home

Dozono Chimes in on “Safe Streets”

Posted by on February 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am

Mr. Dozono
(Photo: ShoForMayor.com)

Oregonian politics blogger Jeff Mapes asked mayoral hopeful Sho Dozono what he thinks of the “Safe, Sound, and Green Streets” funding plan crafted by City Commissioner (and Dozono’s political rival) Sam Adams.

His answer seems to cement speculation about Dozono’s ties with the various lobbyists and special interests that oppose the fee-based plan.

Here’s a snip from Mapes’ blog:

“…Dozono added, “…the whole process was more about backroom dealing. I think I would prefer that the citizens would have a choice to vote on this from the beginning.”

Mapes also reports that Dozono says, “he hadn’t decided yet how he’d vote on the $464 million package” if indeed it did make it to the ballot.

I hope to get a hold of Dozono for an interview soon, but what strikes me about his quotes is that he repeats this notion of “backroom dealing” (which is the same phrase used by others that oppose the “Safe Streets” plan).

I just don’t understand that claim at all.

From my recollection, Adams and his staffers staged a monumental public process that included a series of highly publicized Town Hall meetings (I remember being shocked to see a huge sign for the one in my neighborhood posted to a telephone pole at Peninsula Park), myriad opportunities for public comment, numerous meetings with stakeholders, and an 89-member steering committee made up of community representatives.

One stakeholder invited to be on that committee was controversial lobbyist and head of the Oregon Petroleum Association, Paul Romain. Romain declined the invitation to help shape the proposal, but even so, many of his concerns and requests for changes were still honored (including some key last minute revisions).

I also realize the, “why not let the people vote?” sound bite (which is repeated above by Dozono), is quite seductive. The fact is, we all know that when major monied interests like Big Oil line up against a proposal (which is the case we’re in now), they will go to any lengths to defeat it.

The result of their very deep pockets is that the people do indeed vote, but many of them vote based solely on expensive and flashy media campaigns that deal in sound bites, rather than facts (remember how the tobacco lobby paid $22 per vote to defeat the Measure 50 children’s health care bill?).

Dozono has not shared much detail about his platform, but he has made clear his desire to improve local schools. I wonder if he realizes that this funding plan includes $3.2 million dollars to help improve traffic safety around those schools?

I’ll be curious to learn whether or not Dozono has a better solution than the “Safe Streets” plan for remedying our vast transportation system maintenance backlog and unsafe streets; and whether his plan to help our schools includes making sure kids can get there all in one piece.

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • Andy February 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

    Politics isn\’t about what\’s true. It\’s about what can be made to appear true. Slapping a label like \”backroom dealing\” on something like this is an easy way to cover it in a shroud of suspicion, independent of any facts.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mark February 1, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Glad you posted this. Mr. Dozono\’s short comments speak huge volume of where his $$$ interests lay.

    No way would I vote for this guy. NO WAY.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • J-On-Bike February 1, 2008 at 11:26 am

    Um, can someone be distrustful of Sam Adams without being pinged as an ally of the Oregon Petroleum Association?

    While the idea of a SAFE STREETS plan sounds great, when I consider it in the larger context of how city politicians make decisions about trams, street cars, convention centers, condo development taxbreaks, etc…

    Then I think the whole thing kinda stinks. Another tax to cover BASIC needs (transit or otherwise) that should have been a priority before trams, SoWa, etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) February 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

    \”Another tax to cover BASIC needs (transit or otherwise) that should have been a priority before trams, SoWa, etc.\”

    J-On-Bike,

    you\’re repeating another one of the sound bites that is just not completely accurate.

    Monies for the tram, light rail, streetcar, etc.. are completely a separate deal than money that goes to fixing roads and providing improved transportation options that improve safety and reduce road impact (like safer routes to schools and bike/ped improvements).

    As for the tram, etc… The Fed. Gov. gives 100s of millions for those projects, we leverage that into more local money, and we get transportation options that reduce car trips (1,000,000 people have ridden the tram since it opened). We would be irresponsible to not do those projects.

