I couldn’t agree more. I’m actually not against the tax increase BUT I’m staunchly against the proposed distribution of the taxes to be collected. Only three cents on the dollar going to major maintenance is an abdication of sustainability. Whether or not rejecting this levy results in a better proposal is up to the city council but we should demand it of them through the only means we have, a NO vote.
The Wallace Park project was presented to the NWDA Planning Committee which was skeptical about the design. In theory it was supposed to help drainage but in actuality widening the asphalt driveway would have accomplished the same thing. And far less expensively. Oh and the grant money that paid for it? It was merely a reallocation from the city’s DES department. Transferring money from one budget line to another is not a “grant.”
Nicely done, Bob. Informative and well laid out. I am of the public mind that tends to complain a lot about City of Portland bureaucracy failing to operate with common, private sector, fiscal responsibility. For some reason, not being required to operate to make a profit, as the private sector must, they operate with no responsibility or control. They do not do their jobs, do not collect income permitted by ordinance and at first complaint of being hamstrung in department budget shortfall, rather than creatively problem solve these issues, they let things worsen in order to gain public sympathy. Simply put: unlike the private sector, there is no evidence that bureaucrats reduce costs and collect debts owed, in order to balance budgets. They simply look for increased fees or new levies, to bring more revenue. (When was the last time City or County collected immediate property taxes, by public auction, from a property owner three years in arrears. Oh, no, locally, well-practiced investors can operate in arrears about 5 years before losing their holdings. Wanna guess how much money remains uncollected from these scofflaws thanks to the City that works? The laws were changed to favor the investors and developers, so we residential homeowners can be levied new charges to bail out City income shortages.)
Here, it is no surprise (just as ODOT is doing right now with lack of grounds maintenance where homeless encampments are their worst) they under perform repairs and maintenance with the clear intent to upset the public - wanting them to react in horror to worsening conditions and sympathetic to increasing their budgets. In essence, they practice this intended form of extortion: "If you don't give us more funding, we are going to deny you safe and attractive use of the public properties we are employed to maintain." I do love the fact you immediately point out how foolishly they misspend the new monies raised and have often wondered exactly what level of real property repair and maintenance services we would get by selling departments like the Park Bureau to a private company to operate. Could it really be mismanaged any worse?
It's useful to remember, that this is a City that likes to build new properties, like theatrical and exposition/convention venues with absolutely no budgetary funds to operate them once developed. That was the joke, often told, during the 80s when the Portland'5 project was on the boards. When confronted about this, Mildred Schwab insisted we build it and then find the money to operate it later - the point being, that the failure to plan ahead, but spend money on something uncertain to be able to sustain itself, would insure that some last minute means of keeping properties operating would be developed to save the City and it's duped population from embarrassment. A lawyer's (Mildred was one) clever strategy.
I presume this will be practiced once again, when the City decides what to do with the Civic Auditorium remodel. The compromise will likely be, spend money to build new and remodel the old - get two venues, where one needs upgrade. They'll find the money to operate both later. And naturally, this is the goal, while all evidence is that live theatrical entertainment (income from local and visiting rental bookings) are continuing to deteriorate. We have Portland Center Stage sitting in the Armory, begging for money and underfunded for the current season and Artists Repertory Theater in a multi-million dollar remodel, also unable to fund a full season of shows there. Oregon Children's Theater Company is presently defunct with no assurances of a return. So naturally, when the industry is suffering a quiet financial crisis nationwide, with major theater companies on the threshold of failing locally, this is the perfect time to build more venues (while the ones we have are not at full rental capacity) because apparently, if you build it, more people will magically start going to or returning to the theater. That's the way we do it in Portland.
Thank you for your detailed , informative and helpful article. The bureaucratic monster “doth mock the meat it feeds upon “. Every year brings another “worthy cause ” resulting in punitive property taxes and even more bureaucratic bloat.
Do we have any examples of rejected levys turning into better proposals in the future? It seems like a common strategy to discredit a levy right when it's about to be voted on with some grand plan of revision where interest drops immediately following the vote. This leads me to believe the goal was really about striking down a new "tax" in the first place.
Thanks for your comment. As I noted, there is time for a better proposal-one that has a better balance between operations and capital maintenance.
Moreover, as I’ve said repeatedly in discussions about my opposition to the proposed 75% parks levy tax increase, the threat to cut parks staff is a policy choice by City Council, not an inevitability. There are clear alternatives to mitigate these impacts — if the Council chooses to pursue them.
A telling example involves the City’s communications staff. At a meeting last year about Portland’s transition to a new form of government, Michael Jordan described the creation of a 4 new centralized offices, including a communications office. He explained that only AFTER creating the new office and positions would the City take a “hard look” at the 85 existing communications positions spread across 6 service areas. Do the math — 85 positions. And despite this promise, nothing changed.
A 2011 article quoted former Commissioner Mike Lindberg expressing alarm that city communications staff had grown from 22 in 2003 to 28 in 2011.
“That’s a pretty big price tag,” said Lindberg. “It’s just continually grown. If I was mayor, I would take a very hard look.”
There were 22 communications staff in 2003 and 28 in 2011. Now there are 85. And there has still been no “hard look.”
Yet when the city council commissioned a poll last spring, they framed the choice narrowly: parks versus police. What would citizens actually prioritize if given a meaningful option—like parks versus redundant communications positions?
The council has repeatedly chosen to expand administrative overhead rather than make difficult budgetary decisions. It’s time for a “hard look” at that!
