Measured Endorsements
WW’s recommendations for the Nov. 6 Election.
July 2nd, 2008
Cover Story • Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?63 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Bill Of Fair | Ex-restaurateur puts hopes of returning to Portland in a “widow’s bill.” 0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Murmurs • Scoundrels seeking a refuge besides patriotism? You’re always welcome here.2 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Rogue of the Week • Legacy Good Samaritan | Please, go by streetcar20 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Broadcast Dues | While Portland Beavers go up to the major leagues, the team’s broadcaster soldiers on.1 comment
July 2nd, 2008
Blog Of War | Online chat about a Georgia weapons manufacturer ends in real-time Oregon court battle.10 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Textual Criticism | MSG FM CMSR SAM: WHR R U GOING? WATCH THE ROAD!!16 comments
July 2nd, 2008
The Reed Guard | A woman sues for alleged sex assault in another case involving the College’s security.16 comments
July 2nd, 2008
The Score • Escapees and exiles edition.0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Letters to the Editor • Inbox5 comments
 Surgeon General’s Warning: This measure could help uninsured kids. |
[October 17th, 2007] Who knew an 18th-century French philosopher would haunt our deliberations over two measures on Oregon’s Nov. 6 ballot?
But the debate over Measures 49 and 50 channels the spirit of Voltaire, who once said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
While 49 and 50 are far from perfect, they both take good aim at solving two glaring 21st-century problems in our state—the danger of letting development run wild and the shame that society would tolerate uninsured kids. Here are our recommendations on those two measures, as well as on a smaller city question dealing with disabled firefighters and cops. We hope Voltaire would be proud.
Ballot Measure 49: Yes
What it would do : Restore many of the state land-use controls gutted by 2004’s Measure 37.
This statutory measure is not the land-use mob’s finest hour.
They subverted the democratic process typically used to write ballot title language (see “Truth and Consequences,” WW , Oct. 10, 2007). And they included language in the proposed statute that’s cumbersome and guaranteed to create more battles.
But all of those shortcomings do nothing to erase this reality: Measure 37 is a mess and needs a fix before Oregon ends up looking like Nevada. Measure 49 will get us part of the way there.
In 2004, the property-rights group Oregonians in Action sold 61 percent of voters on Measure 37. The measure was rooted in the premise that anybody who bought property later subjected to new government regulations “restricting” its use could claim compensation from local government or a release from those restrictions.
So, say you bought land in 1960 when you could build three homes on it. And then, say that laws were passed restricting the number of homes to one. Measure 37 required local government to let you build the three homes or compensate you for your loss.
OIA passed 37 largely due to a brilliant ad campaign centered around 92-year-old Dorothy English. According to the ads, heartless bureaucrats wrongly denied English the right to subdivide her rural Multnomah County property for her children’s benefit.
In a 2004 Voters’ Pamphlet statement, for instance, ad architect and current Sen. Larry George (R-Sherwood) wrote, “the current system works for the big guys. Measure 37 will help small farmers, small property owners and the average homeowner when they face the power of government.”
In retrospect, it’s clear OIA sold voters a bill of goods. What many skeptics—including WW , which recommended a “no” vote—predicted has indeed happened.
More than 7,500 claims poured in, many filed by large timber companies or land-owners hoping to develop large subdivisions, quarries, shopping malls, go-kart tracks and just about every imaginable use. So while English might have had a legitimate beef, it appears a lot of fast-buck artists were hiding in her skirts.
The biggest filer of Measure 37 claims—covering more than 100,000 acres — and the biggest opponent of 49 is Portland-based Stimson Lumber. When Stimson CEO Andrew Miller came to our endorsement interview representing No on 49, he said his company’s claims are “political leverage.” If Stimson’s got a beef with logging regulators, fine. But that’s not what Measure 37 was supposed to be about.
Measure 49 tries to fix things by giving English what she wants but not helping Stimson Lumber. Developing up to three homes under 49 should actually be fairly easy, if the right to such development existed when the property owner bought his or her land. And, those development rights will now be transferable.