    But please let\’s not digress into whether or not you like the tram.

    The important thing to understand is that these transportation maintenance backlogs Adams is addressing have been a priority…but because of the extreme amount of work and political risk involved in tackling them no one — until Mr. Adams — has stepped up to figure it out and put something in front of the public and the Council that had such broad support.

    If there are other solutions out there, I\’d love to hear them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew February 1, 2008 at 11:50 am

    J-On-Bike:
    \”Another tax to cover BASIC needs (transit or otherwise) that should have been a priority before trams, SoWa, etc.\”

    I agree with your sentiment, but if you\’d gone to the Safe Sound and Green Meetings, (which as Jonathan said, involved giant advertising,) you would have heard the answer to that one: The city portion of the tram (which wasn\’t that much anyways) was paid for by South Waterfront\’s tax district debt. And South Waterfront\’s tax district wasn\’t going to support their money being spent on maintenance, (besides the fact that it violates the law that allow the city to give them them the debts in the first place,) but also because all of their streets are brand new, (just paid for by them as well. They\’ve got a lot of debt and the tram is a very small part of it,) so it just isn\’t a source of money that could have been spent on this. Streetcar, (likewise,) was paid for by the debt of the districts near it, and again, not going to be spent on maintenance for streets that aren\’t in their district. It would be like if your neighbor got a mortgage to remodel their house, you can\’t really expect them to pay for the cost of you painting yours with their money, regardless of how badly your needs painting…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

    \”From my recollection, Adams and his staffers staged a monumental public process that included a series of highly publicized Town Hall meetings (I remember being shocked to see a huge sign for the one in my neighborhood posted to a telephone pole at Peninsula Park), myriad opportunities for public comment, numerous meetings with stakeholders, and an 89-member steering committee made up of community representatives.

    One stakeholder invited to be on that committee was controversial lobbyist and head of the Oregon Petroleum Association, Paul Romain. Romain declined the invitation to help shape the proposal, but even so, many of his concerns and requests for changes were still honored (including some key last minute revisions).\” Jonathan Maus, editor, bikeportland.org

    And where, Mr. Sho Dozono, mayoral candidate to the City of Portland, were you when these proceedings were taking place? Mr. Dozono, do you call neighborhood meetings related to the process of crafting this proposal, \”…backroom dealing…\”? I\’m sure that people deciding whether to vote for you will want to know your thoughts on this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR February 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    I think what the opposition is referring to when they complain about \’backroom deals\’ is the fact that the process was open and public and that they, as \’movers and shakers\’, weren\’t invited into the back room to make a deal.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DJ Hurricane February 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Good one, BURR. And wsbob is right-on, too.

    From my perspective, Dobozo\’s statement indicates he is either (a) completely out of touch with the Safe Streets process, or (b) so beholden to special interests that he feels the need to mischaracterize an extensive public process as \”backroom dealing.\” Either way, he\’s no advocate for the health and safety of Portlanders.

    Oh, and: Sam for Mayor!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • paula February 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    nice work jonathan

    There is no way we can give Sho a pass on this issue.

    If I don\’t hear a real answer to this issue from Sho\’s campaign in the next 48-hours, I am campaigning against Sho…

    We didn\’t become the best City for bikes with weak talk like we hear from Sho — we have limped along even with strong leadership

    Portland doesn\’t need a Nosho on bikes!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • J-On-Bike February 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    \”Monies for the tram, light rail, streetcar, etc.. are completely a separate deal than money that goes to fixing roads and providing improved transportation options that improve safety and reduce road impact (like safer routes to schools and bike/ped improvements).\”

    Yes, I saw the PPT-slide to that effect on Sam Adam\’s website. It\’s a bureaucratic distinction that poses real barriers to getting things done. My point with the tram monies is that it came from SOMEWHERE. Was there a basic govt function (non transit related) that could have been funded instead of the tram?

