Senate Kills Timber Payments Deal
A deal reached last week by Congressional leaders to extend timber payments to rural counties for 4 years appears to have been short-lived. The US Senate has removed the deal from the energy bill in which it was contained as part of a compromise.
From the Oregonian:
A deal that would have given Oregon timber counties hundreds of millions of federal dollars fell through Thursday, leaving officials here and in Washington scrambling to find another way to pay for everything from libraries to county lockups."We thought we were looking good, and suddenly things look terrible for us," said Dave Toler, a Josephine County commissioner in southern Oregon. "This is a real roller-coaster ride."
Last week, the U.S. House approved a four-year, $1.6 billion extension of the federal payment program as part of an overall energy bill. Oregon counties heaved a huge sigh of relief.
But Thursday, the Senate stripped out the county payments as part of a compromise to get more Republican votes for the energy bill. Along with the county payments, the Senate also removed a much bigger swath of tax breaks for a wide range of clean-energy industries.
The deal was removed after Republicans filibustered the bill:
The county payments deal fell apart when it became snared in wrangling among Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House. It was part of a much larger tax package that offered $21.8 billion in breaks for "green" energy businesses but paid for them by rescinding tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.While President Bush expressed displeasure with the county payments provision, it was the higher taxes on the oil and gas industry that triggered a veto threat.
In the Senate, Republicans staged a successful filibuster against the bill. During negotiations to move the energy bill forward, Democrats agreed to remove the county payments.
"I'm pretty upset the Senate caved in on the issue," DeFazio said. "Should American taxpayers be allowed to continue subsidizing an oil industry when they are being extorted at the pump?"
He said he would introduce a scaled-down version of the county payment program and try to squeeze it into a catchall spending bill before Congress recesses for Christmas. If that fails, he said, he will come back in January and try again.
The failure of the deal is a major blow to rural counties:
The money from what is formally called the Secure Rural School and Community Self Determination Act is spread among 700 rural counties in 39 states. But more than half of it goes to Oregon. The payments are critical to the operation of a number of counties whose revenues dried up when logging in public forests was sharply curtailed in the 1990s.Josephine County, for example, depends on the federal dollars for two-thirds of its general fund budget, Toler said.
"Imagine losing two-thirds of your paycheck," he said. Most of the money goes to public safety, including sheriff patrols, prosecutors, jails and juvenile detention centers. "Those four legs of the criminal justice system may have just been chopped out," he said.
Eric Schmidt, a lobbyist for the Association of Oregon Counties, said his clients have faced financial uncertainty before, but not of this magnitude. If Congress doesn't come up with some kind of replacement for the lost revenue, expect more library closures, layoffs and other ripple effects.
"This is the year when we'll see the drastic cuts," Schmidt said. "I don't think they can sugarcoat it anymore."
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Dec. 14, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
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
Dec 14, '07
We need a new majority leader.
Dec 14, '07
You've mis-spelled "compromise."
Is there an email address where we can send these kinds of comments instead of posting them?
As for substance, we need a new President. Short of locking up Republican Senators in a Senate dungeon, no Democratic party majority leader could have done anything differently.
Dec 14, '07
I realize that federal timberlands don't pay property tax, but since the harvest of federal timber is virtually zero, why can't the remaining citizens of Josephine County pay for their own libraries, courts, and jails? Schools in rural Oregon are already being subsidized by urban districts such as Portland. What am I missing, and why is this a federal responsibility?
1:43 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
Bill, Read the history of O & C funds to clarify your question..just Google. Rep. Greg Walden blames the Democrats for the lack of O & C funds..care to comment?
Dec 14, '07
Bill Holmer writem "What am I missing, and why is this a federal responsibility?
Imagine in your County that you have one large land owner, who say, owns half your county. Perhaps not the best part, perhaps some steep hills, some deep valleys - stuff that no one else really wanted back when settlement happened. Now, suppose that this landlord flat refused to pay taxes of any sort. Yes, they use your roads. Yes, they have people who work on their land that send kids to our schools. And you can bet that crimes happen on their land and they use your courts and police. In fact, every single thing that government does or funds - they use it. Hospitals, mental health, jails, etc. -- But they refuse to pay for any of it.
