"Also, are there any more millions of dollars lying around anywhere that we haven't been told about? "
YES and yes.

"...then why isn't there $20million to fund, say, mental health and addictions treatment?"

Not that this isn't a noble use of "found money", but there's a much simpler use: backlogged and deferred sewer projects. Are you telling me that the City of Portland doesn't have AT LEAST $20 million in back-logged sewer work and deferred maintenace on existing infrastructure?

You just campaigned hard to increase taxes on other people to pay for schools. Why is this different? Just increase their taxes again to pay for anything else you want. There's more of you than there are of them, so they can't do anything about it.

I still don't quite get how adding bioswales to bike boulevards makes them more bikable. I'm all for bioswales, but it's not like they divert traffic. I guess they calm traffic somewhat?

But it kinda feels like Sam is trying to put a bike infrastructure hat on what is essentially stormwater infrastructure. If we're talking about diverting sewer-pipe money to a sewer-type project, I'm, pretty OK with that. It just seems like a contortion to say it's for bikes.

I'd be more comfortable with them drawing from transportation money to fund bikes. And I like bikes! A lot!

You ask why the bike community hasn't asked those questions. I would guess it comes down to: it's hard to nit-pick when someone's giving you money. Especially when you've traditionally felt funding-starved; the inequity of 6% getting around by bike, but bike infrastructure getting only 1% of the transportation money.

"this is what happens when the mayor of a city is used to being completely unopposed on policy issues."

EXACTLY!!! Welcome to my world Matt.

The amount of consensus in this city isn't healthy. We take everything they say at face level.

I think the point about adding bioswales is that while they're doing it, they can convert the street into a bike boulevard at the same time, for close to no extra cost. If there's any creative accounting being done here, it's in claiming that this is $20 million for bike funding - really, it's not. It's just shifting money from one type of sewage expenditure (repairing pipes) to another (stopping water getting in the pipes in the first place).

Is that the best use of sewage money? I don't know about that. But claiming that this should be spent on Matt's personal pet projects is disingenuous at best.

Windfalls are challenging, which is why planning for them are a basic, essential component organization management. What is the city's priority? (Not what are the most attractive constituency's priorities.)

When this management component is evaded or circumnavigated or undone, a great opportunity is lost - and whether it's helping homeless persons, or persons with mental illness, or paying down the city debt, or paying off legal judgments - it looks like the council stewards are again short-sighted and fiscally imprudent.

so money that is legally obligated to pay for sewers & drainage is being multi-tasked, serving the mandated purpose and, additionally, making the city safer. if i get your point, you're pissed because they haven't discovered such funds for mental health? that may be a fair point, but so far you've conflated two different issues, to no serviceable point.

the City & County (and state, and feds) have failed horribly when it comes to mental health (apart from creating lots more cases via Iraq & Afghanistan). the City & County have to step up efforts to deal with these issues, and looking for "lost" funds, or using this kind of creativity (what might be done with ARRA funds, for example?) would be a great step forward.

but the ability to "jump start" the Bike Plan should not be attacked because of failures in other parts of policy. we need the Bike Plan for more reasons than it's fun & hip. as someone who got lucky when hit by a car (only 5 days in the hospital) and when i crashed due to gravel on a bike path (just a busted shoulder, $3k out of pocket), the Bike Plan is more than just a nicety: it literally is life and death. safer bicycling is required in this City as much as better care for the mentally ill, the addicted and others.

be comfortable with this plan; it's a smart step forward for both bikes & homes, and it demonstrates that the City can find ways to be creative and stretch limited dollars a long way. don't go JackBog on us just because you have spill-over anger.

who, blabby, is this "we" that takes eveyrthing "they" say at face "level"? you? then speak for yourself, cuz i don't & i know a huge number of people who also do not. and these are die-hard Pdx libs/progs.

absolute statements usually aren't worth uttering.

Todd: "spill-over anger" isn't how I'd characterize the point I'm making. But as always I appreciate your perspective and comments. To me, this is about whether our city council's priorities reflect the concerns of its citizens. The bikers are a vocal advocacy group, but I need to see its leaders become more vocal about how they are part of a broader community with very pressing needs. Think more "Ted Wheeler at city club."

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

Think less, "let's all pretend there's not a dying child in the basement of this utopia."

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

And stop drinking the kool-aid.

tabarnhart, the liberal mainstream in this city absolutely takes what Adams' office, and Metro and the entire planning establishment say at face value.

This city slurps it all up with a big-arse spoon.

