I'd love to repeal it, it would be a tough sell but you know what the battle is worth it. I agree it is the cause of a lot of the base funding problems. I was in Portland public until Measure 5 passed (I was in 4th grade) and the school went from having lots of resources, class sizes of about 20 and so on to three of my favorite teachers leaving the district in less than 5 years. Lets also put it this way, there was no Bridlemile foundation when I was there because there was no real need for one as there is now.

The rub of course is that if you go back to property tax only funding, you will hurt districts in poorer parts of the state but I think a balance can be found to fix this with state funds.

Frankly, I think the more dangerous one is the double majority requirement, because it limits school districts/only groups from asking for bonds except every two years unless you can get 50% turnout.

Russell writes: "In fact, a special legislative session later this month will address the issue-..."

Does he mean later THIS month...in May?

Or did he write this column (blog?) back in early April, but the submission deadline and review cycle were such that it got published (posted) after the special session?

Weird.....

I fully agree -- Measure 5 should never have been passed, and it is past time to repeal it. Period. Anybody who still thinks Measure 5 is a good idea, is a greedy, self-centered SOB -- or a corporation.

Though, here's the question:

Repeal Measure 5 and leave it at that?

Or repeal Measure 5 and use the opportunity to make the property-tax system slightly more progressive?

Would it make any sense at all, to implement income-based tiers in the property tax system, such that your property would be taxed at a higher rate if your income was higher (on top of all the other variations in property tax rate)?

Just curious. This might help to address one of the core "virtues" of Measure 5, that it reduced the property tax burden on lower-income folks. If lower-income folks got taxed slightly less on their property (up to a certain cap, perhaps), that might make the system as a whole more progressive, right?

Part of the reason Portland has had such a rough go of it under Measure 5 is that by requiring school funding to come from the Legislature, Measure 5 ensures all students now are equally funded for education. It used to be poor school districts suffered, and wealthier districts like Portland had more money per student to spend because property there was more valuable. In other words, Portland's loss has, to a large degree, been rural Oregon's gain.

No doubt about it, Measure 5 has caused some problems. But you cannot repeal property tax limits without coming up with a way to handle increasing property taxes that get out of hand when property values climb sharply, as they have done in the past 15-20 years. Ignoring that problem forces lower income people right out of their homes. It was a problem the Legislature knew well, but could not or would not address, and the citizens did what they could to save their homes. It wasn't a perfect solution, but something had to be done.

If we can get comprehensive tax reform that protects both the citizens and the government from economic fluctuations, then we'll be in great shape. But until we have the political ability to pull that off, you're never going to get enough support to overturn Measure 5. It has saved too many people from devastating financial losses.

This is hilarious. Reminds me of the people who thought they could repeal M11 back in 2000.

You'll never be able to raise the money to circulate this kind of petition. Any donor with the sense to poll support public support for erasing property tax limits will laugh you out the door.

Think you'll get the legislature to refer it?

I hope you try, it would hand the senate back to the R's in the next cycle.

I'd love to repeal it, it would be a tough sell but you know what the battle is worth it. I agree it is the cause of a lot of the base funding problems. I was in Portland public until Measure 5 passed (I was in 4th grade) and the school went from having lots of resources, class sizes of about 20 and so on to three of my favorite teachers leaving the district in less than 5 years

Repealing Measure 5 alone is not enough. There are plenty of people whose economic situation is shaky but they own their homes. Repealing Measure 5 as part of a comprehensive package is another thing.

But the secret to changing Measure 5 is those who were in public school when it passed but are now voters. They are what Molly Ivins once called "the unlikelies". When pollsters only question "likely voters" they don't question groups with low turnout (like those not old enough to have voted on Measure 5). But someone who votes for the first time has the same power as someone who has voted in ever election for the last 30 years.

