Just curious... I remember hearing about how the MultCo ITax was going to be taken into account when the state sent funds to those districts... i.e., the local extra funding of schools would result in commensurate decreases in state funding to "level the playing field".

Did that actually happen? And if so, wouldn't this tax be subject to the same issue?

And if that didn't happen, why not? I thought the state funding was essentially a "safety net" to make up for deficient funding on a case-by-case basis. So if a given district is less deficient, it should receive fewer state dollars, right?

I'm not trying to pick a fight about whether schools are funded adequately (I don't think they are)... but rather I just want to understand the mechanics of the state funding system.

FYI- Mayor Potter will be at Buckman Elementary School (SE 16th & Pine) tonight from 6-8PM for a Public Safety Forum.

As a parent with three kids in PPS, I thank you, Professor.

I regularly read your blog and never get up the courage to write. This time, I must.

Jack, thank you.

I was born and raised in Portland and am the recipient of a PPS education of the 1970s.

What really gets me is that there were adults before me who had the foresight to think bigger than themselves and do what was right for future generations. I benefitted from their thoughtfulness. Now, I see my generation living an "I got mine, screw the rest of you" lifestyle, and it makes me very, very sad.

We have a responsibility to the next generation, and I am glad that you and the Mayor recognize that. Now, I wish a few more of our leaders (elected and otherwise) would.

Lars has a point... there are MANY people living in the county but not the city, whose kids go to PPS... and there are people living in the city whose kids go to Parkrose, Centennial, Reynolds, etc. -- and nobody yet is satisfied how the money from those people will be distributed... it's a mess right now -- and nobody is even sure if this is ENOUGH money for them...

I was talking to a friend recently who brought up the idea that the Boomers are inheriting a huge sum in this decade from their more frugal parents. He said while the Greatest Generation scrimped and saved, their kids are much more likely to spend it on the good life. Now, you throw in the 400 billion of debt we’re placing on future generations from 2006 alone, and this generation is starting to seem a little bit irresponsible with money. The least we can do is shell for the next generation’s education so they have the smarts to find their way out of the mess we’re leaving them.

As someone that currently has no children in PPS, but one day will, my biggest concern about renewing these local taxes (and yes, I view this as a renewal even though a different entity will be collecting the tax - but that's another story) is that doing so bails out the legislature from making the tough decisions and funding the right programs. As Jack said - there are programs getting funded from the state level that are less meritorious than schooling. And everytime we, as citizens, increase our bandage funding to make up the difference, we allow legislators leeway to fund their own baby projects to the detriment of the more major programs - and they know the major ones will get funded locally. What's going to happen in the 2009 legislature when budgets get discussed, and those in control get shown that in the last 7 years, Portland has contributed $700 million plus dollars to the school districts? Their going to avoid cutting funding to replace tharevenue that should expire in 2010 - forcing us to ante up again when this "temporary" tax expires. Why would they EVER make up for the lost funding, thereby ending our tax - especially during the four year period?

I'm all for public education, and am undecided on this specific issue. I think the cons of supporting it may have merit. The only question is the weight of those positions.

I don't have children in PPS, although I hope to have children soon. Where they will eventually attend school is another matter.

As a general taxpayer the thing that irritates me the most is the constant cries for money, and the inevitable threats of social collapse if you don't vote "yes". If I thought for one second that if I voted for this new tax I would have even a two year respite from never-ending complaints, threats, and begging, I would vote in yes a heartbeat, even if the rate were much, much higher. All I ask is that someone figure out how much is needed, we can vote that in, guarantee it is actually used for the purpose we voted it in for, then please, please, give us a few precious moments when some advocate isn't claiming we're underfunding the system and we absolutely must pass the "newest" "latest" emergency tax.

Hmmm....

I'm dubious. Largely because I don't know the mechanics of this, either.

