Portland's blood drive for turnips
The ballots are here, and so it's time for us to make a call on three Portland-area ballot measures, all asking for money. As a parent, I'm staring hard at 26-96, for the zoo; and at 26-94, "for the children." And I'm reminded of the W.C. Fields line: "Anyone who hates children and dogs can't be all bad."
Let's put those two off to one side for the moment and get to the easy one, 26-95: Portland Community College has its hand out for $374 million (plus interest on the inevitable bonds) for new facilities. Are they kidding? Hey, PCC is a wonderful institution, but at this point in history, there's no way the taxpayers of this area should be committing to $374 million of pork for Hoffman Construction and the rest of the corporate welfare set (who are avidly supporting the measure, of course). I'm afraid PCC is going to have to make do with the buildings it already has. If there's $374 million lying around for construction projects, I think the Sellwood Bridge would be a perfectly good place to spend it.
If the PCC wants to come back and ask for money for cutting-edge, clever, economically efficient distance learning, great, we'll be all ears. But a third of a billion for bricks and mortar in the fall of 2008? Nope.
| Posted at 3:33 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
That DOES seem like an awful lot of money for PCC! That's about the same as a Freightliner worker going out this weekend to buy a brand new Escalade (and picking out a new SubZero fridge on the way home).
Regarding the yet to be reviewed Zoo funding measure, I hear them say it will cost the "average homeowner" (something like) $1.40 a month. What they don't say is HOW LONG this fee will exist. I am a renter, so I am not sure how this effects me, other than as possible justification for a rent increase.
I never go to the Zoo and I am dubious, to say the least, about caging animals. But I frequently use the nearby parking lots to access the trails of Hoyt Arboretum and the place is always packed in summer. What are they doing with the proceeds of those ticket sales?
Posted by none | October 20, 2008 10:19 AM
Distance learning is not only cost efficient for the school, but for the student as well. I obtained a Post-Bacc degree in Accounting from Linfield College online. I have never set foot on their campus.
Our classes averaged around 40 students each at a current cost of $1050 per class. I assure you that they are not using $40,000 for payroll and computer costs. For the college, they make out well.
For the student, it is also cost efficient. I have a degree and knowledge from a highly respected school at a fraction of the cost. In all, a win/win for both sides.
Posted by mp97303 | October 20, 2008 12:31 PM
We are simply voting NO all these Measures except the Police Levy in Gresham. The Zoo still has past bonds that are NOT paid off. Why don't they simply raise the fees for the people that actually use the zoo?
Also, given the current economic situation; this would seem to be the worst possible time to ask the taxpayers for money.
Posted by Dave A. | October 20, 2008 2:09 PM
I'm voting NO on anything that doesn't fully fund Wapato Jail or replace the Sellwood Bridge.
Those are the only unfunded government mandates that I'm willing to pay higher taxes for.
I only wish I had an opportunity to vote against the $1.4 billion light rail bridge over the Willamette, more trolleys, and the Convention Center Hotel. Until I see these boondoggles killed off, I will refer all "for the Children" pleas for more money to our freespending overlords at the PDC, Metro, and the City of Portland.
They are wasting hundreds of millions per year, and none of that is helping THE CHILDREN.
Posted by Mister Tee | October 20, 2008 3:52 PM
I just have to vote yes on the zoo. The elephants didn't have any choice except to be here; they didn't screw up funding or the economy; they didn't do anything to the schools. Minimally humane treatment is literally the least we can do for them while retaining any sense of decency, in my mind. I don't expect it to pass, though.
Posted by SP | October 20, 2008 7:07 PM
It's For the Elephants now?
I thought it was For the Children?
I'm so confused...Are they going to quit feeding the baby elephant unless we pass this bond issue?
Posted by Mister Tee | October 20, 2008 7:42 PM
They could feed the children to the elephants...
Posted by Jack Bog | October 20, 2008 8:08 PM
They could feed the children to the elephants...
Or vice versa.
Posted by none | October 20, 2008 10:29 PM
I'm with Mr T. No on everything until the politicians get serious about spending priorities. Potholes before streetcars, Sellwood bridge before ballfields. Just say no to Sam the Scam and his silly spending requests.
Posted by andy | October 21, 2008 9:12 AM
So let me get this straight. Metro left a couple of unwed elephants alone long enough to have unprotected sex even though they didn't have the funding available to care for the offspring?
They had to know the father (a middle aged bachelor with a track record of fathering and abandoning baby elephants all over North America) could not be trusted with Rose-Tu.
As the infant grows older, father Tusko - a 13,500-pound, 36-year-old Asian elephant - will be introduced and allowed to interact with him, as well. Tusko arrived at the zoo in June 2005 on a breeding loan. He has successfully sired three calves in the past -- two while living in Canada and one in California.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/27316739.html
Typical left wing approach to growing government. Encourage irresponsible behavior, then demand funding to deal with the consequences.
Don't think that Metro didn't try to manipulate this vote by encouraging elephant promiscuity to make us all feel sorry for the new baby.
Don't vote for the zoo bond unless they promise give Tusko a vasectomy!
Posted by PanchoPDX | October 21, 2008 12:11 PM