Measure Madness
Jeff Alworth
With just a little over two weeks until ballots are due, the energy around ballot measures 49 and 50 is going high-voltage. Let's start with Measure 49. Yesterday, the Salem Statesman Journal came out with their endorsements, and 49 got a raspberry. The rationale? You be the judge:
By toying with the state's land-use system instead of reforming it, the measure would accomplish the opposite of what its backers seek.... Unfortunately, it doesn't repeal Measure 37; it essentially rewrites the measure. By doing so, it ensures that everyone will keep fighting about Oregon's land-use laws.
Not impressed? Neither was Rep. Brian Clem, who wrote a rebuttal:
Your call for a top to bottom review of the land use system is good, but M37 and M49 are both about compensation for what's been done to land values to date. Any review we could have done or might do in the future would only affect future growth patterns and land values, while M37 claims are almost entirely wanting compensation for what's already happened.
Meanwhile, at the Oregon Econ blog, Patrick Emerson says the measure is less about objective truth (economic truth, anyway) than about where people place the most value--public good or private rights.
However, proponents of 49 believe that Oregonians did not appreciate the role government plays in land use planning and that 37 has shown Oregonians, well, just what I mean when I say externality and public goods problems. I agree things like 37 and recessions seem to focus attention on what government does, and voters seem to take government less for granted in the wake. I will be very curious to see how 47 fares, because I believe this is one of those moments when we will get a sense of how people feel about the appropriate public interest/private right division.
This cuts to the heart of the issue for pro-49ers: Measure 37 was sold as a fairness initiative and cast the state as an overweening bureaucracy stomping on individual rights. But in the aftermath of the M37 land grab, many Oregonians learned that the state can also protect rights--the rights of neighbors and other land-owners. The issue is far more familiar to voters now, so we'll see what they think.
Moving on. The debate about Measure 50, which pits kids versus cigarettes, could never have been about the issues--at least if you were on team cigarette.
With $10 million coming in from tobacco companies, we knew to expect a slick, professionally-produced attack on something other than health care for kids. Turns out the carpet-baggers from Virginia decided to play the "Oregon values" card, and have tried to turn the discussion to the integrity of the Oregon Constitution. Never mind that everyone from business associations to the March of Dimes support the measure (dozens in all). As long as you have paid actors saying things like: "Well I'm not going to start messing with our constitution now. I'm voting 'no' on Measure 50", you're not talking about sick kids. (Exactly the point the Oregonian made with the video they put out earlier today, linked below.)
We'll see whether the gambit works or not, but the pro-50 camp made a good point on OPB today.
Cathy Kaufmann watched it all happen. She's the spokeswoman for the group trying to convince voters to approve the tax. During the legislative session she was lobbying to get the Healthy Kids Program passed. Kaufmann says using a constitutional amendment to fund the program wasn't her first choice. But she says she can live with it.
Cathy Kaufmann: "It means the money is protected. It means lawmakers and tobacco lobbyists can't get to it, and that's a good thing."
When you're trying to protect money to fund children's healthcare, it's good to have a stable source of funding. Maybe that should be the response by the forces of goodness and light--it redirects the issue to the kids and how badly they need health coverage. Enough to overcome the forces of smoky darkness (and their ten mil)? We'll see.
That concludes today's update. I have no doubt we'll have more.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 22, '07
Jeff, It would have been helpful if, rather than just linking to the Statesman NO vote, you also mentioned the numerous papers that urged a YES vote! This includes the Oregonian, the Register Guard, the Medford Mail (!), the Capital Press, and on and on.
5:29 p.m.
Oct 22, '07
I thought the context--that I found the Stateman Journal's position absurd--was clear in the post. Maybe not. There are dozens of supporters of Measure 49, and an incomplete list (dozens long) can be found here.
Oct 22, '07
Measure 50--Most Oregonians are too greedy and uncaring to help pay for kids health care so we're going to make the smoking minority do it. I'll probably wind up voting for this, but i think it stinks to high heaven.
