I heard a guy on the street near Pioneer Courthouse Square with petition sheets reference Nestle.

I failed to act, but I must congratulate the fine impartial and as yet unknown citizen guarding our precious initiative process. This doesn't seem at all like someone opposed to the initiative trying to drum up bad press.

I am curious, though, if the district would wrest control of the water system from the city and the measure does provide that "The district may not regionalize or privatize water or sewer service" how is the Lloyd petitioner's statement (or even someone referencing Nestle) knowingly false? It would seem than an effect of the measure would be to prevent the district from privatizing water service. Would the argument be that the watershed is distinct from providing water service (facilities and infrastructure in the city) so that they could sell off the watershed and then buy water back? Seems a stretch that that wouldn't be privatizing water service.

The petitioner who accosted me said the ballot measure was to 'lower water rates'.

Frivolous charge. The complainant is projecting from his own sordid imagination. It sounds to me like the signature gatherer was paraphrasing the measure. Since the measure is for the creation of a new water district, then such a clause would be for limiting the powers of the new district. If the measure contains no such clause, then that would be a misrepresentation, but that wasn't the complaint.

This is so incredibly tedious it's no wonder the only people with time enough on their hands to fight about it are lawyers and ideological cranks of all political stripes.

Sounds to me like Marshall Runkel seems worried that the voters might find out that the City Council might actually in fact already be empowered to privatize Bull Run, should they so choose to do. What's needed is a separate measure to specifically limit the power of the City Council, just in case the voters don't want to go so far as to establish a new water district.

Erik Sten still owes Portlanders about $100,000,000.00 for that software glitch. I wonder how much Marshal Runkel got for his cut?

If I were the mayor or a City Councilor, I'd be feeling the pressure about now to hurry up and privatize Bull Run, before a new water district gets voted in. I wonder, how much could they get for the sale, and what would be the total amount of their kickbacks?

How big a kickback did Sam Adams get for redecorating the stadium, eliminating baseball, and thus killing business at restaurants after the games, downtown?

The Bull Run Watershed lies within the confines of the Mount Hood National Forest and thus is in federal ownership. The City of Portland can't privatize federal land. Do you people really not know this?

For more information on the Portland Public Water District ballot initiative visit,
http://www.waterreform.org/

or https://www.facebook.com/pages/Portlanders…

pork chop,
The initiative prohibits privatization of any part of our water system. In 2002 CH2MHill (a PWB favored multinational) held a regional conference on privatization, at the same time when City Council under Erik Sten's leadership was one vote away from relinquishing Portland's sole ownership of Bull Run through an Inter Governmental agreement- Regionalization plan. Nothing in that Intergovernmental agreement nor currently in Portland's City Charter precludes privatization.

WHAT DID NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT

@Chef, the Timbers bring in more fans for 17 home games (plus friendlies and playoffs and next year, the All-Star Game) than the Beavers did for 69. Why don't you go around to the bars and ask who was better for business before and after a game: the Beavers or Timbers?

I also had a signature gatherer tell me his petition was to "keep our water from being privatized." I knew it was bullshit, but didn't have time to call him out for it when it happened. I was hoping I would get the same line again so I can make a formal complaint.

ERN, it isn't bullshit. Read the piece. The ballot measure explicitly keeps the water system from being privatized. What would you be formally complaining about exactly?

To pork chop and others, the Bull Run land can't be sold, but the entire management, staffing, infrastructure, profit-taking, etc. of the system can be contracted or even sold to a private company. Who do you pay for your electricity? The city or a private company? How about your garbage service?

How come the stadium is going bankrupt if everybody loves soccer so much?

Oh, well, now that the stadium is owned by Canadians, who cares that it loses money? Now that the Pearl has replaced downtown, who cares if downtown business has collapse and the central area is left to the bums? At least Sam Adams came away smelling like a Portland, rose.


http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/oregons_jeld-wen_faces_potenti.html

Oregon's Jeld-Wen faces potential bankruptcy after plan to sell bonds fails


http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/08/canadian_company_will_take_con.html

Canadian company will take controlling interest in Jeld-Wen, Oregon's biggest private company

Maybe the Bull Run water rights ought to be sold to the Saudis? They could use the water.

It's bullshit because it's completely misleading. There have never been any attempts, statements, even notions passed around city hall about privatizing our water supply. But mentioning "privatization" is enough to scare some people into signing a petition they might not otherwise support. And if we have an elected board overseeing water, you can bet big businesses will have a lot of sway with all the money they can muster for the elections. That is how our water system will become semi-privatized--it'll be controlled by a corporate board.

The ostrich hides his head in the sand and get's his ass blown off. This is a wake up call to the fact that the City Council has too much authority, which needs to be restricted. Neither a new water district nor a trust is needed or even a good idea. Just pass a law that clearly states that water rights are not to be transferred and that the water supply is not to be fluoridated. There ought also be a provision for criminal penalty for any civil servant who violates such a law.