-When we look at who has access to open space,
there are real gaps.
-We want more, more, more.
We want to get bigger, bigger, bigger.
-Voters will decide this fall
whether to double King County's Conservation Futures tax levy
to fill a funding gap of $2 billion
for land preservation.
-It's an average cost of less than $2 per month.
-Supporters say the levy hasn't kept up with rising home values
because of the state's 1% cap on property taxes.
-The economy just doesn't support a tax increase.
-But opponents argue homeowners already pay enough.
-We need to be honest about where this money is going.
-Should voters give the green light
to acquiring more green space through higher property taxes?
-It is not a huge dollar amount.
It is doing really good work.
It's a conversation on land conservation
next on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
Welcome to this edition of "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
King County is asking voters
to double the Conservation Futures Tax, or CFT levy,
this November to preserve the environment.
That would be about $30 more per year
for the average property owner.
The county says the state's 1% limit on property-tax increases
has decreased the effective tax rate of the CFT,
leaving behind a $2 billion gap for land-preservation projects.
But opponents say taxpayers emerging from the pandemic
are already overburdened, and they have concerns
about how the county is managing land it already owns.
Advocates say the path to land conservation in King County
has become a lot more challenging.
-So the faster we can do it,
the cheaper it's going to be in the long run.
-Heather Ramsay Ahndan is a volunteer
supporting the Conserve Our Future campaign
for King County Proposition 1,
which would roughly double the Conservation Futures Tax,
or CFT levy,
to protect open lands in King County.
To conserve farmland,
river corridors, and other green spaces,
county residents have agreed since 1982 to pay the CFT,
A property tax levy that currently costs
the average property owner about $22 per year.
Yet, while the CFT has successfully helped protect
more than 100,000 acres of open space
in cities like Seattle and more rural areas, too,
the county's ability to collect taxes
has changed significantly under state law.
-And so what's happened over time is that in King County,
we can only collect half of what the state
had authorized 50 years ago.
-Ahndan, who's also the county's Land Conservation Initiative
program manager,
says with a cap on how much the county can collect each year,
as well as a 1% cap on how much a levy can grow annually,
the CFT has been effectively shrinking.
-So as property values are rising,
that also means our purchasing power is decreasing.
So every year, it gets worse and worse and worse.
-And that's a problem, especially when it comes
to protecting sites like this one in Glendale,
in unincorporated King County near White Center.
-This is a 5-acre acquisition that we were able to close on
at the end of 2020
using Conservation Futures dollars to fill a park desert.
When we look at who has access to open space,
there are real gaps.
-With a focus on inclusion, King County has found,
through its Land Conservation Initiative,
that nearly 500,000 people in the county
live outside walking distance,
more than a 1/4 mile away from a public park,
green space, or trail.
Supporters say Prop 1 would help acquire nearly 65,000 acres
to close that gap, boosting climate resiliency,
local food growers,
and the county's overall quality of life.
-There are neighborhoods that do have really
good access to open space,
and if you're living in one of those neighborhoods,
it can feel like you've got plenty of resources.
I think it's important to remember
that not everybody in King County
has that kind of access.
-But to Michael Fisette,
the CFT simply feels like a governmental land grab.
-They don't need more.
Fisette, who wrote the statement
against Prop 1 for the ballot this fall,
is a financial planner who says King County,
which owns 3% of the land,
and other public agencies like the Forest Service
own a total of over 61% of the land in the county.
-It goes back to the nature of government.
We want more, more, more.
We want to get bigger, bigger, bigger.
It never stops, unless somebody steps in and says,
"Enough is enough."
-Beyond Fisette, there's no formal opposition campaign
against Prop 1, though back in June,
King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn
said no to putting the measure before voters.
-And folks are having a tough time making ends meet.
-Fisette echoes Dunn's argument
that while the increase in the levy works out
to just over $2 a month for the average homeowner,
tacking on any higher costs at a time of historic inflation
and other impending tax requests doesn't make sense.
