If the water PUD ballot measure is going to pass, the people associated with it are going to have to appear bathed, competent, and all grown up.

The PUD proponents probably dominate the City's people in competence and maturity. And the City's deodorant ban should help in the "bathed" department, too.

"If the water PUD ballot measure is going to pass, the people associated with it are going to have to appear bathed, competent, and all grown up."

So far so good...see below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2013/03/15/portland-water-war-simmers-as-business.html

But, but how are we going to keep that slush fund going?

You can't have citizens controlling their own resource - they might actually be prudent and responsible.

Maybe it is time to change to a PUD.

Tucson's water bill for 10Ccf of average monthly use is $25.17

Portland's is $57.30 for same amount.

It rains on average 12 inches per year in Tucson, 37 inches in Portland. Plus Portland has 5 flowing rivers nearby while Tucson has none in it's Sonora Desert environment.

Doesn't compute if you don't compute Portland's graft.

In this rare instance, Jack's critique is incorrect.

The law for PUD formation requires that the PUD formation election be accompanied, at the same time, by election of the first Board of Commissioners for the PUD. So having candidates for the board was not something that the PUD proponents did as a lark; it was required by law, and it is still required by law when any new PUD is formed. And anyone who is a registered voter, bathed or not, can run for the PUD Board. The proponents of the PUD do not get to select who runs for the Board.

I would rather they sell it to a water utility and distribute the cash to rate payers.

I'm not getting how "Jack's critique is incorrect."

Assuming one wants the PUD effort to succeed, it has to give off at least the verisimilitude of respectability, if not the real thing. Not something the occupy crowd hallucinated up on crack between de-licings. Same mistake the pro-pot people made last November, by the way.

If it weren't for the citizen lawsuit against the City for misuse of water funds, the Arts fund would have been tacked onto the water and sewer bill. This would have made it more difficult to legally challenge it. The Arts tax is a no win situation. The City is worried about the constitutionality of the tax as passed so it is now trying to restructure it just enough to move it from being unconstitutional (Hales is not so much against taxing the young college student dog sitting as he is about ensuring the constitutionality of the Arts tax). Of course, this was the whole reason for allowing the poverty escape, allowing the optics to blur a bit concerning the tax being a head tax or not.

Of course, a real city income tax would have been the re-launch of the Multnomah I tax, circa 2003 to 2005. But this might not have lasted very long before voters asked for its repeal. Plus bringing back the I tax for a measly $35 per person was another big drawback.

I hate new taxes, and especially the hideous shake down like Arts tax; but I live in the wrong city when it comes to electorate preferences on taxation level.

Jack appeared to believe that the PUD formation election could occur, without the need for the election to elect the first board. That is not the case. The first board has to be elected at the same time as formation is voted upon. He also seemed to think that the proponents of the PUD had some control over who ran for the board. Also not the case. While the PUD proponents can certainly recruit some folks to run, so can opponents of the PUD formation. In fact, one strategy is for opponents of the PUD to recruit unqualified persons to run and then to ridicule them as part of the PUD formation crowd. Also, any registered voter living in the proposed PUD area can run, including perrenial candidates commonly considered nut jobs.

So, it was not, as Jack said, a strategic error by PUD proponents to offer a slate of crazies to run for the board. The crazies were self-selected (if not also encouraged by PUD opponents), and the PUD proponents could do nothing to keep them from running.

Dan, I understand the rules. You're arguing with me about something I never said or implied. Which might say something about the past campaigns right there.

Also, the electricity PUD efforts "never had a chance" because PGE (assisted by PP&L and other private utilities) broke all records, then and now, in spending per vote against them.

One advantage the new PUD effort would have is that the City of Portland is prohibited by law from engaging in campaigning on a measure, including a PUD formation measure. Whether that prohibition is enforced is another matter.

I am not involved in the current PUD effort.

Dan, I think you're really misreading Jack's statement. His point is that the pro-PUD folks need to have all their ducks lined up so that the proposed board (or their "slate" of people for the board) are responsible industry types, not people last seen throwing bricks through the window at the local Wells Fargo.

Please do not try to get Dan to face reality. 8c)

Again, the comments (other than mine) do not reflect reality. Any registered voter can file to run for the prospective PUD board. Every such candidate then receives attention from the press. It does not matter how many nice ducks the PUD advocates have lined up. The story is the crazy hippies who are running for the board.

Who is not facing reality? I am apparently the only one who understands it.

While presenting a viable and dependable PUD scenario is important, Dan makes a very good point. At least this time the effort will not be opposed (using our own monthly utility payments against our own best interests) by a for-profit, monopoly utility with an advertising agency on retainer (whose owner was also a part of a ambiguously-named group "opposing" the PUD for all sorts of reasons that didn't really hold water and demonizing the proponents of a PUD as inept and incapable of providing the same level of service. I heard so many lies and half truths during the battling over that ballot measure that I was moved to write a personal letter to friends and family to debunk whatever I could.

And, while I'll admit that I am not the best educated person re. ballot measures, wouldn't we be voting on whether to form a PUD and not necessarily for people to run it at the same time? Seems like two separate things.

State law requires that the PUD formation election be accompanied, at the same time, by election of the first Board of Commissioners for the new PUD. So, yes, you are necessarily voting for people to run it at the same time. This is a big advantage for the opponents, who can use large money to run their own candidates for the Board, if it appears that the PUD formation election has an appreciable chance of succeeding. If the election of Commissioners to an already-created PUD were later, then perhaps more established members of the community would run for the Board--members who would want the PUD to be run well, not badly. But that is not what State law allows.

God, you would've thought they learned something watching the movie Chinatown.

I'll sign any PUD petition.

I'd love to see the look on all of Randy's hey-boys faces when they actually have to justify themselves.