The real problem is to be able to complete the sentence "Replace Measure 5 with.........." and be detailed enough to show that doing so would help individual taxpayers--and by that I mean people sending in tax returns, not "the people who pay taxes" which Republicans usually describe as those writing a check to the IRS and the State Dept. of Revenue. Anyone whose paycheck shows withholding (or pays FICA taxes, gas taxes, etc.) is a taxpayer---even if they don't belong to "taxpayer" groups like McIntire's group.

Isn't property tax really just another tax on the middle class? Not many low income families own property, and rich people have enough money that property tax doesn't greatly affect their pocket book.

I'd like to see businesses foot a little bit more of the public bill.

We should not repeal measure 5 and measure 47/50. We should reform them to make property tax fair, progressive and adequate to fund quality public schools, as the people of Oregon have demanded. Let me explain my idea:

For residential property such as your average single family house, we should have a homestead exemption for the first $50,000 of assessed property for the primary residence of the taxpayer. The next $250,000 of assessed property value would be taxed as they are today, with the same limits on maximum tax and on the increase on assessed value. For the assessed property value above $300,000, we should go to the pre Measure 5 system. This means that a family living in a modest $100,000 home would see their property tax cut in half, a family in a median $250,000 home would see a 20% property tax cut, and people living in $500,000+ homes would pay more than they do today. Second homes and houses used for rental income would also pay more.

And we should have a similar system for commercial and industrial property. If the property is not generating revenue (for example a vacant office building), we should keep the property tax at the current level. But if the property is generating revenue, it should be taxed at the pre-Measure 5 levels.

I think that if we can come up with a property tax system (not necessarily the one I am proposing) that collects more revenue from those with greater means (such as businesses that are using commercial property for generating revenue), it would have a good chance of passing.

John Napolitano for Oregon Senate

But you cannot repeal property tax limits without coming up with a way to handle increasing property taxes that get out of hand when property values climb sharply, as they have done in the past 15-20 years.

Actually property taxes don't increase because values go up unless they go up relative to the values of other property in the taxing district.

The problem is that Measure 5 is one symptom, not the cause, of the problem. The cause is complete mistrust of government and elected officials even by those who support government services. Until those who believe in government figure out how to harness that mistrust for positive change, the anti-government folks will continue to be successful in their efforts to sabatoge government programs and grow stronger from the dissatisfaction that creates.

"P_PDX" is right. You can no more repeal Measure 5 than you can Measure 11. Both are built on a bedrock mistrust of politicians, judges, government and all their agents.

I agree with Ross W and PPDX.

Recognize and address the issues that cause people to vote for M5 in the first place, then figure out if any amendments to current law could be drafted to address those legitimate concerns that would also allow local school districts to ask their constituents for additional revenues.

Whats the diffenerence between that and repeal you may ask? Mqybe just the language I'm using. By using teh word repeal, you are almost impolying that those that voted for M5 were ...pick your term...greedy, selfish, foolish, stupid, misled. But If you recognize that there was a point to M5, but say now we can honor the spirit of those that voted for it while seeking some changes that will improve performance and equity and local control, you've got a much better chance of at least incremental success.

Didn't Tom Butler (House Republican comm. chair) say on OPB that next session he wants to re-examine Measure 5?

Robert, hasn't it been 16 years since Measure 5 passed? Does everyone who ever cast a vote for a ballot measure believe for the rest of their lives that was the best way to vote?

Or could work, family, other events have driven thoughts of Measure 5 out of the heads of many people?

Stand in a grocery line or some other ordinary place some day and ask the person in front of or behind you what they remember of 1990's Measure 5. Say you have a bet with someone that most people don't remember it. Sometimes there are interesting results to such a conversational gambit.

If there's a plaintiff out there with the standing to challenge the constitutionality of Measure 5, maybe it can be struck down in court. The way it was written, it did several different things -- split local property taxes into two categories, set a solid 1% cap on non-school spending, set a declining cap on school spending, ordered the legislature to replace lost local school spending for a period of several years, then terminated the legislature's obligation to do so.

