So the 2008 elections are coming now. I said it then and I stick to my word when I say I'm with Sam. All the way back in 2006 Sam was making plans to run for Mayor and now he's doing just that. There is however, something that has changed the way we determine who is winning and who is not. This Grass-roots concept is plain out and outright ludicrous. To say that you have much support in low places is one thing. But there is a sad picture painted on these blades and it's because all the green has to come from the people.
Yes, to start I admit that requiring 1,500 $5 contributions shows plenty of support for a candidate in Portland. However, the purpose of doing this is to next gain access to the publicly financed campaign funds. These funds are supposed to be generated by investments of previous PFC funds. What's the problem you say? How about those numbers don't add up that fast. 1,500 donations of $5 each means that the candidate has now brought $7500 to the table. But for Mayor, in the general election, the candidate now qualifies for $250,000 dollars in PFC funds.
So where does the money come from? Well, see now in Section 2.10.040 A. of Portland city code it states that "The financing system shall limit annual impact on City funds to two tenths of one percent without raising any new taxes or fees" if the PFC funds are found to be inadequate.
That's outrageous! The 2007-2008 City Budget is $3,046,938,195. That allocates up to $6,093,876.39 for PFC funds. So in plain and simple terms, we, the tax payers are first paying to put candidates on the ballot, then paying for all of their advertisements, employees, and other expenses. Then if they are elected we pay them to do their job in office as well.
But wait, it gets just a little more ridiculous before it stops, not only can candidates use their PFC funds to pay for food, clothing, and other normal day to day things like movies and blazers tickets. But also... they can pay off their debt with the funds. Isn't that great?!
I'll get back to this later, once I've calmed down. The links to the documents used to obtain suck info are here.
Publicaly Financed Campaign Fund City Code:
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=39058#cid_161726
2007 - 2008 City Budget:
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=chedi&a=bgcbae
This entire post was sparked by the short article in the Portland Tribune found here:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120181808289260400
Monday, February 4, 2008
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
School says no to tax, State gets sued.
School says no to tax, State gets sued.
The Tribune reports that a group called the Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation is planning to sue the state for inadequate funding of our schools. This biennium the state funded the schools for $5.8 million. The Oregon Quality Education Commission determined $7 billion was the correct amount for adequate education. The Oregon Education Quality Foundation (OEQF) is part of the bipartisan legislator for the state. It is the OEQF’s duty to determine the amount the state funds schools, and it is the legislator’s duty to fund the schools, as it is deemed so in the Oregon constitution. News Review however doesn’t seem to think that the group has a case. Review seems to think that no where in the constitution is it written that the state must provide “adequate” funding.
Article VII, Section 8 reads as follows:
Section 8. Adequate and Equitable Funding.
(1) The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money
sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets quality
goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the
appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency,
its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state’s system of public
education to meet those goals.
(2) Consistent with such legal obligation as it may have to maintain
substantial equity in state funding, the Legislative Assembly shall establish a
system of Equalization Grants to eligible districts for each year in which the
voters of such districts approve local option taxes as described in Article XI,
section 11 (4)(a)(B) of this Constitution. The amount of such Grants and
eligibility criteria shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly. [Created
through initiative petition filed Oct. 22, 1999, and adopted by the people Nov.
7, 2000]
Note: Added to Article VIII as unnumbered section by initiative petition
(Measure No. 1, 2000) adopted by the people Nov. 7, 2000.
Note: The lead line to section 8 was a part of the measure submitted to the
people by Measure No. 1, 2000.
The full Oregon constitution can be downloaded here. It’s required that you have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it. If you are unable to view PDF formats you can access the web version here.
On another note, the school board has declined the tax proposal by Potter, making it clear that the city has had enough tax hole fills. This does however leave a $56 hole in the budget after the current tax expires this summer, at least that’s what the tribune reported. From the Tax Proposal Potter released (summary), it seems to state that the I-Tax has already expired for all but Centennial, Parkrose, Reynolds and David Douglas. Potters Tax was shot down for obvious reasons. For one it would mean that rather than the city or state paying for the schools using the taxes Oregonians already pay, we would be paying more. For another fact, Potter tries to make it look as though the city will be going in halves with the people, and the truth is he merely noted that he would “request” money from the city for the schools.
- - - Excerpt from the Tax Proposal - - -
The Mayor will make a request of City Council members to dedicate $5 million in
one-time money to the Portland Schools’ Preservation Plan; $1 million to each
district. Mayor Potter believes strongly that every stakeholder must share in
making Portland’s schools better.
