Why I Changed My Mind

In mid-March, forced by a serious bout of pneumonia to spend quiet time at home, I was able to more closely examine budget and other documents and to reassess my advocacy for the proposed city service fee. After much calm reflection, I concluded that I personally, and council majority collectively, had made a mistake in focusing solely on the “revenue-raising” option as the preferred strategy to address the projected General Fund imbalance.

Council first learned details of the fee proposal at the Dec. 10 work session. Had council been informed of the fee idea in July when the Strategic Research Institute first polled likely voters to test their support of a city service fee, we would have had several months to examine the idea and to explore other remedies to the budget problem.

As I looked at the issue more deeply, I realized that my initial support was based on several false premises:

The idea that the only solution to the budget imbalance is to raise revenue via a city service fee is false. There are other choices, and the full Budget Committee will closely examine them if the ballot measure fails.

The notion that there is simply no money left to fund the “threatened” services is false. A partial list of places to look for re-prioritization of spending would include:

• Recent history of departmental end-of-year fund balances

• The city’s share of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District fund balance and ongoing yearly diversion of tax receipts from the General Fund

• Money currently spent on neighborhood and citywide “visioning” and “economic development” projects

• The reserve for revenue shortfall fund balance

If the measure fails, the manager, council and staff will be forced to re-examine how the city prioritizes General Fund spending and to initiate a fundamental restructuring.

If the measure passes, it will be viewed as a validation of current practices, and the manager, council and staff will see no reason to make a deep structural change. This is why I’m opposing the fee. — George Brown

A Note From the Publisher

Dear Readers,

The last two years have been some of the hardest in Eugene Weekly’s 43 years. There were moments when keeping the paper alive felt uncertain. And yet, here we are — still publishing, still investigating, still showing up every week.

That’s because of you!

Not just because of financial support (though that matters enormously), but because of the emails, notes, conversations, encouragement and ideas you shared along the way. You reminded us why this paper exists and who it’s for.

Listening to readers has always been at the heart of Eugene Weekly. This year, that meant launching our popular weekly Activist Alert column, after many of you told us there was no single, reliable place to find information about rallies, meetings and ways to get involved. You asked. We responded.

We’ve also continued to deepen the coverage that sets Eugene Weekly apart, including our in-depth reporting on local real estate development through Bricks & Mortar — digging into what’s being built, who’s behind it and how those decisions shape our community.

And, of course, we’ve continued to bring you the stories and features many of you depend on: investigations and local government reporting, arts and culture coverage, sudoku and crossword puzzles, Savage Love, and our extensive community events calendar. We feature award-winning stories by University of Oregon student reporters getting real world journalism experience. All free. In print and online.

None of this happens by accident. It happens because readers step up and say: this matters.

As we head into a new year, please consider supporting Eugene Weekly if you’re able. Every dollar helps keep us digging, questioning, celebrating — and yes, occasionally annoying exactly the right people. We consider that a public service.

Thank you for standing with us!