Oregonian: Portland is falling far behind on upkeep of infrastructure

These articles are getting tedious. Yes, we all know the streets and sewers are falling apart. Mr Adams should have known that for the 15 years he was Vera's chief of staff and a commissioner. So now he rises from his slumber and discovers its a problem? Don't we really deserve something better than this?

How much money went to the transit mall instead of street maintenance?

How much money went to bikes, instead of street maintenance?

How much money went to MAX, instead of street maintenance? Examples include:
$30 million form Interstate UR. $5 million(?) from Lents UR.

How much money went to the So What, instead of street maintenance?

Thanks
JK

Well, money gets spent on everything except infrastructure, because underground pipes aren't sexy? That is happening everywhere and it's wrong. There is plenty of money, you don't need to raise taxes to accomplish the raw functions of government. Seems like the "15 Best Cities" people don't read the local newspapers before publishing their puff pieces.

Dear wingnuts:

Why do you plow the same ground after it has clearly been refuted?

Facts:
It's not a tax on water. The water/sewer bill is cheaper to use than creating and mailing a "street bill"

UR and fed money have strings attached and can't be used for maintenance.

Bike spending small, some required by state law, and is less than their mode split.

Give it up and crawl back in your cave.

The City would have money to fix sewers if it did not use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large scale private developments. The City would have money to maintain streets if the money was not pilfered away on special interest projects like streetcars, couplets, curb extensions and bicycle infrastructure the freeloading bicyclists should be directly taxed to pay for. The City would also have more money for parks, buildings and even schools if property tax abatements were not handed out like free candy and the size, scope and duration of urban renewal districts were significantly reduced. The spending priorities are backwards. Instead of serving the people, politicians in Portland are more interested in serving themselves by name association with special interest projects so they can obtain those special interest dollars for their reelection campaigns.

Our party has been accused of fooling the public by calling tax increases "revenue enhancement." Not so. No one was fooled.

Dan Quayle

"Water Tax":
Fee or tax, it is not imposed based on your consumption of water or the amount paid for water. It is an independent charge based on other calculations and billed through the water/sewer bill. That's the way 19 other Oregon cities do it.

color of money issue:

A far as I know, the feds do not give money for maintenance, you have to compete to get money from specific pots (e.g., transit funds can only be used for transit) UR is restricted by State Law for projects, not maintenance.

My understanding of the phrase "water tax" is that it is based on your use of water, not how the fee gets billed. The proposed fee is in fact charged to the property user and the way cities do it is to assume that the water bill payer is the property user (or they can pass it along as in the case of many landlords). I guess the alternative is a separate bill no one would understand (along with all the printing, paper and postage) and require the payee to write an additional check and use another stamp. All for a $4.50/month bill. Sounds pretty wasteful to me. But it is not a tax based on Water use.

Regardless of what you drive, the street system still serves you, so we should all pay (bikers, stay-at-homes, etc.)

Renters will eventually pay through rent increases. What do you think happens if water or power rates go up? Again this is the way it works in 20 Oregon cities and accross the country.

I don't iknow how the City Council prioritizes the budget. Have you gone to a budget forum to suggest an allocation?

Steve-

Pay attention
1. You were complaining about budget priorities. I suggested you attend a budget forum (a public meeting) and speak your mind rather than vent here. Although using a one-time surplus would help, an ongoing revenue source based on use and dedicated to transportation is better in the long haul.

2. It is not a tax on water.

Steve-

Pay attention
1. You were complaining about budget priorities. I suggested you attend a budget forum (a public meeting) and speak your mind rather than vent here. Although using a one-time surplus would help, an ongoing revenue source based on use and dedicated to transportation is better in the long haul.

2. It is not a tax on water.

Steve- would you characterize the money you pay for water service a tax? How about dridge tolls? A charge for copying a document? A building inspection fee? Library fines? Gov'ts. charge lots of fees that are not taxes.

"Gov'ts. charge lots of fees that are not taxes."

Since you are so allergic to calling this a tax, give me you definition of a tax. I used Merriam-Webster, don't be too obtuse.

I am calling this water tax a tax. If you want to address the others, those are red herrings. With fees you have the option of not paying by not using the service. I don't know too many who can do without water.

"I don't know too many who can do without water"

Does that mean the metered use of water is a tax? you can choose how much you consume water, same with the street fee. If you have bus passes you get a discount, If you are a business, you can encourage bike or transit use and get a discount, you can also be in a business that generates less traffic; just like other utilities it is based on use, only there is no meter (should the City pay someone to sit outside your house/business and count trips?).

My point was it is not a "tax on water" It is a fee charged independent of how much water you use.

I've heard much talk lately about fuel prices and want to be sure that we're actually walking the talk out there. I saw many City of Portland trucks needlessly idling on the side of the road today, and feel that we should also be putting our efforts toward conservation of resources as well as developing new ways of making things work efficiently. Check out my videos of the trucks:
http://jimkidwell.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/fuel-efficiency-and-city-of-portland-trucks/

Yeah, this happened today, March 12th, 2008.

Steve-

I was only objecting to the continued use of the term "water tax" because it is not that. Call it a street tax" if you insist, but it technically is a fee because it is based on your use and your use is somewhat controllable (that is the way they taught it in grad school). You control it through your use of the discounts, and, for commercial properties, how you develop the property. I believe the distinction between fees and taxes has been extensively litigated, but I can't provide a cite here. I referenced the metered use of water and the other "red herrings" becasuse they seemed to fit your Mirriam-Webster definition.

Street cleaners went down my street so fast the other day their vacuum unit failed to pick anything up. Total waste.

Andy-

If they did a crummy job, why don't you call the Bureau of Maintenance and say something? Perhaps you really don't care. I'm sure they would prefer to do it right and have a happy customer. Isn't that more effective than venting on some blog?