May
27, 2003 - Growth Subsidies Don't Pay - What is contributing to
our city’s unremitting financial crisis? Is subsidizing growth a
problem?
More than 40 statewide organizations in the Oregon Revenue Coalition believe some subsidies prolong our statewide financial crisis. They analyzed 350 different tax breaks profiled in the “Tax Expenditure Report 2003-05” published by the Department of Administrative Services.
Oregon Revenue Coalition calculates that we’re giving away more in tax subsidies than we collect in taxes. State and local governments collect only 42 cents from every dollar levied in taxes. This means that 58 cents of every revenue dollar is taken out of the revenue forecast before the legislators work on the budget.
What the Department of Administrative Services report doesn’t show is how much we taxpayers subsidize the real estate industry. This subsidy chokes the life out of our communities and is a major reason Salem’s finances remain in the toilet. Here’s why.
Installing new houses requires a lot of public money for schools, streets, water and sewer systems, stormwater drainage, parks, police and fire protection, libraries, solid waste facilities, general government facilities and much more.
The real estate development industry pays some of the costs of these items. However, taxpayers cover the remaining tens of thousands of dollars each new house requires. To cover these costs, local governments authorize debt, then levy property taxes to pay it off.
Suppose we finance a $1 million, 20-year municipal bond for water and sewer systems for a subdivision. Assume we add only 1.9 percent per year to the bond to cover the costs of growth. What is the final bond payment existing residents and businesses must pay? What is the total of the 20 annual payments they have paid? Who pays more, existing residents and businesses or the new ones?
These answers will shock you. You’ll discover why taxpayers demand that those who profit from growth must pay their share of its costs. Are we subsidizing too much growth?
A recent Davis and Hibbitts survey of Metro taxpayers asked, “Who should pay the cost of growth?” Forty percent answered, “developers and new home buyers”; 33 percent said, “New growth should pay a greater share”; and 21 percent said, “The costs should be shared equally between the community and the developers.”
Measures 5, 47 and 50 aimed at “tax-and-spend” government but made it much harder for local governments to subsidize the costs of growth.
Using debt to subsidize real estate development doesn’t work. If it did, Oregon communities would be flourishing.
Some might disagree with this opinion, but everyone can agree we need to investigate what’s preventing us from funding community needs as we grow. We’ve tried “economic development” and it never has paid off. We’ve tried “tax limitation,” which worsens the fiscal crisis.
And we’ve tried subsidizing the real estate development industry. Yet, is housing affordable? Are we using our land and natural resources efficiently? Our community services economically? Do we have a community like we did before growth was our only goal? Shouldn’t we seek answers to these questions?
Source: May 27, 2003, Salem Statesman-Journal, Richard Reid. Richard Reid of Salem is a member of CityWatch, a local grassroots organization concerned about local government accountability. He can be reached at (503) 581-0056.
May 15, 2003 - Doorway to Wal-Mart Slams Shut - For Now -- Wal-Mart's attempt to build a store in east Hillsboro met with defeat on Wednesday as the Planning Commission tentatively denied its plans. "Wal-Mart is a company that would be valued in this community," said Commissioner John Coulter. "But it's got to be at the right place in the right situation."
More than 40 statewide organizations in the Oregon Revenue Coalition believe some subsidies prolong our statewide financial crisis. They analyzed 350 different tax breaks profiled in the “Tax Expenditure Report 2003-05” published by the Department of Administrative Services.
Oregon Revenue Coalition calculates that we’re giving away more in tax subsidies than we collect in taxes. State and local governments collect only 42 cents from every dollar levied in taxes. This means that 58 cents of every revenue dollar is taken out of the revenue forecast before the legislators work on the budget.
What the Department of Administrative Services report doesn’t show is how much we taxpayers subsidize the real estate industry. This subsidy chokes the life out of our communities and is a major reason Salem’s finances remain in the toilet. Here’s why.
Installing new houses requires a lot of public money for schools, streets, water and sewer systems, stormwater drainage, parks, police and fire protection, libraries, solid waste facilities, general government facilities and much more.
The real estate development industry pays some of the costs of these items. However, taxpayers cover the remaining tens of thousands of dollars each new house requires. To cover these costs, local governments authorize debt, then levy property taxes to pay it off.
Suppose we finance a $1 million, 20-year municipal bond for water and sewer systems for a subdivision. Assume we add only 1.9 percent per year to the bond to cover the costs of growth. What is the final bond payment existing residents and businesses must pay? What is the total of the 20 annual payments they have paid? Who pays more, existing residents and businesses or the new ones?
These answers will shock you. You’ll discover why taxpayers demand that those who profit from growth must pay their share of its costs. Are we subsidizing too much growth?
