“Put that on the ballot, that’s really the best way… People need to be able to determine what should be done with their pocketbooks.”
— Sarah Seale, Director of Americans for Prosperity, Clackamas County
A proposal in Clackamas County for a $5 motor vehicle registration fee to raise $20 million to help pay for the replacement of the Sellwood Bridge will be voted on by the County Board of Commissioners this week — but not before they hear from the public one more time.
When the proposal got its first hearing in front of the Commission on November 25th, anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity turned out 150 protestors and their opposition made headlines across the region.
Lynn Peterson, Chair of the Board of Commissioners, says they’ll vote on the proposal on December 9th, one day after the public gets another chance to weigh in. She says passing the fee is crucial because there is no Plan B. “We don’t have another funding source. The only other thing we could do is bond against our gas tax; but then there would be nothing left for maintenance coming from the county.”
To make sure Peterson hears support for the fee, advocates — like the Bicycle Transportation Alliance — are trying to turn out their members to counter the “no new taxes” mantra that dominated the first hearing.
Sarah Seale, Chair of the Clackamas County chapter of Americans for Prosperity, says voters should decide the matter. I interviewed Seale last week to learn more about her group’s opposition to the funding proposal.
Seale says much of her opposition has to do with the fact that she simply doesn’t trust Clackamas County Commission Chair Lynn Peterson.
“I can’t trust Lynn Peterson because in the past what she has said will happen has not happened, so the veracity of her words are not very high currency. She says $5, but i don’t think it really matters when she’s the person who’s handling this.”
“We don’t have another funding source.”
— Lynn Peterson, Chair of Clackamas County Board of Commissioners
Instead of the the five-member Board of Commissioners deciding the issue, Seale says her group would rather put it to a vote. “Put that on the ballot, that’s really the best way,” she said. AFP is “all about human freedom” and Seale feels that “people need to be able to determine what should be done with their pocketbooks.”
This morning I asked Chair Peterson if it’s possible that this decision could be put in front of voters. “The state enabled us to go for a vehicle registration fee without a vote; but they did leave the opportunity open for it to be referred to the voters if someone could gather enough signatures.”
According to the County Elections Office, to defer the issue to the May 18th ballot, someone would need to gather about 6,200 signatures by February 17th.
Peterson feels that, compared to the $127 million and $100 million Multnomah County and the City of Portland (respectively) are putting in for the project, the $20 million Clackamas County is being asked to raise should be palatable, especially since an analysis showed that 70 percent of bridge traffic originates in Clackamas County (Seale questions the validity of that study, saying that it’s “goofy” and doesn’t prove anything.)
What if the fee proposal did end up going to a public vote?
Both Seale and Peterson said they think it’d have a good chance to pass. “I think there’s a possibility it could pass,” said Peterson, “Because there are a significant number of people in the county that use the bridge and there are enough people worried about the bridge, that I think it would pass — especially if they understood they were paying for only 7% of the entire project.”
If it passed, Seale maintains, “We wouldn’t squawk about that.” She says that for her group, it’s not about the fee itself, it’s how the decision is being made: “Our quarrel is that these are top down, heavy-handed decisions… there’s a lack of transparency.”
During our conversation Seale kept coming back to her dislike and distrust Chair Peterson. “Lynn Peterson is convinced that we owe something to Multnomah County; that we benefit so much from them and we’re supported by them. That’s her whole mindset… All that lady cares about is Portland if you listen to her talk.” (One of AFP Clackamas’ major points of opposition is that the bridge is in Multnomah County so they should not have to pay to replace it.)
Asked whether her anger is about the fee itself or about Peterson, Seale replied, “You can’t separate the projects from these personalities can you?”
—
Learn more about this project at SellwoodBridge.org.
The next public hearing on this proposed fee is December 8th at 5:30 pm at the Clackamas County Public Services Building (2051 Kaen Road, Oregon City). The Board of County Commissioners is set to vote on the proposal the next day, December 9, at 10:00 am.
Propose that the bridge only be open to Multnomah County residents, and we’ll see very quickly how much the bridge matters to Clackamas County residents.
