Contrary to earlier reports in WW and The Oregonian, opponents of Commissioner Sam Adams’ proposed $464 million street maintenance tax will seek to gather enough signatures to refer the measure to the May ballot.
Paul Romain, who represents the Oregon Petroleum Association, told WWire this afternoon that earlier reports misrepresented his group’s position. After WWire reported on Jan. 14 that Adams decided to split his tax into three separate resolutions, Romain escalated negotiations with the Portland Department of Transportation on behalf of his service station clients. They disliked Adams’ proposed transportation tax because they felt it was both inequitable and hurt their competitiveness with stations outside Portland.
Those negotiations appeared to result in a deal that would avert a referral attempt. On Jan. 22, Romain sent an email to PDOT director Sue Keil, which included the following statement:
“Thank you for taking the time to work with us to reach a settlement of the street maintenance issue. You and your staff have been very good to work with, and we appreciate the quick responses from your office. Although we do not support the street fee, the Oregon Petroleum Association will not refer the measures to the voters of the city, nor will we support any other group’s possible referral.”
After Keil received that message, her boss, Adams, reversed his earlier decision to split the tax proposal into three separate resolutions. Local media then reported the referral wouldn’t happen. Adams was eager to avoid a referral both because it could scotch a broad menu of transportation upgrades but also because it could cloud his mayoral campaign. (Adams is running against travel agency owner Sho Dozono and several lesser known candidates.)
Then earlier today, City Council approved a resolution to impose the tax, which will be collected over 15 years from all Portland households and businesses.
After that vote, Romain pounced. In a telephone interview, he revealed to WWire that the OPA, the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, and Southland — the owner of 7-11 stores — will seek to gather the required 18,000 signatures over the next 30 days to put the tax to a public vote (it is unclear whether other critics of the tax, including the Oregon Restaurant Association and the Oregon Neighborhood Store Association will join in the referral effort).
Romain says a close reading of his earlier email explains what might seem like a change of position:
“We said we would not refer the ‘measures,’” he points out. “We intentionally said ‘measures’ plural because of all the games Sam played when he split the resolution into three pieces.”
Adams earlier told WWire that he was dividing the measure into three to avoid a possible legal challenge based on the “single subject” rule which has been used before to invalidate statewide ballot measures. (That rule requires that measures only address a single policy change, although it has historically only applied to constitutional changes).
Romain argues, however, that Adams only split the measures in order to make referral more difficult for opponents. “It was a pure bait and switch tactic,” he says. “The single subject objection was always bogus and went away. But it showed us we’d have to use Sam’s tactics.”
Adams didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment, but we’ll update this post when he does.
- Referral-Gate Update: No Election in May But Stay Tuned for November The battl
- Updated: Games Begin on Portland’s Street Tax There
- UPDATED – Counter-Counter Punch: Leonard Comes To Adams’ Rescue On Street Tax Leave it t
- Adams Cuts Deal With Gas Stations On Street Tax The Portla
- Updated: City-Only Gas Tax Looking Wobbly Since WW
Bravo! Let’s get on with overturning this tyranny. A water bill must never be a general tax bill, and any tax must be fairly assessed. City Councils past and present have purloined monies intended for road maintenance; it is time those monies be properly spent. And it is time that the voters of this City have — novel concept — their say in how their tax money is spent. In Eugene on Monday, the elected representatives voted to hold off on a mere $81mill road mortgage in order to satisfy citizens’ concerns. Our Gang of Five has been obstinate in its undemocratic scam, its sham, its doesn’t-give-a-damn. This crowd thinks it’s just fine for the City to turn off residents’ water for not paying taxes that have nothing to do with water. Bechtel tried something similar in Bolivia until the people had enough of the extortion, the shakedowns, the tyranny. Where do I sign?
Nothing would make me happier than to see Sam Adams AND his TAX PROPOSAL kicked to the curb PERMANENTLY. Somewhere along the way, the simple fact that this TAX will raise the cost of every product and service sold in Portland has been ignored – especailly by the media.
I hope Romain and the OPA never want anything from the city again, because it seems pretty dang unlikely that they’ll get it after pulling this kind of stunt.
and apparently Sam Adams didn’t attempt to "pull a stunt" with his splitting of the measures!
This just goes to show that Mr Romain doesn’t know how to keep his word. What lies will he and his cronies in the oil lobby tell the voters? What, if anything, should we believe?
Dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee! I would be happy to circulate a petition in my neighborhood and office: please post information on how we can help out.
Is there any city or town in OR or the US that sends out a MONTHly tax bill as this City Council proposes to do? Having already flushed $30-40mill on a faulty water billing system, can the city be expected or trusted to amend the current system to allow for monthly billings for everyone without flushing additional millions? In my home, we use less than 40 units of water a YEAR and are currently billed quarterly; is the city really going to bill us for three or four units a month EVERY month? Like another mortgage? What will the additional administrative costs of such microbilling be? Will such additional costs be added to the already outrageous base charges for water and sewers? And how soon will it be before taxes separate from water and sewer bills — there will be more such taxes after this one — outstrip the charges for water and the already unreasonable sewer charges? If this uncapped road tax remains, how soon will it be before the City shuts off citizens’ water for nonpayment of charges unrelated to water and sewers? Do we really want to tolerate such a disrespectful, undemocratic city government? Again, where do I sign and where do I obtain petitions for my neighbors to sign?