A recent Davis and Hibbitts survey of Metro taxpayers asked, “Who should pay the cost of growth?” Forty percent answered, “developers and new home buyers”; 33 percent said, “New growth should pay a greater share”; and 21 percent said, “The costs should be shared equally between the community and the developers.”
Measures 5, 47 and 50 aimed at “tax-and-spend” government but made it much harder for local governments to subsidize the costs of growth.
Using debt to subsidize real estate development doesn’t work. If it did, Oregon communities would be flourishing.
Some might disagree with this opinion, but everyone can agree we need to investigate what’s preventing us from funding community needs as we grow. We’ve tried “economic development” and it never has paid off. We’ve tried “tax limitation,” which worsens the fiscal crisis.
And we’ve tried subsidizing the real estate development industry. Yet, is housing affordable? Are we using our land and natural resources efficiently? Our community services economically? Do we have a community like we did before growth was our only goal? Shouldn’t we seek answers to these questions?
Source: May 27, 2003, Salem Statesman-Journal, Richard Reid. Richard Reid of Salem is a member of CityWatch, a local grassroots organization concerned about local government accountability. He can be reached at (503) 581-0056.
May 15, 2003 - Doorway to Wal-Mart Slams Shut - For Now -- Wal-Mart's attempt to build a store in east Hillsboro met with defeat on Wednesday as the Planning Commission tentatively denied its plans. "Wal-Mart is a company that would be valued in this community," said Commissioner John Coulter. "But it's got to be at the right place in the right situation."
Ultimately, the commission unanimously decided, a 26-acre site at the corner of Northwest Cornelius Pass and West Baseline Road is not the right place. The commission will make that decision official at its next meeting, then the City Council will consider it. Unless the decision is appealed, the council most likely will not hold a public hearing.
Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods was the main reason the commission voted no. Several of the commissioners pointed to the development codes, which essentially require each new development to "enhance the compatibility" of the surrounding area.
Traffic consultants said only 15 percent of the store's traffic would come from the north. Commissioners never bought that.
The denial came after three long public hearings, which were filled with opposition to the plans. As many as 500 people attended the hearings. More than 40 people spoke each time.
Greg Hathaway, attorney representing PacLand, declined to comment on the decision. Carol Nielsen of Aloha, however, blasted the decision. "We need a Wal-Mart," she said. "It's not fair that a small group of people in that housing area can have such an impact."
But Vincent Dimone, one of the leading opponents, said it was the right decision. "Thank God for this reasonable, enlightened planning commission that saw through the faulty logic," he said. Source: May 15, 2003 Hillsboro Argus, by Ian Rollins.
May 9, 2003 - Expert Encourages Florence Crowd to Fight Casino - A national gambling expert told a revved-up crowd of 200 people Thursday night that they should at all costs continue to fight the location of a casino near here - no matter how much of a "done deal" the venture might appear to be.
Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, came to the Siuslaw River town as a guest of People Against a Casino Town, which fervently opposes a $24 million casino proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.
Grey, a Methodist minister from Illinois, said Oregon is second only to Nevada in the amount of different types of gambling opportunities available, a "pathological gambling state."
And he argued that the social and economic costs of gambling far outweigh any benefit, be it jobs or state revenue.
"It's bad economics," Grey said. "And it sucks disposable money out of people's pockets. What kind of government cannibalizes and makes losers out of 2, 4, 5 percent of its people? "What kind of people are we, that we take advantage of diseased and sick people and make them pay the freight?" What Grey didn't offer, however, is a way for Florence to stop this particular casino from coming to town. "This issue is going to be decided by a federal judge," said Tribal Administrator Francis Somday. "It's already been decided by two other federal judges. It's been decided by (the) secretary of interior. In a sense, it's been decided by the former governor. "It's not going to be decided by people who oppose it."
But the
people who packed the Florence Events Center Thursday night would hear
nothing of that. "Why don't we form our own sovereign
nation of Florence?" someone called out from the crowd. Grey said that at least
a dozen other communities have successfully kept casinos out even after
their arrival was proclaimed a "done deal."
"You'll fight them at the political level and in the courts," he said. "Why? It's your future." As time wears on, Grey suggested, the nation would begin to realize the negative social impacts of gambling and put a stop to it. Perhaps trial lawyers, eager to seek out the next Big Tobacco, could take up the cause, he said.
