"Don't be taxed out of your home"...latest "Local Mailing List" agitprop [Archive]

Chief

07-07-2007, 08:47 PM

via e-mail. Here we go again!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Local Mailing List" <lmpatella@comcast.net>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Don't be taxed out of your home

> (Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions,
> is located at the end of this message.)
> __
>
> Well, as that great conservative Ronald Regan, once said, "there you go
again".
>
> It didn't take long for the columbian to jump on the pro property tax
increase bandwagon.
> Although this morning headlines " "PORT MAY GET SECOND ETHANOL PLANT", the
columbian, other than attempting to come to the port's rescue failed to
provide much information.
>
> Maybe they will be so kind as to answer a couple of Questions?
>
> 1. Who, What, Where or When is the First Ethanol plant that was casually
mentioned?
> 2. Why does the second plant hinge on the upcoming vote on the property
tax increase?
> 3. Why would a private profit making company want to place a 210 million
dollar plant on public land? Could it be that there are public kickbacks,
also known as tax incentives, involved?
> 4. How much in property taxes will Rappaport save by leasing the property?
Must be a hefty sum what with not paying property taxes on $210 million in
buildings plus the land.
> 5. If the deal depends on the August vote, why is the Port Commission
approving a lease agreement at Wednesday's meeting? Do they know something
the voters don't know? Is something being withheld from the voter?
> 6. I found the quote from Rappaport interesting. If this Rappaport Plant
is going to "set a model for the nation and the world", why would the deal
hinge on the August vote?
>
> And do we really want or need an ethanol plant that will be subsidized
with tax dollars, use more energy to produce than it creates and as a recent
political cartoon showed with an ear of corn leaping off the table into the
mouth of a car, increase along with our property taxes, our food prices.
>
> I think the columbian could do a better job of reporting to the people all
the information surrounding the issues it covers. Not just those that make
the tax & spend guys look good.
>
> Something just doesn't smell right and that alone requires a no vote on
the Port's attempt to increase your property tax without a vote of the
people.
>
> L. M. Patella
> CDR USN (ret)
>
>

Chief

07-07-2007, 09:01 PM

I am officially off of Commander Patella's mailing list (again) because i have dared to disagree with him on the Port (again!!); but I have friends who keep me in the loop and enable me to keep fighting back these viscious propaganda sheets that the good Commander insists upon e-mailing all over town.

It's hard to know where to begin on this one, he's wrong on so many things.

First of all the title of this latest missive.

As I have repeatedly documented here, even with the increased amount of property taxes if the IDD Levy passes, the total amount of the Port Tax we pay on our house is 3.61% of our total tax bill. The Clark County Assessor is more likely to tax our Senior Citizens out of their homes with her unreasonable, and confiscatory reassessments, but I have never heard the good Commander weigh in on that issue, or even offer to help Bill Jameson get elected last fall...

> Well, as that great conservative Ronald Regan, once said, "there you go
again".
>
> It didn't take long for the columbian to jump on the pro property tax
increase bandwagon.
> Although this morning headlines " "PORT MAY GET SECOND ETHANOL PLANT", the
columbian, other than attempting to come to the port's rescue failed to
provide much information.

It's kind of odd that the Commander now thinks that the columbian is somehow coming to the Port of Vancouver's rescue by reporting the story that was released on Friday. (See the actual press release that I have posted here earlier).

> 1. Who, What, Where or When is the First Ethanol plant that was casually
mentioned?

From the columbian's story, (which the Commander implies he read...): "Great Western Malting, already a port tenant, also has plans to build an ethanol plant it hopes to open in 2008 or 2009."

> 2. Why does the second plant hinge on the upcoming vote on the property
tax increase?

Answer: because the porperty they would like to lease requires rail access, and the Port cannot build the required rail access without $30 Million Dollars of the proposed Industrial Development Levy.

> 3. Why would a private profit making company want to place a 210 million
dollar plant on public land? Could it be that there are public kickbacks,
also known as tax incentives, involved?

Answer: because the deal is contingent upon the Port providing the needed rail access to adequately service that plant. That's why the State of Washington created the Port, to provide the necessary infrastructure such a large facility will require.

There is no more serious charge against a Public Offical than taking bribes in exchange for their Public Service. If Commander Patella has some evidence that anyone on the Port Commission is taking illegal bribes or kickbacks of any kind, I recommend he immediately present those fact to the proper authorities.

However, if what I suspect is true, Commander Patella is simply slinging unwarranted mud, and hoping that somehting will stick. I urge him to stop the unsubtantiated charges against Public Officials immediately; such activity is certainly not something that the late and great Ronald Reagan would ever have supported.

> 4. How much in property taxes will Rappaport save by leasing the property?
Must be a hefty sum what with not paying property taxes on $210 million in
buildings plus the land.

Answer: All of the tenants pay a 12.5% Excise tax on their leased property in lieu of property taxes, because of the way the State Legislature set up the Port Districts. That excise tax is actually higher than the corresponding millage that the County sets on other like properties. That question came up at all three of the public Forums, and was answered by Port Director Larry Paulson all three times. Asked and answered, repeatedly.

> 5. If the deal depends on the August vote, why is the Port Commission
approving a lease agreement at Wednesday's meeting? Do they know something
the voters don't know? Is something being withheld from the voter?

Answer: From the Port of Vancouver's Press Release: "Vancouver Port Commissioners are expected to consider the Letter of Intent at their July 11 meeting."

As the release says, the Commissioners are considering a letter of intent, not approving anything. Obviously the deal is dependent on rail access, and rail access is dependent upon the passage of the IDD Levy. Yes, I suspect they do know something more about this than the voters do Commander, that is why they have agreed to put it up for discussion on their Public Agenda, at their Regular Public Meeting on July 11th. I suggest you try attending that meeting and ask any questions you have about this then.

> 6. I found the quote from Rappaport interesting. If this Rappaport Plant
is going to "set a model for the nation and the world", why would the deal
hinge on the August vote?

Asked and answered Commander. The Commisisoners are considering a letter of intent, and it is dependent upon the rail access to the site that the IDD will provide.

> And do we really want or need an ethanol plant that will be subsidized
with tax dollars, use more energy to produce than it creates and as a recent
political cartoon showed with an ear of corn leaping off the table into the
mouth of a car, increase along with our property taxes, our food prices.
>
> I think the columbian could do a better job of reporting to the people all
the information surrounding the issues it covers. Not just those that make
the tax & spend guys look good..

Your low opinion of the columbian is well known Commander, yet they still continue to print your letters on a regular basis. I do agree that they could do a better job of providing information to people about the issues they cover, but that criticism rings hollow coming from you.

> Something just doesn't smell right and that alone requires a no vote on
the Port's attempt to increase your property tax without a vote of the
people

The only thing that doesn't smell right Commander is your continued attempts to spin Senior Citizens into butter with the lie that the Port of Vancouver is trying to raise their taxes without a vote. That argument was lame when you were using it to get signatures on the petition, and it is totally out of line for you to continue to spread it around now.

I urge you to step back, and re-examine your choice of words for these e-mails you continue to circulate in Public, and the mis-statements of fact that you insist on spreading about the Port of Vancouver.

I also urge you to be aware that every time you send one of these out, I will publish it and rebut it point by point.