Safe, Sound & Green Intiative Going to the Voters

Street cars on steel rails help take heavy buses off the road which do heavy damage to roads. With everry doubling in weight there is a tenfold increase in road damage.

Using that logic, we should require Tri-Met to sell off all their buses and use their operating subsidies to buy every citizen a compact car or electric bike.

And we could ban all those semi-trucks from the City of Portland: replace them with high-flotation tire UPS delivery vans.

How about sending a bill to Trimet?

Thanks
JK

Typical out of touch elitist attitude. "Let them eat cake". I doubt if all the buses do as much damage as all the big 3 ton guzzlers we've got on the roads here.

The elitists are the ones who are going to spend $1.4 billion on a light rail extension to Milwaukie. Railcake? How about just dividing $1.4 billion amongst everybody who lives in S.E. and see if they can manage to live without light rail?

For that same amount, they could buy a brand new 2009 Jetta Diesel for 55,000 Portlanders, thereby improving their standard of living and their range of travel.

Go buy biodiesel.

Typical out of touch Trimet apologist!

Sam made it a point to say that buses are a(the?) major cause of Portland street damage.

Cars do almost NO DAMAGE to roads, except studded tires which probably should be banned.

Send Trimet a bill!

PS: Light rail costs too much and does to little.

Thanks
JK

One of TriMet's two axle buses does the same amount of damage to the roads as 22,000 cars.
Source: Commissioner Adams' Office

TriMet ought to be paying local fuel taxes to help pay for road maintenance proportionate with that damage. The costs can then be passed on with higher fares collected through the farebox.

True that busses and semi-trucks do by far the most damage. Passenger vehicles (including pickups) are a non-factor when determining pavement damage. ANY pavement designer will tell you this. I ride trimet and I agree that trimet should help pay a portion of road maintenance. Look at the temporary bus mall on 3rd/4th. The busses are destroying it because those streets were not designed for busses. BUT...raising fares for riders ONLY discourages ridership and has a reverse effect encouraging more drivers and again increasing congestion. ALL drivers/ businesses/ residents/ AND bicyclists should contribute $$ to maintain our system. It benefits us all. Even the drivers who don't ride Trimet benefit from us who do because of less congestion on the roads. You get to work faster because I'm on the BUS. By the way... THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT is about PERSONAL WEALTH AND THE CHOICES WE MAKE BASED ON IT. People who can afford to drive WILL!!! and ALWAYS WILL!!!

I agree that infrastructure is a huge priority. But if I understand right this is about construction costs, no increase in the state gas tax and much of our gas tax dollar stays in Salem.

I would hope that folks could stick to attributable facts and some decency. But I can't imagine I'd get it.

Justin,

I will assume you are not a shill for Sam's campaign and that you actually care about why our transportation department needs an emergency bailout.

Transportation expenses generally fall into one of two categories, capital expenses and operating expenses.

For too long, the city of Portland has emphasized new capital expenses (building new assets), while underfunding the ongoing maintenance and improvement budgets for existing assets (both capital and operating expenses).

All those shiny new trolley, trains, and trams were built with the assistance of borrowed money which has to be repaid (with interest) to bondholders out of existing property tax revenues. That's a capital expense. Money spent on financing the shiny new trolleys, trains, and trams is money that is diverted from other transportation related budgets (like everything this new tax is being used for), and the costs of operating those new trolley, trains, and trams are subsidized (by the City, Tri-Met, and OHSU) WITH TAX DOLLARS.

Never mind the fact that rail consumes a disproportionately large percent of our capital spending (relative to the small number of taxpayers who use rail), and ignoring progressive's disdain for the automobile.

Why build new stuff when we can't afford to maintain the stuff we already have? Why pretend that the Federal Fairygodmother gives out "free money" to build new stuff, if they don't provide more free money to operate and maintain the new stuff?

Why should we trust Sam to maintain (let alone improve) gridlock on our roads and bridges when he has proven time and again that he views rails as the solution, and cars as the problem?

These are the kinds of question you have to answer in a democracy, especially when you're reaching for my wallet.

Did you even go to the townhalls? The street fee townhall and the sewer townhall I went to was the most transparent meeting about city taxes I've ever been to. Then I just saw they are up on this website too. Gimme a break.