Well, that's exactly what we have on a State level, with most impact to rural Counties. The Federal government owns about half of Oregon. In my County, Crook Co., they own about half. They pay no property tax, no income tax, and avoid paying even gas tax. Yet, Crook Co. search and rescue out of our County funded services regularly finds people (or bodies) up in the Ochoco Mts - that they own. We run our County roads out to their property. Our schools have the students from the Federal employees.
The property tax rate on rural lands, especially those in farm or forest production, is low - but not zero.
And if the Federal Government will not pay their bills, Oregon must subsidize these costs or the Counties.
Fair is fair Bill. They ought to pay.
Dec 14, '07
Paulie & Steve,
I took Paulie's advice and did a Google search. The best info I found was on a Blue Oregon posting from last February.
"Josephine County's tax rate is 58 cents per $1000 of assessed property value. Curry County is at 59 cents. The state median is $2.50, and the highest is Sherman County, I believe, at over $8."
I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but if the citizens of Josephine County want the services, they need to step up to the plate and pay their fair share. To paraphrase Steve, "fair is fair. They ought to pay."
Dec 14, '07
From the Oregonian:
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., blamed Senate Democrats for sacrificing the county payment program. He called it "one more in a long list of failures by the leadership of this Congress to get its work done and solve the problems real people are facing every day."
39 Republican Senators voted to block the bill; only 1 Democrat joined them (landrieu, from an oil state). How do these guys sleep at night taking $160,000 a year in taxpayer-funded salary to execute their plan of "Obstruct and Blame?" And how do they keep a straight face when they say these things?
2:35 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
It's a federal responsibility because federal rules and laws are important reasons why the timber harvest is virtually zero. Those laws and rules have been made substantially in response to views of wider public interest held in urban and suburban communities. Society at large has asked (or told) these communities to make disproportionate sacrifices for the general good. They deserve support to be able to have decent lives.
Richer areas should subsidize schools in poorer areas. We all benefit from everyone getting good education. A close aquaintance of mine hails from a rural town, went to a small private college on the parental (farmer) dime, got a Ph.D. at an Ivy League university, came back to Portland to teach at a local college, got tenure, earns a good income, sends a kid to Portland Public Schools, owns a home, pays substantial income & property taxes. Who exactly subsidizes who in relationships like this isn't clear to me. Arguably the public school system of the rural town involved and the farmer parents have substantially subsidized Portland, in terms of the taxes and value added this person contributes.
The bigger question is, are we one country and one people or not? It makes me sick when conservatives moan about multi-culturalism balkanizing the country and then spout stuff like this. We owe each other mutual support to secure a decent life for everyone. You know, "promote the general welfare ... secure the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity."
Read carefully: "us and our," not "me and my."
Dec 14, '07
But Bill raises a really good point. Are we subsidizing the rural areas because they are unable to make a living off of harvesting timber from federal lands, or are we subsidizing them because they're unwilling to tax themselves to provide adequate services? I'm only going on Bill's post, here, but if the property tax rate in those counties is really one-fifth the state median, then it's a legitimate question.
I agree with Chris Lowe's post in principle, but at what point do we allow local communities to suffer the consequences of their conservatism? In Portland, we pay higher taxes because we want better services. If the Republicans who live in rural counties want to pay lower taxes, shouldn't they receive fewer services? (And since education funding isn't locally decided after Measure 5, we're not talking about schools here, we're talking about libraries and public safety and social services.)
2:55 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
So where did Smith fall on this?
Dec 14, '07
Maybe the Dems were too busy handing out money to rich farmers and they forgot about the folks in timberland. Oh wait, the Dems are the ones that screwed over the folks in timberland with their fake data on the spotted owl.
Dec 14, '07
Good!
When Multnomah County falls short, we tax ourselves. The "red" parts of this state have refused to do that time and time again. Let their libraries, prisons, whatever close, and maybe they will realize the benefit of local taxes!
Dec 14, '07
I guess the ability to poke keys doesn't negate Bill and Andy from being dim. Andy, property taxes are not timber. Bill, your M5 did not pass in a single rural county - you rammed it down our throats. Rural Oregon has very little control over its economic destiny, you do. You love to blame us for decisions you make.
If you're not quite getting my message, KMA. BTW, the last time money was sent YOU took your cut of it out of the State education pool.