Measure 49--- I'm having trouble with this one. Both sides are lying through their teeth and the measure is such a boring bitch to read. I'll just have to buckel down and do it and come to my own conclusions.
Oct 22, '07
Re Karl Smiley's comment; I don't know....maybe they're both lying and maybe they're not. Regardless of what the situation is, some things ring true. I think M49 is partly borne out of desperation to promptly respond to M37, because if there's anything that's certain, it's that once the land is built up, its future as forest land, farmland, openland or woodland is over. Anyone that would put property rights over that concern does not, to me, seem like somebody with Oregon's and Oregon's residents best interests in heart and mind.
I got that stop 49 blurb from Oregon Family Farm Association PAC in the mail today. 9-10 entities listed that are lining up against M49; farm associations and bureaus, Chamber of Commerce in Salem and Hillsboro. The blurb's content is super thin, but still.
Oct 22, '07
Is it true that the Yes on 49 has an ad up with farmers who just put in a 36 lot subdivision? If it is that was really stupid and could back-fire. It is over at the www.nwrepublican.blogspot.com
Is it true?
Oct 23, '07
Rather than shilling an anti-M49 site, why don't you tell us how exactly it could backfire?
There is no evidence that pro-49ers are lying. Don't buy into the lies of the M49 opposition that says that they're lying! :)
Oct 23, '07
The fact is, the same amount of revenues could have delivered health care to 3-5 times as many children (or to the same 100K children with a lower tax that would have left more resources available to deliver health care to others) if sold-out Democrats in the legislature had stood up to the anti-tobacco zealots who depend on the financial support of the insurance and the health care industries doing far more destruction to our country than the tobacco industry. The votes would have been there to do that in the last legislative session if those who fashioned the corrupt formula of withholding health care for children unless voters agreed to raise the tobacco tax and give the benefit to private insurers in the House legislation and this destructive measure really had wanted to do the right thing. If M50 passes we will further a system that delivers lower-quality health care to the children whose families are least able to pay, and puts more money into the pockets of those who make their money by denying or limiting the delivery of health care to children and adults.
I'd say to anyone waivering about M50 to listen carefully to the ads of the pro M50 side so carefully designed to play on your emotions. Note how they talk about how children are not getting HEALTH CARE because they do not have HEALTH INSURANCE, not because we need to do the smart thing and spend our taxes on HEALTH CARE rather than corporate welfare for insurance companies and the health care industry. These are the same people who insisted that the "Healthy Kids" program actually implemented in Senate Bill 3 spend most of the proceeds from M50 on HEALTH INSURANCE rather than directly on quality HEALTH CARE for children this last session (such as by expanding and fixing the OHP as allowed by SCHIP). Do you really want to trust them?
Oct 23, '07
Just vote NO on everything and we will do just fine.
Oct 23, '07
Just vote YES on everything and we will do even better.
Oct 23, '07
M50 opponents seem to be getting some traction with the argument that its inappropriate to tax one small group of people to pay for something that we should all be paying for. Even here, some people see that as unfair.
So maybe M50 supporters could recalculate at least some of their ads and point out that the real objective of the tobacco tax is to get smokers to pay for the cost of their state subsidized health care for smoking related diseases so that we can then shift some of our current health care dollars to cover kids.
So we're not taxing smokers to pay for children. We're taxing smokers to cover the States their state subsidized health care, and agreeing that the savings should be spent on childrens health care.
Oct 23, '07
M50 opponents seem to be getting some traction with the argument that its inappropriate to tax one small group of people to pay for something that we should all be paying for. Even here, some people see that as unfair.
So maybe M50 supporters could recalculate at least some of their ads and point out that the real objective of the tobacco tax is to get smokers to pay for the cost of their state subsidized health care for smoking related diseases so that we can then shift some of our current health care dollars to cover kids.
So we're not taxing smokers to pay for children. We're taxing smokers to cover the States their state subsidized health care, and agreeing that the savings should be spent on childrens health care.
Oct 23, '07
I got a anti measure 50 mailing the other day. At the bottom it says, "Paid for by Philip Morris". That pretty much says it all.
