You would think that an auditor auditing a bureau like this would more clearly define certain numbers such as ratio of tickets to hours worked. The message was clear to me that the only reason they did this audit was to boost the fines for parking violations. How many times did the audit report that the city was working with the court to raise the fees? I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the added parking fees that they will get by adding Sundays to the mix. On that note, what is the added cost of enforcement by having the parking meters active on Sundays?

How the heck many unregistered vehicles do they see on the street? Police will always use that as an excuse to pull you over pretty quickly.

Once again, the triumph of small-mindedness in Portland.

Asinine. This strikes me of another example where a city bureau/dept/whatever constructs a report to reach a predetermined outcome. The outcome desired is a recommendation to raise revenues. But in order to do that, they need to come up with a compelling reason to do so. Oh wait....I know, because parking enforcement is "green"! This sham of an audit is loaded with assumptions and bad methodology. I like this one especially - "The Parking Enforcement Division recently compared the City’s vehicle registration parking fine to fines in six other cities, and found that Portland’s vehicle registration parking fine is lower than the average fine for the six cities." Really? Which 6 cities? And how about the AZ study that they mention, but don't actually cite? WTF?

We're talking about 13,000 registration violations, in a city of several million vehicles... even if every one of them was a black smoke-spewing POS, it's still a drop in the bucket. Show your math, Auditor. How many of those 13,000 do you assume wouldn't pass DEQ? And of those that don't pass, how much more emissions do you assume is being released? If you raise the fines, what percent of violators do you assume will come into compliance? So what would be the net decrease in emissions if you raise the fines? Show your math!

Reminds me of an old chestnut... Figures don't like, but liars can figure....

I rather like the enforcement of registration requirements. The DEQ test helps keep more heavily polluting vehicles off the road in the metro area, and the fines provide some modest relief in my neighborhood from the practice of storing cars on the street for extended periods. But hizzoner's evocation of a safety benefit is ridiculous. Does he actually not know that there is no vehicle safety inspection requirement in Oregon?

DEQ testing is a joke when it comes to cars manufactured since the late nineties. They plug into the computer and the computer says okay. The thing of it is, when the computer says not okay most late model cars simply won't run.

As far as keeping the air clean is concerned, how many "Save the Whales" VW mini-vans have you seen rolling down the road blowing smoke that makes them look like they are burning coal... with a trip permit in the window?

"Meter maids"? I thought that term went out with the likes of "airline stewardess" because of the sexist connotation.

I would posit that the greater contribution to air quality is the effect of parking meters and enforcement in discouraging people from driving cars downtown at all. With increasing hours, fees, and fines I am less likely to want to dine, entertain, shop or visit downtown. The vehicle registration argument when put into context with the scope of air pollution or carbon emission volumes is essentialy bullsh... It makes a good argument to justify the revenue source but has no measurable impact on the problem. This is much like all the other green "solutions" that are sold to us as a cure for our fear of climate change.

When I go downtown, I just let the wife out to shop and I drive around the block a few hundred times 'til she's done. No parking fees, no parking tickets, and no problems.

Yes, "meter maid" is considered a derogatory term.

Thanks for the PC check. At least I didn't call them some worse names, which many of them deserve.

I think it is a great idea.
Now if we could get them to ticket all the California and Washington cars in my neighborhood that have expired tags and don't DEQ them.
If I have to pay then everyone should have to pay.

I know for a fact (I personally know 2 that work for Portland) that the METER MAIDS of Portland don't work hard at all. They are very good at hiding in coffee shops, bookstores and other similar places for hours at a time. There is little oversight, and many are excited for Sunday duty because it will be a "cake walk" (their term, not mine) and they are getting a small Sunday pay increase.

A while back I pleaded with the DEQ and Earl Blumenauer to help me and many other poor citizens with regulations on automobiles. I did not even get an answer back.

I had an older car that ran great but would never pass DEQ. It was the only transportation that would accommodate my family needs and daily work commute.

Being poor I could not buy a newer car or put money into a new motor, I was stuck.

So it got registered outside of the DEQ zone. Most people do this as a matter of affordability.

If a car does not bellow smoke or fall apart on the road why can't the state officials make an exemption to poor families so they can have something besides a bus to nowhere.

Hurting poor families seems to be a reoccurring theme these days. Now we have "cash for clunkers" taking away affordable cars.

You would be proud of me now, just to grind my ax and rub everybody's noses in my misery. I have an exempt diesel truck that I put together that spews out the most black, smelly billowing clouds of smoke you ever seen.

Yes I know, very immature but when elected officials ignore us we need to show them we are alive.