is running for Portland City Council.
(Photo © J. Maus)
Earlier this month I dropped by a meet and greet for City Council Candidate Mary Volm. I expected to have a quick chat and introduce myself, but as luck would have it, I was able to sit down with her for a one-on-one conversation.
For about 30-40 minutes, Ms. Volm and I discussed a number of issues including her 20-year career as a City employee (most them as spokesperson for the Bureau of Transportation), how Portland can raise new revenue for transportation (she’d like to derive some revenue from “bicyclists”), her feelings about Mayor Adams (she supported the first recall effort), the Columbia River Crossing project, and more.
We started with Bikefest — an event Volm spearheaded back in the early-mid 1990s.
What was Bikefest all about and how were you involved with it?
“It started as a way to help people consider the bicycle as a mode of transportation as opposed for just recreation. I knew people had a bike in the garage, we just wanted them to dust it off and go get a quart of milk on it. That was really the issue…we were right on the edge of non-compliance [with air quality standards] all the time and that meant we wouldn’t get federal funds for transportation.
We closed the Burnside Bridge down for the entire day — which I received death threats for — and brought out a band and invited every bike vendor and store. We drew 10,000 people. The idea was just to get people more comfortable using their bikes. We started it from that perspective; not from ‘Hey, let’s promote bicycles aren’t they cool?!’ It was a very important component to reducing car traffic”
Given all of your experience in PBOT, the seat you’re running for isn’t in charge of the transportation bureau (Mayor Adams has it currently)…
“Well, I’m certainly going to ask for it after 20 years in transportation! I know it like the back of my hand and even if I don’t get it it doesn’t take away my interest in it.”
Have you thought about what bureaus you might have and how you could bring bike issues into the fold? Like the Police Bureau for instance (currently overseen by Commissioner Saltzman, who Volm is running against)?
“The Police Bureau wouldn’t go to one of the new people on council*. To me, it’s inappropriate that the Mayor doesn’t have it to begin with [the Mayor usually manages the Police Bureau. Adams is only the third Mayor in Portland history to give the bureau to someone else].
The Mayor makes the decisions about bureaus… I have no idea what bureaus I would receive, but it’s rooted in me [Volm shared that she’s been to Amsterdam 14 times]. Transportation goes through my blood so I look at things from that perspective.”
[*Note: The City Charter does not preclude a rookie Commissioner from being assinged the police bureau, but it’s true that if someone does unseat Saltzman, pressure could grow on Mayor Adams to take it back (Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish are also rookies and Randy Leonard has said he doesn’t want it).]
If you did have transportation… What are some things you might be doing to increase cycling?
“Well, I’d have to look really closely at the Master Plan… We’ve picked the low-hanging fruit… Over the last decade or two we’ve been able to get those that already have an interest in riding, so now, how do we make it more easy.”
What do you think of the trajectory of biking in Portland since the mid-90s?
“It’s amazing isn’t it!? I have a big smile on my face. Well there’s always more work to do but nobody thought we could make it happen. I was laughed at when I came up Bikefest. I feel pretty vindicated that it was a good idea and it moved us in that direction.
But I think we have to look at the big picture — it’s not just bikes that are going to save Portland, we can’t build our way out of congestion (nor would we want to), so how else do we move about efficiently? So that includes streetcar light-rail, high-speed transit, good bus service, hybrid and electric cars and smaller vehicles like the Smart car. I saw one 15 years ago in Paris for the first time and said, ‘I want one of these!’ I don’t know what it is about Americans and their gluttonous attitude for bigger is better… but I just thought that was the coolest car I’d ever seen.
The point is that not everyone is going to ride a bike, not everyone is capable of walking long distances [Volm hasn’t been able to ride for three years due to health issues], so we need to make sure that all generations and all socio-economic classes have access to transportation in Portland because that’s your means to get goods and services, to get to your job, or to get to your medical or social services you need. So I would back up and say, ‘How can make sure everyone has an efficient way to move around the city?'”
The other issue is transportation funding; how do we continue to expand our bicycle infrastructure when our resources are diminishing? I know that issue inside and out so we need to be very creative in terms of looking at ways to fund new infrastructure.”
Do you have some ideas as to how to do that?
