of local nonprofit leaders offering to
endorse a city revenue proposal.
(Photos: J.Maus/BikePortland)
For months, almost no local institutions have been willing to voice public support for one of Mayor Charlie Hales and Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick’s signature agenda items: a new revenue stream for city transportation budgets (a.k.a. the Our Streets Transportation Funding Conversation).
On Thursday, a group of nonprofits, many of which focus on transportation, offered to do so — with conditions.
In a separate but related action Wednesday, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, which is among the nonprofit coalition, issued a rare action alert calling on its members to contact Portland City Council in support of “a new progressive street fee with strong discounts for low-income members of our community only if it prioritizes safety.”
That phrase lines up with the three conditions listed in the nonprofit coalition’s letter to the city:
- That the new revenue stream charge more from households with higher incomes, up to $2400 a year for the highest-earning Portlanders, while exempting Portlanders who earn less than $25,000;
- That it be expected to raise raise at least $40 million annually; and
- That at least half of that new revenue be dedicated to safety projects (as opposed to “maintenance” projects such as paving or traffic signal operations).
According to the city’s latest description of its proposal, one likely scenario for the tax structure would be as follows:
- $0 for people whose adjusted gross income is less than $30,000 per year
- $30.60 annually for people making $40,000 per year
- $97.56 for people making $100,000 per year
- $282.36 for people making $200,000 per year
- a cap of $2,400 for people making $1 million per year or more
The coalition supporting a structure similar to that one includes the BTA, Community Cycling Center, Oregon Walks, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and the public-transit-focused OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon as well as less usual suspects like AARP Oregon, the Oregon Food Bank and the Community Alliance of Tenants.
To raise $40 million or more, the tax on individuals described above would need to be accompanied by a fee or tax on businesses. Though the nonprofit coalition didn’t set any conditions for the business fee, the city is pursuing a low fee on every business or entity that is subject to the Portland Business License Tax (that is, those that make at least $50,000 a year by doing business in the city) including those that do not have a physical location in Portland. You can read much more about this concept here (PDF).
BTA: Revenue is ‘the next step’ for Portland bicycle advocacy
In an interview Thursday, BTA Advocacy Director Gerik Kransky called this an opportunity to fully fund two of its top infrastructure goals within the City of Portland.
“We see an opportunity to put protected bike lanes on North and Northeast Broadway,” Kransky said. “That’s on the project list. We see an opportunity to build neighborhood greenways in East Portland. That’s in our Blueprint for World-Class Biking.”
Paying for these projects, Kransky said, is “the next step” for Portland bicycle advocacy.
“For all of the conversations that have happened in the public sphere over the last couple months,” he said, “a lack of investment is one of the reasons we’re not moving the needle on mode share. So now’s the time. … Let’s fund this stuff.”
Advertisement
Business group pushes for less progressivity, less ‘safety’ spending
The BTA and its coalition partners are offering this conditional endorsement in part because if they don’t, their conditions might be less likely to be met. As we reported in June, some members of the city’s business advisory committee on the street fee have been pushing for less than half of the money to be spent on “safety” projects — about 1/3, according to the city’s summary of the consensus on that committee — so a higher share can go to road paving.
The city estimates that fully preventing deterioration of all its streets would cost $93 million every year.
Also according to the city’s summary, the business work group also agreed that a fee of $1,200 or more is too high for households making at least $1 million a year.
Finally, the business work group proposed that the new tax should automatically be referred to a public vote for renewal six years after it begins. Kransky said Thursday that the BTA opposes this concept.
“We think there’s no need,” Kransky said. “We know we need this thing.”
The BTA also opposes sending the issue to a public vote next year.
“I think this is why we elect representatives to deal with these issues,” Kransky said, adding that he believed the measure would be approved by voters if it went to ballot.
I asked Kransky what he would say to those who argue these needs could be accomplished with a gas tax hike.
“We support increasing state and local and federal gas taxes, too,” Kransky said. “I don’t think these are mutually exclusive approaches to transportation infrastructure finance. I think what the city has on the table — if it is in fact progressive, if it does provide a low-income discount — is actually better. I don’t like regressive taxes.”
The BTA’s recommended action
You can read the full list of conditions and nonprofit endorsers here. Here’s the letter the BTA is suggesting that its members send immediately to the five members of city council:
Dear Commissioner ____________,
Regarding the potential new street fee in Portland, safety is my number one priority.
Any new revenue package should emphasize safe streets above other needs.
I know that when there are more people riding bikes and more bicycle facilities on our streets research shows that everyone, no matter how they get around, is safer.
I support a new progressive street fee with strong discounts for low-income members of our community only if it prioritizes safety.
I would like to see some of the money dedicated to the Bicycle Transportation Alliance’s priority projects. The project list tied to the street fee should dedicate significant funding to high crash corridors, completing the network of crosswalks, sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and transit station improvements, and should not simply maintaining the status quo of pavement on the streets.
I look forward to hearing from you on this issue.
Sincerely,
________
The council members’ addresses are mayorhales@portlandoregon.gov, nick@portlandoregon.gov, amanda@portlandoregon.gov, novick@portlandoregon.gov and dan@portlandoregon.gov.
The city is hosting a big meeting on Monday to discuss its proposal and plans with a large group of stakeholders. We’ll be there, and will continue covering this proposal as the city council aims for a Nov. 12 hearing and Nov. 19 vote.
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.
