Public handout - no more taxes

Straydog · 12-17-2003, 07:07 AM

I have a question and am curious how others might view it.......

An individual owns a large ranch that diverts water from a source that contains threatened or endangered fish and is required by the ESA to put fish screens on this diversion. (actually, State Law requires all diversions to be screened, regardless of whether threatened or endangered fish are present)

The owner of this ranch sends a representative to a State sponsored and funded approriations task force and asks for well over $100,000.00 of public funding to help put the screens in place.

At the same time the owner of this ranch, in his efforts to reduce taxes, has ponied up over $50,000 of his own money to fight Measure 30, the state income tax surcharge issue.

If you were sitting on the task force that appropriates the money knowing this person was generously helping finance a campaign that if succesful will mean very signigicant reductions in funding for schools, police protection, health care and other social services, would you vote to give this person well over $100,000.00 of public money?

[ 12-17-2003, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

WheresMyBobber · 12-17-2003, 07:17 AM

It seems to me that the question about asking for public funding has nothing to do with a person's other political activities. Two seperate issues. The task force should have guidelines in place on how money is appropriated to those who ask for it.

Straydog · 12-17-2003, 07:30 AM

I would normally agree, but isn't it related since it all concerns public money? That is where I am stuck.

It seems on one hand he is saying there should be less money given for public services and using his own money to see that that happens. Yet on the other hand is saying he wants a goodly share of the same money he is fighting to reduce........

The task force does have criteria in place and that will be followed. I am just curious how others feel about it.

I appreciate your input.

El-Kabong · 12-17-2003, 08:03 AM

It doesn't seem right, but in the long term I think it is best if these kinda things are kept independent. Too much potential for abuse and violation of individual rights.

EK

GutshotApe · 12-17-2003, 08:38 AM

Mr. Jeld-Wen won't own that ranch forever...Fish screen installations won't last forever, either, but I bet they'll last longer than the current land ownership will.

Let the F&W commission, who has final say in the matter, handle the larger political considerations.

BTW, did you happen to catch Steve Duin's column in The Oregonian the other day?

Straydog · 12-17-2003, 09:30 AM

GSA,

Thanks for your input.

As a reminder, please reread my earlier comment:

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
The task force does have criteria in place and that will be followed. I am just curious how others feel about it.

I did not see the Steve Duin column the other day.

Bigdog · 12-17-2003, 09:55 AM

I don't see anything wrong with it. But good job to the rancher for helping with the tax cause.

Moley Molson · 12-17-2003, 12:38 PM

I don't get it....
It's his ranch, not the public's ranch.
Why would public money be used to make "his" water diversion legal?

What does the public gain from this?

TheRogue · 12-17-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moley Molson:
I don't get it....
It's his ranch, not the public's ranch.
Why would public money be used to make "his" water diversion legal?

What does the public gain from this?

And his reply (along with many others) would be something like "It's my ranch, and this darn fish-screening is forced on me by the public...what do I gain from this?"

Completely differing philosophies. Generally speaking, I have a problem with a lot of the the government regulations of private land, but, I think the rules have been pretty consistent on this....he needs to pony up if he wants to do it. Being the reigning King of Klamath County shouldn't exempt a person from the rules.

As for the wanting government money on one side, and financially supporting the "no tax" groups on the other side...I'm inclined to keep the issues seperate, but it's high time the public as a whole looks at the big picture, rather than just the little piece that affects them. This would be a good example of a way to start.

My .02

TR

[ 12-17-2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

GutshotApe · 12-17-2003, 02:28 PM

There are many unscreened water diversions in Oregon...its been happening since long before the fish screening law was passed. As I understand it, holders of legal water rights cannot be denied "their" water by subsequent laws...nor, apparently can a water right holding landowner be forced to pay for screening...even if he is a multi-millionaire. So if the people of Oregon want to keep their fish from ending up as fertilizer in a field, the public has to pony up the dough for screens, as unfair as that seems.

happybrew · 12-17-2003, 04:53 PM

The guy's a hypocrite, plain and simple. His principles are in his wallet, not in his heart.

happybrew

Straydog · 12-17-2003, 04:57 PM

If the income tax surcharge is over-turned as the property owner hopes, it could end up having a direct impact on one the revenue source from which the Fish Screening funds come.

