“Comments I made at the May 25 MPAC meeting created a stir in the bicycling community.”
— Jerry Willey, Mayor of Hillsboro
At a meeting of Metro’s Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) late last month Hillsboro Mayor Jerry Willey raised eyebrows when he said “bicyclists” need to “participate” in paying for the costs of transportation infrastructure mandated by our region’s climate change goals.
“We all aspire to have more bike lanes and certainly more bike and pedestrian streets; but who pays the cost of that?” he wondered; and then continued to say, “… nothing, from actually, quite frankly, the bicycle group.”
Willey has now responded to his comments in a follow-up news story by Metro and in a memo distributed at this week’s MPAC meeting.
When asked about the comments by Metro’s in-house news reporter Nick Christensen, Willey said,
“My concern was, the cost of these (various proposals) [to battle climate change] being shifted to the cities – the cities that have a relatively fixed revenue source in property taxes and a declining base in gas taxes… Overall, it wasn’t just the bicycle community I was focused on. It was, I think, the cost of many of the proposals.”
And in a memo to MPAC dated June 8th, Willey acknowledged that his comments had “created a stir in the bicycling community.”
“Lest people wrongly think those comments mean Hillsboro isn’t committed to addressing climate change and sustainability and increased bike/pedestrian travel,” he wrote, “here are a few highlights of some important work we’re doing in that area.”
Willey than listed several policies and initiatives “dedicated to sustainability.”
Download Wlley’s memo here (PDF).
Do you think the Mayor’s response shows that he understands why people were so concerned with his comments?
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.
nope.
Gosh, all these years I have been driving in Hillsboro and I never buy gas there.
Please don’t refer to Nick Christensen as a “news reporter.”
“Metro news reporter” seems fairly accurate, I’m curious what was your problem with it? All his stories carry the disclaimer that he has editorial independence, of a sort.
I have a great deal of respect for journalists. Someone in the employ of a government agency is not a journalist, because his fundamental job is to generate positive press, not necessarily honest press.
The fudging of language by referring to an agency flack as a “journalist” blurs the line between useful information and spin and therefore diminishes the public’s ability to keep a critical eye on those doing the peoples’ business.
John – Your problem is because of our interactions in the Lents neighborhood’s economic development. At least own your conflict of interest. I own mine.
All I ask of folks is that they judge my work for what it is, not by who signs my checks. It might be journalism, might be PR, might be something completely different from both. Shrug.
Good lord. What possible conflict of interest do I have?
I know Nick personally and I know that he takes quite a bit of care to report in an unbiased fashion, and values his journalistic integrity. I have no doubts that he would have reported the story in the exact same fashion if his employer was still the Hillsboro Argus. Other than being able to do more follow-up interviews with people at Metro, at their request, there’s very little difference in his reporting and if anything, he’s been able to bring substantially more useful information to the public because he has a very focused “beat” at Metro and is able to attend a wide variety of meetings and hearings.
He’s not there to write PR puff pieces or be an “agency flack”. He was hired to produce news articles because Metro saw the value in having more accessible and legitimate news available to the public… and the conventional “press” in Portland was not doing a good enough job of even writing and publishing articles in the first place. I say kudos to Metro for making sure there actually is news about Metro available to the public. If Nick hadn’t covered this story, you probably wouldn’t even know about it.
i don’t know nick at all, and i have never read his writing, either in the argus or in his capacity at metro. except this one piece, which reads like an op-ed. while it is the case that someone whose job is to create news releases for a government agency is not a “journalist,” regardless of his good intentions or how “unbiased” his reporting might be, the phrase jonathan uses in the story is “in house news reporter,” which does seem fairly accurate. and it is in fact his job title.
But he’s not a reporter; he’s a spokesperson or a publicist or whatever. It makes no difference what his job title is. It could be King of the World for all I care. Jonathan shouldn’t refer to him as a reporter because he is not a reporter. It’s misleading. It certainly misled me. The criticism is valid.
“… Someone in the employ of a government agency is not a journalist, because his fundamental job is to generate positive press, not necessarily honest press.
The fudging of language by referring to an agency flack as a “journalist” blurs the line between useful information and spin and therefore diminishes the public’s ability to keep a critical eye on those doing the peoples’ business.” John Mulvey
Perhaps you could explain how, by his piece posted to the Metro website, Christensen has done the things you apparently consider him to have done as…in you opinion…an “…agency flack…” for Metro, rather than as a reporter or journalist?
