Comments

1
Novick needs to drop the comedy routine. Maybe getting his ass handed to him on this street fee will temper the snark a bit.
2
"The analysis is that we expect the need for street maintenance to continue indefinitely."

This is a little absurd. Nobody expects the need for street maintenance to suddenly end. The issue is the backlog. What happens once the backlog is resolved? Can't we then fund street maintenance with the level of funding the city devotes to it now (but a little more wisely)? Or does he think the backlog will somehow extend unto eternity?
3
Has Novick always been an asshole or is this a new thing for him?

@sgp: No government ever lets a tax just go away. They'll keep this going forever.
4
I think he's always been an asshole. The argument that "water bills are high so Fish and Saltzman shouldn't be complaining" is insulting. It is precisely because all of our other bills and taxes have gotten so high that people are FINALLY getting vocal. A bit of this anti-tax sentiment would have been nice before the arts tax vote, people.

They finally caught up to me on the arts tax by the way. Got my bill for the last two years, plus a $100 penalty if I don't pay by end of month. Knew it was coming.

sgp, I wish they would make 90% of this fee go to maintenance. They say that's the problem but only 50% of this fee will go towards maintenance.
5
"Novick has nothing against raising taxes to support the arts, but says, "I have a really hard time with something that's the same for everybody except people who are technically in poverty." http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ss…

Graham, he's reaching Randy Leonard and staff levels of dickishness.
6
It's good they have their priorities straight ... after the election.
7
Maybe some find this amusing. I find it incredibly depressing. If you can't respond to 10 reasonable questions, from a peer no less, without dripping abject disdain, I'm not sure why any citizen of this city would believe you're actually listening to their concerns.
8
"Fritz's argument against the bond is that reliable fire response is a basic service the city should provide from its general fund, not ask voters to pay extra for. I think she actually has a good point."

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
9
Who would have thought we'd end up longing for the sober fiscal reasoning of Sarah Mirk, Babygorilla?
10
I'm surprised by the references to renters. I had thought the street fee bill would go directly to the landlord?
11
Reymont, the renters would wind up paying the fee anyway, as the landlord would just up the rent. And for more probably than the fee.
12
Blabby:

Sober? That doesn't sound like the s.mirk we all know and love!
13
"We believe that we should adjust that treatment to reflect trips by employees of parking lots."

So you'll be adjusting for the toll collection person who most likely takes the bus to sit there during open hours. Make sure to also adjust for when he/she generates a trip down the sidewalk to go grab lunch. And if they generate a trip down the sidewalk in the other direction to get a paper? Good god, that's some blatantly taxable usage you'd be foolish to ignore.

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.