Excellent essay, Bob! “Safe streets are the infrastructure of ordinary life.” Amen. I’ve been pointing out our lengthy response times and lack of safety since I was elected and tried to restore cuts to the public safety budget which failed 6-6. Sign the petition!
I agree wholeheartedly. I am signing the petition to start the debate. This from someone who believes, just as wholeheartedly, that human caused climate change is the greatest existential threat that not just humanity but every living species in the planet faces. It is about the path we need to follow while we change our global value system to allow for the kinds of changes we need to make in how we live to make a meaningful difference. That is generational, and it can't be a straight line. Let's start the debate. Our City Council is deadlocked and ineffective and seem to favor performative priorities over the most serious that face us in our immediate local future. The initiative system is is best choice. to start the debate.
I am grateful for Bob Weinstein's succinct message: public safety needs to be addressed. I signed the petition after being engaged in front of a Trader Joe's and learned many sad facts.
For me, public safety is Obligation Number 1 of government. If we are to live in a society that prospers, we must deliver safety. Everything else can be next. The hierarchy is a personal one.
Once again, our mayor, the one who can break ties when a stalemate presents, has chosen a pet project instead of defending and leading our city. The ballot initiative NEEDS to pass and our mayor Needs to be replaced.
Yes, Mayor Wilson, who failed to live up to his categorical promise to end unsheltered homelessness by the end of 2025 and later moved the goalposts considerably so he could say he did, needs to be replaced, but only by a centrist reformer.
If someone aligned with City Council's progressive/socialist bloc were elected mayor, things could very well go from bad to worse.
Accumulating a $920 million slush fund seems irresponsible. I’ve already signed the petition, but I would have preferred the opportunity to sign one that eliminates the clean energy fund altogether—at least until there is a clear plan for how the money will be used and a demonstrated ability to actually spend it.
I’m a strong supporter of the Blazers, but it seems misguided to divert funds intended for clean energy projects to a sports arena while the city is cutting emergency services. The same concern applies to hiring a new Chief Equity Officer during a budget crisis. Ensuring that city employees reflect the demographics of Portland is a worthwhile goal, but it strikes me as an unusual priority when essential public safety and emergency services are facing cuts.
Portland and Multnomah County's governments ooze so-called "equity" from every pore. A demonstrable commitment to toeing the party line on "equity" is one of the defining Portland Values™ expected of any job or volunteer applicant with the City. Of course we need a new Chief Equity Officer in Portland because the endless quest for more "equity" is the lubrication that keeps this government going.
He also hired a $160k a year Immigration Liaison. Also an unusual priority. We need less focus on expensive virtue signaling and more focus on core services. Multnomah County also made cuts to the DA’s budget but chose to spend $1.5 million on a memorial plaque, likely in the name of equity.
Has anyone publicly addressed the legality of past expenditures of PCEF dollars on items that are unquestionably outside the scope of the PCEF initiative language and the city's ordinances implementing it?
The governing ordinance, which is law, is remarkably specific about the purposes for which PCEF funds may be used. The stated purpose is to provide a long-term funding source for climate-action projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, support renewable energy and energy efficiency, promote transportation decarbonization, expand green infrastructure and regenerative agriculture, and develop a workforce capable of performing climate-related work. While the ordinance also emphasizes environmental justice and benefits for low-income communities and communities of color, those objectives are consistently tied to climate-action goals rather than serving as independent spending categories.
Given the increasingly creative uses to which PCEF funds have been put, it is fair to ask whether all such expenditures can be reconciled with the text approved by voters and later codified by the City. If they cannot, why has there been so little public discussion of the City's potential legal exposure?
At a minimum, the City or the voters should amend the governing documents of PCEF to clarify permissible uses and to ratify any spending practices that have evolved beyond the original framework.
Doing so would promote transparency, restore public confidence, and reduce the risk of future claims that PCEF revenues have been diverted or misappropriated in violation of the initiative and implementing ordinances.
Whatever one's views on climate policy, public safety, or other budget priorities, dedicated revenues should be governed by clear rules that can withstand scrutiny from taxpayers, regulated businesses, auditors, and any party with standing to challenge their use.
How come no one in Portland politics will simply say, End the damn tax. Assume that Portland citizens are actually able to make decisions about where to spend their money, as opposed to having it confiscated by our political mandarins
Yah, yah, yah--the "climate fund," which has had no impact whatsoever on the actual climate, comes from the reviled corporations, but only a Portland voter would neglect to notice that they'll make it up at the cash register. And, by the way, did anyone notice that Grocery Outlet just bailed out of East Portland?
Perhaps I am a fool for articulating this, but I cannot be the first sane person to assume this to be true and say it aloud. And here, I feel it needs mention - even if streaming out from my usual satirically pessimistic point of view.
Well, naturally politicians and bureaucrats, seeking to deal with a budget shortfall, choose cutting funds to the most public safety departments on the list. However, would they get voters to approve new taxation, but by cutting critical services?
God, forbid, they try finding new ways to balance budget through stronger income development (acting on existing code that the departments simply are too lazy to muster), income collection (tighten up on scofflaws) and non-performing asset reduction (can we say sell public properties that are non or under-utilized? Let's start with the crumbling, abandoned old Fire House Theater building on SW Montgomery.)
This is such an old chestnut cliche, I am surprised we don't mock it for it's blatant obviousness.
When school districts are short of funds, they cut all the electives (arts, languages, etc.) in order to assure continued financing of the core curriculum - which is obviously PIL sports franchises like fall football, soccer, spring baseball and track. And to be certain team sports are never cut short, they'll even increase student placement in excess of 24 students per classroom in direct violation of state law, until they get caught. (Which took something like 9 years for the PPSD.)
When ODOT recently realized they were facing a budget crises, what was the first balloon they floated for the public to react to? Well, yes, they immediately shut down the street person removal program - designed to escort illegal campers off ODOT properties adjacent the state freeway system. It was important that taxpayers suffer the blight of these campers in the core urban areas so they could understand that it's their fault the campers are there - because they failed to increase tax revenues sufficient to cover the cost of their regular removal.
You see, when you think about it, these actions are always about striking back and hurting the taxpayer - denying them pubic safety or sanitary services or maintaining government compliance with their laws and codes - hitting the public where it's most visually abhorrent and presents the best in urban decay and property devaluation (whether loss of trade or just loss of land and improvement value) in order to (Well, may I say it?) extort new taxes and fees.
Yes, it is not about finding solutions internally, as any corporation would do - by staff reduction, by asset reduction, by increased efforts to develop new income sources (or act on the ones available but not pursued) and collect on delinquent or non-performing debts owed. No, it's about quick extortion to force the external participants (public) to accept higher taxes and solve an operating problem years in the making.
No, this cliche is never a surprise. It's just that getting the sleeping public giant to even open an eyelid, let alone act to correct things, is impossible. And naturally, we've done a super brilliant job killing public discourse on such subjects by simultaneously allowing government to hide most of what they do (disconnecting government services from neighborhood discussion and control) and reprinting government propaganda via press release reprinting without any vetting, to economically dismantling the media to reduce the flow of public information and critical review.
Hey, let me make this better for you - because no one connects the dots. Ranking 47 of 50 worst ratio of peace officers to public, it's only a matter of time before local insurance premiums jump upward citing that lovely stat. Where safety is less guaranteed, you should expect insurers to reduce their financial liability by changing what they are liable to pay out on while increasing premiums to offset the perception of more claims to come.
You got to love that no one ever considers the big picture. That you could shut down the core Portland city area during COVID and once seeing that that shut down (by 2022-23) did not result in wholesale return of workers (City's own included) and growing real estate vacancies, that no one could ever see that this would result in city, county and metro budget shortfalls? Was it ignorance? Or was it intentional slight of hand? Was the distraction of public homeless care meant to obscure the bigger looming problems coming. Or can't government juggle multiple things at the same time?
Meantime, since I am here, a reminder that PSU has happily announced their partnership with a developer to move forward on converting campus land into another giant theater the city does not need and another hotel. So, with that dog and pony show distraction off to your left, is anyone paying attention to the giant drop in student enrollment and tuition revenue that is affecting that campus' budgets sitting hidden off to your right? How many departments and programs are recently cut - anyone? Gotta love that PSU wants to become a theater and hotel operator while they are failing at maintaining school enrollment and tuition income. At least they have a plan - give away their land to a developer in exchange for a share in future use lease-rental profits. They are projecting a future income stream on a business that has nothing to do with education and all to do with the future demand for hotel stays and theater rentals.
Funny! You, know, a playwright couldn't make this stuff up. Brilliant.
Why is it that Portland can spend millions on those that pay no taxes and yet they can’t spend any money that benefits the taxpayers, like infrastructure, police, education, healthcare!