Phil, did you drink the Kool Aid?

Stumptown,

With all due respect, your final five paragraphs are a word-for-word reprint of a comment that I placed on bikeportland.org. See comment 17 on this post:

http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/06/mayor-potter-responds-to-bta-action-alert/#comments

I appreciate that you agree with my sentiment and there are no hard feelings. However in the future please be kind enough to credit the original writer when you are reprinting any info - even from blogs.

All the best,

Tony

2GOAT: Don’t just blindly respond to a gut reaction against new taxes.
JK: What is your point?

The OPA is trying to keep my taxes from going up - why is that a problem for you? Do you, by any chance, have a personal interest in increasing my tax and taking money from me for some purpose that, just might, possibly, sort of, benefit you?

PS: what is your problem with the oil companies who get less per gallon profit than the government takes in tax?

PS2: I hope you realize that oil is a big part of the reason that you don't live in poverty, like most did in the 1920s (by today's standards) - or are you one of those idiot city planners that are trying to take us all back to the poverty of the 1920s?

PS3: will you deny that you work for someone who will benefit from a tax increase?

PS4: Why are you hiding your identity - what are you trying to cover up? Do you work for Randy Leonard, or Sam the tram?

Thanks
JK

"Gas taxes havent increased in the last 15 years while the cost of asphalt and steel has at least quadrupled. I smell "Big oil influence."

OK, again, why is "Big Oil" (if they even care) against a water/sewer tax? Heck, it means the gas tax won't go up which would benefit them (again, even if they care.)

Randy/Mr Adams - Just give us a logical explanation without personal attacks on Mr Romain.

Steve,

Safe, Sound & Green is not a water/sewer tax. It is funding of unmet transportation maintenance needs through the creation of a City of Portland Street Maintenance and Safety Fee (SMSF) and a Multnomah County Vehicle Registration Fee.

To assess the SMSF, the City proposes using the existing mechanism for the collection of utility fees--the "water bill"--to avoid creating a costly new assessment infrastructure.

Funds collected through the SMSF cannot be used for other purposes besides those outlined at the Safe, Sound & Green website.

Hope that helps clear things up.

We can argue about fee vs. tax, but it is taking of money by govt, so I'd prefer to call it a tax.

It is paid only by water user in Portland and not non-residents who use the road nor renters who don't pay water bills, so effectively it is a water/sewer tax.

Can you show us the exact language that says this will be used only for roads. Again, Bud Clark had a franchise fee in 1988 that was to be used only for road repair. Then your boss and Vera Katz started siphoning money off for other purposes to the point where we need another tax to fix roads. It gets rather tiring.

It's a tax on every water customer in Portland. That makes it a water tax. You can't finesse the facts.

A fee is a charge paid VOLUNTARILY in exchange for a product, privilege, or service. If you don't want to pay a fee, you can choose not engage in the transaction.

For example, if I don't want to pay private school tuition fees, I can go to public school. If I don't want to pay a driver's license fee, I can use mass transit. But nobody can live without water (ergo, no opt-out). If residing in the city limits of Portland is the condition which obliges me to pay, then it's a tax, NOT A FEE!

But the water tax is not based on how much water I use, or how much waste I discharge into the sewers. The hydro-hogs with a swimming pool and two acre lawns will pay the same amount as the disabled veteran living on a fixed income.

The tax is not based on whether or not I own a car.

It's not based on how many times I drive across a bridge.

It's not based on how many trips I make, or how many miles I drive.

It's not going to differentiate between those who own one car, or five cars.

It won't charge me less if my neighbors formed a LID to pave a public road with our own money.

THIS IS A TAX, NOT A FEE. It's a tax on water, not roads. If you want to charge a road user fee, then put up some toll booths and have at it.

Given the City of Portland's water/sewer monopoly, I can't take my business elsewhere (without moving). It's ironic y'all have villified Comcast and Qwest: at least I can cancel my service if I don't like their rates (or go to the competition).

Sadly, I can't live without water.

