Commentary: Why the county’s public safety sales tax increase failed

By Jim Bloss

The Herald’s Aug. 17 editorial: “What’s next after tax rejected” missed a few important points about why the county’s Proposition 1 tax increase may have been rejected by voters.

First, there likely was no organized “no” to the tax campaign because most voters recognized that our dedicated elected officials were just doing their difficult jobs in attempting to balance a budget (without cuts) that they perceived could only be supported at this time by such a tax; voters were not second-guessing or disagreeing with our electeds who we pay to make these difficult calls.

Second, it’s possible that there was some concern about mixing and matching uses of the tax even though calling it a Criminal Justice initiative, which gave the appearance of attempting to fund more law and justice, using as partial justification the thought to use some of the tax proceeds to support some mental health and homelessness prevention, intervention and diversion measures.

The issue with voters may have been that in a mixed bag of planned uses the some thought may have seemed a bit fuzzy to voters who believe that there is less need for law, justice and corrections and more need for prevention, intervention and diversion which would have the effect of reducing the need for more law and justice. Would it be, perhaps, 60 percent for cops and courts and maybe 40 percent for prevention? Without clearer specificity one might think that the prevention carrot was offered as part of the planned use of the tax proceeds as a way to convince voters that perhaps there was actually going to be a turn-around in the amount of tax monies being used already in funding law and justice in the county, when some 75 percent of General Fund monies already are spent for that. Would more funding to address root causes of the need for law and justice eventually mean there would be less need for law and justice?

Third, there is already a Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Sales Tax, .01 percent, in place in the county, with its own County Council appointed advisory board to provide oversight of its use), that tax’s purpose to specifically address needs and recommend uses that would provide for more enhanced and new services and programs that would address the root causes of mental illness, chemical dependency or both.

Where there is a need for use of these monies by law, justice and corrections in ways directly applicable to use of these funds, those uses are specified and delineated in advisory board reports and advisory letters to the council. This approach currently used by the advisory board in recognition that use of monies in this way affirms the part that prevention, intervention and diversion play in support of public safety in Snohomish County.

A more logical way to address the already identified need for mental health and chemical dependency sales tax to support law, justice and corrections and assist in ways that will provide for more prevention, intervention and diversion via the criminal justice system, would be to increase the that sales tax rate to .02 percent to support those needs. Addressing use of funds in this way would allow for a more visible representation of the sales tax need for more criminal justice personnel and services.

I have to believe that if the above considerations are addressed in the next attempt at passing a tax for criminal justice needs, then voters would have little argument in not supporting a need already identified by our dedicated county elected officials.

Jim Bloss is a former member of the Snohomish County Chemical Dependency and Mental Health Advisory Board and past president of the county affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. He lives in Monroe.