[She first debunked the efficacy of the gas tax, saying that cars are now more fuel-efficient and that the gas tax has not proved to be an effective funding mechanism.]
“I think we need a more equitable way to pay for transportation services. You could be an avid bicyclist and yes, you’re doing a great thing for our city, but there has to be a way that we can collect a little revenue from that portion of the traveling public so that we can increase the resources. Otherwise, as the resources drop, you’re going to get the truckers against the bicyclists and I’ve watched for years how drivers and cyclists have been at odds with each other and I think there needs to be some recognition on the bicyclists part of, ‘How do I help in this bigger picture so that drivers quit taking it out on bicyclists?’ Some small way that we can say, here’s how cyclists are contributing to the infrastructure they use.
I know that your impact is much less and you’re doing a great thing, but I also think that there’s still this big chasm between drivers and cyclists that really makes the public right of way unsafe for everyone. It is a huge issue… It may not be the best way to raise revenue but something symbolic needs to happen in order for everyone to get along a little better and support each other.
We need to start building bridges between the different options now, as opposed to ‘I’m better than you because I cycle and you’re driving your big gas-guzzling SUV’ … Something small that says, we care about our transportation system, we use it too, we need to participate in some minor way that shows we care.”
Would you be supportive of pricing vehicle trips to help pay for infrastructure?
“Absolutely. I’ve always been in favor of congestion pricing and tolls… If you use your car at a certain time the cost goes up, maybe that would help employers think about staggered hours or other things.”
What about I-5 between Oregon and Washington?
“I think there needs to be some improvement across the Columbia for I-5. Any kind of improvement has to include transit and bikes and pedestrians. There is a benefit of moving forward with it [the Columbia River Crossing project]. I certainly don’t agree with the lanes and I’ve watched for decades — if you build it they will fill it. You give people the option to drive and they will.”
So, do you think Portland leadership should have been more strongly opposed to the CRC project?
“I think they’ve been flip-flopping quite frankly, and I think that sends the wrong message to everyone at the table. I think you have to come to a table like that with an ability to listen and compromise and work with each other to come up with the best solution for all. To draw a line in the sand and put your hands on your hips means nothing, you’re never going to come to agreement and you end up making enemies… So I guess I would have approached it differently as a leader.
I would have gone in — certainly with the intention of protecting Portland because everybody still drives across our back — but working with our partners so that we can get some of the things that we truly care about. It’s always a compromise, it’s always a negotiation, and the best thing to do is communicate around those issues and listen.”
How will your support of an effort to recall Mayor Adams impact your ability to work with him on council on these big issues?
“I was one of his go-to girls on his staff; he used to be one of my dearest friends. I can work with Sam. I’ve proven that. If there’s a good idea that’s in the best interest of the city, you’re going to see me support anything he talks about.
But I also come with my own set of experiences and wisdom and I’m not afraid to speak up. It’s not personal, this is about the city I’ve lived in since I was born and I care about it that much and I’ve put blood sweat and tears into so many things that I’m not going to compromise my ability to lead just because I didn’t agree with him lying and admitting that he lied to get elected. That’s up to the citizens as to whether or not they want to keep him, it’s not just up to me.
I felt personally we should have had the opportunity to vote and I think it would have been in Sam’s best interest and actually in his best interest for future ability to lead to be able to say, ‘I’ll resign and then I will put my name on the ballot again’. You have a contract with the people that put you there and people aren’t getting over it. There’s half of the population that still wants to hold him accountable and half that says, ‘Oh, forget about it. Just let it go’. Well, that’s a city divided. The GLBT community is divided; the bicycle community is divided; small businesses are divided. Just like James Chasse, we should have healed that a long time ago so that we can move on and make better decisions from here on out, and it’s not personal it’s really about the community at large.
As a leader, I wouldn’t have found myself in that situation (that’s not how I roll), but you don’t destroy people that were your friends, you don’t hurt people along the way, and you don’t lie because you want to have a job.
It was more about citizens having the right to say, ‘OK, now that I know what I know, this is the way that I feel’. I mean, he was the great gay hope… I mean, I have great gay friends. I was so excited and I did vote for him when he ran for Commissioner…”
What about when he ran for Mayor? Did you vote for him?
