On April 30, I read the "As I See It" piece, "The Other Side of the Levy Pitch," in the Gazette-Times. It helped me see that proponents of many costly issues in Corvallis are well-organized, well-funded, do long-term planning and preparation and bombard the public with their position. In summary, they run a very effective campaign and take advantage of the public's good will and lack of time to thoroughly review issues.
Opponents on the other hand, are generally unorganized, everyday citizens who either are worried or angered about how they will be able to continue to afford the often double-digit annual increases in city, school district and county budgets, not to mention levies and bonds that don't "really" expire like they are supposed to. These are often people who might get a 2% annual increase in their wages or Social Security check (if they are lucky) and wonder why the government that represents them can spend so much more each year. Is the definition of a sustainable budget one in which you just keep increasing costs to the taxpayers instead of routinely examining what expenditures are not providing a substantial benefit to the greatest number of citizens and eliminating them? There is an affinity for adding more staff and expanding programs each year instead.
Citizens, take notice that you are often bombarded with one side of an issue and that those promoting it are not impartial. Seek out "the other side of the levy pitch."
Corvallis (May 3)