Dec 14, '07
Among other casualties from the latest Democratic Party sellout to big energy is the Bike Commuter Benefit. See: http://bikeportland.org/2007/12/14/bike-commuter-benefit-does-not-survive-senate-vote-on-energy-bill/
Way to go, Harry Reid! Making the world safe for global warming by preserving those Hummer tax breaks!
Dec 14, '07
what about Smith? why is Smith not in this Oregonian story?
he shit the bed for 4 years and didn't get a long-term fix, even with his friend George Bush and GOP majorities, and now he's only got fake, symbolic gestures that he rolls out in an election year...
Dec 14, '07
This is an excellent illustration of the Republican universe:
Rural Republican leaning voters refuse to tax themselves but are just alright with receiving government payouts.
Republican lawmakers care about budget deficits when the money would go to schools, even when those schools serve their supporters, but tax breaks for the oil industry are untouchable.
So what makes Republican voters support their abusers? Saber rattling, jingoism, fear and hatred of minorities, rejection of science and intellectualism in general, and disregard for the environment.
8:39 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
Tom Civiletti pretty much nails it.
Dec 14, '07
Bill Holmer and Chris Lowe .....
The folks in Portland and Oregon's other big metro areas may be doing many things, but they are definitely NOT subsidizing the schools in rural Oregon. (What little "subsidy" comes out of the Portland metro area doesn't extend any farther than the Marion County schools. In fact, it is residents of the Oregon Coast, not the Portland area, that pay the largest percentage of their districts' K-12 operating budgets.)
Review my post on Blue Oregon about the timber payments bill extension ("Deal Reached To Extend Timber Payments") on December 5. If you need more facts, I'll be happy to supply them.
Dec 14, '07
I agree that rural counties should be able to support themselves to somewhere within the average. This should be mandated by the state on a 3-5 year plan to bring them into line. Federal funds should be used to help offset this phase out process.
The other component is that these funds should continue for the counties that currently have community wildfire pland. Most rural counties that have these plans completed are recieving secure rural schools funding monies that are being used to protect communities from overgrown and dangerous National Forests that are currently the biggest threat to communities during fire season.
Seems to me that if we found a reasonable compromise (resonable meaning the politicians stay out of the decision process and let the professional land managers they hire make descisions) and allowed some SUSTAINABLE logging to resume on the Federal lands this problem would clear itself up. Hmmmmm
11:53 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
rural resident, I will look because basically I am on your side & it would be able to refute such claims in detail. But it wouldn't matter if we (I live in Portland) did "subsidize" schools elsewhere in the state. With the level of geographical mobility (& not just within the state) it is bootless to act as if school systems (or libraries, public safety et al.) ought to be completely autarkic closed systems. We are all interdependent and our interdependent system will work best if we ensure that all parts are strong.
Miles, as usual you home in on the strongest, most interesting part of an argument that needs to be tested. My view is shaped by a strong perception that many of the people not voting to tax themselves more for some of these things do so because the burden really would be harder on them than it was for most Multnomah County voters when we voted the three year income surtax. If property were taxed at average levels in those districts, how many bankruptcies or foreclosures would result? How many people wouldn't get to that point but get into situations of even greater stressful worry, in areas where official unemployment (never mind discouraged workers or job seekers whose UI benefits ran out) is twice or more the state average? I think those are real worries that affect people's votes.
Let's take Portland. The idea that richer neighborhoods are somehow getting harmed by "subsidizing" poorer neighborhoods, & poorer neighborhoods should pay more because they have less, just seems weird. It also seems weird around the state, to me.
Do the timber payments go exclusively to continuing operating budgets of basic services? It might be interestin to look at whether some such payments should go into development of new economic activities to improve employment & thus local capacity to pay for stuff.
Dec 15, '07
Let me get this straight. The Republicans in the Senate fillibuster any spending bill that contains the county payments and this is somehow the Democrats fault? It seems to me the problem is the Republicans. They're the ones who are actually blocking county payments.
It irritates me that the news story says the county payments are "snared in wrangling among Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House." It would be more accurate to say, "Democrats want to provide county payments, Republicans don't and the Republicans are blocking an up-or-down vote."
Dec 15, '07
Bravo to Bill Holmer and Tom Civiletti.
This cut didn't come in a vacuum. These counties have had "transitional" funding for six years. The payments were not to replace property taxes but for reduced timber harvest revenues. Big news, folks. If you'd kept plundering the resources on FEDERAL lands at the rate you were going, you'd end up having to make the transition anyway... without a tax teat to suck on.
