This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 30, 2012 2:43 PM. The previous post in this blog was More about living on that freeway off-ramp. The next post in this blog is Kiss and make up. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, April 30, 2012

Is it "green" to burn money within the city limits?

Portland's dopey sustainability center project will turn out to be a bit of a financial disaster even if it never does get built. It's a great reason not to vote for Eileen Brady.

Comments (16)

Perhaps its real purpose is to waste money, whether it's ever built or not? Another "public-private" siphon?

It would make money for Mark Edlen. That seems to be the Portland mission statement any more.

Jack, I have a question for you. You don’t want to vote for the three leading so called idiot candidates, neither do I? I am going to vote for Fernandez in the primary and moving to Clackamas County in time for the general election, so no vote for me. I am happy to get out of town, but I wonder who you will eventually vote for. Holding my nose, I would think that Jefferson Smith would do the least damage as he is totally incompetent. What are your thoughts?

Brady would be the least disgusting of the Big 3. Hales is a chronic liar, and Smith has serious personality problems. But in November, I'll probably write in Fernandez.


TRANSLATION: Continue the urban renewal scam with the use of guilt as the new methodology. The developers will continue to rob public funds so that they can be "sustained".

So far, I'd say Brady hasn't exhibited any significant character flaws - except for the desire to run for office. That's not saying much, though.

And Sam's written response to the audit is that he "pledged full compliance with city policies on leasing outside space in the future". So does that mean he plans to have them rewritten to help his buds, or does "the future" mean any time after he finishes his current term, leaving the mess for his successor?

Brady can't connect the dots. She is equally as bad as CharLIE and Smith.

My biggest beef with Brady is her insistance that she'll end teacher lay offs and fight for "funding" for schools, and can't or won't understand what her infatuation with new Urban Renewal Districts (URDs) and Tax Increment Funding (TIFs) does to school revenues.

Brady is worse than a fool, she is a knave.

Nor can I go along with Fernandez. On his web site, he spends a lot of time criticizing Mayoral and Commissioner special projects and pet projects and the damage those do to city budgeting. Fernandez also wants the city to "stick to its knitting" and not do the jobs / supply the services which are rightly the province of other governmental entities. I>E> Fernandez wants the City to stick to its core missions. So far so good.

But on his web site Fernandez identifies himself as an animal lover / fan / protector who wants to use City funds to start a new, duplicative, "no kill" animal shelter. Last I looked, that was az county responsibility. Sop, despite some lofty sounding language, Fernandez has his own "pet projects" (pun intended) and will advocate for the city to go outside its core mission when its a project he wants to support.

There is no more principle there than with Brady or Hales.

Max might be good in 15 years, but rightnow he's too young and inexperienced.

To me, that leaves Bill Dant.

My two cents, only. Your mileage may vary.

Nonny Mouse, you are incorrect in my position on the animal shelter. No where does it say I use City funds because the program does not use City or County funds. It is funded by license fees, public donations and is managed by a non government funded "Public Trust". Not one public dollar is used, all public dollars now used for the animal shelter would be saved.....not as my pet project. I have an active email service on my web site where you are free to ask questions. Please do so before you misrepresent my positions and intentions.

All I want to know is what does Tre say about the center?

License fees are collected at the point of a figurative gun, the state's police power. A license fee is collected from the public. A license fee dollar is as much a public fund as a property tax dollar.

Why would I need to license pet if the pet never leaves my private property?

Brady just reiterated her support for the SC on the KGW debate, as well as her goal to make Portland the most sustainable city in the country - ugh. I know you dislike J Smith, Jack, but he's seemed the most forceful in stating the need for fiscal responsibility, and focusing on basic services. I wonder how beholden he is to the developer mafia.

As silly as Portland has become, I'd really like to move back. If just for the beer.

The point of the proposed change would be to eliminate the euthanization of thousands of dogs and cats each year at the Multnomah County shelter. Pets that have been lost, abandoned, or unwanted die unnecessarily when common sense alternatives exist.After working in many veterinary emergency and private clinics to go through school, the images of mistreated animals remain. My proposal takes the cost of the shelter off of taxes paid by all citizens whether they own a pet or not. The shelter is always funded as an afterthought.
Pet license fees would not be at the point of a government gun as alluded to above. Fees have been successfully accepted by communities that see the licenses as an efficient way to quickly return their pets home when lost or stolen, ie Calgary Canada.
This proposal, as with any I would put forward would be vetted by the community first. That would be fair to all.

We have an entire f***ing BUREAU of Fire and Police Disability and Retirement?! And as if to add insult to the financial injury they've wreaked upon us, they won't even house themselves in city buildings? Good lord. This solidifies my agreement that the next revolution will indeed be of non-public employees vs. public employees.

Clicky Web Analytics