According to more recent case law, that's arguably more than can be done with a constitutional amendment (as opposed to a revision like Measure 50). If the measure was unconstitutional when passed, it's unconstitutional today.

If Measure 5 was struck down by the courts as "too much for one amendment", there will be strong political pressure for the legislature to refer a constitutional revision to the voters. Under those circumstances, there's a good opportunity to craft a more rational set of property tax limitation -- a homestead exemption instead of a sweeping tax limit that applies to all properties, for example, or keep the tax limits on non-school spending but allow local voters to raise tax rates to support schools if they wish.

And if there is a sweeping revision of the property tax limitation system -- which would require 2/3rds of both houses -- maybe it could fix a lot of the problems with Measure 50 as well.

The big question -- and I don't have the answer for this -- is: who would have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Measure 5?

If there's a plaintiff out there with the standing to challenge the constitutionality of Measure 5, maybe it can be struck down in court. The way it was written, it did several different things -- split local property taxes into two categories, set a solid 1% cap on non-school spending, set a declining cap on school spending, ordered the legislature to replace lost local school spending for a period of several years, then terminated the legislature's obligation to do so.

According to more recent case law, that's arguably more than can be done with a constitutional amendment (as opposed to a revision like Measure 50). If the measure was unconstitutional when passed, it's unconstitutional today.

If Measure 5 was struck down by the courts as "too much for one amendment", there will be strong political pressure for the legislature to refer a constitutional revision to the voters. Under those circumstances, there's a good opportunity to craft a more rational set of property tax limitation -- a homestead exemption instead of a sweeping tax limit that applies to all properties, for example, or keep the tax limits on non-school spending but allow local voters to raise tax rates to support schools if they wish.

And if there is a sweeping revision of the property tax limitation system -- which would require 2/3rds of both houses -- maybe it could fix a lot of the problems with Measure 50 as well.

The big question -- and I don't have the answer for this -- is: who would have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Measure 5?

Or could work, family, other events have driven thoughts of Measure 5 out of the heads of many people?

This is the problem with repealing Measure 5. You do have to explain what it is you are repealing. And most of those explanations involve explaining to people why government and politicians should be given more power to make decisions. You can have a good intellectual discussion around why that is a good idea in a democracy, but the result will be getting clobbered at the polls.

Didn't Tom Butler (House Republican comm. chair) say on OPB that next session he wants to re-examine Measure 5?

To what purpose? I can see the Republicans wanting a debate in the legislature over Measure 5 so they can portray themselves as the defenders of people's pocketbook from the "tax and spend Democrats".

As I peruse my last [2005-2006 ]tax statement. I see that 3/4's of my property taxes went to fund our schools. Now add that to the taxes we pay to the state,which also digs deep to fund schools and you have a big picture of how much schools suck from us all. Nowhere do we get such a small bang for our buck. Yet all we hear is "save the children" BS. Look at how little cities are given from property taxes less than 98¢ per tax dollar. I have yet seen a proficiency audit of schools. Teachers are paid a very good salary, but all we hear is how under-paid they are, more Baloney. Hooray for measure 5 and 50. Merit salary increases should be the norm, and principals should be taught to run their schools as a business. I want education to be responsible, not a charity.

19 (including mine) responses to repeal Measure 5. 60 responses about the gubernatorial primary. Most of them about splitting hairs, ie., candidate A is more progressive than candidate B.

Bottom line: Oregonians created this fiscal mess with Measure 5. Why this relative silence about fixing it? It's the same mentality with regards to fixing Portland Public Schools. Don't want do the painful fixes with regard to the fundamental issues. Just close someone else's school, not mine.

Why is it that the wealthiest people in Portland in their big dollar lofts in the Pearl district dont have to pay property taxs? that would solve some funding problems right away. What is going to be the situation on the south waterfront blocks? are those $500,00 and up units going to be tax exempt also? Do the lower class people now have to carry the upper class people? Thats it- I quit being poor- give me a million dollar penthouse so I can not pay tax's too.