Dear Editor:

Lane County voters in Springfield should ask a basic question before this commissioner race is decided: who is actually protecting regular taxpayers?

Commissioner David Loveall and Mayor Sean Van Gordon may present themselves differently, but both appear comfortable with the same economic development playbook: tax abatements, enterprise zones, and incentives that reduce costs for selected businesses while shifting pressure onto everyone else.

I understand the argument for growth. No community wants to turn away good jobs or investment. But taxpayers deserve to know whether these deals are producing real public benefit, or whether they simply pick winners and losers.

When local governments give up tax revenue, there are consequences. Schools, public safety, roads, and basic services still have to be paid for. If larger businesses receive special treatment, working families, homeowners, renters, small businesses, and seniors are often left carrying more of the load.

That is not fiscal conservatism. It is not limited government. It is government intervention on behalf of the well-connected.

Springfield residents should not be rushed into accepting a narrow choice in May. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, this race moves to a runoff in November. That would give voters more time to demand clear answers about tax breaks, public services, school impacts, and who actually benefits from these deals.

Remember: there is a reason that voters have the right to write in another candidate.

Sometimes the responsible vote is not about picking the perfect candidate. It is about keeping leverage, extending the conversation, and refusing to rubber-stamp a system that has not worked well enough for regular Springfield taxpayers.

I urge voters to write in a candidate because the leading ones do not deserve our votes.

Jim Cupples, Springfield