When you ride the train you generally have no role to play in it getting to its destination. You come in, sit down, and watch the world go by outside your window. Because the train runs on a pre-defined set of rails, outside of the ability to switch the tracks from time to time, the train is going where it is going. It’s difficult to stop on the way, indeed if you were to see something along the way that caused you to want to get off, it is unlikely you’d be able to convince the engineer to stop the train for you. The best you could hope for is to be able to get off at some pre-determined stop some ways down the track.

It seems to me that often we treat “going to church” the way we treat riding the train. We find the train that matches where we think we are versus where we think we need to go. We climb on board, we sit down, and we hope that the church gets us where we need to go. Unlike the train, if we ever get to a point where we feel we aren’t going where we should, we can easily hop off and find some other train, I mean church, to jump aboard. If we stay on the train long enough we might find ourselves up toward the front, giving some input on where the train should go, what stops it should make. I’ve heard this group of people referred to as the “permission givers” in the church. But often times we are content to sit in our chair and wait until the train stops and see where it has taken us.

I’m not entirely sure this is what God had in mind for His Church, though I’ve struggled to come up with an alternate analogy, until today. I think what God intended for His people, His bride, his body, his Church, is more like the German volksmarsch. I spent four years in Germany when I was in the military, and though I never participated, and heard about these events. The literal translation is “people’s march”. Basically it’s a gaggle of people walking from one point to another across the German countryside. They might walk through towns, through forests, down a country lane, etc. Though it has a start and end, that isn’t the point of the people’s march. The march itself is the point. There are no awards, it’s not a competition, and anyone can do it. They don’t typically do it to raise money. The purpose of it is just for people to walk and enjoy each other’s company and the country side.

You ever walk down a street that you normally always drive down. Did you ever notice how much more you see when you do that? You are moving slower, you don’t have to constantly look ahead of you, you can stop and look at a nice yard, or pet a dog, or talk to a person, without causing any trouble for anyone else.

I think that is what church is supposed to be like for the bride of Christ. I think it’s supposed to be slow so that the Church can interact with the world around it. It can stop and help someone along the way. I think it’s supposed to be participatory. Everyone in the volksmarsch is part of the event, walking together, experiencing the same things, encouraging each other. I think rather than looking for a thing that is going in a specific direction to get us to where we think we ought to be, we should be looking for a group of people with whom we can walk through life.

In the well known story of the woman at the well, we find Jesus speaking with someone who is marginalized in her society as the result of her sinful behavior. You know it well but it is worth revisiting. It is important to remember two things in this story. First, Jesus did not arrive here by chance. He intended to meet this woman. Second, He knows exactly who this woman is, her past, everything. Yet when he speaks to her, he does not bring up any of her past. Jesus knows that it’s not proper for a Jew to speak to a Samaritan woman, let alone one living in sin. But still, he asks her for water. She doesn’t understand this at first, and he becomes even more confusing when he begins to speak of “the gift of God”. He tells her that if she asks, he will give her living water. In short, he leads with love.

I’ve noticed that whenever Jesus interacts with someone who is “poor in spirit”, he leads with love. He doesn’t ignore the sin. But He starts with loving the person. In Luke 7 we see Jesus reclining at table with a Pharisee when a woman, identified as a sinner, comes and anoints Jesus’ feet with expensive ointment, weeps and dries his feet with her hair. The Pharisee is appalled. He wonders if Jesus is in fact a prophet, because if He were, He would know who this woman was. Unknown to the Pharisee: Jesus knew exactly who she was.

Later in Luke we see Jesus approach Zacchaeus, a tax collector, to tell him He will be having dinner at Zacchaeus’ house. The people grumble because they consider Zacchaeus to be a sinner.