I couldn’t agree more. I’m actually not against the tax increase BUT I’m staunchly against the proposed distribution of the taxes to be collected. Only three cents on the dollar going to major maintenance is an abdication of sustainability. Whether or not rejecting this levy results in a better proposal is up to the city council but we should demand it of them through the only means we have, a NO vote.
The Wallace Park project was presented to the NWDA Planning Committee which was skeptical about the design. In theory it was supposed to help drainage but in actuality widening the asphalt driveway would have accomplished the same thing. And far less expensively. Oh and the grant money that paid for it? It was merely a reallocation from the city’s DES department. Transferring money from one budget line to another is not a “grant.”
Nicely done, Bob. Informative and well laid out. I am of the public mind that tends to complain a lot about City of Portland bureaucracy failing to operate with common, private sector, fiscal responsibility. For some reason, not being required to operate to make a profit, as the private sector must, they operate with no responsibility or control. They do not do their jobs, do not collect income permitted by ordinance and at first complaint of being hamstrung in department budget shortfall, rather than creatively problem solve these issues, they let things worsen in order to gain public sympathy. Simply put: unlike the private sector, there is no evidence that bureaucrats reduce costs and collect debts owed, in order to balance budgets. They simply look for increased fees or new levies, to bring more revenue. (When was the last time City or County collected immediate property taxes, by public auction, from a property owner three years in arrears. Oh, no, locally, well-practiced investors can operate in arrears about 5 years before losing their holdings. Wanna guess how much money remains uncollected from these scofflaws thanks to the City that works? The laws were changed to favor the investors and developers, so we residential homeowners can be levied new charges to bail out City income shortages.)
Here, it is no surprise (just as ODOT is doing right now with lack of grounds maintenance where homeless encampments are their worst) they under perform repairs and maintenance with the clear intent to upset the public - wanting them to react in horror to worsening conditions and sympathetic to increasing their budgets. In essence, they practice this intended form of extortion: "If you don't give us more funding, we are going to deny you safe and attractive use of the public properties we are employed to maintain." I do love the fact you immediately point out how foolishly they misspend the new monies raised and have often wondered exactly what level of real property repair and maintenance services we would get by selling departments like the Park Bureau to a private company to operate. Could it really be mismanaged any worse?
It's useful to remember, that this is a City that likes to build new properties, like theatrical and exposition/convention venues with absolutely no budgetary funds to operate them once developed. That was the joke, often told, during the 80s when the Portland'5 project was on the boards. When confronted about this, Mildred Schwab insisted we build it and then find the money to operate it later - the point being, that the failure to plan ahead, but spend money on something uncertain to be able to sustain itself, would insure that some last minute means of keeping properties operating would be developed to save the City and it's duped population from embarrassment. A lawyer's (Mildred was one) clever strategy.
I presume this will be practiced once again, when the City decides what to do with the Civic Auditorium remodel. The compromise will likely be, spend money to build new and remodel the old - get two venues, where one needs upgrade. They'll find the money to operate both later. And naturally, this is the goal, while all evidence is that live theatrical entertainment (income from local and visiting rental bookings) are continuing to deteriorate. We have Portland Center Stage sitting in the Armory, begging for money and underfunded for the current season and Artists Repertory Theater in a multi-million dollar remodel, also unable to fund a full season of shows there. Oregon Children's Theater Company is presently defunct with no assurances of a return. So naturally, when the industry is suffering a quiet financial crisis nationwide, with major theater companies on the threshold of failing locally, this is the perfect time to build more venues (while the ones we have are not at full rental capacity) because apparently, if you build it, more people will magically start going to or returning to the theater. That's the way we do it in Portland.
Thank you for bringing all that history and context to the discussion. An understanding of history can make some current questions easier to answer.
Thanks for taking the time to inform this reader.
Thank you for your detailed , informative and helpful article. The bureaucratic monster “doth mock the meat it feeds upon “. Every year brings another “worthy cause ” resulting in punitive property taxes and even more bureaucratic bloat.
Do we have any examples of rejected levys turning into better proposals in the future? It seems like a common strategy to discredit a levy right when it's about to be voted on with some grand plan of revision where interest drops immediately following the vote. This leads me to believe the goal was really about striking down a new "tax" in the first place.
Thanks for your comment. As I noted, there is time for a better proposal-one that has a better balance between operations and capital maintenance.
Moreover, as I’ve said repeatedly in discussions about my opposition to the proposed 75% parks levy tax increase, the threat to cut parks staff is a policy choice by City Council, not an inevitability. There are clear alternatives to mitigate these impacts — if the Council chooses to pursue them.
A telling example involves the City’s communications staff. At a meeting last year about Portland’s transition to a new form of government, Michael Jordan described the creation of a 4 new centralized offices, including a communications office. He explained that only AFTER creating the new office and positions would the City take a “hard look” at the 85 existing communications positions spread across 6 service areas. Do the math — 85 positions. And despite this promise, nothing changed.
The numbers tell the story.
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17536-giving-us-flack.html
A 2011 article quoted former Commissioner Mike Lindberg expressing alarm that city communications staff had grown from 22 in 2003 to 28 in 2011.
“That’s a pretty big price tag,” said Lindberg. “It’s just continually grown. If I was mayor, I would take a very hard look.”
There were 22 communications staff in 2003 and 28 in 2011. Now there are 85. And there has still been no “hard look.”
Yet when the city council commissioned a poll last spring, they framed the choice narrowly: parks versus police. What would citizens actually prioritize if given a meaningful option—like parks versus redundant communications positions?
The council has repeatedly chosen to expand administrative overhead rather than make difficult budgetary decisions. It’s time for a “hard look” at that!