Another Lame Levy
#1
So now the Josephine county wants another law enforcement levy. But who does it benefit? It means that Grants Pass won't have to pay for renting jail space because of their high crime rate. Now county residents will pay for their jail space. The levy also includes money for the Juvenile Detention center. But there will be no money for additional patrols. Of course Grants Pass has a well staffed police dept while county residents rely on Sheriff patrols or OHP. Maybe G.P. residents consider a Juvenile  Detention center a priority but when it can take hours, if ever, for a Sheriff deputy to respond to a call for help then I  would argue for a different set of priorities. There is no 24/7 patrols in Josephine county and crimes don't get handled because they're "beyond available resources". So we should pay for a Juvenile Detention Center but not address Sheriff patrols ?  GET REAL !!!
Reply
#2
(03-03-2017, 05:30 PM)lonerock Wrote: So now the Josephine county wants another law enforcement levy. But who does it benefit? It means that Grants Pass won't have to pay for renting jail space because of their high crime rate. Now county residents will pay for their jail space. The levy also includes money for the Juvenile Detention center. But there will be no money for additional patrols. Of course Grants Pass has a well staffed police dept while county residents rely on Sheriff patrols or OHP. Maybe G.P. residents consider a Juvenile  Detention center a priority but when it can take hours, if ever, for a Sheriff deputy to respond to a call for help then I  would argue for a different set of priorities. There is no 24/7 patrols in Josephine county and crimes don't get handled because they're "beyond available resources". So we should pay for a Juvenile Detention Center but not address Sheriff patrols ?  GET REAL !!!

And there are other money levies which is going to seal its fate,  library, animal control, and I think a school bond. Pretty stupid to make that many money asks on one ballot.
Reply
#3
One more thing, people want patrols so this one will join the others in defeat. They can't get a levy right to save their ass.
Reply
#4
That's a tough one. What comes first the catching or the holding?   Dry 

Normally I don't comment too much on Joco's lawlessness cause I don't live there. Trouble is the criminally inclined don't much care about county boundries and such.
Reply
#5
Why don't they have the inmates grow pot, they can sell that to the dispensaries and use the money to fund the Sheriffs Office.
With the additional money they could arrest and house more inmates. This would lead to a bigger garden and more pot, more money.
This might be unstoppable, we could all end up in jail.
Reply
#6
(03-03-2017, 06:16 PM)Cuzz Wrote: That's a tough one. What comes first the catching or the holding?   Dry 

Normally I don't comment too much on Joco's lawlessness cause I don't live there. Trouble is the criminally inclined don't much care about county boundries and such.

People want response. There is more to policing then just locking people up.  If someone calls 911 they want a response, it may have nothing to do with someone going to jail.
Reply
#7
I just looked at some homes in Cave Junction to see what the property tax was. Homes down there in the $300,000's pay about $1,000 less a year than up here. You get what you pay for.
Reply
#8
(03-03-2017, 06:56 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(03-03-2017, 06:16 PM)Cuzz Wrote: That's a tough one. What comes first the catching or the holding?   Dry 

Normally I don't comment too much on Joco's lawlessness cause I don't live there. Trouble is the criminally inclined don't much care about county boundries and such.

People want response. There is more to policing then just locking people up.  If someone calls 911 they want a response, it may have nothing to do with someone going to jail.

If you're not going to arrest someone do you need a police officer to respond? Never mind, that's rhetorical. I couldn't imagine being an officer knowing that I could only write a ticket that wouldn't be payed anyway, for any offense. That would be huge frustration and I'd look for a new job pretty quickly.

Luckily I have a more compatible job for my disposition.   Razz
Reply
#9
It's about jails and patrols. I would be willing to pay for both if the 93 cents per $1000 were divided for both purposes but ignoring patrols for a Juvenile detention center is just crazy.

Thank goodness we don't have the crime rate of Jackson county or we would need an army of deputies. Most of the crime occurs in Grants Pass or Medford which is like other good sized cities where the crime rate grows with the population.
Reply
#10
(03-03-2017, 11:09 PM)lonerock Wrote: It's about jails and patrols. I would be willing to pay for both if the 93 cents per $1000 were divided for both purposes but ignoring patrols for a Juvenile  detention center is just crazy.

Thank goodness we don't have the crime rate of Jackson county or we would need an army of deputies. Most of the crime occurs in Grants Pass  or Medford which is like other good sized cities where the crime rate grows with the population.

Grants Pass is a city, with city police and space in the jail.
They have city property taxes to pay for it.

So, if most of the crime is in the city, why should us non city folk pay more property taxes?

I can buy a lot of guns and bullets for the amount the levy wants to charge me.
That is why the crime rate is lower, we just shoot tweakers and feed them to the hogs.
Reply
#11
It is my understanding that the levy of $.93 for the jail etc. will remove the current operating funds from the general fund, allowing the sheriff to keep and /or add patrol deputies. With jail funding coming from the levy.