    I\’m alluding to less bureaucratic things like my taxes going up over 10% last year. And 10% of that bill going to the \”Urban Development\” line item.

    As I see it, in Portland, there are a ton of backroom deals going on. See all those construction cranes on the Portland skyline building condos? I can\’t help but feel like I\’m subsidizing a lot of that with little accountability. So I start to get a little p\’o\’d when more taxes are proposed for maintaining basic infrastructure, promoting safety and providing basic services.

    I\’d love to see a politician, er, city leader *REDIRECT* current spending to fix basic needs and make choices within a FIXED budget instead of adding more taxes to my tax bill. Fiscal responsibility and all that jazz.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • a.O February 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    J-On-Bike, you obviously don\’t understand the value of the tram, or any public transit for that matter. Like many anti-tax\’ers, you seem to have the knee-jerk reaction that any public money spent is a waste.

    The tram will actually lower your taxes!!

    Like the Max and busses, it takes cars off the road, which means we have to spend less money repairing them, it lowers demand for gasoline, which lowers gas prices, and it puts less CO2 in the air that we have to spend money to remove. That means the tram will pay for itself in money saved on road repairs over time and then eventually save you, me, and every other taxpayer money!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) February 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    \”I\’d love to see a politician,… *REDIRECT* current spending to fix basic needs and make choices within a FIXED budget instead of adding more taxes to my tax bill.\”

    J-On-Bike,

    what programs/services should have their budgets cut and/or curtailed in order to deal with our massive street maint. backlog?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous February 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Dozono may or may not be a puppet of monied interests, but I believe you can think this is a horrible plan and also believe that such an across the board tax increase should go to voters without it making you a stooge to the man.

    We shouldn\’t have to agree to waste a good portion of $464 million dollars with a questionable tax in order to get less than $30 million of it for bike projects.

    I think they can figure out a way for bike projects to get $25 million dollars over the next decade without charging $50 million dollars to \”administer\” the funds. They need to take this back to the drawing board, or let us vote on it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Russell February 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Dozono may or may not be a puppet of monied interests, but I believe you can think this is a horrible plan and also believe that such an across the board tax increase should go to voters without it making you a stooge to the man.

    We shouldn\’t have to agree to waste a good portion of $464 million dollars with a questionable tax in order to get less than $30 million of it for bike projects.

    I think they can figure out a way for bike projects to get $25 million dollars over the next decade without charging $50 million dollars to \”administer\” the funds. They need to take this back to the drawing board, or let us vote on it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • k. February 1, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Direct elections don\’t always result in good policy. In fact they often don\’t. That\’s why \’populism\’ is often looked down upon. Given half a chance the populace would probably vote to disband government in its entirety if they thought they\’d get some money back.

    That\’s where a representative democracy is so good. We elect others of like minds to attend to the details and make wise decisions based on them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew February 1, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    J-On-Bike: I\’m alluding to less bureaucratic things like my taxes going up over 10% last year. And 10% of that bill going to the \”Urban Development\” line item.

    If you live in an urban renewal area, (I do, I live in N Portland, near the max line,) then indeed that will happen. However, my urban development money goes to things like the Kenton downtown redevelopment, and the MAX line I\’m near, not to the cranes in downtown. Urban renewal money is very very local. I am sending money to the cranes in downtown, in other ways, mainly via the fact that some of the builders are getting money for building affordable housing, and that is subsidized by the city. Of course, they also just built 800 units of affordable housing in N Portland too, and those developers got money too, so it isn\’t like that money only goes downtown, it goes to affordable housing where ever that is.

