Revisiting Relief, Recovery and Reform

      Relief, recovery, and reform, championed during the New Deal, comprise a time-tested formula to lead Curry and Josephine counties out of the fiscal wilderness. Punishing the citizens is counter-productive and ultimately beside the point.  Members of the Oregon congress have alluded to the Appalachianization of Southern Oregon.  And there seems to be tacit agreement that it’s pretty hard to ask people to raise their own taxes when they don’t have jobs.

            There are proposals working their way through the legislature that would provide for a state takeover of certain local government functions including a "public safety fiscal emergency" compact with counties to help fund local services.  These are certainly reasonable and humane measures in light of the seriousness of the problem.

            Providing relief does not solve the problem.  The economic rug was pulled out from under the region – well, OK:  It was slowly and steadily dragged out from under them over a period of years as revenues from the timber industry evaporated.  There is plenty of room for criticism of the inadequate local response to that challenge over time.  But that does not change the challenge that remains. 

            Not that finger-pointing is pointless: the long-term arc of this story – how we got here – must be understood if we are going to make sure it never sneaks up on us again.  That is the gist of reform.

In the meantime, if certain resources that once were mainstays of the local economy are now unavailable, new resources must be developed.  Economic development is a familiar strategy for regional economic recovery.  It provides infrastructure and jobs.  It is the role of the state and federal government to provide the programs and the investment to pull that off.