Oregon voters escaped a battle when House Joint Resolution 201 was left in committee on adjournment. Representative Paul Evans (D-Salem, Independence) crafted and requested the bill’s introduction. The Act would put in the constitution a state tax on property to fund public safety.

Rep. Evans writes, “Even though we did not pass House Joint Resolution 201, we made progress because it forced advocates to show up. For too long cities and counties have tried to publicly deny the necessity of real property tax reforms. Since 1991, the State of Oregon has paid an exponentially increased amount of “traditional local government services” that has led to disinvestment in traditionally state-funded enterprises – colleges, universities, and state police have suffered because of the necessary backfilling required to keep public schools open and local governments functioning."

The delusion of support comes from Rep. Evans own testimony and two others testifying in support and 17 in opposition. There are 1,458 written opposition, and 8 in support, but 4 are identical written by Evans.

One of the supporters wrote, “I want to encourage you to pass this insane bill. I hope you will mislead the voters about how much it will eventually cost, make sure the implementation requires as many new government employees as possible and further increase the tax bill for Oregonians so that we can leave no doubt where we rank on a national level for tax burden. Making any connection between the liberal approach to homelessness and the subsequent resulting need for further safety related expenses should of course be avoided.”

Rep. Evans wants to call it reform while passing a new tax that increases taxation. "HJR 201 put forward a new approach to funding necessary services through reforming property tax methodology. The reaction to the measure demonstrated the need for something like it – we simply do not have the resources available to fund statewide emergency services – and it is time to find a solution.”

Kevin Chambers is running against Evans for House District 20. As a business owner and advocate for public safety, he says, "We should be utilizing our resources via productive managed logging and management of our forests to drive more revenue. Simply put, Rep. Evans continues to utilize people and their wallets as a resource and mismanaging our tax dollars, instead of using our natural resources like timber. To many Oregonians are playing bill roulette as it is, yet Rep. Evans wants to make them pay more even though Oregonians already have less."

The Oregon State Fire Fighters Council saw dollar signs and testified regarding the need for fire districts. Lane County Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Alex Cuyler, wrote on the ice storm damage experienced in Lane County and said that federal emergency Public Assistance funds only paid for 75% of the costs. He supports this “modest, shared by all” tax that HJR 201 would generate even though it isn't an emergency fund.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Taxpayers Association of Oregon published an alert to voters and taxpayers:

• We can’t afford it! Oregonians already pay higher taxes than most states.
• Removes current local control over property taxes from Counties/Cities by allowing new statewide property tax scheme without limits.
• This would allow Portland politicians to raise property taxes on rural Oregonians for their reckless spending.
• Removes current Constitutional limits on property tax rates (Measure 5) and assessment rates (Measure 50) with sneaky exceptions.
• Risk throwing seniors, the disabled and other limited income Oregonians out of their homes as property taxes become limitless.
• HJR 201 would be a referral to voters, because that is the only way politicians can remove/tinker with current Constitutional property tax limits that protect home owners.

This was not Rep. Evans first attempt and he made it clear that he will be back with another bill next session, if reelected. His plan would add $100 in property taxes to a modest valued home, but once passed, the legislature could increase the rate with a majority vote because it wouldn’t be a new tax.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-03-22 12:50:53

Last Update: 2024-03-22 20:00:50