Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.



For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.







Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!






E-mail us here.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 18, 2006 6:49 AM. The previous post in this blog was When you don't care enough to send the very best. The next post in this blog is Is the aerial tram all about OHSU parking?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
TaxVox
Tax.com
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Conglomerate
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
myCorporateResource.com
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

"Clean money" goes on the ballot

Despite the best efforts of the Portland City Council, the city's voters are going to have their say on whether their tax dollars should go to pay for local politicians' political campaigns. The local business interests who are opposed to the city's new public campaign finance system have turned in way more than enough signatures to put it on the May ballot.

This is how it should be. The council should have known this was going to happen, and it should have referred "voter-owned elections" (formerly known as "clean money" before someone asked who had taken the "dirty money") to the voters originally. But it didn't, and now the opponents have forced it onto the ballot, with one strike against it already.

I predict (as I have here from the outset) that "clean money" is going to go down to defeat, and pretty hard. Even if it were the only thing on the ballot, it would have an awfully tough time passing, but as it turns out, it will be voted on at the same time as (a) a desperate pitch by the city for more money for the public school system, and (b) the contested re-election bid of Commissioner Erik Sten, godfather of "clean money," who will likely have cashed in on the new system himself. All that, plus the fact that the council pushed it through without offering the voters their say, adds up to a witch's brew of negatives that will likely doom this program, at least in its current form. Not to mention the continuing controversy over the aerial tram [rim shot], the police and fire retirement and disability fiasco, another run at a tax abatement for the Alexan tower in the SoWhat district, and probably other questionable expenditures of public money that will be in the headlines throughout the campaign.

Whatever the merits of "clean money" may be, this may very well boil down to a referendum on the City Council's priorities. Mayor Potter wants to channel all the discontent in that area into his friendly little study groups, but unfortunately, he and his colleagues are about to get an earful of "vision" at the ballot box on May 16.

In light of who's leading the opposition to "clean money," I'm not as down on it as I used to be. I might even vote for it. But especially given the way it was handled, I suspect it's going to be a short-lived experiment indeed.

Comments (24)

Jack,
If it was "voter owned elections" then why didn't they let the owners vote? Even though they promised us a vote in a few years, "after a chance to see how it worked" that promise was hollow. The current council cannot bind a future council to put that vote on the ballot. I believe that was Randy Leonard's reason for his no vote, and rightly so.

Trammell Crow Residential has withdrawn its tax exemption application for the Alexan project.
John
John F. Warner
Sr. Development Manager
Portland Development Commission

Well, either the voters own the elections or the developers do. Your choice. Indeed, anyone who looks at who contributes to local elections will find that developers buy influence. You can split hairs between "access" and "influence" but it's naive to think it's any other way.

We elect the people who run the government for us. Why do we need voter ratification of what they do? If we need that, why do we need them at all? If we don't like what they do, can't we just run them out?

So, in your world, I suppose we should allow the voters to vote on every single budget item that exceeds one one-thousandth of the total budget. (Which is what VOE is estimated to cost.)

We don't elect the council to think for us. We elect them to run the city. Their job is to provide cops, firefighters, parks, streets, sewer and water. They have too much authority as it is. Those five guys can vote to put all of us into any amount of debt to cover any bond, without limitation. Soon they will ask us to give them the authority to levy a citywide income tax, an authority that they currently do not have.

Unless I'm mistaken the city charter says that council members must recuse themselves from any vote in which they may have a conflict of interest. How was it not a conflict of interest for them to vote on a system of campaign financing that could potentially benefit all of them? If they'd conformed with the charter, they should have all recused themselves and the ordinance would never have come to a vote.

"We don't elect the council to think for us."

Well, yes we do. Unfortunately, you can't run a government without a little bit of thinking. (That may in fact be the crux of some of the problems with government.)

"How is it not a conflict of interest . . . .?"

Since all candidates would have access to the "voter-owned elections" fund, I don't see the conflict of interest. In fact, given an incumbent's advantage in fund-raising and general voter recognition, I would think the program favors outsiders over incumbents.

"They have too much authority as it is. Those five guys can vote to put all of us into any amount of debt to cover any bond, without limitation."

Bah, Chicken Little, the same was said about Katz and before her Clark and even back to ole Goldy, the sky still hasn't fallen, or our credit rating for that matter! If the people in Portland were so disinfranchised with their leadership, these five guys wouldn't be sitting on the council.

Kari, you have become a very argumentative fellow lately.

or our credit rating for that matter!

I'm so tired of this mantra. Read the City Club report on the police and fire pension, and I think you'll see that the sky really is about to fall.

you might be tired of it Jack, but if the credit rating agencies were overly concerened our leaders were ignoring the severity of the pension problem, or even that our elected leaders were carelessly spending money on "voter owned elections" or "money pit trams" for that matter, they would have previously dropped the city's rating a long time ago; similiar to what they did to the state a few years back. Obviously, since they aren't trying to stir up web page hits with overblown controversy, they can probably look at the picture a bit clearer than yourself.

Obviously, since they aren't trying to stir up web page hits with overblown controversy, they can probably look at the picture a bit clearer than yourself.

Oh, you wound me. Guess I'll close up shop.

Kari's attitude is typical..."it's only 1/1000th of the budget."

Problem is, when frivolous, non-essential spending is added up, it turns out to be a hell of a lot more than 1/1000th of the budget.

Maybe, just maybe, that 1/1000th of the budget should be spent on infrastructure or safety. Something essential.

Kari sells web sites to politicians for a living. "Clean money" may be more than 1/1000th of his budget.

8c)

As someone with three (soon to be four) children in our public schools, I'm disappointed to see this on the ballot along with the income tax.

