Adams opts for Council vote on funding initiative

Last Friday, City Commissioner Sam Adams told the Portland Tribune that he has decided to not refer his Safe Sound and Green Streets transportation funding initiative to voters. Instead of including the proposal in the May primary elections, Adams will seek approval directly from City Council in January.

The funding proposal includes new street maintenance fees for homeowners and businesses, $24 million for bike boulevards and other safety improvements, and seeks to address a $422 million street maintenance backlog.

When the Tribune asked Adams why he decided against a vote he cited that Multnomah County and the City of Portland have conducted an extensive public outreach process and that polling has shown substantial support for the idea. “It’s a question of leadership” he told the Tribune.

Roland Chlapowski, Adams’ transportation policy staffer, says that the public will get to vote on the Multnomah County part of the proposal, which seeks an increase in vehicle registration fees.

Chlapowski also cited the defeat of Measure 50 (a tobacco tax to pay for children’s health care) as an example of what can happen when powerful special interest groups sway voters. In the case of Measure 50, the Big Tobacco lobby spent $12 million on an advertising campaign that many say helped defeat the measure.

Not surprisingly, Adams’ decision has sparked a range of reaction, many of them critical, in the comments of the Tribune article.

If City Council approves the proposal, which seems likely, the City will be ready to start processing the street maintenance fees by July 2008.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car owner and driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

11 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan (teknotus)
Dan (teknotus)
16 years ago

You forgot to put the million after the $12.

\”Big tobacco companies spent $12 million — $24 dollars per vote — to change the subject,\” – David Wu

———

Thanks Dan. I edited the post — Jonathan

JL
JL
16 years ago

I\’m disappointed that this will not be put on a ballot. I\’m a Portland homeowner, and a part-time bike commuter. I would have voted YES, but I don\’t like it when I\’m demanded money instead being asked nicely.

Rick Glos
16 years ago

While I support increasing the funding, not allowing this to go to vote, and let the people get their say, feels like it has negative connotations and something wrong is being done.

Grimm
Grimm
16 years ago

Not to drag this post into all about measure 50, but I voted against for reasons other than the advertising. In fact I don\’t recall many ads for it (I don\’t watch a lot of broadcast TV though), I only read the voter\’s pamphlet. My decision was because I didn\’t see enough of a correlation between cigarette smokers and children\’s health. Children\’s health care should come either from general or more health specific funding and taxing smokers should go towards cancer research. Granted money is money and decreasing smoking while providing health care is good, but if we are taking it from one group to give to another there should be a more direct reason. But the main factor for me was the fact that there was an something like 30% extra funding the tax would create that was not accounted for. Granted I understand there is overhead involved but I can\’t go charging clients and extra 30% to cover unknown expenses or just to pocket it to spend on whatever whim I see fit. I felt kind of terrible but it seemed like an ill-conceived plan. Hopefully a similar and more accountable measure can be drafted next year.

Anyways. Onward with the transit funding.

-Ben

Matt Picio
16 years ago

I have no idea what Commissioner Adams\’ motivations are, but it\’s actually pretty shrewd: if the council rejects it, it can be put to the voters. If put to the voters first, then if it is rejected it is very unlikely the council would approve it, especially with a mayoral election approaching.

If he hasn\’t already, Terry Parker is going to go ballistic on Sam\’s blog.

david
david
16 years ago

i don\’t know, grimm/ben. i believe it\’s fairly common to attach a contingency figure to a budget/expense account without detailing specifically what that money will be used for, and 30% doesn\’t seem all that unreasonable.

encephalopath
encephalopath
16 years ago

We elect people to make hard decisions like this. I don\’t like it when elected officials punt difficult decisions to a referendum.

I don\’t want them to throw up their hands when a politically charged issues comes across their desks. The initiative process is too easily corrupted by corporate money to be of much use.

Matthew
Matthew
16 years ago

How much does it cost to put something on the ballot? I mean, there will be an election then regardless, but someone has to count all the ballots, and there are statements in the voters pamphlet, and everything else, so it clearly isn\’t free to have another item on it. And if he thinks that 50+% is going to vote for it anyways, then it seems like a good idea to just do it…

Nuada
Nuada
16 years ago

Speaking about powerful special interest groups, I wonder how much they had to twist his arm to take out the gas tax. That is something I would have voted for. It would be much more fair since cars and trucks are responsible for tearing up and wearing down the roads, not bicycles. Maybe it\’s time for a letter writing campaign.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)
16 years ago

\”I wonder how much they had to twist his arm to take out the gas tax.\”

nuada,

far as I know, Adams chose to drop the Gas Tax because he feels there\’s a high likelihood that a Gas Tax will be sought by the state legislature in 2009.

Joe R.
Joe R.
16 years ago

gas taxes for cities aren\’t a very effective taxing mechanism in metro areas because if the tax is noticeable, it can be avoided easily by crossing city boundaries.

i\’m glad we have an elected official who isn\’t afraid to actually do what he\’s responsible for. i\’m so tired of having to go through a painful, drawn out election to approve most everything government should be doing on its own. elections should be referendums on leaders, not on every detail of government operations. we vote for Adams, he does his job.. those who don\’t like what he does can vote for someone else next time around. why is this such a difficult concept?