Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 1996)
I TT n 1 5 MONDAY: Opinion TUESDAY: Politics WEDNESDAY: Opinion THURSDAY: Politics FRIDAY: Opinion editorials, letters, commentary and perspective g BY MAIL: P.O.Box 3159, | Eugene, OR 97403 * BY PHONE: (541) 346-5511 “ BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon. i uoregon. edu IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU Property lines divided over Measure 47 ■ OUR OPINION: The property tax measure leaves schools too vulnerable to legislative laziness and circumstance After a cursory look, Measure 47 should be a no-brainer. As students of the largest four-year university in Oregon, it should be easy for us to vote no without any hesitation — and without any thought. Exactly what this measure does and the possible ramifications resulting from it need to be examined / closely before a true decision can be made. / Yes, it cuts state property taxes in the 1996-97 tax year, either by 10 percent or by reverting to the 1994-95 level, whichever is smaller. And yes, it limits fu ture property tax increases to 3 percent per year. But its ef fect on public higher educa tion is far from concrete. Bill Sizemore from Oregon Tax payers United, the only publicly visible supporter of the mea sure, says funding for schools has gone up, not down, since Mea sure 5 passed in 1990. And if Measure 47 passes, it will continue to "protect” schools just like Measure 5 before it. c This is assuming the State Legislature will be f creative enough to replace an estimated $574 million in / school funding in 1997-99, the amount 47 will cut ac- / cording to the Legislative Revenue Office. / Sizemore says the Legislature can do it. They did it / before, why not again? But by cutting $1 billion from / the State General Fund, the primary source of school / funding, making up the difference will not be easy. In I fact, the job will most likely be done by the schools themselves. The University adjusted to Measure 5 and even I thrived in many ways. But not before eliminating al- y" ' " most 30 academic programs, raising tuition by 80 per- \ cent and seeing the state slide to 50th in the country in \ funding for higher education. And the future doesn't \ seem any brighter under Measure 47. \ Sizemore says state income tax and lottery dollars will V fill the Financial deficit created by 47. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee a surplus of money will be available, let alone used for schools. Unlike Measure 5, Measure 47 doesn’t require the state to make up the revenues lost to property tax reduc tions. It simply requires public schools and safety be “priori tized.” Prioritization is meaningless if there is no money in the first place. Lottery dollars and income tax are unreliable, and if the money isn’t there, the state doesn’t have to create it. Ultimately, funding for schools after 47 is possible but far from guaranteed. On a more practical level, the University is still struggling. Professors are still overloaded. Students are still disenchanted by huge classes and a lack of a “personal touch.” With one more year of Measure 5 to go, the University is almost free of major fi nancial intrusions. It can begin to prepare for a huge onslaught of new students before the end of the century. Measure 47 would start the process all over again. Even President Frohnmayer said the University doesn’t “have a major contingency plan that would deal with that magnitude of problem.” The effects of Measure 47 have too much disas trous potential, too many possible negatives to even plan for. The risk is too much to gamble on. Vote no on Measure 47. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. PO. BOX 3159 EUGENE OREGON 97403 Editor-in-chief: Steven Asbury Managing Editor Jennifer Carter Might Editor Jennifer Carter Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor. Jean Bond, Christian HiH Entertainment Nicoie Kreuger, editor Jesse Stephenson Higher Education: Tamyra Howser, in-depth. Benjamin Kwasney, Laura Cadiz Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor. Chris Hutchinson, illustrator. Brian Diamond, Larry Haftl, Sonja Sherwood Politic*: Shana Cohn, editor Doug Irving Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor Angie Suchy, Tom Potter Sports: Mark McTyre, editor Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor Chns Hansen, Ryan Frank. Ryan Halvorsen Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn, copy chief. Sarah Kickler. Mike Schmierbach, Kendra Smith, Paul Meznarich Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor Matt Garton Photography: Mathew Stiffter. editor Andrew Brackensick. Joe Bunik. Amanda Erickson. Shannon Kilduff. Chad Patteson Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler, director 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 Uni versity 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 General Manager Judy Riedl Advertising Becky Merchant director Anne Amador. Lee Yen Beh, Marco Ching. Yujin Chi. Matt Johnson, Anne Miller. Trina Shanaman, Rose Soil. 