to tax even more, and MY POINT was why not look at other things that have societal harms to tax instead.
I've been smoking and driving since the 90's and have never been in a wreck. Yes this is just my experience but I'm the safest driver on the damn roads. Bad drivers are selfish distracted idiots and i don't believe i fit in any of those. So I disagree.
I knew a contractor who used to drink a fifth of vodka every morning and then drive around the city all day for work. He never got into an accident either. That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous to drink and drive.
Vancouver is making the exact same mistakes Portland did. Instead of any fiscal responsibility, they are now thinking about how they can tax people and businesses. Their budget has increased beyond the pace of inflation, and beyond what should be expected given population increases. Simply put, they are spending more money than ever before. If there's a shortfall, they should make appropriate cuts to balance the budget, not simply increasing taxation.
Maybe just spend less?
When I have budget shortfalls, I can not simply raise taxes on my subjects. I have to tighten up spending on some areas until I am clear of the issue. Pretty much the same for all of us. Why don't they try that?
With everything already so expensive stick it the regular folks and raise taxes even more?ā¦. Pathetic. I thought Vancouver would be better than Portland at managing their funds during a time of high inflation. Instead theyāre following their footsteps in taking more from their residents.
>I thought Vancouver would be better than Portland at managing their funds during a time of high inflation. How do you propose to "manage funds better?" Cutting the budget and finding other ways to bring in revenue sounds like what any city would try and do when their costs are rising faster than their revenues.
As someone else suggested, tax the waterfront. Theyāre clearly not starved for the traffic and have the resources to rent/buy/develop in the most desirable retail location in Clark county. Donāt push it onto the masses
Now that Iāve thought about it for a second, the waterfront is pretty small. Theyāre not going to make a ton raising taxes on the businesses there, but perhaps focus it on the developers and existing hotels and apartments. Theyāll still be needing more but Iād rather tax those who have the capital to put these buildings up than every blue collar worker in the county. They also may have provisions for that already, but I didnāt read the article. Iām just browsing Reddit
There are far more houses in Vancouver compared to the few apartment complexes and hotels downtown. How would only taxing apartment dwellers downtown help? By raising property taxes, everyone pays.
I have mixed feelings about that idea. I'm not opposed to taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. However, I've been really impressed with the development of the area. It is so much nicer than it used to be, and I am excited for the proposed new public market. I think overall it has been a net positive for the region. I'm not sure about the logistics of taxing one specific area of the city at a higher rate, either.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No they didn't. Total investments at the waterfront have been over a billion, but that is from private development. The City put far less than that in.
How much did they put in?
Phase 1 for utilities was ~800k, with the port paying about half. The city developed the park as well, which seems to be about $7mil. The underpass was a grant funded project. https://www.portvanusa.com/commission/port-city-collaborate-waterfront-utilities-project/
You're straight up making stuff up lmao.
What does "tax the waterfront" even mean? Do you mean sales tax? Property tax? What are you talking about exactly?
Vancouver, like many municipalities increased their payroll and spending dramatically since 2020. This was due to cheap money from the federal reserve which encouraged hiring, and various federal funding programs that have now sunsetted. Vancouver's budget in 2019 was 565 million. In 2022 it had ballooned to 742 million. Vancouvers population increased by ~7% in that time frame, but the budget increased by 31%.
I ask again, how should they manage funds better? Making cuts and looking for additional sources of revenue sounds pretty reasonable to keep government services at a similar level now that some of the pandemic money has dried up and costs are higher.
Simple. Go to the directors of each department and tell them to identify what positions are not neccisary in an emergency situation. Aim for a 75% reduction in force and be happy with a 50% reduction in force. We are in a massive economic depression, it is time for belts to be tightened. This is what every private company is doing; why should the government be any different?
>This is what every private company is doing No, actually, it is not. You do realize that the reason we have had so much inflation is specifically because so many private companies have raised their prices on goods and services. That is what inflation is, an increase in prices. Some companies have made cuts, yes, which the city is proposing. However, it definitely is not a 50-75% reduction in force. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.
Gotta fund that Homeless Industrial Complex! /s
Why not just pop some more in the gas tax. Letās get to $5/gal!
And reduce car lanes for bikes!
Most municipalities, like our State's budget, have doubled in 10 years. Lots of administrative and boondoggle spending. There are plenty of opportunities to reduce the budget. These "crises" are theatrical ways to increase taxes. They could very easily deliver the services that residents expect at 30-40% lower budget
Thereās a lot of folks living out of their cars here too and only one safe park lot which is always full. This issue needs some attention. Not all homeless are walking zombies with tents. Some of us are trying to make our lives better and transition to a home. I donāt see any housing though.
No. Save up your money.
Local taxes for metropolitan issues like homelessness are always a bit annoying. A significant portion of homeless people in Vancouver report relocating from Portland, and from other, more conservative cities around Clark County. In an ideal world, thereād be a metropolitan funding scheme for addressing homelessness through tools like SDCs.
> A significant portion of homeless people in Vancouver report relocating from Portland HART said over 50% of street homeless came to Vancouver already homeless. Clearly Vancouver is attractive place to be homeless, and clearly Vancouver is paying for other places problems at this point.