In John 8 we see a woman about to be stoned by the religious people. Jesus writes something in the dirt with a stick, we don’t know what, but some presume He was listing the sins of the religious people. “Let the person who is without sin cast the first stone”, He says. One by one the people drop their stones and leave. He tells the woman “Who condemns you? No one? Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

There are countless other stories: the thief on the cross, the woman bent by a “disabling spirit”, the Centurion with the paralyzed servant, the woman who touched the hem of His garment. In all these cases, Jesus met the sinner or the non-religious person first with love.

Contrast that with how Jesus interacts with the religious elite. In Luke 11 we see Jesus dining with a Pharisee. The Pharisee is uptight because Jesus did not wash His feet. Jesus replies, “You wash the outside, but on the inside you are greedy and dishonest…woe to you…you tithe for show but you ignore love and justice…” In both Mark and Matthew we see Jesus’ disciples eating from the wheat fields. The Pharisees dislike this but He rejects their religiosity and their conventions and says “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” In Matthew 15 we see Jesus scolding the Pharisees, again for their focus on rules and traditions. He calls them hypocrites, and says they “honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” Later the disciples, worried about offending the Pharisees, ask Jesus about the encounter. He says “Everything that has not been planted by my Father will be pulled up”, and says the Pharisees are the “blind leading the blind”, and they will both fall in the pit. In Matthew 19 when the Pharisees tried to trap him with words about divorce he said “Because of your hardness of heart…” Moses allowed them their rules and traditions about divorce.

Again, the list seems endless. When interacting with the keepers of the law, Jesus does not lead with love, He leads with the law, and with ruthless precision shows the Pharisees how they themselves have missed the mark. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Mathew 7:2)

The sinners in each of the stories reflect the first Beatitude: they were all poor in spirit. They knew they were wretched in their soul. They reflected the second Beatitude: they mourned their own sinfulness. They reflected the third Beatitude: they were meek, or humble. They did not think more highly of themselves than they should. Because of this, they reflected the fourth beatitude: they were hungry and thirsty for righteousness. They sought to be made right, to be aligned with God. Not with man, but with God. And so Jesus met them with His love, because that is where true discipleship always starts. From there, the behavior will come, because it is born out of love.

The religious people started out believing they were righteous already. So they reflected none of the Beatitudes. And as a result, Jesus started on the other end. He started with the Law. And the law convicted the Pharisee. He called them “whitewashed tombs”.

So which are you? Are you poor in spirit? Do you see yourself as lost and broken and in need of Jesus’ love? Or perhaps you have grown up in the Church and feel you’ve got everything pretty well figured out? Maybe a more important question to ask is how do you treat other people? When you see a transgender person, do you first fixate on their sin, or do you desire to show them God’s love? When you meet someone who doesn’t reflect what you think a godly person should be like, how do you treat them? How would Jesus treat them? Maybe your inner thoughts are “You know, I don’t treat them well. I’m critical of them. I don’t really even want to interact with them at all. They are sinners, and they make me uncomfortable.” That’s a good first step! You are poor in spirit! You recognize, at least, your sin.

Perhaps if we followed Jesus’ model, and we lead with love, we will win more people to Christ than if we follow the Pharisees’ model. I think we are afraid to do this because we worry that if we love someone in their sin, it means we are accepting or even approving of their sin. This is not the case. Jesus clearly did not accept people’s sin. In most cases, after He loved them, He admonished them for their sin and called them to repentance. Yet still, scripture tells us that while we were yet sinners, Jesus laid down His life for us!

I was sitting in the park, eating a Subway sandwich, and shooting the breeze with a good friend, when, out of nowhere, came the call no parent ever wants to hear. As parents, my wife and I have been through the wringer. We had a child come in to our home at 5 months old, and be taken from us at 4 years old, to be given back to his parents, who’d abused him. We have a daughter who was born with a congenital disorder that had her in Children’s Hospital within 24 hours of being born, and in surgery at 4 months old. We’ve had three miscarriages.

