Contrary to what our City Hall spies tell us, Willy Week is reporting that the City of Portland has collected $335,000 in leaf taxes from affected neighborhoods:
More than a month after street sweepers passed through Portland’s “leaf districts” to clear fallen foliage, only 37 percent of assessed property owners have paid the new removal fee.
By comparison, almost the same percentage—35 percent—of the 30,000 assessed property owners have withheld their payments, ranging from $15 to $65, under an opt-out provision.
And 28 percent of billed residents have simply ignored requests for payment, according to the latest figures from the city.
That all means Portland’s Bureau of Transportation has raised $335,000 from the new program—less than half of its $800,000 goal.
Thirty-seven percent of the 30,000 property owners paid? That's 11,100 checks. Since the fee was optional this year, it's really hard to believe that number.
Then again, it's hard to believe a lot of things that actually happen in Portland civic life.
Comments (19)
Thirty-seven percent of the 30,000 property owners paid? That's 11,100 checks. Since the fee was optional this year, it's really hard to believe that number.
Why are you so stunned to find that people are willing to pay for a city service that they use?
From the way the article is written, it seems that the $335k number is WWeek's estimate. I wonder if the city provided the actual dollar amount collected ...
Dave J...it would be one thing if people actually received the special service - but most didn't if they weren't already in a designated leaf district before. I live on a six long block with no street trees as the planting strips next to curbs are about 1.5 ft wide. I watched the regular street sweeper go down the center of the street - with cars parked on both sides of the 20' wide street...and we all received a bill for this service- something we get approximately 5-6 times a year anyway as a part of regular service.
And the number is not even close to what they actually collected according to my inside sources.
Looks like they are needing to rake in every possible dollar they can to continue their perks to pet projects. What will we be paying staff to dream up next for this Mayor?
I got a bill for leaf removal in the mail last week. This bill had a penalty charge of 10% tacked on it.
I had never received a bill prior to this and called the "Leaf Bureau". The customer service person took my information, including my statement that I mailed in an affidavit in a timely manner and told me notes will be put in my acct. file.
Not good enough, baby. After all this is the city that cannot get ANY billing software system right w/out . . . well you know.
Anyways, the customer service person tells me this is all she can do.
I had a picture of these "notes" going in the same file with my affidavit and this "bill" going to collection and before I know it I have a mysterious property lien notice in the mail.
My request to speak with a supervisor was met with a phone number to the Leaf Hotline Automated Menu Tree(LHLAMT). Hon, I already called that number and by the way what's your name and your supervisor's name?
"Will you hold", "yes", click - really crappy muzak & talk (the pdxline channel?) emits from the speaker for about 15 minutes.
Click. "Hello"-"How may I help you?" Again I go through the whole spiel, this time including my paranoid delusion about collections and liens. The resolution was to take another "affidavit" over the phone (?) and this will go into my acct. file.
When she asked me why I was requesting exclusion, I told her I live in a cul de sac - that the sweeper NEVER sweeps the front of my house, turning around before it gets there.
"Oh really, that's interesting." "I'll make a note of that and put it in your file."
I didn't know whether to thank her for her help or curse her for her incompetence.
I said thank you.
I'll be checking my credit report directly.
Should the city collect equal fees for a service from all, for the good of the group? Common sense reveals that most would reject this effort because it is unfair to some, while overly fair to others.
Then there is the issue of who should pay for it. It seems that leaf accumulation can negatively affect traffic flow and can clog drains/sewers. All these seem to be the responsibility of the city services most already pay for, and should not be added to individual households. Especially, since it is the city requiring us to keep or remove certain trees.
The place where it stops is when the City Commissioners are violating the city charter. Then citizens can legally challenge 'Leaf Taxes', Street renaming, 2nd mortgages on PGE Park... and many other things.
For the next 6 months there is a charter commission that can make such a change to the city charter and refer it directly to voters (no City Council approval needed).
If you want this mismanagement of your tax money to cease, these are the people you need to be talking with and going to their meetings to testify at:
Our property taxes should cover all "Basic Services". Basic services should include everything you can't opt-out of...fire, police, schools, roads/bridges, parks: maintenance of the public parks and streets cleaning are a Basic Service.
If you are going to provide "Extras" (like free pizzas, or neighborhood association facilitators, or MLS Stadium remodels), then you are welcome to charge for those extra costs SO LONG AS THERE IS AN OPT-OUT procedure.
I forgot to mention, our dollars for basics are most likely also used for the PR, marketing and propaganda to continue their agenda. How about cutting out all those meetings around town, with the city sending out their troops to take care of matters and "our citizen input" making sure those meetings are conducted according to the agenda.
I remember the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the city asking for the ORS or city code citations that justified the city charging for this service. Wonder if they ever got a response.
