Parks bond measures will build more trails around the region

Riders on the Fanno Creek Trail in Hillsboro. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

There are three bond measures on the ballot right now that will help pump millions into trails in Portland and beyond.

Below are blurbs on each one taken from Oregon Trails Coalition (who endorses all three) and a link to more information:

Measure 26-255 – Metro Parks and Nature Levy

The renewal of the Metro Parks and Nature Levy, will ensure continuation of an existing levy passed twice previously with strong support by voters throughout the Portland metro region. The levy funds restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife, maintenance of Metro parks and natural areas, and grants for programs that increase equitable access to nature. The measure supports the care and operations of 18,000 acres of parks, trails, and natural areas in the greater Portland area. More info here.

Meaure 34-317 – City of Tualatin

Measure 34-317 authorizes a general obligation bond to finance capital costs related to trails, natural areas, sports fields, parks and river access. It’s expected to include a new east-west trail corridor and public access point on the Tualatin River, new and improved sports fields, and parks improvements citywide.  More info here.

Measure 3-589 – Happy Valley Parks

Measure 3-589 will renew a local option levy that funds the City of Happy Valley’s parks and recreation services for five years. It will not raise taxes. The levy fully funds the City’s parks and recreation services. Revenue helps protect and maintain such amenities as fields, playgrounds, trails, and picnic shelters, and provides funding for things like community events and youth and adult sports and activities. More info here.

If you’re a trails fan and want to advocate for more of them, consider taking part in the Oregon Outdoor Recreation Summit. It starts tomorrow (10/27) and runs through Saturday.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car owner and driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
1 year ago

I pay over $500/month in property taxes. Any and all, no matter for what, bond measures get a big no from me.

Joseph E
Joseph E
1 year ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

Are you aware that Oregon limits the value to which tax rates apply and the State also limits tax rates. For any single property, total general government taxes cannot be more than $10 per $1,000 in market value, and the maximum assessed value cannot increase by more than 3% a year.
Also, according to the text above, “Measure 3-589 will renew a local option levy … it will not raise taxes.” Similarly, Measure 26-255 – Metro Parks and Nature Levy – does not increase taxes since it renews and existing levy.
The only measure that would increase taxes is the one in Tualatin, where the tax rate is estimated to increase by 29 cents per $1,000 of assessed tax value.

FDUP
FDUP
1 year ago
Reply to  Joseph E

Actually, base property tax increase limits don’t apply to new taxes approved by the voters, so the reality is three percent per year plus whatever new property taxes are approved by the voters. In that regard I agree with SolarEclipse. ‘They’ are taxing us out of our properties, people on low or fixed incomes can’t afford this, and I don’t see the money getting spent wisely for the most part, so I will be voting no also.

PS
PS
1 year ago
Reply to  FDUP

All three major counties have property tax deferrals for elderly and disabled folks.

 
 
1 year ago

Just FYI, your caption on the first image is wrong. The Fanno Creek Trail doesn’t go through Hillsboro; it’s mainly in the Beaverton and Tigard area 🙂

Montavillain
Montavillain
1 year ago

Has Metro given up on trying to purchase Rocky Point from Weyerhauser; invalidating the lease to NWTA for the city’s closest mountain bike trails? Seems as though Metro is more focused on conservation than building trails close enough to be accessible with minimal driving.

This bond is a No. Metro’s focus on conservation of habitat is an overreach. In the face of rapidly accelerating climate issues Metro needs to leave habitat protection and wildlife management to ODFW and instead supply its constituents with accessible facilities to minimize the need to drive to trails (which in itself is also an inequality).

It will probably pass, and we will probably lose Rocky Point. Can lead a horse to water….

EEE
EEE
1 year ago
Reply to  Montavillain

“Conservation of habitat is an overreach . . . in the face of rapidly accelerating climate issues.”

I think I’ll vote yes instead.

Travis
Travis
1 year ago
Reply to  EEE

its clear we all care and are engaged. Also I feel my taxes are too high and mounting biking should not require a car in Portland. If land purchases can slow climate change perhaps an offset would be more appropriate like buying Amazon land or community training program to fight/prepare for fires. It would be nice if metro reopened some trails that we lost like riverside and be our partner in Forrest park. That would have more sway with my wallet and vote.

Seth Alford
Seth Alford
1 year ago

I only get to vote on 1 of these. And it’s probably a NO for me.

Ask me again, after we do something about homeless camping on and nearby those trails.

City-lover
City-lover
1 year ago
Reply to  Seth Alford

Big THIS. When Metro decides to play ball and give up some parking lots for sanctioned camping, I’ll be back on the bond measures they need.

J_R
J_R
1 year ago

Wait. Aren’t we supposed to vote against anything proposed by Metro since they support “freeway expansions?”

Chris I
Chris I
1 year ago
Reply to  J_R

No. We’re supposed to vote against anything proposed by Metro because they can’t keep their current active transportation infrastructure clear and safe. They’ve also allowed natural areas to be destroyed over the past 3 years, so I don’t buy the “conservation” focus they claim to be following.

maxD
maxD
1 year ago

Metro has talked about building Mt Bike trails in the North Tualatin Mountains (north of Forest Park)- something that was studied and planned and funded, but there are no trails. They alo promised a trail around the St Johns Prairie and abridge connecting it to Chimney Park which has been been mostly funded for 7 years or so. And they purchased Chehalem Ridge with a promise to build miles of trails0 we got almost 2 miles.

Metor buys a lot of land and talks big about connecting people, but they are strongly focused on conservation. Once they own, they are very reluctant to add any trails. ANd the trails they do add exclude dogs! I am getting really tired of paying Metor and having them not fulfill any promises. I believe it is a genuine equity and climate issue to not be aggressively expanding our active recreational opportunities in the Metro area. I have never voted against a parks bond, but I am felling really cynical this year- anyone have any faith in Metro?

FDUP
FDUP
1 year ago
Reply to  maxD

“St Johns Prairie’ is a freakin’ landfill site; so sorry, but I’m not really interested in riding there.

Rain Waters
Rain Waters
1 year ago
Reply to  FDUP

Portland : too good for “Shoreline trails”. . . really ?

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  FDUP

You clearly haven’t seen it lately. It’s pretty amazing.

X
X
1 year ago

Until cars miraculously quit I’m pro trails and, yes, pro land acquisition. Taxes? I rent and when taxes go up the rent goes up. I’ll quit drinking coffee if I have to.

Campers? They’re mobile and Uncle Ted is going to roust them anyway–what’s not mobile is land developed into housing or malls or whatever. Inside the UGB construction is the protected activity.

Fortunately bikes are pretty flexible, they’re not limited to a 3% grade like heavy rail. I can agree that it’s short sighted to push recreational bike riding away from town. Ultimately fuel costs and tardy regulation of MV use will bring demand for trails home, close to towns.

I’m kind of a free market environmentalist. By that I mean, if we paid real prices for our pleasures we’d have fewer problems.