One of our kids was molested by a teenage neighbor. Our younger daughter suffered from seizures. Our oldest once rolled his Chevy Blazer, nearly killing himself. But nothing really prepared us for what happened that Sunday five weeks ago. Our son has been doing the young 20-something thing for a while now. Drinking to excess, partying, hanging around people we didn’t think he should be hanging around with. I guess you would say we had expected a call of some kind, the most likely being that he’d been arrested for drinking and driving. He went through a very difficult breakup the last year, and then his grandfather, who he was very close to, died after they’d had a big fight without any opportunity to clear the air. What follows is the story, as it unfolded from my perspective.

My son called my phone; it was on vibrate and I didn’t notice it ringing. Then he called my wife’s phone, she answered and he immediately asked for me. Whenever he asks for me, you know something is up. I could tell from the sound in his voice that something was terribly wrong. “I think I’ve gotten myself in to a sticky situation,” he said. “Some friends and I went to a party last night, and we ended up bringing a woman back to my apartment. And there were a couple of dudes at the party, who tried to pick a fight with us, but we left. Well, at my apartment some consensual stuff happened, and then I took the girl home, but now the two dudes who were at the party showed up and tried to push their way in through the door. I had my gun, and they saw it, and took off. But now I think they are outside and they called the cops, so I’m not sure what to do.” I said “Hang up, call 911, explain the situation, I’ll be there in 20 minutes.”

When I arrived, there were cops everywhere. He lives in an apartment above some shops on the main drag in our little town, and you get access to the apartments from the alley. Driving back there I saw at least a half dozen law enforcement vehicles, and a dozen heavily armed police officers. There were local city cops, sheriffs, border patrolmen, even police from the neighboring town. I parked well away, and approached the closest office on foot. I explained the call I’d received from my son, and he told me to wait, that he’d talk to the officer in charge.

After a few minutes, the officer in charge approached and we chatted for a few minutes. He said that there had been reports of a man on the roof with a gun, which was why there were so many officers. He said that he was arresting my son, and that he couldn’t tell me much more. I asked what I should do, and if he would have a chance to call us. The officer said to go home, that he’d get a chance to call. So I went home and waited. That was at 1 pm. By 7 pm we’d not heard anything. So we decided to drive to the police station, and see what we could find out. On our way, my son called, not from the local police station, but from the county jail. He said that he’d been booked in to the jail on a charge of rape in the second degree. The woman he and his buddies took home with him claimed that they held her at gun point and raped her.

Now, what you need to understand about me is that, aside from a minor run-in with the law when I was about 20, in Germany, and a couple of speeding tickets, I have no experience dealing with being arrested, nor with being charged with something, nor with going to jail, nor posting bail, nor getting a lawyer. None. I had thought that my son was being arrested for brandishing a weapon, and that he’d maybe be held for questioning then released. Now, on the very same weekend that social media is going berserk about a six-month sentence for a Stanford student convicted of rape, I’m learning that my son is being charged with essentially the same crime. I told him to hang tight, to cooperate with the sheriff’s deputies, to try to find out about a public defender, and to call me the following morning if he could. I hung up the phone. Then I lost it. “How are we here?” I asked my wife.

The following morning I spent an hour dithering about what to do. I was sure that my son had not committed this crime. I had asked him on the phone “Is there any chance that you guys were screwing around with your firearm, and she interpreted that as a threat?” “No chance, he said.” “Is there a possibility that she was so drunk she didn’t know what was going on, and couldn’t give proper consent?” “No, she never passed out, she knew what she was doing.” He said. Even so, I thought that at best she had been drinking too much, consented to something under the influence, then the following morning regretted what she had done. And it simply doesn’t look good for three guys to take a young woman back to an apartment. All I could imagine was that my son was about to learn a very, very brutal lesson about being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and making poor decisions. He was going to prison, I thought. I don’t see how it goes any other way in this culture in which men are pigs, and women never lie about sex.

