Special election ballots for school levy mailed Thursday; election day Feb. 13

Ballots were mailed Thursday and must be cast by Feb. 13.

Ballots for the Feb. 13 special election were mailed to Snohomish County voters on Thursday.

Those living within the Edmonds School District, including residents in the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, will be voting on a measure to renew its school programs and operations levy.

The levy would allow the district to collect $1.50 per $1,000 assessed value on residences within the district, which totals between an estimated $49 million and $78.5 million per year from 2019-2022. School district officials say the levy is not for additional funding, but to continue day-to-day operations. (Click here for more information about the levy.)

Voters interested in seeing if their ballot and other mail is ready for delivery may sign up for Informed Delivery with the U.S Postal Service. While not available in all areas of the county, Informed Delivery is a tool for some voters to anticipate the arrival of their ballot.  Visit informeddelivery.usps.com to sign up.

Voters are encouraged to return their completed ballots as soon as practical. There are several options available for returning your ballot – through a ballot drop box, an accessible voting site, directly to the Auditor’s Office, or by mail.

For the special election, the following ballot drop box locations will be open. Boxes at these locations are available 24-hours a day until 8 p.m.on Election Day, Tuesday, February 13, and no postage is needed. A list of nearby locations is available below.

A mobile ballot drop box van will also be available at Edmonds Community College on Tuesday, Feb. 13 in the courtyard near Lynnwood Hall. Edmonds Community College is located at 20000 68th Avenue West.

Ballots returned through the mail must be postmarked no later than Feb. 13.

Snohomish County Elections has accessible voting equipment for voters with disabilities available in the Auditor’s Office, Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Hours will be extended to 8 a.m.-8 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, Feb. 13. Accessible voting equipment will also be available at the Lynnwood Sno-Isle Library on Monday, Feb. 12 from 10 a.m.-7 p.m. and from 8 a.m.-8 p.m. on Election Day, Feb. 13. The Lynnwood Sno-Isle Library is located at 19200 44th Ave. W., Lynnwood.

If you are registered to vote and have not received a ballot by Jan. 31, call 425-388-3444. For more information, visit www.snoco.org/elections. You may also contact Snohomish County Elections at [email protected].

Nearby drop box locations are:

Edmonds (near library)
650 Main St., Edmonds

Lynnwood (in front of City Hall)
19100 44th Ave. W., Lynnwood

Mountlake Terrace (near library)
23300 58th Ave. W., Mountlake Terrace

Mukilteo (near library)
4675 Harbour Pointe Blvd., Mukilteo

Bothell (QFC parking lot)
22833 Bothell Everett Highway, Bothell

Everett (Courthouse Campus)
Rockefeller Ave. and Wall St., Everett

Everett (Everett Mall – near Sears)
1402 SE Everett Mall Way, Everett

56 Replies to “Special election ballots for school levy mailed Thursday; election day Feb. 13”

  1. I always vote for school funding, but I’m hesitant to do so this time when the district will be receiving significant new funding from the state. Owners of average homes in Edmonds will be paying about $800 more in property taxes each year to provide that funding. The school district devised this current levy prior to knowing what they’d be getting from the state. It seems like the levy should be postponed until they can make a more accurate assessment of their needs and then present their case to the voters.


        1. Hopefully we will all give the April election for Libraries the same discussion. I do not know the timing of trying to get something added to the April election but I would guess it would be no shorter than 60 days. Probably no time to act that quickly.


    1. Don nailed this in another post. I think the Congress is flaunting the law and the court decision. There is no reduction in levies except for just this year. They don’t want to give up that tax vehicle, which shouldn’t of been used in the first place because schools should be funded. Jay Inslee said the state had all the money they need to fund schools first.
      It’s kinda low, like seeing someone panhandle with a child.


        1. In fairness to Darrol, the word “congress” can mean just the US House of Representatives, or “any group of people who come together”. Further confusing it is that senators and congressmen/reps most often use the word “congress” to describe both chambers. In this case I am saying both chambers. I studied to become a parliamentarian, but never really followed thru, so I shouldn’t have an excuse.


    2. Thanks for the information. It tracks with what others are reporting. In the Sea Times this morning is an article about who much the state will send to districts for teacher salaries. $70k for Edmonds and our current average pay by contract is about $77k. We will have to make up the difference from some form of local funding.