That still leaves the problem of paying for the bridge. It’d be much better to toll it, and give free passes to Multnomah residents. If 70% of the traffic really is from Clackamas, it should be possible to reduce the cost to Multnomah and Portland considerably.
Propose an “Opt-out” society where vocal proponents of no taxes get no use of any public funded projects or services.
i’ve expressed this before and i really wish this sort of thing could be worked out somehow. what an experiment!
Remember that movie RoboCop?
Remember that the city was run by OCP, a giant mega corp that took over all services from the city of Detroit?
In a Libertarian fantasy you could “government” services a-la-carte like your phone bill where you pay taxes from your income only for the services you want.
If you don’t pay for the local fire department we let your home burn to the ground.
If you payed for EMS service they will come and watch you home burn down THEN rescue you.
Didn’t pay taxes for the “charity and social stability” rider? You have no access to unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid or welfare.
Will it work? I have no idea but I do know that some will never let go of the idea until it is shown to fail consistently.
LOVE IT!
Here’s the 3 minutes’ worth I shared with commissioners at the first round of this slugfest.
I’m not here today to talk about bridges; I don’t much worry about bridges. What I worry about is jobs, and the plight of people who don’t have them. I’m here because ODS believes this initiative is good for Clackamas County, is good for the county’s people, is good for the county’s economy. But ODS would be here today even were that not the case, because the simple truth is that this initiative is good for everyone in the Portland metropolitan region, and that makes this initiative quite simply the right thing to do.
It’s the right thing because it demonstrates a commitment by the people of Clackamas County to create a business friendly environment throughout our region, a commitment by the people of Clackamas County to work together — in the cause of moving people and freight — preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. There are those, and they may be legion, who fail to grasp the importance of the task at hand. Crippled by self interest, they threaten even those they profess to be most concerned about – themselves.
For make no mistake: The Balkanization of civic interest is a fool’s errand, a short cut to nothing but hopelessness. We can thrive together, or we can wither apart. The Sellwood bridge is a key component of a vibrant transportation ecosystem, a piece that happens to be particularly dominated in its use by the people of Clackamas County as they head to and from work. Yet it’s now increasingly clear that, without the commitment of this board, and this county, the very future of the bridge is imperiled, putting countless jobs at risk.
Without a modern Sellwood span, it’s surely true that many residents of our county would indeed find alternate routes. But they would do so only at the enormous cost of increased vehicles miles traveled and increased carbon emissions. As if those twin civic horrors weren’t enough, we would also be consigning more people to spending more time in their car. There is no greater threat to public health than confining people to their cars. There’s no longer any debate on this in our medical community. The evidence is in. A huge number of modern maladies, including, yes, so many of the most expensive ones, are self-inflected. Because people eat too much, drink too much, smoke too much.
But mostly, of course, they are self-inflicted because people are far too sedentary.
That’s a polite way of saying they spend too much time on the sofa, or in the SUV.
By playing a key role in an advanced active transportation network, a network in which more people can walk and pedal and use mass transit to get everywhere they live and work and play and pray, the Sellwood promises to be a public health bargain, a two-fer sale this county would be crazy not to embrace.
So much for the civic niceties: Let’s talk the bottom line. The bottom line for the people of Clackmas County is this: Invest in this bridge today, or risk paying a much, much greater share for another bridge, an all-Clackamas County bridge, tomorrow.
Jonathan, succinctly put and also pretty much a description for politics in general these days. Unfortunately the tea-partier mind set IS one of Balkanization and cutting off our feet because we can’t afford shoes. One of the biggest challenges to society today is going to be fighting this mind set. You’re correct though, that in today’s complex society, our successes, and failures, are increasingly linked together as never before. We will either sink or swim together. Right now it looks like sinking.
If it goes to a vote in Clackamas, Multnomah county should close the bridge for about a month right before the vote “for inspections” or whatever. Leave it open for pedestrians & bikes, of course. Give the voters a look at what life would be like without a bridge. Who knows, maybe the bridge really isn’t needed, right? (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)
This is exactly right. Close the bridge, then vote on the fee — everyone’s happy.
