... the show that asked the question, "Will the public buy into another tax proposal?"
Yes, those friendly County Commissioners are at it once again with their crazy antics in hopes of passing a public safety tax.
That's right folks, if it was defeated the first 12 times, then it makes perfect sense to try again.
The Lane County commissioners feel that measure 20-114 lost by a mere two percentage points and might have a better chance of passing if that it more addresses voters concerns.
Given the deteriorating condition of the county public safety system, "doing nothing is not an option," Commissioner Bill Dwyer said Tuesday. "If it doesn't pass, I think we've met our responsibility."
The commissioners have not voted to put in income taxed before the voters; however, they have directed staff to draw up a potential ordinance. [we will get it one way or another] Issues that the commissioners will consider include "clarifying the ballot language so that the voters are simply asked whether to vote for an income tax that supports public safety." [and any other pet project that they deemed necessary.]
A post-election survey by the county found that the top reason for voting no in November was misleading or confusing ballot language. Nine percent of measure supporters incorrectly thought they were voting to limit taxes, not raise them, Eugene-based Lindholm Research found.
The commissioners will also discuss whether to earmark more money for crime prevention efforts or set aside some money for the Lane County animal revelatory authority.
While it is unclear whether Congress will renew annual payments, which benefits Lane County by $50 million a year annually ($40 million going to Lane County government), if Congress does not renew the payments then more than 175 of 660 positions which are paid out the general fund, and 50-75 of 220 positions which are paid out a road sign, may have to be cut.
Federal funding may not be decided until summer, however, if the board waits for the outcome and then has to make sweeping layoffs, there could be a public backlash.
"The citizens will say, 'You didn't do anything' " to avert the crisis. Said Bill Dwyer.why do we need more taxes? According to Ted Kulongoski the economy is improving.
4 comments:
I work for Lane County and one of the positions that may be cut is probably mine. That said, I voted against the first measure and so did almost everyone that I asked that I work with. The fact that the gov. retirees pay was exempt was a big reason. With PERS (of which I'm not entitled to because of when I was hired) being such a poison pill you would think that the county would not even suggest such an unfair taxing system. I think another reason was the convoluted way they allowed property tax deductions. Most people couldn't figure that out. And last the obvious deception in the wording in the voting pamphlet left many with the impression that they were trying to trick people into voting for it.
The people don't know where their money is going and how it is being prioritized. A big step would be to be a lot more transparent and itemize the expenditures on a website that everyone could see. Until that is done most people assume the money is being wasted and enough is enough. I personally don't make enough to pay the property taxes I have now and am always in the rears.
I agree.
perhaps also better clarification of where the money will go as well.
I agree that law enforcement has been cut over the years and needs funding help. However, I've also read articles before the last vote that the "public safety tax" would also go to programs such as drug rehabilitation, etc.
my main concern is twofold.
#1 it's going to be like the "I" tax which caused major confusion at tax time because people are not used to having to pay a separate tax, unless you are self-employed, in which case you also pay a tax for LTD
#2 besides they're not any guarantees that the money will not go into the general fund, and again I refer to the incident between the sheriff's department and the Hult center years back, which proved that money that was earmarked for law enforcement that the voters approved, only a very SMALL percentage of that money actually went towards its intended purpose
however, I hope that you do not lose your job over this.
Part of the reason why people are not giving money to law enforcement, is because of the games they have played in the past. They have tried to con us, threaten us to get more money.
E.g. if you do not approve our funding, the first place we are going to cut is services that will hurt you directly.
WHY don't they use all that lottery money that does good things for Oregon? I would rather it was used for public safety than an ailing sheep farm. We were promised when we voted the lottery in that it would close the gap in education funding and yet IT DOES NOT! No wonder voters don't trust what they read on a ballot. I think we should prosecute the legislators that deceive us in this manner. If I did it, you can bet they would have me in jail.
It's 11:30pm on Wednesday night (2/21). The late news just informed me that the Lane County commissioners have put the tax through... inspite of voter disapproval. What provision of law allows for that? Where's the line to support a tax revolt... cause I'm already there. I care about public safety and finding a smart solution. But forcing a tax through is just not right.
Post a Comment