There’s a new wrinkle in City Commissioner Sam Adams’ proposal to implement a 15-year, $464 million street maintenance tax on Portland residents and businesses.
Opponents of the tax have said they would try to gather the 18,000-plus signatures required to refer the measure to voters. And perhaps in response to that threat from foes represented by powerhouse lobbyists Paul Romain and Mark Nelson, Adams late Friday filed new paperwork, splitting what had been a single resolution into three separate resolutions.
The maneuver will require each separate resoultion to get a first reading this week, rather than a final vote, as had been scheduled (council approved the first reading 5-0 on Jan. 9).
That delay, however, is probably less important to Adams than what he accomplishes by splitting the resolution into three: with the stroke of a pen, he has made gathering signatures for referral three times more difficult. Now, instead of needing to get one signature, opponents must get three. That means explaining the perils of all three and, presumably, paying the equivalent of a couple bucks or more per signature—the estimated cost of gathering signatures—and doing it in the 30 days allotted by code.
Opponents of the tax, who include local convenience stores, gas stations and fast food say the tax calcuations are unpredictable and favor larger stores over smaller stores. (Adams says in response that large stores that sell a variety of goods from food to furniture, actually reduce the number of trips drivers make and thus deserve a discounted rate under the measure, which aims to encourage conservation as well as fix the city’s deteriorating streets.)
Update:
Adams told WWire late this morning that he plans to address two of his opponents’ criticisms: he will make the proposed annual increase of 3.5 percent in the tax instand the maximum allowable increase and would agree to a “clawback” whereby the tax is reduced by whatever new receipts the city receives from a potential state-wide gas tas.
As for the more pressing question of the mutliplying resolutions, Adams explains that he decided to split the original proposal into three out of concern that opponents might challenge the legality of his measure based on the “single subject” theory, that has sidelined state-wide ballot measures in the past. The theory holds that a new law must only make one change at a time and since there are three categories of payor, Adams would treat each one as a separate law.
“The City Attorney’s office said they felt confident that they could defend any ’signal subject’ challenge,” Adams says. “But to make it absoutely watertight, you break it into three.”
Paul Romain dismissed Adams’ ploy as “political games.” Romain says that in his experience, the single subject rule applies only to changes to the state constitution, not to legislative bills or muncipal resolutions. “The object of the game would be to attempt to make it more difficult to refer,” Romain says. “It’s the only possible reason to do so.”
Romain says he’s encouraged to hear the Adams is addressing his clients concerns about annual increases and a state-wide tax but still plans referral, which he says shouldn’t cost much more for three measures than for one.
“This doesn’t change our plans [to seek referral] at all,” Romain says.
- Romain: Street Tax Foes Will Seek Referral After All Contrary
- UPDATED – Counter-Counter Punch: Leonard Comes To Adams’ Rescue On Street Tax Leave it t
- Referral-Gate Update: No Election in May But Stay Tuned for November The battl
- Breaking: New Mayoral Recall Campaign Will Begin Monday WW has le
- Adams Cuts Deal With Gas Stations On Street Tax The Portla
I’m glad to see Sam Adams is now "for" Wal-Mart and the other big box retailers. It seems that when you scratch the surface, he’s a capitalist after all
Strange how Sam doesn’t seem to trust the people to spend their money but trusts himself……….his recent bankruptcy not with standing.
Let us vote on it Sam, why are you afraid? If your plan has merit, it will pass.
Irrespective about how anyone feels about Sam’s proposals, it’s naive to think that if something goes up for a vote it will pass because it has merit.
What passes these days is what people get intimidated into/scared into/scared out of voting for. If something with merit happens to pass, it seems almost accidental these days.
I applaud the Romains for fighting back against Adams’ proposed street tax. I don’t believe a majority of Portland citizens support this fee despite Adams’ statements to the contrary. Many Portland families just realized an increase of over 10% in their property tax bills just this last November. They are also being called on to tax themselves to fund the replacement of the Sellwood bridge, and repair old school buildings. While Adams asked for this new street tax last year, the City of Portland had a general fund surplus which could have been used to defer the need for this new tax for two years. Instead you see cityhall spending money on things like a low interest loan for a luxury hotel downtown, a parking garage built by one of its developer friends, and studies of adding new amenities like the east-side streetcar. The spending priorities are amiss at cityhall, and Adams is the leader. Using his own logic, you would think transportation safety trumps adding a new street car extension. Finally, the state of Oregon is just as irresponsible when it considers spending millions of lottery dollars helping build the proposed east-side streetcar while the Sellwood bridge needs urgent repair.
Nothing would make me happier than to see a huge public backlash against SCAM ADAM’s TAX PLAN. (And that’s what it really is – no matter what name SCAM wants to hang on it!) Hope it will get a few people awake to see what the future of Portland will be like if this BANKRUPT public trough feeder gets his way.
According to Adams, "large stores that sell a variety of goods from food to furniture, actually reduce the number of trips drivers make and thus deserve a discounted rate."
So, basically, if we get rid of all the locally owned shops and just build Wal-Marts and Freddy’s and Targets we will save a ton on infrastructure and won’t need this tax. Is that the message here?
Good God, Sam, what is happening to you? I’m sorry but I don’t want to LIVE at Jantzen Beach.
C’mon, Jack. Don’t you know that Chilean grapes are better than the Willamette Valley ones, because they come on one plane trip instead of a bunch of cars up I-5?
How can you mistrust a member of the creative class who would pose in such a come-thither fashion outside the doors of City Hall? And wearing an iPod Shuffle, yet!
I had a conversation with the chairman of the Korean American Grocers association over the weekend. He told me that the street maintenance fee would amount to five or six thousand per year to the average grocery/quick mart operation. That’s a hit most of those folks cannot afford.
Our politicians are playing a lot of unwise games in this election year from these proposals by Adam to the desire to eliminate fairless square by Hansen that Portland’s politicians are refusing to comment on publicly. It seems pretty obvious from his ACTIONS that Adam really doesn’t have any desire to be the mayor of Portland because his deeds do not match his words nor the beliefs held by the majority of Portlanders.
I heard from Commissioner Adam’s staff in response to my earlier post. They gave me the following figures as the estimated annual fee for the following businesses:
8 pump gas station/food mart: $1368.00
convenience store: $1740.00
15,000 sq ft specialty grocery: $5040.00
They tell me the fee is based on the city’s estimates of the number of trips generated. If the business owner feels the trips are overstated, they have a process for appeal.
There is a lot of misinformation out there about the cost and benefits of the Street Maintenance and Safety Fee.
Important to realize is that 83% of the businesses in Portland generate less then 10,000 trips and their average fee is $33.00 a month.
The business community is an important stakeholder in the development of this proposal and will see significant benefits from the infrastructure improvements.
Portland’s transportation and safety need can not be addressed by a state gas tax alone.
19 cities throughout the State have turned to street fees to repair their basic infrastructure. The failure to realize an increase in the state gas tax and the dramatic increase in construction related inflation have caused cities, like Portland, to cut important safety services and maintenance backlogs to grow exponentially.
If they have to gather 3 x 18,000 in 30 days, why not instead gather 27,255 signatures for an initiative petition or even a CHARTER AMENDMENT that requires a vote on any new or increased tax. Effective date: today.
At the same time they could also gather signatures to also require a vote on urban renewal bonds.
And for any rail transport spending.
That set would solve most of Portland’s problems.
Thanks
JK