More like Bob Ball is the guy that Sam Adams absolutely smeared when he broke the Breedlove story and was considering running against him for Mayor. To quote Adams:
"If this had come from the right wing—and it probably will now—that would have been one thing. But to come from another gay man is something more hurtful. It plays into the worst deep-seated fears society has about gay men: You can't trust them with your young."
This from a hilariously self-righteous Mercury article from 2007 that made Ball the villain and Adams a poor victim.
Bob Ball deserves better than a glib "the guy who dropped the dime on former Mayor Sam Adams' liaison with Beau Breedlove."
For all we know, he could have become Mayor had Adams not lied through the skin of his teeth with puffed-up faux outrage.
Obviously, these are well-produced ads. But I think there are some real issues:
1) Yes, there are 20- and 30-somethings in Portland who are uninsured, but these ads in no way represent some of the highest demographic categories of uninsured Oregonians: people living in rural areas; minorities; poorly educated; economically disadvantaged; large families; etc. Why would anyone from those demographics think these ads were meant for them?
2) These ads in no way inform people who are uninsured about what the program is and how they can take part. Not only is there no information in the ads about what Cover Oregon actually does, if an uninsured person who lives in, say, Pendleton who didn't graduate high school saw one of these ads on TV, would they have any idea whatsoever what it was about?
3) These ads are reported to have cost nearly $10 million to produce and subsequently air. That is some serious money for an ad campaign, and - especially since it's for a state-run program - there *should* be an expectation that the money is efficiently spent. So why are these ads appealing to the very people that are LEAST likely to need health insurance (well-educated Portlanders with jobs that provide health care) rather than those that are MOST likely to need it?
I'm sure everyone who had lunch at Little Bird today and had dinner at Ox will love these. Too bad people who had lunch at Subway and dinner at McDonald's won't.
"Let's all ignore him..."
Take your own advice, dumb ass.
PLEASE get this guy off of Blogtown. PLEASE.
You know what else is an excellent investment that pays back substantially? Preventative road maintenance, which keeps streets from decaying to the point that they need to be completely torn up and redone. An industry standard is that every $1 spent on preventative maintenance saves $10 in future work.
I agree that bioswales are a good investment, but let's not pretend like they could have prevented the need for another Big Pipe project. It's ridiculous that you'd even make such a claim. The city's ancient combined storm water/sewer system could not have been fixed with bioswales, which only help alleviate a relatively small portion of storm water from entering the system.
The fact of the matter is that since Since Adams has been mayor, he has committed over $12.8 million annually to the Sellwood Bridge, Eastside Streetcar, and Milwaukie MAX projects. The total road maintenance budget, which has gone down since he's been mayor? $12.9 million.
At the same time, staff costs levels have gone up considerably with at least 15 full-time-equivalent (FTE) added.
This chart is pretty telling... PBOT's total budget in 2008 (when Adams was elected) was about $150 million. It was proposed at $222 million for 2012-13.
Tom Miller's discretionary spending has nearly doubled to $100 million, yet the road maintenanace budget has stayed level at $12.9 million (and maybe even gone down... it's tough to tell exactly from the graph).
It is NOT disconnected from reality to ask tough questions and question PBOT's priorities.
I’m not opposed to paying this fee (we need to maintain roads, and gas taxes aren’t the most stable or equitable funding source), but I would love it if 1) we got to vote on it and 2) the language of what we vote on forced it to be used on actual street maintenance, not down the black hole of pet projects like streetcars.
Without that – and with Tom Miller in charge of PBOT – it's disingenuous for the City to say that this money will be used to address the 59 miles of unpaved/dirt roads in Portland's city limits. Some of it may be used on backlogged road maintenance work, but let's not forget that much of that backlog happened under the Adams/Miller duo.
Did Alex Zielinski secretly write this?
"...the Oregonian had a short report about fellow..."
"...in such a rush to help hat he left the thing in gear."
"That's when car then rolled over..."
"But we're supposed to be building for the future..."
Fair point. But, why does this version of the future only include walking, transit, and bikes, and doesn't include advancing technology in clean energy and electric cars?
What if in 30 years Oregon burns no coal and all our electricity comes from hydro, wind, wave, etc. And what if plug-in cars become the norm?
Furthermore, what if driver-less car technology (already road-legal in California) becomes more and more common, which would allow cars to safely park and drive very closely to each other, reducing congestion?
I really don't think cars are going away forever, and I have enough faith that investments in clean energy and clean tech will definitely change the paradigm of car usage - not away from it per se (though that will likely happen too), but in terms of less reliance on fossil fuels.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |