Local voters should have received their ballots for the Nov. 6 election, which were mailed last week.
This year’s ballot includes nine measures, listed below. We offer a brief description of each measure and our take on the pros and cons.
Measure 77
Approval of this measure would, in a nutshell, give the governor constitutional authority to declare a “catastrophic disaster” and the legislature authority to override constitutional spending restrictions after the governor has declared such a natural or human-caused “catastrophic disaster.” It includes provisions for the governor to respond immediately to financial needs until the legislature can be called into session, if it is not already.
With Oregon’s proclivity for natural disasters – and we’re still waiting for the “Big One,” it makes sense to enable the state to respond quickly when things go bad. The main hindrances to facilitating a rapid response are constitutional. This measure gives the governor and legislature flexibility to be more creative in assigning resources when disaster strikes.
There’s really no way to say if this will end up costing us more. It could, but the state’s response to a serious disaster would come sooner or later – and at least this way it could be sooner. A concern about this initiative is whether so much power should be concentrated any more than it already is – even temporarily. But the fact that it is temporary and two branches of government are necessary to make it happen past the initial response should be a deterrant against excess. Yes.
Measure 78
This measure would change wording in the state Constitution for three state government branches – Legislative, Executive (including Administrative) and Judicial – describing them as “departments.” The new language would describe them as “branches,” and the two houses of the Legislature as “chambers” rather than “branches.” It also makes grammatical and spelling changes and references to the Secretary of State to more gender-neutral language.
Frankly, this seems like ado over nothing, but we’ve got to keep things orderly and this is the way to do it. And, as the sponsoring legislators point out, it basically aligns Oregon’s wording with the rest of the nation. So maybe we don’t want to be that different. Yes.
Measure 79
Also known as Initiative 5 or the Oregon Real Estate Transfer Tax Amendment, this would be a new constitutional amendment that would prohibit state or local governments from imposing real estate transfer taxes, fees or other assessments that were not operative on Dec. 31, 2009.
This really seems like a non-issue since it basically repeats what is already the law. However, this measure would insert the prohibition into the state constitution.
Here’s how we read this. If you like the idea of having the option to implement taxes, voting no on this initiative makes it easier to do that. If you believe taxes are a hindrance to business success and growth, including construction, then this initiative simply puts a thicker layer of protection on keeping real estate transfer taxes off your bill. The fact that numerous chambers of commerce from all over the state support this tells us that other people think so too. Yes.
Measure 80
Cutting through the mumbo-jumbo (the smokey haze?), the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act Initiative legalizes the private manufacture, use and possession of pot and opens the door to hemp cultivation and production in the state.
As far as hemp is concerned, we have no qualms about advocating its cultivation in the state. Existing law banning hemp is foolish and short-sighted. Historically, hemp was a valuable cash crop in the U.S. until the early 20th century, particularly as an excellent source of fiber and oil, and was used to make rope and clothing.
Regarding legalization of marijuana, the libertarian side of us says to go hands-off and let people do what they want, as long as they don’t adversely affect others. Alcohol’s effects are comparable to marijuana and it is legal. Plus, the prohibition of marijuana in our nation is a sham, as anti-drug forces spend billions to combat the problem while people grow their own plants legally under marijuana-for-health laws that are subject to rather flagrant abuse. It’s hypocrisy, really.
But, on the other hand, this measure does not set limits for possession or production and some opponents say it sends a relaxed message about drug use to kids. Plus, it establishes a whole new bureaucracy and we note that the measure has apparently wholesale opposition from police and district attorneys, even though its advocates claim it would make life easier for law enforcement officials.
If it were simply to legalize a legitimate crop that has gotten a bad name due to its unfortunate family ties with marijuana, we’d be unanimous in supporting it. As it is, we don’t find it very attractive. No.
Measure 81
The Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative, also known as “Protect Our Salmon Act,” would ban Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal fisherfolk and allow the use of seine nets instead.
Essentially, it restricts Oregon’s non-tribal commercial salmon fishermen to designated off-channel areas in lower Columbia River, but no such restrictions will exist for fishing on the Washington side of the Columbia. Backed by our own state Sen. Fred Girod and others, the measure is billed as an attempt to protect wild salmon which, they say, is on the brink of extinction.
Opponents argue that since it would only apply to Oregon waters, it would put Oregon fishermen out of business and allow Washington fishermen to continue business as usual.
Also, since the initiative went on the ballot, Gov. Kitzhaber announced a proposal to limit gillnets to only off-channel areas. His plan was to be considered by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.
This measure is well-intentioned, since none of us want to see the salmon over-fished. But it’s unfair.
Why penalize Oregon fishermen while Washington boats net the hapless fish that don’t know the difference between state lines? Why should Oregon restaurants and their customers have trouble getting fish that folks across the river don’t?
If Washington were to impose a similar ban, it might be worth talking about. Otherwise, it’s just another quirky, meddling, overreaching Oregon law – like our second-highest-in-the-nation minimum wage, our ban on self-serve gas stations, our prohibition on hunting cougars with dogs, etc.
Although we are for preservation of salmon through intelligent, workable means, we don’t think this is the way to do it. No.
