Prop. 1 good for Idaho; Prop. 2 deceives us

To the Editor:

Of all the items confronting votors as they prepare to cast their ballot, possibly none are more confusing than the Propositions. This year there are two. Both are lengthy and complex. They would be almost impossible to understand if their first reading was done in the voting booth. Since these propositions are likely to impact us all, it would be time well spent to examine each one carefully and decide on your "Yes" or "No" vote beforehand. The complete text of both, together with pro and con arguments, appeared in a booklet entitled "Idaho Votes" which you probably received in the mail recently.

Proposition 1 originally called for a 1-percent sales tax increase to be used exclusively for funding of our public schools, but stipulated that if a 1-percent sales tax was passed as part of the state budget, that fund would have to be set aside for public education or raised from other state sources. This is really important because the state budget passed hastily in a special session did not increase school funding but merely shifted funds about. Currently Idaho ranks 45th in the nation in moneys spent on public education and ranks 44th in the percentage of students going on to college.

Proposition 2 would seem to be aimed at protecting us from Eminent Domain abuses. A closer look, however, reveals that a lot more is going on. First, we already have a law on the books that is almost identical in wording to that portion of Proposition 2, rendering it redundant. This popularly supported issue is springing up a part of proposed propositions in a number of states across the country. What they have in common is an additional clause tacked on that has nothing to do with eminent domain and is much more likely to cause controversy. Idaho's Proposition 2 would enable any property owner to claim and collect compensation for restrictions on the use of his property (for example, a gravel pit in a given location). It would not even have to be shown that the project was seriously being planned. This money would be paid by Idaho taxpayers. Further, it would destroy any semblance of land use planning we have now.

We each have to make up our own mind as to how to vote on the two propositions. As for me, I'm voting "Yes" on one, and "No" on two.

Grace Siler

Bonners Ferry