Say yes to the common good

I already had thought that corporate interests were polluting the Oregon political process, before I read this column in the Oregonian.

It hits the nail on the head. We're facing two ballot measures, one to increase tobacco taxes to pay for health care for kids, and one to adjust our land-use system.

I favor tobacco taxes. I favor health care for kids. Linking the two is a little dumb, but since the tobacco companies are pretending that their money is paying for a grass-roots effort, when it's all them, I'm now staunchly in favor of the measure. (I think the good reason for high tobacco taxes is that they reduce demand for tobacco. Make cigarettes expensive, and fewer people smoke, especially teens. This tax has the side effect of reducing its own revenue stream, which makes funding other programs tricky.)

On the land use question, I was unsure at first. Measure 37 was stupid. We gave landholders the right to ignore the law. If a law "reduced property value", government had to pay for the lost value to enforce the law. Even if it's an opportunity cost, like "If I built a hotel in place of my house, I'd make a ton of money, but you won't let me build a hotel." (I favor the inverse of this law - if government action increases the value of your property, you pay the government that increase. Well, I don't like that idea either, but with that symmetry you'd get some justice.)
Measure 49 revises the law, to limit some of the measure 37 excess. It still leaves in place many opportunities for people to use their property however they want, and destroy the common good. I don't like the law now, but I wasn't sure that 49 was an improvement.

Then I found out big logging corporations oppose Measure 49. They wholeheartedly supported 37. They oppose the common good, and want to destroy land-use regulation. I'd like to understand the law more, but it's enough for me to vote for it. If it's against business, it just might be for the common good.