Will they cut off water service for refusal to pay the portion attributable to non-water stuff?

http://www.commissionersam.com/files/StreetMaintSafetyFee-Ordinance.pdf

"Proposed PCC 17.21.080 Fee Billing and Collection.
A. The SMSF is billed and collected with and as part of the utility bill.
B. In cases where the payment designated for billed services is less than the total of water, sanitary, stormwater drainage, and street maintenance fees due, payment will be applied proportionally to the stormwater drainage user fee, water, sanitary sewer, and street maintenance fee charges. All rules and procedures established under City Code for treatment of delinquent water and sanitary sewer accounts, and applicable penalties, apply to street maintenance fees."

To answer one of my own questions, water will be shut off if the transportation "fee" is not paid. The operative phrase above is as follows: "will be applied proportionally [to include] street maintenance fee charges."

The ballot title must reflect this reality. It is a Water tax, or tax on Water use.

For comparison, the ballot title for the Measure 50 Tobacco Tax was as follows:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: DEDICATES FUNDS TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR
CHILDREN, FUND TOBACCO PREVENTION, THROUGH INCREASED TOBACCO TAX."

This dedicated spending for transportation makes a materially significant change to the present law as it pertains to use of water. The change will make delivery of water dependent not upon water use, and reasonable costs for "water use" in particular, but on theoretical use of pavement that one may or may not use.

===========

I have sent the city attorney a note to start a challenge on the ballot title. (I couldn't find it yet.)

I may seek an injunction upon all city officials from speaking pro or against, and most certainly to injoin willful lies such as that which you just made. Or even to compel you to affirmatively speak so as to reverse the effect of such lies. You can make an immediate correction here.

Terry, you poke around without actual numbers.

Fact is, the City's been spending less than $1 million a year on bike infrastructure. Compare that to the $400+ million of the Safe, Sound & Green initiative, and you find yourself about $399 million short. Or compare that to the $32 million Columbia-Lombard interchange just completed.

So even if you gut all the efforts to serve the 140,000+ Portlanders who can't drive, you can't fund the maintenance backlog.

Bike lanes separate bike traffic from auto traffic and it's primary purpose it to keep cyclists safe from the hazard imposed by autos. On roads with light traffic, there is no need for a bike lane. But when automobiles create a dangerous situation in on heavily trafficked streets, then drivers should pay for safety improvements for other roadway users. The public streets were safe until automobiles entered the equation and motorists should pay for usurping the public right of way.

David Dean: The public streets were safe until automobiles entered the equation
JK: Horses killed a lot of other road users. I'll bet the streets are safer today than back then.

David Dean: and motorists should pay for usurping the public right of way.
JK: Mototests already pay for the roads and a big chunk of tranist. It is time for transit and bikers to pay their fair share.

Thanks
JK

Yea Jim...those horses sure were deadly. The only thing that smells on this blog is your horseshxx. Who is paying (or giving you other means of support) you again? Oh, that's right- you refuse to say.

Kick it, troll.

Got some data to show us instead of ad hominem? (I once saw some data and the annual per-capita pedestrian death rate was higher before the auto than it is now)

By the way, why are you hiding your identity?

And who is paying you - a developer, the city, a consultant or Trimet?

Oh, that's right- you refuse to say. I receive no money or support for blogging or my web sites.

Now you can crawl back into your hole.

Thanks
JK

Jim sez: "Got some data to show us instead of ad hominem?"

[Continues with vague reference to non-existent data and ad hominem.]

Good show, Jimbo! You've outdone yourself!

Tha-anks
GLV (who hides his real name)

Hazards posed by autos?

How about hazards posed by < A HREF=http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021108_news_bicyclist_killed_bus_beaverton_.b22b3656.html>Tri-Met buses, MAX trains, and trolleys.

Not to mention all those dump trucks and cement mixers threading their way to the downtown condos subsidized by Sam and his buddies at the PDC.

How about it Sam?

At least send Trimet a bill for their road damage.

Thanks
JK

Benign neglect of infrastructure has been Portland's modus operandi for the past decade. SoWhat?

A couple more city trucks will be swallowed by potholes; we'll rent a crane to lift them out.

Water mains will be crack when the temps drop below 25 degrees; we'll have crews working 40 hours straight to replace them.

The County Courthouse's basement will fill with sewage after a 100 year old pipe fails for no reason, and they'll call in a cleaning crew (bill the B.E.S. thank you very much).