“No I did not.”
Why not?
“Because… I think in watching him in the four years [as commissioner] he calls himself a wonk but he wasn’t very wonky, he was more about getting himself attention so he could run [for Mayor]. Do your job was my point on that. Do your job Sam! You know, you have a job to do, so quit thinking about how you’re going to look.
Having an up close and personal relationship with Sam for years when he was Chief of Staff [to former mayor Vera Katz], I saw a big change in him when he got power and I saw a lot of people hurt by him that I have great respect for in this city… and top of the line technical people and engineers who just didn’t appreciate how he treated the employees. That’s the city’s biggest resource by the way; the employees… And you should treat them well.”
How do you think your former colleagues and employees at the city felt about you as a spokesperson?
“I’m a go getter. The thing about being a communications director is the proof was in the pudding. I had to win over everybody as I moved forward. Whether they liked me personally or not, that’s not the issue. Did I do what I was asked to do and did I do it really well? Yes I did.”
Earlier in our conversation, you said you were “rooted” in transportation. Why is transportation such a big thing for you?
“It’s the foundational piece. Economic development is based in it, land-use planning, neighborhood livability. Everything that I really do care about has a transportation link.”
What about your personal background. Where do you live?
“I’ve lived in SE Portland for 20 years, two blocks down from the (Mt. Tabor) reservoir off of Hawthorne in a little baby bungalow house (that I’ll proabably die in because I’ve put so much energy into my art studio.”
You do art?
“Yes, I’m an artist. I work in fused glass and kiln-cast glass. I show at Talisman Gallery on Alberta. I’ve been a photographer for 37 years, and I’m a painter too… anything I can get my hands on.”
What about school/college?
“I have degree in Social Psychology from PSU and a television production degree from Mt. Hood Community College.”
How are you feeling about the race?
“Public financing is challenging… but I’m having a blast. Somebody gave me the best advice early on: Focus on the next signature. Period. Don’t focus on where you come from or where you’ve been. That can be discouraging and overwhelming. Just focus on your next signature and have great conversations with people.”
Volm has until this Friday to collect the 1,000 signatures and $5 donations it takes to qualify for public campaign financing. Learn more about her at MaryVolmforPortland.com and don’t miss the Portland Mercury/Bus Project Candidate Olympiad event where Volm and all the other candidates will be asked more questions about bikes, transportation, and other issues.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I’m disappointed that someone with as much to say on transportation as Volm is speaking favorably about a bicycle tax. That’s so far from the idea of Bikefest, where you want to get people’s rusty bikes out of the garage and to the store. It introduces a barrier at a time when the goal is to take down barriers.
When anyone can ride anywhere in Portland without ever worrying about not finding a comfortable bike route or negotiating a crazy freeway crossing, when there are bike racks everywhere you look and bike corrals at every school, when there are no physical barriers, maybe then it would be okay to think about the possibility of creating other kinds of barriers.
that’s a pretty good interview, jonathan, thanks. i learned some stuff.
Wait, am I already paying for infrastructure or aren’t I? Seems that I am through income and property taxes (or so I’m told). Why should I pay a “symbolic” tax to justify my ability to ride?
If I’m already paying for infrastructure, the last thing we need is elected officials (or candidates) saying that we don’t and fanning the “cars vs. bikes” flame.
Thank you for this great interview! I learned a lot about Ms. Volm’s viewpoint. I would, however, welcome anyone who thinks I need to pay a bicycle tax to show I’m contributing, to start paying my property and federal, state, & local income taxes, though. Geez.
Great coverage Jonathan, thanks for this! Are we going to get a piece on Jesse Cornett soon? 🙂
Part of me wants to explain all the reasons why she’s wrong about so many thing. But Mary is not a viable candidate for public office. It’s just not worth the effort.
The bike tax is sure a third rail for the bike community. But to ease the tension on the subject I offer this humble proposal:
Gas stations will charge a 10% tax on every gallon of gas purchased by cyclist customers filling up their bikes gas tanks.
she’d like some sort of tax on “bicyclists”
Where does she say that? Can you include the portion of the interview where she uses the word “tax,” or does the fact that you did not place the word “tax” in quotes indicate that she did not actually say that?