I would like to know the pers burden being paid from the general fund and potiental levy funds. Commissioner Morgan has been on facebook and met with people in person to discuss the levy.

For me it is all in the final wording of the measure
Reply
#12
(03-04-2017, 10:50 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: It is my understanding that the levy of $.93 for the jail etc. will remove the current operating funds from the general fund, allowing the sheriff to keep and /or add patrol deputies. With jail funding coming from the levy.

I would like to know the pers burden being paid from the general fund and potiental levy funds. Commissioner Morgan has been on facebook and met with people in person to discuss the levy.

For me it is all in the final wording of the measure

I tried to email Morgan about my concerns and she said she would email me back but never did,

I've read the text of the proposed levy and nowhere is it mentioned that the levy will impact the number of patrols. I've heard this claim before from the sheriff and others but I  would prefer to rely on the information actually contained in the levy proposal and it says the money is to be used strickly for the jail and juvenile detention center and there is no mention about patrols. Go to the county's election  website (under local races and measures) and read the proposal.

Again, the Juvenile  Detention center should not be given priority over patrols when peoples lives are at stake.
Reply
#13
Just curious, how's the Sheriff Daniel working out? Improvement over Gill?
Reply
#14
(03-04-2017, 11:47 AM)Valuesize Wrote: Just curious, how's the Sheriff Daniel working out? Improvement over Gill?

Daniel seems better than Gil by a long shot.

In reference to your earlier remarks about property tax mine run over $9 per $1000 where I live in Josephine county. This may not be the highest rate in Oregon and I 'm sure others in the state are paying more than you do. So what? If this is some kind of competition to see who pays the highest rate then I would be happy to be on the losing end of that contest. Those with the higher rates usually have the greater problems, such as high crime rates, requiring more $$$.
Reply
#15
(03-04-2017, 11:32 AM)lonerock Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 10:50 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: It is my understanding that the levy of $.93 for the jail etc. will remove the current operating funds from the general fund, allowing the sheriff to keep and /or add patrol deputies. With jail funding coming from the levy.

I would like to know the pers burden being paid from the general fund and potiental levy funds. Commissioner Morgan has been on facebook and met with people in person to discuss the levy.

For me it is all in the final wording of the measure

I tried to email Morgan about my concerns and she said she would email me back but never did,

I've read the text of the proposed levy and nowhere is it mentioned that the levy will impact the number of patrols. I've heard this claim before from the sheriff and others but I  would prefer to rely on the information actually contained in the levy proposal and it says the money is to be used strickly for the jail and juvenile detention center and there is no mention about patrols. Go to the county's election  website (under local races and measures) and read the proposal.

Again, the Juvenile  Detention center should not be given priority over patrols when peoples lives are at stake.

If what I read is  the full text of the levy then there is no way I would vote for it. If it is an authorization to write a proposed levy , I want to see the full text of the levy. If you are a facebook person she has been on the jo co scanner chat and answered some questions there.

Law enforcement by it's very nature is reactive. If we can keep the little shits caged we might be slightly safer. We don't seem to have trouble catching them just keeping them off the streets.
Reply
#16
(03-04-2017, 02:36 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 11:32 AM)lonerock Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 10:50 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: It is my understanding that the levy of $.93 for the jail etc. will remove the current operating funds from the general fund, allowing the sheriff to keep and /or add patrol deputies. With jail funding coming from the levy.

I would like to know the pers burden being paid from the general fund and potiental levy funds. Commissioner Morgan has been on facebook and met with people in person to discuss the levy.

For me it is all in the final wording of the measure

I tried to email Morgan about my concerns and she said she would email me back but never did,

I've read the text of the proposed levy and nowhere is it mentioned that the levy will impact the number of patrols. I've heard this claim before from the sheriff and others but I  would prefer to rely on the information actually contained in the levy proposal and it says the money is to be used strickly for the jail and juvenile detention center and there is no mention about patrols. Go to the county's election  website (under local races and measures) and read the proposal.

Again, the Juvenile  Detention center should not be given priority over patrols when peoples lives are at stake.

If what I read is  the full text of the levy then there is no way I would vote for it. If it is an authorization to write a proposed levy , I want to see the full text of the levy. If you are a facebook person she has been on the jo co scanner chat and answered some questions there.

Law enforcement by it's very nature is reactive. If we can keep the little shits caged we might be slightly safer. We don't seem to have trouble catching them just keeping them off the streets.

If you read the text of the levy measure on the county website then yes, that's the full text for the measure as will be provided to voters. I again suggest you rely on the measure as written rather than what someone says or promises. Outside of Grants Pass the issue is about patrols. First you have to be able to catch the criminals before you can jail them and right now with the lack of patrols that's a real problem. Patrols and jail space are  equally important and  with a Juvenile  detention center taking a back seat until the other two issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

One of these days someone will write a thorough levy that will address the above critical needs and make it affordable so people will actually vote for it. The 93 cents is reasonable but unfortunately misdirected. Until then I 'm voting no on this levy.
Reply
#17
(03-04-2017, 12:08 PM)lonerock Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 11:47 AM)Valuesize Wrote: Just curious, how's the Sheriff Daniel working out? Improvement over Gill?