Who cares when we have all those shiny new trains and trolleys to ride? We just need more URDs, LIDs, and TIFs and this city will shine like Tiffany Diamond.

Or maybe a City of Portland income tax?

"I'm just curious what's going to happen if the contingent that opposes this funding plan manages to have it defeated"

Maybe they will re-allocate the franchise fee from 20 years back that was supposed to be used for fixing roads and actually fix roads with them. Or they could've used the $30M upside they got on roads, but thought better of it.

My issue is that we have no guarantee that $0.01 of this tax will be used to fix roads once it drops off the radar screen 5 years from now and we'll be back in the same situation 15 years from now.

More junk science, brought you by Big Oil, and The New York Times.

Maybe it's time to review the bio-diesel and ethanol ordinance?

What, Paul Romain is not a member of the public? Nor are any of the members of his coalition? You're still missing the point, wsbob, it is simply not possible to represent the entire public at a public meeting. As such, the City Council meetings that are being used as evidence of public input on this, are nothing of the sort. The public was not represented at these meetings, only the public that was there.

The agenda to which I refer is the one where you and your ilk seem to feel it's okay to compel people to make certain transportation choices. In a free society, this is simply not acceptable. No matter how good your intentions are. Commissioner Adams is an advocate of alternative transportation. That's not his job. His job is to maintain the traffic infrastructure. Safety, and the environment have become his particular brand of, "WMDs", and I am getting a little tired of having my civil rights destroyed by a bunch of chicken-littles.

For the record. Scott Bricker and his Nanny State cronies are NOT the cycling community. Geller is on the hook for this as much as Adams is. Special interest groups are not the public, no matter how large they are. In my eyes the BTA, and Big-Oil are ABSOLUTELY THE SAME THING!!!!!!!

Furthermore, Adams' attempt to have this proposal manifest as three separate ordinances on the City Charter is just as exploitative as anything Romain and his contingent have done. If Adams didn't want to play games, perhaps he shouldn't have started one.

Absolute safety is a delusion. Green is the sci-fi fantasy of a bunch of fanatics. Special interest is wielding brute force just as surely as if they were holding a gun to our collective heads. This Progressive Utopia nonsense is beginning to grate on everyone's nerves. Do what you want for the environment on your own time. Other than that, mind your own business.

I am the public.

I want a vote.

Thanks for trying to speak for me. You would make a great government worker (LOL) if you aren't already.

"What's the problem with letting the most informed people make the decisions on this one?"

Because they don't have to pay the majority of taxes. If Mr Adams is the leader he claims, he can make some tough choices to cut things that are not necessary like streetcars or arts funding, but he refuses to do this. I think schools, police and road repairs are all we ask of govt and they seem to be unable to provide this without new taxes.

However, we can do all sort of things without new taxes. There is a cognitive dissonance here.

He cannot even guarantee that this tax will be used to fix roads.

I agree wtih some of the left, and some of the right. I tend to discard the most extremes of either end, because they are formed through irrational thought and opinions are formed on emotions on their own. I belive in being reasonable, and examining all sides to each story.

What you said about planned growth and the housing market kind of rings hollow. You are taking two facts, and trying to associate them. They really do not have a logical connect.

I once lived in Southern California, along the beach. I can tell you, one reason their housing market went sky high is because many people wanted to be there. Who wouldn't want the best climate on earth, where they have over 300 clear days a year, barring smog, and it can be in the 70's when the rest of the country is in a deep freeze. I am sure your reaction would be "who would want to live in that hell hole?" Well about 22 million people want to be here, as opposed to 2.2 million in this region. Using your reasoning about planned growth VS splrawl and equating that to rising house prices, then the South and Midwest should have sky high prices as well. These areas have sprawl as well.

Upon further examination, you would find that these places in fact have much lower prices than Portland. What I find when I travel the nation, and have found while living in many places around the nation, is that Portland is really unique in the way people think. Most of the nation thinks X while we in Portland think Y. Keep in mind, I do favor planned growth, as I very much value being able to be out of sprawl minutes from my house.

In terms of saying that Adams and the city hall know better than the public does about tax whether we need this tax measure is really an elitist thought. I have voted for many democrats, and have in fact been a democrat. I will probably vote for a deocrat for President, as I do not share the crationalism views or pro war views of the republicans. The one criticism I have had of the democratic party though has been the elitist view of "trust me, I know better than you what is good for you." This is entirely false and totally elitist.