I think an income tax of Portland residents is a positive idea, but there are better. What has happened with the property tax limitation is that we burden wealth with less of the demands for the upkeep of the infrastructure and burden income earners for it. This let's off corporate, business and large property owners off the hook, while shifting the tax burden to the middle class and the working class. What strikes me in the whole shift is that the businesses bitch more about the poor product of the public schools than anyone else and they get the cheap tickets. That sucks.

Then there is the question of equity. Does the taxing district match the service district? Here, as already noted, the City of Portland overlaps several school districts. I certainly trust that Parkrose, David Douglas and Centennial school districts get something if the households in that area are taxed; or conversely, Portland taxpayers don't pay for schools where the tax is not collected. I'd like to know how this would be handled.

I think the state response in terms of equalization also need to be clarified.

I like the idea that the tax will be sunset, too, allowing it to be reviewed and renewed, or junked, as a revenue collection mechanism. I'd also like to see a clear priority list as to how this additional revenue will be spent...._before_ I vote for it.

I wonder too is there a citizen watchdog process included?

Lastly, I wonder why it is that the City is involving itself in the functioning of an entirely separate political entity, School District #1? I thought we, as citizens of Oregon, has effectively handed over to the state legislature our school funding decision ([sarcasm]and what a wise and wonderful public decision was _that_[/sarcasm]).

We used to have local control of our schools in this state, but it seems to me that in the greedy, grasping desire to pay less to our local governments (thereby being able to impress other idiots with our cellphones and SUVs we buy with our tax savings), we handed over control of our school districts to the state. How about we take them back, before we start chunkin' our loose change into the "school tax" coffee can?

The history of the short-sightedness of the Oregon voter is not impressive, nor encouraging.

Bronson, unfortunately we live in a time when neither government nor the anti-government forces will declare a truce for even a moment. It's a two-way dysfunctional street.

Government is on the defensive, as much as the offensive, these days. Look what is happening in the federal government. They're not fighting about new taxes -- they're gutting the old, and stealing from our kids in the process.

I'm tired of it all too, but it's not just the tax-and-spend crowd that's creating the poisonous atmosphere.

Another reason why I love living in Portland: it makes me feel like the ultimate anti-tax conservative.

I guess I fall into the "I got mine, screw the rest of you" camp. I'm in my 20s, grew up here, live on a relatively tight income and am tired of being nickel and dimed to death by shockingly high sewer bills, "temporary" taxes, etc. With each passing day it seems to get harder and harder for someone in my situation to afford to live in Portland. Losing .95 from a paycheck may not seem like much but it does hurt those of us on the lowest rungs of the tax ladder.

The three year tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to get the schools through some troubled times. From what I know, it did little to increase the number of days in the school year or improve things in local classrooms.

If this new proposal flies, as Jack points out, how much of this cash will inevitably wind up in the pockets of admins? I'm voting "no." It's time for Portland to live within its means. If this city has cash to extend the streetcar line, drop massive revenue on the OHSU tram and cut taxes for condo developments, it has plenty of $ for the kids.

If this city has cash to extend the streetcar line, drop massive revenue on the OHSU tram and cut taxes for condo developments, it has plenty of $ for the kids.

Although I hope the tax passes, I also hope our city commissioners will turn up their hearing aids for that message -- or that it comes across too loudly for them to miss.

Also...

Income taxes fluctuate with the economy. When the local economy is down, collections fall also. And, it's a bigger imposition upon the taxpayers. (Consumption taxes - sales taxes - are the same in terms of the response to economic activity or inactivity, but fall harder on the lowest income levels.)

Wealth, however, doesn't really fluctuate with the economy (it does, minimally, but can also act as a reserve or even refuge for the owners of wealth in an economic downturn). The biggest form of wealth our society is property. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not income. Income tax is a tax on earnings, not wealth.

We have, over the past 30 years, shifted our tax base such that relatively more of it comes from the property owner to the income earner. I think that needs to change. To back closer to how it was in 1970.