I'd have much more sympathy if these "conservative" counties had taken even minimal or symbolic steps to buy their own lunches. Instead they weep and wail and blame absolutely anyone but themselves for their plight.
Dec 15, '07
Bravo to Bill Holmer and Tom Civiletti.
This cut didn't come in a vacuum. These counties have had "transitional" funding for six years. The payments were not to replace property taxes but for reduced timber harvest revenues. Big news, folks. If you'd kept plundering the resources on FEDERAL lands at the rate you were going, you'd end up having to make the transition anyway... without a tax teat to suck on.
I'd have much more sympathy if these "conservative" counties had taken even minimal or symbolic steps to buy their own lunches. Instead they weep and wail and blame absolutely anyone but themselves for their plight.
Dec 15, '07
Tom and other limosine liberals have it wrong. The rural counties of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California and about 2 other states all made by just fine when they had a resanable and sustainable cut of the timber resources. Zounds, they even ran SURPLUSES! They paid for their own libraries, schools, public health and roads.
They did this because of an agreed federal payback from when the feds took the old O&C lands and federalized them. The cut, even under CLinton's Forest plan was enough to sustain the forests and the communities that relied on them. Then the envirowhackos and courts got their undies in a twist and screwed it all up. The federal subsidy was, and is, the feds ackmowledging that this counties are owed. Neither republican or democrat wants to actually fix the mess and neither have the political cajones to address the issue head on.
Tom, you like your asphalt and glass, so keep it. Let us out in the boonies live our way without your interventionist attitudes.
5:26 p.m.
Dec 15, '07
If we want to persuade rural voters to support more adequate revenues so that the people can use government as a tool to get things done that the government does best, they have to believe they will benefit.
If we want to be consistent in our values of giving a hand up to those who have been beaten down or held down by social structures, we should extend that principle to rural communities even if they didn't vote our way last time around.
It really amazes me to see the tired old "prove yourself by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or you don't deserve any help" being mouthed by progressives here. It's a sucky lie when it's directed at poor urban communities, or people who live in suburban trailer parks. It's just as sucky a lie directed at people trying to hang on to land and communities where they grew up in rural and small town/city areas.
(Tom C. at least I know progressive -- Bill "why is this a federal responsibility" Holmer sounds as if he may be an anti-tax Republican who has stumbled on some unexpected allies while trolling in our pond -- but I could be wrong, and if so, apologies Bill).
Whether thrown out at rural people as other hard-hit communities, the idea that "other people pulled themselves up, why can't they is just a myth. Plenty of Americans have always worked hard, and the poorest often the most so, and I have no doubt that the residents of these communities do too.
But most Americans who have gotten ahead have had subsidies and assistance: homestead laws, free public education, land grant colleges, political machine patronage by both parties, G.I. Bill & veterans housing after World War II, mortgage breaks on taxes. (This doesn't even start to touch the subsidies for the big companies and the rich & indirectly for those who worked their way up inside such companies).
I am not so sure about the history in timber country & would welcome education. But rural eastern Washington sent a Democrat to congress so regularly and for so long that he was able to become speaker of the house. The New Deal & Fair Deal did a lot for rural Americans & a lot of them voted accordingly. A lot of wheat farmers went off the Democrats due to the anti-Russian embargo of 1979, including one I know well, who has only started voting D again since the advent of Bush, Jr. -- his wife may have stayed D, or of she switched it was for a much shorter period.
The local political discussions just work differently because people aren't siloed off from one another by ideology. My quietly liberal Lutheran habitat-for-humanity step up to serve on the school committee because someone should and if she doesn't that blowhard idiot will get it went back to college at 40 when her youngest kid went to WSU to work as a high school English teacher in order to get health insurance and a pension as part of the supports for the family ex-Rainbow girl broke down the old Catholic-Protestant divisions in her town in the 1950s & 60s with her friends still has as her best & oldest friend a Catholic woman who takes John Birch Society literature seriously.
As I say, I don't have as clear a picture of how things go or have gone in the timber counties affected, but I'd bet it's a lot more complicated than "pull yourselves up to prove you deserve it rhetoric" more appropriate to the smuggest most selfish self-congratulatory snide kinds of conservatives (populist my foot) than to progressives.