Adams and the rest of city hall have squandered our money for many years. Please do not forget that Sam Adams has had the charge of overseeing the transportation department for several years, and it has been under his watch that we are in the state of disrepair we are in today. He has set aside basic improvements and requirements in favor of gold plated pet projects. Under Bud Clark, they city set aside a certain portion of utilities fees for transportation maintenance. Since Vera Katz, and through this city council we have currently, they have diverted these maintence funds to pet projects. Along with the squandering of these fees, we've had things like the Tram, the Burnside Couplet, etc. They have pie in the sky ideas of utopia while disregarding the real world. So here we are today, with the lack of this maintencance fund Bud Clark set up, and the extra spending of pet prijects and the mismanagement of the transportation department. Now Sam wants another gold plated plan, which will pay for more than basic improvements, and he wants us to just trust him? I think he's had his chance, and now the public needs to choose. If you fear the public will reject it as a whole, then please don't discredit them. Poke Sam with a fork, he's done. He'll be private citizen Sam when he loses and will seek some consulting job. If you don't believe me, you're living in the shelter of perochial portland utopian thought and have no sense of the real world.
Keep believing that the world will switch to a bicycle transportation economic network, and everyone will live in harmony.

I guess I should have mentioned that I didn't support the tram. For some reason, whenever anyone supports bicycle advocacy and urban planning the assumption is that they support the tram, would prefer to ignore existing infrastructure maintenance, and believe that all cars should be banned. I've reread my post and can't find any of that.

But I guess I might be a 'Utopian' for suggesting that the way things have been done before is not the way we have to do them forever. If government isn't constantly trying to find a better way to move forward, whether it's in transportation planning or anything else, it's neglecting it's responsibilities. Mistakes will be made. I'd argue that it was a mistake to make transportation so auto-centric early in the last century, ditching streetcars and forcing people into autos and ignoring cyclists completely. Portland was just doing what every other city was doing but now we're trying to correct that.

You make a decent point about San Diego, of course I'd like the weather to be 70 and sunny here. But how's the housing market done there in this downturn? Are they still experiencing growth in home values, like we are in Portland metro? (notwithstanding how someone you know tried to flip some condo in Tigard and couldn't make money on it, average prices are still up despite rising inventories.) Home value are strong because people want to live here. So although I hear a lot about how people and business are moving away because of the outrageous taxes here, that doesn't seem to be born out by the numbers. I believe quality of life tends to be the attraction, and I think bike and pedestrian facilities are part of that equation.

I'm all for responsive and responsible government. Having all those meetings seems like a good way of getting the community involved - the community that wants to be involved. Yes, some who went to the meetings and spoke up would probably be unhappy with the results, but you can't make everyone happy all the time. That doesn't mean they didn't have their say, or didn't have an impact, just that the preponderance of the information pointed in a different direction.

To say that the council is 'elitist' simply because they don't agree with your position on any given topic is not just sour grapes, it's the sort of black/white politics that has gotten this country's political system so far out of whack that there's no longer debate, only arguments, and your opponent is not your opponent, but your enemy. Try to remember that the council members are there because they won elections. By definition, it's elitist of you to think that you know better than the majority of voters that elected the council members.

But I forgive you.

Evan Manvel,

Do you believe that all judgment creditors, public and private alike, should be able to ask the city of portland to assert a right of offset against any monies delivered by a water user for water service if the payor happens to be a judgment debtor?

I judge from your comment that you agree, provided only that a general (and thus potentially legally sustainable) law has an exception for all judgment creditors, except that of the city of portland . . . for a demand for payment by way of administrative determination and without ever seeking a prerequisite order from a judge to attach such funds, as with any garnishment.

Read the Knapp v. City of Jacksonville case and assess whether my desire to put a firewall around the water fee for water services can, and will, render this particular method of debt collection null and void.

There is one initial angle of attack, related to the ballot title, if it is referred to the voters. This however is distinctly different than challenges on the merits under both state and local law as to the validity of the attachment. I surely would not want some anticipated bond holder (of revenue bonds) to obtain a "property interest" in receipts of water bills, of fraction thereof, for any expenditure that is quite unrelated to delivery of water. If you are confused by what I mean by "property interest" here then read Turpen v. City of Corvallis for further clarity, or confusion, whichever the case may be.