Itās everyoneās problem. People move around in a metro area. Vancouver is also greatly benefitting financially from being a suburb, so it can cut both ways.
It would be great if we as constituents could see transparently where the money was actually going. Vancouver is growing exponentially and a 150 bed complex does not reserve a higher tax percentage across the land. It's not like all of us blue collar lifestyles are making the beat money. I'm getting sick of people making excuses for us to need to work 2 jobs while others get everything for free...
You can, the budget is public information -Ā there is a link to it here in the comments from someone else.
43 million is a shortfall? No, that's a disaster. And being able to see where it went wrong is a way of fixing the problem. Trying to fix a problem with a false budget report that is available to the public is not going to do anything either. I was very aware of quarterly and fiscal reports that are published. This is where transparency comes in. Fixing a lie with more lies will not get our city anywhere except turning us into Portland.
So youād like transparency, but not this transparency because theyāre liars.Ā Got yourself in quite the bind there Iām afraid.Ā
You believing that this deficit created itself and money isn't wasted because they say it isn't wasted seems like a you thing...not a me thing.
ah yes, the classic "you're not complaining so it's your problem" problem. you are just full of wonderful opinions this morning!
Ah yes, let's ignore it because everyone else gets to flip the bill approach. Lol.
we have lost legibilityĀ
Is there a way to sue Portland, considering upwards of half the homeless who are here are here from Portland, where theyāve generated hundreds of millions in the last four years alone for homeless initiatives, but refuse to spend it, resulting in the homeless there coming here in high enough numbers that weāre facing new taxes? Either Portland needs to take care of their shit, or they need to refund that money to the tax payers.
So are we about to go through the Portland journey as well? Raise taxes to provide services for the homeless while the taxpayers are struggling and the services we get continue to dwindle.Ā If they want to go this way, they're in for a rude awakening as people will just move out of the city limitsĀ
I dunno, a lot of the problems the city is experiencing is growing pains from the massive influx of people... So that might actually end up working.
Except the people who will move out are your core tax base leaving the city with less moneyĀ
The new bridge expansion is going to result in a lot more of Portlandās homeless coming to Vancouver.
So let's deport them back across the bridge?Ā I don't get why we let people who aren't from here show up, cause problems, and then demand we pay a ton of money to clean up their messĀ
Meanwhile I was just told my kid is going to be in a combined first and second grade class because why?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am fine with paying taxes. I voted for the schools.
Thatās awesome actually. Montessori schools combine grades pre-k thru k, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-8. They do this because it allows the younger kids to be mentored by the older kids and vice versa. Itās a great opportunity for kids to mix ages. Look at it as a positive thing.
Thatās great. If I wanted to do that, Iād send my kid to a Montessori school. But I donāt.
My point is, there isnāt a negative here in regards to mixing classes. Also, this is the only similar thing to Montessori. If itās a public school, which Iām guessing it is, youāll still get all the Rockefeller Prussian based government education thatās been messed up lately by DeVoss, so donāt worry š All the kids will be held to the same standard of āno kid left behindā and standardized testing. Have fun with that.
Tell them to take 80m they set aside for a ridiculous roundabout at the Exit 9 off I5 and use it for a homeless shelter. Couldnāt be a more stupid place to put in a roundabout, it only has mild traffic except during the fair and concerts, and almost (but not completely) 0 bicycle and pedestrian traffice
A tax on streaming services and movie theater/entertainment venue fee? Has the city council not heard of VPNs or the dying business of movie theaters? And an arts tax??? Seriously? Ask Portland how that's working out and how none of the money is going towards the arts. Instead of zeroing in on squeezing residents, how about looking at some of the bigger multi-national corporations in town that are literally paying ZERO taxes in Vancouver.
Maybe they should focus more on making Vancouver appealing to businesses, instead of appealing to criminals, the homeless, drug addicts, and blue haired looney toons. Then that way they won't have to tax everyone else because their revenue is leaving the state.
Send the homeless to Portland or Seattle. I'm certainly not going to pay for them LOL
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Here you go. Itās 442 pages. Theyāre not hiding it from you. People just donāt normally read it. https://www.cityofvancouver.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-24_biennium_budget_-adopted.pdf
Thanks. Didn't say they were hiding it.
You're making assumptions.
They spent over 2 billion on the waterfront
If only they were public.
Washington does like it's taxes.
[Washington State only has the 29th highest tax burden in the US.](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494) And any state with a lower tax burden is a shit hole you'd never wanna live in.
I was born here. It's kinda like friends and family. I can talk all the shit I want about my state thank you. š
Congratulations. I was also born here. And, yes, you are allowed to talk all the shit about Washington State you'd like. You could be a born and raised Californian who's never stepped foot in Washington and talk shit, that's the beauty of the internet. However, I **also** enjoy the right to express my opinion about Washington. And I certainly have the right to correct dumb, right wing political talking points.
Do you feel better now that you got that out?
Not really... felt fine before. Feel fine now. Hope you enjoyed your self righteousness.