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, Trevor Kearney. Tara Knight. Melissa Lebahn, Molly McCanta. Allison Stormo, Mike Young Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly Distribution: John Long, Jeff Johnson, Ferenc Rakoczi Newsroom...(541) 346-5511 Display Advertising.(541)346-3712 Business Office.(541) 346-5512 Classified Advertising.(541) 346-4343 j CHRIS HUTCHINSOWEmerald ■ ANOTHER VIEW: All Oregonians will benefit from a property tax reduction, even renters The case for Measure 47 is overwhelming. For starters, this year inflation is running at less than 3 percent. Wages and cost of living allowances are increasing at only 2 to 3 percent. So how is it right that property taxes this year are going to increase by 10 to 20 percent? ' How are everyday working and retired Oregoni ans supposed to pay taxes that increase at more than three times the rate of inflation and t ——' the rate at which incomes are increasing? Almost no one would support a tax of 25 to 50 \ ^ percent on people whose incomes are at A half the poverty level. That would be A unconscionable. Yet that is exactly what we are ’ \ doing in Oregon with our current property tax system. Tens of thousands of elderly Orego nians who live on monthly social security checks of $400 to $500 are required to pay $100 to $200 per \ month in property taxes, leaving only a tiny amount of money each month to pay for food and utilities. How unjust! Measure 47 meets Oregon’s property tax problem head on. The measure gives property owners a modest 10 percent property tax re duction, but the tax is then capped so it cannot increase more than 3 percent per year— in most cases regardless of what happens to assessments. Though all property owners will benefit from the mea sure, the majority of savings will not go to commercial property owners, but to hard-pressed residential taxpay / Even renters will benefit from the passage of Measure 47, / because when property taxes go up, so do rents. Landlords / cannot reasonably be expected to simply absorb the coming y property tax increases. So if Measure 47 does not pass, those huge tax increases will be passed on to renters in the form of higher rents. Opponents of Measure 47 are trying to draw attention away from the coming property tax explosion. They are saying that Mea sure 47 is not really about limiting property taxes, but about local control. What’s fascinating about this claim is that the facts indi cate that it is entirely groundless. Oregon law requires that the bal lot title of a measure must state what the measure is really about. In the case of Measure 47, Oregon’s Attorney General and Supreme Court have officially certified a ballot title that says Measure 47 is about reducing and limiting property taxes. The ballot title says nothing about local control. Predictably, politicians and bureaucrats are making doom and gloom prophecies of wholesale devastation for government if tax payers are allowed to keep more of their money. Their claims re garding a “loss of local control” and “dead people voting” are merely desperate attempts to divert attention away from skyrocket ing property taxes. This much is clear: If Measure 47 does not pass, property taxes on average Oregon homes will increase $500 to $1,000 by 1998, and a lot of good, decent folks will suffer real hard ship. That fact should be of overwhelming concern to every voter and every elected official who has sworn to serve the people of Oregon. Measure 47 is a good measure. It will place a reasonable limit on the growth of property taxes once and for all. Its 3 percent cap on annual increases is fair for taxpayers and fair for government. Bill Sizemore, executive director of Oregon Taxpayers United, is the author of Measure 47. LETTERS Men forgotten It was with great disgust that I read “Help available for all eating disorders” [ODE, Oct. 21). Ten years ago, I was afflict ed with an eating disorder for approxi mately two years. I am not now, nor was 1 was during that time period, a female. When I read doctorate student and “eat ing disorder specialist” Britta Dinsmore quoted as saying: “We help women...” and “women have to...,” I was overcome with intense anger. How dare these so-called specialists perpetuate such stereotypes? While women may have a much higher in cidence of eating disorders, they are by no means the only gender to be affected by these illnesses. The article also quotes Judy Sonnenberg, University psychologist, as stating: “Women are often ashamed...” and para phrases her as stating that “women are at different levels.” Perhaps Dinsmore, who isn’t yet a licensed professional, has an ex cuse for ignorance in her specialty, but the University is paying the salary of Sonnen berg while she perpetuates a serious and dangerous fallacy. Shame on these two individuals and on the Emerald's editors for not questioning this blatant misrepresentation and bias. Such disregard can only drive males affect ed by these illnesses further into shame and guilt and away from treatment. Jonathan Bricker Economics