  2. There is a huge percentage coming out of property taxes for school funds, every year, and this year is a significant rise. Why can’t this be appropriate?? How much more additional increases can a tax payer actually pay??


  3. Looking at the timing of county mailing of 2018 property tax bills, I think many homeowners will vote before they actually see the big increase in their taxes for this year. From the county assessors page,a home assessed at $500,000 will see their property tax increase $410.35 from the state rate increase alone.

    With this year’s increase my property taxes will have doubled since 2010. I’m sure this must be very difficult for those on a fixed income!


  4. If you read what how the court defined basic education in its 50+ page order and compare it with what ESD provides for our kids you will find a difference. The state for example will not fund any extra curricular activities like clubs and sports. The state will also not fund the full cost of teachers and staff. What the state will fund allows us to lower our dependence on local funds but if we want our kids to have more than a basic education we need local funds.

    The timing for us is not the best. The state has been slow to do their job of funding and while the Governor says we have money for basic education he will not send us enough money fully fund our current and projected budgets. Some local moneys are needed or we will have to cut costs and programs to match the lower budget.

    School elections have typically been held early in the year in order to know what the revenues would be for the coming years. We are voting in Feb for money to arrive in 2019. We must notify teachers if they have a job for the coming year I think sometime in May. It will be pretty hard tell a teacher we are hiring you for 2018-19 school year but we do not know if we have funds to pay you. Timing is everything. Without this levy their will be a hole in the budget of $30m-$40m. Saving paper clips will not be enough.

    So what if we are wrong and the state send enough to cover our current budget? I cannot find any logic that our elected school board members would not adjust the levy rate to match the funding needs.

    If they did have additional dollars I would be lobbying for adding programs that would give our kids an even better education. My believe from personal experience is really very simple. If a kid has more face time with a teacher then the kid well get a better education. Our kids would benefit with more teacher time and extra money would allow for that potential.

    Rather than attack schools it would be interesting to see what ideas we could generate to give our kids a better education and not just settle for basic.


      1. It is my understanding that they can actually decide they want to collect a lower dollar value and then based on the lower amount and the levy rate needed to collect that amount given the tax base in effect at the time.


        1. I just noticed that your paragraph above beginning with “If they did have additional dollars” was somehow revised from ESD being elated and lowering the levy rate (paraphrased since I can no longer see the original) to “I would be lobbying for adding programs that would give our kids an even better education. ” That change makes my earlier comment about not knowing the district can lower the levy rate seem out of context. Based on over 40 years of working in a government job, “adding more programs” is the most likely result of a windfall from additional revenues.


    1. “What the state will fund allows us to lower our dependence on local funds but if we want our kids to have more than a basic education we need local funds.”

      Our kids had clubs and sports before the McCleary decision. Don provided the links which showed the levies still increasing year over year, which effectively amortized the one year (this year) where levies were slightly reduced. You’d think that additional state funding would reduce levies nominally for many years to come, but it looks like the otherwise increased dependence on local funds is not affected. I bet I am missing something… Don/Darrol?

      I think the real estate market is going to crash. I imagine a revolt when assessors keep the high home values (or are at least are slow to re-assess downward), even after the market tanks, but voters are forced to pay high levies on their old, artificially high property values. Houses are 45% over-valued here.


      1. Yes we had clubs and sports before McCleary. We also raised about a third of our budget through local levy’s. The state did not fund sports and clubs before McCleary nor will they after McCleary. Yes we will depend less on local funding going forward. But without local funding we will not have enough from the state to fund the projected budget requirement. That is why we will continue to need local funding, that is why “congress” will allow local levies but at a reduced level. I guess I should have said the WA ST Legislature to keep in in your terms. Local levies will be relied on less going forward, that is the law. But who knows what those folks who gather in Olympia will do when they come up with their fix to comply with the court. We need local levy dollars and no vote will reduce those dollars to zero. That is not acceptable to me even if I amortize all this.

