So much B.S. to handle so little time...

Who has standing to do so, do you think?

It would be more enticing if one of the available remedies is a ban on the responsible officials from future positions of public trust.

How nice...The PDC will not have to bother with those pesky and sometimes inconvenient oversees bank accounts anymore.

OOPS! I meant "over seas" but maybe oversees is OK too.

Standing...?

Probably anyone who pays PDC taxes on their property tax bill.

There are times I think fondly of Henry Kane. His pugnacity and willingness to sue had an effect on some of the crazier idesa Washington County, Beavereton and the State were willing to engage in.

Take a look at the sidebar in that article, about Intel and McAfee, and the price tag, in cash!

Nonny, IIRC, like Jack, you are an attorney, so I'm hoping you'll expand on your comment.

I've been told numerous times by various city and county attorneys that stupid isn't illegal and that taxpayers DON'T have standing to sue a government over stupid or even misuse of the taxes they pay; and that, generally, you can only avoid being tossed out for lack of standing if you can show that the tax itself is illegal somehow, not that the way the tax is used isn't kosher. Something about the harm to any particular taxpayer being too small to justify allowing any taxpayer with a gripe to sue over it.

I suspect that with the huge number of lawyers who pay taxes that wind up with the PDC, even if you said that 90% of them were corrupt and getting gravy from the PDC, that would still leave the other 10% and that means scores of attorneys who are pissed off about this thing -- but who, like Jack, don't do more than that. If there's standing to go after this, why has none of these attorneys done so?

I recall (1L con law here 1999 so may be a bit fuzzy) that merely being a taxpayer doesn't give one standing to challenge tax/spending policies in court.

Of course that is federal con law so maybe OR con law is different...

Wonder what Hans Linde thinks....

And PDC plays very dirty if you cross 'em. Not even the big boys in town go against the PDC in public. They are truly the 800 lb. gorilla, and when they slam their collective fist on to your neck, it breaks.
I learned my lesson the hard way years ago.

George -

Unlike Jack, I hung up my cleats a number of years ago, just as I got to the north side of 65. So I opine thes thoughts solely for my own benefit and not as l;egal advice.

However, the state constitution seems to have a provision barring the state or its entities from owning stock.

Additionally, cities are prohibited - with limited exceptions for Pors - from loaning money to or advancing credit for corporations.

Article XI, Sections 1, 6, 7 and especially, in the context of Portland, 9 are really interesting and are probably what ORS, Jack was initially, elipitically, referring to. See:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html Page down to Article XI.

Chapter 28, IIRC, allows declaratory judgment actions against, among others, the State or the City. When one seeks injunctive relief, not monetary damages, to bar allegedly unconstitutional actions by a government entity, standing issues change radically.

George -

Unlike Jack, I hung up my cleats a number of years ago, just as I got to the north side of 65. So I opine these thoughts solely for my own benefit and not as legal advice.

However, the state constitution seems to have a provision barring the state or its entities from owning stock.

Additionally, cities are prohibited - with limited exceptions for Pors - from loaning money to or advancing credit for corporations.

Article XI, Sections 1, 6, 7 and especially, in the context of Portland, 9 are really interesting and are probably what Jack was initially, elipitically, referring to. See:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html Page down to Article XI.

ORS Chapter 28, IIRC, allows declaratory judgment actions against, among others, the State or the City. When one seeks injunctive relief, not monetary damages, to bar allegedly unconstitutional actions by a government entity, standing issues change radically.

But -- and I'm asking because I've inquired long and hard about how to sue governments for stupid/wrongful taxing and spending, particularly around stadium scams, which drive me bananas -- isn't a declaratory judgment a suit that the *sue-ee* initiates, rather than the sue-er?

If I understand what you're saying, the PDC could file suit seeking a declaratory judgment that everything they're doing is kosher, and anyone who wanted to take the other side of the argument would have to join in or miss their chance.

Funny, I don't see a rush for the PDC to do this. In the absence of the PDC suing itself to get a decision in its favor, who would have standing to enforce constitutional provisions dealing with taxing and spending? I've been told repeatedly that taxpayers generally can NOT sue government over how government spends money, such as extending credit or becoming a venture capital provider for firms.

GAS - This might make your head spin a bit but it's a practical application of some of what Nonny is talking about.

//www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A124001.htm

Maybe we can cut to the chase: if it were possible to sue to stop this boondoggle, wouldn't Cascade Policy Institute already have done so?