Washington Votes Forum

 So in economic hard times you want to increase taxes and spending to further meddle in local affairs creating even more buracracy to get in the way of solving local problems? How about spending your time looking for ways to cut spending and get government out of the way of people solving problems. Government is the problem, not the solution.

What is the meaning of a "tenant homeowner" given that a tenant is someone who rents or leases a building from the owner and a homeowner would seem to mean someone who owns a home?  Is this seeming oxymoron defined away somewhere in the bowels of the law?  Will this surcharge be applied to renter's insurance (since they would also benefit from the provision of emergency services.)

Is it considered proper for a private organization (such as the Washington state emergency management association) to be tasked by state law with setting of rules?  Is this an unfunded mandate on them or do they get compensated for this vital public service?

It would seem reasonable for the baseline study mandated in Section 5 and funded by Sec 4.(a) to begin prior to the various programs from Section 4 but, by section 4.(3), no funding is to be available until Jan 1, 2011.  Since there should be a least some money in the fund prior to 2011 (unless the insurance companies get to keep the money (and interest) until the end of the year,) it might be good to perform the baseline study in 2010 or even 2009 (so the joint legislative audit and review committee can begin to determine whether 1 1/3 percent is too much.)

Since grants show up in both section 4,(b) and 4.(c) and the tasks in both section seem to similar, it might make sense to redo those two sections into one coherent section.

Doesn't this force homeowners to subsidize renters?  Homeowner's insurance covers both the physical structure and the contents/personal property so homeowners are paying a surcharge on both.  The landlord's insurance surcharge (to be passed on to renters as rent increase) covers only the physical structure.  Renter's insurance (not surcharged) covers the personal property of the renter that is included for the homeowner.

It is further interesting that flood and earthquake insurance (probably the two largest users of emergency management services) also seem to escape being surcharged.

To really help manage the costs of a disaster, we would stop government subsizing of flood insurance and allow insurance companies to refuse to rewrite new poilcies after a payout.

This is a WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN-lose proposition for the state-county-local jurisdiction/tribe-emergency manager-taxpayer/insurance buyer/homeowner/sucker/voter.

The state will have fewer people in Camp Murray sucking on the general fund teat, thus freeing up general fund money for the legislature's most critical function of buying votes.

the counties will need to spend less money out of the general fund on emergency management, thus freeing up general fund money for the county legislators' most critical function of buying votes.

The local jurisdictions and tribes will have to spend less money out of the general fund on emergency management, thus freeing up general fund money for the city council's most critical function of buying votes.

The emergency managers will have a dedicated revenue source meaning that they will have to spend less time defending their budgets against more politically profitable (to the elected officials) projects and MAY be able to do a better job preparing for and responding to emergencies.

ALL WINNERS by this legislation.

The only losers are the residents of the state who get to see more of their hard earned money traipsing off to state coffers to fund, not only emergency management, but also the purchasing of their votes come next November (or Novembers in the future.)

Actually the insurance companies also lose since they have to do additional accounting to fund the four WINNERS above.

This is, of course, totally the responsibility of those same LOSER voters who keep electing the people whose most critical requirement is buying votes for the next election and paying off contributors from the last one.  Fortunately, only a very few of those losers ever bother to check Washington Votes to see what is going on.

Those voters who hope the government will change, have to learn that they have to change before there will be any hope.

 Don't homeowners already subsidize renters through paying property taxes to fund the schools that renter's send their children to?

Also, everyone who pays homeowner's insurance subsidizes those who build and re-build in areas that experience natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.

Beyond that, we know the Democrats need to find as many ways they can to increase revenues. What better way than force an increase in homeowner's insurance in order to reduce the monies the State pays to protect us since all homeowner's have insurance if they have a mortgage? It's an easy target to bring more money into the state coffers.