You quote her as saying she would like to see “a way that we can collect a little revenue from that portion of the traveling public” which is a far cry from “tax the bicyclists!” Maybe she wants to institute a sales tax on handlebars (not “bicyclists”). Maybe a 1% fee on bike store profits (again, not “bicyclists”). Who knows what she meant? Certainly not the people reading this transcript.
As presented (before the cut, no less) it sounds like she is running on a “charge a bicycling registration fee” platform. That is a very hot-button issue and objectivity is paramount. A clarification might be in order.
Mr/Ms Wait a minute,
My mistake. I should have been more careful with my use of the word “tax”. You’re right, she did not say that specifically. I was using it as a general term, but I realize now that I should not have. I’ve edited that out of the article. Thanks for the feedback.
I’m with Graham.
Saltzman is going to win anyway.
I makes me wonder what kink of person will vote for mr. Sh(m)o. She says what she says to get votes. Nothing more. Nobody that is actually interested in getting more people to bike thinks that a bike tax is a good idea. How about a shoe tax? Stroller Tax? Pogo Stick tax? Really? What a joke.
And Cornett… When speaking with him all he wanted to do was change the tax structure to make it easier for Businesses. He went on to say, “I’m what you call a seasonal cyclist”. All that means is I don’t ride a bike but I say I do so that you will vote for me. Really, can’t someone run that actually cares about cyclist?
Why can’t Chris Smith run again. I know.. he didn’t get many votes. But he got mine. He actually commutes by bike and understands the issues that face us.
anything we do to reduce the numbers and impact of car traffic has a net positive effect on transportation infrastructure. riding a bike or bus & leaving your car at home has the same effect of making a (tiny) financial contribution to roadway infrastructure. removing a detrimental effect is, in terms of infrastructure, not much different than adding a productive effect. so the act of bicycling is a contribution to transportation infrastructure in the same way driving a car is a destructive impact.
what our Oregon transportation planners are not doing is taking into account the net savings of converting roadway to bike use. a project may cost $100,000, but it can have net cumulative effects that are far greater — especially as the additional of bicycling infrastructure pulls more cars off the road, multiplying the impact and increasing the savings.
cars pay cash fees because they (slowly) destroy infrastructure as they use. bikes should not pay because we remove our destructive impact and help increase that non-destructive impact, making the roads last longer (and, one might hope) be safer and more pleasant for the cars.
this is basic economics and planning.
NO THANK YOU.
Is “bikewashing” a word? If so, it would most certainly apply to her. She loves bikes, but somehow thinks that cyclists aren’t paying their fair share (which we all know is bunk).
I’d also like to suggest that the reason why a gas tax isn’t effective is because it never gets raised.
I’m thinking Jonathan got the long one on one interview because no one else showed up for the ‘meet and greet’.
So I’ll second the ‘not a viable candidate’ comment.
Regardless of if she is talking about a tax, a registration fee or some other way of collecting revenue from people who bicycle, her justification for doing so is that one individual needs to make a contribution because ANOTHER individual has a PERCEPTION about her or him. This kind of thinking is biased, naive and dangerous because it squanders time and effort on bogus solutions meanwhile people are being injured and killed on the roadways. dislike.
we get such respect on the roads. NOT
wait until they see my share the road plate at the gas station. hit me up for more money. LOL
So we’ve determined that neither Mary Volm or Jesse Cornett are viable candidates and Dan Saltzman doesn’t seem to care one way or another for bikes but will likely win again. I guess we’ll just keep betting on Sammy, eh?
Bicyclists are an unstoppable political force! Hahahahaha…
Somebody gave me the best advice early on: Focus on the next signature. Period. Don’t focus on where you come from or where you’ve been.
You don’t seem to be taking the advice very well, Ms. Volm. The entire interview was you focusing on on where you’ve come from and where you’ve been.
That being said, I think that Graham # 6 put it best. You’re not even viable so you’re not worth the effort. I could list about 100 reasons that I all ready wouldn’t vote for you.
Mr/Ms Wait a minute,
Let’s look at her words:
“a way that we can collect a little revenue from that portion of the traveling public”
So how do you do that without a tax?