Why don't these people tax themselves more? Because they can't afford it!. If progressives decide to "punish" them for the alleged sin du jure, they'll keep on voting that way.
Which way should we try to run in those places. "Vote for us, and once you show us that you're not lazy slackers just trying to get something for nothing we'll see about putting your needs and priorities somewhere down the list," or "Vote for us because the Republicans betrayed you & Greg Walden couldn't get the job done to keep his own party from doing you dirty, but we believe that different communities should pool resources and work together to figure out how to do sustainable development for everyone, and want to hear your ideas about how that would work where you live."
The line on this thread seems too much like the first option. It puzzles me, and some of the language disgusts me.
5:39 p.m.
Dec 15, '07
I forgot "my [all that stuff] friend has as her best friend"
And of course my previous message exemplifies a problem in the way it unconsiously constructs "us" and "them." The "them" for which it makes sense would be rural voters who are voting R. But the way I wrote it, it comes across more as "them" = rural communities, including rural Dems & NAVs (who may or may not be voting R). So the first task for the narrow us (urbanites) is to make sure we act toward the rural us (Ds) who are there in ways that don't cut off their voices and accept their leadership for our party when it comes to rural issues.
Us urban/suburban types, even if we want a full state interdependent mutually supporting D party, often have deeply ingrained mental ruts that need filling in.
Dec 16, '07
I've heard the payments characterized as "payments to counties that hold important national resources (timber). Because changing national priorities (in the form of the endangered species act, one foundation of the whole spotted owl issue) resulted in a decline in revenue from these resources (less timber harvest), the federal government replaced those funds with the SRSCSDA (whew) payments."
What's really going on here is a complicated dance between at least three levels of government (Fed, State, Local) which developed over decades, and at least partially influenced by larger social movements and economic shifts around the globe. To say to Lane County's 300,000 or so people that we just need to fix this problem locally completely ignores the spiderweb of interdependence that supports all US communities.
One scary outcome of the cuts may be the demise of organized labor in county government. I exaggerate, yes, but haven't the Jackson county libraries been privatized to save services without having to pay the union wage? (Or was it Josephine?)
The other gloomy prospect is more violent criminals without appropriate supervision in our communities. The Lane County DA and Sheriff explained to the Domestic Violence Council that much of our system of holding batterers accountable with legal sanctions would crumble without the timber payments.
These are consequences to the URBAN parts of the O & C Counties. In the rural areas the level of services from the county governments is a joke. Kids drive when they are 13, 12, whatever, on public roads without fear of Smokie, men move their families out to the boonies where they can beat their wives and children without interruption, dope growers hide out in the dark hollers, because they don't see a county officer more than twice a month if that. (Somehow they can afford a drug spotting helicopter, but not a beat cop to keep the local peace).
Most county services are located in Eugene, although the city has the most resources of any Lane Co. community already. My usually very progressive rural-living father gets down-right fire and brimstone over the idea of paying more to the county. ("Why, so I can not get MORE county services?")
Not to mention the widespread distrust of the government. It isn't just a fad out here.
And then there are those "taxes" we were supposed to swallow (hook and all). In Lane County at least, the taxes we voted down the last two times (Nov 06 and May 07) were suspiciously lacking a progressive structure or much of a bite out of corporate income, plus private retirement income was taxed, but public wasn't (or something like that.). Progressives were split over wanting to fund county services and not wanting to institutionalize a clearly unfair tax. Some cynics believe that the (usual more conservative) county commissioners that voted to refer the tax to the voters the second time, actually intended to drive off any possibility of any new county tax by forcing a revote after the Nov 06 measure was narrowly defeated (51% to 49% I believe). The conspiracy-theorists may be right -- the May 07 measure failed 70/30 -- a not-unexpected outcome to the politically savvy.
Oh yeah, notice around here an anti-lawman streak a mile wide? partially due to extreme acts of violence against women by two Eugene police, escalation of riots in the late 1990s, inappropriate emphasis on marijuana prosecution over crimes of more social significance, the persecution of environmental activists as "terrorists" instead of corporate polluters and land rapists, the failure to keep wife beaters out of the house, etc... the lefties with a shorter term view on society often vote against progressive legislation failing to recognize that anarchy generally doesn't protect the women and children...
Oh yeah, remember the state never did pick up where measure 5 left off, our legislature hasn't had the political cajones to address the fundamental inadequacies measure 5 left in our tax system.