In other words, if the surcharge is overturned, there is a fair chance that the lottery dollars ear marked for fish screening could be taken for other "higher priority" programs.

If that becomes the case, then are we still looking at two issues, for those of you that feel we are now?

Lured In · 12-18-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by happybrew:
The guy's a hypocrite, plain and simple. His principles are in his wallet, not in his heart.

happybrew

He is a hypocrite who pays taxes. Unlike the hypocrites who don't pay taxes and get public financial support?

Stray I understand your intention in this analogy, but the reality is that this individual feels the same as many who pay significant amounts in property taxes and/or income tax. To take you analogy further, perhaps the law regarding fish screens was placed on him after he had owned the property for years. Would you like someone to tell you that you will be fined if you don't invest $100,000 in YOUR property? I know I wouldn't be too happy about it. Another analogy are those land owners who are prohibited from logging their own property, after some non-timber owner decided logging was bad. Should they not be subsidized for the lost value of the standing timber?

According to the ODFW budget document (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/2003_2005Budget.pdf) A portion of the fish screening project is funded by license sales and fees on license sales (A&A, R&E). It does not specifically mention where the balance of the funding comes from. In the above example, I have no issue with paying surcharges on my license to protect fish or improve habitat. Additionally, many of these types of situtations are handled via the Access and Habitat (A&H) program, which often results in increased public access to private property. Again, I see this as a win-win situation.

The land owner is required to put these screens in. ODFW has budget funds to support this from at least two sources, and the end result is more fish, and possibly additional access for fishing and/or hunting. Additionally, the land owner is partly subsidizing this via his property or income taxes.(general fund contribution to ODFW).

Why should land owners/tax payers (those who contribute) not be entitled to a portion of public subsidies when there are those who contribute little or nothing and recieve far more in proportion? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

Straydog · 12-18-2003, 09:04 AM

The problem I am having is not that the land owner is wanting to use public funds for his screens. If that were how I felt I wouldn't volunteer my time to sit on the Task force to appropriate said funds.

My problem is that he is wanting to take advantage of this opportunity while at the same time paying large sums of his own money to deny others of similar opportunities.

Further, Sportfish is not the protected fish in question in this situation so increased fishing opportunities is not an issue.

Also, he has not owned the property in question since before the screening issue became law, as I understand it anyway.

But again, all else aside, as I see it, he is anxious to take advantage of the gravy train while spending big dollars that could go toward sterwardship of his own land to deny others the same opportunity he feels he is entitled to.

That, in my view, is hypocritical and just plain wrong.

More info......plus, land owners can apply for cap increases above the 75K, which is what the Task Force looks at and approves or denies based on specific criteria.

Q Who pays for the screens?
A: The Oregon Legislature established a cost-sharing program in 1995 for water diversions. Under this
program, water diverters pay for 40 percent of the construction and installation costs, and the state
contributes 60 percent of the construction and installation costs. Water diverters also can receive a state
income tax credit of 50 percent of the net, certified costs of the screen, not to exceed $5,000. The
state�s portion of these funds come from the voter-approved Measure 66, which dedicates a portion of
lottery revenues for salmon and watershed protection. A surcharge on angling licenses pays for screen
research and development, and for administration of the fish screening task force.

[ 12-18-2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Lured In · 12-18-2003, 09:09 AM

Stray...is this a hypothetical situation or real? (names changed to protect the innocent, sort of thing?)

Also, so if I understand this, the funds for fish screening come from lottery dollars and license/tag fees? Or are there other sources as well?

Also, are you saying only those who support your position on the tax increase are deserving of public funds?

[ 12-18-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Lured In ]

CATCH AND EAT · 12-18-2003, 09:09 AM

Two seperate issues Straydog as The Rogue pointed out. More of a moral and ethical issue for the persons involved although it would be a bit upsetting because of the two faced appearance.

BrokeItOff · 12-18-2003, 09:13 AM

I see nothing wrong in trying to get government money for the screens and also wanting to reduce taxes.

