According to a recent County press release, officials are working to close roughly a $4 million shortfall. Among the possibilities are holding positions vacant, eliminating management positions, reducing park maintenance, decreasing Meals on Wheels service, reducing funding for the Islands Oil Spill Association, reducing Guardian ad Litem funding, cutting the WSU Extension Forestry program, and even considering the closure of Eastsound Village Green.
It’s important to recognize that these are never easy conversations. Over time, communities naturally become accustomed to the services government provides. It’s often much easier for government to add programs and services than it is to reduce or eliminate them later. When money gets tight, deciding what can still be afforded becomes difficult, and those decisions affect both the people who rely on those services and the people who provide them.
However, in my opinion, it isn’t fair to view these discussions as simply the consequence of the voters rejecting the levy lid lift. I believe many voters, after the new Council members were elected, expected the County to roll up its sleeves first, take a hard look at its priorities, look for efficiencies where possible, and then, if there was still a need, come back to the public and make the case for additional revenue. Instead, in my view, much of the public conversation centered on asking taxpayers for more money, and only after the levy failed did the harder public conversation about priorities really begin.
For months leading up to the election, much of the public conversation focused on why the County needed additional revenue and how to make the case for the levy lid lift to the voters. After the Council approved placing the measure on the ballot, the County published extensive information explaining why it believed the levy was necessary and what it said the consequences of failure could be. I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that the County had legitimate concerns. The question the voters were ultimately asked to answer was whether higher property taxes were the right solution.
The voters heard those arguments and, for a whole host of reasons, including the continued financial strain on household budgets, ultimately decided they could not support the levy lid lift.
I don’t believe people voted no because they suddenly stopped caring about seniors, parks, public safety, or the many other services the County provides. I think most people were sending a much simpler message. They were saying, “We just can’t afford any more, and we need our County government to do a better job with the resources it already has.
As I’ve written time and time again, for many working families, retirees living on fixed incomes, and long time island residents, the cost of simply remaining here has continued climbing. Property taxes, utilities, insurance, housing, groceries, and just about every other fixed expense have increased dramatically over the past several years. Each taxing district sees only its own request, but taxpayers receive one bill. Eventually, every household reaches a point where there simply isn’t any more room.
Unfortunately, there are those who try to wash away these very real financial pressures with a simple phrase: “You have to pay to live in paradise.” I understand what they’re trying to say. But I think some have accepted that expression without really thinking about what it means. It has become an easy way to dismiss the growing burden placed on working families, retirees on fixed incomes, and long time residents who are struggling to continue living in the community they’ve helped build. Instead of asking whether rising costs are justified, or whether government is living within the means of the people it serves, that phrase asks us to accept those costs as simply the price of admission.
San Juan County wasn’t built by people who believed you simply had to pay more every year to stay here. It was built by fishermen, farmers, loggers, tradespeople, teachers, ferry workers, mechanics, shop owners, and countless others who worked hard and built lives in this community. It required a pioneering spirit. Living here wasn’t convenient, and it certainly wasn’t easy. You made sacrifices because this was where you wanted to build your life, raise your family, or run your business. But it was also a place where ordinary working people could build a future.
If paradise is reserved only for people who can continually absorb higher taxes, higher housing costs, higher insurance premiums, and higher fees, then eventually it stops being the kind of community many of us grew up in and starts becoming something very different. That isn’t a law of nature. It’s the result of choices we make as a community and the policies we choose to support. Once we accept “you have to pay to live in paradise” without question, we’ve already begun deciding who gets to continue living here and who eventually has to leave.
The one encouraging thing I see out of all of this is that the County is now having to ask the same difficult questions every organization eventually has to ask. What services are truly essential? Which positions absolutely need to be filled? Where can work be reorganized? What can be done more efficiently? What can wait until the County’s financial picture improves?
Reasonable people will disagree about some of those answers. One person may view a program as essential while another believes it can be reduced or postponed. Those are legitimate debates, and they are exactly the conversations elected officials are supposed to have on behalf of the public.
Elected officials are chosen to represent the people, not the institution they oversee. Those two interests usually align, but not always. When budgets become strained, that distinction matters. The first question shouldn’t simply be, “What does government need?” It also has to be, “What can the people we represent realistically afford?” After all, every dollar in the County budget was first earned by someone somewhere. Good government requires balancing both.
Those familiar with my writing know I’ve made this point before, and I’m going to make it once again because I believe it’s extremely important. One of the unintended consequences of many well intentioned public policies is that government can gradually make a community less affordable for the very people it is trying to serve. Higher property taxes, higher fees, additional regulations, and rising operating costs rarely happen all at once. They accumulate over time. Each individual decision may seem reasonable on its own, but together they can slowly price working families, young people, and even retirees out of the community. That’s why affordability has to remain part of every budget discussion, not just during election season.
My hope is that the County stays with this process. Have the difficult conversations. Decide what is essential, what can be done differently, and what simply isn’t affordable right now. That’s what families do when money gets tight. It’s what businesses do. I believe it’s also what government owes the people who pay the bills. I was encouraged to see Council Chair Justin Paulsen recently acknowledge that the public has clearly said this work must be done. I hope the County doesn’t treat this election as a one off, but instead continues listening carefully to what the voters were trying to say.
Jeremy Nash