Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 2, 2011 4:30 PM. The previous post in this blog was DeFazio makes too much sense. The next post in this blog is A warm welcome for Jamie in Seattle. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

It's just a dried-up, old piece of paper

The City of Portland unveiled its new corporate welfare recipients today. But hey, they're small, startup corporations, and a lot of the beneficiaries are young, creative types, so it's cool. Never mind that pesky state constitution, which plainly declares:

No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, shall become a stockholder in any joint company, corporation or association, whatever, or raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association.

Just ignore that. The Sam Rands (and apparently, their counterparts in Hillsboro City Hall) can spend your money any way that makes them look good to their friends.

Anyway, this sort of disregard for the state constitution is not peculiar to Oregon, as this story illustrates. There aren't enough courtrooms in the country to keep up with all its scofflaw politicians.

Comments (30)

If I understand correctly, the way it works is the city pretty much gives the money to the seed fund — and then they manage it independently. Is the Portland Seed Fund a "municipal corporation"?

Hi Jack,

As we've discussed previously, the general fund money that established the seed fund came in an outright grant from the PDC. So the PDC does not hold any stake in the companies it invests in.

The fund's managers tell me that any return from the fund would go to the Oregon Entrepreneurs Network's Catalyst Fund, not back to city coffers.

By my reading, then, the term "stockholder" would not apply in this case because the city does not hold any stock in the fund.

Again, though, you're the lawyer, not me. I'd love to have you or your readers elaborate on your thinking.

Much appreciated,

-- Mike

The stock issue is moot. Given the language states:

"...or raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association...."

That "OR" separates the provision from being exclusively about stock ownership.

The underlying reality is that over $2 of public money has gone to the fund, which has doled out about $200K, in over a year's existence (not including whatever has been spent on overhead, which no one will disclose).

If you look at failure rates for start-ups and incubators you'll see that it's a fool's game unless you are spreading your bets across a few dozen at a time. Funding 8 start ups, with 2 full time managers, none of whom have expressed an emphasis on job creation, amounts to little more than a luxury unemployment fund.

Read the whole sentence, Mike. "...[O]r raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association." The city is "raising money for" these companies, isn't it?

Besides, the PDC is just a straw man for the City of Portland in these deals. Just setting up a shell intermediary shouldn't be enough to get around the constitution. That's what the New York court case is about. Click on the link. Watch the video.

Marta and I are in agreement -- her comment went up while I was busy composing mine.

Thanks, Jack.

The question, I guess, is whether the city is raising money for "any such company" by granting taxpayer dollars to the seed fund.

By my layman's understanding of the term, it doesn't seem to fit. The city granting money to the fund, but isn't raising money for any particular company.

Can you provide some legal context?

On the PDC...sorry if I wasn't clear. The PDC made the grant, with general fund money from the city, but doesn't control the investment. It's out of the PDC's hands.

-- Mike

The legal question seems to be how many layers of straw men the city needs to set up in order to get away with doing what the constitution clearly prohibits it from doing. The economic substance here is that the city is either giving money away to, or investing in, startup companies. That's unconstitutional.

Not to mention that it could be illegal under the city charter.

Hillsboro has similar issues.

You might want to get a municipal law expert on the phone and see if you can get some guidance, on or off the record. It might also make for an interesting request for an opinion from the state attorney general's office.

Many of Sam Adams and Randy Leonard's innovative ideas appear to be illegal. The water and sewer chickens are just now beginning to come home to roost.

Great suggestion. I have talked to attorneys about this previously. Their sense was that this kind of prohibition is designed to prevent governments from risking public funds in hopes or earning a direct return. They didn't feel it applied to a grant.

But I'll ask the AG and see what kind of response I get.

-- Mike

The view you're repeating is extremely narrow. The provision also prohibits "loaning" the city's "credit to, or in aid of" private companies. Nothing in there about a return. Ask a municipal law expert -- if you can find one who isn't working for the local government.

City leaders also seem to be betting that no one will challenge them in court.

That attitude has been going on for too long.
They have gone too far.
(I am not just referring to this thread's topic)
It is time that however we can manage it, that they be challenged,
don't know how much more abuse we can take, financially or simply as human beings, to be treated so shabbily by our leaders is totally disgusting.

I thought that was the magic of Portland's public/private schizophrenic arrangements. I.e, it's public when it wants access to tax revenue and certain exemptions, and private when it wants to avoid things like charters and constitutional limitations.

Laws only apply to the little people in Oregon.

