The thing that is so disappointing about this is that most of these taxpaid handouts are to guys (like Paulson) who own some sports enterprise and could afford to do their own stuff.

We can always find money for crap like this or streetcars, but funny how Sam's trips to beg Earl never get more money for schools or sewer systems.

Supposedly muni bonds are supposed to be the big short for the finance types this year. I think the only way places like Portland are going to be saved (unless we boot people like Samdy and get some draconian type) are thru Fed handouts.

Get ready for $1000/month water bills and $100K for a bldg permit - Because they can.

Sorry for rambling, but this whole p!ssing away money and screwing our kids future makes me incoherent.

While debating with my egghead buddy, we revisited Oregon's Measure 5, circa 1990. 'Member that guy?

Yeah, the State's property tax has been capped for 20 years now, at 1.5%. Voter initiative to repeal Measure 5, and then a restructure of the property tax tables, ought to do just nicely.

Having 'remembered' that Measure, and knowing that education accounts for 43% of annual spending out of the general fund, I can sure see why the proponents were mad. I also understand this to have been a reaction to the urban growth boundary, and it's instant effect on property taxes. In fact, I remember voting for that guy. We were assured the urban growth boundary would be accompanied by measures to prevent exactly what happened. One year a person owed a couple of grand in property taxes, the next year, they owed ten, twelve, thousand. Plus, the urban growth boundary has been instrumental in sky-rocketing assessments.

Anyway. Developers just leap-frogged the boundary, so the boundary is fairly impotent now. Time to put school funding back into the hands of parents, and raise property taxes back up to where they should be.

This City doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a Californian problem.

I think I found the money quote:

“There’s a huge consensus among economists that there is no economic development benefit to these stadiums,” notes economist J. C. Bradbury.

You don't say...

The article states, "Seven years ago, officials there [Oregon] began to push for a change in the state’s constitution to let its pension funds issue bonds, saying that it would save millions of dollars." These officials aren't identified, just as the officials who ordered the deliberate low-balling of BETC costs were never identified.

I propose a new state motto: "Oregon. Where no one is held accountable."

Vance ...please keep voting for every property tax increase our fiscally irresponsible public representaives put forth. I will be the one cancelling your vote. Irresponsible public servant spending and borrowing. Remember that as we continue our path to Detroit west, and bankruptcy.

Vance, are you nuts? Apparently you are not a home owner. Without prop 5 the average property tax on a home in Portland would be $10K instead of $3K.

I'm up for naming names. Some of the officials are identified in the 2003 Voter's Pamphlet:
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200912301518203/SP2003_9_16.pdf
They include State Treasurer Randall Edwards, state representatives Lane Shetterly and Joanne Verger, and state senator Roger Beyer.
The legislative sponsors were representatives Shetterly, Westlund, Avakian, Backlund, Barker, Barnhart, Butler, Hass, Hopson, Hunt, Nelson, Patridge, Williams, and Wirth, and senators Burdick, Clarno, Courtney, Deckert, Metsger, Ringo, B. Starr, and Walker.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/hjr1.dir/hjr0018.en.html

Jack,

Thanks for keeping us informed. Sadly, like most fiscal conservatives, I moved out of town rather than risk paying the unfunded liabilities of Portland's recklessness. Go by Bioswale!

"the State's property tax has been capped for 20 years now, at 1.5%."

I think you mean a 3% increase annually independent of any other items like bonds that are voted on.

"raise property taxes back up to where they should be."

You must be nuts. State revenue has increased every year since Measure 5 (using all funds):
2009-11 $53,760,031,018 11.987%
2007-09 $48,005,409,654 11.071%
2005-07 $43,220,555,200 11.557%
2003-05 $38,743,009,114 9.108%
2001-03 $35,508,990,712 16.567%
1999-01 $30,462,319,439 11.548%
1997-99 $27,308,692,023 17.615%
1995-97 $23,218,655,377 15.850%
1993-95 $20,042,060,862 12.175%
1991-93 $17,866,757,268 17.738%
1989-91 $15,174,994,031 20.724%

Besides, it doesn't matter how much we spend. Ted gave education a 20% bump in 2007 and then 9 months later told us it all went for benefits.

I'd say divert the several hundred million annual for streetcars and MAX to PPS. You'd get a lot better returns.

Excellent article. Thank you for pointing it out. I've lived here too long and had no idea Portland wasn't really all that special in its headlong race off the cliff.

And as was pointed out above, unlike a CEO there's no way to hold local 'elected' officials resposible for any of it. No wonder they act like they raise their middle finger at the electorate once they're elected.

From the article:If that painful scenario emerges, it will be because we have too long ignored how politicians have become addicted to debt.

Because we have too long ignored is the problem. People may be thinking that in the end it will all work out. The prognosis doesn’t look good.

Some of the citizenry have been watchdogs and it has been onerous to watch our city fall into this trap and to do anything about it, however some still do try.
Thank you to all who have had the fortitude to deal with it.

From the link: http://www.answers.com/topic/onerous
Thesaurus: onerous, adjective
Requiring great or extreme bodily, mental, or spiritual strength: arduous, backbreaking, burdensome, demanding, difficult, effortful, exacting, exigent, formidable, hard, heavy, laborious, oppressive, rigorous, rough, severe, taxing, tough, trying, weighty.

The confederacy of fools, in Portland, is the electorate, not the officials.

Great piece Jack.
Thank you.

Two provisions should be added to the state constitution:

No Public-private partnerships.
No Borrowing. Period. If the state cannot "save up" to fund a big project like a prudent individual that project shouldn't happen in the first place.

Sound draconian? How about a major economic depression as a result of these two abuses by government? Now that's draconian!

One of the many ways we got to this point was elected officials approving borrowing and then typically not being around to be held to account for failures and investment losses years later. They only look ahead to the next election cycle or a higher office, happily loading up the public credit card to buy votes from influential constituencies and kicking the can down the road to be dealt with by the poor schmuck(s) that come after.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that senior officials of public companies now have individual responsibility for inaccurate or misleading statements in their financial reports. Perhaps the spirit of this should be incorporated into municipal finance regulations. That is, make elected and senior appointed government officials personally responsible for the success or failure of the borrowing they approve and the promises they make, even after they leave public office or change jobs.

It would have to be mostly symbolic - perhaps a modest fine that adjusts based upon an official's income or a small reduction in any public retirement funds the official receives - since a lot of public officials are not wealthy and many (we have to assume) were working in good faith with the best data available at the time when they made their borrowing decisions. But if a public official knew that he or she would be personally liable for borrowing that doesn't pay off as promised or jeopardizes a government entity's solvency, they would be much more careful about what they sign their names to.

Sadly, as long as mom & dad (Fed) keep bailing the kids out of trouble, things will probably stay the same.

Could this be related?

"The rest is from our sterling legislators, who want to get together and act important every year as opposed to every other year."

Kinda hard to be a sterling legislator if you don't spend lots of money for lots of good projects.

Its a hard rain that's gonna fall