        I will try to explain how home values going up or down impact the taxes we pay. When Edmonds had a total assessed value of $8B, yes billion then my $1B home would be responsible for 1/8th of all the taxes. If the market were to fall to only $4B but because I put in a new bathroom and other improvements my house stayed at $1B I would now pay 1/4th of all the tax. The City did not get only half the revenue as before, if Council were to have voted for the 1% allowable increase then they would get 1% more than the previous year and our home values would only determine who pays what portion. I would pay 1/4th now up from the 1/8th of the previous year.
        So if all of our home go up and down at the same rate then we still pay the same tax plus 1% and to do that the levy rate would change. So if the county is slow to change up or down and do it in a way that we are all impacted by the same slowness then we all will pay our same share but our homes will be worth more or less.

        Two taxes in Edmonds do not follow this same pattern. EMS and the Library tax are calculated base on our home values. So when our total assessed values go up, so does the tax. And when they go down so does the tax. In the case of EMS taxes, we do not collect enough to pay for all of EMS and Fire so we pay the contracted amount out of the general fund. In the case of the Library tax it does not go to the City for payment of the library, the tax goes directly to SnoIsle. That means with a common levy rate across the whole library system and the average home value in Edmonds greater than the average in all of the SnoIsle territory, Edmonds will pay more per house hold that other parts of the system. Some data I have seen shows Edmonds will pay $1.3m more than parts of the territory.

        So if the county is slow to lower our home values just hope the treat us all the same with their speed. Then we will not be paying relatively more than our neighbors. We are all in this boat together.

        Got to run now, just got my ballot and I want to vote yes as quickly as possible. If others want to vote no that’s ok but just know that we would be creating a hole in the budget. That hole will force us to make cuts that up to now we have been willing to provide our kids. This is a fact and the rest of the statistically analysis is hard to follow and does not track with the facts as I know them. I would like to actually provide more funding for schools not less.


  5. To Jim above. No way to reply above. No I do not know that MR meant to say legislature. MR knows a bunch more than I do about a lot of topics and this is the second time he has used Congress relating to school funding. And the ESD does get about $15 a year from Congress allocations. I am not going to second guess MR. That could trigger something I would not like to hear about my own skills and knowledge.


    1. I love you Darrol. I use the word congress literally, as in the meeting of both senators and representatives. It not an effective word when talking about state-level politics, and it’s worth pointing out on your part.


      1. Few people have your skill, training, and vocabulary. I try to dumb down my conversation so others may actually understand my point. I take that back. I do not dumb it down, that is the best I can do with the facts that I have.


  6. This discussion has become too complicated and speculative for me; I like to keep things simple, but factual. This levy is based upon “business as usual” – meaning no increased funding from the state. Well the state has come thru with more funding, and the source of it is not some “gold box” that the state has; it’s coming from ESD property owners. So the supplemental funds needed thru a levy should be less than provided for by the levy we are now voting on. I’m voting NO on the levy; hopefully it will fail and ESD will come back with a levy based upon current circumstances.


    1. I agree with Darrol that we’re voting for money the kids need. Hes a subject matter expert, I learned a lot. But Ron, I think you’re seeing the ends of this the same as me, and couched as “business as usual” is better said than the way I put it. Is this budget brinksmanship designed, or is it happenstance? If it’s politics, then I gotta vote NO. If the state legestlature is trying to fund schools first is in good faith, then Darrol wins; I’d vote YES.


  7. Mr. Wambolt’s facts and action are spot on.

    For further clarification, I encourage everyone especially Edmond’s residents to read their new tax assessment before voting. It is shocking. One does not have to wait for mail it can easily be viewed online now at Snohomish County Assessors Office.


    1. I looked yesterday and my Summary Page only shows the 2017 taxes (and before). Is there another link to see 2018 taxes?


        1. Thank you. I read that yesterday and it is very enlightening. But, Mr. Murdock wrote that residents could “read their new tax assessment.” I can see my new property valuation, but I can not see my 2018 tax assessment.


  8. Jim, I am confused by some earlier statements about the levy and if they had added dollars. Let me make my point here in this way. Lets assume for the moment that the state will provide all the dollars necessary to balance the current budget plan and no local funds are needed to do all that we do today, basic, athletics, pay the full salaries of the current staff and all that.

    Then lets assume the state gives each district the ability to levy local taxes for more than the are currently doing. This could include extending the school year to more than 180 days; creating and staffing summer programs; or anything else that we the public would like to truly add to the educational experience of our kids.

    Given full funding of what we do today and the ability to add dollars for other new programs I would encourage us to sort out good ideas for improvements, make a case to the public for added taxes to accomplish and then vote to see if our citizens want to improve education.

