Used to live in Oregon... it's hard to really pin the blame on anyone, here. Politicians are voted in and out of office and ballot measures are passed mostly based on issues with short-term visibility. In the heyday of the timber industry it was hard to justify more cautious and measured approaches to growth, and easier to fund projects with bonds based on projections of property tax growth that turned out to be optimistic.

There is a bit of an anti-tax fervor in Oregon, I wouldn't claim that it's unique or special compared to other parts of the country but it exists. Oregon passed a "kicker" which makes it so any state revenue surplus gets refunded to the taxpayers. This makes it basically impossible for the state to save any tax revenue surplus, so budget shortfalls can mean immediate reductions in service and infrastructure projects are paid for with future obligations. This is really nothing more than leverage (and extra risk exposure) on a state scale... when the economy does well you get money back from the state, when the economy does poorly you get service cuts. It's easy to see both sides of this issue... it's easy to see why it got passed (I overpaid taxes, so give me the money back!) and it's easy to see why it's a bad idea.

This is an unintended side effect of the way the political process works in Oregon. The ballot initiatives in Oregon (called the "Oregon system" even though South Dakota did it first) were a big force for progress in the early 20th century (e.g. women's suffrage in 1912) but ballot initiatives seem to really suck at making any kind of coherent or sensible fiscal policy. And that leads to today, with rural Oregon paying the price for decades of mediocre fiscal policy, once propped up on timber profits but not anymore.

I'm really glad we have the initiative system but I'm also glad it's limited in scope and power. I can vote on whether marijuana should be legal but I can't vote to change the Fed's target rate.