Assessments follow lake levy


Gazzam Lake will always be a lake bordered by swamp. To say a developer would destroy it is idiocy, as environmental law won't allow it under any circumstances. This wet area is some 70-80 acres. The remaining 250 acres has building potential. If a Planned Unit Development were in place, island citizenry should look at the PUD as a bank with the ability to extort all kinds of things in exchange for density such as: the entire 80 acres or more dedicated as public open space for free; ballfields; soccer fields; a pool; a school; trails; fire station, etc. for free; infrastructure both on and off the site for free; and best of all, a huge increase in the island's tax base instead of reducing it by some $50,000. All this cost to the PUD would be enormous, of course, which makes you wonder who'd buy this property in the first place except the park crowd with your money at an inflated price.

Friends of the lake say, " in such communities (with open space galore) command premium prices..." Right. Your premium real estate taxes force you to sell.

This lake-levy is insidiously up for vote one week before your new assessments come out. To get the bad news now, call 842-2061, the county treasurer. My taxes went up 12 percent for '95 even though the pool levy failed.

This lake-levy is front-loaded, meaning present property owners get to pay more than newcomers.

This island already has four times more tax-exempt park lands than the nation's norm. (National Rec., and Park Assoc., 4th printing, 1990 ).

The city of Bainbridge Island projects at least an 18 percent tax increase come 1996.

Beware of empire builders who try to tell you what's good for you at your expense. They have an agenda. They get the power and control, while you go broke.

Allison Hunter

Bainbridge Island

Stop blaming the schools


It has always been easier to place blame on someone or something, than to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, when we blame others the problem seldom gets fixed.

One area that we constantly blame for our problems is the public school system. They always have their hands out for more money and we feel we have already been unfairly taxed. So why should we support a system that does not work?

Let's start with the money issue. The state and federally-mandated programs continue to take a bit out of public education funds. They continually come up with new programs like random drug testing for employees for example, but they don't give the schools additional funds to defray the expenses of implementation.

Currently, schools only receive approximately 76 cents on the dollar of needed funding. Schools then turn to us to help them give what the government and public demands. Then to make matters worse, the schools need 60 percent of the votes in order to receive any additional funds.

Money is not the only challenge facing public education. It also faces increased responsibilities in areas that were handled by families before, i.e., in addition to lunches, many schools now have added breakfasts. Also, some rather alarming statistics are now facing schools. One out of three children born in the US is now born out of wedlock, compared with one in 20 in 1960. Half the children born in the 80s and 90s will be raised by a single parent sometime during their childhood. And 3,000 teenagers get pregnant daily in the United States. Two million teenagers are arrested annually in the United States for committing crimes. A child in the United States is 15 times more likely to die from a gunshot than a child in Northern Ireland. Drug use continues to be a problem with young people, as does suicide.

Despite these and many other alarming statistics, the top 25 percent of scholastic achievers in this country score higher than the top 25 percent of any other country. While it is true that we are no longer at the top of the list for overall academic achievements worldwide, the potential to achieve within our schools is still there.

We as parents must realize that proper education and moral responsibility begins and ends with us. Let's stop blaming the schools and start working harder with our children at home before it is too late. Let's focus on the positive things our schools are doing and support them Feb. 7.

Ken Haddenham


A 'no' vote is prudent


Enough already about the school levy election. A "no" vote is the only prudent vote one can make. The lives of our children, not the wailing teachers, administrators, assistants, janitors and hidden private contractors, are at stake.

The liberal social engineering that has gone on for the last 20 years has spawned an entire generation of adults, now teachers, who have mastered the art of demanding something for nothing, and have no qualms about using the innocent children, (who have a Constitutional right to a quality education), as the hapless pawns in their public brainwashing scheme to better teachers' lives.

The leftist group "CK Citizens for Quality Education" had the gall to send me "facts" to justify why I should continue to pay $350 per year in additional property taxes for the express purpose of funding a fiscally irresponsible and lazy school system. The "fact" sheet says the state "funds about 79 percent of an average school district's annual budget." This of course is an untruth. The state funds 100 percent of each school districts basic needs, based on state curriculum guidelines. The amount is fixed by number of pupils in that district.

The fact is, the administrations have become kingdoms. The teachers, resenting how administrators have it so good, have become renegade, refusing to do their jobs without the bells and whistles of corporate kings. So, adamant to have their pleasure palace classrooms, and perks deluxe, teachers disregard state law  even a court order  to strike for a bigger piece of the cash cow that is our property.

It is a "fact" they say, that the state "does not provide adequate funding" for building maintenance, etc. Well now, if that is true, then this is a legislative matter. If there just aren't sufficient funds coming from the state, don't lay the guilt on the local taxpayers. Teachers could use one of their half days (every Wednesday) and go to Olympia and address the House.

Our Legislature has decided long ago what basic education is. By order of our Constitution, the state must provide it. Levy elections are merely to allow the public to decide whether certain districts shall have amenities (luxuries) and programs that exceed state requirements.

Bill Camp


No, we can't afford it


This letter was triggered by the column by Jim Rothgeb, in which Mr. Rothgeb states that if the school levies fail and a juvenile detention facility bond passes, "the vast majority of our young people have every reason to feel angry and ripped off."

Although I voted against the recent school levy (and plan to do so again), I do not feel that I fall within Dr. Janet Barry's definition of many of those who opposed the levies as "curmudgeons." My old dictionary says that a curmudgeon is a "surly, ill-mannered, bad-tempered fellow."

Really, Dr. Barry, I am not even a "cantankerous person," an alternative definition of "curmudgeon." In fact, my neighbor says "to know me is to love me!"

I am however, a frustrated taxpayer who sees too many public figures who seem to be of the opinion that the taxpayers have bottomless pockets. It seems to be, "Let's decide how much we want to spend, then we'll set a tax rate that will bring in the necessary amount."

I would suggest that Mr. Rothgeb, Mr. Hauge, Dr. Barry, the elected school boards, et al., practice saying the following (which obviously is not currently in their lexicon) in private, perhaps in front of a mirror, until they summon the courage to say it in public, "No, we can't afford it!" Then, instead of generating creative ideas on how to raise and spend money, work on some creative ideas on how to not spend so much while still accomplishing the goal of basic education for our young people. Get behind efforts to restructure the property tax system for a more equitable distribution of the tax burden. And stop using such potentially inflammatory statements such as those of Mr. Rothgeb and Dr. Barry.

Stan Everett