Another reason Measures 66 and 67 are good for Oregon farmers

Reflecting on one bill that died in the 2009 Oregon Legislative Session gives more fuel to the YES fire

In the ongoing battle to pass Ballot Measures 66 and 67, the corporate campaign pushing a No vote has used small and family farms as the poster children for their opposition to the measures. But this has proven to be just more misinformation from the corporate lobbyists running the opposition. It has been almost too easy to expose these manipulations for what they are. Even farmers themselves are speaking out in support of these measures.

Numbers compiled from the Oregon Department of Agriculture show that the vast majority of Oregon farms –more than 85 percent—are sole proprietorships, so they would pay absolutely nothing under Measure 67. Most of the remaining 15% are partnerships, S-corps, or C-corps with less than $500,000 in sales, so they would pay only $150.

Maybe it goes without saying that the more severe the fiscal crisis, the harder it is to be proactive or to be innovative. A perfect example of this is a bill—that would have been great for farmers—that died in the 2009 Legislative Session. House Bill 2800 would have put food from Oregon farms on the school-lunch plates of Oregon’s kids. The program could have generated $100 million in economic development and hundreds of local jobs, with just a $22 million investment.  Further, once passed, it would have received federal matching dollars.

But that small investment—at a time when Oregon lawmakers were grappling with the $4 billion budget shortfall—ended up on the chopping block, missing a huge opportunity for rural economic development that would help ensure that farms—and farmland—survive here.

The facts are clear: Unless the state gets out of its current fiscal crisis, innovative, forward-thinking programs that could help protect our family farms and family farmers will not see the light of day. Yet the No campaign argues that these measures are bad for farmers? It just doesn’t make sense.

OLCV worked to pass Measure 49, which protects Oregon’s farmland and wild places from the damage of unruly development.

Now, OLCV is working to pass Measures 66 and 67 because we know that programs that protect our air, water and forests face potential cuts without them; because a giant hole in the budget threatens the environmental safeguards we already have in place; and because we need to be able to invest in our local economy and in Oregon’s farms—the way that HB 2800 would have.