That is some awesome strategic thinking. I love this idea.
My thoughts exactly. Shut the bridge down.
As a resident of Clackamas county, and business owner in Multnomah Co (and previously lived in Portland since birth) I feel that this is the cheapest option for Clack Co. to contribute to a new bridge. Unfortunately I will likely be paying twice for this bridge: through my business taxes/fees Portland and then the auto fees in Clack Co.
If only 30% of the trips come from within Multnomah Co. then maybe the bridge should get permanently shut down to autos, and NOT replaced.
Leave it open to bikes and peds. Yes I know, this would hurt businesses in Sellwood, but I bet the residents who live there would love the decrease in auto traffic on Tacoma. And in the long term make the neighborhood more livable.
I think it would be interesting for Clackamas Co. to look at how much it would cost to build a bridge further south. Too bad residents of LO will never let that happen. I think it’s worth looking at as an option.
For the umptheenth time, an $80 million dollar bridge would do everything a $324 million bridge would do.
Those who do not realize this and cannot calculate it deserve to be fleeced, whatever side they are on.
If John Kitzhaber sacks Matt Garrett of ODOT, the causal agent of this fiasco, as he well may do, the game will change. My, will it change!
I just want to be there when they pull the legs out from under the old bridge
I want the old bridge to collapse unassisted about 2-3 days after all traffic is re-routed on to the newly completed 1st half.
Anyone that still says that we don’t need a replacement after that gets voted off the island.
All of their comments are good idea strategic thinking. Yeah, it’s better to put it to a vote to the public to decide. This can be stressed to the public. Sooner or later, hope this will be settled.
The guaranteed way to get a new bridge without any opposition is to let the old bridge collapse. Works every time.
Just a nit, but we do pay unemployment tax on wages, which is what makes us eligible for unemployment benefits. If you have not paid unemployment taxes on wages within a certain window of time you are ineligible for unemployment benefits…
Just a nit pick, Valkraider:
Your employer pays the unemployment tax; not one dime comes from the employee for SUTA or FUTA. It’s one of those “employer-only” taxes. So YOU don’t pay the tax, but YOU get the benefits.
Sure, but let’s not forget that the money that the employer uses to pay that tax is largely the result of the labor of the employee, so in a way the employee is contributing. It’s like saying renters don’t pay property tax- but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.
I am not sure $80 million would pay the insurance premiums during construction…
“fee for service” and the libertarian principles doesn’t work for public services or inferastructure. If too many people “opt out” then there is not enough money to pay for the people who opt-in.
Everyone wants to “opt out” until they need the service.
No one wants to buy insurance and everyone thinks they don’t need it because they haven’t used it – until the pipes break in the apartment upstairs and you have a $90 thousand dollar claim…
No one wants to pay for firemen’s pensions until their house is burning.
No one wants to pay for medical insurance until they need surgery…
People will say they don’t want to pay the $5 because they don’t use the bridge. Then they will want to drive over the bridge eventually anyway.
Ah, you see that’s the trick that allows a corporate government to work: they can allow themselves to make a profit.
Either you pay the lower fee up front to finance public works projects that benefit the entire public or you pay higher fees afterward for every single use.
We have instances that partially resemble this: toll bridge fees, fines for false emergency service calls and fees for helicopter rescue when you wander off the marked ski zones on Mt Hood in to some blatantly dangerous area.
Like any purely theoretical economical system, it looks perfectly good on paper; it’s when you add real people to the mix that the problems arise. This “optional-tax or fee for everything” approach ensures that the poor are never able to rise out of poverty simply because they will never be able to afford the tax up front and the fees would be prohibitively large after the fact.
If the total implementation of a purely Libertarian non-governmental oversight and economic society came to being you would pay for every inch of road you drive on or sidewalk you walk on, every breath of clean air you breathe and ounce of clean water you drink.
While some Libertarian economic principles might be helpful others are quite harmful. The same could easily be said of pure capitalism or communism though.
