Comments

1
Well, this may be the final card pushing me FOR the measure.
If they are worried about losing jobs, that we end up paying for, then I would suggest that the jobs they are worried about are not really needed in the first place.
2
Whoa, you mean the folks who like to show up in front of my house in big shiny white trucks and sleep half the day would be against a measure that would actually require some oversight instead of the status quo?

It's doomed anyway- if there's anything Portland loves more than cavities, it's corruption. We just can't get enough of shady real estate deals for developers and slush funds for pet projects.
3
Not sure I understand that logic. Because there is talk of eliminating jobs, that automatically means those jobs are superfluous? I'm not at all saying things can't be more-efficiently run in these bureaus, I just don't know that the claims of campaigners count as proof.
4
I don't think the campaigners even brought this issue up, their beef has more to do with things such as the Water House, buying the building for the Rose Parade, etc etc.
I never heard anything about losing jobs till the union suggested it.
Which to me sounds as if they are trying to protect superfluous jobs.
5
Frankie: The campaign has said, since the day it launched, that it would look for savings and potential rate relief by cutting jobs—primarily by identifying efficiencies and overlap in the Water Bureau and BES.
6
Wasn't aware of that, hadn't heard it either, but certainly find no problem with it either.
7
The jobs that could be eliminated will be outsourced to private contractors. Private contractors that require a profit. Why do you suppose large developers have their hands in this proposal. This outsourcing does not save anyone any money. The pet projects that have been mentioned on this forum were all due to Randy Leonard and Sam Adams. They are no longer in office. If you don't like how commissioners spend your money, vote them out. Leonard was voted in, not just once, but twice!! I really hope the citizens of Portland vote with their heads and not their attitudes.
8
Unions require profits too, where do you think that 10 grand donation comes from anyway?
Has anyone been talking 'outsourcing' besides you?
9
Dirk Vanderhart, the measure has quite literally nothing in it that says ANY jobs would be eliminated. That's not the intention. It transfers power from the political elite to a 7 member elected volunteer board.
Jobs aren't mentioned ANYWHERE in the proposal, and the campaign hasn't made PWB jobs an issue, because they're not. The issue is the management of those jobs, and what they've done with the money, investing in leaky new underground reservoirs, Water house(s), Portland streetcars, .....
How can you write a column and then blatantly lie about what the PPWD proponents are talking about?
10
Uh, Hiram: Because chief petitioners Floy and Kent said as much when they unveiled this thing? Just because "Jobs aren't mentioned ANYWHERE in the proposal" doesn't mean they wouldn't be affected. Kent and Floy have been up front about that. Strange that you're not.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.