Responding to a question, Grey even
mentioned that there are several efforts under way to put an end to tribal
sovereignty. Source: May 9, 2003 Register Guard, by Winston
Ross
May 9, 2003 - Florence Cuts No Deal With Tribes for Casino - All bets are off. The city of Florence let the deadline pass this week to sign off on a pact with the tribes that want to build a casino near town. This means no concessions by the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, no promises, no deals cut with the city on how a proposed casino would be built and managed. And, it means the city won't extend water and sewer services to the tribes if a proposed $24 million casino is built off Highway 126. Tribal Administrator Francis Somday said Thursday that the tribes will build their own sewage treatment facility and drill their own wells. "We're done with negotiations," Somday said. "We have given them our best offer. They let it expire."
The pact, drawn up by the Confederated Tribes, was a laundry list of agreements. For instance, the tribes would have put off building an events center for five years if the city would have agreed to allow the casino to tap into the sewage system. Florence Mayor Alan Burns said a number of reasons contributed to the city's decision to let the deal break. For one, the time frame to make the decision was simply too short. The city got the tribe's proposal late last week, and had until Tuesday at 5 p.m. to decide on it. "Government should not work that way, with ultimatums," Burns said. "We got the document within four days of the deadline."
Also, with the casino's fate still in federal court, some thought it premature to sign off on deals for building it. Burns, like other city leaders, worried that city approval of an agreement might signify approval of the casino, which could be used in a federal lawsuit the state has filed against the casino. "If an agreement was signed, no matter what the agreement was, it would be a feather in the cap of the proposed casino," Burns said.
Plus, there were problems with the tribe's proposal, concerns about the city taking on liability by signing off on it, and community sentiment that appears heavily opposed to doing anything to smooth the road toward a casino. "That agreement is riddled with liability for the city," said Nancy VanGalder, a spokeswoman with People Against a Casino Town, which has intensely lobbied Florence to avoid making deals with the tribes. "You think it's a cherry in front of you, $7,000 or $8,000 for a police officer. But then you look down the road, and say, `Wait a second. This is going to be exposing the town to a lot of irreversible problems, in terms of legal liability and financial hardship.' "
Some have questioned whether the city's water resources are capable of fulfilling the tribe's needs, a central issue in the debate on whether the city should extend its urban growth boundary to include the Hatch Tract, the 98-acre stretch of property where the tribes intend to build. With the death of an intergovernmental agreement, that debate is moot as well, Somday said. He also pointed out that the city had much more time than four days to negotiate a deal with the tribes; the two entities have been hammering this out since October, Somday said. "In order to be open by summer of 2004 we had to have a decision quickly," Somday said. "I would hope the residents of Florence would understand that since Oct. 24, 2002, the tribe had extended its hand to the city. There are items in this agreement that won't be there now." Environmentally, Somday said it's far from ideal to have two sewage treatment facilities so close to each other, and the tribe's concession not to build an events center for five years is now off the table, as well. Now, the only thing the tribes would provide is funding for public safety, in accordance with their compact with the state. "It was a fair agreement, across the board," Somday said. Source: May 9, 2003 Register Guard, by Winston Ross.
May 7, 2003 - Lawsuit Over Florence Casino Goes to Court in Eugene - The state of Oregon laid out its case against a casino near Florence on Tuesday, arguing in federal court that U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton had no business allowing a 98-acre tract of land to be cleared for gaming. "She made a mistake," said David Leith, assistant state attorney general, of the secretary's decision to "restore" the land, which involves giving it special status so that tribes can operate a casino on it. "She simply was issuing an opinion without any delegated authority to do so."
This case is likely to be the last hurdle for a proposed 50,000-square-foot casino that the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians want to build near the junction of North Fork Siuslaw River Road and Highway 126. Supporters and opponents of the casino filled a federal courtroom in Eugene on Tuesday to hear both sides give arguments before U.S. District Judge Tom Coffin, who is expected to rule on the matter in 60 days.
Coffin spent a portion of Tuesday's proceeding grilling the state's attorney about how Interior Department officials erred. Then he asked lawyers for both the Interior Department and the tribes if they'd speculate on the state's real motive for filing the lawsuit, which drew criticism from the state's attorney.
In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allowed federally recognized tribes to build casinos on restored lands - areas controlled by Indian tribes and not subject to states' gaming bans. The central question Tuesday was whether the Hatch Tract, the section of land Confederated Tribes purchased in 1998, can be considered restored.
Normally, restored land must be owned or acquired by a tribe at the time it gets federal recognition. Since the Confederated Tribes bought the Hatch Tract in 1998 - 14 years after it earned federal recognition status - Leith argued that only Congress should have decided whether it was OK to build a casino there. Instead, the secretary of the interior made that decision, asserting that the tribe's ties to the land allow it to be considered "restored."
"The state's concern is gambling in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act," Leith said. "We understand the Hatch Tract to not be eligible for gaming."
