You know that new effort to take water and sewer oversight away from city hall? It’s hit the ground running in the fundraising department.
The strictures of this blog platform preclude us from running it at a super-legible size, but check out this solicitous email that was just brought to the Mercury’s attention.
There are no huge surprises or bombshells here, though there IS a certain self-assuredness behind the phrasing “the “Portland Public Water District” will appear on the May 2014 ballot (emphasis mine). They’ve got to get to 30,000 signatures before that happens.
Portland Bottling and American Property Management were both on hand at the press conference announcing the initiative this morning, and Kent Craford, who’s helping head up the petition drive, said the group’s been reaching out to “large water customers.” If anyone from Siltronic was on site, it wasn’t announced.
I’m unclear on where the letter gets the bit about a 66 percent increase in water rates. Craford and Floy Jones, both involved in the petition drive, penned an editorial in March citing a 44 percent increase over the next five years, which is in line with forecasts I’ve seen through FY 2018. I’ve not found, in a cursory search, estimates through FY 2019. At any rate (PUN INTENDED) estimates are not-infrequently wrong.
Commissioner Nick Fish, in conversations about water over the last several days, has repeatedly pointed out a prediction for this year’s water rate increase called for a 15 percent bump. It was actually 3.6 percent.
I’ll wait to see where the Mercury stands on this issue, and then I’ll go the other way.
Dirk you are not infrequently guilty of hyphen abuse.
The Mercury should really consider investing in a blog that supports text
Also, how dare they threaten Randy Leonard’s legacy of kickbacks, favors and rate increases.
tarrying? nicely done sir
Which way do you want to go, Todd? That way we can go for it, too, and headfake you.
Well, since you’re forcing my hand, Denis…I’m pissed off at the council for raising rates to pay for pet projects, and for rolling over on covering the reservoirs, and since most of my political decisions are based on anger, I’d say take the power away from the city council. But I do worry that corporate interests could take control of the water district more easily (and quietly) than they can take control of the council. So at this point I’m thinking a reluctant NO to PPWD.
If you guys agree with me, I’ll rethink.
Todd has it generally right. This was a pretty poor attempt at veiling their motives. It’s fairly textbook:
1. Destroy credibility of status quo through lawsuit, media and paid outreach.
2. Create plausible-sounding alternative that you can pitch as more democratic and more consumer-friendly. Make any other alternatives sound unworkable or less attractive.
3. Consistently guide the formation of the alternative through drafting of ballot language and management of campaign.
4. Spend a whole lot of money on candidates sympathetic to your demands when the new board holds its first elections.
5. GET WHAT YOU WANT
This is nothing more than a proposed corporate takeover of the city’s public utilities, disguised as a ‘citizens action’.
If Ms. Grabenhorst is concerned about the use of sewer and water funds for non-sewer and water projects, then she and her group should be supporting a charter amendment to disallow the practice.