While I do my civic duty
I can't blog from a jury box, and so here are a couple of news items from today's O that you might want to chew on:
First, columnist Steve Duin takes a shot at the Oregon beer and wine tax, which he connects convincingly to the utter lack of a meaningful ethics system in our state government. It's the Maui thing, people. And from the sound of things, don't expect serious reform out of this legislative session.
Second, the move by the Portland City Council to take control over the Portland Development Commission budget seems to be petering out. Buried way down in a story about the new spirit of nicey-nicey among the five city councilmen is news that "Sten points to his decision to back off on demands for greater oversight over the PDC's budget without a citywide vote, a requirement for the mayor." So now I guess they're not going to Salem for a statutory change that would make Portland like all other Oregon cities in that regard.
Hmmm. The PDC appears ready to play ball with the construction unions, and I expect that the council's zeal to "reform" the PDC will fade quietly away as a result.
| Posted at 4:10 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (13)
I'm reminded of that early Stones song: "Not Fade Away."
Not going to happen...
Posted by Frank Dufay | January 9, 2007 5:20 AM
Stones? Shame on you!
Buddy Holly.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 9, 2007 7:56 AM
That make this "The Day the Statutory Change in Salem for the Portland City Council to Take Control Over the Portland Developement Commission Budget Died."
Posted by Bill McDonald | January 9, 2007 8:07 AM
Speaking of the O, is it just my imagination, or are they publishing fewer news stories? This mornings front section was a tiny 6 pages and the business section has been very light the last couple of weeks. Is it becoming the lite O?
Jerry
Posted by Jerry | January 9, 2007 8:27 AM
Bad time of year for advertising.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 9, 2007 8:32 AM
"So now I guess they're not going to Salem for a statutory change..."
Not so. We are still working to amend the statute because the city atty has advised the council a change in current statute needs to take place before the charter can be amended by voters to give council budget authority.
The language in the bill will only change to make clear a referral to voters must take place before the council can become the PDC budget committee.
Posted by Randy Leonard | January 9, 2007 8:40 AM
A public vote on anything related to the PDC would be quite interesting.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 9, 2007 9:25 AM
"A public vote on anything related to the PDC would be quite interesting."
You can say that again. How much would the government have to spend on the campaign to get its desired result?
Posted by Allan L. | January 9, 2007 9:38 AM
I have jury duty on 1/31. Third time in 10 years! I can really opt out (not that I would) because it's right next door to where I work. I hope I get on a good case!
Posted by laurelann | January 9, 2007 9:40 AM
Whoops! I meant "can't."
Posted by laurelann | January 9, 2007 9:41 AM
Speaking of the O, is it just my imagination, or are they publishing fewer news stories? This mornings front section was a tiny 6 pages and the business section has been very light the last couple of weeks. Is it becoming the lite O?
Its a strange fact of the universe that the amount of news varies in direct proportion to the amount of advertizing that is sold.
Thanks
JK
Posted by jim karlock | January 9, 2007 11:16 AM
"Speaking of the O, is it just my imagination, or are they publishing fewer news stories? This mornings front section was a tiny 6 pages and the business section has been very light the last couple of weeks. Is it becoming the lite O?"
Decreased advertising sales are a good explanation, but I prefer to believe that the O is beginning to realize how irrelevant it is.
Posted by Mark in Roseway | January 9, 2007 12:04 PM
Regarding Duin article....The alcohol recovery fee, Morrisette said, "recovers costs from the sale of alcohol to deal with the problems caused by alcohol." Those costs rise from drunken-driving accidents, emergency room visits, addiction and mental-health treatment centers, jail beds and broken families.
You know, if they were really worried about what alcohol is doing to people in the state, you would think they would get out of the liquor business. Selling hard alcohol at a 100% profit (or more) and then asking for more money to help the effects of people drinking it is pretty sad. (But of course, typical.)
Posted by Jon | January 10, 2007 7:49 AM