Why is Port asking to tax more people?


To the Editor:

    Regarding the May 22nd Tribune article, “Challenge to Port’s ballot measure dismissed”:

    To clarify for the public, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Karen Moore did not “dismiss” my appeal case of the Port of Everett’s Prop 1 ballot title language. Even though the attorneys for the County Prosecutor and County Auditor had no objections to my adding “Taxing District” to the ballot title, Judge Moore allowed the Port’s attorney, Jack Follis, to intervene in the case and who then argued “the Port of Everett is not a ‘taxing district.’” Judge Moore sided with Mr. Follis, claiming the mere mention of “taxing district” would prejudice the voters into voting “no”; so she “denied” my petition after over an hour of arguments.

    One other thing in the article, the Tribune reported the Port had “guessed” last year that the Port District tax rate will go down if the measure enlarges the tax base.

    Conclusion: Why are voters far from Everett being asked to pay for the Port of Everett’s environmental cleanup at the Everett Waterfront? Especially, when the tax rate can go far above the 45 cents/$1,000 AV for general bonded indebtedness for the cleanup? (See RCW 53.36.020--Tax Levy-Limitation--Port Districts.)

    Please vote “no” on the Port of Everett’s Prop 1 new property tax for almost all of Snohomish County.

Morgan Davis