The direction of the piece…’Taking a closer look: Do cyclists pay their “fair share” for bike lane projects?’ (link above in maus’s story.), certainly doesn’t read positive. I don’t see that writing about the mayor of a size-able Washington County city taking jabs at citizens for perceived failure to pay for their road infrastructure, is positive, at least not in a single minded sense geared towards pitching a particular idea.
More accurately, the form of Christensen’s piece seems analytical and critical. It scrutinizes both Mayor Willey’s remarks, and attempts, as other people continue to try, to get a better sense of how people that ride bikes for transportation, are contributing to the construction and maintenance of the roads they use, along with all other road users.
Maybe you think Christensen is doing some kind of ‘spin’ thing with his piece. Show us, because if it’s there in that piece, I’m not seeing it.
no.
He is clueless to why the bicycle community is upset.
I wrote him a letter about his comments though the city of Hillsboro’s website. His response to me was this EXACT canned response. I specifically wanted him to address the divisive and stale talking point that bike riders don’t pay for the roads. But instead i get this bait and switch PR-speak about how Hillsboro is already addressing biking needs.
I guess I really didn’t have high hopes of having a meaningful conversation about it, since most people that recycle that old argument aren’t interested in really changing their minds about street improvement funding and where it should come from. They just want simple talking points that people have heard before and can blindly nod their heads to.
I did the same and got the same response 🙁
Ditto.
It’s that sort of political non-reply that makes someone long for robot overlords.
Wondering exactly who Mayor Willey thinks makes up “the bicycling community.” Seems like an attempt to draw an arbitrary line.
Is it people who ride a bike every day? Is it anyone with a bicycle hanging in their garage? Is it citizens who question him about cycling topics?
Is there a light rail community? An SUV community?
Not in the slightest.
The reply I got reinforces my suspicion that City of Hillsboro does not understand where their revenue stream comes from, doubly so when it comes to roads and transportation infrastructure.
Hillsboro’s Mayor Jerry Willey seems to be oblivious to the fact that bike infrastructure, is the more practical, more economical alternative to bigger, more expensive motor vehicle capable roadway.
Above all else the most important contribution cyclists are offering to compensate for the expense of the bike infrastructure component of road infrastructure, is actually riding a bike on the bike infrastructure rather than further clogging up diminishing space on main travel lanes.
Mayor Willey’s comments of late last month, expressing his feeling that bike infrastructure was not being paid for by the primary user of that infrastructure: people willing to ride a bike (rather than drive.), seemed to primarily be a ploy to attract support from conservative members of his constituency. Those comments suggested he he’d either not done any research to support what he decided to say, or that he somehow got bad information. People need to be able expect a higher standard of knowledge than that from a mayor.
Even if he disagrees that people willing to ride bikes for travel are making a very significant contribution to the reduction in expense represented by roadway construction, it was a major mistake for him to make public comments using certain rhetorical hot-button words and phrases to describe people using bikes for travel purposes.
Nope. He remains clueless.
I emailed him too, and receive the following response:
Thank you for taking the time to share your views about comments I made at last week’s MPAC meeting. In no way did I intend to disparage the positive impacts bicyclists have on our community including a reduction of green house gases. The issue I was raising was more fundamental—as we create infrastructure specific to bicyclists, how do we pay for it? We need an infrastructure that accommodates multiple modes of transportation including cars, trucks and bicycles and we need to find a way to finance it. Our current funding sources for roads (property taxes, a percent of gas taxes and, in Hillsboro, our Transportation Utility Fee) are simply not adequate to absorb the costs. Solutions like raising parking fees or higher gas taxes actually shift the cost of bicycle lanes to businesses. We need to be creative as we think of ways to fund all of our infrastructure needs.
Randall, you got a fairly lengthy, detailed response from Willey, especially if it happens to have been directly in response to your email, and not simply a standard reply he might have put together.
In this response though, he does not explain exactly what he intended to imply with his “… nothing, from actually, quite frankly, the bicycle group.” remark.
If Mayor Willey could somehow find the words to say what he would consider to be ‘something’ from…as he happened to put it: “… the bicycle group.”, rather than the ‘nothing’ he professes concern over, that could help to answer at least one question his remarks have raised.
Abolish Metro.
The mayor needs to focus his attention 100% on reducing the cost of government so the people are not taxed out of their homes. He is correct to be concerned with the cost of projects that his city might have to pay for.