She doesn’t say “Collect revenue from bike shops” she specifically says “from the traveling public” and if she uses the phrase “collect a little revenue” instead of “tax” it’s because she’s been in PR for the last 20 years.
By the way, terrific coverage, Jonathan. Thanks so much for the objective reporting and the tough questions. I’ll say this: At least Ms. Volm was honest and doesn’t make any bones about how she feels on touchy subjects.
I don’t think any amount of bicycle tax will change any perception of someone impatiently driving behind a cyclist. We will still be an obstacle that drivers have to pay attention too, drive around or be in the way preventing them going zero to idiot in 60 seconds. If anything , we should get a tax deduction.
How much damage do studded tires cause? I think quite a bit but a number of years ago they tried to pass a studded tire tax and you would have thought the world was going to end because people were so opposed to it. According to a page at WSDOT, the average damage to roads in states that allow studded tire amount in excess of $10 million.
I would bet that the whole of metro area bike commuters contribute less than 1/10 of 1 percent of that amount in road damage; if any at all. Yet try to get that much for safe bike infrastructure and sweet pick-pocketing Jesus, we want some kind of entitlement.
Great coverage BP.
I’ll be happy to pay an appropriate bicycle tax when gas taxes are raised to the same percentage per/gallon that they used to be.
#21 yes! found that out once again when 5 speeding cars passed me today, wait it was more but you get the point. this was all on
a simple 60min lunch time stroll in the great hills of Wilsonville. ahhhh feel like i cant get away from the road rage.
one day i came into work with little pieces of white paint all over me. studded tire mayham here. I was like wt? simple cars cause more damage to our roads, and our “bike lanes”
I don’t even understand why Portland allows studded tires in the first place. It’s not like it ever really snows in this place bad enough to warrant them.
Every time I hear a car go by with studded tires as I stroll through Downtown I shudder at the idea of how much destruction they’re causing.
+1 on pointing out the ridiculous amount of damage studded tires do to our roads. I saw estimates from ODOT about 10 years ago that said studded tires do $17 Million of damage to Oregon’s roads annually. And, apparently, Portland can’t ban them locally, it requires an act of the state legislature.
It’s completely disingenuous to suggest that cyclists should pay a road tax as a matter of perception when it’s the motor vehicles, and specifically those motor vehicles equipped with studded tires, that do the lion’s share of the damage. These clowns are already subsidized by cyclists way too much already.
I’ll pay a tax for riding my bicycle when people who ride bikes are actually protected by the law. Since such protection is NEVER likely to happen in a car-centric landscape, anyone who advocates for a tax on people for riding their bicycles won’t get my vote. Period.
BURR (#26) – Actually, it’s tractor-trailer trucks that do the lion’s share of the damage to the road surface, with cars as a second. Bikes are so far down as to be indistinguishable from weathering.
overweight trucks (and busses) damage the road bed, studded tires damage the road surface.
Wait a minute #8, you were right…Volm didn’t mention ‘bike tax’, so it’s a good thing you brought it up and the editor in chief subsequently edited it out.
So why didn’t Volm herself use that specific phrase in helping to express ideas about how bike infrastructure dedicated money, might somehow be directly obtained from ‘cyclists/bicyclists’? I can only guess.
One explanation is that similar to many other people that make calls for money from people that ride bikes for transportation purposes, Ms Volm has no actual, practical idea for a system that could fairly collect money from this source. She’d better put her thinking cap on and be prepared to provide a better answer the next time this question comes up.
Other than that, in the interview, Volm comes off as confident, aware of her area of expertise, strength and limitations as a potential commssioner. Seems to understand how people relate and work with each other.
A number of people commenting above remarked that Volm isn’t a ‘viable’ candidate, but consistently failed to accompany those remarks with even one reason why they don’t think she would be. Jack #18, you weren’t the only one, but what did you say along those lines?
Here it is: “I could list about 100 reasons that I all ready wouldn’t vote for you.” (volm, that is) Spare us the 100 reasons, but how about two or three?…or maybe five? I don’t know about everyone else, but I figure I can probably handle thinking about five reasons someone thinks Mary Volm is not a viable candidate for Portland City Council.