Daniel seems better than Gil by a long shot.

In reference to your earlier remarks about property tax mine run over  $9 per $1000 where I  live in Josephine county. This may not be the highest rate in Oregon and I 'm sure others in the state are paying more than you do. So what? If this is some kind of competition to see who pays the highest rate then I would be happy to be on the losing end of that contest. Those with the higher rates usually have the greater problems, such as high crime rates, requiring more $$$.

If you want more services you need to pay for them. I gladly pay $1000 a year more to have the services I do. That's why I said "You get what you pay for."
Reply
#18
(03-04-2017, 04:17 PM)lonerock Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 02:36 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 11:32 AM)lonerock Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 10:50 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: It is my understanding that the levy of $.93 for the jail etc. will remove the current operating funds from the general fund, allowing the sheriff to keep and /or add patrol deputies. With jail funding coming from the levy.

I would like to know the pers burden being paid from the general fund and potiental levy funds. Commissioner Morgan has been on facebook and met with people in person to discuss the levy.

For me it is all in the final wording of the measure

I tried to email Morgan about my concerns and she said she would email me back but never did,

I've read the text of the proposed levy and nowhere is it mentioned that the levy will impact the number of patrols. I've heard this claim before from the sheriff and others but I  would prefer to rely on the information actually contained in the levy proposal and it says the money is to be used strickly for the jail and juvenile detention center and there is no mention about patrols. Go to the county's election  website (under local races and measures) and read the proposal.

Again, the Juvenile  Detention center should not be given priority over patrols when peoples lives are at stake.

If what I read is  the full text of the levy then there is no way I would vote for it. If it is an authorization to write a proposed levy , I want to see the full text of the levy. If you are a facebook person she has been on the jo co scanner chat and answered some questions there.

Law enforcement by it's very nature is reactive. If we can keep the little shits caged we might be slightly safer. We don't seem to have trouble catching them just keeping them off the streets.

If you read the text of the levy measure on the county website then yes, that's the full text for the measure as will be provided to voters. I again suggest you rely on the measure as written rather than what someone says or promises. Outside of Grants Pass the issue is about patrols. First you have to be able to catch the criminals before you can jail them and right now with the lack of patrols that's a real problem. Patrols and jail space are  equally important and  with a Juvenile  detention center taking a back seat until the other two issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

One of these days someone will write a thorough levy that will address the above critical needs and make it affordable so people will actually vote for it. The 93 cents is reasonable but unfortunately misdirected. Until then I 'm voting no on this levy.
I have no intention of giving them a blank check. If what I read on the SO postings they are doing a good job with what they have (money wise) on providing service. If memory serves correctly patrol is not one of the state mandated services of the sheriff. They have to maintain a jail and some other functions.
Between SO and OSP a lot of the criminals are caught. Then cited and released.
If the levy fails : (IMO) I look for them to cut patrol entirely past practice, is the best indicator of future actions.

My feelings on the levy are the same as yours. Unless it is in black and white on the measure, I will vote no. Don't trust 'em. to do the right thing
Reply
#19
We currently pay the county .75 per 1000, That is for the county, Grants Pass pays Over $6 per 1000. But that pays for fire and GPPD, (and over paid city employees). Also space at the jail.

Do we really need to increase the county tax by more than double?

Remember City residents pay the county tax on top of their city tax, they don't get out of a county levy.

They also have the higher assess values and will carry most of the revenue.

If they structured the levy tax on a per acre amount rather than a per value. The smaller lots in the city would pay very little. The larger population of voters would suffer little. The larger land owners, who are fewer in numbers, would be forced to pay the highest amounts.
Reply
#20
(03-04-2017, 05:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: We currently pay the county .75 per 1000, That is for the county, Grants Pass pays Over $6 per 1000. But that pays for fire and GPPD, (and over paid city employees). Also space at the jail.

Do we really need to increase the county tax by more than double?

Remember City residents pay the county tax on top of their city tax, they don't get out of a county levy.

They also have the higher assess values and will carry most of the revenue.

If they structured the levy tax on a per acre amount rather than a per value. The smaller lots in the city would pay very little. The larger population of voters would suffer little. The larger land owners, who are fewer in numbers, would be forced to pay the highest amounts.

Interesting concept but size of acreage is not a great indicator of how much money people have. A large apartment complex on small acreage could end up paying far less than someone on a larger rural piece of land, even though they may be below the federal poverty level.

If i were to change the system I  would charge all property owners a flat rate of lets say $300. If more money was needed to operate the government then there would be a county income tax. The tax rate would be on a sliding scale sort of like the feds use. Those below the fed poverty level would pay nothing beyond the flat rate and it would go up from there depending on income. Right now any tax measure is always pitting the "haves"versus the "have nots" and this is why they often fail - in addition to a general and sometimes reasonable mistrust of government.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)