Support BikePortland

PBOT endures testy town hall for non-residential street fee plan

Posted by on June 24th, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-6

Mayor Charlie Hales, Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick, and PBOT Director Leah Treat faced a tough crowd during their street fee town hall this morning at the Oregon Convention Center.
(Photos J. Maus/BikePortland)

The town hall meeting this morning on PBOT’s proposal for a non-residential “transportation users fee” had all the markings of a potential debacle for Mayor Charlie Hales and PBOT Commissioner Steve Novick: A delayed council vote after getting push-back from business groups; huge demand forced the meeting to be moved into a ballroom at the Oregon Convention Center; a large majority of the 200 or so that showed up were in opposition to the plan; there were two private security guards in the room; a third-party company was hired to facilitate the meeting; and there were several outbursts of yelling at the outset of the event.

But — despite a few ugly moments of anger — the meeting eventually settled down and PBOT and Mayor Hales emerged relatively unscathed, if not stronger, as they continued their march toward finding a mechanism to raise new local transportation revenue.

Here’s what the crowd looked like:

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-5

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-4

“Raise your hand if you oppose the fee.”
Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-1

Hales set the tone from the outset by telling the assembled business owners that he considered himself their finance manager and accountant. “We’re here because the asset you own and we manage is crumbling.” Then, obviously trying to tamp down upcoming criticisms of the plan from the 30 or so people who signed up to testify, Hales added, “All revenue mechanisms are imperfect.” (He used personal example of how he pays lots of taxes for local schools yet his children are no longer of school age.)

PBOT Director then told the crowd she understands their skepticism about how her agency currently spends their money. So then, why does PBOT even need more cash? Treat explained that out of their $300 million annual budget, only about $100 million is discretionary. Of that, $35 million goes to debt service, parking garage operations, and commitments to alternative modes via the gas tax. That leaves, Treat emphasized, only $46 million to maintain and repair an $8 billion asset.

Advertise with BikePortland.

“As business people,” Treat said, looking up from her written remarks, “I hope you understand that’s not nearly enough.”

PBOT laid out the case of why they need the money and what they’ll do with it. One slide showed during a PBOT staff presentation showed what’s at stake for bicycle access improvements if the fee passes: up to 10 miles of protected bike lanes and 25 miles of new neighborhood greenways each year.

But even with the case made, many people who showed up this morning were committed to protest and express their anger. Before starting the public testimony, one of the meeting facilitators asked: “Raise your hand if you oppose this fee.” Nearly every hand in the room went up.

Not surprisingly, public testimony got off to a rough start for the city.

“If you can find $1 of misspent money in my last two budgets, I’ll show up on your doorstep with $10 and a TV reporter.”
— Mayor Charlie Hales’ challenge to those complaining about city spending on “pet projects”

The first half-dozen or so speakers yelled in disgust at “pet projects,” and when one man wondered angrily, “Where does all the money go!” he received a rousing applause. Another speaker said, “Shoving this down our throats without a vote is unconstitutional. I’m really offended.”

When the president of the 82nd Avenue Business Association explained his opposition and called out Mayor Hales for not doing anything to change PBOT during his tenure and breaking a campaign promise to maintain more streets by simply reducing overhead, the crowd really got into it. As the man went over this allotted time and was asked to stop, people in the crowd yelled, “Let him finish!” Another person got angry that he was taking too much time and yelled, “Sit down!” To which someone else replied, “Why don’t you shut up!”

Then, when Mayor Hales tried to respond to the man’s criticisms, the crowd shouted him down. “Do you want me to answer his question about how I’ve changed PBOT?” Hales asked. “No!” was the crowd’s response.

Thankfully, after that low-point, things took a turn for the better and the meeting became much more productive and respectful.

David Hampsten, an east Portland neighborhood advocates, said he’d like to see the new fee be broader and icncluee everyone from the entire region who owns a business license in Portland. Mike Roach, the owner of Paloma Clothing offered an idea that Novick seemed really interested in: a fee payment based on a business’s revenue per employee (a statistic already kept by the feds).

Roach also helped calm the waters by imploring others in the crowd to “Give them [Hales, Novick and Treat] credit and treat them with respect. I wouldn’t want to trade places with any of them.”