    That is what I was saying in some posts above but want to be more clear with this post that I would hope we as citizens would be willing to tax ourselves for a better education for our kids.

    Given to total tax climate which is very real and scary, it will take a lot of time and effort to convince others that this is worth the $’s. But I would be hopeful that we could at least talk about how to improve education not just pay for the status quo.


    1. I still don’t know where the contingency is. Levies used to pay for part of the basic education, right? (I’m learning, I am lay in this) Now the state has to pay for all of the basic education, but levy rates are still going up? You’re saying that increasing the levies [regardless of the additional state commitments] is a way to “sort out good ideas for improvements, make a case to the public for added taxes […]”. This levy isn’t being sold as an improvement referendum, like an apportioned tech levy. You’ve convinced me that ample unapportioned levies are needed for now, but why did they propose an increase in the rates even though ***house values went up, student population went down (I’ve heard), and the state is finally being forced to pay for all of the basics***? You’d think there would be a significantly reduced levy referendum, that still resulted in a net increase in school funding. You said “who knows what those folks who gather in Olympia will do when they come up with their fix to comply with the court”, so does that mean that the contingency is really a lack of trust in our state-congress, so we better fund this as usual because they might fail our kids and be accountable? A yes vote would be a pretty big kickstand to offer Olympia. Many thanks Darrol.


      1. If we pass this levy the rate will go down from 2.37/1000 to 1.50/1000 and the local taxes will go down from $79m in 2018 to $49m a reduction of $30m. The state has estimated what they will pay for basic ed but until the legislator is done we will not know the exact number. The estimates that I have seen are right around $30m and that is what our reduction locally will be so we would be about in balance. Without the local levy we will have to cut the budget. See my post for some other background at: https://myedmondsnews.com/2018/01/citizens-weigh-pro-con-statements-edmonds-school-district-levy-proposal/#comment-131525

        Student count did go down one time but is back up again is forecasted to grow in the years ahead. Here are the enrollments for Oct of each year:
        2012=19,972; 2013=19,990; 2014=20,049; 2015=20,249; 2016=20,420; 2017=20,304; the only down year and the projections going forward are: 2018=20,461; 2019=20,630; 2020=20,845; 2021=21,116 and will it is a ways out the current forecast for 2027 is 22,153.

        Our individual home values when compared to all homes in the tax base determine the amount each of us will pay. See post Jan 26 at 4:11 above has some more discussion on how taxes and home values inter relate.

        Between this and the two other posts listed I think I have responded to each of your questions.

        The post Jan 27 5:17 above was my personal thoughts on a series of “what if” statements. I would like us to think about doing more than basic and more than what we do today and think a little bit about how we could improve ESD education beyond todays accomplishments. We owe it to the kids to give them the best, not just basic or status quo.


        1. I think I operated on some misconceptions, especially after reading your comments and this as a baseline:

          I’m not from WA. Frankly, your 1% comment went way over my head, as I spent about an hour getting up to speed:

          The nominal rate did go down in anticipation of state funding as you said. I’m zero’d in on past total receipts and projected total receipts from the levy bill, and perhaps too quick to think foul play. The total tax receipts (because of assessed home values) are expected to go up drastically (+17%), maybe hitting the state 1% provision, and really hitting the higher-value homes very hard by the way I read the RCW. The $1B hypothetical house you put makes sense now.

          Don Williams provided some good reads on assessment projections, which is good reason for concern for higher-value home owners. I’m not as optimistic about home assessments. There seem to be firewalls in place just for increased home values (albeit too progressive for my tastes), but I haven’t found provisions for a recession [yet] other than a new referendum should that occur. I’ve got two kids in school, and it’s a gambit. Darrol, you’ve changed my mind. I’m voting yes. Maybe 4 years from now $1.50 won’t be enough, and it may be a bad cap.

          “By voting Yes the issues will be easier to fix than by voting No.” Thanks for the hand-holding, seriously. This is way more complicated than I imagined.


      2. Matthew, In 2001 we voted on an initiative to limit property taxes and this is what it said. “The Initiative Measure No. 747 concerns limiting property tax increases. This measure would require state and local governments to limit property tax levy increases to 1% per year, unless an increase greater than this limit is approved by the voters at an election”
        It allows city councils for example to increase property taxes so the total revenue to the city would increase by only 1% . To raise more than 1% would require a vote of the people. If they did not use the 1% in a given year they could “bank” it and use it in a later year. Skip one year at 1% and add 2% the next.

