KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner ANDREW CUTLER Publisher/Editor ERICK PETERSON Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter ThURSDAy, AUgUST 4, 2022 A4 Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Cities may urge Legislature to raise taxes I ncrease taxes on booze. Allow cities to increase taxes on marijuana. Change incentives in the wake of Measure 110 so more people in Oregon get drug treatment. Change the law so tempo- rary local property taxes become perma- nent if they pass three or more times. Those are all possible priorities that cities in Oregon may lobby the Legislature to take action on in 2023. The League of Oregon Cities has asked cities across the state to pick their top ove priorities from a list. We decided to highlight a couple of things on the list that we thought you might be interested in. The League of Oregon Cities may push for state taxes to be increased on beer and wine, so in turn, cities would get more money trickling in. One possible piece of legislation: Cities could be allowed to have local sales taxes on beer and wine. When recreational marijuana was legalized, cities were receiving 10% of the net revenue of the state tax of 17% on all sales of recreational marijuana. That changed with Measure 110. Revenue to cities dropped. Cities can still have a local tax of up to 3%. The League of Oregon Cities proposal is for the state to some- how restore the money that cities lost because of Measure 110 or allow voters in cities to raise the local pot tax above 3%. Measure 110 decriminalized much minor drug possession in Oregon and replaced it with a $100 ticket. The concern has been that if a goal is to get more people into drug treatment the measure might not work as intended. The measure did shift more money into treatment centers. It also, though, made it easy for someone cited with a ticket to avoid paying, avoid getting treatment and not face any repercussions. The League of Oregon Cities proposes to encourage legislators to restore more incentives for people to get treatment. The League has come up with a number of possible changes to property taxes. In Oregon the permanent tax rates for cities were frozen at 1997 levels and cannot be increased. That9s because of Measure 50. Property taxes are very important for cities. For instance, taxes and special assessments make up 38% of Pendleton9s $19.3 million general fund. One idea is to make it so local option levies that pass three or more times become perma- nent. Another idea is to allow voters to set tax rates outside of the current limits. These are just some of the changes that the League of Oregon Cities may gear up to advocate. You can see the complete list here tinyurl.com/ORcitypriorities. What do you think your community should support? EDITORIALS Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. LETTERS The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. SEND LETTERS TO: editor@eastoregonian.com, or via mail to Andrew Cutler, 211 S.E. Byers Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801 Playing politics with wildlife conservation BILL ANEY THIS LAND IS OUR LAND n June, orst-term U.S. Rep Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, introduced a law that would undo what is likely the most successful wildlife conservation program in history. Clyde9s bill, entitled the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) Our Constitutional Rights Act, would repeal the Pittman-Robert- son Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937. Pittman-Robertson was proposed and supported by sportsmen and estab- lished an excise tax on orearms, ammu- nition, and archery equipment with the proceeds dedicated to wildlife management, conservation, and devel- opment of sport-shooting facilities. In the past 85 years, the program has funneled more than $11 billion to state wildlife agencies, where the money is matched by the states (usually from hunting license fees). It9s a beautiful system, with users (hunters) taxing themselves to pay for wildlife manage- ment thereby allowing us to proudly claim that hunting is conservation. In Oregon, this dedicated funding source brings $15-20 million per year to wild- life conservation programs in the state. Clyde9s bill to dismantle Pitt- man-Robertson has been unanimously criticized by a broad sweep of organi- zations including professional societ- ies and large and small conservation groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Back- country Hunters and Anglers and the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Part- nership. Even the National Rine Asso- ciation and National Shooting Sports I Foundation have joined the chorus. So why did Rep. Clyde propose such a destructive piece of legislation? Clyde is the owner of a gun and ammunition retail business, so perhaps he ogures lower gun prices would mean more sales. Or is he anti-wildlife? Perhaps he has noble (if misdirected) motives when he states,