Measure 82
Though backers of this and Measure 83 have announced earlier this month that they were suspending their campaign, their measures are still on the ballot, so voters will need to make the call on them.
Measure 82, the Oregon Privately-Owned Casinos Amendment, would constitutionally provide for establishment of privately-owned casinos, with 25 percent of monthly gross revenue going to the State Lottery for such purposes as job growth, educational achievement, vibrant local communities, protecting and improving natural environment, and supporting all federally recognized Indian tribes in Oregon.
It also would prohibit operation of a privately owned casino within 60-mile radius of existing tribal casino operating on reservation land.
If the privately-owned casino is to be located within an incorporated city, city voters must also approve the casino location. Supporters argue that such a casino would provide thousands of permanent jobs and money to the state.
Opponents question the need for third-party competition and argue that such privately owned casinos would reduce benefits the tribes get from theirs.
This isn’t the first time we’ve voted on an initiative that would allow expansion of gambling. We did so two years ago.
Does Oregon need more gambling? Yes, we hear the arguments that a tax-paying casino would provide more money for schools, cops, etc. Yes, such a facility would provide paying jobs. But it would also provide one more excuse for people to blow money they can’t afford to lose.
Gambling has a big foothold in Oregon that isn’t going away. It’s also, according to multiple studies, a bigger, more frequent problem for poorer people – especially young adults, although poor people tend to play the lottery, while casinos draw more middle- and upper-class visitors.
We don’t need more casinos. We already have fiscally regressive effects on the poorest segments of society, we have addiction (despite those inane Oregon Lottery commercials reminding us to be careful not to spend too much) and eventually, we’ll have the increased crime rates that studies show inevitably happen in areas where gambling businesses are permitted.
Yeah, gambling may be fun but we have enough already. No.
Measure 83
The Oregon Multnomah County Casino Initiative would basically be the “legs” of Measure 82, on the passage of which this initiative depends. It would, specifically, authorize a renewable 15-year lease permitting the owner of the former Multnomah Kennel Club in Multnomah County to operate gaming devices, table games, keno, other games of chance at that site.
Among its provisions, the casino would be required to pay 25 percent of adjusted gross revenues into a Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund (separate from the general fund), and 80% in the State Lottery Fund. Moneys in the Job Growth fund are apportioned to the incorporated cities adjoining casino, Indian tribes, law enforcement, and gambling treatment services.
Is there an echo here? No.
Measure 84
The Oregon Estate Tax Phase-Out Initiative incrementally phases out estate tax and some capital gains taxes. Currently, state law imposes a one-time tax on the estate of person dying on/after Jan. 1, 2006, if the estate’s gross value, as determined by federal law as of Dec. 31, 2000, is at least $1 million.
Current state law taxes income-producing property sales, regardless of the parties’ relationship. This measure would cut the tax by 25 percent each year until 2016, when it would be completely gone. It would also phase out capital gains taxes on property transfers between certain family members and those triggered by death.
The measure does allow the state to cooperate with other states and federal government in administering those entities’ estate/inheritance taxes; permits fees on probate and other transactions that may occur following a person’s death.
Families possessing a tree farm or some other evidence of entrepreneurial hard work and planning that has reached $1 million in assessed value may know what happens when the first generation dies. Everybody else pays and sometimes they have to pay so much they can’t afford to keep family property.
This has happened in the Sweet Home area and across the state and it’s wrong.
Opponents argue that it will only benefit the richest 2 percent of estates in the state, since family farms worth under $7.5 million get an exemption under current law.
Also, the estate tax repeal alone would reduce state tax revenues by an estimated $17 million in fiscal 2013-14, $43 million the year after that, $72 million in fiscal year 2015-16 and $120 million each year thereafter. We say “So what?”
The Death Tax, as it’s known, discourages entrepreneurial effort, enterprise that is exactly what our state needs. Yes.
Measure 85
Also called the Oregon Corporate Tax “Kicker” Funds for Education Initiative, this measure would simply remove the kicker that currently is rebated to corporations under the state’s “kicker” law and redirect the funds to schools.
Before each biennium, the governor is required to prepare an estimate of revenues expected to be received by the General Fund for the next biennium. The General Fund is the primary funding source for schools, prisons, social services and other state-funded programs/services.
When that revenue exceeds estimated collections by 2 percent or more, current law requires an automatic “kicker” refund of corporate income and excise tax revenue. This measure allocates the corporate income and excise tax “kicker” refund to the General Fund to provide additional funding for K through 12 public education.
This measure does not change the constitutional personal income tax “kicker” provision that requires a refund to individual taxpayers when personal income tax revenue exceeds estimated revenue by two percent or more.
This measure has a lot of problems, chief among them the fact that it freezes the legislature’s ability, which it doesn’t use often enough anyway, to stash “kicker” money away for rainy day needs.
Despite the chorus of approval from teachers and their unions, we think the “kicker” is better returned to businesses – even large, out-of-state companies that only operate in Oregon.
Jobs for parents are a lot better for students in the long run than a few more dollars for school bureaucrats to spend, when we look at the big picture. No.