This is the Oregon Petroleum Association.. How much more evil can you get? I’ll be fighting this referral every step of the way!
If OPA is scared enough to bring a fight to little ol’ Portland, then we must be doing something right. Don’t sign the referral. Send Romain back to Salem where he can harass the rest of the state.
I haven’t studied the details of Portland’s proposed "tax". Nor do I know Portland politics or the players. I do know that cities nationwide struggele with a means to finance road maintenance. Several cities in Oregon have a "transportaiton utility fee" and I am assuming the Portland proposal is similar. It works just fine for me and I appreciate that my streets are getting an improved level of maintenance. You can call it a tax if you want. It is an approximation of the "loading" or "impact" a property has on the road system. You can argue the specifics if you want. Or you can just get your shorts up in a bunch and oppose any means of rationally financing road maintenance. If you want good roads you have to pay for them…..one way or another.
"Is there any city or town in OR or the US that sends out a MONTHly tax bill as this City Council proposes to do?"
Well, off the top of my head there’s the cities that collect revenue from access charges on phone lines and cable television. Which is pretty much all of them. Everywhere.
But you’re right, the city should just conjure the money to fix our streets out of thin air. Maybe while they’re at it they can get us all ponies. Taxes are all bad! Free ponies for all!
I promise you I won’t be signing any petitions on this topic! I appreciate Council’s efforts to fund transportation safety improvements.
As a business owner with multiple locations within Portland city limits, there is a big difference between a single-family household, which will have to come up with $54.48 for the year, and our business which will have to find over $25,000. It’s not that we’re anti-bikes, as some would portray those who oppose this measure. And as business owners of course we would like to see our roads improved. But it’s on the backs of the businesses that this burden is placed, which ultimately will have to be passed on in higher costs to our customers. So the single-family home will paying $54.48 plus the increased prices at their local gas station, laundromat, restaurant and grocer. There must be a more equitable way to improve our roads. (I won’t even go into all the money that’s already been spent on other projects…)
Keenly noted, Dave. Charges are assessed in Portland for Portland by NW Natural, the electric monopolies, the cable monopoly, and a few other entities. These taxes were explicitly intended for road repair, but — as observed in more active threads elsewhere, such as the PrtlndTrib and Jack’s Blog — they were purloined by City Councils past and present — in all of which SAdams was involved — for the great maw of the "general fund." The City’s notorious water billing system is not involved with such collections. Notice, too, that such taxes are percentages of the utility base charge; that is, as gas, electricity, cable, phone, etc charges have ballooned, such revenues have grown substantially. Learning from the City how much revenue is generated by such utility taxes and where it is spent is not easy. In fact, it might be edifying for you to do the independent study. Good luck and get back to us when you know something. BTW, which city bureau employs you, Dave?
Gardiner:
The city’s total revenue stream from cable and franchise utility fees is approximately 65 million per year. Mayor Clark’s resolution, back in 1988, allocated 28% to road maintenance. At that time the revenue stream was about 24 million.
Thanks, Dave Lister. Does the $65mill include all the utility franchise fees? Has anyone gotten beyond "approximately?" Were the actions pursued by Sten to obtain withheld fees successful?
One link to the petition seems to be this one:
http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?url=archives/1156-Petition-to-start-to-repeal-Portland-Street-Tax.html&serendipitycsuccess=true
I am not affiliated with this group or any other group seeking a popular vote on an obviously unfair tax. The thread at the link above includes a lot of commentary by cyclists. I like the cyclists who have seen through Adams’s pandering. I’ve been cycling in cities for over 40yrs; I’ve cycled to work and for pleasure in LaJolla, Philadelphia, NYC, Montreal, and, for over two decades, Boston. None of those cities offered the accommodations that Portland has already provided, yet no city’s streets have frightened me like Portland’s. The Portland Dept of Transportation (PDOT) has abetted the slaughter on these mean streets by encouraging cyclists to behave in ways that are simply foolhardy. A great deal of work remains to be done to make Portland streets safer, but this divisive levy is not the way to do it.
Why would my cable fees, natural gas fees, and telecom fees ever go towards transportation?? That seems completely unrelated and idiotic.
Have any of the people on this board ever driven on Portland roads? No sidewalks, potholes over 6 inches deep, and half the roads are completely falling apart. Gas taxes haven’t increased since what, 1990? And inflation is very real, people.
Other cities and states are passing multi-billion dollar tax & spend road repair bonds. Be very glad that ours isn’t nearly that much… I will gladly pay. Not to mention that the OPA is just a half-skip away from the likes of GW and his oil cronies, who’ve pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars a year on taking over oil in the Mideast.
zilf, perhaps you’ve noticed that when the tv cables were laid in the streets, the excavations left streets severely marred? And perhaps you’ve noticed that every time someone converts to natural gas the road surface is again disrupted? Catch the logic? Perhaps Dave Lister can remind you of the original arguments, c.’88?
At any rate, the primary dispute is over whether this City Council will permit city residents a vote on this unprecedented tax. Voting is a democratic process. What has been done so far by Adams & Leonard, et al, merits the abusive response it has received.