Narrow nod to Johnston for county's Position 1

Who should serve the next four years in Position 1 on the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners is a tough call for us.

Incumbent Kit Johnston has, during the last two years, given us a large measure of relief from the strident cultural-issues grandstanding of the Lindsay Berschauer/Mary Starrett tandem. And the imminent departure of Starrett from Position 3, dictated by term limits, should dampen prospects for any near-term resumption.

Johnston followed his family into farming immediately after graduating from Dayton High. He’s most recently been engaged notably in licensed marijuana growing and retailing.

Though he voted with them often, and shares much of their allegiance to conservative Republican causes, he displayed little inclination to join in their costly disruptions and has shown none since. To be fair, they would no doubt have pressed their grievances to equally damaging effect without him.

Johnston is a sound listener, hard worker and dedicated networker. He was elected on the strength of three generations of rural farm roots, and has quietly added a network of connections with the county’s urban enclaves during his four years in office.

We also give him credit for helping acquire new county office quarters downtown without resorting to a bond, thus promising to gradually restore a high-value neighborhood where the county had been turning houses into offices for many years. And we applaud his commitment to expanding and enhancing the county park system, in part by developing badly needed and revenue-producing overnight camping opportunities, though precious little progress has been made to date.

We disagree with Johnston on the major issues in the current campaign — the fate of the Yamhelas Westsider Trail corridor, dismissal of the county’s professional grant writer and economic development team (SEDCOR), and opposition to a county transient lodging tax.

We view the 17-mile rail-to-trail corridor as a unique asset of almost incalculable value — certainly running into the tens of millions, but only as long as it remains intact and publicly owned.

In our analysis, the commissioners killed it not because there was no answer to how to pass the farm impacts test, because it seemed close to doing just that. Claims the trail would disrupt farming, attract hordes of homeless and entice development of a light rail line are specious, and baked into Berschauer’s unsubstantiated claims that Metro wants to take over Yamhill County.

The county demands professional aid to secure return of its rightful share of state and federal taxes paid by constituents and recruit the kind of industry delivering family-wage jobs.

Joining 16 other Oregon counties in enacting a lodging tax is actually a form of local tax relief. It serves to lighten the burden of providing costly tourism services and infrastructure for local residents who pay the same tax for the same reason almost everywhere else they go — other counties, states and nations around the globe.

How did lodging tax opposition become such a Republican cause célèbre here when equally rural and conservative Baker, Grant, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Polk, Union and Wallowa counties all signed on long ago?

Challenger John Linder, an accountant and investment manager, has impressive educational credentials and high-level banking, finance and investment experience.

He earned a bachelor’s in economics from Middlebury College and master’s in accounting from the University of North Carolina — along with CPA and CFA professional certifications — on his way to a career in finance. He has public finance experience through service on the McMinnville School District Budget Committee.

He’s a strong advocate for the trail, professional grant writing aid, SEDCOR and a TLT to help support the county’s badly underdeveloped and underfunded park system. He’s also articulate, deep-thinking and high-energy.

If this were an election for school board, city council, the Legislature or some sort of state post, Linder’s high-powered credentials and extensive track record in finance and investment could carry the day.

But the county is a uniquely rural entity — and Johnston seems a fit better than his urban counterpart. He has amassed four years of practical experience, during which he’s been a regular at most city council meetings and aided in finding solutions to what ails our smaller communities.

The trail issue triggered Linder’s late entry into the race. He had little record of county involvement prior to that.

While we feel deeply that the trail option demands protection, Position 2 is held by a trail defender not up this year and another is mounting a strong campaign for the Position 3 seat being vacated by Starrett. In addition, petitions are currently circulating to appeal removal of the trail from the county transportation plan, force a public vote on that action and preserve public use of the corridor.

One of Linder’s key campaign promises is to represent all county residents, be they urban or rural.

We’re big advocates for that, but feel Johnston may actually be better positioned to develop meaningful urban connections than Linder to surpass the strong rural partnerships Johnston already has.

If we haven’t already made it abundantly clear, we believe a reasonable case can be made for either of these candidates, and that many voters will strike a different balance upon weighing their own set of pros and cons. That’s why elections are decided by voters, not newspaper editorialists.

In a theoretical world where editorial boards had a ballot, we’d mark Johnston’s box. Where yours goes is up to you, and we would have it no other way.