Could your next property tax bill cost more than your mortgage?

The underlying proposal as it stands is going to cost the taxpayers of Washington State and the homeowners of Washington State hundreds of millions of dollars in higher property taxes. When we think of what this policy proposal is going to cost, let's not focus on our own ledger sheet, I mean that's important, but let's keep in mind the people who actually fund everything. People in my district, Mr. Speaker, wonder why. Why do we consistently pay more and more and more in property taxes and continue to get less back? We should expect, I know crazy concept, but we should expect some results from our schools in order to get more money, especially at a time when we have an affordability crisis in our state, where people can't barely afford gas, groceries, rent, insurance, healthcare, you name it. Why do people live in Carbonado? It's not because of the industry. There's no Microsoft jobs in Carbonado, Mr. Speaker. There's no sawmills, there's no carbon mines, there's nothing. People live in Carbonado because that's where they can afford to live. These are the people that have to drive two-and-a-half hours to get to work, two-and-a-half hours to get home, and when they get home at the end of the day, the schools that their kids go to can't even get adequate funding because here we are, 12 years after McCleary, and we still haven't figured out how to adequately fund education. The quality of education often is tied to resources, and just because they live in a rural part of our state, they should have the same opportunity those students in Creston, Wilbur, Sulton, Pomeroy, Pico, they should have the same opportunity, but they're not, and that's just wrong. Mr. Speaker, this bill is like a reverse Robin Hood, literally stealing from the poor in order to give it to the rich. The property-rich school districts will benefit, the property-poor school districts will be left behind. The inequality gap will widen as a result of this. We are driving faster toward the cliff of a McCleary 2.0. Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me that we are considering public policy that makes this dreaded reality closer at hand. I'm very concerned because of the history of education funding in this state. A lot of work went into the McCleary fix. That McCleary fix satisfied the Supreme Court. That has actually brought in $4 billion more than what the court said was necessary and what the court said satisfied the McCleary decision. We have money that we can send to the poorest of poorest school districts. Those school districts that rely on local levies that weigh heavily on homeowners because there's little or no industry, that's where that $4 billion should be going, but not in this bill. That's not what happens. Greater levy authority is given. Less levy equalization is provided. The gap that was closed by McCleary, not totally eliminated, but the gap was closed, that gap will begin to widen with this bill. It takes us in the opposite direction the McCleary fix took us. This bill is not necessary. It is harmful and it could lead us, most likely will lead us, into another lawsuit, which we will again lose. Please vote now.