How many tax plans in Oregon have ever raised the initial estimated dollars??
Measure 66 didn’t cut it.
So I take any number thrown out with a grain of salt.
The nonprofit coalition’s proposal begins to sound a lot more like something I’d support. Even if the business coalition’s ideas about the proportions spent on maintenance versus safety come with that progressive tax spread, I’d accept it. Fixing broken pavement like the spot illustrated is a not-small safety issue for bikes and pedestrians and it would be a start.
Most of the fundraising part of proposal is coming directly from the city at this point. I think the coalition was just strongly encouraging where the money is going?
Amazing how much this fee (which is now set to be an income tax) has morphed in the last 6 months (a lot of it for the better in my opinion).
Well, I’ve gotta say that from a biker’s standpoint a lot of maintenance issues are also safety issues.
From this person’s perspective a lot of maintenance issues are not safety issues, or I should say I expect they will be strategically construed to be safety issues, but I don’t buy it. I got in an argument with Charley Hales here on bikeportland about that before he won the primary. We who bike hardly need anything except for the cars to stay off our backs, not cut us off.
http://bikeportland.org/2012/07/12/portland-biz-journal-op-ed-bicycling-serves-as-economic-tool-74670
Would an income tax also apply to commuters from outside portland who work in Portland? I won’t support anything that just adds to the subsidy for people who choose to live outside the city and drive to work in it.
Do portland democrats feel shame?
Any tax to improve transportation must primarily be a disincentive to owning and using private autos, while encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel. Thus, a fuel tax added to the price of each gallon indexed for inflation would be the most direct way to raise revenue for transportation infrastructure while discouraging driving. If we do not directly address popular king car culture, we will spin in circles of regression.
Exactly. While this smells a lot better than the earlier iterations of the Street Fee, the link to income is far less of a direct link to deterioration of the system we’re trying to fix/maintain/make safer than a fuel tax. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why we consider everything under the sun except the obvious, the simple, the thing that works the world over.
Why is it so bloody hard to suggest a fuel tax and correlate the problem with the taxation.
The problems with a fuel tax is electric cars don’t pay it, it’s politically difficult to pass and regressive. That means revenue will drop even if indexed to inflation and the poor will be disproportionately affected.
Hardly.
In this country we tend to focus on the costs associated with the fuel tax: how much I or someone else must pay; what happens if Mr. electric car doesn’t pay, etc.
What we should be doing instead is recognizing that for all that money we could be raising we’d be getting a dozen or more very concrete benefits:
– a system of roads in better shape
– a complete mass transit system
– real, complete bicycle infrastructure
– inducements to reverse sprawl as the balance shifts away from cars toward other modes
– money left over (!)
and now for the punitive but no less socially valuable benefit:
– make those who drive pay, if not the full costs of their mode choice then something much closer to that. (The list above should indicate that we can/will develop the alternatives to the car with the money raised so this isn’t a zero sum situation at all.)
This is a dynamic problem, one that has many possible solutions if we tax heavily the thing that is at the heart of all of this.
Your three concerns in turn:
electric cars don’t pay – no other country with a hefty gas tax seems particularly concerned about this. I wonder why? Perhaps it is because they have money left over and there are hardly any electric cars. Seems like arguing over crumbs to me.
politically difficult to pass – that is not a reason not to pursue it, but a reason to finally get beyond this self-imposed gag rule. We’re going to have to at some point; might as well start now.
regressive – The originally proposed street fee was regressive and dumb; the gas tax is only one of these, and as I understand it can be made less regressive through rebates tied to income, but more importantly we should focus on the alternatives to getting around by car that the gas tax could fund which would make this moot. Automobility makes the poor poorer; refusing to tax gasoline like every other country does is of no benefit to the poor. The sooner we get past the requirement that everyone including the poor has to have a car the better for everyone.
So you don’t have to pay since you don’t drive. Yet almost every item that comes into your house arrived a retailers by truck. Everyone has skin in the game on this. It’s not just an us vs them, bikes vs cars that always comes up in this forum.
“Yet almost every item that comes into your house arrived a retailers by truck.”
Actually most items that arrive in my house arrive by bicycle (sourced from Craigslist or the dumpster), but let’s assume your assumption is correct: every single fleet operator pays the (hiked) gas tax, and you can bet your bottom dollar will pass that cost along in the price they charge me, or the grocery store, or whomever, for delivery.
So far the reasons why the gas tax supposedly won’t work, or will be less fair are all falling flat. But keep trying.
Just to debate this a little bit. Your lifestyle is not sustainable though. If EVERYONE got their things from dumpsters/etc, there wouldn’t be any things to be put into dumpsters. Eventually some amount of the population will have to be buying things.
This point comes to mind every time I see something about living without money or being “freegan”. This type of lifestyle is heavily reliant on subsidy from others. There is no way we could ALL just have this lifestyle.
“This type of lifestyle is heavily reliant on subsidy from others. There is no way we could ALL just have this lifestyle.”
We’re drifting a bit here, but suggesting that dumpster divers are parasites is silly, if also familiar. The ethic of dumpster diving (or my interpretation of it) is making do with what is there. Do you really think this approach requires dumpsters, rich people throwing stuff out all the time? I come from a long line of thrifty folk. We know how to make do. Along the lines of what I said above in response to Stretchy, if people stopped throwing usable stuff away all the time I’ll happily deal with the consequences.
