It’s been plain all along that this was going to be an especially ugly city budget season, what with Mayor Charlie Hales’ call for universal 10 percent cuts and a fight over what scraps might be left after city council closes a $25 million deficit. But somehow that realization doesn’t even begin to describe what it’s like actually looking through the bureaus’ proposals for how they’d manage cuts that deep.
Earlier today, I looked briefly at the police budget—where it seems like some cops, no matter how much the ax is blunted, will still be laid off. Now comes the Portland Housing Bureau, which is prepared to cut $2.3 million but begging to add back just less than half.
At worst, under the plan it submitted to the city budget office, it would close much of the Clark Center, a shelter serving hundreds of men, and also the city’s winter shelters for women and kids and people suffering from mental illness. More than half of the $1.1 million in “add backs” sought by the bureau would restore those two programs.
And at best—if all that money is restored? Hundreds of families and people of color and homeless Portlanders would still be cut off from services. The bureau was smart enough to break down how many people—and whom—would be affected by the cuts it’s not looking to fight.
http://www.savetheclarkcenter.org
WTF is a “culturally specific homeownership fair”?
Endorsements are a bitch, aren’t they the Mercury?
Actually, a blind eye to urban renewal tax revenue drains to developer pockets, streetcar subsidies for developers and unfunded pensions are a bitch.
@Ardennes, not sure entirely what you are driving at here, but if the implication is that the Merc may have picked the wrong guy, I have to say that I’d much rather have an adult approach to the budget like we’re getting now then what I would imagine to be the “everyone gets cake and ice cream!” approach that JS would have taken. All speculation of course.
If you want someone to blame, don’t fault the current administration, you’re going to have to look at the past one. And for that one, I would say that I agree – the Merc’s endorsements (Adams and Leonard) were certainly off the mark.
This is a classic tactic to preserve budgets – offer up cuts of the services that tug at the heart strings or incite public outcry but leave the real pork intact.
I fully reject the idea that Smith would offer a “free cake and ice cream” approach. He was far more fiscally careful with his campaign than was Hales, and their primary differences were Smith’s unwillingness to offer developers big tax breaks and support the $4b CRC bridgedoggle as Hales does.
You are right that much of what will result is the fault of prior admins and mainly the sour economy.
Too bad Mr. Smith punched a woman and punched a recreational basketball player in the testicles and is / was a dangerous driver with no regard for traffic laws and was so dysfunctional that his bar license was suspended more than once.