-All these little $2 a month, they sure add up.
-Fisette, who lives in Carnation,
says as he sees more visible homelessness
on King County public lands,
he'd like local leaders to take better care
of what they have before asking for more.
-So, and I just see them buying up more and more property
and not maintaining it.
Not in the 17 years we've lived there
has King County ever come through
and picked up a piece of trash.
My wife and I are the ones who pick up the trash off the trail.
Fisette knows, after 40 years of voters supporting CFT
and up against a "Yes" campaign
that's raised more than $167,000 as of early October,
he's fighting a losing battle.
-I fully expect this measure to pass.
But the thing is, somebody has got to speak up.
-In his mind, King County needs more housing,
not more green space.
And he worries more open areas will mean fewer acres
to be taxed in the future,
resulting in higher costs for property owners.
-So the property taxes aren't going up just $2.
They're going up more than $2 because of that cascading effect
that more property is off the tax rolls.
-Now voters will decide in this present-day debate
about the future of King County land conservation.
-I'm all for open space, but enough is enough.
-It's a matter of sort of pay a little bit now
or pay a lot more later.
-And joining us to discuss this issue further,
we have with us Terry Lavender.
She's worked for 35 years in King County Conservation,
chaired the Conservation Futures Grant Review Committee
as a volunteer for almost 20 years.
Terry, it's really good to have you here.
-Thank you.
-We also have with us Todd Myers.
He is director of the Center for the Environment
for the Washington Policy Center,
who joins us as a voice of concern over this measure.
Todd, good to see you, too.
-Thank you for having me. -Let's start with you, Terry.
I want a brief opening statement, if you will, on this.
King County's asking for an increase
in the Conservation Futures Tax levy,
the CFT, with Prop 1 on the ballot.
Why should voters support it?
-Well, if -- I'm very proud to live in King County.
we have a great record of conservation
with farmland preservation, forest preservation.
We're working on urban projects.
Cities and non-profits can apply for this fund
just like the county can.
I've been a volunteer with the fund since 1992,
when it was actually filling shortfalls
in the 1989 bond at that point.
I think it's a great vision of conserving forest land,
farmland, rivers, trails, and also great urban places.
So I think it's just really important
to make the fund stronger right now
while opportunity is still there,
before these properties are lost.
And so I urge you all to support it.
-Well, thank you for that, and I'm going to dive into
some of those issues as we get in here.
But Todd, let me direct this question to you.
What are your concerns about this measure?
-I have a lot of sympathy for conservation.
I've argued for conservation,
salmon recovery funding at the state level.
And I think we need to do actually more spending
on those sorts of things.
So I have a lot of sympathy for the purpose.
My concern, though, is, is that the way this is implemented,
it doesn't achieve those goals.
So, for instance, one of the things that's
pointed out in the voters' pamphlet statement
is this helps under-served communities.
And yet, of the three properties or three projects
that they identify in the voters' pamphlet statement,
at least, one of them is Cougar Mountain in Issaquah,
and another one is the Sammamish Trail in Sammamish,
two of the wealthiest communities in King County.
And so I think that the way this is actually implemented
doesn't end up achieving the goals that are promised,
that the voters are being told one thing.
But most frequently, and if you look at the map
of the conservation properties, where it's done is primarily
providing access to wealthier communities in East King County.
I have one other concern, which is,
is that it frustrates me -- and this is a general concern,
which is that the way that we spend money in King County,
in Seattle,
is that we waste billions of dollars on sound transit
for cost overruns that could go to great projects.
There's a lot of work to be done on salmon recovery,
on reducing the amount of sewage in Puget Sound,
and things like that.
And yet when we actually want to preserve important
conservation areas, we increase taxes.
And I think there needs to be far more discussion
about how we're wasting literally billions of dollars
when we're raising taxes to get small amounts,
actually, relatively, for conservation.