Other proposals offered by the public included: a reduced fee for businesses that encourage employees to walk, bike or take transit to work; a tax on studded tires (this came up a lot, and Hales said Council fully supports it but has no authority to act on it); an increase in the gas tax, and so on.

Here are a few of the comment cards that were pasted to the wall:

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-10

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-11

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-12

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-13

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-14

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-15

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-16

Street Fee Town Hall - non residential fee-17

When asked directly by a local TV news reporter (who took on the role of citizen and stepped up to the microphone) whether the Mayor would re-consider sending the fee proposal to voters, Hales responded by saying just to put the plan in front of voters would cost the city about $1 million. “Who wants to raise that money?” he asked.

Overall, it appeared to me that Mayor Hales, Commissioner Novick, and the rest of the PBOT team did an admirable job defending themselves against some of the sharpest criticisms. At the end, Hales specifically addressed the “pet projects” allegations that came up several times.

“If you can find $1 of misspent money in my last two budgets,” he said confidently, “I’ll show up on your doorstep with $10 and a TV reporter.”

That type of bravado is emblematic of the city’s approach to this street fee discussion thus far: They’re willing (and ready) to take their lumps and accept some controversy. But they’re not willing to let this effort die. At least not yet.

From here, Hales and PBOT will host another town hall tomorrow on the residential side of the fee proposal. It’s at the Kaiser Permanente Town Hall building (3704 N Interstate Ave) from 6:30 to 8:30 pm. Check out for more details.

Greenfield Health
Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • davemess June 24, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    Hales lecturing anyone on paying taxes is incredibly ridiculous!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Reza June 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm

      Since you seem to be the most vociferous opponent of the fee on here, and have already mentioned your desire to recall Hales and Novick, is it just the regressive nature of the tax that makes you so upset? Do you think that all of us as users of the transportation network have a responsibility to pay something for road upkeep and safety improvements?

      Or are you OK with the fee as long as somebody else pays?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts June 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm

        Not davemess, but I’ll take a swing at this.

        “is it just the regressive nature of the tax that makes you so upset?”

        No. Not its regressiveness but the fact that the Street Fee is a subsidy by those who don’t drive to those who do. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

        “Do you think that all of us as users of the transportation network have a responsibility to pay something for road upkeep and safety improvements?”

        Yes, proportional to the wear and tear they exact. A gas tax tracks this beautifully. The Street Fee accomplishes nothing even close. Stick with what we know works.

        “Or are you OK with the fee as long as somebody else pays?”

        Nothing about the fee works for me. Everything about it is screwy.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Jayson June 25, 2014 at 3:44 pm

          I find it very hard to believe that you don’t benefit from a road fee. Do you not accept deliveries at your home or office that must travel on the roads? Do you bike on the roads? Do you have your garbage and recycling picked up? Do you have friends and family visit you that travel on the roads? The businesses you patronize receive deliveries on the roads. Transit, police, fire, and other city services use the roads. So… how exactly do you not benefit whatsoever?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Mij June 25, 2014 at 8:48 pm

            Your entire reply is predicated on a strawman. That might explain your disbelief. Read what was written, ignore your agenda, and all should be clear.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • davemess June 24, 2014 at 4:28 pm