I agree with "B". I'm voting no only because it's high time that the city, county and state prioritize their expenditures. Schools always become the poster children (no pun intended) for tax hikes because they are the most personal to people. You're an ogre if you say no to "the kids" and "the future of this state".

The mayor would get my support if he said, "Funding education is our number one priority. Once that is covered, we will look at allocating the rest of the budget. If the arts, libraries and public safety are jeopardized, so be it."

Unfortunately - for the taxpayers - they realize that begging for tax dollars for sewer systems, jail beds and dog parks would never work.

Give me five dollars or I'll kill this puppy.
Give me 0.95% or your children will go uneducated.
Same thing, different levels of tact.

Before we praise Potter's leadership too much, let's remember that he's had over a year to address this known problem while he's been "visioning." Also consider...

Potter's .95% tax to get $67 million for schools is equal to:

> A 23% cut or postponement of capital upgrades for the city in '05-06.

> A 5% across the board cut for operating expenses.

> A nice chunk of which the police and firefighter pension/disability robs the general fund each year

This is a quick fix that doesn't address any of the fundamental problems. And how much will the beaurocracy required to administer this tax cost?

Until we finally say NO to more taxes, nobody is going to try to fix the problems in the system. And that's sad. But, as long as we keep throwing more money at the school district, it will be business as usual.

I am the product of public schools and a state university education. I support public education. I will put my kids in public schools (likely not Portland at this point, for obvious reasons). However, the mess must be fixed, the beast must be tamed, and the city, PPS and the county need to face facts: The financial systems in place cannot be sustained. Another tax just delays the unavoidable crash when the sky REALLY does fall down.

We need to put pressure on the yahoos who are running things. Just as we say NO to more taxes, they need to say NO to developers, NO to OHSU and their amusement park ride, NO to the unions and the out of hand benefits that those us us in the real world do not get because it is not sustainable, and NO to the continuation of PERS as it stands, just to name a few. And Jack, although it's not Potters fault that PERS retirees don't pay state or local income taxes, he should be the guy standing up and pointing out that this "lost" tax money is hurting the schools and our local government services.

Fix the mess and I will be standing in line with my tax check, happily knowing that my money is going to the kids and a quality education. That is not happening now.

Godfrey makes a good point, I think, about the problems of relying mainly on the income tax as a source of state revenue. But the property tax has problems of its own--as demonstrated by the Measure 5 property tax rebellion of the early 1990s that permanently limited property tax rates, regardless of real property values. Property taxation may be a good way of collecting money from those with tremendous wealth, but it's a potentially very burdensome tax on middle-income or fixed-income people whose only property asset is the house in which they live. If a person's income drops, he still has to make his mortgage payment. And as we see in Portland, incomes haven't come close in general to keeping pace with the rise in property values. Most people I know who bought a house 10 or 15 years ago would be extremely hard-pressed to pay property taxes on the current real market (versus measure-5-limited) value of their homes.

It seems like the fairest tax system would be one that collects revenue from a variety of sources and aims to interfere as little as possible with individuals' ability to meet their basic life needs. So we should have: a property tax, but one that is graduated and falls more heavily on properties other than primary residences; an income tax, but one that leaves the subsistence portion of a person's income largely untouched; and a sales tax, but one that doesn't tax food and medical care, but does tax other services (e.g., lawyers, accountants, massage therapists, personal trainers).

I suppose a sales tax, in particular, will never, ever get anywhere here. But in my view, Oregon residents' opposition to that tax is self-defeating, given this state's appeal to tourists and marijuana growers, neither of whom now contribute much to the state's coffers.

So yes, I too wish the tax system were different from what it is, and I wish some of the state's and city's priorities were different. But this is a state with a population of close to 4 million people, so compromise is inevitable if we're all going to mesh our priorities and views and somehow live together. I'm going to vote "yes" on the city's school-funding measure because good public education is vital and the schools need the money.