Does the city allow you to opt out by simply removing trees from your property, thereby obviating the need for leaf removal?
I would submit that getting rid of my trees would actually be an environmental service as it would limit the need for fossil fuel-powered city vehicles to pick up the leaves, producing savings in both fuel costs and resultant pollution.
The wood, properly cut, dried and seasoned, could be efficiently burned incrementally to heat my home -- a preferred alternative to the consumption of valuable resources like natural gas and electricity.
The ax-swinging involved will give me the workout expert physicians say is needed to avoid obesity and the woodchips produced from said hewing would make attractive, natural ground cover.
Of course, this being Portland, it will doubtless require additional fees to NOT have the city pick up my leaves. There would be fees, hearings, applications, impact statements, etc. just to cut the trees down. Likely that would be followed by a wood-cutting fee; the required purchase of a permit to have firewood stacked on my property; an additional fee for drying and seasoning with weekly visits by a city inspector; another required purchase permit to actually burn the stuff with additional surcharges levied on days ending in "y."
There would also be a fee to partially reimburse PGE and Northwest Natural to offset revenue losses for the power and natural gas I didn't consume; city-issued liability insurance required to cover losses from any and all damage done by my ax, including to the wood itself; an environmental waiver that must be purchased to offset the damage done to the carpenter ant population present in the tree, thereby repairing damage to the delicate ecosystem; and an additional offset providing funds to ensure the planting of 50 similar trees around the world, which selected city officials will deliver personally at taxpayer expense -- with a planting fee charged to me for each delivery.
Add in a processing fee for all the forms, permits, applications and related documents; and an additional fee just because they can do it.
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (19)
Thirty-seven percent of the 30,000 property owners paid? That's 11,100 checks. Since the fee was optional this year, it's really hard to believe that number.
Why are you so stunned to find that people are willing to pay for a city service that they use?
Posted by Dave J. | January 27, 2011 10:09 AM
Hey, that covers 2/3 of the Water House bill. Or two or three eco potties? The neon rose? Every little bit helps in la-la land.
Posted by SKA | January 27, 2011 10:16 AM
From the way the article is written, it seems that the $335k number is WWeek's estimate. I wonder if the city provided the actual dollar amount collected ...
Posted by Garage Wine | January 27, 2011 10:16 AM
Accrual accounting?
Posted by Allan L. | January 27, 2011 10:18 AM
Dave J...it would be one thing if people actually received the special service - but most didn't if they weren't already in a designated leaf district before. I live on a six long block with no street trees as the planting strips next to curbs are about 1.5 ft wide. I watched the regular street sweeper go down the center of the street - with cars parked on both sides of the 20' wide street...and we all received a bill for this service- something we get approximately 5-6 times a year anyway as a part of regular service.
And the number is not even close to what they actually collected according to my inside sources.
Posted by Mary Volm | January 27, 2011 10:26 AM
"Why are you so stunned to find that people are willing to pay for a city service that they use?"
Are you kidding? You haven't given it enough thought to even imagine the obvious?
That they have been paying all along and before the new fee?
Why not add a few more fees for services already paid for?
Dave J will jusy shrug and well OK.
How about a City Council fee?
And a staff fee?
Or even a consultant fee?
Those are all services.
Posted by Ben | January 27, 2011 10:33 AM
Looks like they are needing to rake in every possible dollar they can to continue their perks to pet projects. What will we be paying staff to dream up next for this Mayor?
Posted by clinamen | January 27, 2011 10:52 AM
I bet most that paid were commercial property owners and landlords. They know they can just pass the costs on to their customers or tenants.
Posted by Eric | January 27, 2011 11:03 AM
I got a bill for leaf removal in the mail last week. This bill had a penalty charge of 10% tacked on it.
I had never received a bill prior to this and called the "Leaf Bureau". The customer service person took my information, including my statement that I mailed in an affidavit in a timely manner and told me notes will be put in my acct. file.
Not good enough, baby. After all this is the city that cannot get ANY billing software system right w/out . . . well you know.
Anyways, the customer service person tells me this is all she can do.
I had a picture of these "notes" going in the same file with my affidavit and this "bill" going to collection and before I know it I have a mysterious property lien notice in the mail.
My request to speak with a supervisor was met with a phone number to the Leaf Hotline Automated Menu Tree(LHLAMT). Hon, I already called that number and by the way what's your name and your supervisor's name?
"Will you hold", "yes", click - really crappy muzak & talk (the pdxline channel?) emits from the speaker for about 15 minutes.
Click. "Hello"-"How may I help you?" Again I go through the whole spiel, this time including my paranoid delusion about collections and liens. The resolution was to take another "affidavit" over the phone (?) and this will go into my acct. file.