Thank you for this insightful interview, Jonathan. I had already decided not to vote for her and this put the nails in that particular coffin.
wsbob @ #30
The only reason she isn’t a viable candidate in the BikePortland.org world is that she didn’t take an oath to kill the CRC, fully fund the 2030 bike plan, and imprison all cagers in the name of the glorious people’s velo revolution.
I am very impressed with her gutsy answers regarding Mayor Adams. She validates many stories that I have heard from friends inside city hall about his ego, narcissism, and power tripping. I’d vote for her simply for having the only set of brass ones in Portland.
yikes, there are some pretty defeatist remarks out there.
The Candidate Olympiad sounds awesome. Ill bring a couple $5 to support voter owned elections. So much cheaper than letting the PBA buy off our future.
See you Thursday!
There is a great piece on Mary at Blue Oregon:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/01/mary-volm-why-im-running.html
Mary is a brilliant woman who speaks her mind and has the experience to lead our city.
Please consider talking some time to learn more about her.
Yet another politician who believes the answer is reaching into your pocket. Will Portland soon have a tax on breathing?
wsbob #30 must be getting paid by Ms. Volm to promote her candidacy, this is the second thread he’s defended her in tooth and nail, give it up for bob and mary!
😉
aw come on Jasun, the only reason you like Mary is because she is supporting the recall Sam effort, she’s worthless as far as her cycling agenda is concerned
Me? promoting her candidacy? Nah… . I’d just like to see the vigorous discussion about candidates for Portland city commissioner stay above the knee-jerk dismissals of Volm some of the people commenting have posted.
She mentions that “…there has to be a way that we can collect a little revenue from that portion of the traveling public so that we can increase the resources.”, and people give her the boot before reflecting whatsoever upon what new, possibly reasonable idea she might have to do this that someone else hasn’t thought of yet.
Let her have a chance to be specific about what she has in mind before giving her the boot. See how she responds to the idea often expressed by people commenting to this weblog, that people riding bikes are already substantially contributing ‘in kind’ to bike-ped infrastructure and more importantly, to relief from motor vehicle congestion on the road.
…And to the idea that what many people feel today, is that maybe what is really lacking on the part of many politicos and transportation wonks today, is the ability to effectively instruct doubtful members of the public that people walking and riding bikes are doing their part to provide this relief from motor vehicle congestion.
See how she responds to such ideas. Sometimes candidates find good reason to change their perspective on things as the campaign goes along.
i will wait to hear, wsbob, but i don’t expect to hear anything useful. the surface roads are paid for by income and property taxes we all pay, not by gasoline taxes. bicyclists and pedestrians cause essentially zero wear on the roads. asking cyclists to pay a symbolic tax in order to shut ignorant people up is not good policy, and it will not accomplish even that paltry result.
Jasun, (#34) posted a link. Click it, scroll down to the comments. Part of the way down is how she feels about bikes and taxes…
Oh, she does get specific when she answers a question I asked her on BlueOregon (see link above):
“Bikes and Taxes
I believe it would buy so much trust, support and actually reduce Driver vs. Bicyclist anger and road rage if bicyclists registered for a very nominal fee. The fee would provide the bicyclist with a headlight and tail reflector every two years. Also, it would automatically register the bike frame’s serial number to lower bike theft.
The system I envision would also allow the city to directly communicate with cyclists about changes in the law or city code, provide updated information directly into the hands of cyclists and, most importantly, cyclists could beat back the argument that they do not pay anything for the striping, improvements and other auxiliary costs PBOT spends to encourage more cycling.
In 1993, we I worked for transportation, I created BikeFest, which drew 10,000 people a year to the Burnside Bridge to look at bikes, rain gear and anything else they may need to actually consider using the bicycle as a mode of transportation. One trip a week is what I spoke about – dust off your bicycle and use it to get a quart of milk or visit a friend, or even go to work.
We needed to reduce air pollution to get Federal funds to improve our roads. We are finally in compliance and have our Federal share of transportation dollars. It has worked and now, with limited resources, PBOT spends much more on bike infrastructure than it did in 1993.”
Does that clear things up? I’d really like to hear further explanation as to how she plans on collecting these “fees” in a way that would actually bring in more revenue than it would cost to enforce.
@ wsbob – In no particular order:
1) She supports the recall effort for my Mayor.
2) She supports a bicycle tax.
