NUUTTTSSS!!!!
Please excuse...wine tonight!

How the heck do we get rid of their tax authority ?

The upcoming special session legislature could pull back the lottery money.

Another egregiious misappropriation is by Metro.
There $140 million dollars share comes from federal gas tax flex funds which could be spent on any number of projects regionaly that are not funded.

The Sellwood bridge among them.

However Metro et al never allow any flex funds to be spent on things for cars and trucks.

2010-13 Regional Flexible Fund Allocation - Approved Projects

http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//2010-13_approved_projects.pdf

Their $140 million

No. OUR $140 million.

Kitzhaber's response on the MLR issue has been and will continue to be:

"Milwaukie Lightrail is now out of scope of the governor's preview. It is under the preview of the federal government. Yes, the state's lottery funds have contributed $250 Million, but that has been determined by the present administration and I am not of liberty to second guess, recalibrate, or reconsider something of this magnitude that has our state's previous commitment. I must add that I see the Milwaukie Lightrail project as generator of jobs for Oregon and furthers the livability of our state."

Hah! The livability of our state? How about instead of building a tram to nowhere, spend the cash on schools and PE, since you're forever complaining about them Kitzy.

Tri-met is jockeying for the 5+ billion in Federal grant to states specifically reserved for high speed rail projects. If you are a subscriber to Time Magazine, they have a full article on high speed rail in their latest issue.

For the pro-high speed rail slant where discussions of costs to the taxpayer and the sheer amount of taxpayer dollars is avoided and obfuscated by acronyms and elitist bunk, then you can go here:

http://www.cahsrblog.com/

As for the messenger, Robert Cruickshank, he is a career academic and progressive grassoots activist. I am unsure of how much time he has worked in the private sector as opposed to the public sector where you live off of other people's money, therefore costs to the taxpayer is an annoying argument to avoid at all costs with as much elitist bulls*** you can think of at the moment.

Personally, this method of starting a project before the grant dollars has come in has proven to worked in the past when the economy was buoyed by the real estate sector, but if we have a double dip coming, which most economists agree on, then Tri-Met may be up sh**s creek as they say.

Oregon's high speed rail will be competing with California proposals to build a high speed rail network from San Francisco to LA and possibly LA to San Diego.

Oregon's high speed rail? What is that?
Certainly not MAX.

A reader comment printed in the April 28th Prager Zeitung has gone viral. If one changed the subject name to Sam/Vera/Neil/Randy, it could describe the mess around here.

IMO TriMet and it's local partners are defrauding the federal government by claiming the local match has been secured when it has not.
All that has happened is a bunch of politicians agreeing to find the money somehow with several back room schemes emerging to move it forward with a pretense that all is swell.
That federal funding is not scheduled to be approved until June of 2012.

The entire approach by TriMet who is risking even their own operation could not be more reckless and dishonest, from every angle.

Kitzhaber's demonstrated irresponsible negligence is the perfect example of how these politicians escape responsibility for their reckless decisions.

With most of the local match coming from existing revenue streams any of the few jobs created by MLR will simply use revenue that would have sustained those jobs where the money is taken.

Essentially every single basic service having it's revenue siphoned away for this boondoggle is a higher priority.

But just like the creeping up cost of MLR there is no obstacle too big for this boondoggle.
Not this added $100 million, not the 100 buildings, businesses and jobs displaced, not the $23 million to move one company, not the fiscal mess at TriMet, not the many greater needs region wide and not the $1.5 billion soon to be $2 billion price tag.

I went to the MLR Citizen Advisory Committee meeting last night and TriMet was discussing opportunities to add the various green street, green track and other amenities to the stations. The idea is to make them reflect the neighborhoods and maintain identity. One big problem, none of those amenities are included in the construction estimate. The TriMet official mentioned 5 or 6 times that other government grant money would need to be acquired and that possibly private funding as well. Yeah sure.

One of the most common red flags at these charades is the never given example of a current MAX station of what people should look forward too.
Gee I wonder why.

The funny one they talked about was the Bybee Station where TriMet said they could put in green track and other improvements to make it nicer. But it isn't in the budget and does nothing to address the sorry location of that station.

"Somebody needs to call the gubernatorial candidates out on this, and demand an answer."

I agree, and I'm going to try.

You guys are better skeptics than I am on this stuff. What specific questions would you ask?