Developing more than three homes, however, will require the property owner, in the words of OIA director Dave Hunnicutt, to “turn two back flips and eat a bug.” That strikes us as an appropriate balance. Allow relief to people who want to divide their land into a modest number of lots. But don’t create a windfall for those who bought land for agriculture and logging, yet now might want to develop subdivisions or resorts.
Miller says Stimson and other big timber companies filing claims aren’t trying to get rich quick. He notes there is no market for housing or other development on many rural properties that are the subject of claims. Perhaps. But that won’t always be the case. And in the meantime, nobody who owns land next to a Measure 37 claim is likely to take much satisfaction from Miller’s argument.
Story continues belowadvertisement
Ultimately, any community—no matter how urban or rural—must balance individuals’ interests with the interests of the whole; Measure 37 empowered a relative few at the potential expense of all Oregonians, and that’s no balance at all.
Ballot Measure 50: Yes
What it would do: Increase state
tobacco taxes from $1.18 to $2.025 per pack to pay for children’s health insurance and
other programs.
Imagine you’re lost in the desert, nearly dead from dehydration. You stumble upon a fetid puddle with a dead bird floating on the surface. The water you slurp down ain’t Perrier, but it keeps you alive. This measure is that water.
Measure 50 would add 84.5 cents in taxes on a pack of cigarettes, now taxed at $1.18 per pack. And, within three years, the revenue will provide health insurance to an estimated 92,000 uninsured Oregonians under the age of 19.
What’s wrong with that? The tax will ensure that fewer people will smoke (both sides agree on this) and the money will be one more step toward seeing to it that health insurance is a birthright of all Oregonians. These are laudable goals.
At the same time, it feels strangely unsatisfying to grind Big Tobacco into the pavement like a cigarette butt. For starters, this measure clutters up a Constitution already crowded with 17 amendments passed by voters since 1992. That document is supposed to define governmental powers and citizens’ rights, not bail out the Legislature because it couldn’t get the job done.
Legislators in the 2007 session couldn’t get enough votes to pass a law that would raise taxes on cigarettes to insure kids, so instead they referred a constitutional amendment to do the same thing. Why? Because it only takes a simple majority in each legislative chamber to refer a constitutional amendment, while thanks to 1996’s Ballot Measure 25, it takes a three-fifths majority of the legislature to pass any new tax.
We share some of the critics’ concerns about Measure 50. For instance, not all of the money goes to kids. Some of it will be peeled off to adult health care, smoking prevention and other Department of Human Services programs. That strikes us more as a way to build political support for this measure than a well-considered policy.
There is also the argument that lawmakers had plenty of money this session—when the general fund budget increased by 21 percent. Some of that money could have easily funded children’s insurance, rather than, say, giving state agency chiefs as much as 24 percent pay increases, renovating the Capitol or sending more than $1 billion in kicker checks back to taxpayers.
Reasonable concerns all. But if this measure insures only one additional kid and reduces the number of smokers, it will be worth supporting.
Measure No. 26-93: Yes
What it would do: Allow Portland police and firefighters who were injured on duty to return to work without sacrificing their post-retirement medical benefits.
Haven’t we been here already with the city’s Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund? Last year Portland voters approved an overhaul of the property tax-supported fund. That major reform took control of decision-making from beneficiaries and put new hires in a cheaper retirement plan.
Proponents of this latest smaller-bore reform say it means injured cops and firefighters won’t be penalized for returning to the job. They add that this reform got left on the cutting-room floor last year, and that any future tweaks can be handled administratively. Let’s hope so—voters shouldn’t have to deal with this issue every year.
Opponents of 26-93 are hard to come by. And we agree that it’s better to have our firefighters and police officers return to work after an injury and maintain their post-retirement bennies than to have them go on permanent disability. Backers estimate it would add about $11 a year to the “average residential property tax bill.” We’re counting on the increased oversight passed last year to keep those costs under control.
Can't anyone get the Eglish issue right? For the (correct) record: Mrs. English WILL NOT not get what she wants under Measure 49.