“Eventually some amount of the population will have to be buying things.”
Not necessarily. We could just as easily imagine (since we’re speculating wildly here) that folks just make, grow, fix stuff themselves instead of going to the store for everything. I realize that our economy is not predicated on this kind of self-sufficiency, but self sufficiency has been around much longer than our economic system and I know which I expect to have the last laugh.
“Do you really think this approach requires dumpsters, rich people throwing stuff out all the time?”
YES. An empty dumpster provides for no one. I’m simply critical of the eternal optimistic ideals that this type of lifestyle is actually a realistic solution for a majority of society.
I figured you might bring up a regression of society to the self sufficient days of yore. This would require a heavy shift in population demographics though (and we’re talking way out past the suburbs). At that point transportation policy would be pretty moot.
Thanks for debating this with me (I just finished reading a book about it a few months ago).
“the eternal optimistic ideals that this type of lifestyle is actually a realistic solution for a majority of society.”
I am not aware of anyone suggesting this. I just mentioned it parenthetically in response to meh. I have suggested in other conversations here that Craigslist could provide for our biking needs in lieu of buying new bikes, but this is all somewhat beside the point of understanding how the gas tax currently filters through our economy. To the extent that I buy stuff that requires fuel upstream or for transport, I pay some share of that fuel tax. This is fair, proportional, and requires no extra administration.
But here’s the kicker: If I don’t buy anything, steer clear as much as I can of the embedded gasoline in my economic life I can opt out. This too is fair, if perhaps less plausible to most people. Suelo, about whom the book The Man Who Quit Money was written was and is an inspiration to me.
Paying for our roads with a Street Fee, or an Income Tax, or whatever, is so clunky by comparison. The Soviets tried to do everything by central administration rather than using price signals and we know how well that went.
“a regression of society to the self sufficient days of yore.”
Regression?
Ouch.
Sorry 9, but I don’t want to spend hours a week churning butter and sheering sheep to have things to barter with. 🙂
I understand that.
But eating is better than not eating.
sure, but why are only Portlanders being asked to pay for the roads everyone uses then?
The entire premise of your post is absurd. Just because I once bought something that was shipped on a truck does not mean that my desire to limit unnecessary low-occupancy vehicle use is “hypocritical”.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Electric cars DO pay into the state highway fund, which is also shared with the cities and counties.
Almost as much revenue comes to ODOT through licenses and vehicle registration fees as comes from gas taxes. Check the ODOT budget document.
Because I drive only about 4000 miles per year, my contribution to Oregon from gas taxes is only about $40. That’s less than I pay for annually licensing my car. Plus, I have to pay for my driver’s license.
If electric vehicles really become a significant part of the fleet, just increase their annual registration fee to $80 or $100 per year. That’s a smarter way of solving the revenue problem than introducing and implementing an entire new collection system with all its administrative costs.
It’s an obvious subsidy to continue to allow people to drive on the cheap or someone else’s money so to speak
I’m sure this is also supported by all the PERS retirees who won’t have to pay the tax, commuters who live outside of the city and work inside it, and on line retailers like Amazon who have UPS and the USPS use the roads to deliver goods but do not have to pay any road taxes in the city. The streets need to be paid for by the users instead of subsidized by every resident who lives in the city. Gas taxes, tire fees (on bikes too), tolls, etc. are much better ways to pay for roads and transportation.
It appears the tax will be paid for by only Portland residents. I agree with you – all employees who work in the city of Portland should be paying this tax. If you work here, you used some kind of Portland transportation method to get here.
I use the bus from Vancouver or train from Delta Park, how much should I pay to Portland, where I rarely spend time driving my car, on top of income taxes I already pay?
Wait, you work for PBOT but don’t live in Portland or even Oregon?
I interpreted that as a rhetorical comment.
It is true that Clark County residents who work in Oregon pay Oregon income tax even though it mostly goes to prisons, social services, etc., in Oregon. Presumably their employers (and therefore the existence of their jobs) are among the beneficiaries of those things, just as everyone in the metro area benefits from the existence of transportation systems on both sides of the river, whether we use it ourselves or not.
Make PERS recipients pay. Sorry but having them skate out of this is ridiculous.
If maintenance needs are 90m per annum, and the liar’s budget claims 40m revenue from this tax, shouldn’t 100% of funds raised go to maintenance?
I realize that everyone loves the new shining things but these streets are falling apart. Just resurfacing and painting the crosswalks would be a huge safety upgrade in some of the densest parts of our city.
The streets are largely not “falling apart,” they are being blasted apart by huge amounts of motor vehicle travel. The city should focus on reducing motor vehicle travel and decreasing the amount of pavement it has to maintain. Once it has a long-term plan that includes those elements, hitting maintenance in the short-term becomes reasonable. Currently, we’re just throwing good money after bad because we have built out an unnecessarily giant street network and subsidize the mode of transportation that destroys it.
For example, there are tons of residential streets that are close to 40′ curb to curb, encouraging speeding. Cut the width in half and speeds will go way down, plus the City will have half as much pavement to maintain. Why isn’t the City focusing on measures like this that will reduce their long-term maintenance burden?
Here, here!
Hear, hear!
Also, I would say we don’t really need all the pavement we currently have. PBOT already doesn’t repave parking lanes unless it is a full rebuild.