"it demonstrates that the City can find ways to be creative and stretch limited dollars" Precisely the problem. We don't want politicians being "creative" with money. Only leads one place.

And by "we" I mean "you".

Matt - I think in this case city councils priorities do reflect the concerns of its citizens. Sewage and cycling are much bigger concerns for more people that mental health. The only reason the BTA has a big voice is because they can speak for a lot of people. Your personal priorities are different, fair enough. But you can't fault council for prioritizing things the people who elected them want to be prioritized.

Should mental health etc be a higher concern for Portland's citizens? It's hard to argue against that. But it isn't.

I initially read the headline as though the name of the plan was the "I'm Uncomfortable With Bikes" Plan.

@Matt: The thousands of people who commute via bike every day are pretty indicative of a broad community. Do you need auto club leaders to become more vocal about its members needs before we build a new Columbia River bridge? Or the leaders of the pedestrian club to speak up before we put up a wall on 82nd to keep them from running into traffic?

Hey Stu, why don't we use the transportation budget for the bike plan?

@stu, @tk As I said to Jonathan, I would prefer that we prioritize not killing people because they're mentally ill, than how we get to work in the mornings.

But you're right. A community gets the leadership it deserves.

How much is the Merc going to charge viewers for the apparently now inevitable PPV TV broadcast of the Davis v. Mirk cage match fight to the death?

"I'll be on Victoria Taft's show in 20 minutes, talking about this. Is Sam Adams turning me into a Republican?"

Why don't you try and get Victoria to come out in favor of large increases in spending on mental health issues? See how that goes.

@Bob R. You know, it's interesting. She didn't seem to want to go there. But I did bring it up repeatedly.

It sounds like they're just going to vote it through. Un-f**king-believable. Fish and Saltzman with their tongue up Adams' ass.

Chris Smith needs to get a fucking job.

"No you can't use sewer dollars for mental health services. There is no alchemy anywhere that can make that kind of transformation."

At the exact same time he's proposing using sewer money to fund a bike plan. It's tough for me to overstate my contempt for this man at this point. Just a small petty man with roughly half the intellect he tries to project. I can't believe the support he still has....

Well, I ride a bike and I'm not mentally unstable, so I'm down.

Matt your comments on prioritizing "not killing people" versus "getting to work" shows your lack of judgment and perspective. as someone who was lucky to survive a bike accident with minimal effect (busted ribs, punctured lungs, internal organ damage), i can vouch that the bike plan is a hell of a lot more than 'getting to work". the Bike Plan is about our community, a commitment to livability, to a human landscape and not one bowing down in awe to the internal combustion engine. it's about neighborhoods, about separating freight traffic & vulnerable humans. it's about making a Portland that is enjoyable for all and not, like many cities, the privileged few.

and yes, part of that commitment means caring for the most vulnerable, the ones in the most dire need. we do need to fund health care of all kinds better. but setting health care against livability does NO GOOD AT ALL. you want better care for the mentally ill? attacking Jon Maus won't make that happen. telling the Mayor how wrong he is won't help. the big picture is that we have to do both: care for the needy, and a city that is livable. they are not opposing policy goals; they complement each other. but it's not BikePortland's job to advocate for the mentally ill; there are plenty of advocates for them. and since the Bike Plan is not using money that could go for those services, there is NO need to oppose it on those grounds.

there are coalitions that need to be fostered, but i've never known that to happen by bad-mouthing people and calling their motives & priorities into question. esp people you know to be good people.

"At the exact same time he's proposing using sewer money to fund a bike plan."

He's proposing sewer money be spent on sewer-related projects in a way that moves the bike plan forward. The relationship is not tenuous. However, having just paid a big sewer bill a few weeks ago, I can relate to the skepticism.

"There is no alchemy anywhere that can make that kind of transformation."

Well, you could probably pass an ordinance that exempted all medical facilities which provide charitable mental health services from paying sewer bills, but I'm not sure if that would provide much help. But if alchemy is desired, a little can always be found. :-) Still, the bikeways proposal is far more grounded in the basis upon which the funds were collected.

"Chris Smith needs to get a [expletive] job."

Chris Smith has a "real" job in addition to his volunteer work for various groups and boards and his position with the planning commission. (Disclosure: I moderate and am a member of the board of one of the non-profit blogs which Chris founded.)

@Matt - Thanks for the reply.

What Chunty said.

I'd rather spend money on building things than spend it on temporarily having a imperceptably less crazy homeless population.

And the vast majority of the population will always feel the same.