She wishes to create eight, two to three acre lots on her 20+ acres, which is 700 yards from Portland's Urban Growth Boundary. She complains that her land was made into a defacto public park by being designated as "high value forest land." High Value Forest Land is not eligible for the 4-10 lot track.
Maybe she shouldn't get her way--depending on your point of view; maybe two lots in addition to what she now has is enough, in the opinion of your publication. But please get it right!
She will not get what she wants to leave her children and grandchildren, and her land will continue, in large measure, to be a defacto public park.
One more thing should be added to my above comment for perspective: an acre is 43,560 square feet; two acres equal 87,120 sq. ft. and three acres equal 130,680 sq. ft. New residential single family lots inside the Urban Growth Boundary are commonly around 5000 sq. feet. So in Mrs. English's proposed eight lot "subdivision" each lot is roughly 17 to 24 times as large as the typical residential lots inside the Urban Growth Booundary, 700 yards away.
Nothing like hearing journalists interpretation of legislation. Please continue to do the thinking for all the morons who believe what the media says is fact.
M49 - Hold a gun to the head of property owners to force them to give away the value of their property to the planners without compensation.
M50 - Hold a gun to the head of all smokers, who have done no harm to anyone but themselves, in order to pretend to help uninsured children while really undermining parental responsibility and stealing most of the cash for other purposes entirely.
THAT's the reality. At least be honest about what you're endorsing. Stop sugar-coating it. You're supporting the blantant initial use of government force against innocents. Something that is ALWAYS immoral, no matter how righteous the justification may seem.
Voltaire wasn't the only enlightenment philosopher of merit. Jefferson had a better perspective. He would have been horrified that measures such as these were even eligible for a vote.
Smokers haven't done any harm to anyone but themselves? I'll remember that the next time my health insurance premiums go up.
The smokers themselves didn't cause that particular harm - do-gooders in the legislature mandated that insurance companies aren't allowed to charge higher premiums for smokers - so the costs they incur are inappropriately laid on non-smokers. Once again by force, brought to you courtesy of the legislature.
Measure 50 should be a "NO".
1) Tax mandates don't belong in the constitution.
2) The commitment is permanent, but the revenue is fleeting. Eventually it will wind up as a tax increase for all of us, smokers and non-smokers alike.
3) Why should we give more money to the legislature when they have wasted previous windfalls?
Measure 50 is a transparent attempt to lock in tax increases to be used for any purpose by appealing to everyone's soft spot for the "kiddies" (good) while sticking in to the "smokers" (bad).
WW not only doesn't seem to read nor understand the text of M49;but also fails to understand history. Wasn't Lenon snd Hitler who started taking way property and property rights? So what are you ww a Communist or a Facist? Being one of those so-called greedy developers whose one acre zoning which was grasnted by the Clscksmas County Commissioners taken away in the middle of the night by the imposition of 20 acre zoning in 1971 on my 90 acre farm;but also misclassifed my marginal farmland by classifying as High Value.A great part of my farm will pass septic approval due to the lack of sufficient top soil. In fact over 20 acres would be classified as wet lands and swamp. So exactly what High Value Farmland? It was never defined when the Counties went sabout defining what land was Hiugh Value. Nor was the County ever able to define the parameters of what constitutes EFU 20, verses EFU40; or GAD zoning. It wasn't until 1985 or 7 years after the County and State zoning maos were issued when the US Soils and Conservation Service issued their soil maps. So what did LCDC do? They then had the Counties enumerate all the USSCS soils listed as an overlay of the maps calling out the areas of EFU or High Value. To this day LCDC refuses to define what constitutes High Value farm or Forest land. Now we have wet lands and swamp land zoned as High Value.
In addition, WW, M49 will affect you personnally. It will give full authority for the State, County, District, or City the complete power to control every house hold's ptoperty. At will they can rezone your poperty making it a non corforming use, And you will not be able to rectify this no matter if you pay all court expenses. A school district will be able to have your or anybody's abutting school property rezoned to "Open Space" or "Park." Thus making your house a non conforming use. Thus making it impossible for them to sell or modify their house. I know of no bank that will lend or a noncoforming use. Do you?