So, it surely isn't as simple as "if you want good services you have to pay for them." We need a more accountable and transparent county government, a state and federal solutions as well, county commissioners who aren't gaming the system to profit their economic interest groups (yeah right), a tax that fairly distributes the burden, and (clearly) an independent auditor.
Dec 16, '07
So, urban complainers, why don't you come give us a hand putting our county land back in our hands? Bring some heavy artillery and we'll just close up all acess to and through US federal lands until they pay the property taxes on it. Are you people unable to read? The property taxes you keep harping on ARE NOT being paid by the landowner of over 1/2 of most of these counties.
Your igorance and wilful stupidity are astonishing, how many square miles of your county isn't in private hands wih high value? How much of your infrastructure involves getting around and through something that isn't privately held? What are the avg winter temps and snow fall in your county? That has to be dealt with and students spread all over hell's half acre, cut off by federal land.
Timber payments were made in lieu of taxes, they are no more than a mechanism, how much timber is cut is meaningless as part of the argument. It takes over 2/3 of this entire state to make one Congressional District - I wonder why we have little to no control over our destiny.
You want to buy the wheat, potatoes, onions, beef and come play in the forests but you'd have us just leave so you don't pay anything for this part of the state being here. Bootstrapping my ass, you set the rules of the game and wonder why it goes south in places it isn't designed for. You retire, sell your crap urban house for a ridicuous price, come here and build mega-house, bitch about taxes 'cause you got no kids and there's no shopping or kulture and lecture US??? KMA
We could actually get along, but you know soooo much better for everybody. I don't want to live where you do, I don't like it, we take an economic hit to stay away from it, we accept that, but you piling on is BS. We all live in Oregon.
Dec 16, '07
A few questions/comments:
--Most obviously, it would sure be nice to have fewer of the nayh-nyah-nyah remarks about those folks who allegedly just cannot bear to tax themselves to pay for their own communities.
--I'm most fortunate to live 1 block from a Multnomah County branch library. It would sure be nice to figure out some way that an 11-year-old in Grant's Pass or Ashland, say, can have access to libraries to way that my 11-year-old child does. As the bumper stickers says, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
--I admit that I sincerely question the entire argument from some posters about how rural counties were doing just fine when they were trucking along with "sustainable" timber harvests, because I truly do not believe that what was going on was sustainable at all.
Dec 17, '07
I live in Clackamas County. More than half the land is publicly owned, the owners paying no property tax.
I believe that states should provide free public education for all children, regardless of the wealth of their communities.
I am not sure what in I wrote that motivated Kurt Chapman's reply. I do disagree with his appraisal of timber harvests on public lands, but I clearly disapproved of the Congressional axing of the county funding. As far as asphalt and glass versus whatever it is he values, I'd wager a greater percentage of my property is covered by trees and row crops than Kurt can claim for his.
I cannot help looking at non-wealthy people voting Republican as part of a dysfunctional cycle of abuse. That is whether they live in urban or rural areas. It's pretty clear the most rural Oregon inhabitants vote Republican, probably the reason rural counties cannot pass reasonable tax levies.
Dec 17, '07
I live in Skamania County. We are 80+% federal land (Gifford Pinchot). We used to run budget surpluses, when our timber harvest ran about 80 million board feet per year. 'Secure Rural Schools, etc.' kept us about balanced-budget, after some initial cutbacks, when logging was essentially killed off on federal lands. Now we're looking at perhaps a 30% deficit without the in-lieu funding, and there will be lay-offs. We have a capital fund that we will probably hit for a year or two, to keep things from going totally belly-up. And, clearly, this current situation is primarily due to Republican office-holders at the federal level.
Was 80 million board feet harvest sustainable? No. According to the last survey from about 5 years ago, our forest was adding some 55 million board feet in growth annually. I propose that we could easily sustain 40+ mbf per year on the old second- and third-growth 'plantations' and maintain (probably add) to 'mature' and, eventually, to old-growth stands. If we can agree on this, Skamania County, at least, will also be sustainable.
As to budget expenses - Chuck Butcher says it very well. We have some higher expenses in the hinterlands associated with longer distances and unsupported responsibilities in the federal reserves. Nothing to add.
