Have you voted yet? With the abominable
Seattle schools have been chronically underfunded for years, and with our explosive population growth, the schools are virtually bursting at the seams. There is a significant need for more funding. The money would go towards replacing or modernizing eight schools, among other things.
Unfortunately it is another property tax, and pressure really, really needs to be put on our legislators to find other funding sources that do not make housing ever more expensive, but at the current time this is what is on the table and the schools do need it. So my recommendation is to vote yes.
Ballots are due this Tuesday, February 12th by 8pm.
Keep in mind that with the snow, mail service, etc. may be delayed. There is a drop box just east of the Gasworks Park parking lot, so if you’re heading to kite hill to go sledding, drop off your ballot on the way! For a list of other drop boxes, click this link. If you chose to mail in your ballot, no stamp is required, but you may want to check that the mail has been picked up in time given the weather.
If you would like more information on both the pros and cons of the school levy, listen to my absolute favorite podcast that reports weekly on the local and national news, Eat the Airwaves (2/2/19 episode). Or visit the Seattle Public Schools website to read about the details. And of
The capital levy will also benefit the new Lincoln High school (opening September of this year) by providing seismic upgrades to the performing arts building and the gym. No seismic upgrades are being done to those two buildings in the current remodeling work. The main building, however, is being upgraded.
I vote NO and I am a former teacher. First, renters have kids, yet the burden falls on homeowners who have experienced unaffordable increases in property taxes for years. Secondly, the state legislature was supposed to pay and since they didn’t homeowners are being asked for money, state government should be held accountable. Third, Finland has the highest ranked education system in the world, yet they spend 1/8 of what the U.S. does – the U.S. needs to spend money wisely, whether it’s schools, government, etc.
Finland spends 1/8 of what the U.S. does per student? A recent OECD report says it’s about 70%. Care to cite your source?
Property taxes get passed on to renters. Why would any landlord not account for property taxes in their assessment of rental price?
That said, the entire concept of using property tax to fund education is atrociously outdated and should be done away with.
Renters share the same burden, since they pay rent to the homeowners that in turn transfer that money to tax.
Also the state legislature is paying more for education now. You must have missed the fact that they overhauled the property tax code for that more than a year ago.
The main reason for the US education system to be so expensive isn’t about money not spent wisely. The main reason is the variety in programs provided. Variation and choice are what leads to higher cost. South Korea and Finland has the polar opposite approach of education approaches, and both perform well and cost less. The only similarity between the two is that in both cultures everybody believe in the same kind of approach. In the US, you can never get a group of people to all agree on the same idea, ending up always having to offer multiple options therefore costly. Some savings are simple but will never happen: having a national standard for everything would eliminate most of the bureaucracy installed for each place to come up with its own standard.
My partner and I have an ADU and a single family home that we rent. It is a myth that landlords increase rent according to property tax increases.
Rent increases are solely at the discretion of the landlord. Which is a contributing factor to affordable housing in Seattle. Renters who claim they contribute to property.taxes are misinformed. Disagree with me? Show me some data.
Rent increases happen based on ALL expenses AND on the actions of the tenant. If you’re a good tenant, you’ll see modest (if any).increases in your rent. If you disrespect, abuse and ignore guidelines set in your lease, your rent is going to be increased to the max allowed. We (and most other landlords I know) will rarely raise the rent of a good and responsible tenant.
There is no need of data. The property is part of the cost that can’t be separated, and price increase isn’t always reflecting cost timely. Landlords sometimes raise rent when there is no cost increase also. Renters definitely contribute to the property taxes. It’s like diners definitely contribute to the cost of food ingredient, even when the fluctuation in ingredient price never get reflected in the dish price timely. Let’s not pretend that people who never cook for themselves are not contributing to the farmers. Without diners, restaurants won’t exist. Without renters, landlords won’t exist.
And based on your description, Seattle renters must have been very naughty, because rent has been increasing like crazy in the past few decades. Or maybe when you say “rarely”, you simply means “not often enough by your standard”?
Your response makes no sense. Could you please clarify what you mean?
And I am speaking about landlords with one or two or more rentals they self manage. Not developers or rental management companies. Wallingford is filled with ADU’s, DADU’s and SFH that are self managed and remain affordable for tenants because the landlords I specify above set the rent according what they want – and not necessarily according to market rate.
If you want to say renters *help* pay for property taxes, that’s fine. And yes, I agree that it can’t really be broken down. Unless a landlord wanted to modify their lease.and specify xx% of property tax will be assessed and added to the next lease period in addition to a nominal rent increase. Then by all means, the tenant could actually say, “As a renter, I pay property taxes.”. Which actually might not be a bad idea! Thanks tj!
Would you have been a landlord without renters? That’s sufficient to say that they contribute to your property tax.
All the other things I mentioned is just about how price adjustment is never perfectly in line with cost adjustments, but that cannot be used as the proof that price isn’t related to cost.