Ugh.. another separate tax mechanism? I already hate the arts tax for the sole fact that it’s yet another bill to pay and enforcement/revenue is much lower than anticipated. I preferred the street fee that would get tacked onto other existing bills because it’d actually get paid by everyone. I’d prefer a property tax over this any day just so I don’t have to complete and submit an extra form on tax day. All that whining aside, I just want to see transportation funded. Meh…
NO NO NO
Just frickin’ increase the gas tax. We have the mechanism in place. Gas is producing the carbon. It’s the propelling the heavy objects on the road.
Look at the big picture.
On a somewhat related note from Milwaukie: According to Milwaukie City Councilor Dave Hedges (who is running for re-election) he gave the funding ideas to Hales to “test out” in Portland.
“I’ve also started conversations in the neighborhoods for ways that we can finance a more rigorous road maintenance program, and I actually started doing that before (Portland Mayor) Charlie Hales, and it was nice of him to adopt some of my ideas and test out the community’s reaction to the north,” Hedges said.
http://www.pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/234486-99099-milwaukie-city-councilor-dave-hedges-faces-formidable-opponent
So I have to ask…What about people who run a business from their house? My wife runs her own business from home, so would we (she) potentially get taxed twice?
And without the business side of the proposal figured out the plan is only half developed. Didn’t we go through this same thing a couple months ago?
Sorry, but it seem to be premature to endorse anything when their are so many loose ends left hanging. Come back when we get something more substantial.
Yes, this thing has changed so drastically recently that who knows what it will actually look like even in a week or two.
I had the same question, for similarly personal reasons: I’m a mostly-home-based freelancer myself. So I asked the city a couple months ago, when they first started talking about charging everyone who has a business license rather than everyone who pays a utility bill. Here’s what spokesman Dylan Rivera said at the time: home-based businesses might get an exception to the personal fee, so one like mine (or presumably your wife’s) would be paying $12.50 a month as a small business, but not $5 a month as an individual.
But as davemess says, it’s in flux. Though I’d add that legislation designed through a public process invariably is.
This is great news. A progressive income tax is a smarter more equitable way to fund needed transportation improvements than a more regressive fee.
SHould BTA really be in the title of this story. Isn’t the really story about the diverse coalition advocating for a progressive local funding strategy to make our streets safer for everyone? BTA is only one member of the Coalition.
Agreed.
The over-emphasis on BTA is a bit of a disservice to the other organizations involved in the coalition, and the more narrow frame for the story reinforces the bike vs non-bike world, and thus seems to me to be less effective as a strategy. The important piece (that’s missing) is that it is a diverse coalition. I agree completely with Jim’s comment.
Thanks for the feedback on the headline, all. As the post notes, there are two related but separate things going on here:
a) An immediate call to action. This is specifically by the BTA.
b) An offer by a coalition to endorse. This is from a broad coalition of nonprofits.
I emphasized (a) in the headline and (b) in the first paragraph. This was because “Coalition of nonprofits offers to do something” is generally not as interesting as “Nonprofit X is asking members to do something.”
Given the headline choice, I maybe should have emphasized (a) in the first graf for the sake of clarity. Or maybe (b) is more important and should have been both headline and lede. I apologize if the result was unclear.
I disagree that this post is missing the diversity of this coalition. It’s described in some detail.
Where’s the ban on studded tires? Yes, I know that the City can’t do anything about that, but are Hales, et al, doing anything to push Salem to for a ban or tax, etc?
When you examine the improvements to our tax system smart people around the world have developed over past twenty years, one theme that stands out is a shift from taxing things that have no obvious social cost (like income or property) to taxing things that exact social, environmental, or other public costs (fossil fuels usually top the list). These efforts go by several names: green tax shift, ecological tax reform, etc. But to propose going in exactly the opposite direction: avoiding a gas tax in favor of an income tax is really hard to figure out. Do these people not read the papers? Check to see what works in other places?
Why are we continuously reinventing old, questionably conceived and administratively complex, solutions when the cheaper, easier, more logical option is staring us in the face, is adopted the world over without fanfare?
Rob, I’m curious what you make of this chart?
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/
I’ve linked it here numerous times already. Here’s a summary from Grist: http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-we-should-raise-the-gas-tax-and-why-we-wont/
“There is a counterintuitive relationship between gas prices and the burden they place on the average citizen’s finances: The more gas costs, the less gas people buy, and so the less they are weighed down by gas costs. Just look at this chart, courtesy of Bloomberg, which shows that the U.S. has the world’s 50th highest gasoline prices, $3.66 per gallon in September, but the fifth highest proportion of annual income spent on gas purchases. Those rankings are almost exactly reversed in European countries with high gas taxes. The Netherlands has the world’s third highest gas price, $8.89 per gallon, but the 34th highest proportion of income spent on gasoline. Italy ranks fourth highest in gas prices, $8.61 per gallon, and 38th in proportional spending on gas. Gas taxes in Italy and the Netherlands, like most of Europe, are about 10 times higher than those in the U.S. Furthermore, in a country such as Norway, where gas currently costs $10.08 per gallon, that revenue comes back to the public in the form of government programs, such as free college tuition. Lower gas consumption also means better local air quality and reduced greenhouse emissions, and more exercise and less obesity among the populace.”
There are several problems with so-called ‘sin taxes’.
They require people to sin in order to raise money. If the government relies on gasoline consumption to raise money then, the government has an interest in encouraging gasoline consumption.
If they have their desired effect in discouraging bad behavior, the government must find other things to tax.