I hope the tax doesn't get swallowed in negativity about the elections proposal. If we don't staunch the 50 million dollar wound in the schools budget, we're in deep trouble.

Kari et al:

Supporters of "Clean Money" originally planned to put the issue on the November 2005 ballot. While part of the strategy was to create a wedge issue in the mayor's race, the principle of letting the voter's decide whether to adopt public financing of council races was right.

In other jurisdictions that have adopted public financing, like New York City, the issue was addressed through charter reform.

We elect people to decide how tax dollars should be spent. Where those dollars might benefit our elected officials directly in their campaigns for reelection, a vote of the people, prior to implementation, is not unreasonable or without precedent.

Nick Fish

Nick, the counter to your argument is that by placing it on the ballot before voters actually experience a full cycle, you're subjecting the idea to the same kind of big-money sound bite politics that this is an antidote for.

But the whole point is academic since it now appears to be on the ballot.

So where do you stand on the ballot question? Yes - repeal it, or No, keep it?

I'm kinda happy to see that no one's touched on the point I'd like to make yet: assuming The Oregonian's report isn't simply out to make the opposition look stupid, the opponents of public reform are being just a wee bit dishonest in tying public campaigns to the schools shortfall.

Overall, though, let the public vote on it. What's the harm in that? Kari's got that point about it's miniscule fiscal impact, but that's a bit beside the point. Money isn't the correct measure for this anyway; this is about electoral mechanics and it's a pretty significant shift.

Should a prospective candidate need to suck up to the PBA to get enough money for a respectable campaign? Really, how much do we value our democracy? This is a question we're all asking at the federal level, and the same applies at the city level.

Jack-- you seem to get this when you refer to Abramoff and the GOP culture of corruption... why do you feel differently about efforts here? This was a bold move, and yet you're so quick to dismiss anything to do with the council...

The argument that it's not much money, is not persuasive to me. Look at all the dedicated neighborhood folks struggling to raise just a fraction of that amount to keep their community centers open. The city can't tell folks out of one side of their mouth -- we can't afford it, and out of the other side, oh that's just pocket change, finding that'll be no problem...

I'd suggest instead putting it in terms of return on investment. After all, you've got the PBA folks moaning about what a mess our city is in -- well, under just what election-financing dynamic were the folks elected who got us here?

Oh, yeah, let's have more of the same... You think?

It just may be that this experiment will result in the election of at least one city council candidate who will break the mold (and the hold) of certain entrenched special interests on our city. (I am a supporter of Amanda Fritz' candidacy.)

If that results in sharper questions being asked up front, and thus better decisions being made at the end of the day, then the system has certainly returned our citizen investment in it. (Just imagine if Amanda had been on the council, at the time she was raising questions on the Planning Commission about the tram?) Let's see, how many decades of elections might that alone have paid for?

So, though I've had some strong reservations about this plan, I'll not be voting to kill it now. If it fails, on the heads of the council who brung it -- be it. If it succeeds, we all win.

And, I can't imagine a clothes-pin strong enough to kill the stench if one were to crawl into bed with certain of the backers of this repeal effort. Yes yes, I know, it's about the children...

I wasn't going to jump back into this thread, but since Jack brings up the question of the websites I make for candidates...

Yes, it's true that I make my money from campaign spending. As I'm pretty sure we discussed either here on Blue some months ago, anything that reduces campaign budgets reduces my bottom line.

So, supporting VOE actually hurts me financially.

This is no longer a theoretical concern. I've now signed on with Sten and Saltzman (one VOE candidate, one not). In both cases, with a $150,000 budget (not the usual $500k city campaign), my proposed budget was substantially lower than I would otherwise propose. The work, of course, is also somewhat less -- though most of the hit comes out of my margin.

VOE is reducing campaign costs. As someone who feeds at that trough, that is to my personal chagrin.

I still support Voter-Owned Elections. Go figure.

If you're on Sten's campaign payroll, any opinion you offer on "clean money" is beyond suspect.

I joined his campaign a couple of weeks ago. I testified at City Council eight months ago.

I am building Erik's site because I support him, not the other way around.

In the past, on another campaign, I had an opportunity to work for either side (of a ballot measure). I ended up choosing to work for the side that was willing to spend 50% less money - because I agreed with the position.

How about a "try it you'll like it" foray into dedicating 10% of the PDOT budget on new sidewalks, secondary street improvements, and pedestrian trails (split evenly, three ways)?

Five years from now, after the good people of Portland have seen what can be accomplished without LID's or Don Baack's volunteer corps, I would bet they vote not only to retain, but to increase the earmark to 20%.

My point is, to earmark funds for a special purpose with the proviso "if we don't like it 5 years from now we can repeal it" is no way to select new budget initiatives in times of scarcity. Call it "trial and error" or "shoot from the hip" public policy. $2 million here and $3 million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

If, five years from now, it turns out the SoWhat Ski Lift is a wildly expensive boondoggle that has little or no benefit to Portland Taxpayers, can we vote to rescind the City's contribution to OHSU and SoWhat?

How about a vote on PGE Park? A vote on building Wapato without an operating budget? A vote on Temporary Income Taxes that never expire?


Sponsors


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Chloe, Pinot Grigio, Valdadige 2013
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir 2013
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio, Friuli 2013
St. Francis, Red Splash 2011
Rodney Strong, Canernet, Alexander Valley 2011
Erath, Pinot Blanc 2013
Taylor Fladgate, Porto 2007
Portuga, Rose 2013
Domaine Digioia-Royer, Chambolle-Musigny, Vielles Vignes Les Premieres 2008
Locations, F Red Blend
El Perro Verde, Rueda 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red 2
If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 324
At this date last year: 176
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269


Clicky Web Analytics