By Candace McKenna / Herald Forum
For those of us living in Snohomish County outside the boundaries of the Port of Everett, port district expansion is on the Aug. 6 ballot and with it the choice to tax ourselves.
The argument for the expansion is potential jobs and the possibility of support for projects in the wider county. It feels to me that we are being asked to sign a blank check.
For benefits, there is the vague promise of trickle-down “job creation” but no concrete plan for a project outside current port boundaries. For risks, the port commissioners, representing three port districts, all currently are Everett residents. An updated governance structure, which might increase the number of commissioners from three to five, is not certain. It will require another vote. The minimum tax burden is certain, with a risk of more than doubling from about 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value to 45 cents per $1,000. This will come at the expense of folks who already struggle to own and rent in our county.
Renting a room in my town — no kitchen, no laundry — requires half of what a person earns at minimum-wage. When I listed our small two-bedroom home for rent earlier this year the housing crisis was painfully illustrated. The dozens of applicants demonstrated the lack of housing inventory and the inability of folks to afford to buy in this inflated housing market with high mortgage interest.
A homeless couple made as strong a case as they could. Another applicant was a year down the road from a domestic violence situation and the perpetrator had tracked her down where she was currently living. She had three children to care for and was working hard for a future that did not include a shelter or subsidized housing. She did qualify for a subsidized two-bedroom, one bathroom apartment, but if her income went up from continuing to work a second job, she would lose her qualification.
A grandmother of two applied. She was working three jobs and offered her Venmo records as proof. Several folks needed to move urgently because their landlord was selling due to large increases in property insurance and taxes, or just to cash in, fearful of the housing market taking a tumble. One landlord had increased rent from $1,600 to $2,700 a month! Many applicants had significant student debt but were still willing to rent at a cost of half of their gross income. I just couldn’t figure out how they would handle transportation, food and that debt, let alone the $350 a month.
It’s clear that this is not the time to be adding to the costs of housing without clear benefit.
I fear that if this port district tax passes, it may make it difficult for essential taxes (schools, safety) to meet with voter approval. Do we need another layer of government? It’s not entirely clear to me what value the port would offer the wider county that isn’t already being offered? What authority will the Port have that might come into conflict with city or county government?
I have heard that an expanded port district would be willing to provide fill for moving Airport Road to enable the Harvey Field expansion. I value more the preservation of the agriculture to the south of the City of Snohomish and the prevention of future flood damage. Where would my voice be heard on this matter?
Voters will be trying to sort through all these questions with the Herald’s reduced local journalists hard pressed to cover every issue. Please vote “no” this summer on port expansion and ask that if the measure is brought back that the benefits and specifics be made more clear.
Candace McKenna lives in the city of Snohomish.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