They encourage black and gray market consumption. This may be impractical for gasoline but, there will inevitably be people living near the borders who try to smuggle in cheap gasoline from Mexico/Canada.
“If the government relies on gasoline consumption to raise money then, the government has an interest in encouraging gasoline consumption.
If they have their desired effect in discouraging bad behavior, the government must find other things to tax.”
Now you’re reaching, Stretchy. You do realize that in several European countries the gas tax is 10x what we charge here. I know of no one in Germany or Norway or Italy who complains about these countervailing issues you mention. In fact if people really did stop driving because it was taxed too heavily I think we could deal with the revenue loss. After all isn’t the reason we need to raise all this money linked to all that driving?
‘Cheap gasoline from Canada’? It’s actually the other way around right now. Gas in Canada is about $1.60 per liter. Canadians cross at Blaine to get a full tank. It’s doubtful US prices will surpass Canadian prices.
It would benefit us as a country and as taxpayers if people bought their gas in other countries. When the true cost of gasoline way higher than the selling price, which it is, the rest is subsidized by taxpayers.
Stretchy: Unfortunately, one of the greatest percentage tax rates is on working – especially in Oregon. A middle class worker ends up paying about 20 percent federal income tax plus another 9 percent Oregon income tax. Compare that with gasoline. The federal rate is around 6 percent and the Oregon rate is around 10 percent at today’s bargain gas prices.
Having a job is good. Consuming gasoline is not so good, maybe even a “sin.” Raising the rate for gasoline (or carbon) consumption and lowering the income tax rate is exactly what British Columbia did with its carbon tax. Revenue neutral, but higher taxes on the not-so-good actions.
Believe it or not, black and grey markets have been with us since the earth cooled. what’s more, they serve a purpose in that they allow people who cannot function in the traditional work-tax paradigm (i.e., take orders from a boss, pay taxes to a government that spurns their interests, and come up short at month-end to pay all the bills) to still work for at least part of their living and contribute in some way to the local economy. Frankly, I would rather sese folks functioning in the black and gray market before I would want to see them resort to violent crime to get what they want or need.
Nice pothole photo – that street looks to date from the 1900-1910 period…intact concrete streets are a much better community value than asphalt streets that usually require resurfacing every 20 years. (Yes the ride may not be as smooth…upgrade to a 32mm tire.)
Perhaps the street fee should adopt a policy of only investing in “Century” Infrastructure…vs. some of our disposable post war / auto centric infrastructure.
[2 more cents: I would also love to see PBoT and the PDC embrace its legacy belguim block (aka “cobble stone”) streets in the Pearl and in other areas…these roadway do cost more money but have even longer lifespans than most concrete roads.]
Well done. Dislike the coalition’s call for a $200 cap on highest income earners — that seems very far from the $2400 suggestion of the city. I’d like to know more about how that came about.
That is, I’m thrilled the coalition has been put together, that it’s calling for funding for safety, and that it’s focusing on a somewhat progressive tax structure — I’m just confused by the call for a $200 cap for millionaires.
Evan, our call is for the current maximum residential proposal of $2,400 annually, based on $200 per month, for folks with the highest income. Sorry for any confusion based on the wording of the letter.
I didn’t realize the $200 was the per-month fee; thought it was the annual fee. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, E
I still think that cap is kind of crazy. What purpose does it have, and can an income tax with an absolute cap really be termed “progressive?” This seems more like “soak the middle-class and upper-middle-class, leave the rich and poor paying a small percentage of their incomes.”
Just to note, I am in favor of the poor paying a small percentage of their incomes or really nothing at all. It just seems weird that my (middle-class) household would be paying a much larger percentage of our income than a household with a million-dollar income.
OK, I didn’t totally grok the proposal. Apparently the absolute cap is for incomes above $1 million, so it would only affect a small number of people. But still, what’s the point of more or less exempting the super-rich from this tax?
Sorry — the confusion is due a wording difference between this post and the BTA’s. Because the city is proposing to collect these fees annually (with federal taxes, the arts tax, etc), I think it’s more accurate to describe it as a $2400 annual fee than a $200 fee.
The city is obviously describing it as a $200 maximum in order to avoid sticker shock, and the BTA is understandably using the city’s language here.
I’ll rephrase the post to make this clearer.
The Sellwood bridge funding is a prime example of why this is unworkable too. Portland residents, rich or poor, shouldn’t be the prime supporters of a system that everyone uses. A gas tax is the easiest and cheapest to collect and taxes the users. Taxing the rich and coffee shops, your kidding right? AMERICANS rich and poor are living beyond there means, at least a gas tax works as a means test and carbon tax ( in case you haven’t been following the climate change debate). The street fee is going to cost about the same as the BTA’s entire budget plus the PERS retirement cost, GAS TAX ALL THE WAY!
You do know that some counties and cities in Oregon already impose a gas tax? They are listed below. Where’s Portland on the list??
Get over the Sellwood bridge issue. It belongs to Multnomah County. It’s their infrastructure to maintain. I don’t look forward to the day we all have an Ez-Pass and get tolled because we drove on county roads, then city roads and slipped into Washington County for a block or two.
