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