"That ought to be an interesting sell in the depths of the recession."
===
Easy sell, anytime:
"It's for the children. The children are our future."
The public unions are not to be stopped, regardless if it is shiny new buildings to work in, or continuation of gold plated PERS pensions and Cadillac Health insurance. The children, please remember the children!
This is probably how they will pay for the move to give the old headquarters to Costco.
I saw some guy from PPS on the news the other night saying that they havent been in talks with Costco or the city, but even if they were, the entire move would have to be financed without using their budgeted money.
Yes, it all has to do with land land land and construction deals. Use the children when money is needed for pet projects. Just looks like the children and what is in their best interests doesn't matter otherwise.
Adults playing the "kiddie card."
Shame on them!
They know the bond won't pass even with simple majority requirement in effect for May.
Rosa Parks, their new 21st century model has a bill coming due soon with no way to pay it, without exposing the scheme to the public. Please look closely at this example.
PPS is disingenuous in their complaints, in that they are complicit as a party to the continual and ongoing boundary realignments to match with the new proposed URA so those public/private partnerships can get the tax credits/deferrals.
Council says they have no authority over PPS and PPS says they are not subject to City Ordinance or land use law.
Wasn't it the mayor who is discussing the Blanchard redevelopment? Wasn't he the treasurer of the Real Estate Trust?
The money we pay to PPS with our property taxes, is then diverted to other uses /Capital projects, not schools. If this levy increase is approved, (and you have no say or vote) the additional tax beyond that which you already pay will be a lien against your property without your consent.
Seeing the pattern here with financing schemes like URAs and TIF?
PPS has disposed of 32 properties in the recent past. They set up a dedicated fund for those proceeds 8.70.042 which is a paper sham. Where are those proceeds and that income stream? They're not saying.
How did the public benefit?
The Real Market Value of the remaining 92 schools increased by $16 Billion in 2007/08 alone, according to the TSCC audit. How much did the public lose by allowing PPS to manage and disinvest our public land and facilities portfolio?
We lost 30-45 existing recreational fields which we now must replace with general fund dollars or an additional tax lien on your property to meet 2020 goals.
Yes we are repurchasing that which we already owned. Sometimes more than twice.
How much will they cost to repurchase if they can be bought? You will soon find out.
See the pattern here?
Did PPS even have legitimate tile to convey? They won't respond to this question and certainly won't provide it. Many properties have reversions, or specific use emcumberances attached to the deeds by donors who knew the perils of political dealings.
No problem if you do partnerships. See Washington High. Oh and this explains many of the PPS facility name changes. Bury the past to make title and deed searches more difficult.
PPS by law was to provide the public by Dec 29 2009, their facility planning results.
When pressed they say they have not yet begun. That is because they wanted to complete the redesign and boundary changes prior to providing the public with the required analysis in ORS 195.110.
This statute specifies that PPS use certain criteria based on the stated and required analysis for making those choices. They did not provide for the public either the criteria used or the analysis to substantiate the criteria for making decision about facility and land planning. Instead they posed the issue to the public as one of equity knowing the disproportionate distribution of resources and curriculum was an ongoing issue for more than a decade.
That is why at those "public" meetings discussing high schools, the agenda was carefully controlled and no material questions were allowed, nor were answers given. Check the box and done, vote... except they remain in violation of State law.
There is much more, but this was about the tax lien.
All measures will pass as the systems is totally corrupt. Take your property tax statement out and look on the right top side of the page. Now tell me that we voted all of this crap in. Democrat union workers counting the votes? Yes it will pass.
Or, if all weren't so cynical, PPS could risk losing both elections. Perhaps they'll run them both so that most voters will choose one, and enough will choose two that both will pass. I have to guess there is some strategy behind these considerations, probably based on Mark Weiner polling.
Umpire,
Just to clarify, there will not be two ballot issues.
The PPS Board will unilaterally vote next week on the levy which I understand will be .65 per thousand or approximately $500 per year on a $200,000 home.
This appears to equal the proposed bond so they will get that $1.2 BILLION they wanted.
As a landlord I will pass these cost ($40 per month) along to tenants so renters do not get to avoid this tax. Everyone will pay while funds specifically allocated to schools are diverted to other political pet projects through the URAs.
If both pass then $80 per month on an average home. Got your attention?
Add Water and sewer and soon we will be indentured servants to the political class who is empowered by our indifference to extract revenue without end.
It is important that people show up and let them know what they think about this.
If you don't make your voice heard you'll get what they decide for you.
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 (12)
Thank you Vicki Phillips for your behind the scenes shenanigans.
Posted by Grandma Millie | January 5, 2011 9:03 PM
I wish we could demand a "no confidence" referendum instead. None of these systems have any remaining integrity or credibility.
Posted by dyspeptic | January 5, 2011 9:18 PM
"That ought to be an interesting sell in the depths of the recession."
===
Easy sell, anytime:
"It's for the children. The children are our future."
The public unions are not to be stopped, regardless if it is shiny new buildings to work in, or continuation of gold plated PERS pensions and Cadillac Health insurance. The children, please remember the children!