Ask Dudley if, as governor, he would replace the Tri-Met board. We already know that Goldsch . . . er, Kitzhaber would not.

That raises a good issue, RickN -- in your view, who are the big problems on the board?

http://portlandafoot.org/w/index.php?title=TriMet_board_of_directors

Our board page needs a lot of work, obviously -- none of the member profiles are in place yet. But I assume Lehrbach isn't too popular in this room.

As for replacement, four of the seven members (Clark, Saragoza, Bethel, Olanrewaju) are newly appointed just in the last few months. I've only been to three meetings so far, but my impression is that they're facing the same challenges all such appointed nonprofessionals face: they don't have the time or background to really dig deeply into the policy machinery and form their own strong opinions about how it should work. Therefore, like so many small-government boards, they're ruled by staff.

I'd say this is actually an argument for electing the board, or making at least one of the positions full-time, a la Metro.

Michael: I would begin your question to Dudley and Kitzhaber with this;

"After Allen Alley came out in opposition in the primary to funding MLR with $250 Million of Oregon lottery dollars, and his questioning of MLR proceeding in these economic times, Mr. Dudley you shortly afterward publicly supported Alley's position, and thought it needed careful consideration. What is your position now and how will you proceed, and help to redirect the $1.5 Billion and growing dollars?"

Reframe this same question to Kitzhaber.

If you can have followup, ask them their position on urban renewal in the context that most of the matching dollars from four taxing jurisdictions for MLR is coming from new or existing urban renewal areas that actually takes money from basic services from all of the state as well as each city or county.

Additionally, ask them if using state lottery funds of $250 Million, not including the debt on those bonds, is appropriate when the state has it's largest budget debt ever? Is it the right priority when state government is claiming it will need to slash basic services?

Milwaukie officials classify 3 of our main roads, Harrison, Monroe and Railroad, as "Failed." They should be rebuilt within 5 years. If not, plan on hiking or 4-wheeling to the Milwaukie MAX Station.

lw wrote:

Kitzhaber's response on the MLR issue has been and will continue to be:

"Milwaukie Lightrail is now out of scope of the governor's preview. It is under the preview of the federal government."

Please tell me that Kitz didn't actually use the word "preview" instead of "purview."

Board member Lerbach questions this project:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzdMhTRrl9Y

I attended the TriMet Board meeting Al M posted above. What is sad is that Lerbach's motion to go slow on the Milwaukie Lightrail, because of the lack of funding and no immediate future to do so, never got a second. The video shows a well made comment by Mr. Lerbach concerning the funding problem. Dudley should retain Lerbach and review and probably fire the rest of the Board.

What is also disturbing from this Board meeting is that previous to Lerbach's motion, the Board passed a resolution to spend $43 Million to move the existing, newly built SoWhat trolley line along SW Moody 100 ft to the west along with the proposed new Milwaukie Lightrail line through SoWhat, plus raising both 14 ft with fill.

Here's another additional disturbing part-the action was taken in a closed Board meeting without any public comment allowed even though there was over 100 people in attendance with several who would have commented. After the vote when the meeting was opened to public comment on other issues, it was pointed out by several "public" individuals that the TriMet Board skirted the public meeting laws and the necessity of having public comment per both local, state and federal requirements.

The feds should be made aware of how MLR is coming down without public comment on several parts of MLR. All the local public agencies are going to have legal problems in trying to acquire the $900 Million in matching federal dollars. Now, with our present fed administration, legal process must be followed; right?

WTF? Are they insane? Stop the madness-go by anything but streetcar/lightrail..go back to getting on the @#$%! buses.

Simple question to ask:

If light rail is seen as a "jobs generator", please account for each job created during each phase of light rail construction from 1983 to current - and please show that those jobs created, still exist.

So, each job creating during the original Banfield Light Rail project - do they exist?

What about Westside Light Rail? Do they exist?

Airport MAX?

Interstate MAX?

"Jobs Created", in my opinion, means full-time, permanent jobs. Not short-term jobs that cease to exist within a year or two - because a year later, then the politicians have to come up with another way to "save jobs" that were "lost" when the construction project ended.

As for "lw"'s comments - SPOT ON.

Great point, Al. Lerbach's observation that this is "money we don't have" (IIRC) was interesting. Maybe the Bojack boys have more in common with him than I thought!