Good Luck Comrade.
Vote yes on 49.
Yes, regulations sometimes are limiting, but, on the whole we all stand to benefit from them. Think of traffic laws - yes, you have to stop at that stop sign, but there's a pretty good reason for it.
The real value of EFU and grand expanses of no homes is that Portland and the rest of townie Oregon needs a place to dump their sewage solids. Plain and simple. Human poop needs a final resting place. A cheap final resting place. So you find out farmers get paid to have the glog spread on their land, and they cannot grow "food" for at least three years on the ground. If they used that stuff, were required to use that stuff, on organic grapes, I would vote for the bill. But NIMBY, nooooooo, not on our grapes!!! Grape land (define that---not unlike seining for farts at Octoberfest) gets special protection under 49....Yep...special land designation. So that is the future for rural land owners in Oregon: sell to the developers with the inside track to UGB expansion, sell to grape growers (the largest in Oregon now is the California Public Retirement Fund), or be the rural repository for urban poop. It is a slow way to have the rains run it into the creeks and if there is some residual pollutant, blame the farmer. Vote NO....always vote NO. The best way to know how bad something is, is to see who vehemently supports it. Read your voters pamphlet.
I'm puzzled on the two biggies in the election. Why would the legislature so quickly try to rearrange Measure 37, which was the people speaking to correct the unfairness, towards the people.
Wow WW. You did a fine job of explaining why we should vote NO on 50 so why in the hell are you recommending a YES vote? Because "if it could save just 1 child..."? Nonsense.
WW, do some research. Look into FHIAP and you'll find that children in need already have a comprehensive program available to them (along with OHP). You'll find mid-class parents, M-50's primary beneficiaries, should have no trouble affording $25 to $90 a month to insure each of their kids (no kidding, look it up). Most of them spend more on auto insurance. What's wrong here?
And you missed the biggest problem with M-50: a case for its sustainability hasn't been made. Double ouch!
I can't wait to say "I told you so dummies". I know I won't have to wait long.
I'm middle class... and I pay a hell of a lot more than that for my kid's health insurance.
You have group coverage subsidized by your employer. Group rates are usually much higher than ind rates because group coverage is guaranteed issue (you get it regardless of your health status), and dependent coverage for children usually assumes 2.5 kids. Those with 10 kids get a huge break. Those with 1 pay extra.
Despite rate inequities found with group coverage, keep in mind that the family rate is expensive because of the parents, not the kids. Kids are cheap to insure as they typically have far fewer health issues. Many parents make the mistake of assuming their high insurance rate is due to their kids. This simply isn't the case. It's due to the parents themselves. They also neglect to figure in their pre-tax deduction for their premium contribution. E.g. if you're in the 33% tax bracket and your contribution is $500 a month, your actually only paying $365. Those without group coverage typically don't have this unsung perk.
If your group is experience rated and you really are paying an astronomical rate for your kids, take them off group and move them to individual coverage. Simple. You can potentially save a lot money by doing this. If your kids have health issues preventing them from getting an underwritten ind policy then you'll pay more with OMIP ind coverage, but it may still be notably less than group. All in all, rates are cheap for kids.
If you actually have traditional individual coverage for your kids and you're paying a lot more than say, what BlueCross BlueShield or ODS offers, you need to switch carriers.
Mid class Oregonians really don't need help from childless taxpayers. They just need to be informed. M-50 proponents are doing a great job of seeing that this doesn't happen.
Never saw a tax WW was not in favor of.
Let's do an initiative to impose a special tax on weekly community newspapers. Better yet, let's put it in the Constitution. We'll justify it by claiming that the proceeds will support reading programs for poor handicapped minority children at the library. But let's word the details so that only 31% of the money goes to that purpose - the rest goes to the statewide slush fund, to be spent on any foolish idea the Leg comes up with. Yeah! - That's the ticket!