All of the infrastructure needed for bikes is in place around the entire metro area. There is no place I cannot ride my bike with reasonable safety if I use my brain. Your brain is your first resource: do not ride where you know the street is unsafe, use an alternate route; ride ONLY with high-visibility yellow and orange clothing; use bright flashing lights when needed. Those pieces of infrastructure just mentioned, that you can supply for yourself are all that are required. It is true that MANY cyclists are too dense to even do these basic things. You’ll read about them on the obituary pages.
Our region’s climate change goals? Don’t you mean our region’s climate change reduction goals? I’ll assume so. Gee, I kind of thought that bicyclists were already doing their share in meeting these goals by, oh, I don’t know, RIDING THEIR BICYCLES! Instead of fossil fuel burners, that is.
No. He didn’t address his false statements at all.
If he is so concerned with the cost of government with respect to transportation he should be trying to get people to chose another form of transportation than their automobile. It is true that MANY citizens are too DENSE to even do this basic thing. You’ll see them on their couch.
Blah blah blah…. nope. Nothing in the politico-double speak that addresses the misconception he perpetuates that people who ride bikes don’t pay anything for the infrastructure.
So… (sarcasm on) people who walk don’t pay a dime for their infrastructure, right Mayor? Maybe they should cough up some dough too. (Sarcasm off)
The plain fact is that people who ride bikes are also people who walk and people who drive. And people who own/rent. Seems to me like people pay for all the infrastructure.
The real question here is how can a mayor in charge of large sums of public funds be so ignorant as to where the funds come from. Only a small portion of the transpotation funds spent by the City of Hillsborro come from gas taxes and the majority comes from property taxes. nearly all new roads are paid for by private development. So, “nothing, from actually, quite frankly, the bicycle group” shows such a lack of finanacial understanding that it should earn the mayor a quick trip to the unemployment line.
Sometime I hear such ingnorance in the news I wonder how can we let these people vote only to find out they not only vote but they were elected.
Just letting folks know that Mayor Willey agreed to a meeting to discuss bicycles and fees with BTA. His office was pretty happy to do this. I’m looking forward to sitting down with him and seeing where it goes.
Any discussion about “who pays” for “bike infrastructure” needs to include a discussion of who/what makes streets so dangerous that they can’t serve as a more general-purpose “travel infrastructure” (answer: lawmakers, engineers, parked cars, law enforcement, and scofflaw drivers), and a discussion of everyone who benefits from its construction (answer: if it is a typical bike lane, mostly drivers–bicyclists derive minimal benefit; if it is an off-street “trail” [read: MUP] then drivers, peds, dog-walkers, joggers/runners, and cyclists, although cyclists again derive the least benefit, IMO, because this type of trail is full of extremely unpredictable users and usually doesn’t go anywhere useful in any kind of direct way.).
Also, if GHG reduction is the ostensible goal of encouraging greater bike use, then I reiterate my point from the earlier post on this topic: Who is already furthering this goal (answer: anyone who doesn’t drive, e.g. bicyclists), and who is hindering progress toward the goal? (answer: those who drive everywhere). When viewed this way, charging a “user fee” to cyclists is like charging a health care surcharge specifically to non-smokers to fund stop-smoking programs. Did we do that? No, we first set aside special areas for the non-smokers to enjoy a (relatively) smoke-free environment, then, after recognizing the true destructive nature of smoking on people’s health, we removed smokers from entire establishments so everyone could enjoy a more healthy experience when in public. Driving = smoking. I already have to inhale drivers’ first-hand exhaust (killing me slowly); should I also have to pay extra for the privilege of not being assaulted or run over (killed quickly) by these same drivers?
He certainly didn’t get my comment on the other thread about being labeled as part of a “bicycling community.” I don’t see him referencing the “gas-consuming community,” and he seems to imply we all ride our bikes to save the planet. By that logic can we infer that all people who drive do it to damage the planet? Or maybe they are just trying to get from point A to point B. Some might even like to drive!
(and yes, I drive too, but it’s usually just to get my bike from point A to a more distant point B… 🙂
Rob, the mayor has also agreed to meet with Hal of the WashCo BTC. Maybe the three of you can get some things ironed out and the mayor straighened out.
I have 2 questions. If Hillsboro is pro-bike, and pro-ped, then:
1. When will the city fix the bicycle loop detectors at 25th & Cornell?
2. When will the city move (or make the USPS move) the blue mailbox which sits in the middle of the sidewalk on 25th north of Cornell, and makes it impossible for ADA devices like wheelchairs to use the sidewalk?
These are merely 2 examples. Hillsboro has a long way to go to prove they are giving more than lip service to bike/ped issues.