But unlike a dad who can send his kid to Stanford, I didn’t have the money to hire a big fancy Seattle lawyer, as much as I might want to. I started googling criminal defense lawyers in my area, and that was even more discouraging. I felt like every advertisement was Saul Goodman, by some other name. I spoke with my boss about it, because I knew at the least I’d need to be at the regularly scheduled hearing on Monday. My boss happened to know about a criminal defense lawyer in town with a good reputation, so I gave them a call. I was surprised at how helpful they were. Again, I have no experience in this type of thing, but they walked me through what needed to be done, and what they’d do. The biggest relief was that they would call my son in jail and get his side of the story. I asked him later how he felt when he heard from the lawyer, and he said it was a huge relief.

After reviewing everything, the lawyer’s office called and informed me that one of their partners would be at the hearing at 3 pm, and that the bail and been “preset” at $60,000. “But” she said, “since he doesn’t have a criminal history, we are going to try to argue that way down. Given the charges, it’s not surprising how high it is, but we’ll see what we can do.” She let me know what the process normally looks like for that first hearing, how the court was setup, that I could speak on my son’s behalf if I wanted to. So that Monday, at 3 pm, I was seated at the back of the court room in the Whatcom County Court House. The lawyers office had said the case would likely get called toward the end, if not last, so we might be in for a long wait. In fact, his case was called third. I approached the front of the room, and my son was on a video monitor, with his new lawyer, dressed in a kelly green jumpsuit.

The lawyer from the prosecutor’s office read off the narrative the girl had told the police. The judge asked a few questions, then asked the defense attorney to speak. He spoke a few words, basically just reiterating that “my client” disputes all charges and says the girl is lying. Then the judge looked at me and asked me who I was, and what I had to add.

I would love to say that I gave an eloquent speech about how my son has no history of violence, had never been arrested for a crime before, and if only the judge would see his way through to letting him out of jail, I’d take him in hand. In fact, I blubbered some nonsense I couldn’t remember, about broke in to tears, and apologized for being so emotional. Then the judge asked the prosecutor what he recommended for “release conditions.” The prosecutor said he recommended “release on PR”, which, for you law-abiding types, means “personal recognizance”, which means no bail. I was floored. The judge asked me if I would be opposed to a court order for my son to reside at my house until further notice. Of course I had no objections. The judge so ordered it, as well as a no contact order between my son, the girl, and two other individuals who were involved.

A few minutes later I was outside the jail entrance talking to the lawyer. He said that for the prosecution to come right out with a recommendation of PR that something drastic had changed. Maybe the girl’s story had changed. Maybe the police found evidence that exonerated my son and pointed to the other guys. He wasn’t sure what, but he would find out. Then I waited a bit over three hours for my son to be released. While I was waiting I spoke to one of the deputies who was running the jail. He said “I’ve been speaking to your son, he’s a good kid. I hope things work out.” That was good to hear. When he got out of jail, he said that he’d never been so glad to see me as he was that evening.

The next day my son contacted our local police department as they had his wallet and cell phone, as well as his pistol and a few other things they’d collected as evidence. He met with the detective to get these things back, as well as discuss the status of the case. It was then that my son learned that the girl had, over the course of Sunday afternoon and Monday, completely changed her story. The detective said that if he’d been on duty Sunday, my son would never have gone to jail. By the following day, my son’s lawyer had spoken with the prosecutor’s office who indicated that no charges would be filed. By that Friday, papers were filed with the court to that effect. And a week later, my son had his firearm back. And now, a month later, it’s almost like it never happened.

I share the story with all of you for a couple of reasons. First, there a few people here on Ricochet that know me in person, and would appreciate hearing the full details. Second, the only public record of this available to anyone is the fact that my son was arrested and charged (initially) with Rape in the Second Degree. There is no follow up story to say that the charges were dropped. So it has helped us to tell the story. Third, we have heard, often, that women don’t make up stories of rape. That, if anything, they hide them. Well, I am here to tell you that at least one woman on the face of the planet did fabricate a story, and a horrible one at that.

