Introduction
When Colene Martin was appointed to the Josephine County Board of Commissioners, the hope was for steady leadership. But a look at her voting record shows a troubling trend: a consistent push for bigger government, new county positions, and higher service fees. While expanding county programs might sound good in a meeting room, it comes with a real-world price tag one that’s falling squarely on the shoulders of local taxpayers, especially our seniors living on fixed incomes.
Here is what this tax-and-spend approach means for our community:
- Death by a thousand cuts: From waste-related charges to daily service fees, the cost of just getting by in Josephine County is ticking up. For retirees on a budget, these aren’t abstract policy decisions; they are real dollars taken out of a strict monthly budget.
- Government only grows in one direction: Commissioner Martin has repeatedly backed adding new personnel and expanding county offices. The problem with government jobs is that they don’t just disappear when times get tough. Once you put them in the baseline budget, local taxpayers are on the hook to fund them year after year.
- The constant push for more funding: Voting in favor of levies and new revenue measures tells us everything we need to know about her fiscal philosophy. Instead of tightening the county’s belt, the solution always seems to be asking hard-working residents to tighten theirs.
- Driving up the cost of living: You can’t raise fees and expand government footprint without impacting the broader local economy. It creates an upward pressure that makes housing, local services, and overall life in the county less affordable for everyone.
- Supported Homeless Emergency Funding: Commissioner Martin publicly expressed disappointment when Josephine County initially declined state emergency funding to address homelessness, explicitly calling the issue a crisis that requires coordinated government intervention. Conversely, critics argue against accepting such state funds, expressing concern that state-level funding introduces unwanted regulatory strings and expands public spending programs unnecessarily.
Summary
At the end of the day, this comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy. Commissioner Martin seems to believe that a bigger county government with more programs is always better, even if it requires higher fees and more public funding to keep the lights on.
But many of us believe in a limited-government approach one that prioritizes cutting waste, controlling growth, and protecting the pockets of the people who actually live and work here. We need fiscal discipline at the county level, not a blank check. We have a choice come November, a proven tax and spend (Colene Martin) or a proven fiscal conservative (John West).
