Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Edmonds is at a crossroads, with choices surrounding fiscal leadership and local development that will define the community for decades. Working families, seniors, and small businesses are already feeling squeezed, and with the recent annexation into South County Fire set to double the city’s Fire/EMS property tax in January, residents face yet another burden: a proposed $14.5 million permanent property tax levy lid lift will appear on the November ballot, further increasing household tax bills. For many, this will be simply unaffordable.
This is not just about protecting the Frances Anderson Center, Yost Pool, or even ensuring public safety—it’s a debate about what kind of city Edmonds wants to become, and who truly stands to gain from these policy changes. City leaders and consultants tend to draw comparisons to Redmond or Issaquah, but the direction of policy and zoning debates tells a different story: Edmonds appears poised to follow in Ballard’s footsteps. Once a neighborhood of single-family residences, Ballard’s relentless upzoning and developer-led growth have sharply eroded affordability and pushed out long-term residents, all while transforming its character completely.
Behind this push in Edmonds are special interest groups coordinated with the city’s financial consultant and policy makers. This process, as Ballard’s experience shows, leads to skyrocketing prices and the squeezing out of existing homeowners and renters alike. When city policies tilt the balance in favor of those with the means and motive to profit most, it’s the working and middle class who pay the highest price.
Proponents of this property tax increase try to focus debate on “saving” beloved community amenities. But this narrative falls short of the fiscal reality: Edmonds’ financial challenges are not due to lack of resources. The city has enjoyed steadily rising revenues spread across multiple sources, regularly outpacing the growth of the Consumer Price Index. At the same time, city spending has risen sharply. The budget history is clear — Edmonds has managed its responsibilities and services at tax levels far below the amount now being requested, even while expanding services. The supposed “need” for a $14.5 million increase reflects, at its core, a chronic failure to honestly match resource allocation to community need.
Unfortunately, instead of making difficult choices to align spending with the city’s statistically valid survey priorities, city leadership has defaulted to raising taxes. It is easier to “hit the easy button” and seek more from homeowners than to undertake comprehensive, sometimes politically risky, financial and budget reforms. A city that prizes expedient new revenue over transparent financial discipline erodes trust and puts lasting affordability out of reach for too many. Even Councilmember Chen – the only councilmember with a financial background – recognizes we have alternatives.
Edmonds residents should demand a reset — a commitment to responsible, creative stewardship instead of a tax-and-spend approach that mainly benefits developers. Preserving Edmonds’ distinct character, affordability, and sense of community continuity requires rejecting policies that emulate developer-driven models and instead prioritizing transparent budgeting and prudent governance. True leadership means championing discipline, efficiency, and unwavering commitment to the people who built and sustain this city. It’s time to say ‘NO’ to this tax increase and insist Edmonds remain a place where families of all incomes can thrive.
Jim Ogonowski is an Edmonds resident, a prior member of the Citizens Housing Commission and a retired Boeing Vice President and Senior Chief Engineer with experience in managing complex airplane development programs with a global footprint.
The “reset” means cuts will happen. Give me a list of cuts, unless you agree with what the City says it will cut. We already know that your alternate plan does not work. So tell us what your priorities are to save and what you are willing to cut. In the end, we know what will be cut. And that includes parks and planning and police. There is no magic bullet to make the cuts not happen, if we don’t raise the taxes.
The development that you write against in the beginning of this post will be even more likely without an adequate planning staff to evaluate proposals, and the city will be even more desperate for the increase in property taxes that this new development will bring.
Arlene,
Like many others, you’ve dismissed the proposed alternative budget without conducting a thorough review or applying the due diligence necessary to evaluate its viability. The alternative plan absolutely works. It’s grounded in sound fiscal principles and offers a path forward that provides a more affordable middle-ground on tax increases. But it does require something that’s been sorely lacking: legislative initiative from the City Council.
We didn’t elect our councilmembers to rubber-stamp whatever the mayor puts in front of them. We elected them to scrutinize, deliberate, and legislate. That means engaging with alternative proposals, asking hard questions, and crafting solutions that reflect the community’s priorities—not just the administration’s preferences.
Unfortunately, what we’ve seen instead is a troubling lack of rigor. The council, as a body, has shown little appetite for complex financial analysis or policy innovation. With the exception of a few members, there’s been minimal effort to challenge assumptions, explore alternatives, or even understand the long-term implications of the mayor’s budget.
So yes, you may be right in one regard: the council appears ill-equipped—or unwilling—to apply the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate complex fiscal matters. But that’s not an excuse to accept flawed policy. It’s a call to demand better from those who represent us.
I keep seeing mentions of the “proposed alternative budget”, but where is it? How does it compare? I just continue to hear vague complaints about the city council’s “lack of rigor” , “rubber-stamping”, and a lack of “critical thinking skills”, but I have yet to see a point-by-point comparison between alternative budgets.
Hi John,
Thanks for asking. With all the articles – both pro and con – it’s easy to get lost. You’ll find my previously published proposal here:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/09/reader-view-understanding-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-budget-choices-and-alternatives/
Once you’ve had a chance to review it, we can continue the conversation. With MEN article word limits, some finer details may not be adequately explained to your satisfaction. Just ask the question and I’ll do my best to elaborate.