Oct 23, '07
M49 - I do not own property. Because of this I have no dog in the fight and feel I can not tell those who do have property what they can or can not do with their land. It's really none of my business.
M50 - The constitution is a blueprint to interpret the law, not be the law. Voting yes may help kids, but they will be a miseable lot of children because there will be nothing left of the cluttered constituion to protect them.
Sorry Peter - NO on everything.
Oct 23, '07
Has any newspaper recommended against M50? All the editorials I've seen -- Oregonian, East Oregonian, Portland Tribune, the six other Pamplin papers that made recommendations, Willamette Week, Salem Statesman-Journal, and Corvallis Gazette-Times -- have endorsed it.
Oregonian, Portland Tribune, another Pamplin paper (Forest Grove), Willamette Week, and the Corvallis Gazette-Times have endorsed M49, too. East Oregonian and Salem Statesman-Journal are the only two I've seen recommend against it.
Oct 23, '07
Strike that, the other Pamplin paper endorsing M49 is the South County Spotlight, which serves the Scappoose and St. Helens area of Columbia County.
Oct 23, '07
I already voted; no on both 49 and 50.
No on 49 since I prefer as many rights as possible and I don't see any reason to voluntarily give up rights to the state. Especially one like this where the folks in Salem seem rather greedy about grabbing more power for themselves. Basically I don't trust them to do the right thing.
No on 50 since I don't see any reason to tax a small group of consumers of a specific item to pay for kid's health insurance. Not health care, but health insurance. Lots of problems with this measure. I basically considered it a stupid idea that was poorly executed.
My ballot is in the mail with a no on both.
10:15 a.m.
Oct 23, '07
Mr. Fraud wrote The votes would have been there to do that in the last legislative session
Yours was a nice long rant but you never explained what the "that" was in the above sentence.
You claim that the mysterious "that" would have ensured that "the same amount of revenues could have delivered health care to 3-5 times as many children".
Do tell, do tell. How could the same amount of money have delivered health care to 3-5 times as many kids?
Oct 23, '07
At 6:00 on Monday evening, October 29, the Silverton Grange will host a potluck and forum on Oregon land use issues and Ballot Measure 49. This will be a chance for voters to hear from several leading experts and pundits on the impact that Measure 37 has on our State's land use laws, and how the upcoming Measure 49 intends to address these issues.
Speakers will include former State House Candidate Jim Gilbert, Josh Balloch from the Yes on 49 Campaign and House District 48 Candidate and Oregon Bus Project founder Jefferson Smith. We will be providing information and answering questions about efforts to protect our land use laws. Claims filed under Ballot Measure 37 threaten to expose Oregon's precious rural lands to rampant development. If you have any questions or concerns about the future of Oregon's Farms and Forests, come join us.
The Silverton Grange Hall is located at 201 Division St., Silverton (from Main & Water, head south 1.7 miles on Water St. towards the Falls, and turn left on Division St.)
Gus Frederick Silverton Granger
Oct 23, '07
Eric J. re; M49, it is your business what others do with their land. It's everybody's business. The actions of others relative to use of land they own has a bearing on the quality of life for everyone. It's everybody's responsibility to take part in providing for the use of all land in ways that will ensure the best possible quality of life for everyone.
I don't know where you got the idea that land ownership was a exclusive condition to having say in how or whether quality of life in Oregon is protected. That is not the whole story. Please think some more before you help to allow M37 to run unrestrained. Please try once again to consider the breathing room that M49 will offer Oregonians in their efforts to protect quality of life for everyone in Oregon.
Oct 23, '07
Eric
Read this article in today's NY Times.
You may not think you have a dog in this fight, but in Atlanta, complete lack of development controls has resulted in the likely destruction of their water resources. Just remember: developers seldom pay the full costs of the development, and those "externalities" will fall squarely on you and the rest of the taxpayers.
<h2>And I'm completely ignoring the value of any "social good" that accrues from things like clean water, air, and open space.</h2>