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
- A cheat sheet for the Nov. 5 general election: The Seattle Times editorial board's endorsements
- The Times recommends: Approve Referendum 88 for societal equality | Editorial
- Seattle voters — do you want solutions or more ideology? | Editorial
- The Times recommends: Reject car tabs Initiative 976 and its devastating effects | Editorial
- The Times recommends: Advisory votes offer insight into legislative session | Editorial
Pete Lamb, Newcastle, senior business agent for Teamsters Local 174