It causes a little cognitive dissonance to take this stance but it is fair.

Shane

Straydog · 12-18-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lured In:
Stray...is this a hypothetical situation or real? (names changed to protect the innocent, sort of thing?)

Also, so if I understand this, the funds for fish screening come from lottery dollars and license/tag fees? Or are there other sources as well?

Also, are you saying only those who support your position on the tax increase are deserving of public funds?

This is a real situation.

No, I am not saying only those that support my position on tax increases are deserving of public funds. Heck, I am not even saying you have to agree that good education, adequate police protection and reasonable health care opportunities are a benefit to the larger society!

However, not supporting tax increases and voting in that fashion is one thing. Not supporting tax increases and ponying up over 50K of ones own money to accomplish that, knowing that by accomplishing that you could deny others the opportunity you are taking advantage of is wrong, in my opinion.

As I see it, on one hand he is saying "I deserve public funds to help pay for fish screens on my property and I want what I deserve." (I agree with this........)

Yet, on the other hand he is saying "the Government has no business helping others with my tax dollars and I have over $50K of expendable capital I have invested to make darn sure they don't get this opportunity."

I find the coupling of these two trains of thought unacceptable...

[ 12-18-2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

skahorse · 12-18-2003, 09:29 AM

Any goverment regulation that helps the "Public" should be paid for by the "Public". That is fair. The fish screens are of no benefit to the land owner. The public is the benefitor, therefore the public should pay.

Stray, you mentioned that there were no sportfish implications. So, I then ask if this is a valid regulation in this case. Does it benefit the public? If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be required, and the law should be changed to require the water in question to contain sportfish or ESA fish. And the public should pay for it.

Did I mention that if it's a gov't regulation to benefit the public, that the public should pay for it?

--Skahorse

skahorse · 12-18-2003, 09:36 AM

Furthermore, his position on the tax increase has absolutely no bearing. If the Gov't can't afford to pay for everyone's fish screens, that they mandated , they shouldn't have mandated them.

--Skahorse

Straydog · 12-18-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skahorse:
Any goverment regulation that helps the "Public" should be paid for by the "Public". That is fair. The fish screens are of no benefit to the land owner. The public is the benefitor, therefore the public should pay.

The fish screens are a benefit to the land owner because they allow him to divert water for his ranch while coming into compliance with the law. At least, I see being law abiding a benefit.

Quote:

Stray, you mentioned that there were no sportfish implications. So, I then ask if this is a valid regulation in this case. Does it benefit the public? If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be required, and the law should be changed to require the water in question to contain sportfish or ESA fish. And the public should pay for it.

This lends itself to a much bigger issue and one beyond the scope of my inquiry. The fish involved are not Sportfish but are indeed listed under the Endangered Species Act.

I am not going to get into whether or not there is public benefit. The fact is, at this point in time the land owner is not in compliance with the law.

This does however, lend itself to one aspect of the criteria used in determining awards. That being the degree of public benefit. Since these are not Salmonids and are not Sportfish, there is weight given to this issue in making a "yea" or "nea" determination.[/QUOTE]

It is valid to say if it is Gov. regulation the Gov. should pay for it. However, is it valid to say this but add that one is going to go to great lengths to see that the Gov. dosen't have the resources to pay for it? Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?

[ 12-18-2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Lured In · 12-18-2003, 09:52 AM

A "little bird" shared some info with me, that if correct, sheds some context on this that is not part of the explanation above. It sounds like there are some other issues playing into this that I do not approve of.

I see this as an opportunity for both the state and the landowner. The fish screening funds need to be realigned with Access and Habitat dollars requiring landowners to grant access for hunting or fishing, whether directly to the proposed property or other land owner properties. Appropriate access would be recommended by the A&H program team and approved by the OFWC. If the landowner refuses access, he gets no $$$.

IMHO that would completely eliminate this debate.

Under "normal" circumstances, I stand by my previous posts.

Straydog · 12-18-2003, 09:58 AM

Lured,

I don't know what this other info is but would be interested in an email if you are inclined to share.