TALLY ON CITY COMMISHES REGARDING INCOME TAX -

(I just called around five minutes ago)

ERIK STEN (spokesman, after evading the question): "To be perfectly candid with you, Erik was standing right there by the mayor when he (announced the tax). Erik wants to craft something that voters will approve." That must be a yes.

DAN SALTZMAN: three attempts and NOBODY answered the phone, not even a machine

RANDY LEONARD (spokesman): "No, not as currently written."

SAM ADAMS (receptionist): "Oh, I don't know. Can you hold?" (tick, tock, tick, tock) "Let me transfer you to someone who can answer that." (straight to voice mail)

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

Vern: I loved your puppy example. It made me think how different stereotypes might react:

A socialist would beg $10 from the public: he'd give you $5 and keep $5 for himself.

A liberal would happily dig into his pocket, and give you $5. Then he'd tell all his friends he gave you $5, so the puppy would have a better life.

A moderate would give you $5: asking you for proof that you don't harm the puppy.

A neocon would kill you, save the puppy, and then wonder why that damned dog keeps following him around everywhere.

It's not my puppy.

I think the most important point is this:

Currently, the City of Portland has no charter authority to tax incomes. That is why they call the business license tax a "fee". I am not in favor of giving the city the authority to start taxing incomes because I do not believe it will stop at schools.

The city's all funds budget is about 2.3 billion. Whenever we question their budgeting priorities we are told that certain "colors" of money cannot be used for other purposes because of charter restrictions. 600 million or so of this colored money is one bureau billing another bureau for services, known as inter-agency billing.

If the city wants to amend the charter to give it taxing authority to help the schools, I believe it could also amend the charter to allow "orange" money to be used for "blue" purposes.

I was testifying before council on a computer equipment acquisition when the IT guys fessed up that they had 4 million in a reserve account. Randy Leonard was shocked. "I wonder how many more of those there are?" he speculated.
I wonder too.

In short, I think the city could provide the needed funds for a school bailout without raising anyones taxes by wringing the dollars out of their inter-agency budgets.

We could also go into urban renewal and tax abatements while we're discussing it.

A number of you have now advocated the "Say No to Taxes to Teach the Government a Lesson" approach.

The principal problem with this terribly misguided form of political expression is that—at the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal—it ignores the effect on the children. “Saying No” to a host of other tax and spending issues, such as requiring penniless counties to pay for Measure 37 claims, or tax breaks for individuals and corporations alike, doesn’t have a permanent long-term effect on the burdened the same way that “Saying No” to funding education will have on children.

Higher taxes are rough on everybody, but paying an extra few hundred dollars this year won’t dictate what you can or can’t do with your life twenty years from now. In contrast, most kids only get one shot at 8th, 9th, 10th grade, etc. If we don’t pass this tax, instead waiting for the legislature to “get the picture” sometime in the next decade and pick up the slack, the quality of education will decline, along with every student’s future potential.

Those voters willing to piously suffer until increased state funding comes through will be little affected by the decline in Portland’s schools, but the kids that attend those schools in the coming years will never get another chance to be educated during their formative years. Those of you willing to vote no for some higher ideological purpose should consider the sacrifice you are asking of the children that attend Portland’s public schools.

Andy writes: "Those voters willing to piously suffer until increased state funding comes through will be little affected by the decline in Portland’s schools, but the kids that attend those schools in the coming years will never get another chance to be educated during their formative years. Those of you willing to vote no for some higher ideological purpose should consider the sacrifice you are asking of the children that attend Portland’s public schools."

So, are you advocating for school choice? Sounds like it would work in this example. Let people choose what, where and how their kids are educated, just like we choose to buy a (bankrupt) GM or Ford, or if we go with a longer lasting Toyota.

I say give parents & kids a real choice, and you will be amazed at how much better both the bad and good schools will become. Just like Ford don't make any more Pintos no more. If they did, Ford would be outta business, run over by Toyota. Choice works. Choose your Schools.

Andy,

Our children are already getting screwed. America's public schools spend more per student than pretty much any other industrialized nation... with worse results. Just how is tossing more money into a failed system "good for the children?"