Let’s take a moment here…Why do the residents have to spend their precious hours coming up with a budget alternative?
City of Edmonds: ‘Pass the levy or accept doom’ (resolution 1570). Are my kids working with the city on this budget?
Our electeds should be siting down with us, helping come up with an alternative.
If defeated, of course the city will come back to us for the original levy amount of $6M, I will vote Yes!
John – have you read the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel Summary?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Please think very carefully about what you want Edmonds to be…there’s no turning back. Before voting, go see “downtown Bothell”. It no longer exists. It’s all multi-story condos & apts, no available on-street parking, central shopping core unwelcoming & hard to access. The few remaining original bungalows are sandwiched between 5 story buildings. Lots have been combined to create large construction sites. No character any more. It looks like Anytown, USA. Well, actually, a lot like Ballard.
I think the most important word in the above letter is “ permanent “. It will not be a 5-6 year tax. Ouch !
My neighborhood is a diverse mix of blue-collar service providers, tech workers, double working parents with school-age children, renters, and retirees, both couples and singles. Some homes are beautifully updated and cared for, and some are long overdue for maintenance. One neighbor has lived In her home here for 45 years, and several for 30. Others, like me, moved in within the last 10 years.
I know the names of many, including all the children. We watch each other’s homes when we are away and compliment each other’s gardens and improvements.
I used to live in Magnolia in Seattle, which has become so upscale. I prefer and feel more at home in my neighborhood here: I want to keep all my neighbors. I know from talking to them how distressed they are about the possibility of two simultaneous significant tax increases.
As Jim says: as a city, we have better options than Prop 1. Vote no.
And in the mail comes a 4 page color promotion for Proposition 1 produced by the City and paid for by us.
Absolutely spot on. It’s frustrating to see the City using taxpayer dollars to produce excessive promotional materials pushing Proposition 1—especially when the whole point of the measure is to take even more from residents. If they have the budget for full-color propaganda, maybe they don’t need a tax hike after all. This kind of spending feels tone-deaf and excessive, and it makes me even more skeptical about how responsibly future funds would be managed.
I received that mailer also and found an interesting bit of information on page three of the mailer. Under the heading of “How Would The Levy Work?” is the following: “It would increase by the inflation rate annually for years 2027-2031. In 2032 and beyond, the levy would grow by no more than 1% each year.” Does this mean that the levy would increase by more than the current Washington limit for five years to help Edmonds catch up on past inflation and then return to a 1% limit until the next time Edmonds falls behind inflation? If the levy just matches inflation for the years 2027-2031, wouldn’t the city just be treading water instead of catching up? And when the levy lid lift goes back to 1%, wouldn’t Edmonds just start falling further behind? If inflation ramps up to 4$ or 5%, is that how much my property tax will increase each year?
I agree…VOTE NO. The city rezoned my property from single home to multi-home, to force me to pay higher taxes, which are already too high. It makes me seriously think of getting out of Edmonds or even Washington State. Please please vote NO.
I wish Edmonds would stop wasting my tax money with the reconstruction of each street corner and roundabouts and FIX THE ROADS!!!!
And we just installed stop signs at the 2nd and James? Why??
I worry about Edmonds becoming like Ballard as well. I would hate to see us increase density in the Bowl, and increase building heights, as then developers will want to tear everything down and build boxes.
But I also believe that we’ve had a history of poor financial management, spending and committing to things that we don’t have the budget for. Everyone has things they want (or think they need), but at some point we can’t make everyone happy. Personally, I would rather have our current quality of life (and keep our services like police and fire), than parking garages, bike lanes and lighted crosswalks everywhere, bigger buildings with more mainstream brand stores, etc…
At some point, we have to decide that balancing the budget is more important than whatever the latest ‘shiny object’ is. And growth is not a must. It’s OK to stay small.
To this day I have not read nor heard how a $6 million levy more than doubled into a $14.5 million levy. Can someone please explain?
Jerry, I attended the July 1 Council meeting at which the amount of the levy was discussed. What I heard was: “Let’s let the voters decide”.
Ron, in my house we refer to the Prop 1 “6year levy” as the Buzz Light Year Tax: “To infinity and beyond.”
Chart above shows the real effect of the Prop 1 levy. Edmonds should not aspire to be the most highly taxed city in the area. Vote No on Prop 1. It is double the amount the City needs and amounts to a false crisis and an ultimatum that is not necessary.
To me the choice is simple. Do we care more about people or stuff? The duty of government is to protect the people. In the case of a City, that means police, fire and medics. Everything else is secondary! If our parks aren’t maintained to perfection, that’s better than one person losing their home because of huge tax increases. Unfortunately, if Prop 1 succeeds a lot of people will lose their homes.
Your vote will tell which you care about!