WW was doing so well in explaining why M50 is a bad idea. They even got the windfall revenue increase correct and questioned raises for public officials. Then, BOOM. They fell back into the "...But if this measure insures only one additional kid... " rhetoric and blew it at the last minute letting their true colors show through. Once a socialist, always a socialist.
Goodness WW, that is the worst recapsulation of ballots measure initiatives that I've ever heard.
Who do you think we are, 5 year olds?!
Yes, they do believe we are 5 year olds. We are so stupid, we can't think for ourselves and can be duped on any issue with the simplest of strategies. Just say "...for the poor children..." and we fall all over ourselves to give up freedoms and send government more money. I wonder how we can dress ourselves in the morning with WW help.
Thank you again, WW, for helping us see through the clutter of confusing rhetoric and spin. YES on 49. YES on 50. Smokers DO need to pay to recoup their cost to society. Land developers DO need barriers to stop them from creating cookie cutter subdivisions.
THANK YOU WW
Grant and WW, I already pay for my cigarettes! No one pays for them. I also pay for my own health insurance including a co-pay. I have an idea, let's tax toilet paper, everyones uses it! Then let's legislate it in the same way that they want to tax cigarettes. Again the only harm that I cause is to myself, I don't expect WW or any Oregonian to pay for my medical expenses, I happen to work full-time to pay for my own. I don't need the government to regulate that.
Well, Deborah the problem is that you are a minority with a behavior that many disagree with. That gives them the right, in their minds, to tax you since they believe a majority of people won't object. I like your toilet paper idea. How about this one: tax gay people since their CHOSEN behavior is the primary cause of HIV infection. Use the tax revenues to fund health care for dogs and cats. Makes about as much sense as a tax on tobacco paying for health insurance for the poor.
It's always been all about the kids. Why should I pay more for a pack of smokes so that a little chub can continue intravenously feeding on sodawater and have health insurance for when he gets diabetes, tooth cavities and a little fatkid chair in which he can wheel himself to the fridge. In my mind this is what it comes down to. Yes, we should have universal health care and especially have it for our kids, but this is not the way to go about it. Measure 50 is putting a band-aid on a band-aid. Way to go Oregon.
OK really, here's the deal: , I understand how some smokers feel that M-50 is unfair. However to any of us think that smoking is GOOD for us? No. We know it's not. But we are addicted- face it. So why not pay a bit more to help 100,000 kids get health care? M-50 helps smokers quit,but more importantantly will prevent almost 30,000 kids from ever starting to smoke. That's a good deal and will save money in the long run for all of us. Yes it's a bandaid, but do you want an oozing wound showing? NO cover our kids NOW! Vote yes and get your ballot in!
No on 49. I don't believe you need to craft and recraft and recraft and recraft ballot measures to fix stuff that wasn't crafted correclty in the first place, or so you say. I read ballot measure 37 through, and I'm delighted with it.
I'd much much much much much much rather be Vegas than Vegans with "Portland Values" or whatever that crap Potter and his little buddy Sammy Adams are troweling out. So, try harder next time. Think about small government, instead of the nanny state you all want but won't just come out and admit.
Uninsured, underprivileged children =illegal alien children. Why don't you just come out and say it? Hey, I paid my own health insurance for my own child for twenty long years. I wasn't "entitled" to having the government pay my child's health insurance. And neither are you, or they, or you or you over there!
Sorry pal, not today.
So, hell no on 50. Not even for one human being for one minute.
You just blithely brush over the very thing which is ruining this state, and has ruined Portland for small business. It's called taxes. So,
LOWER the goddam taxes. NO MORE ENTITLEMENTS. I GET NO ENTITLEMENTS. I DON'T WANNA GIVE ANY to anyone else, either. Here's your entitlement. Join the army and go to Baghdad. NOW. Then come back after two or four years and we'll talk.
And, while I'm at it, no on 26-93. I ain't gettin' that deal so nobody else should either.
Oh, so this is where all the crazies are hanging out...
WW supports a tax increase and a reduction of Constitutional rights. Shocking.