Posted by Harry | January 5, 2011 9:32 PM
Harry is correct. In the immortal words of Helen Lovejoy, "oh won't somebody please think of the children!".
I'm sure we'll see kids excused from math or english classes to help protest march with little signs.
Posted by JS | January 5, 2011 10:19 PM
This is probably how they will pay for the move to give the old headquarters to Costco.
I saw some guy from PPS on the news the other night saying that they havent been in talks with Costco or the city, but even if they were, the entire move would have to be financed without using their budgeted money.
Posted by Jon | January 5, 2011 10:28 PM
Yes, it all has to do with land land land and construction deals. Use the children when money is needed for pet projects. Just looks like the children and what is in their best interests doesn't matter otherwise.
Adults playing the "kiddie card."
Shame on them!
Posted by clinamen | January 6, 2011 11:31 AM
They know the bond won't pass even with simple majority requirement in effect for May.
Rosa Parks, their new 21st century model has a bill coming due soon with no way to pay it, without exposing the scheme to the public. Please look closely at this example.
PPS is disingenuous in their complaints, in that they are complicit as a party to the continual and ongoing boundary realignments to match with the new proposed URA so those public/private partnerships can get the tax credits/deferrals.
Council says they have no authority over PPS and PPS says they are not subject to City Ordinance or land use law.
Wasn't it the mayor who is discussing the Blanchard redevelopment? Wasn't he the treasurer of the Real Estate Trust?
The money we pay to PPS with our property taxes, is then diverted to other uses /Capital projects, not schools. If this levy increase is approved, (and you have no say or vote) the additional tax beyond that which you already pay will be a lien against your property without your consent.
Seeing the pattern here with financing schemes like URAs and TIF?
PPS has disposed of 32 properties in the recent past. They set up a dedicated fund for those proceeds 8.70.042 which is a paper sham. Where are those proceeds and that income stream? They're not saying.
How did the public benefit?
The Real Market Value of the remaining 92 schools increased by $16 Billion in 2007/08 alone, according to the TSCC audit. How much did the public lose by allowing PPS to manage and disinvest our public land and facilities portfolio?
We lost 30-45 existing recreational fields which we now must replace with general fund dollars or an additional tax lien on your property to meet 2020 goals.
Yes we are repurchasing that which we already owned. Sometimes more than twice.
How much will they cost to repurchase if they can be bought? You will soon find out.
See the pattern here?
Did PPS even have legitimate tile to convey? They won't respond to this question and certainly won't provide it. Many properties have reversions, or specific use emcumberances attached to the deeds by donors who knew the perils of political dealings.
No problem if you do partnerships. See Washington High. Oh and this explains many of the PPS facility name changes. Bury the past to make title and deed searches more difficult.
PPS by law was to provide the public by Dec 29 2009, their facility planning results.
When pressed they say they have not yet begun. That is because they wanted to complete the redesign and boundary changes prior to providing the public with the required analysis in ORS 195.110.
This statute specifies that PPS use certain criteria based on the stated and required analysis for making those choices. They did not provide for the public either the criteria used or the analysis to substantiate the criteria for making decision about facility and land planning. Instead they posed the issue to the public as one of equity knowing the disproportionate distribution of resources and curriculum was an ongoing issue for more than a decade.
That is why at those "public" meetings discussing high schools, the agenda was carefully controlled and no material questions were allowed, nor were answers given. Check the box and done, vote... except they remain in violation of State law.
There is much more, but this was about the tax lien.
Posted by mark | January 6, 2011 1:48 PM
All measures will pass as the systems is totally corrupt. Take your property tax statement out and look on the right top side of the page. Now tell me that we voted all of this crap in. Democrat union workers counting the votes? Yes it will pass.
Posted by spineless snake | January 6, 2011 5:23 PM
Thank you Mark for the important research and information,
and your time to bring this out.
Shining a spotlight on PPS and city involvement helps the public to understand.
Posted by clinamen | January 6, 2011 6:20 PM
Or, if all weren't so cynical, PPS could risk losing both elections. Perhaps they'll run them both so that most voters will choose one, and enough will choose two that both will pass. I have to guess there is some strategy behind these considerations, probably based on Mark Weiner polling.
Posted by umpire | January 6, 2011 6:28 PM
Thanks Mark for the information.
Posted by tim hughes | January 6, 2011 7:19 PM
Umpire,
Just to clarify, there will not be two ballot issues.
The PPS Board will unilaterally vote next week on the levy which I understand will be .65 per thousand or approximately $500 per year on a $200,000 home.
This appears to equal the proposed bond so they will get that $1.2 BILLION they wanted.
As a landlord I will pass these cost ($40 per month) along to tenants so renters do not get to avoid this tax. Everyone will pay while funds specifically allocated to schools are diverted to other political pet projects through the URAs.
If both pass then $80 per month on an average home. Got your attention?
Add Water and sewer and soon we will be indentured servants to the political class who is empowered by our indifference to extract revenue without end.
It is important that people show up and let them know what they think about this.
If you don't make your voice heard you'll get what they decide for you.
Mark
Posted by mark | January 7, 2011 7:25 AM