Ashland Utilities Disfavors Working Poor
by Vanessa Houk


Ashland's utility tax is regressive to the poor. If our community wants to do more to help ease some of the problems low income people face in our community, we should consider abolishing this tax for people living below the federal poverty line.

We live in one of the most beautiful places in Oregon. Tourists are drawn to Ashland not only because of the Shakespeare Festival, but because there is an atmosphere of warmth and creativity here. Many have retired here for the same reasons. We lost our beloved Briscoe School as a direct result of the upsurge in retirees and we will soon see Lincoln Elementary close as well. Families are struggling to stay in this community.

Like many other families, we were affected by 9-11 in an economic sense. Jason had a good paying job, but was laid off and since then he has taken short part-time and seasonal work. Whatever he could get, whether it was climbing on a roof with a construction crew or maintenance work, he has done everything he can to stay actively employed. Both of us have. From paid writing gigs to cleaning a local art gallery and library, small bits of money trickle in. We battle to try and stay current on rent and utilities, but I look at it as a learning experience. Poverty 101, if you will. It's taught me a lot about human kindness, but also about greed.

We hear a lot about Ashland's commitment to low income housing, and our collective commitment to families like mine and while I am grateful for that, I have to say that in this dialog we are ignoring a larger problem. Ashland public utilities collects a 25% tax, the Electric User's Tax, which is overly burdensome to low income residents. For middle and upper income people, this tax does not amount to much, but for families like mine, this tax is a hardship. The cities own web site says it needs this money in order to support "city services", although there is no further explanation. I'm sure it is an important part of the cities 2004-2005, 94 million dollar budget (which, by the way can be found online-- all 422 pages of it), but I am at a loss as to why this needs to be at the duress of the elderly and working poor?

One of the promises that is listed in Ashland's "goals", is that "the city will strive to provide resources and services to meet basic human needs," but while we are collecting this tax from people who are living below the federal poverty level, we are failing to keep that promise. Access to electricity is a basic human necessity. Let's keep the lights on for low income residents and keep our commitment to a more affordable Ashland by ending this regressive tax.