County Gasoline Taxes
For county jurisdictions motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) is taxed at the following rates:
MULTNOMAH COUNTY $.03 per gallon
WASHINGTON COUNTY $.01 per gallon
City Gasoline & Diesel Taxes
For local city jurisdictions motor vehicle fuel includes gasoline and diesel fuel, except Coburg which does not include diesel, and is taxed at the following rates:
CITY OF WOODBURN $.01 per gallon
CITY OF EUGENE $.05 per gallon
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD $.03 per gallon
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE $.03 per gallon
CITY OF VENETA $.03 per gallon
CITY OF TIGARD $.03 per gallon
CITY OF MILWAUKIE $.02 per gallon
CITY OF COQUILLE $.03 per gallon
CITY OF COBURG $.03 per gallon
CITY OF ASTORIA $.03 per gallon
CITY OF WARRENTON $.03 per gallon
CITY OF CANBY $.03 per gallon
CITY OF NEWPORT (NOVEMBER 1ST – MAY 31ST) $.01 per gallon
CITY OF NEWPORT (JUNE 1ST – OCTOBER 31ST) $.03 per gallon
CITY OF HOOD RIVER $.03 per gallon
Thanks for that list. What is especially frustrating is that all of these taxes are so puny. The mechanism is already in place! Just raise the rate already. A while back I did a quick calculation of how we could do this here in Multnomah County. Perhaps it is worth revisiting that?
http://bikeportland.org/2013/12/11/street-fee-emerges-as-citys-top-choice-for-new-transportation-revenue-98441#comment-4482145
We (portland) shouldn’t get over a bridge that is used 75% by people in another county.
I suppose this is better than the disasterous street fee Hales and Novick want. However exempting many from paying seems rather unfair too. Everybody uses these streets for getting around somehow. Whether you are rich or poor, or own a car or not. I guess as long as we are sticking it to the rich white men it’s all good.
F.W. de Klerk,
as a man of the world, having won the Nobel Peace Prize, surely you’ve read Todd Litman’s Whose Roads, yes?
He goes to some lengths there to explain that each of us, whether we drive or own a car or not, pays for our roads. Those of us without cars typically overpay; those with cars underpay. This is the basis from which we’re starting here. There is *some* freeloading going on, sure, but it is, statistically, the rich white men who are/have been the freeloaders.
I’d consider it more of sticking it to the people who actually have available money to be able to pay this.
From an earlier discussion of this issue:
I’ll insist a consideration of real people, real living situations, and real immediate problems. Income tax aside, a gas tax does not encourage cycling, but rather places a burden on those who cannot afford to cycle –yes, afford to ride a bike. Using my previous example: If I lived in Troutdale and worked on Swan Island, I could ride the 35 or miles each day rain or shine. However, this is not a reality for each lifestyle inside Portland metro. Without speaking toward an opposition, I do believe the perceived obvious may not always be as obvious from all worthy perspectives and certainly less so the deeper one digs in facts.
Personally, I believe many purposeful steps need to occur to dismantle the infrastructure livelihoods are centered around. It will take time.
“a gas tax does not encourage cycling, but rather places a burden on those who cannot afford to cycle”
Again, you are focusing on the cost of a gas tax rather than the benefit. Besides why should it be one or the other?
This is a dynamic situation. Do you think the German people whine about this? Of course not. They have money-raised-by-gas-taxes coming out of their ears (3x more than they need to maintain a world class transport infrastructure we can only dream of), and yet they still keep raising the tax all the time. I find it far more interesting to keep in mind what we could be doing with those monies, to offset, if you will, the burden of having to pay something closer to the full social cost of driving.
“That we can only dream of” Is it really because of money that are dreams aren’t close to reality? America has institutions that can’t so easily be separated from the people who sustain them.
Yes. Too much of the wrong people’s money screwing up our democracy.
Aren’t the ends of some things worth a regressive effect? Is regressive necessarily always bad?
Gas tax.
It is so painfully frustrating to see our elected representatives trying so hard to ignore the obvious.
Gas tax may be the right policy; it’s the wrong politics. The problem with the gas tax is that it would be referred to the ballot by the petroleum lobby. And polling has shown voters wouldn’t support it.
So, keep building support for the gas tax and explaining the reason for it (and pollution taxes in general, like this:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/09/oregonians-muddled-mess-pollution-taxes/)
Or, if you prefer, work to remove the initiative, referral, and referendum process.
Then in a few years we can implement it. For now, a progressive income tax is important and winnable.
Politics, as the saying goes, is the art of the possible. Don’t get mad at the leaders for not going where the people aren’t — once the people lead, the leaders will follow.
“The problem with the gas tax is that it would be referred to the ballot by the petroleum lobby.”
Can you explain? I doubt the county’s current puny gas tax was created by that process.
I’m sure when the time comes to up our gas tax that the petroleum cheeses will weigh in, throw a bunch of money at the matter but that isn’t necessarily the same thing as preventing it from winning. Time’s running out for those oilmen.
I don’t even think big oil would have to throw any money at a ballot issue (other than getting it on the ballot in the first place). I think a gas tax increase would lose hands down in a public vote. Again, a vast majority of people in this city drive and people don’t want to pay more for their gas.
the time will come.
And even closer to everyone has an income and doesn’t want to pay more in income taxes. I’d like to see this polling.
Paul Romain lobbies for the Oregon Petroleum Association and threatened to gather 20,000 signatures to refer the street fee. They actually started to do just that in 2008 when the City was considering a street tax under Mayor Potter.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/08/why_is_paul_romain_lobbyist_fo.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/05/portland_street_fee_how_the_co.html
http://www.oregonwatchdog.com/stage/portland-street-tax-petition-referendum.htm
In Oregon, you have initiatives, referenda, and referrals.