This is nothing personal, really, I will do my best to repeat the same against any and all of the 89 members of the Safe, Sound and Green Streets Stakeholder Committee . . . in defense of water delivery that is free from payment offset to the other government claims and against any and all judgment creditors.

Go back to the drawing board and draft a different enforcement mechanism. "Fee" or "tax," I really don't care what folks call it, for such characterization is irrelevant for my arguments . . . consistent with treating water service as a "fee" for service.

Evan Manvel,

You had argued that the package "makes a lot of economic sense."

It might make political sense, in a log-rolling sort of analysis, for anti-car folks and retail fuel suppliers to reach an accommodation that attaches a new precondition on delivery of water, but it makes no economic sense where, under any economic price theory model, the price of a good is supposed to reflect its cost matched against individual demand.

Political deals, such as that hatched here (for which the state has partially paved the way), resemble that of any command economy, regardless of whether there is public ownership or state sanctioned private monopoly . . . the key feature is the displacement of diverse decisions by individuals with that of decision-making by a decreasing number of clumsy knuckleheads. It makes for economic inefficiency, or complete economic nonsense.

I am not beholden to the gas/oil folks, any more than to oat suppliers a century ago, to design a system for delivery and pricing of water. It is not within their power to either take my freedom away or give it back. They are stakeholders only in the sense that Sam has chosen, just as with "recognizing a union representative" to argue on behalf of a subset of laborers, to accord them official recognition. I would not even "recognize" big-oil as a quasi-official bargaining entity. And here Sam wants to let gas folks tap into our water supply. Who's side is he on?

R,

Ask why it is that the transportation fee is not dealt with all by itself, as a separate billable item, without this notion of allocation of payments between and among different fees.

The inescapable answer is because it would be problematic to try to deny people the freedom to leave their house and use the public transportation system, even if on foot.

That poses an enforcement problem, as to collection of a "fee," before someone slips on their walking shoes and goes out for an evening stroll.

The water cut off option is however very convenient, with a single padlock. Yet it can serve double duty as a substitute for the inability to stop people from traveling on any public property, without payment to the public first.

Ah, maybe Sam could mimic TriMet, and sell walking passes. Then ticket-verifiers can walk the streets and randomly stop walkers to verify that they have their pass. Maybe we could have a few fareless sidewalks too? (This is to say that it would be absurd, legally absurd, to try to go down that path.)

Proposed PCC 17.21.080 (Fee Billing and Collection) can be redrafted to:

"Water and non-water-related billing shall be separate."

This can be done in a fraction of the time that it takes to physically put a padlock on someone's water. I won't call the original drafters insufferable idiots, for they drafted their words carefully to achieve a particular end. Your argument about a "convenient billing system," if that is the real reason, would apply with equal force under my proposed redraft of the section 17.21.080.

(A Solution) If payment of the non-water-related fees will be largely voluntary, without resort to the water shut off or a trip to the courthouse, then Sam could cut out all the auto-related stuff from his plan and just leave in the bike path stuff. Voluntary compliance might even reach levels experienced for the temporary county income tax, provided that the auto related stuff is addressed, conveniently (for enforcement purposes), at the gas pump (by the state) rather than at the water meter (by the city).

The gas folks don't like gas tax money to be used for bike-only surfaces. Such reasoning, applied here, would mean that the authority to cut off water should have nothing to do with creating surfaces used almost exclusively by automobiles.

Let Sam propose a Bikeway "Fee" without diluting it with stuff that is best addressed with a gas tax.

Suppose the constitution were amended to allow gas tax money to be nothing more than general revenue? Given the inelasticity of demand it could serve as a useful source of funds to cover the cost of overprice universal health care. Should I let the Health Care Community decide what the gas tax should be, based on their perceived need and to the maximum extent of their political power? (To tap into the gas pump, so to speak, as an enforcement scheme only, of course, to lock up that pumps where the owners have not delivered the dedicated fee for universal health care?)

That is a good idea. If I ever see a biker biking to work and following the laws, I will tip my hat to them.

I guess my hat will never be tipped as the free-riders don't follow any laws.