- - -
The Tribune reports that a group called the Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation is planning to sue the state for inadequate funding of our schools. This biennium the state funded the schools for $5.8 million. The Oregon Quality Education Commission determined $7 billion was the correct amount for adequate education. The Oregon Education Quality Foundation (OEQF) is part of the bipartisan legislator for the state. It is the OEQF’s duty to determine the amount the state funds schools, and it is the legislator’s duty to fund the schools, as it is deemed so in the Oregon constitution. News Review however doesn’t seem to think that the group has a case. Review seems to think that no where in the constitution is it written that the state must provide “adequate” funding.
Article VII, Section 8 reads as follows:
Section 8. Adequate and Equitable Funding.
(1) The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money
sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of public education meets quality
goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the
appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency,
its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state’s system of public
education to meet those goals.
(2) Consistent with such legal obligation as it may have to maintain
substantial equity in state funding, the Legislative Assembly shall establish a
system of Equalization Grants to eligible districts for each year in which the
voters of such districts approve local option taxes as described in Article XI,
section 11 (4)(a)(B) of this Constitution. The amount of such Grants and
eligibility criteria shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly. [Created
through initiative petition filed Oct. 22, 1999, and adopted by the people Nov.
7, 2000]
Note: Added to Article VIII as unnumbered section by initiative petition
(Measure No. 1, 2000) adopted by the people Nov. 7, 2000.
Note: The lead line to section 8 was a part of the measure submitted to the
people by Measure No. 1, 2000.
The full Oregon constitution can be downloaded here. It’s required that you have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it. If you are unable to view PDF formats you can access the web version here.
On another note, the school board has declined the tax proposal by Potter, making it clear that the city has had enough tax hole fills. This does however leave a $56 hole in the budget after the current tax expires this summer, at least that’s what the tribune reported. From the Tax Proposal Potter released (summary), it seems to state that the I-Tax has already expired for all but Centennial, Parkrose, Reynolds and David Douglas. Potters Tax was shot down for obvious reasons. For one it would mean that rather than the city or state paying for the schools using the taxes Oregonians already pay, we would be paying more. For another fact, Potter tries to make it look as though the city will be going in halves with the people, and the truth is he merely noted that he would “request” money from the city for the schools.
- - - Excerpt from the Tax Proposal - - -
The Mayor will make a request of City Council members to dedicate $5 million in
one-time money to the Portland Schools’ Preservation Plan; $1 million to each
district. Mayor Potter believes strongly that every stakeholder must share in
making Portland’s schools better.
- - -
Monday, February 13, 2006
Power company overcharging Portlanders?
PacifiCorp is being charged by city hall with accusations of over charging Oregonians for their power. Currently PacifiCorp provides about one-forth of Portland’s power. The hearings started last Thursday, because PacifiCorp requested a rehearing back in October, after the city issued them an adjustment reducing their increase of $26 million.
Though the Tribune makes it sound as though they are being charged, it’s quite different. PacifiCorp submitted their purposed increase in the rates and the city reduced that amount (by how much I’m unsure at this point). PacifiCorp then filed for a rehearing so that it could voice it’s opinion in the matter (i.e. explain the increase).
The city claimed that PacifiCorp had already overcharged Portlanders by nearly $1 billion back in November. Clearly PacifiCorp denies this, but it doesn't look good when it wants to increase the current rates. Randy Leonard said then that the charge was "inappropriate". How this equals overcharge is all in the minds of our commissioners. These over charges allegedly go back to 1997. Leonard was the sort of "whistle blower" for PGE last year, and it appears as though he's on to something new, following the money trail of PacifiCorp's documents.
The map here shows the area PacifiCorp provides power to, that being a large chunk of north Portland.
Though the Tribune makes it sound as though they are being charged, it’s quite different. PacifiCorp submitted their purposed increase in the rates and the city reduced that amount (by how much I’m unsure at this point). PacifiCorp then filed for a rehearing so that it could voice it’s opinion in the matter (i.e. explain the increase).
The city claimed that PacifiCorp had already overcharged Portlanders by nearly $1 billion back in November. Clearly PacifiCorp denies this, but it doesn't look good when it wants to increase the current rates. Randy Leonard said then that the charge was "inappropriate". How this equals overcharge is all in the minds of our commissioners. These over charges allegedly go back to 1997. Leonard was the sort of "whistle blower" for PGE last year, and it appears as though he's on to something new, following the money trail of PacifiCorp's documents.
The map here shows the area PacifiCorp provides power to, that being a large chunk of north Portland.
