Submitted by Terry Parker on Sun, 08/26/2007 - 4:18pm.
Roland,
The survey results information I have to go on is what is currently posted at www.portlandonline.com/transportation. You told both JK and myself in a conversation at Sam’s Southeast town hall meeting that you were trying to convince Sam to NOT to ask a direct question on the next survey about if bicyclists should be taxed. You said, “it is Bad public policy”. So just what is bad public policy about directly asking the public what they think? Is it the public might give you an answer that does not align with your agenda? You were also overheard (not your exact words) talking to somebody else that you wanted a tax that would hurt (the pocket books of) drivers, and that was what you were trying to do. So don’t now profess your innocence here. With that kind of attitude, myself or anybody else for that matter, has the right to be totally suspicious of your actions. After all, you might attempt to assure the way questions are designed or asked of the public have a guaranteed programmed response outcome that would meet your personal objective of taxing motorists to death. Now you are saying you will post the full results of the survey to back up your statements. So if you were withholding survey results, what other information are you possibly withholding? And where are you posting the complete “full” results?
As for me calling the process a stacked deck, I have heard a few names, not all of them, of the people that will be reviewing this survey and making recommendations. Is the membership of the Citizen Stakeholder Committee made up of a quantitative representation based mode split? Or is it loaded up and weighted with mostly the streetcar activists, the transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, the pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee thereby echoing your slanted point of view? Is it possibly and remotely a truly objective committee that has a full complement of motorists and commuter motorist representation? The word stakeholder represents someone that pays (in this case transportation taxes) thereby having a financial stake matter. In that bicyclists currently are directly taxed zero for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders pay only an average 21 percent towards the costs of operating the service, how then can these groups genuinely be called stakeholders? They are only on the receiving end, and of course they would like those welfare like specialized infrastructure payments from motorists to keep on rolling in and continue to have what are now called safety improvements to be totally subsidized. Not only is there a tax fairness principal of user pays that was presented at Sam’s previous town hall meetings, but there are also fairness principals that should be employed when forming a citizens committee making them truly a cross section and a reality check everyday life representation of the public.
Sam followed through with his “fair enough” comment to me to add the bicycle tax question to the survey. I truly appreciate that as do many others who wanted the question asked. I thank him for that. What I don’t understand is why you were trying to advise him otherwise. Not only was it bad advice and bias irresponsibility on your part, but it also raises the question if you can be at all trusted to truly represent the public with your actions and one-sided advice to Sam.
Response
Roland,
The survey results information I have to go on is what is currently posted at www.portlandonline.com/transportation. You told both JK and myself in a conversation at Sam’s Southeast town hall meeting that you were trying to convince Sam to NOT to ask a direct question on the next survey about if bicyclists should be taxed. You said, “it is Bad public policy”. So just what is bad public policy about directly asking the public what they think? Is it the public might give you an answer that does not align with your agenda? You were also overheard (not your exact words) talking to somebody else that you wanted a tax that would hurt (the pocket books of) drivers, and that was what you were trying to do. So don’t now profess your innocence here. With that kind of attitude, myself or anybody else for that matter, has the right to be totally suspicious of your actions. After all, you might attempt to assure the way questions are designed or asked of the public have a guaranteed programmed response outcome that would meet your personal objective of taxing motorists to death. Now you are saying you will post the full results of the survey to back up your statements. So if you were withholding survey results, what other information are you possibly withholding? And where are you posting the complete “full” results?
As for me calling the process a stacked deck, I have heard a few names, not all of them, of the people that will be reviewing this survey and making recommendations. Is the membership of the Citizen Stakeholder Committee made up of a quantitative representation based mode split? Or is it loaded up and weighted with mostly the streetcar activists, the transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, the pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee thereby echoing your slanted point of view? Is it possibly and remotely a truly objective committee that has a full complement of motorists and commuter motorist representation? The word stakeholder represents someone that pays (in this case transportation taxes) thereby having a financial stake matter. In that bicyclists currently are directly taxed zero for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders pay only an average 21 percent towards the costs of operating the service, how then can these groups genuinely be called stakeholders? They are only on the receiving end, and of course they would like those welfare like specialized infrastructure payments from motorists to keep on rolling in and continue to have what are now called safety improvements to be totally subsidized. Not only is there a tax fairness principal of user pays that was presented at Sam’s previous town hall meetings, but there are also fairness principals that should be employed when forming a citizens committee making them truly a cross section and a reality check everyday life representation of the public.
Sam followed through with his “fair enough” comment to me to add the bicycle tax question to the survey. I truly appreciate that as do many others who wanted the question asked. I thank him for that. What I don’t understand is why you were trying to advise him otherwise. Not only was it bad advice and bias irresponsibility on your part, but it also raises the question if you can be at all trusted to truly represent the public with your actions and one-sided advice to Sam.