        A. I don’t think PBOT has been spending it’s money wisely (and this is some of the reason we’re in this “mess”). Therefore I don’t think it’s a good idea to somewhat blindly just give them more money and hope for better results.
        B. I think it’s crazy that they tried to ram this through council without much discussion (having obligatory town halls where they didn’t appear to really be gathering opinions, but just preaching). And it’s nuts that we aren’t getting a public vote on this (considering it is 2-3 times more than the Arts tax, where we did have a public vote).
        C. I don’t think this group has shown that they have a fiscally sound, reasonable way to collect this fee. (They floated a few ideas but nothing concrete). The Arts Tax has had a lot of problems with collection and enforcement, and I don’t want to see a bunch of city funds wasted on a collecting a fee when there might be more efficient (both fiscally and enforceable) ways to collect it.
        D. This fee structure is a subsidy for people who live in apartments/condos (granted I think there should be a deep discount if not exemption for lower levels of income). A person who lives in a condo and drives an SUV around town does not do less damage to the roads than a person who owns a house and bikes most of the time. Thus the person in the condo should not get to pay a lower fee.
        E. This fee does absolutely nothing to encourage non-auto forms of transport (something that the city continually likes to claim is a priority for it). In fact it might discourage it. I’m also nervous that this will validate many of the “bikes don’t pay their fair share for roads” crowd (which almost everyone on this site knows to not be true).
        F. (similar to C), we already have structures set up to collect these fees (gas tax, etc.). Reinventing the wheel just doesn’t seem like the way to go forward with this (esp. when the leadership doesn’t appear to have a clear vision of what that wheel will look like).
        G. The business side of the fee was not well thought out or user tested (as shown by the incredible backlash from the business community) and would likely lead to increased prices on many things in the city.
        H. I don’t feel at all confident that this money will be spread equitably across this city. Neighborhoods pay the same tax rates throughout the city and in the past many have not gotten equitable transportation infrastructure back.
        I. I just don’t trust Hales. I think he is just looking out for developers and wealthy individuals (thus the flat nature of this fee and subsidies for multiunit dwellings). Also I think it’s incredibly shady that he kept voting in OR for years while dodging state taxes by moving to WA (thus my comment).

        I am not trying to weasel out of paying anything (I voted for the Art Tax and have paid it). I just want to have confidence that this is the BEST way forward to spend our scarce funds, and this is the best, most streamlined form of collection (that doesn’t kill businesses and lower income folks). From the beginning this plan has not appeared to be very well thought out or planned (and I think the continual and rapid changes we have seen to it have demonstrated this). I guess I’m still naive enough to expect more from our elected leaders.

        (all this and sometimes I get bored at work)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Oregon Mamacita June 25, 2014 at 11:15 am

          Dave Mess- awesome post. I am glad to see Point D: the subsidy for car-driving luxury condo dwellers- discussed. That point is telling: the per unit fee for luxury units would be paid by the real estate partnerships and LLCs and Bershire Hathaway that own the big projects. Somehow protecting owners of a big LLC is super- important to Hales. I am sure the
          SoWhat area would go broke if the big units with views had to pay 12 a month. That’s the price of a glass of good Merlot!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • davemess June 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm

            Yes, I think that point has totally been lost in the shuffle. If the point of this fee was to make it flat, then this is definitely failing as a flat fee when you give subsidization based on housing preferences/circumstances.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Antipex June 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    If only the city had this sort of defiant attitude about removing parking spaces for bike lanes…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • reader June 24, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Leah’s math seems a little fuzzy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kittens June 24, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    What is particularly galling is the timing of these town halls. Was it 8:30 or 9 AM? How many business owners can take the time off to attend these sorts of things? Same with the upcoming resident meeting. Shows just how interested the city is in hearing feedback.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Scott H June 24, 2014 at 9:59 pm

      I assure you, the timing is quite intentional.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jayson June 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      There’s no single time that’s gonna be better than others. Most business owners have the flexibility to come whenever they want and most are up by 8:30am, so what’s the problem?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris I June 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    “Here’s what the crowd looked like:”

    A bunch of pissed off old white people.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Reza June 24, 2014 at 1:58 pm

      Straight out of a Parks and Recreation episode.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • CaptainKarma June 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm


      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess June 24, 2014 at 5:12 pm

      Who else makes it too a Tuesday morning meeting?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • CaptainKarma June 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm

        Thanks to all the “older pissed off white people” for showing up and participating, though if you look at all the photos you’ll see a more accurate representation. I’m still trying to understand the original remark…..

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Eric on Blue Island June 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Pet project? How about a pony instead? Well, we’ve already bought the pony: our single-occupancy motorist lifestyle: parking spaces within 10 feet of every retail door in town, ever-widening highways and proposals for same, and the costs and lost opportunities which go along with it. It’s a hungry-ass pony, yo!

    We’ll never be able to afford the necessities of maintaining an $8B infrastructure and improve transportation as long as we continue to undertax gas, cater to the wasteful habits of our motoring public, and subvert the public right of way to storage of empty cars.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete June 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm

      True, but the time has also come where upping the gas tax may be too little too late in the era of electric and fed-mandated high-MPG cars. I recently heard somewhere there’s a bi-partisan proposal to raise and inflation-index the federal gas tax. Of course, it hasn’t been the first time I’ve heard that through the (non-election) years.

