Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, October 4, 2000
More ballot measures
Continuing from the last issue, this will be further review of ballot
measures on the November General Election.
MEASURE 98, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT —This would
prohibit using “public funds” to collect or help collect “political
funds.” Public funds are defined in such a broad sense that it in
cludes public buildings, employee time,equipment and supplies,
statements of support or opposition to a candidate, ballot mea
sure or initiative petition. In an attempt to block fund raising by
payroll deductions, including any portion of public employees’
union dues that could used to promote the interests of union
members, it would probably block the use of public funds to pro
duce even the basic voters pamphlet. The language is imprecise
and is another of those measures that would probably end up in
court—with the taxpayers picking up the cost.
Recommend a NO vote on Measure 98.
MEASURE 88, STATUTE, AND MEASURE 91, CONSTITUTION
AL AMENDMENT — Both of these measures concern the amount
of Federal income tax that would be deductible on the State in
come tax return.
Measure 88 would increase the deductible amount from a max
imum of $3000 to $5000. The financial impact is estimated to re
duce state revenues by from $47 million to $130 million per year,
increasing with the growth in overall income tax revenue.
Measure 91 would retain no maximum amount and make all
federal income taxes deductible on State returns. It is estimated
that State revenues would be reduced by $800 million to $1 bil
lion per year, with as much as two-thirds of that tax break going
to corporations, which currently are unable to deduct federal tax
es from state income tax liability.
The obvious concern about these tax reduction efforts is not
knowing how the greatly reduced income would be allocated., for
instance: Funds for education and law enforcement both derive
from state income taxes, not from targeted taxes such as those
that go to highways.
Another concern is that the tax break would be of absolutely no
help to anyone who $3000 per year, or less, in federal income tax-
es-which is more than half of ail Oregonians-but would be a huge
tax break for the wealthiest 10 percent.
These considerations are sufficiently disturbing that many
wealthy individual taxpayers are publicly opposing both Measure
88 and Measure 91, as are many large corporations and Associ
ated Oregon Industries. Their biggest concern is the negative im
pact to the state’s educational system, particularly at a time when
technology companies are begging for a more educated work
force.
Recommend a NO vote on Measures 88 and 91.
MEASURE 90, STATUTE — This measure would authorize al
lowing rates that pay a return to stockholders on utility plants that
do not provide service to the ratepayers. In some ways, this is
moot, since the PUC has already authorized a similar program for
PGE’s defunct Trojan nuclear plant. This is really a perversion of
paying for the services you need and should not be instituted in
law. Why should utility stockholders be guaranteed a loss-free
status when utility ratepayers are not even guaranteed that the
service they agree to pay for will be available?
Recommend a NO vote on Measure 90
MEASURE 93, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT — This would
require voter approval of most tax and fee increases and, addi
tionally, if this measure is approved, those subsequent approvals
would have to be by the same percentage. It also would require
the repeal and refund of recent tax and fee increases unless an
other electrion is held and voters approve the increase.
What does this mean?!? It means that if the public library
wants to start charging a late fee, they would first have to hold an
election. The election would cost $3,000-$3,500. It means that an
election would have to be held if the city needs to raise the fee for
business licenses. It means that the athletic participation fee en
acted this year by Vernonia School District would have to be re
funded but could be reinstituted if the voters approve, after an
other election. This is just a sampling of how this measure could
end up costing much more than it would save.
Recommend a NO vote on Measure 93.
Ike Says. . .
By Dale Webb, member,
Izaak Walton League, Nehalem Valley Chapter
I recently discovered another hiking trail in the
local area that is very unique. The Four County’s
trail leads to the only place in Oregon where it is
possible to stand in four Counties at the same
time. The trail is on Highway 26 just a few miles
west of the Timber Road junction, where the
highway turns into four lanes going uphill. There
is a sign on the right and plenty of room to park
on the shoulder. The trail is very obvious as it
takes off down hill toward the north fork of Wolf
Creek. Just before the trail dives off into the
creek, turn hard left up the hill and follow the trail
back toward the highway, almost back to your
vehicle, before angling back into the woods. The
trail is about a mile long and laid out by some
one having a little fun. Your mind will start to
question whether you are on the right trail as it
meanders through the woods, up onto a power
line right-of-way and right back into the woods.
