"Vote NO on the Port's property Tax Increase"...your Daily Patella for July 10

[Chief]

http://www.westerndredging.org/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/archive/Local/20070710210418/

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p184/thejoerebel/bob4rv.jpg

Date: July 10th, 2007

Hi,

Yesterday, I was invited to present to the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Congress reason why you should vote not on the Port’s outrageous attempt to increase our property taxes by 132% over what they already collect from us. Citizens for a Strong Economy were also present and their presentation consisted of one issue. That issue was the Port of Vancouver is going to create 6000 jobs.

My presentation is too long to send it all at once so I will give you one reason each day stating why we think you should vote NO. Don’t let them tax you out of your home.

Here Goes:

Reason #1.

I have spent most of my adult life working for a Government agency. 31 years in the United States Navy and 20 years at the Port of Portland. In those 51 years I have witnessed more wasteful and careless spending of taxpayer dollars than I care to remember. Somewhere along the line, I made a vow that whenever I was placed in the position of being the custodian of taxpayer dollars I would fight that waste and/or careless spending whenever the opportunity presented itself.

And, over the last 30 years of living in Clark County I have been provide with ample opportunity. I led the fight against the Hockey Rink, which thank heavens was defeated, and to place the Hilton Hotel/Convention Center on the Ballot. Unfortunately although we collected sufficient signature that were certified as correct and sufficient would you believe the court ruled our petition, asking only for our constitutional right to vote on the issue, was ruled confusing and ambigious.

Which brings us to the Ports’ Property Tax Levy? As I said, I worked for the Port of Portland for 20 years and have some knowledge of just how ports decisions are made. I have also worked closely with the Port of Vancouver. As manager of the Port of Portland’s Dredging Operation, I supervised the pumping millions of cubic yards of dredged material onto the Port of Vancouver, Evergreen, and Alcoa property. I might even know where some of the skeletons are buried.

Why should you vote and every voter in the 3 port districts vote no the Port of Vancouver’s Industrial Development District Levy? The answers are quite simple.

First of all The Port of Vancouver attempted, without a vote of the people, to impose a property tax rate that represents a 132% increase over the current tax rate the Port now collects. Only a successful petition drive by the people has allowed our voice to be heard.

Note: The Port’s responded to this by saying they were prohibited by law from putting this issue on the ballot. When we responded that they were not prohibited from informing us what they were going to do before they did it. Why then did they elect not to inform us? Their speaker did not respond.

Look for reason # 2 tomorrow.

Warm Regards,


Larry Patella

[Chief]

As promised, whenever Larry Patella puts this garbage up online, I will post it here and rebut it point by point.

Yesterday, I was invited to present to the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Congress reason why you should vote not on the Port’s outrageous attempt to increase our property taxes by 132% over what they already collect from us. Citizens for a Strong Economy were also present and their presentation consisted of one issue. That issue was the Port of Vancouver is going to create 6000 jobs.

My presentation is too long to send it all at once so I will give you one reason each day stating why we think you should vote NO. Don’t let them tax you out of your home.

For starters, I would love to know how he wrangled himself a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce. I am not surprized that Citizens for a Strong Economy focused on the issue of 6000 Jobs, since they represent the Labor Unions, and jobs ar in their interest. I also find it typical that Commander Patella once again casually dismisses one of the biggest reasons to support the IDD Levy in the fisrt place.

Reason #1.

I have spent most of my adult life working for a Government agency. 31 years in the United States Navy and 20 years at the Port of Portland. In those 51 years I have witnessed more wasteful and careless spending of taxpayer dollars than I care to remember. Somewhere along the line, I made a vow that whenever I was placed in the position of being the custodian of taxpayer dollars I would fight that waste and/or careless spending whenever the opportunity presented itself.

And, over the last 30 years of living in Clark County I have been provide with ample opportunity. I led the fight against the Hockey Rink, which thank heavens was defeated, and to place the Hilton Hotel/Convention Center on the Ballot. Unfortunately although we collected sufficient signature that were certified as correct and sufficient would you believe the court ruled our petition, asking only for our constitutional right to vote on the issue, was ruled confusing and ambigious.

