Actuallly, what WW is doing seems vaguely similar to what Ricardson allegedly did.

Odd, that.

They're very fixated on the whole phone thing. They didn't seem to care much when the city was spending money to robo-call people to attend one of Sam's famous phony "open houses" setting up his transportation tax.

Crotchety?

Jack makes a good point about this tax going straight back to consumers. Most business effected on a usage basis would be local distributors (heating oil, beverages, etc) many of whom have exclusive territories, like your local trash collection. So a lot of that tax is going right back to the consumer. You have no choice. It's the independent plumbers, electricians, nurse practitioners, painters, and other small business folk who will have to absorb it, but even that will be temporary.

I wonder if Sam Adams (I believe he has a BA in Poly Sci from UO) would make his transcripts public, because I can't see that this man has the slightest understanding of economics and business, except how to pay back his donors.

Jack,

Keep up with the "crotchety-ness" (not sure if that's a word, but I'll go with it). I'd like to think that you and the regular readers and commenters to your blog have helped bring about the vote by holding the Council's feet to the fire on this "fee" scam.

P.S. If Commissioner Adams really was a Poli Sci major at U of O, then surely at some point he learned that even the bluest of blue ribbon committees is no match for an election when it comes to seeking public input.

even the bluest of blue ribbon committees is no match for an election when it comes to seeking public input

Certainly true when the issue can be framed as "if you're not with us you're against us", but that often isn't the case.

Adam's proposed "transportation fee" is an attempt to charge for street maintenance on the basis of "loading" on the system. Much like you pay a water bill based on water consumption. It is not an unusual fee approach, any longer, as cities across the nation adopt this approach. In 10 years, I bet more than 50% of cities nation wide will have this fee. It may not be right for Portland and maybe you all don't want to maintain your streets using this approach, but why don't you get accurate when you describe the fee approach itself? A vote on this funding approach seems appropriate and inevitable. But I doubt many of the posters here will criticise the legislation with any degree of accuracy or honesty.

If Jack is "crotchety", then maybe we need a "crotchety charrette" for the City Council. I wouldn't even mind an "off-site" in Sweden or France if it would boost attendance.

Plus, they might notice that even the Socialists are giving up on Socialism.

Less Weird, More Crotchety!

"But I doubt many of the posters here will criticise the legislation with any degree of accuracy or honesty."

Backgrounder of old stuff on tax versus fee:

(Bicycle, tax or fee) Ellis_v_Frazier_38_Or_462.pdf
(Dog, tax or fee) Hofer_v_Carson_102_Or_545_1922.pdf
(Sheep, tax or fee) Reser_v_UmatillaCounty_48_Or_326_1906.pdf

The load method (whatever phrase you choose) is used to match System Development Charges to, for example, new construction where typical rates of water consumption are calculated for basic categories of units.

Transferring water tax revenue (not fee) to the roads is not sustainable even with a public vote, provided anyone cares to litigate. In my honest opinion, which has no taxable commercial value anyway.

I think that a good remedy for the disposition of water tax collections, collected during litigation, should go to cover outstanding water bonds, or to lower the calculation of system development charges pertaining to water. That is, water fees/taxes (whatever) already have a designated slot in this clowns twisty balloon budget.

an attempt to charge for street maintenance on the basis of "loading" on the system. Much like you pay a water bill based on water consumption.

Come on, it's nothing of the kind. Only people who live or own a business in Portland will pay this "fee." Anyone else who uses the roads will not. It's more like a property tax than a road toll. A straight-up gas tax would make a lot more sense.

I doubt many of the posters here will criticise the legislation with any degree of accuracy or honesty.

Well then, we're all truly blessed to have you here, aren't we? And if it were up to your hero, Sam the Tram, there would have been no further debate or public vote. How's that in the honesty department?

outoftown appears to believe that our city lacks the money to pay to maintain roads. This is not true. We just spend hundreds of millions every year on unnecessary expenses. It's a simple problem: city council has more fun, gets invited to more lunches and gets more ego strokes from spending money on unnecessary "sexy" things than it does spending money on mundane expenses like fixing roads.

I can't figure out why some can't grasp how much money has been and is being misspent.

What does it take for these faithful followers to get it?

Sam the Tram does not tell the truth when he speaks. His carefully chosen words are intended to mislead. He is deliberate and conniving. Especially when it comes to mischaracterized revenue sources and spending.

His tenure at City Hall has been riddled with shady deals, reckless ideas and backroom shifting of millions to cover schemes and plug the holes they create.

With this new tax scheme Sam went from demanding it be enacted by council now to insisting it needs 9 months of conversation before a vote.

What a scoundrel.

So, is the chance of a May vote just out of the question, or could the council still decide to do that later this month?

...with a little prompting from the voters, of course.

"with a little prompting"?

How about prounding?

pounding

Jack,

I couldn't help but laugh at the ignorance of this WW comment-poster. . .

"Jack is an *******. Why doesn't WW do an article on him? He is an elitist, govt bashing pig." (Under Scam Adam's "Rogue of the Week")

Maybe if they sat in on your awesome fed tax class and actually knew half of the story of what the government robs from us, they would appreciate your endless expose's on government irresponsibility and fraud!

Keep up the great work!

"Jack is an *******. Why doesn't WW do an article on him? He is an elitist, govt bashing pig."

Either Sam or Randy posted that on WW.

Ha! Imagine the government types calling anyone an elitist. That's too rich.