As Reymont said, then make a tax. If there is a great need for additional funding for mental health services, a tax would make more sense because, just like the idea of using this $20m for decreasing sewage bills, the impact is going to be a one-time thing with limited benefit. Mental health services are ongoing and would benefit much more from some tax specifically for that purpose that brings in $20m every year.

As tk said, then make a tax. If there is a great need for additional funding for a Bike Plan, a tax would make more sense because, just like the idea of using this $20m for decreasing sewage bills, the impact is going to be a one-time thing with limited benefit. The Bike Plan is ongoing and would benefit much more from some tax specifically for that purpose that brings in $20m every year.

Taxes for all!

This is the kind of idiocy that convinced Oregonians to adopt the kicker, and with disastrous results. Screw saving money for a rainy day or bringing taxes down. Just spend it on pet projects while thinking of not-so-creative ways of convincing the populous otherwise.

I love this city, but these kinds of shenanigans are embarrassing.

Mental health is the County not the City.

These kind of accounting shenanigans are the kinds of things that make liberals like me inclined to vote against future bond measures. The city is always crying need, need, need, but when it wants to, it can magically find more dollars. Just wait a few years when sewer lines start exploding and Sam goes running to the voters with a bond measure because our infrastructure is falling apart. Yeah, well, thank god for those shiny bike lanes.

In the past five years, how many Portlanders have used a toilet that leads to the sewer system?

Can't wait to go pop a squat in the nearest bioswale. That's me crouching behind the pussy willows with the sports section....

Babbly has descended into poop jokes. It looks like we may not reach a consensus on this one. :)

I ride my bike to work. Most of the time. While it would be a ten-to-fifteen-minute commute over the bridge between my home and work, it's horribly unsafe. I end up taking a loooong, round-a-bout way to work, simply because I am truly afraid of dying if I take the direct route.

For me, it's a trade-off (my body probably appreciates the extra exercise) that I'm willing to go with. For a lot of Portlanders, though, if there's no easy, safe route, then they simply won't hop on a bike.

That's really why this plan is so important. It's not for the couple thousand die-hards who will bike to work in rain, sleet and snow, even if the bridges all collapsed. It's for the many more thousands of people who would love to bike to work, but are simply scared of dying. Let's get this thing built so our friends and neighbors can have safe routes to school, work and everywhere else around town!

Oh, you whiny bitches.

Just how far does this Jack Bogdanski person think that $20M would go towards "city residents' outrageous sewer bills?"

I am a resident of the city, Downtown to be exact, and my sewer bill is about $10/month.

That being said, I've come to expect much bitching to come out of the woodwork every time Mayor Adams opens his mouth. At least the majority of the people bitching don't support the Recall² effort (at least apparently so, considering it's as much a miserable failure as the first, if not worse).

Bronch, what does any of that have to do with my sewer service?

I live in North Portland and my water and sewer for the last 3 months came to over $250. That's for a small house with 3 people. Maybe a studio apartment dweller gets by playing $10 a month, but we home owners are on the hook for substantially more.

@ CH -

That's interesting to hear...I honestly had no idea.

While I'm not a studio apartment dweller (my apartment is a two bedroom, 1,000-sq. ft. unit) with just my wife and I living there (well, our two dogs, too), we do pay $25/mo. for sewer/water/garbage, so that's where I got the $10/mo. figure.

Our apartment management charges $25/mo. for 2-br. units, plus $10/mo. more per occupant over two.

@CH: $250 per month or $250 for the last 3 months combined? (Sewer is included in my rent so I don't really know how much it runs, I'm curious.)

$250 for three months combined. If it were $250 a month, I'd REALLY be pissed about this shellgame.

The biggest bummer about the water/sewer bill is that using less water doesn't result in any substantive decrease in the amount of the bill. Most of it is fixed costs for things like the big pipe, or now, building bike boulevards.

@ Blabby -

I'll help answer your question to Bronch:

It doesn't have "squat" (hehe) to do with your sewer service.

It has to do with his (and many other Portlanders') commutes to work by bicycle.

What's important to him is important to him.

What's important to you is important to you.

Don't like it, talk to the Mayor. It wasn't Bronch's decision to find $20M sitting around, and it wasn't mine. All we really care about is that the $20M the Mayor promised us was allotted and it hurt no one.

Our city's progression must start somewhere. If we constantly walk around looking for "better" ways to spend money, no money will ever get spent and no new projects will ever get started.

"It wasn't Bronch's decision to find $20M sitting around, and it wasn't mine."

No one found money sitting around. The BES has plenty of things in its capital budget to spend this on. Sarah Mirk provided a list the other day of what this money was going to be used for. There was no money sitting around.

