The editorial on I-1634 suggests local governments should decide how to best address issues in their communities. The more than 1,400 farmers, small businesses, unions, grocers and families on fixed and low incomes that belong to the Yes! To Affordable Groceries coalition agree.
What we ask voters is whether governments should rely on regressive grocery taxes to fund programs of choice or if these essential items should be taken off the table.
The opposition complains about our campaign backers, but if it’s a policy that benefits a family living on a fixed income or a struggling ethnic local business, does the funding source really matter? We have the ability as citizens to disagree with individuals without losing sight of the bigger picture, which is making our state more affordable for working families.
The diverse coalition backing I-1634 believes we need to act now. Groups like King County NAACP, Central Area Chamber of Commerce and Seattle Building Trades are not pawns to corporate interests. We support nutrition and local control, and we urge yes on 1634 because we should not fund these priorities with a tax that hurts those least capable of paying it.
Most Read Opinion Stories
- The Times recommends: Kshama Sawant must go — elect Egan Orion for Seattle City Council, District 3 | Editorial
- Time to strike a balance between protecting wolves and cattle | Op-Ed
- Pro: Vote yes on I-976 to reject dishonest vehicle taxes | Op-Ed
- The Times recommends: Heidi Wills' experience, pragmatism make her the right choice for Seattle City Council, District 6 | Editorial
- Cracking the myth of the ‘Seattle Freeze’ | Horsey cartoon
Pete Lamb, Newcastle, senior business agent for Teamsters Local 174