3) She’s utterly wrong about the gas tax (fuel efficiency?? REALLY???)
4) No true artist is self-proclaimed.
5) She’s full of herself.
And just for good measure:
6) I don’t like the cut of her jib.
I don’t see her as a viable candidate either.
But she is on the mark in regards to sham adams.
Her comments about him mirror my own thoughts.
She is however as viable a candidate as sham adams ever was. Which is not at all.
Re # 42: “I don’t like the cut of her jib.”
What do you mean?
Re # 44
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20don%27t%20like%20the%20cut%20of%20your%20Jib
ElGordo #41, thanks for posting that excerpt of Volm’s remarks at blueoregon. I’m usually checking in there, but hadn’t read it yet.
It’s interesting that she somehow has come to feel so much trust ‘could be bought’ if people riding bikes for transportation were to register for the so called ‘very nominal fee (which as every reasonably intelligent person knows…once such fees are implemented, they often begin an upward spiral that doesn’t stop).
And after the implementation of this fee, the people whose trust has supposedly been secured by this purchase, still may likely not understand the true role that walking and riding bikes represents to the essential objective of reducing motor vehicle caused traffic congestion on the street.
Ms. Volm presents herself as quite a knowledgeable and experienced transportation professional. She must know some history of how Oregon leaders began working decades ago, to create bike-pedestrian infrastructure as a fundamental means of helping reduce pressure on the street from an excessive use of motor vehicles for transportation. Ms. Volm must be aware of Goldschmidt. If I remember correctly, he was one of those leaders that encouraged bike infrastructure w-a-a-y back when.
This function of walking and biking is still important to congestion reduction in today’s cities. The public needs regularly to be reminded of that. It would inspire me if someone like Ms. Volm figured out a way to effectively and regularly remind the public of this instead of having people that walk and bike instead of driving, instead of imagining that the public’s trust can be bought with a fee.
I hope she doesn’t really believe that the bikes for transportation riding public is really going to be find the offer of a fee related door prize…a headlight and reflector every two years. The state shouldn’t be responsible for providing that equipment to people that ride bikes.
Jack #42..thanks for listing some of your reasons. I actually thought her reason for supporting the recall, as expressed in the bikeportland article, was sound, but still kind of a waste of time. It would be o.k. to put Adams on the ballot as a referendum…let the public really decide whether they want him around…but we all know, even though some of them despise what he did related to the bimbo…that he’s going to survive the recall. Said and done, it’s a big wast of time and money. But if that’s what the public feels needs to be done for truth and justice, fine…go ahead with the recall.
This is getting long…typical for me…but today I’ve got to get outta here for awhile.
Sentence correction:
It would inspire me if someone like Ms. Volm figured out a way to effectively and regularly remind the public of this instead of sending the people that walk and bike instead of driving, out on a mission to attempt to buy the public’s trust with a fee.
Ms Volm appears to believe that bike riders rely on taxes paid by the motoring public.
It is easily shown that the motoring public relies on taxes paid by everybody. Our driving is heavily subsidized. Why is it that a gallon of gas costs the same as a gallon of drinking water? Because is is heavily subsidized.
She would like bike riders to pay money to show drivers that bicyclists deserve to use public roadways too. Many of us do not bike exclusively, but drive as well, but that is another discussion I suppose.
While biking or waking the public roadways is a right, and driving them is a responsibility (not a right), she would like bike riders to pay for their right to use the road. Amazing.
She will not get my vote.
I would like 2 add that any candidate that thinks cyclists should be charged has entirely missed the point.
Mary volm needs to go back to transportation 101.
I would love to help pay more for bike infrastructure and I appreciate that someone’s actually talking about it. If it means more infrastructure and quicker implementation, then I’m all for it. However, I don’t think it should be that a bicycle tax supports the only bike infrastructure projects in the city, because the difficulty bicyclists face is a result of failed road designs that ignored existing bicycle users.
While it’s not relevant to this discussion, I can personally attest to Sam’s hunger for political power. He supported CRC when he thought he could look like a problem-solver, then he railed again the CRC when he realized that he was ignoring his constituency and the good of the region.. I cannot count on Sam to do the right thing unless it happens to be related to a PR campaign that can boost his power.