Excellent essay, Bob! “Safe streets are the infrastructure of ordinary life.” Amen. I’ve been pointing out our lengthy response times and lack of safety since I was elected and tried to restore cuts to the public safety budget which failed 6-6. Sign the petition!
Thanks, Olivia!
I agree wholeheartedly. I am signing the petition to start the debate. This from someone who believes, just as wholeheartedly, that human caused climate change is the greatest existential threat that not just humanity but every living species in the planet faces. It is about the path we need to follow while we change our global value system to allow for the kinds of changes we need to make in how we live to make a meaningful difference. That is generational, and it can't be a straight line. Let's start the debate. Our City Council is deadlocked and ineffective and seem to favor performative priorities over the most serious that face us in our immediate local future. The initiative system is is best choice. to start the debate.
I am grateful for Bob Weinstein's succinct message: public safety needs to be addressed. I signed the petition after being engaged in front of a Trader Joe's and learned many sad facts.
For me, public safety is Obligation Number 1 of government. If we are to live in a society that prospers, we must deliver safety. Everything else can be next. The hierarchy is a personal one.
Once again, our mayor, the one who can break ties when a stalemate presents, has chosen a pet project instead of defending and leading our city. The ballot initiative NEEDS to pass and our mayor Needs to be replaced.
Yes, Mayor Wilson, who failed to live up to his categorical promise to end unsheltered homelessness by the end of 2025 and later moved the goalposts considerably so he could say he did, needs to be replaced, but only by a centrist reformer.
If someone aligned with City Council's progressive/socialist bloc were elected mayor, things could very well go from bad to worse.
Accumulating a $920 million slush fund seems irresponsible. I’ve already signed the petition, but I would have preferred the opportunity to sign one that eliminates the clean energy fund altogether—at least until there is a clear plan for how the money will be used and a demonstrated ability to actually spend it.
I’m a strong supporter of the Blazers, but it seems misguided to divert funds intended for clean energy projects to a sports arena while the city is cutting emergency services. The same concern applies to hiring a new Chief Equity Officer during a budget crisis. Ensuring that city employees reflect the demographics of Portland is a worthwhile goal, but it strikes me as an unusual priority when essential public safety and emergency services are facing cuts.
Agreed. Well stated.
Portland and Multnomah County's governments ooze so-called "equity" from every pore. A demonstrable commitment to toeing the party line on "equity" is one of the defining Portland Values™ expected of any job or volunteer applicant with the City. Of course we need a new Chief Equity Officer in Portland because the endless quest for more "equity" is the lubrication that keeps this government going.
He also hired a $160k a year Immigration Liaison. Also an unusual priority. We need less focus on expensive virtue signaling and more focus on core services. Multnomah County also made cuts to the DA’s budget but chose to spend $1.5 million on a memorial plaque, likely in the name of equity.
Thanks. I just made arrangements to sign.
Has anyone publicly addressed the legality of past expenditures of PCEF dollars on items that are unquestionably outside the scope of the PCEF initiative language and the city's ordinances implementing it?
The governing ordinance, which is law, is remarkably specific about the purposes for which PCEF funds may be used. The stated purpose is to provide a long-term funding source for climate-action projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, support renewable energy and energy efficiency, promote transportation decarbonization, expand green infrastructure and regenerative agriculture, and develop a workforce capable of performing climate-related work. While the ordinance also emphasizes environmental justice and benefits for low-income communities and communities of color, those objectives are consistently tied to climate-action goals rather than serving as independent spending categories.
Given the increasingly creative uses to which PCEF funds have been put, it is fair to ask whether all such expenditures can be reconciled with the text approved by voters and later codified by the City. If they cannot, why has there been so little public discussion of the City's potential legal exposure?
At a minimum, the City or the voters should amend the governing documents of PCEF to clarify permissible uses and to ratify any spending practices that have evolved beyond the original framework.
Doing so would promote transparency, restore public confidence, and reduce the risk of future claims that PCEF revenues have been diverted or misappropriated in violation of the initiative and implementing ordinances.
Whatever one's views on climate policy, public safety, or other budget priorities, dedicated revenues should be governed by clear rules that can withstand scrutiny from taxpayers, regulated businesses, auditors, and any party with standing to challenge their use.
How come no one in Portland politics will simply say, End the damn tax. Assume that Portland citizens are actually able to make decisions about where to spend their money, as opposed to having it confiscated by our political mandarins
Yah, yah, yah--the "climate fund," which has had no impact whatsoever on the actual climate, comes from the reviled corporations, but only a Portland voter would neglect to notice that they'll make it up at the cash register. And, by the way, did anyone notice that Grocery Outlet just bailed out of East Portland?