      Maybe we should start decommissioning paved thoroughfares and leave them as more cheaply maintained (and lower speed) gravel roads… we’d see how this gravel bike ‘fad’ would fare then! 😉

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts June 24, 2014 at 4:39 pm

        Yes to gravel, but –
        “…upping the gas tax may be too little too late in the era of electric and fed-mandated high-MPG cars.”

        How do you think Germany does it? Their gas taxes (& other auto-related user fees) raise three times the amount of money they need to build and maintain one of the world’s finest transportation networks. And they have a higher mileage fleet & lower VMT by far than we do. There’s no mystery, no magic. Just raise the rate and keep raising it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Pete June 24, 2014 at 10:44 pm

          True, but they also have much better inter-region rail infrastructure (for passenger transport, unlike ours which is dedicated to goods). They, like most other countries, have minimized the subsidies by indexing the costs through many years. We can start now, but I doubt we’ll ever catch up.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Chris I June 25, 2014 at 7:51 am

            They have better rail infrastructure precisely because they have a higher gas tax, and they spend more tax dollars on rail, making it competitive on many routes. If the gas tax was as high in the US, you would see millions of new people taking Amtrak and Bolt Bus. This would justify expanded service.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • 9watts June 26, 2014 at 11:06 am

            “We can start now, but I doubt we’ll ever catch up.”

            Well, sure. But that is no reason not to start enacting sensible funding mechanisms, turbo-charging the ones we already have, rather than screwing around with Soviet-style calculations of different fees for every business that requires a massive bureaucracy to implement.

            Are we really having discussions about whether square wheels or round ones work better?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris I June 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Also: one person’s pet project is another person’s life saving safety improvement project. Let’s remember the source of these “pet project” complaints.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TonyJ June 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Parking parking parking. Why this is constantly overlooked and not brought up as a reasonable place to look for a sizable portion of the revenue befuddles me. It is the most fair way to charge for trips/usage. Market rate curbside parking, per-space lot fees for free parking, and a tax on paid lots. I’d be shocked if 25-50% of the funds couldn’t be raised that way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete June 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm

      Not only does this make great sense, but there’s an app for that!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spencer June 24, 2014 at 3:25 pm

      tax parking! FEE per use! increase gas tax! this fee will cripple small business, and regressively fine poor people.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Pete June 24, 2014 at 10:54 pm

        So you’re admitting that not truly passing along the costs of automobile infrastructure is really the same as subsidizing said “poor people”?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala June 25, 2014 at 9:26 am

      The last PBOT director tried to get parking rate setting authoritry transferred from council to PBOT so pricing could be increased and varied based on demand. He was fired.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla June 24, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Since you seem to be the most vociferous opponent of the fee on here, and have already mentioned your desire to recall Hales and Novick, is it just the regressive nature of the tax that makes you so upset? Do you think that all of us as users of the transportation network have a responsibility to pay something for road upkeep and safety improvements?
    Or are you OK with the fee as long as somebody else pays?
    Recommended 2

    I don’t speak for anyone else, but one complaint is that this is a tax and should be referred to the voters. If this went to a federal court on a challenge be a federal agency PBOT sought the “fee” from, I’m confident it would be ruled a tax (and therefore federal properties are immune from paying) based on previous decisions.

    Another is that it is highly regressive.

    Another is that transportation is a basic government function, along with public safety. The use of “fees” for basic government services is not a path we should embark on. There is a funding mechanism in place that correlates to use that supplements the general fund and that is the revenue resource that should be tapped.

    Another is that this is proposed to somehow save our streets which are on the precipice of slipping into third world status. If so, then 100% of the proceeds should be dedicated to maintainence and repair (the Oregon City model has this sort of limitation).

    And of course there is backlash based on the auditors report. It’s not a perfect correlation to a household budget, but the city has arguably misprioritized spending in the past, whether it’s PBOT or other departments. If an individual does that, they can’t just ask for more income.

    Plus, there’s the double taxation of other government bodies and the city’s own agencies.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Atkinson June 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on this, but I do sympathize with the council for attempting to bypass a vote.

