12.28.17

You might be wondering why OFF would take a position on a tax measure. Bear with us and we'll explain.

No matter what your personal feelings are about a liberal policy that fines you if you don't have health insurance and taxes you if you do, no matter if you can afford to add an "assessment " to your already staggering health insurance premiums, no matter if you are willing to overlook a misleading ballot title and an election date that was engineered by liberals in Salem to undermine the voting process, this measure will have a profound effect on your gun rights in 2018 and beyond.

Here is why.

While the "short" session held in even numbered years was sold to us as simply a way to deal with urgent budget issues, it is anything but. There are no limits to the issues, no matter how complex, that can be voted on in short sessions.

We have seen over and over how votes are taken on issues that have not been adequately studied and examined. Measures are rushed through the legislature with little opportunity for public input and little time for legislators to fully understand the ramification of their votes.

The anti-gun majority in Salem has made no secret of their intention to continue their assaults on your gun rights, and thanks to out of state billionaires, they have the votes to do it.

Pro liberty forces are outspent 10-1 by money coming from New York anti-gun extremist, Mike Bloomberg. That kind of money buys a lot of incompetence, and a lot of anti-gun votes.(It's interesting to note that local anti-gun groups contribute only tiny amounts of money to local candidates demonstrating how weak their grass roots actually are.)

So what does all this have to do with a tax on health insurance? Simple. The same anti-gun leftists who rammed through bills to make it a crime to safeguard a firearm for a friend (SB 941) and to allow confiscations of firearms with no accusation of a crime and no due process (SB 719) are the same ones who are pushing for taxes on one of your most expensive needs, health insurance.

They want this money to fund their pet projects, even though over and over we have seen them squander millions through ineptitude and cronyism and a clear inability to deal with any matter concerning health care. If they are able to keep this windfall they will have very little to occupy their time except more gun control.

Governor Kate Brown and House Majority leader Jennifer Williamson have both publicly stated that they plan to use the short session to ram through more gun restrictions.


"If voters affirm the funding plan, though, Williamson has other priorities that she may have time to press, including making another push for increased restrictions on gun ownership.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a fellow Democrat, renewed her support for further restricting gun ownership in the wake of the October shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas."
Portland Tribune Oct 31 2017 

As you know, they are both recipients of massive donations from Mike Bloomberg and are committed to doing his bidding. So you can see, if the Democrats get to keep this money, they will have little to keep them busy except to work on additional attacks on your rights.

We strongly urge you to keep them busy with other things and vote "no" on Measure 101.

OFF wishes you and yours a happy and free New Year and thanks you for your support fighting for freedom.

Related Posts:
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Protect Your Rights For Free!
OFF ~ NRA CAVES AGAIN ~ 719 REPEAL EFFORT FALLS SHORT
Information on Several Petitions Currently in Circulation in the State of Oregon
OFF ~ The Gun Confiscation Battle Begins
Teri Grier ~ Bill Post ~ Mike Nearman ~ File Referendum on SB719 Gun Confiscation
The Differences Between SB719A & Connecticut's Gun Confiscation Law
LTE ~ SB719 Into the Oven, Out of the Stack
Oregon Firearms Federation Responds to Senator Brian Boquist on SB 719
OFF Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced
Senator Arnie Roblan Votes for SB917A The Gun Confiscation Bill ~ Now in House
OFF ~ CALL TO ACTION ~ Contact Senator Prozanski ~ Time to Fix SB941 
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868

The following meeting will be held in the Owen Building at 3:00pm.  It was advertised on the Port of Coos Bay website for 1:30pm, but that is the incorrect time.  It has been changed, but if the Port Director cannot schedule a meeting should the commissioners be giving him access to $37 million dollars. 

 AM-17-005 Urban Renewal
North Bay Renewal Agency District Report
North Bay Urban Renewal Plan Amendment
North Bay Urban Renewal Plan as Amended
12/05/17 Memo to the BOC

Related Posts:
The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
Coos Bay URA Spends $300,000 on North-South Gateway While Streets Deteriorate
Coos Bay Street Action Plan Open House Thursday, June 8, 2017, 5:30pm
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
CATO Policy Analysis #676 ~ The Case Against Tax-Increment Financing
Public Comment Due BY December 1, 2017 on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the North Bay URA
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension  
PERS Task Force Recommends Exempting School Districts from Urban Renewal
List of Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal Expenditures from 2006 - 2012
LTE ~ Coos Bay Urban Renewal Giving Away Public Assets Paid for by The Public
#CoosBay Urban Renewal Monies Siphoned from Public Basic Services 
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare

The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
 
Sex scandals aside, taxes are the biggest issue on the table right now, which is understandable when most families are spending more on taxes than they do on housing, food, and clothing combined.  Most people think they are paying too much due to the overspending of government, so it makes sense to shrink the budget.
 
There never seems to be enough revenue for education, infrastructure, and public safety, so eliminating the process of tax-increment financing would stop Urban Renewal Agencies from siphoning money from those and other overlapping taxing districts that provide those services. 
 
According to data collected from the “OR Property Tax Annual Statistics FY 2016-2017” found on the Oregon Department of Revenue’s website, there are 77 Urban Renewal Agencies in the state that manage 113 areas/districts.  Those UR agencies received $223.3-million from the “Revenue from Excess,” while others received an additional $21.1-million from special levies totaling $244.4-million that was diverted from other various taxing districts or directly from the taxpayers.  The revenue from property taxes going to Urban Renewal through the TIF process in FY 2009-2010 was $182-million.
 