Finally, and this is my biggest and most important point, the story taught me a lesson which I want to pass on. It is true that my son has been drinking to excess, going to parties, and that this behavior put him “in harm’s way.” And to that degree, he is responsible for what happened. If you play on the tracks long enough, eventually you get hit by the train. But my lesson is this: I’ve always been a hard ass with my oldest boy. I’ve been far harder on him than my other kids, and I’ve never really let up. I was always criticizing him, never praising him. As he fell in to destructive behavior, I just kept piling it on.

Until one Sunday, sitting in my truck in front of a spud shed (literally), I found myself with my face buried in my hands, believing that no matter what had actually gone on the night before, my son was going to go to jail. Since then, I’ve asked him to live in our home with us for one year minimum, to stop drinking for that one year, and figure out how to get his life on the right track. And my wife and I have committed to no drinking as well. We’ve realized that we need to focus more on being forgiving, on uniting as a family, on treating each other with respect, and trusting God. It’s not been easy having him back home. But it’s been good. He’s a different person when he’s not drinking, and he’s been a pleasure to be around.

My hope for you dads and moms reading this is that you can learn from my mistake. Our kids screw up, and it’s easy to get down on them. But in the end you have to love them the way God loves you, treat them the way you want to be treated, and give them grace when they make mistakes.

I have something to confess. I often do not beleive what God says. Specifically, I do not beleive what God says about me. I once heard someone say that they believed in God, in His redemptive power, but that they considered themselves to be like a stained t-shirt that God won’t throw away, but never wears. I confess that I often feel that way. I know that God created me with great talents and capabilities, but if I’m honest I often feel like they are wasted on me. Often my prayers are consumed by me asking Jesus to relieve me of these doubts. This morning Christ revealed Himself to me in a way that answered that prayer.

In the book of Revelation, John tells us that while he was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus came to him. On the Lord’s Day (which I interpret to mean the sabbath), while he was “in the Spirit” (which I interpret to mean he was praying), John says he heard a voice like a trumpet behind him. Though I’ve read the passage in Revelation 1 many times, yesterday for the first time I thought about what it must have been like for John in that moment. This is the John of the Gospel. John had been with Christ during His ministry on earth. Now he’s old and in trouble under Roman law for refusing to worship Caesar as a god. I imagine John struggled with his own faith, wondering where Jesus went, and when He would return. Many if not all of the other apostles were dead, martyred for their faith. Did that bother John? That he should remain all these years later? Then Jesus revealed Himself to John. John says he fell at Christ’s feet “as if dead”. But Christ put His right hand on John and said “Fear not…”

This brings me to the word “apocalypse”. It may seem unrelated but I’ll get to the point. In the Greek language, the word from which we derive apocalypse is “apokálypsis”, which means “to reveal”. Today, when the word is used, we think of really bad things happening in the world. If we are Christian we think of the End Times. Most of us have a negative reaction to the word. But the Revelation of Christ, the Apocalypse of Christ as the book is sometimes called, is simply a revealing of who Christ really is. Not a revelation that there is a God, or that God has a son called Jesus who came to earth and lived and died and was resurrected. That we already know from the Gospels and the other epistles. No, Christ wanted to reveal Himself to us as He really is! As the active, interested, all powerful, living God.

As I was praying this morning, my prayers fell to the usual. I was sorry for being distracted during prayer time, for lacking faith, and wouldn’t God please forgive me for letting my mind wander, and wouldn’t He build my faith. Mid-prayer I suddenly felt the Presence of Jesus Christ. I stopped praying, because I felt Jesus say to me “Just stop. Stop talking. Stop asking. I already know. I am here!” In that moment, I suddenly felt the warmth of the sun on my face. I don’t know if it was the sun coming through the window, or if the radiance of Christ was physically in the room, or if it was both, or neither. My eyes were closed and I could feel warmth on my skin, and through closed eyes I could sense brightness growing in the room. What I do know is in that moment Christ revealed Himself to me in a way that I had longed for, and in a similar way to which He revealed Himself to John on Patmos.

