Letters to the Editor 05/10/2006

Editor’s note:

The Mark Yokum who wrote a letter to the editor in the May 3 issue of The Nugget is not the Mark Yoakum associated with the FivePine development.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

•••

To the Editor:

Rural residents are being asked to approve two new permanent tax districts for law enforcement (Measures 9-35 and 9-36). The two proposed districts would increase the combined maximum levy on rural residents to $2.80 (per $1,000 valuation) an increase of $1.20 or 75 percent.

In contrast, people who reside in the city of Sisters (and in the cities of Bend, Redmond, Sun River and Black Butte) would see their rate increase by only 33 cents under Measure 09-35.

This is a huge increase for rural dwellers. Nearly two-thirds of it results solely from the fact that city dwellers will no longer be asked to pay their historical share of the Sheriff’s patrol, investigation and related services.

What has changed that would justify this increased burden on rural residents? Have city residents stopped using county and state roads patrolled by the Sheriff? Or using recreation areas in rural parts of the county? Some would justify shifting the tax burden to rural residents by saying that urban citizens already pay for their own police services, but there is every reason to expect that public safety actually does cost more in more densely populated urban areas.

Under the proposed tax levies, rural residents are effectively being asked to subsidize county-wide public safety for urban residents. This is not fair. Both urban and rural residents benefit from a county made safer by the Sheriff. It is no surprise that in nearly all Oregon counties rural and urban residents pay exactly the same tax rate for Sheriff services.

Moreover, establishing a permanent and very high levy for the Sheriff effectively deprives us, the voters, of ways to change public spending priorities over the next 15 years

No one, least of all I, is opposed to spending on public safety. But we need to ask ourselves if the proposed levy rates for rural residents are fair? And we need to think about the future and preserve flexibility to fight crime on all fronts, not just enforcement.

Charles Humphreys

•••

To the Editor:

I appreciate your editorial re: the Sheriff’s measures and the interest in permanent funding. However, tying the levy to property values in our county on a permanent basis would not be wise for the following reasons.

Since property values have raced ahead at 20-40 percent per year, the sheriff’s department funding would also increase annually at that rate year after year! This means that if no additional people moved into the area, the sheriff’s department would still receive funding which has doubled or tripled every five years.

Since we have almost a thousand new homes already approved in this county, most in the $300-900K each range, the increase in funding dollars would continue to grow at an obscene rate and far in excess of what will be needed.

In addition, our typical annual incomes, either from salary or retirement, are barely increasing at all. Many of us lament we could no longer afford to purchase our own homes again due to the appreciation. The property taxes are based on the constantly increasing value of our property. This increase will be an ever growing burden on the current residents who are here now and work regular jobs. It would be criminal if the current residents of our county had to sell their homes and move away because we could no longer afford our property taxes.

Some type of formula could be written into a permanent funding levy which would only increase their annual budget by the government’s cost of living figures plus a rider to add a one time increase that year based on the new population growth. That total figure could then be translated into a percent to be applied to that year’s property taxes, or simply as a separate bill.

Virginia Lindsey

s s s

To the Editor:

You get what you pay for. Attracting and retaining quality people is the path to more nimble, innovative and dedicated government. If we want improved governance and public services, we must provide adequate compensation and stable funding for public employees and agencies.

In this instance, I’m talking about the sheriff’s levy for Deschutes County. But my words apply equally to our chronically underfunded school system. To echo the recent Nugget editorial, “vote for stable funding, then tell the sheriff what kind of service you expect to get for your money.”

I hope voters will apply the same standard if they are asked to consider future tax measures to stabilize state school funding. Give the schools adequate money to provide a strong education for Oregon school kids and then demand accountability.

In the meantime, I’ll be voting yes on the rural law enforcement district levy.

Sincerely,

Merry Ann Moore

•••

To the Editor:

You asked how the high gas prices may have changed driving habits. Changed mine.The latest rise cost me $50 to fill my little four cylinder car and that got my attention.

I don’t shop with such gay abandon, don’t go out to lunch, dinner and Happy Hour without a moment or so of consideration and that moment doesn’t come out in my favor all the time. In the “good old pre high gas prices,” a trip to Bend, even two a day sometimes, a thing of the past!

There were always dollars spent in various businesses, now, in only one place, the gas station.

I think the curtailment in spending must take some toll on this economy. Or is the economy in such great shape none of this makes a difference? I am glad I don’t drive an SUV or have to drive to work and to home everyday.

This is not a good thing.

Elayne Clarke