Which brings us to the Ports’ Property Tax Levy? As I said, I worked for the Port of Portland for 20 years and have some knowledge of just how ports decisions are made. I have also worked closely with the Port of Vancouver. As manager of the Port of Portland’s Dredging Operation, I supervised the pumping millions of cubic yards of dredged material onto the Port of Vancouver, Evergreen, and Alcoa property. I might even know where some of the skeletons are buried.

Why should you vote and every voter in the 3 port districts vote no the Port of Vancouver’s Industrial Development District Levy? The answers are quite simple.

What the good Commander presents as "Reason 1" sounds mre like his attempt to present a resume to me. But what he considers his bone fides, I see as yet more good reasons to reject what he says on this out of hand.

Commander Patella may be very well informed about how the Port of Portland operates, but his statements demonstrate that he is not informed about how the Ports in Washington State operate. It sounds to me like Commander Patella has some sort of personal axe to grind with the Port of Vancouver. By his own admission he is in business with one of the Port of Vancouver's immediate business rivals, so that shoots Commander Patella's credibility right in the foot.

And right on cue, Commander Patella has to get yet another baseless allegation of some sort of wrongdoing by the Port of Vancouver, by claiming he has some sort of knowledge of "where the skeletons are buried".

One more time Larry: If you have some sort of evidence that anyone at the Port of Vancouver has done, or is doing, anything illegal, then present that evidence to the proper authorities, instead of playing silly little word games and making baseless accusations against people.


First of all The Port of Vancouver attempted, without a vote of the people, to impose a property tax rate that represents a 132% increase over the current tax rate the Port now collects. Only a successful petition drive by the people has allowed our voice to be heard.

Larry, one more time, here is what the Law has to say about this.

Levy for industrial development district purposes — Notice — Petition — Election.

RCW > Title 53 > Chapter 53.36 > Section 53.36.100

(2) If a port district intends to levy a tax under this section for one or more years after the first six years these levies were imposed, the port commission shall publish notice of this intention, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the district, by June 1 of the year in which the first levy of the seventh through twelfth year period is to be made. If within ninety days of the date of publication a petition is filed with the county auditor containing the signatures of eight percent of the number of voters registered and voting in the port district for the office of the governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the county auditor shall canvass the signatures in the same manner as prescribed in *RCW 29.79.200 and certify their sufficiency to the port commission within two weeks. The proposition to make these levies in the seventh through twelfth year period shall be submitted to the voters of the port district at a special election, called for this purpose, no later than the date on which a primary election would be held under *RCW 29.13.070. The levies may be made in the seventh through twelfth year period only if approved by a majority of the voters of the port district voting on the proposition.

That is directly from the Revised Code of Washington, which spells out exactly how the Port of Vancouver is required to do business. That trumps your poinion on all of this Larry, in spades.

Note: The Port’s responded to this by saying they were prohibited by law from putting this issue on the ballot. When we responded that they were not prohibited from informing us what they were going to do before they did it. Why then did they elect not to inform us? Their speaker did not respond.

Look for reason # 2 tomorrow.

Once again Larry, you and your followers asked this over and over again at the Commissioner Forums, and got exactly the same answers every single time. Just because you don't like the answer does not make the answer invalid.

As for "Reason #2", you haven't presented an adequate reason number one yet !! This is a rehash of your usual propaganda, and I have no doubt that your submission tomorrow will be just as misleading. I'll be sure to post that one too, and pick it apart just as easily as I did this one...

Stout Hearts folks...

[Chief]

Here is a little thought problem for you to consider:

Do you suppose any of those dredging spoils that Commander Patella claims to have dumped on the Alcoa and Evergreen sites, possibly have anything to do with the PCB plume that eminates from those properties, that is being cleaned up right now??

Just curious...