In the Old Testament, in 1 Samuel 15, we read the story of Israel’s first king, Saul. He is told by God to go to a certain town, destroy the town and everything in it. He partially obeys. He goes and makes war, but takes as spoils the sheep and the oxen. God’s prophet, Samuel, calls him to account for his disobedience. Samuel says to Saul “I know you are small in your own eyes, but aren’t you the king?” Later Saul blames the people of Israel for his own lack of leadership. He says “I did what God told me, but the people, they are the ones who wanted the sheep and oxen!” I wonder if Saul isn’t a bit like me. Samuel says “You are small in your own eyes.” Did Saul have a broken understanding of who he was, and who God had called him to be? I think so. And I think that false understanding undermined his own ability to see God for who He truly is. It caused him to abdicate to others that which God commanded him to do. This has often been true of me.

This morning, Christ showed me that He truly is present. That He understands my struggles. He revealed Himself to me as He really is. And He revealed who I am, too. Maybe you struggle the same way I do. Maybe you wonder if Jesus really is present in your life? If that is true of you, Jesus wants you to know that He loves you, that He understands, that He is present, just behind “the curtain”. If it is true of you, I’d love to pray for you. Drop me a note and I’ll pray for an apocalypse (the good kind!) in your life, too!

Share

Back then, as I recall, many people were referring to the 1992 presidential election as having to choose between the “lesser of two evils.” George HW Bush, the incumbent, wasn’t all that conservative, it had been a rocky presidency with a war in the middle east and all that reading of lips and such. Bill Clinton was clearly no choice for conservatives either, with his left leaning policy proposals and his extra-marital dalliances. Conservatives didn’t want either of them, and we were to hold our nose and vote for the “lesser of two evils”. George Will said that he didn’t think either was the “lesser” of two evils, but that Clinton was the “evil of two lessers.” That really rang true for that election. Bush, for whatever faults he had, was a decent man and governed well, all things considered. Clinton was very popular, despite being a not very good person, deeply corrupted, a womanizer and a liar. He truly was the “evil” of the two flawed candidates.

That leads me to the 2024 election. Donald Trump and Joe Biden are the presumptive nominees of their respective parties. Donald Trump is a felon (however likely it may be that his conviction is overturned on appeal) and a blowhard who can’t go five minutes without telling you that his hands are bigger than your hands. Joe Biden is not just a progressive, but he’s a corrupted, lying politician. And it is now obvious to anyone watching that he isn’t capable of doing the job given his mental decline due, probably, to just getting old.

We aren’t dealing with, as George Will maybe put it in 1992, the “evil of two lessors”. We are in fact dealing with two evil men, neither of whom should be president. If you are reading that and getting irritated with me, it’s likely because you don’t see one or the other as evil. Flawed perhaps, but better than the other guy. But I contend that you are blinded to the faults of your preferred candidate by the glaringly obvious faults of the guy you don’t like. I have said for the last two elections and say it again for the current election: they are each the best reason to vote for the other.

It is high time the collective “we” choose better candidates.

Objection:

We have high inflation and taxpayers/citizens are stretched as it is. Interest rates are so high that the bond interest and fees, that taxpayers must also pay, adds 60+% on top of the advertised bond principal. This is a financial belt-tightening time.

Response:

There is really only one reason to vote against this bond, and that is because a person can’t afford the tax increase.  This is a real concern and isn’t lost on anyone who is a proponent of the bond.  We’ve addressed this many times. 

However, it is disingenuous to say “rates are so high”.  The financial model used to calculate the costs of the August bond shows interest rates that are less than 5%, and are lower than what were used to develop the cost model for the February bond. 

In that model, the cost of interest represents about 40% of the overall cost to the taxpayer, not 60%.  These costs are not hidden, and are included in every cost analysis done by the district.