Your other point is well taken but beyond the scope of my inquiry or abilty as a Task Force member.

skahorse · 12-18-2003, 10:00 AM

Stray, I see a flaw in your argument (IMO)

Quote:

The fish screens are a benefit to the land owner because they allow him to divert water for his ranch while coming into compliance with the law. At least, I see being law abiding a benefit.

Him being allowed to divert water has nothing to do with the compliance of any law. Basic landowner rights, in my opinion. But hey, that's another discussion.

Quote:

However, is it valid to say this but add that one is going to go to great lengths to see that the Gov. dosen't have the resources to pay for it? Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?

I don't know if when you posted this, you already read my second post. However, I feel that if the Gov't can't afford it, they shouldn't regulate it.

--Skahorse

Straydog · 12-18-2003, 10:03 AM

SKA,

As you say, these are different issues and beyond the question at hand, IMO.

Lured,

I believe the same little bird may have sent me a note. Does it have to do with posting of the land?

[ 12-18-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Lured In · 12-18-2003, 03:05 PM

Among other things, yep.

Fish-n-Fever · 12-18-2003, 03:30 PM

Well now....
Hypocrite is not a strong enough word for this guy. He wants less taxes (who doesn't) as long as it benefits HIM. Typical big money man spending $50,000 out of pocket money (tax deductible of course) To stop spending of public money where he wants it cut and turns around and asks for the same money to be given to HIM! He does profit from the screens because he is required to have the screens in place in order to get cheep irrigation so he can make MORE money so let HIM pay for it. We as tax payers pay for enough "benefits" to the Big business's just so they can make more money. It takes money to make money and I am tired of the "taking" from the working man to give to the man he works for to make MORE money for HIM. If your thinking "trickle" down to the working man you are obviously not a working man because the flood of money into the pockets of the wealthy no where nearly "trickles" down to the man working for him.
As this man that is asking for the money for the screens has undoubtedly said many times .. Cut public spending, I say let it begin with HIM!
Ron

happybrew · 12-18-2003, 05:14 PM

Skahorse: "Any goverment regulation that helps the "Public" should be paid for by the "Public". That is fair. The fish screens are of no benefit to the land owner. The public is the benefitor, therefore the public should pay."

By this reasoning, building codes and city ordinances requiring weeds to be trimmed, because they benefit the public, ought to be paid for by the public. Hey! I don't need to mow my lawn anymore! When it gets over the city specified, height, they can come and mow it for me free of charge! They can pay for sidewalks and sewer lines on my property. Any other building code requirement that I don't want to follow, the city can pay for, right? After all it is the public that is benefitting from the increased property values in the neighborhood, not me.

If it's his property, he's responsible for it, and this includes following laws and regulations. If he wants government to spend less, and therefore take less, then he shouldn't be looking for the government to spend more... on him. Yep. It's hypocrisy all right.

happybrew

TheRogue · 12-19-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skahorse:
Any goverment regulation that helps the "Public" should be paid for by the "Public". That is fair. The fish screens are of no benefit to the land owner. The public is the benefitor, therefore the public should pay.

Stray, you mentioned that there were no sportfish implications. So, I then ask if this is a valid regulation in this case. Does it benefit the public? If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be required, and the law should be changed to require the water in question to contain sportfish or ESA fish. And the public should pay for it.

Did I mention that if it's a gov't regulation to benefit the public, that the public should pay for it?

--Skahorse

So, if someone doesn't have kids....they shouldn't pay any school/education taxes (regardless if they got their own free public education)

So, if someone has never had a fire at their house, they shouldn't have to pay a tax to support the local fire district?

So, if you don't have any family members in the military, you shouldn't have to pay federal taxes?

Personally, that argument don't hunt! Like I said above, I still lean toward keeping the two issues seperate....but I really believe that the reasoning you're using really doesn't apply, opens a huge can of worms to even go down that road.

And....like it or not, there are other important animals in this world besides sportsfish. I know I get disgusted by the whole spotted owl thing (never hunted 'em) and the Klamath sucker (never fished for 'em), but they're still part of the system, and do have rules and regulations, which at this time are the law.

TR

[ 12-19-2003, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]