There are $16 million reasons to vote NO on this measure. Here’s one more:
As far as I can tell, the measure does not limit spending to capital projects. It invites residents to submit “project ideas” for spending available funds, but never defines what qualifies as a “project.” The money could therefore go to a broad range of programs and activities, not just public capital projects.
And here's the fundamental accountability problem: the same groups pushing this measure, backed by dark money from sources they refuse to identify, could submit proposals seeking a share of the money. In effect, organizations that help create the system could—and probably would— also seek to benefit from it.
Who will decide which proposals get funded? What prevents politically connected groups from steering public money toward their own priorities? And why should voters approve an open-ended spending mechanism before these questions are answered?
Portland needs transparency and accountability. Not a blank check for a scheme—or gimmick— shaped by undisclosed interests.
How anyone can look at how voters (and the media) failed to understand or even debate the new city charter and then think another looney measure--which was included in that same charter--will be defeated is delusional.
I have to think that administering this 'fund', if it passes, will bring a whole new organization and staff to city hall. Probably to the tune of $1M or more. This should never have made it to the ballot.
I read fhe measure in the voters pamphlet. It’s extremely vague, just like all the other dumb, expensive and poorly ran measures pushed by the well-connected nonprofit (APANO, PDX For All, NextUp, 350PDX, Brown Hope, etc) brought us. Vague means they’ll make up the rules as they go along and the above nonprofits will oblige to help the city figure it out, so long as it benefits them of course.
They seem to forget Portland is not in a position to increase spending, though that didn’t stop the City Council from increasing their office budgets, almost immediately, to $1.5 million each. The Socialists have a champagne taste on a beer budget.
I was shocked to see the Mercury also advised people to vote no on this measure.
There's a reason these schemes get kited by the out-of-towners in Oregon--and specifically in Portland. Our electorate is uninterested, complacent, and has a fatal aversion to being citizens who do their damn homework. The Democratic Party machine has been unchallenged for decades--and it ain't because the machine has supplied good government. Portland is in a depression, and the party goes on...prime hunting ground for ideologues building a resume.
There are $16 million reasons to vote NO on this measure. Here’s one more:
As far as I can tell, the measure does not limit spending to capital projects. It invites residents to submit “project ideas” for spending available funds, but never defines what qualifies as a “project.” The money could therefore go to a broad range of programs and activities, not just public capital projects.
And here's the fundamental accountability problem: the same groups pushing this measure, backed by dark money from sources they refuse to identify, could submit proposals seeking a share of the money. In effect, organizations that help create the system could—and probably would— also seek to benefit from it.
Who will decide which proposals get funded? What prevents politically connected groups from steering public money toward their own priorities? And why should voters approve an open-ended spending mechanism before these questions are answered?
Portland needs transparency and accountability. Not a blank check for a scheme—or gimmick— shaped by undisclosed interests.
A NO vote is well-deserved.
The People are 635,000 residents...big meetings !
How anyone can look at how voters (and the media) failed to understand or even debate the new city charter and then think another looney measure--which was included in that same charter--will be defeated is delusional.
Yet another Mitch Green & Maria Sipin his Chief of staff "connection," Maria a former paid staffer organizer at PBoregon.org
Hear the candid comments @Bike Portland Podcast...title Participatory Budgeting Portland
"representative democracy" vs "direct democracy"
Participatory Budgeting is major Peacock councilor caucus focus
see willamette week August 9, 2025, Sophie Peel, public records request article
I have to think that administering this 'fund', if it passes, will bring a whole new organization and staff to city hall. Probably to the tune of $1M or more. This should never have made it to the ballot.
The opportunities for political jobs is exactly why the measure will pass.
I read fhe measure in the voters pamphlet. It’s extremely vague, just like all the other dumb, expensive and poorly ran measures pushed by the well-connected nonprofit (APANO, PDX For All, NextUp, 350PDX, Brown Hope, etc) brought us. Vague means they’ll make up the rules as they go along and the above nonprofits will oblige to help the city figure it out, so long as it benefits them of course.
They seem to forget Portland is not in a position to increase spending, though that didn’t stop the City Council from increasing their office budgets, almost immediately, to $1.5 million each. The Socialists have a champagne taste on a beer budget.
I was shocked to see the Mercury also advised people to vote no on this measure.
There's a reason these schemes get kited by the out-of-towners in Oregon--and specifically in Portland. Our electorate is uninterested, complacent, and has a fatal aversion to being citizens who do their damn homework. The Democratic Party machine has been unchallenged for decades--and it ain't because the machine has supplied good government. Portland is in a depression, and the party goes on...prime hunting ground for ideologues building a resume.
The measure, you can be sure, will pass.
Measure 26-267, as described in the voters’ pamphlet, leaves too many important questions unanswered to warrant anything other than a no vote.