        The city would also get the tax revenue from new construction in addition to the 1% on the current base. The limit has caused cities to look closely at what the do and reduce costs rather than go to the public asking for added taxes. My bet is this limit has reduced the growth of government. The long run issue is that cost do go up and will likely exceed 1% sometimes and when their is no way to save the $ then services would have to be cut or ask the public for a tax increase.


        1. I saw the term “levy lift” used in the RCW and elsewhere when referring to the 1% rule and I guess [by the way I read it] the limit applies to all levies (state and local) in aggregate not to exceed 1%. I bet the average voter never heard of the 1% rule, or that we are actually voting for a “levy lift”. My hard-point is always nominal costs and that’s where I got wrapped around an axle, because the projections show a lot of new funding. I don’t believe that those projections will work should there be a business cycle, so we’re probably voting for a significant reduction if anything. Maybe a $1.50 isn’t enough, as it wouldn’t have been circa 2008.

          I don’t know. I’m an aviation engineer, and this stuff if quite a bit over my head now that I realize it. My kids are young and we sent them through the Edmonds Montessori. The staff there does a great job, they are amply paid, my kids were taught well, the student-to-teacher ratio was lower than public school, and they collected a check each month from me – not my neighbors. I just want to pay for school that way. If I’ve got pay for it via levies, I want to pay as little as possible. I’m voting yes because this is the resolution before us, and the funding is needed. I would have been nice to see a one year resolution instead of a four year resolution before us, so that we’d know what the lay of the land is from a state funding perspective and an economy perspective. No one denies that we’re in a transitional period right now on both counts, and anyone’s guess is as good as anyone’s guess.


    2. Mr Haug – based on the Seattle Times article here:


      it appears you are in step with what the school district intends to do with extra revenue. Here’s the Edmonds School District excerpt from that article (formatting in comments section is limited so I apologize if the below comes across difficult to read):
      – Proposed new total levy rate: $1.50
      – Old levy rate: $2.37
      – Years of levy: 4
      – Term: 2022
      – Revenue: $49 million in 2019, $78.5 million in 2022
      – Will you roll back the levy when the state fully pays for basic education?
      – They plan to follow the statutory limit on how much districts can collect in their local levies, or $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
      – If not, what will you do with the extra dollars?
      – All levy dollars going forward will be used for enrichment purposes, according to definitions in HB 2242.


      1. Jim, I take exception to the statement that the levy will be between $49 and $78.5. The formulae allowed by the state is one of two…. which ever is lower. 1. $2500/kid or 2. $1.50 per assessed values. Kid count is current 20,304 and the middle range of the forecast for 2022 is 21,311. That kid count would produce $53.3m. If the assess values in 2022 are under $35.5b then that would be used to determine the tax and it could be lower than the kid count method.


        1. I agree it seems high. I don’t know where the Seattle Times got their data, but I assumed it was the individual district offices. Maybe it came from state offices. As Mr. Wambolt has commented, it would be nice for taxpayers if the district would take some time to let things sort out… especially since in 2018 they will get the additional state funding on top of the ESD levy approved 4 years ago.


        2. All- with the new commenting system that allows people to vote thumbs up or thumbs down, all comments now appear in moderation and have to be approved, regardless of whether you have commented in the past. I will do my best to approve as quickly as possible but there may be some delays — thanks in advance for your patience. Also, someone mentioned this to me a few days ago and it was mentioned earlier by someone else — if we can be as succinct as possible with the comments it would be much appreciated. I won’t impose a word limit but I will quote George Burns: “The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible.” — Teresa


  9. Jim:
    Here’s when you’ll be able to see the specifics for each property.
    According to Kirke Sievers,County Treasurer his office will begin mailing tax statements
    on February 14th.


  10. Mr. Shelton I apologize. I was looking the other day and found a number that showed our 2018 taxes due had gone up over $800 dollars. I can’t find the same thing again. I will keep looking. Sorry.


    1. thanks Mike, that would be great if you can find it. The county assessor has done a really good job posting her best estimates, but I wanted know exactly before the actual mailings occur around the middle of Feb (too late for voting).