If you (or Tom Potter) really want to help kids, you should organize against the teachers unions. They're the ones mainly responsible for the plight of our public education. They've worked to stifled proposals regarding competition, performance standards, charter schools, vouchers and home schooling -- pretty much everything that would improve the situation.

It's time for major school reform. It's time for the teacher's unions to have their wings clipped.

I think I have to disagree with Mr. Bog on this one. Here are my reasons, with a more detail explanation at garagewine.blogspot.com.

* Portland Public Schools already have a method by which to raise money. It is called a "local option" property tax. I know BoJack disagrees with me on this. You say tomato, I say tomahto.

* Portland's teachers union did not make any good faith effort to reduce Portland Public School high and growing health insurance costs.

* There is no such thing as "dollars in the classroom." Extra dollars in the classroom means extra dollars of teacher salaries and benefits.

* The tax is not small--0.95 percent is a huge amount of money. I don't care how many latte's it is, I drink black drip coffee that I make at home.

* A city income tax would require a change to Portland's Charter. There is a 99 percent probability that the text of the charter amendment will enable this and future city income taxes.

* A Portland city income tax is a sure way to ensure that the Oregon Legislature will not provide more school funding.

* Ted Ferrioli.

WWMFS?

What would Maude Flanders say?

Does anyone know what the student - teacher ratio is now and what it would be if the tax failed and they had to cut?

Thanks
JK

Jack Shafer writes (in Slate):
"When Koppel laments the fact that cable, satellite, and broadband have "overcrowded" the marketplace, making it "increasingly vulnerable to the dictatorship of the demographic"—that is, readers and viewers deciding what they want to consume rather than what the three broadcast networks think they should—he sounds like any other monopolist complaining about how the arrival of competition has dragged down quality."

Read the whole thing in slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2135100/

Sounds just like the Teachers Union. Competition is always evil!

Wow... What a great thread.

Thanks, Richard. First, I'd like to point out that we already have sales taxes in Oregon, just not a general sales tax. We have sales taxes on alcohol, tobacco, stupidity, and lodging. A general sales tax is, as already noted, an invitation to a higher sales tax later...or, a reduction in the number of exempt items as they are added back in at some indefinite point in the future. They are inherently regressive.

Then, there's the issue of the increase in valuation pushing taxes too high. Under Oregon's old tax structure, if your property increased 10% per annum over a stretch of time, it would still only realize a maximum of 3% increase in the tax rate over the entire taxing district. Under that system, if a big property owner improved a high value piece of property (and didn't get any tax subsidies or forgiveness) then it's quite possible one's tax payment might actually go DOWN. We did away with that in 1990. None the less, the increasing taxes, fuelled by inflation on property values, proved to be a real problem for fixed income individuals. There is an answer, and that is a "homestead exemption", where one's primary residence is exempt from some or all of the basic property tax.

Weishapt: I don't support any more deferred maintenance of city capital as an answer. Our city infrastructure is being depleted as it is, through poor vision and planning on the park of city bureaucrats chasing expensive dreams and "signature" projects. We need to stop blowing wads on crap that somebody can stick their name on and start paying attention to the stuff we already have. Our parks are eroding and we're buying more new expensive park space that we won't be able to adequately take care of? Our streets, city buildings, water system, fire infrastructure, police fleet and facilities are also being eroded. That doesn't sound like a reasonable approach to city financing to me at all.

I do agree that a reform of the fire and police pension system is long overdue.

I love Vern's example, too. Around here, it's parks, libraries or kids. The sacred cows of Portland politics. "Stand back, or I'll shoot this poor, defenseless library!"

Last of all, Jack's quotation needs to be artistically rendered, posted here with instructions to reprint and post all over the city.

"If the City of Portland has the money for the Tram *rimshot*...it has money for kids."