I think that those who drive over it, regardless of where you live, can pay for it through a toll. The users pay for the service. certainly, the two counties can pay for part of it.
Jim Lee- the bridge itself is not the truly expensive part. The ends are where unique topography, hydrology and soils determine major expenses and level of ingenuity. This bridge has more complex design requirements than the Sauvie Island bridge for example.
How about just make the bridge have an annual $10 toll. You pay the toll once you get a sticker good for a year. Kind of like a snow park or a state-park-pass. Then you don’t pay the toll again for a year… That way, it’s a user fee that only happens infrequently. The stickers go on the drivers side of the windshield and are made easy to see so drivers with them just slow at the toll booth… Drivers without them – pay. If you don’t have cash, the operator takes your license plate and you are billed (plus an admin fee).
Wow……arguing over $5. Wow…..I would pay a $5 car registration, toll, user-fee, whatever the hell you want to call it. I don’t live in that neighborhood, but the 10 times I drive over it, it’d be worth 50cents each trip to ensure my safe return home. Wow!
I have seen the reports on this bridge. I’ve ridden and walked over this bridge. Honestly, I think it should be shut down immediately because it is waiting to fall down.
I’m with dwainedibbly, close the thing. NOW. Condemn it because the taxpayers don’t need even MORE liability when people get hurt like they did in Minneapolis. Hello…… Then, let’s talk about how to pay for it and who wants to help.
Members of the Americans for Prosperity group must not believe their time is worth much. Sit thru a couple 2-3 hour commission meetings because you’re upset about a $5/year fee? $0.83 an hour. That’s the prosperity they’re after?
Of course there IS entertainment value to be derived from getting to bitch about something in front of elected officials.
I am so jazzed for Prosperity! And ferry boats for vehicles over 300lbs! The bridge can stay how it is.
I also think that a toll is the most equitable way to pay for the bridge (as Augustus said, “the users pay for the service”), but I wonder if they’re doing it this way so that they can get the capital up front. Tolling might take years to generate the same amount of revenue (guessing here), so if they need money now to pay for the engineering, raw materials, etc. then a fee like this makes sense. Also, could the tight interchanges on Hwy 43 and in Sellwood handle the backup of a line of cars waiting to pay their fee?
Anyway, $5 to keep a bridge from falling into the river seems like a no-brainer.
With tolls, you can generally raise the upfront cash by selling bonds backed by the toll revenue.
Hey thanks, Pliny – good to know. So I wonder if tolling is on the Board’s list of options, then? It does seem like a viable and fair solution. Anyone know if it’s been discussed by the project managers? Moot point if this proposal passes, but…
So Seale thinks the ballot will pass even if it is voted. Then why is she wasting everyone’s valuable time here and talk crap about Peterson!? Oh yeah, she’s brainwashed by AFP, funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.
That bridge needs to be fixed, a $5 toll is so little compare to what I used to pay in Toronto and New York. At least that money goes to the bridge, that everyone in the SE uses!
I do not wish to try Jonathan’s patience with further critical posts on this topic, but perhaps these responses will clarify matters:
1. Twenty years ago a friend in the engineering business warned me about the parlous state of the Sellwood Bridge; my interest was piqued and I began to study the problem.
2. The datum of $80 million for replacement comes from the staff of Gail Achtermann, Chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission. Expenditure greater than that would not contribute to improving Oregon’s transport infrastructure.
3. The geotechnical conditions on the west side and the bizarre intrusion of real estate under the right-of-way on the east side are best met by a self-anchoring suspension bridge. This is a well understood but rare type of structure employed only for extremely peculiar constraints imposed by a site.
4. Self-anchoring suspension bridges are the most efficient of all structural types for spans like the one at Sellwood–once they are in place. But they do require temporary support of the deck until it has been integrated with the suspension system. The existing bridge, strengthened somewhat, would serve for that.
5. A self-anchoring suspension bridge could be built above the existing bridge, on the existing alignment. The old bridge could then be dropped (explosively!) and the new span lowered into place. Really neat, eh?