Near the end of the trail, it hooks back up the hill
as if it is going to double right back on itself.
The reward of this hike is the granite marker
that is inlaid into the ground designating the cor
ners of Columbia, Washington, Clatsop and
Tillamook counties. My hiking partner, Donna,
took my picture as I have my hands and feet in
each of the respective counties at one time. An
other reward of this hike is the old growth timber
growing at the beginning of this trail. The trees
here measure five to six foot at the base and are
probably 150-200 feet tall. It is absolutely amaz
ing to stand at the base of one of these giants
and stare straight up along the trunk towards the
sky. There was a little wind the day of our hike
and the trunks of some of these trees swayed
ten feet or more at the top.
I will have to admit that, while having lived all
of my life in this area, and a good share of that
as a logger, it is a shame we don’t have more of
these patches of timber to walk in. I have walked
in old growth forests in the Cascades and they
are spectacular, but there is something about a
coastal old growth Douglas Fir that sets them
apart.
Please remember that it is hunting season
now and wear bright colors such as red or or
ange while hiking in the woods for safety.
I have recently been asked by several people
if we will be able to have a consumptive fishery
for Cutthroat trout in our local streams again.
There was a proposal to do just that in the recent
angling regulations review conducted by
ODF&W. Unfortunately, this proposal was al
tered during the process (I guess this was legal)
to exclude the North Oregon coastal streams. I
called our district fish biologist, Keith Braun, one
of the two biologists who originally proposed this
regulation change, to inquire why the proposal
was altered to exclude the North coast. The rea
son given was that not all of the North coast
streams are in as good of shape as the Nehalem
and there are still questions as to the overall
health of Cutthroat in the Nehalem itself. When I
questioned Braun more about why the South
coast is still moving forward with the original pro
posal, he said the biologist in that area felt con
fident that the populations in his area could sup
port this limited fishery. When I interjected that
we have a robust population of Cutthroat in the
upper Nehalem (people catching 50 fish per
pole on opening weekend), he didn’t argue, but
interjected a new argument I had never heard
before. Braun stated that it is theorized that
there are populations of fish that move within the
Nehalem’s watershed, i.e. fish moving from the
upper Nehalem down to tide water and then
back upstream again. It is felt that these popula
tions of fish may be at risk or have small popu
lations. When I asked what data this is based
on, the reply was that there is no data in the Ne
halem. That, in itself, is a reason for concern.
When I suggested that we conduct a fish tagging
study in the upper Nehalem utilizing local fisher
men that are already catching fish in the spring
fishery, it was rebuffed as not having good sci
entific merit. I asked when the department was
going to have the money and manpower to con
duct a study to answer questions hamstringing a
consumptive fishery in the Nehalem. I already
knew the answer. Braun confirmed it, stating he
doubted there would ever be any money avail
able to do the necessary studies in light of the
salmon issues that we face today.
Personally, I feel that protecting Cutthroat
trout in the Nehalem system is unjustified. First,
catches of Cutthroat trout in the upper Nehalem
are at the same level as in the seventies and this
indicates there is not a decline ongoing. Second,
Cutthroat trout are a predator on Coho salmon,
a listed threatened species in the Nehalem, and
by protecting them, we may be harming the very
fish we are trying to save. I am not suggesting
that we need to eliminate Cutthroat trout, but in
stead, provide balance. Third, there is already a
built in protection for Cutthroat trout that exists
today, that did not in the seventies. Private for
est lands are behind locked gates during this
fishery and, most likely, provide a safe refuge for
Please see page 3