Objection:

Note that renters pay property taxes in their rents. On average about 1 to 1.5 months of rent per year are needed to cover the annual property taxes for each rental unit.

Response:

It seems the author believes that a reason to vote against this particular tax increase is because people will have to pay it.  It isn’t lost on anyone that the bond will increase rent costs.  Businesses will also pay the tax increase, and as new businesses come in to the community, the burden on any particular tax payer will be reduced.

Objection:

Districts have recently secured hefty compensation increases, exceeding inflation and in fact fueling inflation, for themselves. Property taxpayers have limits. As of 2022-2023, total per pupil expenditures (PPE) per year, including capital outlays and interest on debt, for the district with a bond measure were already over $17,000.  That is more than tuition at the University of Washington. Perhaps it is time for school vouchers to give families a choice and taxpayers a break.

Response:

Another disingenuous statement:  “districts have recently secured…”, as if the district itself has pursued “hefty compensation increases”.  Salary increases for district employees are a function of state mandated IPD increases and union-negotiated increases.  In Lynden, we value our teachers and other district employees and want them to be paid competitive wages.  But we also have a fiscal responsibility to the tax payer which we take seriously. 

It is misleading to compare the cost per student in the district against the tuition per year at the University of Washington.   What does it actually cost a student, all up, to attend a year at UW, including housing, books, tuition, and other fees?  How much of the total cost born by the University is covered by tuition vs state funding?  It is simply an apples to oranges comparison.

Update: since formulating these rebuttals, I contacted the finance department at the University of Washington. My question was a simple one: how much does it actually cost the university per student, on average per year? They told me that including an in-state student’s tuition and the state government’s contribution, they estimate it costs in excess of $22,000 per student per year. They added the caveat that it is likely much higher than that, because out of state tuition contributes to paying the cost of an in-state student, and it is difficult to calculate the per-student contribution.

Consider the UW’s own estimate that a first-year undergraduate student will pay in excess of $30,000 when including room and board, books, transportation, and a variety of annual fees. By contrast, the Lynden School District transports and feeds students, provides them with learning materials both printed and online, and provides every student with a laptop.

I’m afraid the “No” campaign’s objection does not stand up to any level of scrutiny.

Objection:

There should be no more inefficient school bonds (and no more school "Enrichment" levies) in WA. It is unfair to local citizens to foot the bill for these custom, expensive buildings. WA legislators need to do their jobs at the state level to fund schools fairly, frugally, and equitably. Leaving these loopholes (local school levies and local school bonds) just allows school districts to engage in a bidding war with local taxpayers' money and is leading us to McCleary 2.0

Response:

It's fine to propose an alternate method of funding schools and school facilities.  This can and should be done.  But it is not a reason to continue to delay much needed facilities improvements in the district.  Further, keeping some of the funding local gives tax payers the ability to have some input in their local district.  There’s a lot of push for local control of schools.  The old saying “The person who has the gold makes the rules” comes to mind.  If the state is paying, the state decides.  Local levies and bonds are not “loopholes”.  And as near as this writer is aware, school districts don’t engage in “bidding wars” for tax payer dollars.  This inflammatory rhetoric has no basis in fact and serves only to misinform the voter.

Objection:

Tax measures should only be run in the higher participatory elections of November.  

Response:

There’s an insinuation here that proponents of the bond don’t want a high turnout.  This is the exact opposite of the truth.  We welcome and want more voter turnout, particularly in the demographics that have had a lower turnout in previous elections, and among those who have the most to benefit from upgraded facilities.  At any rate, this statement is not a reason to vote against the bond.

Objection:

At the least, after assuring voters/taxpayers that the district is properly maintaining facilities (not letting them fall into disrepair) and has whittled down a needs only list, then school districts should propose 6 year, interest free, capital levies as some school districts are already practicing. 

Response:

It is complete misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the district lets its facilities fall in to disrepair.  Our district staff work hard to keep the facilities in safe and working order. 