    Nobody will ever vote enough money to fix the road problem. That’s why we’re in this mess, more than anything else. We imagine enough money in the “waste and fraud” fund (which is a bottomless pool of cash that can pay for all the correct projects by unfunding the pet projects and waste) so the votes simply don’t add up.

    Whether we need a street fee or a rise in the gas tax or some other mechanism…meh. I’ll pay my share. Whether we need to refer this to the voters: we’ll get nothing and we’ll complain about it once we’ve voted on it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 9watts June 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm

      “Nobody will ever vote enough money to fix the road problem.”

      Interesting you would say this.

      I think we’re missing a big part of the picture if we concede this point. In much of the world the situation looks very different than this. Money is abundant. The streets are in good shape. The public gets something for their taxes. Just because so many of us have lost faith in our leaders’ ability to raise and spend money wisely, to get their priorities straight, doesn’t mean it is hopeless, could never happen here.

      Recently Germany’s equivalent to the AAA suggested a hike in the gas tax as an alternative to a proposed auto tax. Recall that Germany’s fuel taxes are roughly 9x what ours are ($2.07/gal vs. $0.23/gal here). Just because we here have strange antipathies to funding doesn’t mean everyone does.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • gutterbunnybikes June 24, 2014 at 8:30 pm

        I’d agree, unlike many of the things we pay taxes for, good roads (for all users) is an obvious in your face kind of thing. It’s something that I/we can actually see.

        I’d likely vote for it, because really most my objections right now have more to do with by-passing the vote, and the fact that it seems like the thing was rushed and not very well thought out (as evident in how often this thing has been morphed since it was first announced) .

        I mean really all we’ve gotten on it is a pie chart with really vague categories, and of course promises from politicians.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Julie June 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    How much preventive maintenance funds does PBOT receive?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala June 25, 2014 at 9:28 am

      All local jurisdictions are responsible for maintenance.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal June 24, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    See that poster titled “OUR STREETS” behind them in the lead photo?

    Someone needs to remind them that means everyone and all modes, not just automobiles. I suggest that this memory refresher may need to be accomplished with heavy wooden clubs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Forester June 24, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    There’s some really good, thoughtful comments here so far. It’s pretty clear that this proposal hasn’t been thought through all the way – which doesn’t make me feel optimistic about the implementation & how these funds will be used. It seems cobbled-together, half-baked, and regressive…much like the arts tax.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gutterbunnybikes June 24, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Just curious as to where that leaves me and my house. My wife operates her business from our house?

    Do we get the commercial rate? Residential? Or both?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joseph E June 24, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    Can anyone clarify if the city council can add a city-wide, $0.05 gas tax with a majority vote of the commissioners?

    Many people are suggesting this alternative, but a few people have claimed that a “tax” would need to be approved by the voters. Is this the case?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla June 24, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    “Providing transportation choices that are inexpensive and reliable is a basic city service.”

    “And funding will come from a reduction of city overhead‐ currently 12% of the city budget goes to city support services. In these tight economic times, overhead needs to be reduced so that more money goes to direct services, where it’s needed the most. When I was city commissioner, we paved 5 times the roads at 1⁄2 today’s proposed budget. I believe that we can focus our priorities on this basic service by saying ‘no’ to other distractions. Further, the city auditor recently reported that the ratio of managers to workers in Portland City Government is currently 6:1. That is too much management and not enough direct service. The ration should be 10:1 or 12:1, so that we can redirect more resources to direct services.”

    From our mayor’s campaign. Have we reached that 10:1 or 12:1 ratio?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TOM June 25, 2014 at 7:13 am

    I think that the Dynamic Duo had under estimated the amount of anger and distrust in the electorate. They are inheriting the atmosphere left by Leonard/Adams , but have not broken away from it. Treat seems to be a follower, not a leader.

    Am afraid that the new/revised STREET FEE in November will be no better than the current cobbled together mess. Hales new favorite line is “any plan will be imperfect” and so implying that one should excuse his plans imperfections. BS.