    You are ultimately correct though, there is always someplace getting money in city government that could stop getting it, so that some other place could get more… For instance, we could send less money to the water department so that more money could go to the streets, but since a lot of the pipes in the city are 100 years old, and we break a water main every other day as it is, they\’ve kind of got enough maintenance problems of their own. How about the sewer department? They have a billion dollars over the next 10 years. Of course, every time it rains we dump sewage in the river, (ever notice the big signs along the esplanade about that?) and so they are building a subway system sized pipe to deal with that. And if we stopped working on it, the EPA would sue the city for millions of dollars per rainstorm, so we sort of need that. Police Department? They have 700 openings that they can\’t fill right now mainly because other police departments nearby pay more than ours, so cutting their budget at the same time that what they really need to do is give everyone a raise isn\’t really helpful. (For as much as bicyclists hate them for it, their policy about not investigating anything but the worst accidents is really because they just don\’t have the people to do it.) Affordable housing keeps crime down, and it is far cheaper to subsidize someone\’s rent by a small amount, than to lock them up in a jail. There is the fire department. I actually haven\’t heard any big problems out of them, but that might just be because I don\’t pay attention to them… But, pick something to cut…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jrdpdx February 1, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Say all you want about where money should be spent, where taxes should be raised etc. Any informed candidate that refers to \”backdoor dealing\” when there was a public forum anyone could have participated in, has made up his mind and is siding with Romain et al. NO SHO

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 1, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    \”I think they can figure out a way for bike projects to get $25 million dollars over the next decade without charging $50 million dollars to \”administer\” the funds.\” Russell, comment #14

    Russell, the administration figure \”$50 million dollars\” as included in your statement is misleading. From the Safe, Sound, and Green Streets City/County Proposal:

    \”City Billing and Customer Service Costs $14,260,000 1.8%
    Program Oversight & Accounting $35,820,000 4.4%
    Total – City $463,740,000 57.0% \”

    I\’m guessing that you came up with the 50 million figure by adding up the billing and oversight amounts assigned to administer the entire 463.7 million dollar proposal.

    Exactly how much of the \”…bike projects…\” (actually \’Pedestrian & Bike Safety Corridors\’) budget you refer to is assigned to manage its $24,233,000/3.0%, is not spelled out, but obviously, the 50 million dollar you suggest is wrong.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tim H February 1, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    I attended one of the \”Safe Streets\” public meetings. The meetings were well publicized and easily accessible. All of the issues and questions expressed above were directly and openly addressed. I saw a positive, well researched and well documented process that sought to involve citizens and find solutions to difficult, complex problems. I respect Sam Adams and those who collaborated on the Safe Streets plan for doing the hard homework, conceiving a positive solution and taking a stand. On the other hand I find it difficult to respect opinions based on emotions and ignorance of available facts. Anyone concerned about the proposal should have attended one of those decidedly-not backroom meetings. Or, if they have a better idea; do the homework, assemble the facts, make a proposal, put it in front of everyone who has a stake in it and sell it to the public.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Skelts February 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    What is a\”back room deal\”??? Public officials are elected to make policy choices. If you don\’t like the decision, vote them out. Rich corporations should not have the ability to pay signature gathers to overturn laws, which is the case here.

    By calling the Safe Streets proposal a \”back room deal\” Sho makes it clear he is a twit. Dang. I should not have given him 5 bones.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • lilly7 February 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    something smells fishy…

    Sho calls the Safe Sound and Green Streets effort a back room deal even though the process was roundly praised in endorsements by the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, and local business papers, involved and 89-person stakeholder committee, 3 citywide mailers with specific project maps for each neighborhood, and over 20 public meetings

    Something fishy for sure…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bill February 1, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    What happened to the comments by Kris. Are you guys into sensorship or something?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • steve February 2, 2008 at 12:09 am

    It seems like we could save 50 million dollars by simply raising the gas tax. The system for collecting and overseeing the funds is already in place.

    I suppose 10\’s of millions of dollars in Govt cheese leaves lots of crumbs about though.

    This plan is regressive and sad. Tax the people buying the pollutants at the pump. It is absurd and cowardly to place the burden on businesses. And wasteful to spend 50 million dollars overseeing the new beaurocracy.

    Let\’s push for a 2 dollar a gallon gas tax. That would raise some dough and definately incentivize change.

