JK said: “Sorry Sam, the ruling was NOT about the domestic partnership law; it was about initiative petition rules. Are you seriously saying that Portland should oppose restoring people’s right to initiative petition?...”

Sam, strictly in context of what Jim said, are you seriously going to spend City taxpayer dollars to oppose not only the people’s right to initiative petition, but also freedom of speech like it or not, especially when this is a statewide issue rather than a city issue? Instead the City Attorney could better utilize his time by sticking to City business looking into why “age” is absent from the language in City of Portland anti-discrimination policies; and then recommend an update to include age in those policies.

You say you want basic fairness to all Portlanders and Oregonians in this arena, but then use your transport pulpit to discriminate against motorists when proposing transportation taxes that promote extreme motor vehicle user fees (often economically regressive to small businesses and used to subsidize other modes of travel) as a socialistic means to dictate how people should travel. Maybe the City Attorney can be used equalize transport user fees, fight off and directly tax/license all the freeloading of out-of-town bicyclists that have been locating here and are not paying transportation taxes for the costly specialized infrastructure they use and want expanded. The latter would also include an equality requirement eliminating the discrimination for any mode related discounts that you suggest be applied to proposed residential street maintenance fees. Furthermore, maybe the City Attorney can also be used to insure/guarantee there are no more transportation related stacked deck citizen committees that have been arranged with back room politics instead requiring and mandating a cross section of citizens in numbers that are a “quantitative representation” of actual mode of transport split. And then maybe the City Attorney can stop the proliferation of red light cameras that discriminate against motorists because they currently can not be triggered by bicycles, or even identify a bicyclist if they could be triggered when a bicyclist blows through against the same red light.