Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 22, 1996)
s MONDAY: Opinion TUESDAY: Politics WEDNESDAY: Opinion THURSDAY: Politics FRIDAY: Opinion a voter’s guide to the 1996 election and life on the campaign trail BY MAIL: P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 BY PHONE: (541)346-5511 BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon. uoregon. edu IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU ISSUE: GAY DISCRIMINATION - I |J U U Jj r1 d i!jJ Question: Would you endorse federal legis lation making it illegal to fire or avoid hir ing people because they are homosexual? "I do not believe that it is right for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Men and women in 41 states may now be fired from their jobs solely based on their sexual orienta tion, even though it has no bearing on their job performance. i nose mo race mis Kino or job discrimination have no legal recourse.... The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for which I announced my support last fall, is designed to protect the rights of all Ameri cans to participate in the job market without fear of unfair discrimination, while providing exceptions for religious organizations." —President Bill Clinton, Democratic candidate "I oppose discrimina tion in any form, i do not, however, favor cre ating special rights for any one group. I believe that people should be hired based on their tal ents, knowledge and experience — not based on their race, reli yivu, muoiyic ui uioaumiy. —Bob Dole, Republican candidate 'Every time we pass a law we give up a portion of our freedom. The American people must learn to work together and respect one anoth er. No law will make us do this." —Ross Perot, Reform Party candidate -Associated Press P.O.BOX 3159. EUGENE. OREGON 97403 The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Fri day during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon A member of the Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with of fices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury Managing Editor: Jennifer Carter Night Editor: Ryan Frank Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor. Jean Bond, Christian Hill Entertainment: Nicole Kreuger, editor. Jesse Stephenson Higher Education: Tamyra Howser, in-depth. Laura Cadiz, Benjamin Kwasney Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor Chris Hutchinson, illustrator. Politics: Shana Cohn, editor. Doug Irving Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor. Angie Suchy, Tom Potter Sports: Mark McTyre. editor. Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor. Chris Hansen. Ryan Frank, Ryan Halvorsen Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn, copy chief. Trevor Kearney, Sarah Kickler, Mike Schmierbach, Kendra Smith Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor. Matt Garton Photography: Mathew Stiffler, editor. Andrew Brackensick, Joe Bunik, Amanda Erickson. Shannon Kilduff, Chad Patteson Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor. On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler General Manager: Judy Riedl Advertising Becky Merchant, director Anne Amador, Lee Yen Beh, Marco Ching. Yujin Chi, Matt Johnson, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman. Rose Soli, Matt Solomon, Greg Walsh Classified: Tara Sloan, manager. Natasha Lumpkin. Debbie Levy, Heather Moye Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator. Shawna Abele, Laura Daniel, Tara Knight, Melissa Lebahn, Molly McCanta, Allison Stormo. Mike Young Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly Distribution: John Long. Jeff Johnson, Ferenc Rakoczi .(541)346*5811 Display Advertising.(841)346-3712 Business Office.(841)346-8512 Opponent attacks Measure 47 By Shana Cohn Politics Editor Lora Cuykendall, an opponent of Mea sure 47, recently discussed the state’s fu ture pertaining to education if the mea sure passed. She also answered questions about Measure 5, the property tax limita tion that has decreased state spending per student since its passage in 1990. Cuyk endall is part of Oregonians For Local Con trol, the campaign committee for No on 47. Thursday, the Emerald will feature an interview with Bill Sizemore whose group, Oregon Taxpayers United, sponsored Mea sure 47. ISSUE:Schools QHow would Measure 47 affect K-12 and ■ community colleges? A Measure 47 would be very damaging to lo ■ cal schools. Not only does it cut money available to local schools, but it continues the loss of local control. Measure 5 and Measure 47 take away the right of local communities to de cide how much they want to spend on schools. ISSUE: Money Replacement Q Could the money lost from Measure 47 be ■ replaced from other sources? A The measure allows money to be replaced ■ only from state income tax. The Legislative Revenue Office estimates there will be $1 billion lost to cities, counties and school districts in the [1997-99] biennium. Even with the anticipated growth in income tax revenues, that growth wouldn’t equal $1 billion. The state also need to maintain other programs such as the Oregon Health Plan and prison expansions. ISSUE: Before Measure 5 QWhat was school funding like previous to ■ Measure 5? A Measure 5 switched the control of school ■funding from the local community to the state. Before the measure, there was some state LORA CUYKENDALL UUMlilJJ flM funding of schools, but it was less than half. Lo cal communities could pass tax bases or levy taxes to fund school districts. Measure 5 took away the option of increased financial support from local communities. It put a rate limit on how much local tax rate could go to schools and re quired the state to make up the difference. [Bill] Sizemore will tell you that schools have dealt with Measure 5 just fine. The total amount of money spent on