    Ya\’ll think what you like about this bill. It is great that we all are so intrigued by transportation funding! However, why must everyone frame this as undebatable? As if there is some moral certainty at stake here.

    This is not some party line here folks. Lot\’s of people have legitamate concerns and debatable opinions about this tax. That does not make us all big oil supporters and right wing nuts.

    This article is terribly out of place on your site Jonathan. It reads like a campaign news release. Not too subtle. Why dontcha tell us what you reaaaaly think?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Former 49er.. February 2, 2008 at 12:52 am

    The Safe, Sound and Green Streets is a very good start at coming up with a longer-lasting method of funding street maintenance and improvements focused on bikes and peds. As automobiles become more efficient and alternative fuel vehicles emerge, the gas tax will become less effective. Don\’t get me wrong, we should increase the gas tax and index it to the cost of road construction as well. However, as a bicyclist and pedestrian, property taxes are a little more equitable for the bicycle and pedestrian improvements we desire.

    As for Sho, he doesn\’t seem to be much an ally for the bike community. He doesn\’t seem to be much a leader either. Is he sitting around waiting for the lobbyists to tell him what to say? We need real leadership.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 2, 2008 at 1:29 am

    Steve(#22), have you had an opportunity to study the Safe, Sound and Green Streets funding plan budget? The link that will take you to the home page where it\’s listed is in the first sentence of the lead article at the top of the page.

    Contrary to your apparent impression, this plan does not serve motor vehicle drivers exclusively. This plan serves to sustain and improve the street and road infrastructure that everyone in the city depends upon, whether they personally operate a motor vehicle or not. In this ever more densely populated city, well designed, functioning, maintained, paved streets are essential to regular, efficient delivery of indespensible goods and services.

    What is your suggested alternative? That we allow paved streets to return to dirt and traffic lights to fail? As streets fail, some people may still be able to get to work on mountain bikes, but the going might not be so good for ambulances or grocery delivery.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bicycledave February 2, 2008 at 8:21 am

    Steve,
    This article is not about Safe, Sound and Green streets. It\’s about Sho Dozono and how he is parroting the talking points of the Oregon Petroleum Association and it\’s weasel Paul Romain who made a deal to have his concerns addressed only to back out of that deal as soon as the plan was passed by city counsel.

    If you care at all about bicycles in Portland you can\’t support Sho Dozono. He\’s a Petroleum industry stooge.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Maureen February 2, 2008 at 9:37 am

    A local gas tax was part of the deal until Paul Romain came in with his first of about 6 rounds of demands.

    In the first roundof demands, he said he would refer because he didnt like the local gas tax. Romain said he thought it should be statewide.

    An agreement was forged that the local gas tax would not be a part and that Romain would help get a larger gas tax passed at the state (remember the banter between Romain and Leonard at council). As soon as the local gas tax came out the second list of demands from Romain came through.

    The gas tax problem is only one where it makes you shake your head that Dozono is in bed with Romain.

    http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120000434841902100

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 2, 2008 at 10:17 am

    Kris, comment #22: \”I think Sho knows what he is talking about.\”

    Kris, would you please explain to us here what you mean by that statement? What does Sho know? Except for tossing around the occasional phrase such as \”…back room deals…\”, given that he\’s running for mayor, Sho Dozono has not been very forthcoming or specific about any issues. How Sho imagines this effort is supposed to translate into the makings of a good future mayor is something to wonder about.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony February 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    I have to say that I am a little surprised at the conclusion jump made in this post based on that one statement. I don\’t think it cements much of anything.

    Sam Adams isn\’t taking public finance dollars and is accepting donations up to $500. I am certain that if you looked a donor or endorsement list for him you would see any number of big business interests and connections. Does that mean he has cemented ties to anti-bike interests and even perhaps some people who would vote against a street fee? No, it doesn\’t.

    Dozono is running on public finance dollars. No one is financing his campaign, so it is hard to imagine that anyone is pulling any of this strings. Also, Dozono\’s business is definitely on the low end of the fee scale. Businesses that will pay the most are the ones that rely on high-volume – coffee shops, fast food, retail, etc. – not an office based businesses.

