Editorial

Editor's note: Due to the extraordinary number of issues on the ballot this November, we will not offer endorsements on all ballot measures and candidates.

Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: Larry Kimmel.

Kimmel comes to the job well prepared through his service on the county's budget committee.

He is right to emphasize the positive aspects of growth while advocating apprpriate management. However, Kimmel must be careful that he does not mistake business interests for the interests of the community at large.

Measure 94 -- repeals mandatory minimum sentencing: Yes.

The mandatory minimum sentencing created under Measure 11 places far too much power in the hands of district attorneys and makes the judicial system too rigid.

Mandatory minimums under Measure 11 cost us billions of dollars at a time when schools must scratch and claw for every dollar.

Measure 3 -- requires conviction before forfeiture: Yes.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to American justice. Seizing and selling off property of a person who has not been convicted of a crime is wrong.

Measure 5 -- requires non-dealer background checks at gun shows: No.

Background checks are a good idea. However, this measure contains a "poison pill," allowing the Oregon State Police to retain information on gun buyers who undergo those checks for five years.

This is a sneaky form of gun registration and an unwarranted invasion of privacy for law-abiding citizens.

Measure 91 -- makes federal income taxes fully deductible on state returns: No.

If any of the Sizemore or McIntire measures pass, it won't matter what Sisters' citizens do to shore up school funding -- local schools will be hammered.

The small to non-existent return to the average taxpayer is not worth the heavy financial cost, estimated at $800 million to $1 billion in state revenues in 2000-01.

Measure 88 -- increases amount of deduction of federal taxes: No.

Still too expensive -- and a still smaller return.

Measure 8 -- limits state appropriations to percentage of state's prior personal income: No.

A measure that would force the State of Oregon to turn away or give back federal grant dollars is not the right way to limit government. Again, the cost to public services could be staggering.

Measure 93 -- voters must approve most taxes; fees: No.

Micromanagement of fees at the ballot box is inefficient, expensive and unfair. Voters should not be asked to make decisions about fees they don't pay (professional licensing fees for example) and don't know anything about.

Measure 95 -- student learning determines teacher pay; and retention: No.

This is another measure that sounds good but fails in the details. Measure 95 sets no standards. No one knows what "appropriate" learning is or who decides. We have to set those standards first. Voters can't ask a teacher to jump over a bar he or she can't see.

Measure 97 -- bans body-gripping animal traps, some poisons; restricts fur commerce. No.

This measure places an undue burden on rural property owners, ranchers and farmers who deal with animals on a day-to-day basis.

Measure 9 -- prohibits public school promotion of homosexual, bisexual behaviors: No.

Here's a solution in search of a problem. The last thing schools need is the sex police trying to ferret out "promotion" of homosexuality.

If parents are concerned about anything their children are being taught, they have recourse to their school administrators and their school board.

Measure 92 -- prohibits payroll deductions for political purposes without specific written authorization: No.

This is a targeted attack by Bill Sizemore against his political opponents. Union members already have the right to opt out of payroll deductions. The rest of us don't have a dog in this fight.

Measure 98 -- prohibits using public resources for political purposes; limits payroll deductions: No.

More of the same. This measure targets Sizemore's political opponents and could hurt any organization with any hint of political involvement that uses a school house for a meeting.

Measure 6 -- provides public funding to candidates who limit spending, private contributions: Yes.

There are valid philosophical arguments against public funding of campaigns. However, voters know viscerally that big money corrupts politics. This is a small step in a positive direction and could have a good effect in places like Deschutes County.

Measure 7 -- Requires payment to landowner if government regulation reduces property value: No.

This enormously costly measure -- $1.6 billion per year at the state level and $3.8 billion at the local level -- could as well be titled the Urban Sprawl Promotion Act.

Anyone who values their quality of life -- fishing, hunting, hiking, clean water, clean air -- should oppose this measure. Vote "yes" if you want Oregon to look like California.