The current bond represents hours of work by citizens groups to determine the actual needs.  A short term capital levy is fine for smaller projects, such as the technology upgrades the district did a few years ago.  It could be used to fund a new high school, but the short term hit to tax payers makes it unrealistic to consider.  Imagine buying a house and being told you have to pay it off in 6 years.

Some districts that have a large tax base, such as Seattle, can fund large facilities projects with a 6 year capital levy. Others find themselves needing to borrow against the capital levy in order to pay for short term projects. Have you ever met a contractor who would build something, then wait for 6 years to get fully paid? Those districts that do borrow against a capital levy are not allowed to pay interest with the proceeds of the capital levy. They have to use general funds to do it, which can create a hardship for districts.

No, it simply is not feasible to fund a multi-million dollar capital project this way. 

Objection:

WA legislators should enact a TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type of law to provide voters/taxpayers with accurate cost impacts. School district developed cost impact analyses are usually illogical, are mathematically incorrect, and underestimate the taxpayer cost impact. County assessors, using sound accounting principles, should be tasked with developing logical, cost impact calculators for property owners and renters.

School districts (and other taxing districts) can and should voluntarily follow TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type policies. The following should be provided in districts’ resolutions, voters’ pamphlets (as possible), mailers and/or online campaign materials:
1. Total bond principal - in dollars.
2. Total bond estimated interest and fees - in dollars.
3. Total cost to taxpayers (total bond principal + total bond interest and fees) - in dollars.
4. Bond maturity length - in years.
5. Bond schedule showing the tax amounts in dollars to be collected each year. A few districts such as Paterson and Bellevue designed their bond payments schedules to be similar to a home mortgage with constant payments each year. The Lynden SD however designed their bond schedule to have escalating payments each year as shown in the charts on this website.
6. Total existing bond debt payments - in dollars - for the current year through the final year of the remaining term for the existing debt.
7. An online calculator that uses a conservative estimate and uses sound accounting principles to estimate the cost impact each year of the term of the new bond for each taxable property if the bond passes and if it doesn’t. All property tax categories need to be shown: proposed new bond principal, proposed new bond interest plus fees, existing bond, enrichment levies, capital levies, State School taxes, and non-school taxes.

Future guesstimated tax rates are meaningless and should be prohibited in all district tax measure campaign materials. Those guesses are always wrong and result in misleading taxpayers/voters. Voters are voting on amounts – not future rates.
Almost all school districts only provide items 1 and 4.
The author of this website provides all 7.

Response:

Interest and fees have all been included within the estimated  $1.36 per $1000 debt repayment plan to occur over 21 years. The district is not hiding anything from voters.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the district is “guesstimating” or “misleading” anyone.  Rather, we have worked with our financial partner to estimate costs to the tax payer and provide as much information and education as possible to the voter.

Objection:

Another blatant conflict of interest is that WA school districts are tasked (by State statute) with advertising for,  finding, and selecting pro committee members AND con committee members for the local voters' pamphlets (LVP) for their own measures! These school districts always seem to find plenty of pro committee members (usually paid staff or PTA officers) but they rarely find a single con committee member. Up to 3 people are supposed to be on each committee.  Then at the last minute, the respective county elections department reps need to try to find con committee volunteers - and they usually fail. Citizens are rarely made aware of the opportunity to present the contrarian view.  WA State legislators need to correct this obvious obstacle to providing voters with both sides of the issues - a fundamental principle of our democracy. County auditors should be tasked with finding con committee members (if not pro committee members too) early on with enough time and sufficient cost information to find committee volunteers. 

Response:

While this may seem like an odd way to do it, it is the way it is done under current state law.  Indeed, for the August 2024 bond election, the district identified individuals who were very vocally opposed to the bond and asked them to serve in this capacity.  In fact, there seems to be a very active no campaign currently, which is healthy in our democracy.

That said, this is not a reason to vote against this bond.  It’s a reason to get involved, to learn how the system works, and look for opportunities to improve it.