    If he had a strong anti-tax history that would be one thing but all I am seeing here is a statement that may show that he is a little naive or uninformed. I don\’t think it cements any alliance with any interest groups.

    I think that wsbob hit the reality on Sho thus far \”given that he\’s running for mayor, Sho Dozono has not been very forthcoming or specific about any issues.\”

    As the campaigning continues we may (or may not) get a better picture of what Dozono is all about. Right now, I don\’t think we know much of anything about him.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    From the January 31st Jeff Mapes weblog: \”And then he(Sho Dozono)told his volunteers that he hopes to be certified for public funding next week and \”then the campaign really begins.\” .\”

    The first business day of \”…next week…\” is Monday. Maybe Sho Dozono will have more to share with us about his views on the issues this coming week.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew February 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Steve (#25) Yes, I agree that the money this would raise should come from the gas tax. The state legislature has not raised the gas tax since 1993, (back when postage stamps were 29 cents, they are now 41 cents, if that gives you an idea to what inflation has done since then,) and Randy Leonard, (who was a legislator until 2001,) pointed out that the main reason that they haven\’t is because of heavy lobbying by the Oregon Petroleum Association, (who is represented by Paul Romain… See a connection here yet?) However, there is actually a provision in the measure that if the state successfully raises the gas tax sometime in the future that the street maintenance fee will go away…

    This is why a lot of people really like Sam. If the state doesn\’t do their job, he isn\’t going to let the city suffer. There are a ton of politicians that stand around and say, \”I can\’t do anything about that,\” and Sam isn\’t one of them. He goes ahead and does something about it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GLV February 2, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    \”Dozono may or may not be a puppet of monied interests,\” (#13)

    One of the candidates in this election is procuring public money, and the other is not, electing instead to rely on donations from special interests. Remind me which is which?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob February 2, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    GLV, sorry, I\’m not yet able to answer your question about which candidate is relying on donations from special interests. Despite asking for a reminder, you seem fairly certain about \”…which is which…\”. Why don\’t you share with us who you consider that to be?

    I found the following though, in regards to how Sam Adams is funding his campaign:

    \”Update: Adams says he will not be using the city’s Voter-Owned Elections program in his race.

    “Even though I’m supportive of the program, because I voted to institute it, it has the appearance of a conflict of interest,” he says. (Erik Sten might have a little trouble with that reasoning.)

    What he will do, however, is limit each individual contribution to $500, and overall contributions to $200,000, the amount that mayoral candidates get under the VOE public campaign financing program. He’ll collect and spend more if another candidate goes over that amount, or if there are “independent expenditures” against him.\” Scott Moore on Fri, Sep 28 at 2:45 PM/ Portland Mercury

    Adams has a donation button on his campaign website stating that his is a grassroots campaign and every contribution counts.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jean Reinhardt February 4, 2008 at 10:10 am

    I believe that it\’s a good thing, and sets a good example, that Portland\’s city government is trying to get road repair/alt trans funding pushed through without a vote. I live in Vancouver. Washington State has a walking chancre named Little Timmy Eyman who has made it his life\’s mission to be the assassin of mass transit for our state. His newest scam, um, I mean initiative, is a bill to \”prioritize stat highway funding to reduce traffic congestion\” which probably in his mind means building more freeway lanes–which has NEVER reduced congestion. I\’m happy to see some PDX City Council members seeing where there shouldn\’t be a popular vote on this issue. Most Americans are too stupid to make the right transportation choices; it\’s good that someone will try to do it for them!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Seeking Copy of Proposed Tax February 14, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Does anyone had a downloaded copy (PDF or other) of the \”Safe, Sound, and Green Streets\” funding plan?

    I would love a copy emailed to me. Although I\’ve been following all the press coverage I want to read up on the actual funding plan and all the specifics about how much will go towards bicycle facilities. I want as much accurate info before I chime in on this blog posting

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.