People are upset about tax assessments. Our pre-appeal tax bills doubled in one six-year period with no limit on how high they can go. That’s reason for concern. But complaining does no good unless you do something to make it better. So we have a proposal.

What if assessments were frozen or left at purchase price, except for major new construction; and the lid removed from at least some tax rates? (Reversing the current system.)

Benefits, reasons, and objections are:

1. We can get out of the business of recurring assessments saving a substantial amount of public expense. Our good assessors probably prefer a job where they are welcomed.

2. Assessments are inaccurate, intrusive, and onerous anyway. All sorts of complex and convoluted schemes have been devised to make them at least cosmetically “fair” but they involve so many variables and subjective judgments that a perfect system is impossible. We had three candidates to replace our county assessor. Each had a different approach for making assessments “fair.” What does that tell you? “Fair” would be different depending on who gets elected. When the Jewelry Exchange in Renton can openly advertise that their product will assess for twice the purchase price, the accuracy of “the price a willing seller will sell to a willing buyer,” is trashed.

3. Assessments are out of public view and easily skewed. Tax rates aren’t. They are in the public forum and can’t be manipulated without public reaction. That’s more democratic. Then too, few have the time and resources to investigate and appeal their assessments, nor should they have to.

4. It would stop the highest and best use of land taxation instead of the use people put it to.

5. No one could argue that their assessment should be different from the price they paid, saving both the cost and doubts of the Board of Equalization.

6. It would take politics out of assessing, and we have heard enough of these stories to validate a discouraging opinion.

7. It would stop the increased taxes to people who have done nothing to increase the cost of government. When newcomers buy nearby property at inordinate prices, all the neighbors get an assessment increase they did nothing to deserve. We’ve heard awful stories of people beset by unjust tax increases even to the point of being forced from their homes either through a forced sale or outright loss. Candidate Daniel Jones and Assessor Tom Baenan discounted them as invalid exaggerations. We don’t think so. Some accounts are first hand.

8. It would stop taxation on unrealized gains. What good is an increased assessed valuation of your property? It isn’t a nickel of worth unless you sell it and if you do, you will pay an equally inflated price for replacement property. What if you have no intention to sell and don’t want to? Why should you be penalized for what others do? This has been a serious problem for resident Washingtonians for a long time. When spendthrift people come here with deep pockets, it imposes on current residents unethically, inappropriately, and unacceptably.

9. It stops the improper eminent domain effect of rising taxes in the path of development and gives a “seniority” benefit to resident Washingtonians.

10. A formula for transferring the “seniority benefit” for senior citizens who sell and repurchase to downsize could be devised similarly as California did with their famous (or infamous) Proposition 13, which incidentally has been in place and survived legal challenges for over 28 years without causing the state to fall into the sea as predicted by those fearing the trend would spread. Instead, after an adjustment period, their economy is burgeoning while non-illegal-immigrant population increase and home sales have been hot.

We attended the House hearing on HJR 4214 (a proposal similar to ours) in Olympia last year and found the real estate lobby in force protesting the “loss of mobility” effect the bill would allegedly cause, affecting real estate sales. Such a senior-formula would ameliorate much of that besides being a worthy benefit.

11. All tax exemption programs could be eliminated. They will be unnecessary.

12. It stops penalizing tax increases to people who maintain or improve their property which benefits the whole neighborhood. Materials are taxed when purchased anyway.

13. Assessment increases should be limited to the cost of materials, not on all the other attendant factors. This encourages the healthy attitude of our indigenous do-it-yourselfers as well as everyone else. We found the justification for assessed “improvements” increases to merely be new increases in lumber prices.

14. It’s fairer than what our State Constitution’s taxation uniformity clause intends (Article VII, Section 1), but fails to accomplish.

15. It’s so simple a cave man could do it — even the Legislature.

16. Government still gets necessary funding but in a more trustworthy way.

17. It would discourage the “so what” attitude of government toward little people (well, maybe) and restore trust and confidence in government.

18. Who knows? It may retard insensitive and senseless development.

19. Yes, it means spendthrifts who want to enjoy what longtime residents built will pay higher taxes, but who increased the cost of government, you or them? We gave seniority rights to native Indians. Someone who buys things “on sale” pays less sales tax than those who pay full price for the same things. People who get a rebate still pay full sales tax.

20. Senator Mary Margaret Haugen acknowledged that Washington’s tax system is “the most regressive in the nation.” Thousands agree.

There are websites dealing with the problem and efforts are underway. One is www.priorclaim.com. Another is www.predictabletax.com. The second is a group in the Sequim area. Last year they were successful in getting bipartisan legislation introduced to accomplish something similar to our proposal. It was killed in committee rather than let it be put on our ballot. But they can do it. They passed HJR 4223 for our current ballot right after killing HJR 4214. The Sequim group has a petition on their website to urge our legislators into action. Consider signing it. Both websites discuss this in greater detail. (We prefer our solution.)

Al and Barbara Williams

live in Oak Harbor.