When she asked me why I was requesting exclusion, I told her I live in a cul de sac - that the sweeper NEVER sweeps the front of my house, turning around before it gets there.
"Oh really, that's interesting." "I'll make a note of that and put it in your file."
I didn't know whether to thank her for her help or curse her for her incompetence.
I said thank you.
I'll be checking my credit report directly.
Go By Sweeper !
Posted by msmith | January 27, 2011 11:07 AM
Should the city collect equal fees for a service from all, for the good of the group? Common sense reveals that most would reject this effort because it is unfair to some, while overly fair to others.
Then there is the issue of who should pay for it. It seems that leaf accumulation can negatively affect traffic flow and can clog drains/sewers. All these seem to be the responsibility of the city services most already pay for, and should not be added to individual households. Especially, since it is the city requiring us to keep or remove certain trees.
Ben is right. Where would it ever stop?
Posted by Gibby | January 27, 2011 11:44 AM
That is a great question Gibby,
The place where it stops is when the City Commissioners are violating the city charter. Then citizens can legally challenge 'Leaf Taxes', Street renaming, 2nd mortgages on PGE Park... and many other things.
For the next 6 months there is a charter commission that can make such a change to the city charter and refer it directly to voters (no City Council approval needed).
If you want this mismanagement of your tax money to cease, these are the people you need to be talking with and going to their meetings to testify at:
http://www.portlandonline.com/fritz/index.cfm?c=49205&a=331626
Posted by Jasun Wurster | January 27, 2011 12:02 PM
Our property taxes should cover all "Basic Services". Basic services should include everything you can't opt-out of...fire, police, schools, roads/bridges, parks: maintenance of the public parks and streets cleaning are a Basic Service.
If you are going to provide "Extras" (like free pizzas, or neighborhood association facilitators, or MLS Stadium remodels), then you are welcome to charge for those extra costs SO LONG AS THERE IS AN OPT-OUT procedure.
Posted by Mister Tee | January 27, 2011 12:10 PM
I forgot to mention, our dollars for basics are most likely also used for the PR, marketing and propaganda to continue their agenda. How about cutting out all those meetings around town, with the city sending out their troops to take care of matters and "our citizen input" making sure those meetings are conducted according to the agenda.
Posted by clinamen | January 27, 2011 12:57 PM
I remember the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the city asking for the ORS or city code citations that justified the city charging for this service. Wonder if they ever got a response.
Posted by Eric | January 27, 2011 1:08 PM
Does the city allow you to opt out by simply removing trees from your property, thereby obviating the need for leaf removal?
I would submit that getting rid of my trees would actually be an environmental service as it would limit the need for fossil fuel-powered city vehicles to pick up the leaves, producing savings in both fuel costs and resultant pollution.
The wood, properly cut, dried and seasoned, could be efficiently burned incrementally to heat my home -- a preferred alternative to the consumption of valuable resources like natural gas and electricity.
The ax-swinging involved will give me the workout expert physicians say is needed to avoid obesity and the woodchips produced from said hewing would make attractive, natural ground cover.
Of course, this being Portland, it will doubtless require additional fees to NOT have the city pick up my leaves. There would be fees, hearings, applications, impact statements, etc. just to cut the trees down. Likely that would be followed by a wood-cutting fee; the required purchase of a permit to have firewood stacked on my property; an additional fee for drying and seasoning with weekly visits by a city inspector; another required purchase permit to actually burn the stuff with additional surcharges levied on days ending in "y."
There would also be a fee to partially reimburse PGE and Northwest Natural to offset revenue losses for the power and natural gas I didn't consume; city-issued liability insurance required to cover losses from any and all damage done by my ax, including to the wood itself; an environmental waiver that must be purchased to offset the damage done to the carpenter ant population present in the tree, thereby repairing damage to the delicate ecosystem; and an additional offset providing funds to ensure the planting of 50 similar trees around the world, which selected city officials will deliver personally at taxpayer expense -- with a planting fee charged to me for each delivery.
Add in a processing fee for all the forms, permits, applications and related documents; and an additional fee just because they can do it.
Posted by The Other Jimbo | January 27, 2011 4:14 PM
Heh! Thanks, Jimbo. You've just given the "Portlandia" writers enough material for another episode right there.
Posted by Eric | January 27, 2011 4:39 PM
Eric's on to something.
Posted by David E Gilmore | January 28, 2011 6:40 AM
Dadgumbit, Jimbo! Why ya all givin such wicked ideas to City Council? Haven't you learned anything?
And Eric, you just came up with another basis for a fee. Fee to write about City Council fees.
Dadgumbit!!
Posted by Starbuck | January 28, 2011 7:15 AM
This was a wonderful success at my building! (sic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmkap0gpQVU
Posted by AL M | January 28, 2011 4:06 PM