I have done an intensive design study on this solution that I would be pleased to share with any interested parties: cadwal@macforcego.com And I keep pushing it because Ted Wheeler asked me to.
Lynn Peterson is a civil engineer through education and work experience. She takes the time to pour through the data and if she says 70% of the traffic comes from Clackamas County, then I believe her.
The $5 sounds like a good deal for Clackamas County. Repairing a dangerous bridge is certainly worth the cost. Lynn Peterson is one of the sharpest people I’ve met in my life and Clackamas County residents, in my opinion, should be glad to have her as their Commissioner.
I don’t understand Sarah Steale’s problem with Lynn. It seems Sarah is personalizing the issue and yes, the AFP are wasting their time; however, I’ve seen these Tea Party types pop up lately and them seem to enjoy going to public hearings and getting on camera.
If the AFP has an issue with Lynne Peterson they should take it to the political arena when her name gets called for reelection. Squabbling over a $5 annual fee for a badly needed new bridge is a prime example of the sort of filibustering nonsense that contributes to our governments’ ineffectiveness. Personally, I think shutting the bridge would not effect people as badly as some have predicted, either. Most points of interest on the west side are in Lake Oswego or Tigard, both of which are accessible by comparatively short detours to the north or south (if driving). The cemetery path is the only thing that makes the Sellwood Bridge a viable bike route, and we all know the difficulties related to entrusting such things to private entities.
On that note, AFP has missed the obvious suggestion any libertarian should love: building the bridge as a private business. I wonder how much the toll would be to cross if someone was actually attempting to profit from it? They could be happy that neither Clackamas nor Multnomah Counties would need to spend a dime to make it happen. Ms. Seale, I’d like to sell you a bridge..
The problem with tolling is you have to create a whole new entity to do it. The County doesn’t have an existing tolling authority. You’d have to create that, hire people, managers etc to run it, and build a tolling facility on the bridge. Probably not too efficient a mechanism for a single bridge.
we could borrow the money from the Chinese, then let your kids pay it back.
If they vote this down, I would gladly pay $5 a year to exclude all Clackamas traffic from Sellwood.
You may think that a non-serious crass comment, but I think it a quality of life issue.
Not that anyone could actually convince the Sellwood area to actually close the current bridge to all but pedestrian and cycle traffic but if you could…
… it might be a royal pain to get them to give up the massive traffic calming, reduced air and noise pollution, an essentially car free main street and the enhanced sense of community that comes from no longer being split in two by the automotive equivalent of a log flume.
Is there really a significant level of business from non-Sellwood residents just passing through?
Tacoma is not designed for the level of traffic going through here.
When I have driven through, by car, I have felt less safe about the thought of trying to stop and park here, shop here, cross streets by foot here and the fun of pulling back in to this skelleton luge run of auto traffic that defines a drive on Tacoma in Sellwood.
Shut the bridge to all but EMS automotive traffic, let the businesses cater to a pedestrian allmost carfree marketspace
Then let the locals decide if they want a new bridge. A bridge that, due to induced demand; will ultimately require the demolishment of Tacoma storefronts to make room for a road that can move more vehicle though quicker: for that is the goal of every rOaD prOjecT.
I don’t think there would be “induced demand” because they are not adding any new car traffic lanes to the Sellwood Bridge, just bike and sidewalk facilities. The Bridge redesign was purposely kept at 2 auto lanes so that Tacoma would not be overwhelmed with more traffic.
Tacoma Street Plan from 2002 calls for it to function like a Main Street. ODOT has nothing to do with the bridge project.
The following is from the current Transportation System Plan:
“City Council approved the Tacoma Main Street Plan in January 2002. The project’s termini are the Sellwood Bridge on the west and McLoughlin Boulevard on the east. The plan’s purpose is to develop transportation strategies to further Tacoma’s role as a main street.
Tacoma presents significant transportation challenges because of the more than 30,000 vehicles that travel on it to and from the Sellwood Bridge. The final design includes one travel lane in each direction, full-time on-street parking, gateways at each end of the study area, curb extensions, and street scape design guidelines.”