The Interior Department's attorney countered that tribes often acquire land after they get federal status, and it would be impractical to ask Congress to designate such parcels each time tribes want to establish gaming on that land. Judy Rabinowitz, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, said the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows the interior secretary to deal with "gray areas," making case-by-case decisions on land that tribes acquire after they get federal status.
"The secretary is designated to deal with questions at the margins," Rabinowitz said. "That's what the secretary is there to do."
Rabinowitz said Norton has had to make such decisions several times in recent years, and none has been overturned. If the state were to prevail, many of the interior secretary's designations of tribal land as restored could be called into question, she said.
If Coffin rules in favor of the state, the case will be remanded back to the Interior Department, where officials could reconsider the case or let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rule on the matter.
If the state loses, it could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court as well. Of the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon, eight already have casinos. None serve as precedents to this case, as they don't occupy land that was declared restored by the Interior Department. The Confederated Tribes did get 11 acres restored by Congress and approved by the state for a casino, but that land is too close to the Coquille Tribe's Mill Casino in North Bend to be economically viable. "Seven hundred members - 11 acres - there's something wrong with that picture," Rabinowitz said. "It's time that the tribes stopped having to fight."
Bruce, the Denver attorney representing the tribes, told the judge Tuesday that he thought the state's case was about control. One of the last acts of former Gov. John Kitzhaber was to sign a compact with the 800-member tribe that would allow gaming at the site - but only if the tribe and the Interior Department prevail in the lawsuit, which Kitzhaber's own administration filed a year ago.
Greene said Kitzhaber was miffed that Congress stripped states' ability to authorize where casinos could be built, and he filed the lawsuit in order to regain that control. "Essentially, the former governor was offended by the notion that Congress had circumvented his veto authority," Greene said. Tribal members who showed up at Tuesday's hearing said they're eagerly awaiting a decision.
Casino opponents said they're prepared to keep fighting if they lose their case. "Regardless of the outcome, we believe that the preponderance of people in Florence don't want a casino," said Susie Dewberry, a spokesman for People Against a Casino Town. "We're not going to lay down and take a casino." On Thursday, Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, will arrive in Florence for a public meeting at 7 p.m. at the Florence Events Center. Grey is expected to tell residents how to keep their battle alive. Source: May 7, 2003, Register Guard, by Winston Ross.
May 4, 200 - A land of their own: Coastal Indian tribes hope swath of prime Siuslaw forestland will be restored to them - Sweet Creek Falls (Mapleton) tumbles into a pool encircled by alders and walls of greenery, like a page from a Wilderness Society calendar. For Carolyn Slyter, it's also a page from history - and, she hopes, a view to the future of her people, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. the picturesque falls and others like it highlight a chunk of federal forest on the central Oregon Coast that the tribes are trying to reclaim 150 years after losing their ancestral lands. This was where their ancestors camped, plucked salmon and steelhead from abundant fish runs and hunted deer and elk. They collected maiden-hair to weave into their baskets and picked ripe salmonberries and huckleberries along pristine mountain streams.
"It's just so soothing," said Slyter, a Coos Indian and tribal council member, as she watched the hypnotic motion of water plunging over rock. "I think a lot of our tribal members who are into immediate stuff, video games, who are always on the go." Visiting what's left of the ancient sites helps people slow down and reflect on life, she said. "It's a spiritual place. It's beautiful."
The tribes would gain one-tenth of the Siuslaw National Forest - nearly 63,000 acres on the southern end - under a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
It's a small piece of the 1.6 million acres that the government acknowledges the three tribes once inhabited, but it's a worthy gesture toward compensating them for their losses, Smith said. "This is a tribe that has yet to be reconnected with its land," he said. "So for me, it's a matter of personal interest and it is a matter that is morally compelling." (Source: 5/4/03 - By Scott Maben , The Register-Guard. Map: The Register-Guard.)
Also see: ONRC website: http://www.onrc.org/alerts/139.siuslawtransfpic.html
May 2, 2003 - Anit-Casino Speaker in Florence May 8 - Tom Grey,a nationally renowned speaker and director of National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, will be discussing how to organize grassroots opposition to casinos at the Florence Events Center on Thursday, May 8, 7:00 pm. According to Susie Dewberry, spokesperson for People Against a Casino Town (PACT), "He has helped communities across the country win battles against casinos." Also speaking will be Julie Hynes, Gambling Prevention Coordinator for Lane County. The PACT group is concerned about the effects a casino development of this size will have on Florence. Said Dewberry, "The proposed casino complex includes a 100-room hotel, restaurants, 1,000 seat auditorium, and gift shops. This is a big deal for Florence, but it's not a 'done deal'." PACT maintains an information web page at: www.teloflex.com/pact/index.html. Source: PACT News Release 5/2/03
