Clobbered everywhere.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Lane County's proposed income tax for public safety fared best in the district of the commissioner who did the most to defeat it. Yet even Peter Sorenson's south Eugene district voted against the income tax on the May 15 ballot. Voters rejected Measure 20-129 countywide, and recently released precinct-by-precinct returns reveal no base for an encore.

The income tax passed in only six of the county's 83 precincts. All six are in the south and central parts of Eugene: the College Hill neighborhood, the areas immediately south and east of the University of Oregon, and downtown. It passed in only one of Eugene's eight City Council wards - Alan Zelenka's Ward 3. The measure didn't come close in any of the other seven - not even in Bonny Bettman's Ward 1 or Betty Taylor's Ward 2, where tax proposals often find their strongest support.

Outside Eugene, the results were uniformly lopsided. Springfield voted no by a 3-to-1 ratio. In Creswell, Elmira, Florence, Junction City and Veneta it was closer to 4-to-1. In Cottage Grove, 79 percent of voters rejected the measure - a rebuke to Faye Stewart, a resident of the city and the commissioner who led the charge for the income tax.

No one is calling for a recount.

Opposition to the income tax crossed the geographic lines that form the contours of Lane County's political landscape. In voting on presidential races, state ballot measures and many local issues, Eugene tends to vote liberal and Democratic. Most of the rest of the county votes conservative and Republican and the swing votes are in Springfield, north Eugene and the River Road-Santa Clara area. But on Measure 20-129, Lane County's polarized electorate found common cause.

People often vote the same way for different reasons. The income tax sank because people of a variety of political hues could find a reason to vote no. Conservatives didn't like the idea of a new tax, or were offended by having to vote on the same type of tax that had been rejected just six months earlier. Liberals didn't like the fact that the tax would be imposed at only one rate rather than on a progressive scale, or would have preferred that the revenue be used for purposes other than public safety. Resentment over the tax treatment of retirement income and the commissioners' initial attempt to enact the tax without a public vote cut across ideological lines.

Beyond that, voters had reason to believe that the county's financial thirst might be quenched by congressional renewal of the program that provides federal funds to counties and schools in timber-dependent areas. The renewal did in fact come shortly after the ballots had been counted. Few voters will remember the May 15 election as an example of a prudent attempt by the commissioners to prepare for the worst. Instead, most will feel vindicated in their belief that the money from the income tax wasn't really needed.

Lane County's budgetary problems have not been solved. Federal funds have been renewed for only one year; the same threat of a cutoff will hang over the county when it begins preparing its next budget. Even with the federal funds, the county's costs are rising faster than its income, resulting in a chronic squeeze.

Politically, the county is poorly prepared to respond to its continuing budget crisis. The May 15 results show no visible constituency for increased county taxes. No such constituency will emerge until substantial numbers of voters become persuaded that new taxes are necessary and fair - right now, the voters are skeptical on both counts.