      1. ESD has historically run their levies in February because they found that to be a successful month for them. Probably one of the reasons they’ve had success in February is because property owners have not yet seen the precise taxes that they are faced with in that year. Just one reason, fairness to property owners, the levy vote should be held in March or April.

        I’m not sure if it has been already mentioned, but the reason this new levy is being decreased to $1.50 per $1,000 of property value is because that is the maximum the state now allows. The decrease to $1.50 from the current levy’s $2.35 is offset by the state tax going to $2.85 from $2.03. Yes, that’s essentially a wash but the average Edmonds home has increased in value by 34% since the last levy vote!

        With this proposed levy ESD is double dipping in 2018 – they receive the $2.35 from the last year of their current levy as well as the $.82 addition from the state. It seems like that “windfall” could be used to reduce their new proposed levy.

        I am voting NO so that ESD comes back with a more realistic levy in the next couple of months.


        1. Ron, The data that shows the levy rate does show an increase in the assessment from the state but Edmonds will not be getting all that is assessed from our taxpayers. I will try to get more numbers tomorrow that show what the state will send to ESD along with what we will be collecting locally. What I recall seeing did not show a numbers out of line year over year.


  11. The Education Levies are usually appear on the ballot BEFORE the property assessments are made known…that way the voter is kept in the dark. Ignorance is not bliss.

    Are McCleary property taxes and the Education Levies cash cows for the teachers’ unions? …just sayin’


    1. Just replying. I have verified with the ESD that the state law HB2242 that outlines the tax formulae to be one of two methods. 1. $1.50/1000 of assessed values or 2. $2500/kid enrolled. The district can only collect $49m the first year. An assessed value of $32.7b or a kid count of 19,600 would both produce the maximum of $49m. Kid count is already at 20,304 and expected to raise about 150 per year going forward. Assessed values could drop but with the lag of the drop and changing the assessed values is usually slow but if they did drop that would be the formula they must use and it would produce a tax lower than $49m. No matter how much the evaluation goes up it will likely be the kid count that produced the lower tax to be used by law


  12. I would like to know what they are doing with the funds they get from the sales tax from Pot. Each time I ask I am told it goes to the schools for “drug education.” That tells me nothing. I would like an actual accounting of what they are spending that money on.
    It is a lot of money. That is a lot of “drug education.” Perhaps they should be spending it on something else for the schools.


  13. I just figured my cost in taxes. last year we paid about $6,000. If this passes it would ump to about $11,500.00. How is that for an increase? Based on the ballot numbers I just got. Can you imagine that? What about seniors on a fixed income? Even if you don’t own a home, if you rent or have HOA I guarantee you they will double.


  14. Today and yesterday, I was contacted about the levies. Points pressed upon me were that ESD had the option for a two-year funding instead of opting for a 4 year referendum. I think the projections are anybody’s guess considering volatility in real estate and what McCleary money there actually is, and it would have been more fair to voters to get a shorter term. I’ve read that other school districts are going to defer money should there be surplus, but ESD plans on spending more on enrichment. Any less money in 2022 would be considered a cut at that point. Everyone seems to expect a surplus (I don’t, I’d sell my house this spring). I would vote no on this levy if it were nothing more than a way to get a two-year funding option on the table again. It’s pretty cavalier to go into a new 4-year tax when there’s so many moving parts that aren’t known. Anyone smart on this, is a two year funding plan possible should this fail to pass?


  15. The County web site now has posted 2018 property values by parcel. While the site also shows that the total levy rate has been going down over the past few years, we know it will go up with ST3 and State rates. With values increasing our taxes will be more but we will not know for sure until we put all the respective levy details together to see how much the total levy rate will increase.


    1. My 2018 Pending Property Value has been posted on the website for months (it was posted about the same time I received the paper copy in the mail along with everyone else). As I’ve commented before, what I (and everyone else who votes) cannot see before they vote yes/no on this levy, is their actual tax assessment for 2018. In other words, what will they really pay based on the county assessor’s final determination of each taxing districts levy rate. It’s the wrong way to do business, I am voting against it even though I personally would benefit from it. I know it will not matter because most voters do not look into or do not understand what is happening to make an informed decision (just like ST3 when so many were “surprised” by how much they were going to pay for it – I wasn’t surprised, and probably many you here who actually read and analyse the news were not surprised)!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *