Letter to Editor: Those against Prop. 1 love MLT too


Dear Editor:

As the Yes Campaign and our City Council act like supporters of YES on Prop 1 are the only ones who love MLT, most residents of Mountlake Terrace know better.� They also know what other tax increases are coming and those which have already been passed.� City utility rates have climbed steadily upward. With virtually no community involvement, council passed a $20.00 car tab tax last Spring to fund making 56th Avenue a tree-line boulevard. Snohomish County is going to build a new courthouse funded by yet another property tax increase. Those are just local taxes. The impact on families is even larger once state and federal government initiatives are included.

The Civic Center proposal has twice failed at the polls because it is yet another property tax increase and because it is far larger than necessary. Their threats to cut services to pay for future rent are baloney. You want to stop renting space for city hall? Build a new city hall.

How many more hits to family pocket books do they think we can afford?� It’s not progress if we cannot afford it!� Vote “NO” on Prop. 1 .

Margaret Loiseau


  1. “Its not progress if we cannot afford it! ” You’re the minority. Face it. The majority of MLT has said they can afford it. Now we’re going for 60% of MLT. Vote Yes!

  2. It did not ‘fail’ at the last ballot. It was a clear win with 56+%. The only reason it wasn’t *implemented* is because the state requires a 60% *super* majority for that type of funding.The No on 1 people need to stop claiming that no one wants this, because over half of the voters do.
    Your statement”. Their threats to cut services to pay for future rent are baloney. You want to stop renting space for city hall? Build a new city hall.”makes absolutely no sense at all- that is *exactly* what Prop 1 will do, *build a new city hall*. With the existing taxes expiring next year, how do you thing *anything* the city does will be paid for? The ‘No new taxes” line is a tired, outdated mode of thinking that will hamstring community growth.

  3. The vocal no voters would like us to think that all that needs to be done is scale the project back a little bit more, then they would be more than happy to get on board and contribute to the future of our City. Their signs say “NO new taxes” and in reality they will never be pleased no matter how many times the City would go back and revise and scale back the proposal. Those of us who love this City will no longer allow this vocal minority to hijack our future.

  4. What happened in the past in terms of taxes, destruction of the old city hall, money to redo streets, etc. is not the question now. The question is whether we, as a city, continue to pay money (our tax dollars) to some out-of-state organization to rent space that we won’t ever own or do we pay money (our tax dollars) to build a new facility that is solely owned by this city and can be used for many many years. I, for one, would love to see the Ballinger clubhouse retrofitted as the new City Hall. It’s a building. It’s the city’s (I think) and we need to do something with that space. But, still, we need the money to do it. Pouring good money after bad without anything to eventually show for it is a fool’s errand, in my humble opinion. Note: I’ve lived here since 1976.

  5. Matt Terry is right about how fruitless it is to argue over water under the bridge and that it isn’t wise (fool’s errand) to send money to what the mayor calls “back east investors” for rent – even it was his decision to do it in the first place. But if sending $430,000 per year to “some out of state organization ” isn’t sensible, how can sending$1.5 million per year for30 years to another “out of state organization” beany more sensible. If wasting money on rent is the issue, that can be solved with either a modest mortgage or an expensive one. The problem is that the city won’t present us with the alternative of a modest mortgage because they want an expensive package.

  6. Some people just don’t get the message. If we don’t finance the new civic center which is on property that we own we will have to raise taxes to pay for another
    place to lease at probably more than $500,000 a year. We will have to pay either way. Then every couple of years we will continue to do a levy lid lift and raise taxes again. Gee that makes alot of sense. There is no other viable solution. If you are on reduced property taxes from a lower income you will be exempt from paying the increase please make this badly neededcivic center a reality for our wonderful city and our future kids and grand kids. We are on a fixed income and are happy to pay the increase which amounts to two coffees a month. We are willing to pay. How about you.

  7. Renate Barnes
    the city is not clear enough how much we will pay. All I read is $10.13 a month for an average home. What is an average home for the city? Usually it says how much it would cost per $1000 and then I can multiply this by the value of my house. An average home value is now different than a couple of years ago. Can somebody answer my question? What will I have to pay per $1000 and what is the average value for the city?
    How can we vote yes if we do not get straight answers. $10.13 is not straight enough for me and that translates for me to a no vote.

    • Renate, the number they are using is approximately $190,000 assessed value. Remember that the County assessed value is likely different than the current market value, check you most recent property tax statements. Using this number it would be something like 5.3 cents per $1,000 value per month.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here