Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, , 2005
The
INDEPENDENT
Published on the first and third Thursdays of each month by
The Independent, LLC, 725 Bridge St., Vernonia, OR 97064.
Phone/Fax: 503-429-9410. Publisher Clark McGaugh,
clark@the-independent.net • Managing Editor Rebecca Mc-
Gaugh, rebecca@the-independent.net • Editor Noni Ander-
sen, noni@the-independent.net
Opinion
Property rights questions
need careful consideration
A majority of Oregon voters approved of Ballot Mea-
sure 37, a “property rights” measure that was recently
deemed unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme
Court. That judgement was anticipated because of a
number of constitutional deficiencies incorporated in
the measure.
This editorial isn’t concerned with the legalisms in-
volved in Measure 37, however, but with the ambiva-
lence engendered by conflicting perceptions of the ap-
propriate uses of private property. An example is read-
ily available:
The efforts of property owners who want to expand
the use of their airstrip in Buxton appears to be the sort
of situation that a property rights law should address.
The property owners, who are trying to add a commer-
cial element in their rural neighborhood, have had to
rein in their efforts because they have run afoul of a
number of laws or procedures, including permits and
environmental regulations.
Most of the voters in the Buxton/Manning area are
independent people who support private property
rights, similar to those espoused in Ballot Measure 37.
They want to use their own properties as they see fit,
not as someone else determines.
At the same time, they are adamantly opposed to
any increase of activity at their neighbor’s airstrip and
are using laws and regulations to defend their rural
lifestyle in a legal effort to prevent that expansion.
This is where ambivalence is evidenced regarding
public policy. The desire of the airstrip property owners
to maximize the value of their investment is easy to un-
derstand. The neighbors’ opposition to a noisy com-
mercial airport is also easy to understand.
Measure 37 is not, and has not been, involved in this
situation; other regulations are involved in the legal
pros and cons.
The questions still exist, however:
When do my property rights negate my neighbors’
property rights? When can my neighbors’ property
rights interfere with how I use my property?
These questions are as related to our lifestyles as
they are with economics. It won’t be easy, but when
“property rights” appear on another ballot, regulated
use should not be the only consideration.
Proposed energy help falls short of need
The largest one-year jump in home heating
prices in three decades means that the federal
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) will require a significant amount of ad-
ditional funding for fiscal year 2006 to avert
widespread hardship, according to a new report
by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The report includes data on the amount of
funding each state will need in 2006 to keep LI-
HEAP recipients from paying more out-of-pocket
for their heat this winter.
Projections issued by the Department of En-
ergy indicate that home heating prices will aver-
age 47.5 percent more this winter than last win-
ter. This is the steepest one-year increase in
these costs since 1974, before LIHEAP was cre-
ated. LIHEAP helps cover the cost of home heat-
ing and cooling bills for roughly 5 million very
poor households, including many low-income
elderly individuals.
“People who are poor enough to receive LI-
HEAP benefits are not in a position to absorb a
big increase in home heating costs,” said
Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the nonparti-
san think tank and co-author of the report, Out in
the Cold. “If these households don’t receive
more help paying their utility bills, many of them
will face excruciating choices between heating
their homes, paying the rent, having enough
food to last through the month, and meeting oth-
er basic needs. Serious hardship is virtually cer-
tain to ensue.”
The choice of whether to “heat or eat” is a real
one for many poor households. A recent study by
researchers from Stanford University, the Uni-
versity of Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and
UCLA found that when poor families’ heating
bills go up during cold winter months, they re-
duce spending on food by roughly the same
amount as the increase in fuel expenditures.
(LIHEAP funding has never been sufficient to
cover more than a fraction of the poor families el-
igible for assistance. It is distributed by local offi-
cials on the basis of greatest need.)
To protect households currently receiving LI-
HEAP assistance from paying more for heat this
winter and accommodate a small increase in
participation will require funding $5.2 billion for
2006, the Center’s analysis finds. The Presi-
dent’s request for LIHEAP aid, submitted before
the recent spike in energy prices, was $2 billion.
(LIHEAP received $2.2 billion for fiscal year
2005.) The Administration is expected to submit
a request for supplemental appropriations relat-
ed to Hurricane Katrina, whether the request will
contain additional LIHEAP funding is not known.
The heating bill of the average LIHEAP-as-
sisted household will increase by at least $500
this winter unless Congress provides substan-
tially more funding. Increasing funding by 47.5
percent, to match the 47.5 percent increase in
heating costs, would be inadequate. At that lev-
el, recipients still would face a 47.5 percent in-
crease in their share of heating costs. LIHEAP
generally covers less than a third of a house-
hold’s monthly heating bill. At a funding level of
$5.2 billion, LIHEAP will be able to serve only
about one-seventh of eligible households.