If I had to guess, the 55 might have come from the next column over (46+9), which represented those outside the city limits. All those columns of numbers get SO confusing, it's just so easy to pick from the wrong column!

(But then again, why would they ask people who live outside of the city limits? We don't get to vote on it.)

Posted by: Hinckley at August 15, 2006 05:10 AM

Let's see. Ask people about several different tax measures, then ask if they support a spending measure.

That's clearly an unbiased way to poll the electorate.

Posted by: Chris Smith at August 15, 2006 06:54 AM

The weakness of support for "clean money" might be related to the ease of pinning a quantifiable number to it. The harms are qualitative, and seemingly too complex for reduction to good P.R. phrases.

The hokey pokey numbers that are sold as the benefit of project X, as presented by experts, are even more complex (with a near-infinite set of assumptions) but are presentable as if the projected benefits are reducible to a fixed and certain dollar value. It is fact, because folks with suits say it is fact. (Otherwise the rationale that supports one bond or another, or tax tweak for a special class or group, would be revealed as just as structurally sound and durable as Cotton Candy.)

On this theory, could we get an aggregate number associated with specialized property tax breaks and present it as single number for consideration of a poll to dispense with the breaks? (Inclusive of the starkly inconsistent "independent" appraisal for tax purposes of Affordable Housing compared to that for obtaining "private"-HUD-related funding and getting local P.R. support.)

Hey Chris,

Can you pin a long-term quantifiable number to the value of Egalitarianism, or rather the price/value for issuing bonds who's value is derived from abandoning Egalitarianism as a guiding principal?

Posted by: Ron Ledbury at August 15, 2006 07:11 AM

What I find most interesting is the politicians are most anxious to put tax and spend measures like Schools, Libraries, Greenspace, and Public Safety on the ballot. But we never see any of the pet spending programs tested by the electorate. I wonder what the polls would show if voters had a chance to vote on SoWa and the Streetcar as well as voter owned elections.

I think the stradegy is to put these things on the ballot and then say when they cut Police, Fire, Parks, and Libraries so much they are essentially dysfunctional or inaccessable, blame the voters for not wanting to tax themselves more to support these essential services.

How about giving us some real choices on the ballot, like should we our taxes go to operate Wapito or operate the Streetcar, then vote on a levy to operate the streetcar.

They could get creative I suppose, after all during the Vietnam War Demonstrations I remember then using Tri-Met busses to corral and detain protesters handcuffed to the old seats. Maybe the Streetcar could have passengers during the day and be used to round up tweekers and drunks at night.

Posted by: John Capardoe at August 15, 2006 07:22 AM

Chris:

Would you oppose an unbiased poll on the November election ballot?

Posted by: Mister Tee at August 15, 2006 07:34 AM

Capardoe: you make a good point. OHSU/PDC polled it's employees two years before the final vote on proceeding with the tram and only 32% of OHSU's 11,000 people thought the tram would be worthwhile. With those kinds of numbers why didn't PDC and City Council put the tram issue, and maybe even the whole North Macadam URA's $700M taxpayer costs up for a vote? It is about time that the voters begin to demand votes on large issues that hit them in the pocket books.

Posted by: Jerry at August 15, 2006 09:14 AM

And think of what the opinion polls or voting results would be on the tram or NM if we had a vote. OHSU's 32% number, when they are the so-called direct beneficaries of the tram and NM and they aren't paying their fair share, would look paltry compared to a vote result of those of us paying for the $700M.

Posted by: Jerry at August 15, 2006 09:21 AM

How can anyone give a reasoned opinion on whether to keep or toss Public Campaign Financing, when the citizen commission hasn't issued their report after months of in-depth research, and the Council hasn't revised the rules yet? Duh, obviously the first run highlighted significant problems with the regulations. Give the public process time to fix them, then we'll vote on it in 2010 as planned. It's still better than the traditional money-grubbing campaign funding system.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz at August 15, 2006 09:24 AM

Amanda stole my thunder here, but I'd also add that it makes little to no sense for the Trib to hold up 'area' polling numbers. Of course some guy in Tigard is going to look at any Portland policy with disdain... for this issue, I could care less what a non-Portlander thinks. But obviously, some want to cast it in a more damning light by referencing numbers without consequence. Maybe the Trib got lazy and decided to just poll residents near its Clackamas Co. office...

Perhaps it should come to a vote, but I don't see people with torches storming city hall over it. I think we're on the right track with the right idea. The next step is implementing more measures to prevent abuse. It seems that people on this blog routinely espouse the need to get special interests out of city hall... well, this could be a good start.

Posted by: TKrueg at August 15, 2006 10:05 AM

You can tweak it all you want. It will never sell.

Posted by: Jack Bog at August 15, 2006 11:13 AM

The old system was funded by tax dollars, too. Just laundered through the beneficiaries of PDC projects.

Posted by: Bark Munster at August 15, 2006 01:05 PM

Amanda,

This is a classic "opt in" vs "opt out" program. Everyone knows that individuals are much less likely to "opt out" then they are to "opt in."

The British Conservative Party has, for decades, tried to force the British Labour party to switch to an "opt in" system for union dues (a portion of which go to Labour party membership).

Anti-union activists militate for open work rules (opt in) while union organizers work for closed shop rules.

The examples are legion.

If the Council believes publicly financed elections are a good idea, they should have simply adopted them and taken the political credit or heat. I find the sunshine provision a rather phony method of trying to provide political cover.

Posted by: paul at August 15, 2006 02:17 PM

Amanda -- "How can anyone give a reasoned opinion on whether to keep or toss Public Campaign Financing"

See -- Too Much Self-Disclosure

Posted by: Ron Ledbury at August 15, 2006 03:11 PM

I hate to be a broken record, but, once again, there is nothing that binds the sitting council in 2010 to bring forward that vote. Nothing.

Posted by: Dave Lister at August 15, 2006 03:49 PM

Amanda, you have said in the past about other issues , that it is not a good idea to past "laws", "regulations" that are not well defined, then throw darts at it for refinement. I believe this concept should apply to VOE.

Posted by: Lee at August 15, 2006 08:36 PM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]