As reported here, KC Executive Ron "King" Sims has proposed yet another plan to separate KC home owning tax payers from their money, and is basing it on junk science - "global warming" - and scare tactics - "Your insurance rates will go up!" - saying that local levees are aging and are in need of repair, along several of our regions major rivers.
I'll grant that this is probably something that is needed, in that one particular levee that is in need of repair, if it fails, would impact a source of approximately 30% of the drinking water in the city of Seattle (which admittedly could have an impact on yours truly - I like clean drinking water), but I question the methods of bringing this to our attention.
First of all, they are using scare tactics to get attention, using the "threat" of increased rainfall resulting from so-called "global warming" (and you know how I feel about that subject), coupled with the "threat" of rising home owner insurance rates resulting from the supposed increased rainfall. Well, the increase in the rainfall that they are so worried about "will occur" in the year 2100. Sims plan is a 10 year plan to fix the levees, so let's see ... it is currently July, 2006, so if this proposed plan gets on the November ballot and passes, then all the levees will be "fixed" by 2016. Do I have the math right? Yep. So, does that mean that the proposed fixes will last another 84 years, or will we have to fix the levees again during that time? Will we really need to fix the levees again during that time, because of "global warming", or will the climate shift to "global cooling" (as was described as recently as the 1970's?). No one knows for sure about that, ok? How often does the weatherman "get it right" in their weather forecasts?
Secondly, why all of the 'concern' for property owners now? It sure wasn't there when he was pushing the KC Critical Areas Ordinance, which has severely curtailed the rights of property owners to use their land they way they see fit, in that up to 65% of their property can be set aside by the county for 'wetlands' and/or other 'environmental' protection.
In my mind, the scare tactics, and insincere 'concern' for property owners, to 'make people aware of this dire threat' in order to get it on the November ballot, enabling the county to get more tax payer money, smacks of political grandstanding in order to push another tax down our throats.
Making us aware of a problem is one thing, but trying to scare us into doing something about the problem is another, Ron. Just give us the facts, omit the conclusions based on junk science, and let us decide what we want to do about it, ok?
No comments:
Post a Comment