Just as the Oregonian protects their publisher, the establishment protects their own. That's why Sammy's little envelope full of cash didn't raise any eyebrows at the DOJ. That's why everybody look the other way when Neil drove the babysitter...home. Endemic corruption is endemic.

That's why it's always surprising when a cop gets arrested: we all know that most of them get a ride home and a finger wag.

I'm going to break it down once more:

No…city…shall…raise money for…or in aid of…any…company...

Now the question is, did the city raise money..., or did the the city give money...? Does it make a difference?

Mike Rogoway, I'm surprised by your innocence.

First, you didn't read fully what Jack posted and note the importance of "or". In fact, you should have researched our constitution on this matter before you wrote your article, which maybe you did.

Secondly, you come back with obscuring "raising money", and claim "granting money" isn't "raising money". I'm a layman too, and if I get a grant for my favorite charity, I'm always applauded for "raising money". Ask Cilvia for an interpretation, besides the AG.

It appears that Sam wants to claim that he gave the money away with no strings attached so therefore he wasn't "raising money". So you can't raise money to aid a company, but you can tax people and give the money away to people that you like and that is okay. See the difference?

The city has a side account entrusted to PERB/OIC in the city's name. The side account is commingled with PERF for investment purposes, and the balance goes up or down with the investment returns. It is an alternative pot from which PERB demanded employer contributions are taken. The calculation of the demand is wholly independent of the existence or non-existence of such funds, and are made over time over at least 20 years. The legal wizards crafted plausible legality (the ruse) by insisting that none of the profits would be returned to city because the entire account balance would eventually be exhausted by paying employer contributions (which are themselves only plausibly enforceable).

If the investment is a total loss then the city would still be demanded to pay the PERB demanded employer contributions just as if they had not "pre-funded" the account. The "pre-funding," by way of issuing bonds, was not accompanied by an overt contractual release from any future liability. Pretended liability in the future was used to set the amount of the bond, but that liability was not reduced one cent.

I contend that because there was no release from liability that the account remains an asset of the city. (Is it criminal to not even include a footnote as the current balance of such side accounts in an audit?)

It generally takes only one level of indirection to bamboozle a non-lawyer. I'll take the position that not a single lawyer is tripped up, other than on the issue of loyalty.

The AG will be forced to say that the city's scheme is legal, otherwise he will have to confront the continuing illegality of maintaining side accounts in the name of the public entities that took out pension obligation bonds, and at the outset the design and issuance of such bonds.

Our city auditor, the elected one and the one that does all the work, recently insisted that the safety-worker pension obligations due in the future should be similarly pre-funded. This necessarily implies the issuance of bonds with the proceeds deposited somewhere for investment purposes, most likely the PDC.

I contend that no such bond should issue unless it is accompanied by a complete release of liability as to the tier-one and tier-two safety workers and that both tiers are terminated as to future work. It could be reduced to a cash payout now, where the recipient can put it in any IRA of their own choosing.

Rest assured, these loans/grants are just tiny test cases for much bigger ones to follow. The next one will certainly be a loan, but with the risk of loss borne exclusively by the taxpayers, and thus the functional equivalent of an illegal gift.

Ron, that is completely unintelligible. Perhaps that's what the city intends.

What happened to my comment?

It's fun to look at the minutia of the law to see if it is legal. And what wrangling might be done to make it legal. But another good question is the bigger question. SHOULD it be done. I think sometimes that can get lost in the conversation.

The tone on this blog would clearly an opinion of NO, it shouldn't be done. So the question becomes "Why not?" What's wrong with public investment in the private sector?

Then I answer my own question. Because our government seems to consistently mismanage the heck out of things. Due to corruption? Lack of wisdom and foresight? Cronyism? I dunno.

Another good question is what should be done about it. Start by blogging, get some attention and outrage going so that the players mitigate their behavior? Sue to get the courts to uphold the letter of constitution? But would they uphold the letter of the law here? I doubt it. Call me a cynic but my personal bias is the courts are becoming more and more a part of the "club" everyday.
And that's the George Carlin usage of "club." Miss that guy...

Thanks for the blog Jack. Great way to wake up in the morning.

I would say that I wouldn't put my money into any of the companies described in Rogoway's article.....But oops! the city did it for me!
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see the disasterous road that direct government investment in private companies can be.
Locally, the PDC is just can't wait!

It seems that Oregon courts give governments a lot of wiggle room on this issue. I haven't looked too hard, but I have not yet found a case in which the state or a local government was found in violation of the Constitution.

