Maintains that city will suffer if fire levy passes
Published 11:08 am Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Recently I wrote a letter in opposition to the April fire district levy. I got a strongly negative response from one of the fire commissioners who questioned my motives for writing a letter to the editor. (My motive was to serve the public by giving them information they didn’t have.)
I was also told I was wrong on two major points: I understood $1.5 million was to be spent on a new fire headquarters on Roosevelt. The $1.5 million actually only goes to the purchase of 5.85 acres, not to any building. The cost of the building will drive that figure even higher. My mistake.
My second mistake, according to the commissioner, was my assertion that voting for the levy lid lift for the fire district would take away property tax income for the city. This is a true statement. I checked with the Metropolitan Research and Service Center that is a city’s source of accurate information on city matters. I was told by them that I was correct; the higher the fire levy the lower amount of tax revenue the city will bring in for police, streets and parks.
I would have preferred not to write my previous letter because I suspected it would bring an angry response, but sometimes one must do what’s good for the community and take an unpopular stand. I don’t want the city to suffer any more revenue loss, which would result if this fire levy passes.
The point I want to make here is that in a democracy there can be opposing opinions but civil discourse is something our country is lacking. My purpose in writing my previous letter to the editor was to present an opposing perspective to that of the fire district.
Democracy is best served when opposing views are presented in a civil manner. Opinions are opinions and should not be turned into personal attacks. On the state and national level neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be able to carry on a debate without impugning the other side’s motives or patriotism, or character or all three. We live in the world of either/or, and it’s a sad state of affairs.
There is a third and better way between either/or. There is the area of gray where the answer to the question is neither black nor white, Republican or Democrat. That is where most of the workable answers lie. Those kinds of answers only can rise to the surface when we are civil and respectful to others’ perspectives.
My hope is that on the local level with a local issue such as the fire levy we can set an example of how to treat each other with respect while differing in our views. That’s the kind of society I am working toward and the kind that all of us really need in order to have a healthy government. Short of that, civil discourse will become an endangered species.
Richard Elfers
Enumclaw
