By Mark Prothero<\/strong> I hope Kent voters will join me in voting to pass Proposition 1, the upcoming parks and streets levy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Kent has a great park system but many of our parks are in need. Contrary to the opinion expressed in the Sept. 7 Kent Reporter by my friend, Michelle McDowell, writing in opposition to Prop. 1, the City has been, and is being proactive, not reactive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The City has constantly been monitoring the conditions of the parks. These include the aging and deteriorating assets like the dock at Lake Meridian. the floating walkway at Lake Fenwick, the well-used sports fields, and things you don’t really see or think about \u2013 lighting, watering, drainage, bathrooms, weed control and parking areas for example. But the economic recession of the past few years has resulted in fewer resources to properly meet the needs of local parks and roads.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rather than reacting after something bad happened, the City was proactive and sought citizen input on what to do.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Two citizens committees were formed, one for parks and one for roads. The parks committee was comprised of a broad cross section of Kent residents who showed interest and were willing to get involved and devote their time and energy to help solve a Kent community problem.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The roads committee also included Kent residents who showed interest and were willing to devote their time and energy to help solve the problem. The reality is that the repair of deteriorating conditions of local roads is a more critical interest, and need, to local businesses operating in the valley than residents up in the hills.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It is no surprise that the roads committee had many local business owners on it, many Kent residents themselves. Contrary to the levy opposition’s implication, the roads committee was not comprised of people seeking to form a conspiracy between the Chamber of Commerce and the City.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I was on the citizens parks committee with Michelle. We scrutinized park needs, closely reviewing the inventory done by the Kent park staff. Park assets were rated on a scale of 1 (failing assets\/safety risks) to 5 (new\/in good working shape). We prioritized these needs, focusing on the “1’s” with public safety issues.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Safe streets, parks our responsibility, too<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Public safety is a local responsibility. Supporting Kent police and fire are obvious local public safety responsibilities. But safe streets and safe public parks are also core local responsibilities. When parks are allowed to become rundown or unsafe, they become risks and liabilities. They become havens for criminal activities. Property values decrease as the quality of local parks declines. On the flip side, property values are enhanced when local parks are properly maintained. So is our quality of life.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The economic recession, falling home values, lack of new residential construction, and greatly diminished State funding has reduced the money available to adequately maintain our parks. The parks committee, comprised of liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and everything in-between, discussed as many funding alternatives as we could think of, finding agreement that the proposed six-year levy lid increase was the fairest approach.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The roads committee did likewise. In discussion of financing options, they realized all of the road needs could not be covered by a six-year levy. They agreed to support a levy for the most pressing needs while continuing the discussion with the City about long-term funding options for future road maintenance.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Local businesses wouldn’t have been supportive of this levy had a business & occupation tax been imposed without first having an open discussion that gave them the opportunity to give input and relay their concerns. Fortunately, four council members recognized that we wanted the support of the business community to help pass the levy. They voted down a B&O drafted the day of the vote. It was 50 pages and the council meeting was the first time some council members had seen the ordinance. These four aren’t puppets of the Chamber of Commerce. They simply, and fairly, didn’t want to impose a B&O without first listening to our local businesses.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I agree with many points made by my friend in her opinion piece. I agree both citizens committees recommended the levy. However, I disagree that the parks committee asked that the levy go forward only if accompanied by imposition of a B&O tax. Yes, we recommended the council consider a B&O to help finance future road maintenance projects but we didn’t recommend that it was necessary to go forward with the levy. Our council has voted to address it by the end of this year, after further discussion with everyone involved \u2013 businesses and residents.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ‘We’ all benefit<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n I also agree that businesses benefit from a vibrant parks system in Kent. However, I disagree “we” residential property owners are being asked to take on the entire burden. Businesses sit on property whose owners pay property taxes too. Remember, “we” all benefit from a thriving local business community. Our property values are enhanced.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The proposed street projects are not all for damage done by large trucks. Many of the projects in Proposition 1 are for streets and roads on the east and west hills. Streets upon which residents commute will be made safer. Sidewalks will be added and\/or repaired. Disabled access will be improved and made safer. The vast majority of the proposed road projects have little to do with damage done by large trucks.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The opposition to the levy says to vote no if a B&O is not in place by election day.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The council has said a B&O tax, perhaps in combination with other business-generated revenues for roads, will be in place by Jan. 1. We’re less than 60 days apart. I think we need to vote yes now to ensure the necessary park repairs can get started. The levy is the way to accomplish that. The opposition agrees with that. And if this levy fails, the costs, and risks, will only go up.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I also agree that the B&O tax is not perfect. It’s based on gross revenues, not net profits. The opposition has quoted various rates: Seattle .00215; Burien .0005; State average .0016. Even a perfect tax can’t be arrived at out of thin air. This is more true when it’s an “imperfect” B&O being discussed. That’s part of the problem with her argument. It’s a complicated equation as Kent businesses range from giant warehouses and their high volume of heavy trucks to the corner espresso shack \u2013 and everything in between.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But the business community acknowledges the problem and their responsibility in finding a solution. They want to work with the City to strike the right balance between taxing businesses while continuing to grow and attract new businesses. Local businesses, big and small, simply wanted the Council to take time, and work with them to come up with the most fair approach and B & O tax rates.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I also agree streets and roads will need more help. But I disagree the funding burden will be unduly placed on residents. Only a future vote of the people could do that. The council has already voted that additional revenues of $4-6 million will be raised from Kent businesses to pay for future street maintenance. The council has resolved this will be in place by the end of this year.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n “No more taxes” is easy to say and always sounds like a great idea. But what’s the alternative? We have an ongoing obligation to take care of our community’s assets to maintain their value just like homeowners need to maintain their homes and their value. Kent is where we live. This is where our kids play. These are the streets we drive. If we won’t take care of them, no one else will do it for us. They won’t fix themselves.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Waiting will only cost more in the long run. Parks and streets will continue to age. Voting no will lead to more unsafe conditions in our parks and our streets, a decline in property values, and a lower quality of life for Kent residents including our children, grandchildren, and future generations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n There is no benefit to drawing a line in the sand. This isn’t Washington D.C., where nothing seems to get done. It’s not “us” (Kent residents) versus “them” (Kent businesses). We’re in this together. We need to take care of the local assets we share and use on a daily basis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Please join me in voting yes on Proposition 1.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
For the Kent Reporter<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n