As to tax rates - for MANY reasons we do not have the same economic viability as urban districts. In my county it is the virtual curtailment - by outside forces - of timber harvest. In more agricultural counties it is often national policies that punish the small farmer - at least until he/she sells out to either the agricultural conglomerate or the developer. For example, any agricultural product that has reached commodity status can only be profitably produced by the large, integrated companies. And, lately, Congress has been messing with regulations concerning the 'organic' label - typically, 'organic' in any meaningful sense means small-farmer. As someone wrote up-thread - throw a high tax rate in on top of our viability, and you will depopulate us.
Also, our rates may be somewhat lower than urban rates, but it's irrelevant, because our rates are figured after the total budget - minus certain non-property-tax incomes - is divided by the total property assessment. In other words it's a variable rate and depends on the county's estimate of necessary expenses. In the old days of high timber harvest the rates were inarguably lower, because the timber revenues were quite high relative to our needs. Now - maybe not.
As to 'boot-strapping', I was personally involved in the realignment to tourism-related business in our county. I think that, if you want to preserve the essential character - and qualities - of our area, then we have taken that almost as far as we can/should. There are proposals to add substantially more development - for instance, at the old Broughton Mill site. It might be OK, as far as I'm concerned. How do y'all feel about it?
There's also proposals for fairly large-scale wind turbine development in Skamania County. I support it - no NIMBY here when it comes to such matters. How about y'all?
OK - Skamania County may be a special case, in that we have some resources that other counties may lack. But we're all in the same boat, when you consider how 'locked up' a lot of our potential really is. I would prefer to unlock some of our resources, rather than go off to D.C. and beg those assholes for some alms. Y'all going to help us with that?
Dec 17, '07
I live in Skamania County. We are 80+% federal land (Gifford Pinchot). We used to run budget surpluses, when our timber harvest ran about 80 million board feet per year. 'Secure Rural Schools, etc.' kept us about balanced-budget, after some initial cutbacks, when logging was essentially killed off on federal lands. Now we're looking at perhaps a 30% deficit without the in-lieu funding, and there will be lay-offs. We have a capital fund that we will probably hit for a year or two, to keep things from going totally belly-up. And, clearly, this current situation is primarily due to Republican office-holders at the federal level.
Was 80 million board feet harvest sustainable? No. According to the last survey from about 5 years ago, our forest was adding some 55 million board feet in growth annually. I propose that we could easily sustain 40+ mbf per year on the old second- and third-growth 'plantations' and maintain (probably add) to 'mature' and, eventually, to old-growth stands. If we can agree on this, Skamania County, at least, will also be sustainable.
As to budget expenses - Chuck Butcher says it very well. We have some higher expenses in the hinterlands associated with longer distances and unsupported responsibilities in the federal reserves. Nothing to add.
As to tax rates - for MANY reasons we do not have the same economic viability as urban districts. In my county it is the virtual curtailment - by outside forces - of timber harvest. In more agricultural counties it is often national policies that punish the small farmer - at least until he/she sells out to either the agricultural conglomerate or the developer. For example, any agricultural product that has reached commodity status can only be profitably produced by the large, integrated companies. And, lately, Congress has been messing with regulations concerning the 'organic' label - typically, 'organic' in any meaningful sense means small-farmer. As someone wrote up-thread - throw a high tax rate in on top of our viability, and you will depopulate us.
Also, our rates may be somewhat lower than urban rates, but it's irrelevant, because our rates are figured after the total budget - minus certain non-property-tax incomes - is divided by the total property assessment. In other words it's a variable rate and depends on the county's estimate of necessary expenses. In the old days of high timber harvest the rates were inarguably lower, because the timber revenues were quite high relative to our needs. Now - maybe not.
As to 'boot-strapping', I was personally involved in the realignment to tourism-related business in our county. I think that, if you want to preserve the essential character - and qualities - of our area, then we have taken that almost as far as we can/should. There are proposals to add substantially more development - for instance, at the old Broughton Mill site. It might be OK, as far as I'm concerned. How do y'all feel about it?
There's also proposals for fairly large-scale wind turbine development in Skamania County. I support it - no NIMBY here when it comes to such matters. How about y'all?
OK - Skamania County may be a special case, in that we have some resources that other counties may lack. But we're all in the same boat, when you consider how 'locked up' a lot of our potential really is. I would prefer to unlock some of our resources, rather than go off to D.C. and beg those assholes for some alms. Y'all going to help us with that?