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/initiatives-referendums-referrals.aspx
Referenda are issues that were passed by the governing body and then citizens gather signatures on them to put them on the ballot (see state ballot measure 88).
You’re right, though, that the small county tax didn’t face a referendum when it was passed. It’s my memory that the size of a city gas tax that would be needed to bring in the income projected would be significantly bigger.
And in May 2000, when Oregon voters last voted on a state gas tax, it went down 88-12% (see Measure 82).
Thanks for that explanation, Evan.
“the size of a city gas tax that would be needed to bring in the income projected would be significantly bigger.”
Yes.
But you might find this calculation interesting:
I’m pretty sure that Measure 82 in 2000 is an extremely bad proxy for a Portland gas tax now for the following reasons:
1) Measure 82 vote occurred JUST after what was then a historically huge rise in gas prices (almost doubled)
2) All of Oregon is way more conservative than just Portland
3) Occurred in a recession (we are emphatically not in one now)
4) Controversy about “giveaway to heavy trucks” http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/09/local/me-17782
Do you have any more recent polling about a Portland gas tax proposal?
I forgot section 27 of HB 2001 (from 2009) prohibits local gas taxes without a vote. Think this is still Oregon law.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/2009R1/Measures/Text/HB2001/Enrolled
I think this proposal is headed for a public vote in any case. Based on that assumption, I (currently) think a gas tax would be a better option. If we have to choose between a regressive option that helps with climate change and a (mostly except for the silly cap) progressive option that doesn’t, at this point I am for the regressive climate-change-fighting option from a policy standpoint. I also think it would end up doing better in the polls than this complicated, high-overhead, probably hard to enforce proposal. I’ll admit my political sense is not that well developed , so maybe I should cede the political judgment arena to you and others with more experience / focus in that area.
A gas tax would certainly be more honest, more logical, easier to justify.
But to take that route would require having conversations we are told the people up there behind the podium don’t want to have, carrying water they don’t want to carry, facing music they don’t want to face.
That PBOT et al. have no principle they are willing to stand up for and defend in relation to this misadventure should be obvious by now. How they hope to persuade their publics that they are charting a sensible course, that we should trust them to do a decent job of this when their ship has no rudder is beyond me. How hard can it be?
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that people with strong opinions don’t run for public office, or that they get talked out of their principles by the time they get elected. Either way, in the public relations sense this saga has become a three-ring circus and I fail to see what purpose this has served.
[Thought experiment]
Steve Novick, fresh councillor with decent credentials, does his homework, proposes that we here in Portland are going to buck the trend, bite the bullet, take the bull by the horns and implement a phased, real, indexed gasoline tax, not because he is a meanie, or because it is perfectly fair, but because it works, it is vastly fairer than anything else he’s heard of, and the puny tax we have on the books has been completely eroded by inflation.
He gets some heat.
But having done his homework, and being the *smart* guy everyone tells us he is, he pushes back with sound arguments, facts, persuasive reasons we should do this. Having gotten everyone’s attention, he now lays out the twelve reasons a gas tax is the solution; what it will allow us to do; why everyone else will copy us once they see what a dandy thing this is. Economic, Ethical, Modal, Environmental. He wraps up with the punch line: we can’t afford not to rebalance our transport system.
[End of thought experiment]
“Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that people with strong opinions don’t run for public office, or that they get talked out of their principles by the time they get elected.”
While I think there is some truth to this, sometimes we forget that almost all politicians are not single issue people. Some might have a pet project or soft spot in their heart for a certain issue, but the electorate usually won’t elect you on a single issue platform (and cycling in this city is like contentious enough that it’s going to be a divisive single issue plank).
“almost all politicians are not single issue people.”
Agreed. And I’m not expecting Novick to be a single issue politician (not sure what I said made you think I did). All I’m saying is that there are ways to have approached this matter of funding transportation infrastructure maintenance that evidence a plan of action, a coherent argument, and sticking with it because it is the right thing to do; it is the best way we’ve found to accomplish these objectives; kill six birds with one stone, etc.
While I agree that we need a better funding mechanism for transportation maintenance and safety, this is simply the wrong way to go about it. An income tax levied by the city with no public vote…that’s just the camel’s nose getting into the tent. If this thing flies, just imagine the other income taxes the city will try to levy.
The City’s approach of “we don’t need to do this funding thing right, we need to do it right now” is bad policy.
Based on past performance of the City I am a skeptical that the city will actually use the money for what they say. Remember those days of magically shifting money from urban renewal areas and the big pipe project, failed computer systems, and a yet to perform emergency alert system. If it all goes to maintenance and only maintenance I could support it but safety improvements can be too loosely defined. A new turn lane for vehicles could be considered a safety improvement. There will be no support from our household in its present form.
Here’s a fun Oregon Lottery ad implying that when you buy a $1 ticket, 97 cents goes towards jobs, schools, parks & watersheds.
http://oregonlottery.org/FunStuff/docs/Advertising/POP/ol_owins_97cents2011.pdf
The actual amount is around 5 cents. The rest goes towards winnings, advertisements, and administrative costs.
You’re right: if they take money from you and promise where it will go, you should be skeptical.
I hear what you are saying, Dan, but I think in fairness to the lottery folks, what they are saying is that 97 cents of every lottery dollar is respent in Oregon.
