▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenhom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541)346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
The tax tyrant
■ OUR OPINION: Bill Sizemore is
spreading his anti-government
gospel and squeezing out
valuable programs along the way
He hates taxes, government
and inefficient spending. He
doesn’t hold an official po
litical office, but no single
person has as much influence on the
state of Oregon than he has had in re
cent years. He brought us the now in
famous Measure 47 and the son-of-47,
Measure 50. Worst of all, he’s not even
close to done.
Bill Sizemore, the anti-tax guru, is
back in action with three new mea
sures that propose to limit government
and cut back on government spend
ing. All three are more of the same
from Sizemore — cutting government,
spending and programs. When will it
be enough for this guy? In his own
words: “The war won’t be over as long
as government has the power to take
money away from the people who
earn it. ”
In other words, until there are no
more taxes. Forget the fact that taxes
fund our schools and communities or
that they provide needed revenue for
some pretty important government
programs (public safety and trans
portation, just to name a few). It’s pret
ty scary what Sizemore has done and
hopes to do for Oregon. It’s even scari
er that he has been succeeding.
Sizemore’s mission to limit the role
of government has certainly gone too
far with this latest round of measures.
One completely eliminates Metro,
Portland’s regional government, call
ing it “an unnecessary layer of bureau
cracy.” Another requires the govern
ment to try and contract out services to
private businesses whenever possible.
And most controversial and potential
ly damaging is one measure that
would set a spending limit on state
and local government.
All these measures rest on the as
sumption that cutting spending and
government is always good. The fact
is, this just isn’t true. We have local
government for a reason. We elect rep
resentatives to deal with day-to-day
problems because the average citizen
doesn’t have the time or knowledge to
do so. And as much as Sizemore does
n’t want to believe it, we need taxes to
run our government.
We know this, and so does everyone
else. So why has Sizemore been so
successful at pushing forth his anti-tax
rhetoric? One reason is that he, for all
his faults, is a great politician. He
knows how to appeal to people’s de
sires and convince them that his agen
da is their own. Even when it isn’t.
While most people do like less
taxes, they also like the services
their taxes provide. While Size
more may not be satisfied until the
police department is run like a pri
vate company, most people enjoy
the universal protection the govern
ment provides. And while Sizemore
may believe students should bear the
full cost of a college education, most
college students at least appreciate
that the government helps subsidize
their education.
Sizemore’s popularity (though most
people claim they don’t have a “favor
able” opinion of him) can’t last forev
er. The thrill of paying a few bucks
less in taxes will disappear as soon as
people realize their favorite services
are disappearing. We can only hope
that when people finally realize that
programs need money to run, Size
more will quietly sulk away into an
other state.
Until then, it seems we’ll just have
to bear the Sizemore storm and hope
when it ends the damage is not unre
pairable. And in the meantime, we car)
wait in fear for the day that Sizemore
makes (and it seems likely he will) his
bid for governor. Just imagine what
kind of trouble he could cause then.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board.
Riverfront is a perfect example of planned development
The research park will develop
the Eugene-Springfield area while
sustaining a clean environment
The Emerald’s recent three-part se
ries on the development of the
Riverfront Research Park, pub
lished May 19-21, highlights the
need for thoughtful, reasoned considera
tion of the issue, backed with some impor
tant historical context.
The park has been controversial because
it is located on land that some people want
to maintain as "pristine” open space. In
fact, the Riverfront site is anything but
“pristine.” It is a former commercial in
dustrial area, parts of which have been
used for a sand and gravel operation, an as
phalt batch processing plant and a pole
yard for a local utility.
In the late 1980s, the University and
City of Eugene were able to change the
zoning of this land from environmentally
damaging industrial uses to a dedicated
use for the Riverfront Research Park spe
cial development. The University and city
have spent years cleaning it up, and are
currently nearing completion of an ambi
tious environmental remediation of haz
ardous wastes detected in the area.
Does our community want the River
front Research Park? The question has al
ready been answered by a public vote. In
November 1988, after a four-year process
which included intensive citizen study,
comprehensive plan development, de
tailed citizen reviews of the plans, six pub
lic hearings, numerous public planning
committee meetings and three community
forums, the citizens of Eugene voted two
to-one to develop the park.
The Riverfront Research Park is a perfect
example of planned, sustainable develop
ment:
■ It assists in diversifying the local eco
nomic base by encouraging the growth of
knowledge-based industries; promotes
“clean growth" by attracting non-pollut
ing, research-based industrial tenants and
creates family-wage jobs by drawing high
tech industries that require an educated
and skilled work force.
■ It retains a green, park-like setting, in
cluding an extension of the University’s
arboretum and maintenance of the bike
path.
■ It provides opportunities for research
interaction between industry and the Uni
versity. Close working relationships devel
oped between industry and the University
facilitate private sponsorship for research,
an increasingly important element of re
search funding as the federal government
cuts its support for basic research.
■ It creates additional financial oppor
tunities for long-term University income
from lease revenues, patents and licenses,
and other sources.
■ It broadens the tax base, adds to the lo
cal economy and enhances the reputation,
visibility and attractiveness of the Eugene
Springfield area as a desirable place to
live, do business and conduct research.
As the University and the city proceed
with planning for a new building at the
Riverfront Research Park, I hope that we
all remember the years we’ve already spent
debating this issue, and frame our memo
ries with two simple facts. First, Eugene
and Springfield will grow, by all estimates,
at a very rapid rate. And second, we cannot
hope to completely control this growth.
The hard-won lessons of history and ar
chaeology show that the best any commu
nity has ever been able to achieve is
planned development.
People and businesses will come, attract
ed by the same conditions we all find so
appealing here. We can, however, try to
create the kinds of development that will
make Eugene and Springfield different
from other rapidly growing areas.
The Riverfront Research Park illustrates
how the community and the University,
through careful, cooperative planning, can
help bring knowledge-based, family-wage
jobs to town while keeping our community
clean and green.
Steadman Upham is University vice
provost for research, dean of the Graduate
School, and professor of anthropology. His
views do not necessarily represent those of
the newspaper.