Monday, February 13

Sam Adams is on Yelp

News The other day I noticed a curious tweet from our venerable mayor's Twitter account:Yes, Sam is tweet... More

Feb 13, 2012 01:20 pm by RUTH BROWN  | Comments 1
 

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 4
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 2
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · News · Endorsements Redux
October 24th, 2007 WW Editorial Staff | News
 

Endorsements Redux

A recap of WW’s recommendations on state Measures 49&50 plus city Measure 26-93.

4 Comments
     
Tags:
If you’re a registered voter, you should have received your ballot for the Nov. 6 election by now.

If you’ve forgotten our recommendations last week (“Measured Endorsements,” WW , Oct. 17, 2007) on how to vote for the two statewide measures and one City of Portland measure, here’s a thumbnail summary of what we think:

Measure 49: YES


This statewide measure would restore many of the land-use controls gutted by Measure 37, which voters passed in 2004 to help Oregonians whose property was subject to government regulations after they bought it.

SUMMARY : Measure 49 would retain the relief promised by Measure 37 for property owners who want to build as many as three homes. It also would provide some help for those who want to develop four to 10 homes. But it would close down the prospect of Measure 37 claims for larger subdivisions or other developments. A worthy balance.

Measure 50: YES


An amendment to the Oregon Constitution that would raise state tobacco taxes from $1.18 a pack to $2.025, with much of the money used to pay for children’s health insurance.

SUMMARY : Tax policy as a constitutional amendment? Not a great idea. But we recommend it this time for two reasons: An estimated 92,000 Oregonians under age 19 would be insured within three years, and the tax would reduce smoking.

Measure 26-93: YES


A fix to Portland’s Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund that would let cops and firefighters injured on the job return to work without sacrificing their post-retirement medical benefits.

SUMMARY : By adding an estimated $11 a year to the average residential property tax bill, injured firefighters and police officers could return to work and keep their retirement medical benefits. Makes sense to us.


FACTS: To read WW’ s entire endorsements, go to wweek.com/editorial/3349/9812/. For elections questions in Multnomah County, go to co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/index, or call 988-3720.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
10.24.2007 at 10:41 Reply
Allright everyone!! Let the media do the thinking for you!! It's the American way!!

 

10.25.2007 at 01:20 Reply
No on measure 50. Tie the funding of an essential service (childrens health insurance) to a tax that by its design is meant to collect less and less money each year as it reduces the number of smokers. How is the funding shortfall going to be made up when the tax revenue falls off?

If reducing smoking is really the point of the tax, and not a way to grab money from a group of people who are easy targets for having a filthy habit, then why not just ban tobacco sales in Oregon?

This is just a way to make a tax grab and not take it out of everyones pocket.

 

10.25.2007 at 04:59 Reply
I am disapointed that a paper that I have looked to for independant/objective/outside the box thinking has bought into the flawed premise of ballet measure 50. DARN...Otherwise enjoy your fresh voice on many subjects. Thanks, Larry

 

10.28.2007 at 04:57 Reply
Cal
Regarding 26-93, the figure $11 is far above what is in the voter's info at Multnomah County Elections: "The monthly cost to the average residential property tax bill is estimated to be 92 cents."

http://www.mcelections.org/2007-11/26-93.shtml

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close