"All we really care about is that the $20M the Mayor promised us was allotted and it hurt no one."

It's hurting the other services from which it is being diverted. That's my whole point.

What Matt is getting at is a very basic and I think inarguable point: just because something is "good" or "well intentioned" (e.g. more bike facilities) doesn't mean that literally any scheme to fund it is therefore also "good."

There are plenty of "bad" ways to go about funding a project, no matter how noble it is. Just because so many in this city seem to masturbate to cycling magazines doesn't mean that it is impossible to misappropriate funds for bike projects.

Are you literally saying you don't give a crap what city government does with your money as long as it's in the name of "progress?"

That's Orwellian, albeit without the wit and humor.

@ Blabby - But you just made my point (or at least reinforced it). We can always find something "better" to spend the money on. The funding for special projects (or "pet" projects, which I realize the Bike Master Plan is the Mayor's, as much as I like it) has got to come from somewhere and it has to start sometime. If we always find "something better" to spend the money on, special projects and progressive projects won't ever get funded.

@ Matt - No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do give a crap what the government spends my money on, whether it's in the name of progress or not.

It just so happens that in this case, I like what they're spending my money on. :)

Jackattack, maybe we're speaking past each other. But you are missing MY point.

I'm not talking about finding something "better" to spend it on. Mental health is Matt's thing. I'm talking about using it for the intended purpose, period. Sewer fees go to sewer projects.

If money for the Bike Master Plan "has to come from somewhere" how about the transportation budget?

That's my point. Don't raid the BES to pay for the bike plan. If there is "extra money" at BES (which there isn't) use it to pay for the backlog of BES projects. BES isn't the proper bureau to pay for the bike plan.

Incidentally, don't use the BES to pay for mental health care either. If I get a bill with a line item that says "sewer fee" use it on the f**king sewer, or give my money back.

Blabby - Got it. That makes more sense. I apologize if I was dense on the conversation.

I certainly see where you're coming from, and that makes sense.

What I think the Mayor was trying to do was keep from using transportation to fund this particular transportation project because of the ensuing backlash he'd get from the "bicyclists don't pay their way, ARGH! DER-DER-DER-DER!!" crowd.

A lot of motorists are upset with cyclists for a lot of reasons (most of which are bullshit fueled by the Oregonian), and using what they perceive as "their funding" on the Bike Master Plan might spark some outrage and more of an "us vs. them" mentality.

Thus, I think the Mayor tried to look elsewhere.

Anyway, I see what you're saying now. Not trying to take up for the Mayor, just trying to shed some light on what might look like a silly decision.

@Jack...

It's what you like. Exactly. So you're happy with it.

As I said at the top, a community gets the leadership it deserves.

Stu:

"I think the point about adding bioswales is that while they're doing it, they can convert the street into a bike boulevard at the same time, for close to no extra cost. If there's any creative accounting being done here, it's in claiming that this is $20 million for bike funding - really, it's not. It's just shifting money from one type of sewage expenditure (repairing pipes) to another (stopping water getting in the pipes in the first place)."

OK, that makes sense to me. So while they're ripping up streets to put in bioswales, they can also do some of the ripping-up required for bike boulevards (and note to Matt Davis: bike boulevards and "EFFING BIKE LANES" are two entirely different types of bike infrastructure). And Adams gets to call it money secured for the Bike Plan while he's at it. Is that accurate?

Assuming it is, I can't decide if it's a clever multipurposing of funds, or a feel-good smoke screen. Assuming the former, well... OK. That's a win-win, I guess.

But it's not like it's actual money just being handed to the Bike Plan, is it? So it's not like it's actual money that could have been handed to some other very worthy cause like mental health. It's more like just killing two curb redesigns with one stone.

Is there a similar multipurposing of sewage infrastructure improvement that could have benefited mental health? Is there something they could do in the course of digging up curbing or pouring concrete that would have also benefited mental health while they were at it? I can't think of anything.

It seems like it was simply a better fit for bike infrastructure improvements.

Ah, if only poop had those sexy biker calves-then it would get the love, attention, and funding it deserves.

I find it interesting that despite the mayor VERY PUBLICLY anwering Matt's questions on mental health funding, he's still harping on it in the same article.

Personally, I think if there's $20 million in BES funding, it should be invested in BES programs. In that sense, I agree with Blabby.

However, I think it's smart to find projects that have multifaceted benefits. If there's a program that both benefits sewage maintenance and has the side effect of safer streets, I don't see why that's a problem. I say use the money however you might get the best bang for your buck.