“Revenue from Excess,” is the property tax revenue generated by increased property values inside the UR area over the frozen increment when the authorities enacted the plan for the district.  Without the TIF process, the other districts that overlap the UR area would retain that money.  
 
Statewide in FY 2016-2017, Public education lost $87.2-million in potential revenue because of urban renewal activity. Cities lost $73.3-million in that same fiscal year, and counties lost $41.5-million, which includes the $28.2-million taken from Multnomah County alone.  Other districts, including Fire Districts, lost $21.3-million. 
 
Those totals do not include the maintenance of the unfunded projects built with the redirected money.  
 
Politicians use urban renewal funding as seed money to create new taxing districts, or they use tax dollars from existing districts to maintain unnecessary projects at the expense of necessary amenities. Those projects include auditoriums, carousels, conservation easements, convention centers, decorations, estuaries, murals, racetracks, swimming pools, sports stadiums, sculptures, street art, and theaters, which take money directly from colleges, roads, schools, police and fire departments.
 
The idea of redevelopment is to increase the assessed values of property surrounding and within the urban renewal area by artificially inflating the local tax base using public money---all to generate new economic activity that most likely would have taken place with or without public incentives.  It just may not have happened in the area desired by the urban renewal planner but in a place chosen by the private business owner, which alleviates the taxpayers of the financial risk. 
 
Some independent studies have found little evidence that municipalities with Urban Renewal Agencies developed any faster than cities without these programs did.  In fact, one study titled “The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development” written in March of 1999 by two professors of economics, Richard F. Dye, and David E. Merriman, it found TIF areas grew slower than areas without it did.  Quote, “If the use of tax increment financing spurs economic development that would not have happened but for the public expenditures, we would expect (after controlling for other growth determinants and for self-selection) a positive relationship between TIF adoption and growth. If the use of tax increment financing merely moves capital around within a municipality, relocating improvements from non-TIF areas of the town to within TIF district borders without changing the productivity of that capital, we would expect (after appropriate controls) to find a zero relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship between TIF adoption and growth. This is consistent with the hypothesis that government subsidies reallocate property improvements in such a way that capital is less productive in its new location.
 
A Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute made the case against urban renewal and tax-increment financing in a policy analysis titled, “The Case against Tax-Increment Financing” by Randal O’Toole.  In the paper, he states, “There are two problems with any attempts to reform TIF. First, no matter how much legislatures may try to focus TIF on genuine examples of blighted neighborhoods, cities will find ways to get around such safeguards. Second, there is little evidence that city gov­ernments are better than private developers at determining the type and location of new development that cities need, and plenty of evidence that they are not as good. Instead of reforming TIF, state legislatures should sim­ply repeal the laws that give cities and coun­ties the authority to use it and similar tools to subsidize economic development.”
 
The politicians intentionally design these types of development schemes to centralize power and money for the utilization of government planners.  Oregon legislators both Democrat and Republican ignore the annual loss of revenue, especially to education, so they can continue the excessiveness of constructing nonessential boondoggles of the future because it benefits the special interest of both parties today.    
 
About the author: 
Rob Taylor is the tentative Chief Petitioner for the “Committee to Shut Down the Coos County URA.”  Go to CoosCountyWatchdog.com for more information.

Related Posts:
Coos Bay URA Spends $300,000 on North-South Gateway While Streets Deteriorate
Coos Bay Street Action Plan Open House Thursday, June 8, 2017, 5:30pm
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
CATO Policy Analysis #676 ~ The Case Against Tax-Increment Financing
Public Comment Due BY December 1, 2017 on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the North Bay URA
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension  
PERS Task Force Recommends Exempting School Districts from Urban Renewal
List of Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal Expenditures from 2006 - 2012
LTE ~ Coos Bay Urban Renewal Giving Away Public Assets Paid for by The Public
#CoosBay Urban Renewal Monies Siphoned from Public Basic Services 
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare

Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency Minutes - September 19, 2017
Approval of Streetscape Construction Bid
Public Works and Community Development Director Jim Hossley stated over the past two years, the Urban Renewal Agency reviewed various ideas and renderings for the Highway 101 streetscape. The goal was to improve the appeal of the Highway 101 streetscape from the south to north city limits. The streetscape improvements would be restricted to Highway 101 right-of way (ROW) and City owned property. Due to funding constraints, efforts on the project focused on the two existing entry monument locations.
 
Based on early cost estimates, staff budgeted $175,000 in this year's Downtown Capital Projects Fund Urban Renewal budget for the streetscape projects at the entry monument locations. After completion of the construction documents, the design consultant estimated the total construction cost to be $225,071. The project was advertised for bid, and the City received one bid from Clean Rivers Erosion Control for a total cost of $249,999. Mr. Hossley noted there was a $75,000 shortfall in the budget relative to the bid price, but there were adequate funds in the Urban Renewal Downtown Capital Projects Fund to cover the bid price plus a contingency.

Urban Renewal Agency Minutes - September 19, 2017 21 
Mr. Hossley advised the proposed bid only covered the streetscape improvements and did not include the two entry signs and rockscaping . The estimated cost for signs was $32,000 and rockscaping was $10,000. Vice-Chair Marler expressed concern about the increased costs for the project.
 
Board Member Groth moved to award contract to Clean Rivers Erosion control for a cost of $249,999 plus a 10% contingency of $25,000 for a total cost of $274,999. Board Member Kilmer seconded the motion which carried. Ayes: Benetti, DiNovo, Farmer, Groth, Kilmer, Marler. Absent: Kramer.