Submitted by Terry Parker on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:44am.
“Why worry about this? The opponents have made clear they will use all available options to prevent the Safe, Sound and Green proposal from being implemented.”
Sam, you keep saying there is wide spread community support for this proposal. Either that is a misrepresentation or obviously there is NOT the support you suggest for this back room arranged money laundering scheme - otherwise there would be nothing to worry about.
The original premise was for a Street Maintenance Fee to fix, repair and maintain existing street and road infrastructure, NOT the bloated proposal presented at the 20 plus Town Hall meetings that would further subsidize the freeloading pedal pushers. By the time the plan actually reached the City Council and the public hearing process, the swindle had grown even larger, stuffed with a more bias socialistic agenda and extended to 15 years by the hand picked stacked deck 89 member stakeholder committee. The public hearing was a farce in that a parade of invited supporters, all of whom were involved in the decision making process, took up almost two hours of public testimony time. Then to make matters worse, the public was discriminately treated like second class citizens when the mayor, with no objections from any other council member, reduced the testimony time for each testifier from the usual three minutes to a two minute mini sound bite thereby making the entire hearing process a railroad job sham.
“Supporters are of mixed minds on how to respond to this issue. Some feel strongly that we must eliminate any vulnerability to legal challenge...Other supporters are concerned that the possibility of three separate ordinances on the ballot will allow opponents to "cherry pick" for defeat the ordinance that affects them, leaving some payer groups paying and others exempt - not an equitable result.”
Sam, you still do not get it. To get public support you first must listen to the public, NOT just your inner circle of bicycle, streetcar and anti-car buddies. This whole program has been become a SCAM to pay for bicycle infrastructure on the backs of non-bicyclists so the status quo exemption of allowing bicyclists to poach funds for specialized infrastructure from other taxpayers can unjustly continue. Any suggestion of bicyclists paying their own way with a bicycle tax was stifled, and kept off the table without any reality check or public discussion. At the public hearing in Council Chambers there was more than one call for eliminating the part of the residential discount program based on the vehicle mode used to make trips. That blew over your head like a bicyclist blowing through a red light or stop sign. Quit dictating bicycle babble and the streetcar oratory and start listening with outreach to the silent majority that vote everyday by driving their motor vehicles.
Personally I am all in favor challenging this prejudice rhetoric filed proposal that is now on the table. It is bias discrimination, totally lacks equity and only accelerates the headwinds of the forthcoming recession. Furthermore, the people of Portland are tapped out, already over taxed paying for subsidies to fund the arts and other elitist programs. Bicyclist ought to be the only ones paying for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders in addition to paying fares that better reflect the costs of providing the service, ought to be directly charged for the damage busses do to the roads. What is needed is a bicycle tax that only bicyclists pay and a road fund surcharge on transit fares. Motorists and motor freight carriers already pay for roads through the gas tax and the weight mile tax, but should not be subsidizing other modes too.
If you want my suggestion, you probably don’t, send your proposal out to a vote of the people. Then when it fails, take the proposal back to it’s roots and develop a street maintenance only fee that is equitable to all businesses, NOT bias based on the mode used for trips, and a has a flat residential fee that is based solely on the number of people living in a household with discounts available only for those in low income brackets.
Why worry about this?
“Why worry about this? The opponents have made clear they will use all available options to prevent the Safe, Sound and Green proposal from being implemented.”
Sam, you keep saying there is wide spread community support for this proposal. Either that is a misrepresentation or obviously there is NOT the support you suggest for this back room arranged money laundering scheme - otherwise there would be nothing to worry about.
The original premise was for a Street Maintenance Fee to fix, repair and maintain existing street and road infrastructure, NOT the bloated proposal presented at the 20 plus Town Hall meetings that would further subsidize the freeloading pedal pushers. By the time the plan actually reached the City Council and the public hearing process, the swindle had grown even larger, stuffed with a more bias socialistic agenda and extended to 15 years by the hand picked stacked deck 89 member stakeholder committee. The public hearing was a farce in that a parade of invited supporters, all of whom were involved in the decision making process, took up almost two hours of public testimony time. Then to make matters worse, the public was discriminately treated like second class citizens when the mayor, with no objections from any other council member, reduced the testimony time for each testifier from the usual three minutes to a two minute mini sound bite thereby making the entire hearing process a railroad job sham.
“Supporters are of mixed minds on how to respond to this issue. Some feel strongly that we must eliminate any vulnerability to legal challenge...Other supporters are concerned that the possibility of three separate ordinances on the ballot will allow opponents to "cherry pick" for defeat the ordinance that affects them, leaving some payer groups paying and others exempt - not an equitable result.”
Sam, you still do not get it. To get public support you first must listen to the public, NOT just your inner circle of bicycle, streetcar and anti-car buddies. This whole program has been become a SCAM to pay for bicycle infrastructure on the backs of non-bicyclists so the status quo exemption of allowing bicyclists to poach funds for specialized infrastructure from other taxpayers can unjustly continue. Any suggestion of bicyclists paying their own way with a bicycle tax was stifled, and kept off the table without any reality check or public discussion. At the public hearing in Council Chambers there was more than one call for eliminating the part of the residential discount program based on the vehicle mode used to make trips. That blew over your head like a bicyclist blowing through a red light or stop sign. Quit dictating bicycle babble and the streetcar oratory and start listening with outreach to the silent majority that vote everyday by driving their motor vehicles.
Personally I am all in favor challenging this prejudice rhetoric filed proposal that is now on the table. It is bias discrimination, totally lacks equity and only accelerates the headwinds of the forthcoming recession. Furthermore, the people of Portland are tapped out, already over taxed paying for subsidies to fund the arts and other elitist programs. Bicyclist ought to be the only ones paying for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders in addition to paying fares that better reflect the costs of providing the service, ought to be directly charged for the damage busses do to the roads. What is needed is a bicycle tax that only bicyclists pay and a road fund surcharge on transit fares. Motorists and motor freight carriers already pay for roads through the gas tax and the weight mile tax, but should not be subsidizing other modes too.
If you want my suggestion, you probably don’t, send your proposal out to a vote of the people. Then when it fails, take the proposal back to it’s roots and develop a street maintenance only fee that is equitable to all businesses, NOT bias based on the mode used for trips, and a has a flat residential fee that is based solely on the number of people living in a household with discounts available only for those in low income brackets.