schools since 1990 is higher now, but the number of students has also grown. The state didn’t deal with it just fine. Per student spending went down. ISSUE: Funding Higher Education The state's colleges and universities do not get money from property taxes, but do get it from the general fund. QWhy is higher education worried about • losses? A There will be tremendous pressure on state ■ general fund money to make up losses in local schools and city and county programs such as public safety. For the state to make up the losses, it will leave less money available for other state funding. If most of the [state’s] money goes to public safety, other services will be cut, like li brary and senior programs. ISSUE: Tuition QHow would the measure affect tuition at ■ state colleges, universities and communi ty colleges? Alt would continue to go up. It would be diffi cult for the state to deal with this measure without raising tuition again. The measure would take away community colleges’ traditional source of funding and cut down on the options of re placing the money. Let’s say Lane Community College has a budget cut [under Measure 47], and they want to make up the budget with higher tuition. They would be required to go to a vote to pass an increase. [Measure 47 prohibits using increased fees or other charges to pay for gov ernment services and products previously fund ed by property tax revenues, unless a new or in creased fee has been approved by voters]. ISSUE: Measure 5 vs. Measure 47 QWili Measure 47 affect schools differently ■than Measure 5? A Measure 5 was a rate limitation. It limited ■ the tax rate to $5 per $1000 of assessed property. So if the value of people's homes or businesses increased, it brought in some addi tional money. Measure 47 is a tax limit. It limits how much property taxes could go up, even if a house is assessed at more. Each individual prop erty bill can’t increase more than 3 percent each year. With Measure 47, you end up losing some money that local communities could have col lected for schools under Measure 5. And unlike Measure 5, it doesn’t require the state to make up the lost property tax money. ISSUE: Taxes Oregon Taxpayers' United say Measure 47 could be enacted without any cuts to schools and other essential services such as police and fire protection. It says the reduced property tax rev enues could be replaced from the state's abun dance of state income and lottery dollars. Is this possible? Alt’s true that state income and taxes collect ■ ed have gone up. The economy is good. Lottery money has increased [the first half of the 1990s] because of a huge expansion in video poker. It’s unlikely the lottery will expand like that again and could even go down because of com petition from Indian gaming casinos. It would take an increase in the state income tax rate to raise enough money to make up for a billion dol lars 47 A look at some of the 23 ballot measures in the November 5 election WHAT IT WOULD DO Amends the state constitution to limit the amount of property taxes that can be collect ed. Otherwise known as “cut and cap,” Mea sure 47 proposes to roll back property taxes to their 1994-95 level, or alternately, cut them to 10 percent less than the 1995-1996 tax, whichever is smaller. Once set at this base level, future growth in taxes, for tax years following 1997-98, is limited to no more than a 3 percent increase per year, with exceptions. Would limit revenue avail able for schools and other local services funded by property taxes. Local govern ments’ lost revenue may be replaced only with state income tax, unless voters approve replacement fees or charges. Revenue re ductions from the tax limitation must be allo cated in a way that public safety and public education are priority. Requires tax mea sures to be approved at general elections or elections with 50 percent turnout. Requires that property be assessed at real market val ue, a requirement already in place since 1968. Would restrict general obligation bonds. Tax levy approvals in certain elec tions would require 50 percent voter partici pation. ARGUMENTS FOR Without Measure 47, property taxes will skyrocket next year and every year thereafter, which will hurt taxpayers and retired people on fixed incomes. The measure will cut property taxes by 10 percent and limit future growth. If the state continues to make up reduced property tax revenue with income tax and lottery money, Measure 47 can be implemented without any cuts to schools or local govern ments. If the measure doesn’t pass, the state’s excess of rev enue will be spent to expand bureaucracy. The measure would stop the shift of the property tax burden from resi dential to commercial property. Since the legislature hasn’t passed any bills to limit the growth of the property tax, it was necessary to put the mea sure on the ballot by initiative to protect taxpayers. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The Legislative Revenue Office estimates that if Measure 47 passes, local governments and schools together will lose an estimated $467 million in rev enue statewide in 1997-98, and $533 million in 1998-99, and increasing amounts the following years. The measure doesn’t provide any means of replacing those losses. It fur ther erodes local control, espe cially for schools, over even minor decisions. The measure eliminates the ability of com munities to choose what level of services they want and turns these decisions over to the leg islature. If the state were to re place the revenue lost to local governments by the measure, it would mean severe cuts in other state programs. It re moves the historical connec tion between the property tax paid and the assessed value of the property. Sources: League of Women Voters, Oregon Taxpayers United and Oregon State System of Higher Education