[tefen]

Once again Larry, you and your followers asked this over and over again at the Commissioner Forums, and got exactly the same answers every single time. Just because you don't like the answer does not make the answer invalid.



You should include those answers here, just to make sure all the information is in one spot where people can easily find it. (Honestly, I don't know the answers, unless you're talking about "we had to make a quick decision and didn't have enough time.")

Oh, and he said he worked for the Port of Portland, I'm guessing he's retired... not still active there?

[karma]

Chief for you to put what you did on the PCB plume makes me even wonder what you don't know about the Port?? Please before you spout that know the facts about just what the folks in Fruit Valley are living above and start looking at the past history of this area. Does the company Cadet ring a bell?? It's really hard to be unbias here with all the crap that is being fired off??

[Chief]

karma, I sure wish you would apply those same standards equally here...

[karma]

Chief, I'm looking at both sides as I usually do and it's just crap to get each others' sides out and let me tell you neither are helping the issue!!
We all know how wasteful gov is and how they use citizens to do their bidding but I also know what my wallet states and it's still a, 'NO!!' Or should I run my business like the gov does and expect the taxpayers' to fund my business??

[Chief]

You're right tefen, and here is that answer. (I just get tired of repeating it, that's all)

RCW > Title 53 > Chapter 53.36 > Section 53.36.100 > Paragraph 2

(2) If a port district intends to levy a tax under this section for one or more years after the first six years these levies were imposed, the port commission shall publish notice of this intention, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the district, by June 1 of the year in which the first levy of the seventh through twelfth year period is to be made. If within ninety days of the date of publication a petition is filed with the county auditor containing the signatures of eight percent of the number of voters registered and voting in the port district for the office of the governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the county auditor shall canvass the signatures in the same manner as prescribed in *RCW 29.79.200 and certify their sufficiency to the port commission within two weeks. The proposition to make these levies in the seventh through twelfth year period shall be submitted to the voters of the port district at a special election, called for this purpose, no later than the date on which a primary election would be held under *RCW 29.13.070. The levies may be made in the seventh through twelfth year period only if approved by a majority of the voters of the port district voting on the proposition.

[1994 c 278 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 3 § 1; 1979 c 76 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 58; 1957 c 265 § 1.]

[tefen]

Thanks Chief, you did put that above, but I didn't make the connection.

So they notice in the paper that they were issuing a levy WAS the notification required before June 1st.

I think Patella wanted to know why they didn't tell us before the notification that they had the opportunity to buy the property and that they were considering instituting such an levy as a means to acquire it. Why wasn't there several weeks of "This is what your port does", "this is what your port would like to do", and "your port needs help to reach its goals" stories before the bomb was dropped?

I think the answer is "not enough time".

[Chief]

The Port has been talking about this and making noises that they were considering doing an IDD for about 2 years. It really wasn't a secret, and the June 1st Deadline is a statuory requirement in the RCW.

[tefen]

THAT's what I wanted to hear! I don't recall ever hearing about the IDD prior to the fateful day it was declared. But then, I wasn't paying the port too much attention either.

[Chief]

And my entire point is that until the Port of Vancouver made a formal decision to approve the IDD back in February, the process could not go forward under existing Washington Law. If you carefully read the statute, (paragraph 2 is the entire language that says how the process shall work) you can see that the Legislature built that "trigger" if you will, into the Law.

Until the Port Commissioners "pulled the trigger", there was no legal basis for a petition, because no issue existed. The next step was to circulate the petition and gather enough certified signatures.

I thoroughly documented and supported that effort in every way I possibly could right here at Clarkblog.org.. I was running non-stop banners here all weekend long, telling people to go down to the Vancouver Farmer's Market to sign the petition when nobody else in town would even mention the petition drive, much less present the truth about why people should sign it.

I have been crystal clear that the whole time I supported putting the issue on the ballot, and that I was also supporting a "Yes" vote if it came to a vote at all. I said from the day I first heard about this, that I thought this sounded like an outstanding value for my tax dollar, and every thing I have heard since only reinforces that view.