“The actual amount is around 5 cents. The rest goes towards winnings, advertisements, and administrative costs.”
Someone can/probably has calculated the proportion of the winnings, advertisements and administrative costs that are spent (and respent) locally/in the state. Jobs, schools, parks and watersheds I think encompasses both the direct and indirect flows.
I think your skepticism about the veracity of politicians’ promises is well placed, and concede that it has become our job to hold their feet to the fire, demand that they speak forthrightly rather than dispensing mealy-mouthed platitudes. But in the end, we are going to have to get this right one day, and putting off the fights because of X or because of Y seems a copout to me.
It took a little digging, but it appears that since its inception the Oregon lottery has paid out >$20B in prizes, contributed >$8B to social, economic, environmental, educational causes, and that currently <4% of annual revenues go to administration.
This bit may help us answer your question:
"By law, at least 84 percent of total annual revenues must be returned to the public; of that at least 50 percent must be returned to the public as prizes and the remainder used for the public purposes authorized by voters."
= 96+% is returned to the public, of which ~71% is prizes & ~29% go to public programs.
http://www.oregonlottery.org/About/Lottery101/History.aspx
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/jun/20/oregon-lottery/does-97-cents-every-lottery-dollar-played-go-back-/
Glad to see the BTA and others organizing around this issue.
As I’ve stated on this forum many times before: raise the gas tax.
I oppose the current income-based fee because it puts the ENTIRE burden on those who live in Portland. In fact, it puts the entire burden on a subset of the residents of Portland because it exempts certain income (PERS, Social Security).
It produces NOTHING from those who reside outside Portland. Those who live outside Portland and work in Portland pay nothing and their employer pays nothing. At least with the previous proposal, which proposed charging businesses, the business was required to pay something based on the trips by customers, vendors, and employees. But, under the current proposal, they’d pay nothing.
I will be writing the commissioners indicating my opposition to the current proposal.
This tax has massive flaws as it relates to small business.
There were versions on the table that would have, without question, put me out of business. My 6 years of tireless work would have evaporated.
And I wouldn’t have been the only small business to vanish.
And small businesses drive the best parts of Portland. To fund street repair & safety in this manner will perhaps allow you to travel but…
…you’ll have far fewer great places to go.
I’m 100% against the street fee. And I’m 100% pro bike as my business & life are pedal powered.
Running for mayor in 2008, I tried to buy Pete DeFazio a beer at an event in the Lucky Lab.
He would not let me. Instead he engaged me in a discussion about a petroleum tax per barrel, effortlessly convincing me that such is to only way to a viable transportation future.
Go Pete!
Fossil fuel and automobile companies are laughing their heads off at this.
We subsidize the production of their products. Subsidize the wear and tear these products cause. Subsidize the infrastructure needed to reduce the deadly nature of our streets caused by said products. Heck, let’s tax ourselves directly and take it up a notch.
Or, maybe increase the gas tax to where the driving subsidy ends.
Americas love affair with their car is killing me.
It’s literally killing a lot of people.
According to WHO estimates the ~1,240,000 babies, toddlers, daughters, sons, mothers, and/or fathers die each year.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs358/en/
Since the BTA doesn’t want to spend as much on paving, a solution to that problem is to vocally support a ban on studded tires as an alternative to repaying. Prevention is both an environmentally and fiscally responsible approach to their priorities.
“All” vehicles with the highest weight, lowest mpg, most fuel use, and most Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) should pay the lion share of road taxes… If you walk or bicycle most of time your road tax should be nominal. Likewise the City of Portland should reward those who conserve water and tax the water hogs.
I am also a bike commuter that is 100% against this tax.
The city has had and still has the funds to keep the roads in decent shape and is still blowing it on other things. The “street fee” has been changed from its first incarnation as a flat fee using dated business metrics to an income tax that will exempt all PERS recipients and will produce only 75% of the monies raised, after collection. So the $40 million will end up actually producing $30 million. The tax is so hastily cobbled together that hundreds of questions have constantly changing answers, as to costs to home-based businesses, schools, Trimet, etc.
You probably won’t get a vote on it, but at the least read the auditor’s report, here: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=435217&c=60923
A gas tax makes the most sense, but they would have to get voters’ approval which they have not been eager to do: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/370491 – page 11.
Economist Dr. Eric Fruits maintains a blog called nostreetfeecom that has analysis and updates.
I for one wish BTA had asked their members before issuing this statement.
Thanks for that link, Amy. I just listened to the show.
Interesting. Hales said the State must raise the gas tax. O.K., good to hear. But what I’d like to know is why what is good for the state isn’t good for Portland? J_R has shown here in the comments that the law some people think prohibits Portland from passing a city gas tax expired. Why cook up something expensive and indeterminate when Hales apparently recognizes that at the state level the gas tax is a good thing? Weird!
What was also weird was Hales asking his critics over and over: ‘Since you don’t like our proposal, tell us what you would prefer!’ After 7 (or apparently 13) years of tinkering they’re still not willing to go to bat for this, defend it as the very best option? This is the part I find the most hard to follow. If they aren’t able or willing to defend it to the death, why should anyone else be persuaded that it is a good thing, a necessary thing?
Oops. I didn’t realize you hadn’t actually linked directly to the OPB Think Out Loud program on this subject.
https://soundcloud.com/thinkoutloudopb/city-rolls-out-the-latest-1