Here are some of the top hits I found.

State ex rel. Eckles v. Woolley, 302 Ore. 37:

SAIF was not a corporation as a form for conducting business enterprise with private investment by and for the profit of stockholders or a corporation as a form of organizing municipal authority and services with territorially-defined taxing authority

Carruthers v. Port of Astoria, 249 Ore. 329:

The port proposed to sell revenue bonds to finance the construction of a building, wharves, conveyors, and a plant to be used in the production of aluminum. Plaintiff alleged that the proposed action was in violation of Or. Const. art. XI, §§ 7, 9 and that a public purpose was not involved. The company that was going to use the plant unconditionally promised to repay the bonds in the form of rentals over 25 years, which was the life span of the bonds. On appeal, the court found that the proposed plan did not violate the Oregon Constitution and there was a valid public purpose. The court stated that, based on the restrictions set forth in the proposal, there was no way that the taxpayers or other property of the port would be held accountable in taxes or otherwise in the event of default, therefore, the court found that there was no constitutional violation. The court determined that there was a valid public purpose because the proposed plan was predicated upon its finding of a general benefit to the economy of the community. The court noted that a finding of benefits to the private company would not defeat the determination of a public benefit.

Johnson v. School Dist., 128 Ore. 9:

Appellee argued that the insurer, a mutual fire insurance company, could not issue a nonassessable policy to the school district because, as a cash premium policy, it violated Ore. Const. art. XI, § 9. Finding that there was no constitutional violation, the court reversed the judgment. The court held that if the contract of insurance subjected the school district to a contingent liability, it was in violation of the constitution and ultra vires. Section 6408, Ore. L. provided that a mutual insurance company was authorized to issue nonassessable policies only so long as it had assets of not less than $ 200,000 and a net cash surplus of not less than $ 100,000. In other words, the authority to issue such policies continued until the company was unable to maintain the financial standard fixed by the statute. Therefore, the court concluded that the statute authorizes the issuance of nonassessable policies. Because liability to assessment ceases on payment of the cash premium there was no violation of the letter or the spirit of Ore. Const. art. XI, § 9.

Well then it looks like the provision may have been gutted by the courts already. I kind of get annoyed when a constitution is changed without it being rewritten...but I guess the argument is that it hasn't changed I just mistook the meaning or intent.

“So the question becomes "Why not?" What's wrong with public investment in the private sector?”

Another way to answer this.

The only self-regulating measure capitalism has, and it’s an effective one, is the punishment of those who make mistakes. In a normal free market when you sell lousy products or make dumb decisions you lose your money. And the fear of losing money encourages better decisions. This self-regulation doesn’t exist when the gov “invests”, because there is little or no fear of losing other people’s (tax payer’s) money. (Or when it “bails out” a failed business.)

I would think that from a business perspective, a government that violates its own rules to cater to the political whim of the day makes an untrustworthy partner to do business with.

As JO noted, the larger question is "should this be done?" When governments (theoretically) have a finite amount of money (see Jack's sidebar on the amount of COP debt), then choices should be made as to the best use of the money. We can discuss what that might be, but I would guess this tossing of money at start-ups would fall far, far down the list of options.

Precisely why this is another glaring indicator how screwed up the political priorities have become in CoP.

umpire:...but I would guess this tossing of money at start-ups would fall far, far down the list of options.

I would also guess that tossing $80 million down a hole at a Powell Butte project that isn't needed should be far, far down the list as well - but it wasn't.

I have written about this before, last May, Council chambers filled with businesses and citizens pleading not to go forward with the June bid of $80 million, weren't listened to, and we need to remember that Nick Fish provided that third vote needed to go along with the Sam/Rand twins.

Sam/Rand/Fish triplets?
Sly Saltzman slipped away and disappeared for that vote. What about Fritz? She did vote No that day, but in my view she doesn't stray far enough from the others.

Well theoretically the threat of getting your butt kicked in the next election should urge our officials to more caution with the public funds. But in practice this doesn't happen.
My theory is that since money plays such a big part in elections using tax dollars to curry favor becomes a winning strategy.
Man I hope that theory is incorrect.

It just looks like what we got are people who are good at campaigning and/or getting money and getting elected, they have got that down and good to get in and then it seems decisions are based on what it will take to stay in.

In my view, that does not make for leaders who are wise in decision making or who provide good stewardship of our city finances or livability.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
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: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
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

Clicky Web Analytics