Alpinfox Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Tell me how you are voting and why. Convince me I should vote the way you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I voted yes because public parks are the most convenient place to score anonymous blow jobs and meth. The more local the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 HHAHAHAHAHHHAHHHHAHAA OMG! HILARIOUS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Alright, now, that's quite enough of that, Porter II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Just tell me how you're going to vote, and I'll do the complete opposite so as to negate any input you might have to the political process. KTHXBAI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 This one would cost $0.19/$1000 assessed value. That's $66.50/yr on a $350k home. For that we get some new parks and maintenance of existing parks. Why isn't maintenance of existing parks included in the regular budget? Isn't it the legislature's job to account for these sorts of things in the general budget? Both this levy and the PPM levy mention that "taxes collected in 2009 would be limited to $2.60/$1000 assessed value". So if these DO get funded, we won't be paying more than $2.60. If that happens will other things have to be cut? If they DON'T get funded, will we be paying less than $2.60? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Why do you libtards have to make evrthang more complicatated then it is? Parks 'r gud, both for working famblies and people without homes, mkay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I don't have the list of items to be funded but the levy funds a large list of things and if you look at all of it I am pretty sure you'll find things you don't like, either concluding that it is too much to spend right now or because an "improved" facility means development of current open space or the creation of a special interest facility like the skateboard facility in Ballard's only park. My wife, who has been active in trying to limit the size of the sportsfield project at Magnuson Park, attended meetings regarding this levy. At her request they added to the list some improvements to the waterfront at Magnuson Park and a sidewalk or bike path offering better bike/pedestrian access from Sand Point Way to the waterfront. She and her friends think that, on balance, it is worth voting for and I think it may well be better than voting no now and then seeing another proposal next year or the year after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Thanks Matt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Here's a list of projects: http://rockthatproject.com/SPFA/parkslevyprojects_print.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.