Regarding the Springfield City Council’s approval of a local payroll tax, I’m wondering if the council reviewed some of the local tax history before making its decision?

Did the councilors, for example, consider what happened when the city of Salem imposed a payroll tax in 2023 without first consulting the electorate? The citizens forced a referendum. The tax was hammered by a 4-to-1 margin in the subsequent vote.

Then there was the Lane County payroll tax that was rejected by voters in November 2006. Four months later, against my advice and that of a number of others, the county commission imposed the tax anyway. Some local political heavy hitters told the commissioners to grow a backbone and ignore our warning that the move would blow up in their faces.

And that’s what the commission did. In just one weekend, our team gathered more than enough signatures to force a referendum. It was voter anger at being ignored, not so much the tax itself, that sent the measure down in flames.

At the state level, we had Measure 28 in 2003, followed by Measure 30 in 2004. Same story, same ending. I also assume the city councilors heard the massive thunderclap against new transportation taxes in the May 19 election.

With the state, counties, cities and special districts tacking on payroll or income tax surcharges and bond measures, a little here, a little there, it starts to add up. I live just outside the city boundary but as a consultant I’ll be affected as will my clients when I do business with Springfield entities.

I don’t feel the city’s request is excessive, and I believe many would support it if it’s put to a vote — which I’ll respectfully and strongly suggest that the council do if it wants to avoid a fight it doesn’t need. The city needs to make its case and let its voters decide.

Jerry Ritter
Springfield