Perhaps I am a fool for articulating this, but I cannot be the first sane person to assume this to be true and say it aloud. And here, I feel it needs mention - even if streaming out from my usual satirically pessimistic point of view.
Well, naturally politicians and bureaucrats, seeking to deal with a budget shortfall, choose cutting funds to the most public safety departments on the list. However, would they get voters to approve new taxation, but by cutting critical services?
God, forbid, they try finding new ways to balance budget through stronger income development (acting on existing code that the departments simply are too lazy to muster), income collection (tighten up on scofflaws) and non-performing asset reduction (can we say sell public properties that are non or under-utilized? Let's start with the crumbling, abandoned old Fire House Theater building on SW Montgomery.)
This is such an old chestnut cliche, I am surprised we don't mock it for it's blatant obviousness.
When school districts are short of funds, they cut all the electives (arts, languages, etc.) in order to assure continued financing of the core curriculum - which is obviously PIL sports franchises like fall football, soccer, spring baseball and track. And to be certain team sports are never cut short, they'll even increase student placement in excess of 24 students per classroom in direct violation of state law, until they get caught. (Which took something like 9 years for the PPSD.)
When ODOT recently realized they were facing a budget crises, what was the first balloon they floated for the public to react to? Well, yes, they immediately shut down the street person removal program - designed to escort illegal campers off ODOT properties adjacent the state freeway system. It was important that taxpayers suffer the blight of these campers in the core urban areas so they could understand that it's their fault the campers are there - because they failed to increase tax revenues sufficient to cover the cost of their regular removal.
You see, when you think about it, these actions are always about striking back and hurting the taxpayer - denying them pubic safety or sanitary services or maintaining government compliance with their laws and codes - hitting the public where it's most visually abhorrent and presents the best in urban decay and property devaluation (whether loss of trade or just loss of land and improvement value) in order to (Well, may I say it?) extort new taxes and fees.
Yes, it is not about finding solutions internally, as any corporation would do - by staff reduction, by asset reduction, by increased efforts to develop new income sources (or act on the ones available but not pursued) and collect on delinquent or non-performing debts owed. No, it's about quick extortion to force the external participants (public) to accept higher taxes and solve an operating problem years in the making.
No, this cliche is never a surprise. It's just that getting the sleeping public giant to even open an eyelid, let alone act to correct things, is impossible. And naturally, we've done a super brilliant job killing public discourse on such subjects by simultaneously allowing government to hide most of what they do (disconnecting government services from neighborhood discussion and control) and reprinting government propaganda via press release reprinting without any vetting, to economically dismantling the media to reduce the flow of public information and critical review.
Hey, let me make this better for you - because no one connects the dots. Ranking 47 of 50 worst ratio of peace officers to public, it's only a matter of time before local insurance premiums jump upward citing that lovely stat. Where safety is less guaranteed, you should expect insurers to reduce their financial liability by changing what they are liable to pay out on while increasing premiums to offset the perception of more claims to come.
You got to love that no one ever considers the big picture. That you could shut down the core Portland city area during COVID and once seeing that that shut down (by 2022-23) did not result in wholesale return of workers (City's own included) and growing real estate vacancies, that no one could ever see that this would result in city, county and metro budget shortfalls? Was it ignorance? Or was it intentional slight of hand? Was the distraction of public homeless care meant to obscure the bigger looming problems coming. Or can't government juggle multiple things at the same time?
Meantime, since I am here, a reminder that PSU has happily announced their partnership with a developer to move forward on converting campus land into another giant theater the city does not need and another hotel. So, with that dog and pony show distraction off to your left, is anyone paying attention to the giant drop in student enrollment and tuition revenue that is affecting that campus' budgets sitting hidden off to your right? How many departments and programs are recently cut - anyone? Gotta love that PSU wants to become a theater and hotel operator while they are failing at maintaining school enrollment and tuition income. At least they have a plan - give away their land to a developer in exchange for a share in future use lease-rental profits. They are projecting a future income stream on a business that has nothing to do with education and all to do with the future demand for hotel stays and theater rentals.
Funny! You, know, a playwright couldn't make this stuff up. Brilliant.
Concise and well articulated. Thank you and we've signed the petition just tonight!
Why is it that Portland can spend millions on those that pay no taxes and yet they can’t spend any money that benefits the taxpayers, like infrastructure, police, education, healthcare!