    What really fries me is the language of the proposed plan. “The majority of funds will go for street maintenance” . What’s that mean ? 51% ? 50.5% ? And where does the minority amount go ? The public doesn’t need details, do they ?
    Looking down the roster …Kitz,Kotek,Hales,Novick ..etc , why can’t Oregon produce any decent leaders anymore ? And why do they treat us as breathing ATM’s ?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess June 25, 2014 at 8:47 am

      Personally I think they grossly misread the wildy successful passing of the Arts Tax and are thinking it a mandate to plow forward with this.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala June 25, 2014 at 9:30 am

      Bureau directors are at-will employees who can be fired without cause.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Rob Chapman June 25, 2014 at 12:12 pm

        And there is the problem. I don’t think we will ever see what Leah Treat can do because her hands are tied by Novick and Hales. If you are going to hire a six-figure a year expert then shut the hell up and stay out of her way (until she screws something up).
        The poor management skills of our electeds is something else.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Oregon Mamacita June 25, 2014 at 12:34 pm

          At the town hall I attended, Leah Treat barely spoke. I got the feeling that
          Novick pressured her to stay silent.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman June 25, 2014 at 8:36 am

    Mayor Hales and Commissioner Novick need a whole new approach if they want to succeed.

    First, they have to come up with a plan that voters will support. They can’t bypass a referendum.

    Second, they need a plan that promotes the Portland values already set forth by the city: Vision Zero, 25% bicycle mode share, carbon emission reduction, equity, and human rights.

    People would be in front of city hall demanding this be passed if it truly put Portland’s money where Portland’s mouth is.

    As proposed, it’s a regressive tax supporting a system that, by and large, is also regressive.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zaphod June 25, 2014 at 10:58 am

    This fee/tax for business has a big enough impact that it will directly cause many of the small businesses that make Portland such a great place to live, vanish. This isn’t hyperbole.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Rob Chapman June 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

      Chili’s and Walmarts for all, hooray!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TOM July 2, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Interesting Novick answer in WW’s interview:

    WW: Do you have a secret plan to win the war?

    SN: I do. Just like my idol, Richard Nixon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 9watts July 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm

      From the same interview:
      “I object to this idea with 96 percent of the fibers of my being.”
      Steve, you should have trusted your instincts.

      “…But I object to letting the streets continue to deteriorate—and continue to have inequality in terms of pedestrian safety within the city—with 100 percent of my being.”

      What a weird way to frame this. Like there’s nothing between -96% and +100%? Steve, I’m curious, how do you feel about a stiff hike in the gas tax? Given your answer to WW, I’m having a hard time imagining you’d like it less than the Street Fee.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TOM July 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    I re-read that interview, and tho I voted for him …now he just sounds like a loose cannon.

    every time I read this:
    Do you have a secret plan to win the war?
    I do. Just like my idol, Richard Nixon.

    I come back to the conclusion that he was asleep in history class.
    Nixon won NO war. Nixon bombed a major population center for 2 weeks during Christmas ’72, killing many. Nixon was caught lying and cheating and having vindictive lists of enemies.

    Geeze, even IF Nixon is your idol , wouldn’t it be a little smarter to keep that private ? Novick seems capable of unfiltered brain dumps.

    ie: Now the policy wonk, known for voicing a dozen ideas before breakfast, needs just one that voters will support.

    Seems like he’s on a quest to throw max mud at the wall and see if any sticks ?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TOM July 10, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    I think the little guy has finally “lost it” … (assuming that he ever “had it” 🙁

    “Novick to PBOT: “We Shall Fight in the Streets”

    In the July 7 email, Novick pledges his dedication to finding new money by quoting Winston Churchill’s 1940 speech to the British House of Commons vowing to defeat Nazi Germany.

    “’We shall fight on the beaches,” Novick writes, “‘we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,’ until we have won the additional resources you need.”

    read more :

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 9watts July 10, 2014 at 9:51 pm

      Who’s he going to fight in the streets? Who’s the enemy?
      People with studded tires?
      That I want to see.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TOM July 10, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Who’s he going to fight in the streets? Who’s the enemy?
    Recommended 0

    since he’s loosely quoting Winston Churchill who was speaking of fighting the Nazi’s ….. guess that who he considers his enemy to be ? ie: you & me=us=Nazi’s ?

    It’s all a game to him.

    Recommended Thumb up 0