Dec 17, '07
I live in Skamania County. We are 80+% federal land (Gifford Pinchot). We used to run budget surpluses, when our timber harvest ran about 80 million board feet per year. 'Secure Rural Schools, etc.' kept us about balanced-budget, after some initial cutbacks, when logging was essentially killed off on federal lands. Now we're looking at perhaps a 30% deficit without the in-lieu funding, and there will be lay-offs. We have a capital fund that we will probably hit for a year or two, to keep things from going totally belly-up. And, clearly, this current situation is primarily due to Republican office-holders at the federal level.
Was 80 million board feet harvest sustainable? No. According to the last survey from about 5 years ago, our forest was adding some 55 million board feet in growth annually. I propose that we could easily sustain 40+ mbf per year on the old second- and third-growth 'plantations' and maintain (probably add) to 'mature' and, eventually, to old-growth stands. If we can agree on this, Skamania County, at least, will also be sustainable.
As to budget expenses - Chuck Butcher says it very well. We have some higher expenses in the hinterlands associated with longer distances and unsupported responsibilities in the federal reserves. Nothing to add.
As to tax rates - for MANY reasons we do not have the same economic viability as urban districts. In my county it is the virtual curtailment - by outside forces - of timber harvest. In more agricultural counties it is often national policies that punish the small farmer - at least until he/she sells out to either the agricultural conglomerate or the developer. For example, any agricultural product that has reached commodity status can only be profitably produced by the large, integrated companies. And, lately, Congress has been messing with regulations concerning the 'organic' label - typically, 'organic' in any meaningful sense means small-farmer. As someone wrote up-thread - throw a high tax rate in on top of our viability, and you will depopulate us.
Also, our rates may be somewhat lower than urban rates, but it's irrelevant, because our rates are figured after the total budget - minus certain non-property-tax incomes - is divided by the total property assessment. In other words it's a variable rate and depends on the county's estimate of necessary expenses. In the old days of high timber harvest the rates were inarguably lower, because the timber revenues were quite high relative to our needs. Now - maybe not.
As to 'boot-strapping', I was personally involved in the realignment to tourism-related business in our county. I think that, if you want to preserve the essential character - and qualities - of our area, then we have taken that almost as far as we can/should. There are proposals to add substantially more development - for instance, at the old Broughton Mill site. It might be OK, as far as I'm concerned. How do y'all feel about it?
There's also proposals for fairly large-scale wind turbine development in Skamania County. I support it - no NIMBY here when it comes to such matters. How about y'all?
OK - Skamania County may be a special case, in that we have some resources that other counties may lack. But we're all in the same boat, when you consider how 'locked up' a lot of our potential really is. I would prefer to unlock some of our resources, rather than go off to D.C. and beg those assholes for some alms. Y'all going to help us with that?
Dec 18, '07
Tom, I believe that you really don't understand what you posted that provoked my response. It is perhaps the genesis of the urban - rural divide perpetuated. You wrote: Rural Republican leaning voters refuse to tax themselves but are just alright with recieving government payouts.
Tom, that attitude just shows how little you know and understand about the O&C lands and the commitment that the federal government owes to rural counties. NAV, Republican and even Democrat leaning voters all hate to vote increased taxes on themselves to fund federal government caused shortfalls.
Dec 18, '07
Kurt,
If 2.50/1000 is the Oregon median property tax rate, then 0.58/1000 shows a real reluctance to pass levies. I see no reason beyond sense of entitlement to expect the feds to pay on public lands AND for the private property in the county. So county residents add to the shortfall caused by the feds. It's a bit like cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I never wrote anything suggesting that the federal government should not contribute where public lands require local government services. It does seem to me, though, that voters in some rural counties want public services for themselves as long as someone else pays for those services. This would make them a lot like corporations, which are usually controlled by people who vote Republican. I see a pattern here.
Dec 20, '07
I realize that federal timberlands don't pay property tax, but since the harvest of federal timber is virtually zero
For the record, while the cut is greatly reduced from its unsustainable peak, the current 500-million-board-feet is a looong way from 'zero'. Furthermore, timber demand is way down, reducing prices.
Worth remembering too, that for a long while, Federal forests were off limits to logging so as not to compete with private timberlands.
<hr/>