Did anyone read today's very fair coverage of the schools battle today in the O? I was really quite impressed with the balance and the facts presented, many of which I either did not know or had not considered. The "failure" of the legislature was one. They apparently increased the schools budget by 7%, and in order to replace PPS's I-tax money, would have had to allocate $1 billion more dollars to the schools. That's a chunk. So it's apparently not fair for the mayor to be saying the legislature failed us, a refrain I hear often and am always tempted to repeat.

It also made mention of the efforts to curb spending on health care costs which, although not declining, have been slowed in growth. I think it's apparent (at least to me) that two things are required - first is PERS reform. The State Supreme Court made that one tricky, but it must be worked on. The system is simply unsustainable.

The second as I see it is to make all the PPS schools charter schools, heading each with a strong principal (and schools like Jeff and Benson should get the pick of the litter) and allow those principals to run their schools as they see fit. Pay good teachers more, much more. Fire bad ones. Fast. Quit teaching to the test and foster an environment of curiosity, creativity, and community. Let any student in the district go to any school in the district. Let the dollars flow with those kids. Most people will send their kids to the neighborhood school unless it's awful anyway, so there shouldn't be too much shuffling.

Let the school board monitor the success of the principals and pay them or fire them accordingly.

That's my idea of a new way of doing business. Thoughts?

Don sez: "make all the PPS schools charter schools, heading each with a strong principal (and schools like Jeff and Benson should get the pick of the litter) and allow those principals to run their schools as they see fit. Pay good teachers more, much more. Fire bad ones. Fast. Quit teaching to the test and foster an environment of curiosity, creativity, and community. Let any student in the district go to any school in the district. Let the dollars flow with those kids. Most people will send their kids to the neighborhood school unless it's awful anyway, so there shouldn't be too much shuffling.

Let the school board monitor the success of the principals and pay them or fire them accordingly."

It sounds good, Don, but I don't know how workable it is. There are a lot of existing contracts which could hinder such an approach, and contracts in our society are sacrosanct.

I'm a former teacher, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the classroom teacher. The union contract is a huge protection from abuse, but I recognize that there are those "bad teachers" (recognizing that this can be a highly contentious judgment)who are protected as well. I think finding alternate employment within the system, so that burned out teachers aren't just turned out to pasture with a bad, short-shrifted retirement fund. Taking these people and creating community service projects with unemployed and voluteer adolescents and young adults...to teach living skills and imbue pride in accomplishment would be good.

There are ways, but I'm not quite sure why making each school a "charter school" makes a particular difference, if the district is still selecting the administration and the adminstration of each school sets the tone for that school. We could do that without making every school a "charter school". Maybe I don't understand your distinction.

By the way, there have been, and still are, some truly heads-up principals and vice principals in Portland schools. Sadly, many have been lured away to places where funding and advancement are more secure and there isn't a crisis every six months over whether someone's assign school will still exist the following year.

I think one thing we could really do to help schools, school districts, students, teachers, administrators, and taxpayers a whole lotta good would be to get the federal government out of education entirely. We should not be funnelling money to Washington so we can get back a small portion of it to do what they tell us we have to.... That whole loop is unnecessary.

Income taxes do nothing for the increasing retirement community that is cashing out from high California real estate values and moving here for an early retirement. Portland (particularly the Pearl District) is turning into an affluent retiree's paradise. I could retire right now and problem solved! Maybe I should. Won't help employment any...

Let us not forget that the housing bubble will, eventually, deflate. There goes the increasing property tax revenue the City relies on. The federal budget deficity will, eventually, raise interest rates and result in stagnate wages and hiring (whether or not military intervention keeps the US dollar on the "black gold" standard).

This is a band-aid tax from a failed Police Chief who has sought to save his legacy as mayor by implementing another quick fix that he won't be around to answer for when he's collecting the lucrative police pension he's protecting now.

Jack, Jack, Jack... There are states that have their shit together, like North Dakota, that don't have this kind of crap in their state legislatures. Maybe we should demand a higher standard here in Oregon?