Revenue enforcement folks found a way to collect on the Multnomah county income tax, without resort to blending it with something like water, so as to have the additional power to turn off water for reasons wholly unrelated to water. The unpaid, and strictly segmented, obligation to pay a transportation fee-tax-bill is something that the city can ask the state department of revenue to attach to tax refunds, or even to a kicker refund. Just for example.

Here is an idea: Could the state department of revenue enter into a intergovernmental agreement with the city of portland, to aid in collection of unpaid income tax or any other claim the state might assert against an individual, to assert an interest in a fractional share of any payment paid for water, such that the water bill will never ever be paid off until the state's claim is also fully met? The water user would be perpetually behind on the "water" bill the entire time and . . . at perpetual risk that it could be turned off.

This is precisely the kind of collections power that I find objectionable, not to mention incompatible with any continuing characterization of the current "water fee" as a fee for service. The blending of collections for non-water-related stuff, with a segmented water-only payment, is really rather extraordinary. It would have to be applied in a manner that is otherwise compatible with all judgments for any judgment creditor in this state, including private judgment creditors.

Rather than look at the nuances of fee versus tax one could instead look at the allowable scope of the exercise of police power and whether turning off someone's water can fit in anywhere. It cannot, except in some hostage crisis situation where police turn off all utilities to encourage the occupant to give up.

The original economic rational for government to have monopoly, that is the power to prevent any private entity from competing, for water and the like certainly does not extend so far as to allow that power to be used for non-economic purposes, such as here to induce payment of some other bill. Imagine if the proportional/fractional payment scheme where applied also to any regulated private utility that is granted an exception to the prohibition on monopoly. The claimed power by government here, as to water service, would be the same for placing a condition on delivery of any utility services by a regulated utility to as to serve the interests of any judgment creditor. The confinement of collections only to judgment debts owed to a governmental entity does not make the assertion of such power more tolerable . . . rather it makes it even more intolerable. (The government in particular cannot act arbitrarily.)

Look up the issue of habitability, in the context of landlord tenant relations. How does the law treat a landlord that cuts off water as a means to secure payment of rent? Look it up. I trust that any certified law student at the Lewis & Clark Legal Clinic could spot an opportunity, in under 20 minutes, to get two months free rent from the evil landlord for being so stupid. It is a semi-sly try to get around the statutory prohibition on placing a lock on a renters front door or switching the locks, rather than to go through the expedited FED process. It is evidence too, drawn from the statutes, of a public policy particular to water that prohibits such conduct as an aid in collections of a debt. Would you like to ask the legislature to modify the landlord tenant law so as to let landlords (private and public alike, or just public) lock up someone's water without going to the court for permission?

This is to say, even if I lose on a ballot title challenge and the voters subsequently pass the referral, that there is ample grounds to seek an immediate injunction on the proportional/fractional distribution of payment scheme . . . so as to preserve the opportunity to make a payment for water service and water service only, and have it applied as such, notwithstanding any other non-water-related demand for payment. I would simple assert that the section of the ordinance noted above be declared void, leaving all the other features of the referral intact.

Does that clear it up a bit?

I got the same call, but it was not a push poll. It asked about positive and negative things about both candidates. It doesn't come close to the definition of push poll.

The Portland Tribune covered it yesterday.

It's a "push poll".

Have another Kool Aid.

R,

So . . . we wait either for an official ballot title from the city attorney's office or an early draft of the same that is communicated in any way to anyone outside that office.

Can I trust that the city attorney's office will take official notice of this post, and comments, so I do not have to print a copy and mail it to them? I can't answer that one, can I? Can you?

Is there a draft version of the ballot title?

Bud Clark said this franchise fee would be used to fix roads and then Vera/Sam subverted it. It just seems that to get $30M maybe Mr Adams could find some money out of a $2B budget. I mean he can find money for streetcars and theaters without raising taxes.

You tell me.

You seem to find this at least as entertaining as dropping yet another quarter into a video poker machine.

On the agenda tomorrow there is one item with an exhibit representing a ballot title, as is allowed under ORS 250.285.

I wonder if you could contend that the wording has no effect on the odds of a payout? Or even the odds that there will even be a referral?

Why do you even care? I don't need to know. Place your bet.