Mr. Chaffee, The fix that you need is a new property tax relief bill at the state level. I feel there should be more relief for lower income folks in the form of a property tax deferral program that will be paid back with interest when the home eventually sells. This could cover more people if there was an income based “sliding scale” that could give some partial relief on the tax bill according to how little or how much income you make, with an income cut off much higher than the $75,000 now. As property values rise, the people owning homes create equity. If you have owned the home for a long time, your home value has skyrocketed and you can use that to defer some of the tax load that you don’t want to pay today. The state will eventually benefit by getting interest on this deferral amount, and you would be able to live in your home as long as you choose to. I am sure that many people would support that. Unfortunately, the City has no control over a tax deferral plan. It has to happen at the state level. The City only has property tax, sales tax, and perhaps a B&O tax (though that is very controversial).
Your comment doesn’t list fiscal responsibility (careful spending), which is also part of budgeting. The City of Edmonds has been increasing spending above it’s growth rate (of residents and/or inflation) for the past four years. Fiscal responsibility would suggest restraint on spending while asking the citizens for less money. Doubling the Edmonds portion of the property tax we pay, in addition to the already approved RFA is an egregious ask when lower and fixed income folks are already struggling. If you really care about affordability for Senior citizens and moderate to lower income households (who will not be qualified for an exemption) you will vote NO on Prop. 1.
Mr. Wardlaw, If your side wins, we will find out what happens to Edmonds without enough funding. I don’t think it will be good for Edmonds. I prefer to invest in the community where I live. I don’t even need to go on a vacation to some far flung place anymore, because Edmonds is such a nice place to be, so I spend my money locally.
The property tax fix we need for senior citizens comes at the state level. Another good solution is an income tax for Washington, which can have higher rates for those with higher incomes. That is much better for lower income folks instead of increasing property taxes, but the city of Edmonds can’t make that change to begin in an income tax.
Ballard is consistently referenced as one of the most desirable, interesting, walkable, nice places to live in Seattle. You could do a whole lot worse than being compared to Ballard.
I left Ballard to come back to Edmonds, ~4yrs ago. Love visiting, but would hate to live there again. Dense, ugly, overpriced housing (some exceptions) countless unhoused people suffering in the streets.
Few yrs old – but you can do some digging, crime increased and quality of life in many ways have decreased.
But yeah might appear desirable, as we’re good at lowering the bar.
But if that’s what you want, check Zillow.
https://myballard.com/2018/06/20/seattle-survey-shows-fear-of-crime-ranks-higher-among-ballard-residents
https://www.kuow.org/stories/rising-crime-rattles-ballard-s-beloved-nightlife-scene-as-a-city-council-election-looms
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/why-is-there-so-much-homelessness-in-wealthy-ballard/
That said. I’m not opposed to development in Edmonds, as long as city takes input from those that need housing (ensure it’s actually affordable) and balance it with rest of community. It can be done.
I have lived in edmonds all my life, so sad to what this town is becoming.
Vote no on prop 1.
Voting NO Prop 1
I left Ballard for Edmonds three years ago, after zoning changes resulted in our neighborhood being turned into rows of townhomes. Our little one-story brick house was the “Up” house for 18 months until we also decided it was time to leave.
I loved old Ballard and my heart is still there. We lived there 27 years and raised our family there, but the neighborhood feel is now gone. Sure there was crime, especially during COVID, but the ultimate demise of Ballard for me was over-development at the expense of a more balanced approach. Yes we need more housing, but we don’t need increasingly more expensive boxes that displace actual affordable housing. At some point all we’re doing is pushing longtime residents further out, only to see the same cycle repeat in those new communities.
I’d hate for Edmonds to fall victim to the same fate.
Robert Chaffee, MD,
Your arguments are the most compelling. You state:
“To me the choice is simple. Do we care more about people or stuff?”
“Unfortunately, if Prop 1 succeeds a lot of people will lose their homes. Your vote will tell which you care about!”
Thank you! And thank you for being a community supporter of Keep Edmonds Affordable. KEA says NO to the levy. Community supporters are clearly listed on their website:
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters
Yet nowhere on the KEV website (YES to levy) will you find a list of supporters’ names and backgrounds. https://keepedmondsvibrant.org/our-work
This whole letter and many of the responses hear reek of classic NIMBYism. This anti-growth, anti-densification, anti-change mentality is a major obstacle to Edmonds ever becoming affordable. We keep doggedly protecting single family residential zoning and fighting against any change or evolution in development patterns, and then wonder why housing prices continue to soar.
When I moved to Edmonds 13 years ago, I had the (naive) hope that once I raised my kids and they moved out, that they would have the opportunity to live in Edmonds on their own, but that’s essentially impossible. Why? Because there is virtually NO multi-family housing in Edmonds, thanks to the attitude of existing residents who refuse to accept anything other than a “small town feel”, despite the fact that we’re located in one of the largest metropolitan regions on the West coast.
And then when the City tries to pass a proposition to add a minor increase in property taxes to keep basic public services functioning, people are suddenly up-in-arms about affordability. Disappointing.
Ballard and Crown Hill, where I grew up in the 60s and 70s, are neighborhoods in our country’s 18th most populous city that happen to be geographically blessed with a commuter route to downtown that does not rely on I-5 or Hwy 99. What Ballard and Edmonds have in common is water-front property on Puget Sound and that’s about it. Referencing Ballard objectively as a model that Edmonds needs to guard against is pure folly.