And I don't think that discussion is ever had.
And I think if we're honest
about doing the most for the environment,
we need to have that discussion, as well.
-Okay, there's a few pieces that I'd like to pull out,
and let me just talk about the dollars and cents
of this with you here, Terry,
because Councilmember Dunn on the King County Council
brought this up when the council was discussing
this measure earlier this year.
We're trying to come out of a pandemic. Every dollar counts.
And at least for Seattle voters, looking specifically at that,
this is one of many tax measures that could be
going up significantly within the next year.
How do you respond to the critics who might be saying
we're getting overtaxed?
-Well, this is small.
Currently the median household,
which I live in a less-than-median house.
I know a lot of people live in a bigger-than-median house.
It's $822,000.
-Would be the median price. -Yeah.
And currently, you're paying just under $24 a year.
And so this would increase it significantly.
I'm not denying that.
It increases it up to almost $52 a year.
But you're still looking at $4, you know, something like $4
a month for conservation that's available to the cities.
It's acquisition only for the county,
the cities, non-profits, and it just -- not doing it
doesn't conserve any property.
And so I think it's just a really important measure,
and it's not big.
-Yeah. -It's a small tax.
I don't deny there's lots of other taxes.
-Right. Right. -But it's a small tax.
-Okay. Thank you for bringing up that point.
And Todd, I want to make sure I put out a financial question
to you, too, because there's a lot of inner workings to this.
The pro-CFT camp would point out that
because state law limits annual property tax increases to 1%,
the effective tax rate of the CFT has declined by about 50%,
while property values have increased.
So how do you respond to this idea
that CFT hasn't been able to keep up with the pace
it needs to maintain to purchase open space in King County?
-Well, I think there's lots -- like I said,
I think there's lots of good projects.
And I actually recognize that that the cost
of this individual tax is relatively small.
So I don't disagree with what they've said.
The problem is, is that that is in context of inflation,
of gas prices,
of significantly increased taxes at the state level
that we're about to hit.
And again, I think I would be much more amenable to this
if I saw government, King County,
managing its money well elsewhere.
And again, I think the other issue is,
is that I think this would be worthwhile
if the money were going to projects
that actually met what is being told to the voters, right?
Like I said, in many of the circumstances,
where you see the conservation lands
is in wealthier communities.
It doesn't mean that they're not worth conserving.
There are some good lands out there,
but I think you have to be honest
about what these lands are.
And is this the best way?
And is this -- should we be raising taxes
to get the money rather than doing other things?
-Okay, you had a point you wanted to make here.
-Yeah. I think the properties that are being conserved --
Well, first of all, this is our funding source
for doing farmland preservation,
for buying development rights off of farmland.
And then they remain in private ownership.
And this is the funding source we do that with.
This is the funding source that buys development rights
off of forest land.
So the 100,000-acre forest east of Duvall
has all of the residential rights removed off of it.
It's still in forestry,
and this is the funding source that does that.
This is the funding source, the only funding source
we have in King County, for acquisition
for places for conservation along rivers and streams.
I happen to live on Bear Creek,
and we've bought all kinds of property
that is being restored, and I go out and plant trees
and all kinds of things.
So this is what we have. This is the funding source.
And I think there's been a recognition that it is not --
it historically maybe hasn't always bought properties
in lower-income areas, and so starting in 19-- or 2019,
we have the Match Waiver program,
which if you meet certain criteria with the application,
instead of getting 50% of the acquisition dollars,
which is typical for a CFT grant,
you can get 100%.
So this has bought properties
like along the Duwamish shoreline in South Park.
It's bought properties adjacent to affordable housing
in Des Moines and Shoreline.
So I think we're working hard
to buy properties where there is a lack of open space.
The big purchase on Cougar Mountain recently,
which I'm sure you would say is in a rich area,
we actually bought it for --
well, to complete Cougar Mountain,
but also because it's adjacent to the Park and Ride,
and we're finally getting a way we can get people out there.
So...
-But it is in a wealthy area.
-Why is equitable access important?
-I want everybody to have a chance
to see Cougar Mountain, and it doesn't --
there's no Cougar Mountain in the middle of
I don't know where, but, you know, I mean --
Well, okay, let's take a look at the one down
by the Enumclaw Plateau.
-Okay. -Pinnacle Peak.
I know it's got a different name.
Anyway.
And, you know, that's in a more low-income area,
and we've bought all the land around that.
And there's a great trail going up
and incredible views of Mount Rainier.
So I don't think you can say it's only in wealthy areas.
-I don't -- No, no, no.
I don't -- don't mean -- don't get me wrong.
I'm not saying it's only in wealthy areas,
but there's no doubt --
I mean, it is being sold in the voters' pamphlet statement
and elsewhere
as giving more access to disadvantaged communities.
I also don't deny that there have been some examples,
but if you look at certainly the history and if you look at,
like I said, the examples that are in the voters' pamphlet --
which I didn't choose, the advocates chose --
they are in wealthy areas, so I want to be honest
about what the program is for and what it is preserving.
The farmland preservation -- I have some concerns about that.
But again, that's not in low-income areas.
If we want to prioritize the conservation,
or if we want to prioritize access,
then let's do that and be honest about what we're doing
rather than trying to tell everybody what they want to hear
when I don't think the program actually works that way.
-Can I jump in and shift the conversation,
if I could a little bit here, because I want to make sure
that we talk about climate change,
which I think is at the root of all of all of this,
because I think a big point for the
"Yes" campaign here, Terry, is this is going to help
King County confront climate change, importantly,
and protect more farms, homes and roads
from floods and landslides.
Can you help me out with that point of it?
I saw that on the website.
And I just want to know, how does that work?
What are you trying to get across there?
-Well, the more mature forest we achieve,
the more carbon sinks.
Okay, so a great example of one sort of close to urban areas
is Wayne Golf Course in Bothell, which is a great big forest,
and that now has carbon credits available off of it.
King County is one of
the only local jurisdictions in the United States
that has a carbon credit program.
And so we're working with that
to return more money for conservation.
They also have a -- They're also one of the only parks districts
that's gotten the "salmon safe" label.
-Yeah, right. -So...
But ask the question again, please.
-Oh, it just how it helps --
I wanted to get specific about protecting homes,
farms from floods, landslides there.
Can you get into that piece, please?
-So we've bought lots of property along the Cougar --
along the Cedar River that was historically always, I mean,
routinely flooded.
Part of what happens is -- so some of the more mobile-home
or manufactured-home parks -- and part of what happens
is part of the fund goes to relocate those people,
and it's very carefully done with them
choosing school districts and different things.
So just allowing rivers room to move
is good for salmon and good
for the people who used to live in the way of them.
-Right.
-I don't know. It's just --
It's the only funding source we have to do that with.
-Yeah. Yeah. Please.
-I want to say that that's not true.
The Riverbend Project,
which I think is what you're talking about...
-It is. Yeah.
-...was actually funded, also, by state money.
-It was, but it's 50% CFT. -I understand that.
But it's not the on-- you said it's the only source.
-Sorry. -It is not the only source.
-It's the only source the county has.
-Right. Right. Okay.
-There is a lot of -- There are a lot of projects
that get money from the state,
from the federal government, from other places.
And the justification you have to have
is why is this grant necessary to do those things?
Flood plains by design, other state programs
that do exactly those sorts of things.
So I think it's misleading
to say that this is the only source.
With regard to climate -- -Sorry.
-With regard to climate change,
the example that you give, I think,
is why -- is a perfect example of how politics overrides
the science of good decision-making.
Forests -- mature forests, they sequester --
they will absorb carbon until a certain point,
and then they start emitting it.
The best strategy -- The University of Washington,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
says that the best strategy for using forests
is to harvest them,
turn them into houses or other materials,
and then restart the process.
What the Conservation Future does is,
is it preserves those forests.
Forests have many benefits, standing, right?
For habitat, for aesthetics, other things like that.
But carbon sequestration is not one of them,
and the sciences consistently says that.
And so that's what frustrates me is,
is that I think that a lot of things
are used as a justification for
when the goal really is aesthetics
or when the goal is really something else
and that they use this.
I think that we ought to have more science, not less in this.
And again, I support many of these programs,
but I think the way that we're doing these things
is too caught up in the politics
and not enough in the prioritization of science.
-Terry, I feel like there's a piece you wanted to say.
Please.
-Well, the majority of forest land
that King County has purchased
the development rights off of has stayed in forestry.
All of that east of Duvall is still in forestry,
and a great deal -- anything in the forest-production district
is not off-limits for logging.
That's not part of what the conservation easement buys.
So...
-But the example you gave was something different.
-The example I gave was different.
That is correct. -Yeah.
-Yeah. And so...
Anyway, I think that you have to be really --
picking examples is a hard thing.
-Yeah, no, it is.
-Because they all tell different stories, but...
-And voters will really key in on those things, too.
-Right, and Conservation Futures only pays for 50%
of the acquisition of any project.
-Right. -So...
Unless it's a Match Waiver
that we talked about a little earlier.
So the idea that it leverages state funds,
Salmon Recovery Board funds,
and stuff is a really important component of it.
And I agree with you,
every project has multiple funding sources.
I was just saying of the funding sources King County controls,
that is the primary acquisition source.
-An important piece of this, for sure.
I would like to go down another path with you if I could here,
Terry, because I look at King County,
I look at the surrounding area here.
We are very clearly in a housing crisis.
I don't think anyone would deny that.
When you look at preserving more public lands,
just going down this path here, that potentially takes more land
out of the mix for more housing that could be built.
I'm thinking about this from the perspective of urban planners,
from people who live here, too, who might be concerned about,
"Wait a minute, if we're conserving more land,
then we don't have much as we need for this housing crisis."
How do you balance those two?
Because I think that's an important part of this, as well.
-Sure, and I think the majority of acreage being purchased
is in the rural area.
The forestry, the farmland, along the rivers.
Land that might not be the best choice for housing anyway.
-Might already be attached to some of your...
-And wouldn't be available
for dense housing under zoning and stuff.
In the urban areas, a lot of the properties being --
there's been -- I've seen a shift,
and so many of the properties
being purchased now in the urban areas
are adjacent to affordable-housing projects.
And it allows that affordable-housing project,
when, if it gets one of these grants, to be able
to set aside green space that works for that.
And there are -- Every once in a while, there's a gem.
Camp Kilworth down by Federal Way,
which is a 40-acre piece, you know, on the Saltwater,
a beautiful forested piece, that received a Match Waiver
and was able to be purchased for $1.6 million
out of the Conservation Futures Fund.
And so -- And that's going to be run by the YWCA,
YMCA as a camp for kids.
And so every once in a while, there's something big like that.
But for the most part,
that wasn't going to be housing anyway.
So I'm not denying that housing is a crunch,
but I don't think the impact
that conservation has on it is that great.
And I'm not sure -- Yeah.
-Okay. Thank you for making that point.
Todd, any thoughts about this?
Housing, I know, is
always an issue that interfaces with environmental issues.
-Yeah, I think there's a mix of circumstances.
I think there are plenty, obviously, and frankly,
sometimes there's land that you want to conserve that you --
because you don't want it to be housing, right?
Especially those along rivers, and especially the River Bend,
where there was a flooding area.
The problem was that there was people living there.
So, absolutely, there are circumstances
where you want to protect those lands
and take them out of the possibility of development.
But what you're talking about in some of these cases
is essentially a parks program.
Parks are wonderful. That's great.
But King County has been through this already,
which is, is that in 2009, in the economic downturn,
it had to give away a lot of its land
because they didn't have the money to maintain it.
And so that's another aspect of this is,
is that you have to make sure that land is maintained
in a good status and can't just be left.
We've seen, we had a lot of parks in Seattle
and now not all of those parks are usable
because they have not been maintained.
-Got it. Can we speak to this idea?
Make sure that King County is taking care of the lands
it already has before adding to them,
I think is where we're going here.
-Yeah. I'm not sure about King County giving away parks.
They were parks in urban areas.
And King County is not an urban government.
-Okay. -That's my understanding.
So you could correct me if I'm wrong.
So King County -- this money buys a certain type of land.
It doesn't buy a ball field. -Right.
-It doesn't buy active recreation.
It buys trails and passive recreation.
So just by the very nature of what it is,
it's going to take less.
You know. Less resources to take care of it, as you say.
There's not going to be that many places
where you're going to have a garbage can and, you know,
and a big facility that needs to be...
That's not to say there aren't some.
So I don't know. I don't think --
-I think I -- -Briefly, please.
-I think that may be correct.
My concern is, is that we have been through this
before in 2009, where King County did say
we have parcels that we can no longer manage
and that they were -- they did find cities to take them over.
Management is an important part of keeping these parcels.
You can't just grab them
and then not have the management.
So, since we have been there, that's top of my mind,
since we've been through it before,
I understand that, in many cases,
there are agreements like with the YMCA or YWCA,
like you said, where they manage it,
but you have to make sure that those are durable and long-term.
-Okay. -Right.
-And I think part of growth management
was putting things where they're best served.
And so these parks were in urban areas,
as I understand what you say.
And they went to the local urban government,
which makes a lot more sense as far as maintenance.
King County didn't, like, just abandon them.
They found another home for them and...
-But they were forced to deal with that.
-And that may be part -- -But I take your point.
-I think a lot of city governments
and local governments were dealing with a number
of different issues in 2009, for what that's worth.
We need to start wrapping up the show.
We've covered a lot of really good ground here.
Terry, just some final thoughts for for voters out there
that are -- that want to know about this, the CFT.
-Okay. It is not a huge dollar amount.
It is doing really good work in the county.
I'm very proud of our salmon-recovery efforts
for a major urban county,
forest land that's been protected,
the work to protect farmland,
and also moving towards putting green spaces
next to affordable housing, and some other issues.
So I urge you to support this measure.
-Got it. Todd, some final thoughts here, please.
-I think you've heard that we actually don't disagree
on several things, which is the value of these.
And I think we need more funding for salmon recovery
and some other things.
But I think first off,
that this is our last priority, right?
We raise taxes for this.
There's a lot of other things we don't raise taxes for.
And when government wastes money,
I think we don't pay attention to that enough.
I would like to see the environmental community
spend more time saying, "Why are we wasting money
when it could go to projects like this?"
But I also think that we need to be honest about
where this money is going, what types of projects.
Most of the projects are in rural,
and that may be good,
but I think you have to sell it accurately
and tell people what they're getting,
rather than trying to be all things to all people,
which I think is a lot of how this is sold.
-Okay, Thank you. Some very good points raised here.
I appreciate it. And we will be right back.
♪♪
What are people saying online
about the Conservation Futures Tax levy?
One person writes...
Another says...
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an e-mail at contact@seattlechannel.org
or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Coming up next time, Secretary of State appointee
Steve Hobbs is in a tight race against Pierce County Auditor
Julie Anderson.
It's a special election to replace Republican incumbent
Kim Wyman, who left to work for the Biden administration.
Will Hobbs, a Democrat, be elected to fill her term?
Or will voters favor Anderson,
a nonpartisan, for the job of Elections Chief?
Hear from both candidates right here
on the next "City Inside Out."
I hope you join us.
♪♪