Home

Breakdown of Washington State 

Financial Flaws

Links

 Personal Bio

Census Data
For several Decades, Washington state has had a serious mismanagement problem in terms of  state finance.  The lack of a corporate net income tax or a personal income tax has left the state financial starved of a major avenue of funding.  This has been the situation for most of the State's history and should not change anytime soon.

Towards the end of the 20th century , reforming the tax system was a major focus point for any politician worth his or her salt.  In 1993, Initiative 601 was approved by voters and enacted into law.

I-601 limits growth in general fund state expenditures to a "fiscal growth factor" equal to a three year moving average of the rates of population growth and inflation. The spending limit applies only to the general fund state, which represents about 55% - 60% of overall state spending.  (Washington Research Council)
Since the establishment of the initiative into law, numerous voter approved loopholes have been drilled into it and while it allows for some leniency, it still limits school funding.  Currently the system by which school districts within the state request finance through tax levies is limited by 601, in situations where 601 causes schools to fall short of the necessary amounts to fund needed projects, the schools in question are often left with no recourse but to fall short on some of their goals.  This can mean incomplete repairs and upgrades and students forced to learn in substandard conditions. 

Now comes the question as to how this comedy of financial errors relates to housing.  To begin with, the standard of living of where a person or persons lives is influenced by the economy of that location and the taxes inposed on the people by the state government.  In Washington State's case, the standard of living is much higher compared to other states in the country, while it is not the highest, residents are required to submit more of their finance to have shelter than in Most southern States.  The difference is more pronounced when one compares urban centers.  For example, an apartment through University of Washington Housing and Food Services runs about eight hundred forty five dollars a month for an apart at about 600 square feet, this includes free school ethernet internet connection and all amenities included except for cable.  In New Orlands, Lousiana, that same rent can get me a furnished two bedroom apartment with double the square footage and substantially higher quality.

With the standard of living firmly established as being quite high, one must ask how low income families live in this state, especially those that live and work in urban areas that still valued despite whatever condition they or their neighborhood may be in.  For the most part it is more economical for a family with minimal income to pay another individual to own and maintain a dwelling for them than to own a property and a house, pay the taxes and financing charges for that dwelling all while meeting basic needs.  In this map of Washington State taken from US census data in 2000, we see that the majority of renters are in urban  centers around the Pudget Sound region (please note that the region in Eastern Washington is skewed due to an outlier district that is substancially smaller).  Considering this information and the design of the levy system, these renters would not taxed outright upon the approval of a levy in their district but instead, their landlords would.

In this situation, school tax levies work to the advantage of the renters as they would make up either a substancial majority or a sizeable minority who would be able vote a tax levy into office.  But now the question comes, what about school districts where such financial inhibited people are so few in number but take advantage of the support of the school district.  Suppose in this scenario, there also existed a community of homeowners who did not support a levy because the portion of the school district within their reach is sufficiant for their needs and their students.  Out of this setup it is most likely that the wealthier parents of the district would be able to vote down a levy, thereby denying funding for schools  that actually need the funds.