More hope in Bus Mall battle
| As the March 15th deadline approaches for the new bus mall plan to be “set in stone” everyone it seems has decided to look at this plan realistically, that is, “Ah! That won’t work!” Organizations, boards, developers, bus drivers, and old folk alike all agree this plan is a disaster that is going to happen. Traffic jams on every intersection, people in danger, businesses losing profit and all of downtown being put out of business causing riots in the streets and the city of Portland to be swallowed whole and vanish into the darkness. Well, not quite like that but you get the idea, BAD. I wonder why it is though that it seems it’s taken so long for them to figure it out. I can understand the businesses not acting; they have been lied to and told the plan “was set in stone.” But developers and organizations with better resources than I should have seen this coming and put it in it’s tracks fast. Now rather than try to develop a new plan that works before March 15th, most groups are pushing for a new date to be set. Ron Buel, former owner of Willamette Weekly, will unveil a better plan supposedly today. I’ve looked but I just can’t seem to find a link to the new plan Buel purposed. |  Image credited to The Tribune |
My reasoning for disliking the bus malls new design is simple. The bus mall is just that, a place where the buses come in, drop people off and pick people up, and then leave again. The current bus mall is easily backed up and has just enough buses running on it to cause problems but none too sever. The new plan however, adds cars into the mix, which simply do not belong there in the first place (I mean geez like there’s no where else to go?) and has the train and bus lanes weaving for no real reason. Why do they have to weave? Put the train on the left and the buses on the right and everything works just fine, why add time and energy to making them weave? I mention also that currently there is just enough room for large sidewalks and two lanes for buses. The new plan shows just as large of sidewalks, a lane for the bus, a lane for the train, and a lane for the cars. There are more buses than that people! No way will all those buses be able to fit comfortably in one lane.
More arguements
Previous Bus Mall Post
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
More waves made in tram business
The Mercury seems behind in their information, but seems to have other information. They are missing the key concept about the email from Sarah Graham, the architect for the tram, informing Vic Rhodes and Matt Brown that the cost was going to be more than $15.5 million. They did however bring up a good question, "Who is going to opperate the tram?"
The Mercury did also refer to the battle between Potter and Adams, saying that Adams will have to "spin the audit" in order to show he's turned it around. I'm not fully aware of where Scott Moore was going with that statement, but there's no "spinning" an audit, that's why it's an audit. It's given as a represented maximum price the finished product should cost, if everything is done just as it says. Besides, why would Adams need to "spin" it? Adams didn't lie to the public, or to the city, and Adams can't control the price of the Swiss franc, nor the price of a ton of steel. All Adams is doing is trying like a mad man to get this tram built, paid for, and out of the way in the best way it can.
Previous Tram Post - 1.2.06
Previous Adams Post - 8.2.06
Previous Potter Post - 20.1.06
The Mercury did also refer to the battle between Potter and Adams, saying that Adams will have to "spin the audit" in order to show he's turned it around. I'm not fully aware of where Scott Moore was going with that statement, but there's no "spinning" an audit, that's why it's an audit. It's given as a represented maximum price the finished product should cost, if everything is done just as it says. Besides, why would Adams need to "spin" it? Adams didn't lie to the public, or to the city, and Adams can't control the price of the Swiss franc, nor the price of a ton of steel. All Adams is doing is trying like a mad man to get this tram built, paid for, and out of the way in the best way it can.
Previous Tram Post - 1.2.06
Previous Adams Post - 8.2.06
Previous Potter Post - 20.1.06
Bus mall, price climbs, new plans
On the lesser note of interest, the price of the new bus mall has climbed with the increased price of steel (surprised? I think not). The price for the bus mall is now $557 million, but the Feds are paying for $334 million of that, so we’re only paying $223 million. Yes that’s still a lot of money, but it’s not just the bus mall, it’s also includes the I-205 max plan. The good news is however, that due to the recommendations by a peer-review panel of the American Public Transportation Association Tri-met will be drawing up new plans for the bus mall. It is good to know that I wasn’t the only one who noticed the major issue with weaving buses and trains in and amongst one another. Portland State University professor and planning guru Ethan Seltzer, noted that adding cars and Max to the bus mall would add to the capacity to the transportation but at the cost of the pedestrians. I agree with this notion, because if there’s an overwhelming amount of traffic on 5th and 6th avenues then who will want to walk by, across, or near them? New plans for the bus mall are scheduled to be released around march.
Previous Post - 1.2.06
Previous Post - 1.2.06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)