At first glance, this measure sounds fair: let residents decide how public money is spent. Who could oppose giving Portlanders a greater voice? But on closer look, it just doesn’t add up!
The proposal would amend Portland's Charter to require the city to forever hand over at least 2% of discretionary spending — initially $16 million— to a participatory budgeting process, no matter what else the city needs.
Portland is already facing an estimated $160 million budget shortfall. There is no spare $16 million. The result will mean fewer 911 dispatchers, slower fire and police response, more people sleeping unsheltered, plus cuts to parks, transportation, housing, and more layoffs.
Ask proponents, including council candidates who support this measure, a simple question: What will you cut to pay for it? They've refused to answer, asking voters to trust that the money will simply be found later, at everyone else's expense.
The only funding sources the proponents use as examples involve one-time housing and arts tax funds found during the past year to have accumulated rather than being spent for their intended programs? In the midst of a housing crisis, and school funding crises, do we really want to raid those funds even if it were legally permissible? And then when such accounts are drained, where does the money come from?
There's another troubling problem: who’s actually bankrolling this campaign and hiding it from you? While the article mentions the nominal funders,—some nonprofits— they have refused to disclose where the money really came from.
Voters deserve to know who is funding this scheme to permanently change how their tax dollars are spent. Portlanders shouldn't be locked into a permanent $16 million commitment by people unwilling to show their faces.
Lastly, claims that the community decides are intentionally misleading. Not all Portlanders receive a ballot. In Seattle, fewer than 1% of registered voters took part in deciding how millions in public money were spent. A tiny, self-selected group deciding how millions get spent isn't democracy.
Our elected council answers to all Portlanders. Our budget should remain transparent, accountable, and flexible enough to meet the needs of the whole community—not permanently siphoned off for a process dominated by an unrepresentative few.
VOTE NO on Community Budgeting for All (Except You and Me)!
I'm predicting this will pass by a landslide. I hope I'm wrong but fear I am right. When have Portlanders ever rejected a "feel good" measure and instead supported financial discipline and a focus on essential services? Not in recent history. If this passes one can guarantee the nonsense this $16 million will fund can be used as fodder for future Portlandia episodes.
I share the concerns in the article and Bob Weinstein’s comment. I’d like to add that the measure exempts votes about the funding (to choose the projects) from all voting laws! That’s a big, vague, issue too. This article mentions that the decisions will be voted on by people not even registered to vote, but may it also be voted on by children and teens? By visitors to Portland? By dogs? Can people vote more than once? This measure leaves that wide open.
I see another slush fund for the councilors who will be the deciding vote on how the money is spent. 💱💱 Isn't their discretionary funding of $1.3 million enough for them❓
There’s $16 Million Reasons to VOTE NO on Community Budgeting for All (Except You and Me)!!
I wrote about this absurd proposal earlier in a piece for the NW Examiner.
https://nwexaminer.com/p/follow-the-money-on-portlands-participatory
At first glance, this measure sounds fair: let residents decide how public money is spent. Who could oppose giving Portlanders a greater voice? But on closer look, it just doesn’t add up!
The proposal would amend Portland's Charter to require the city to forever hand over at least 2% of discretionary spending — initially $16 million— to a participatory budgeting process, no matter what else the city needs.
Portland is already facing an estimated $160 million budget shortfall. There is no spare $16 million. The result will mean fewer 911 dispatchers, slower fire and police response, more people sleeping unsheltered, plus cuts to parks, transportation, housing, and more layoffs.
Ask proponents, including council candidates who support this measure, a simple question: What will you cut to pay for it? They've refused to answer, asking voters to trust that the money will simply be found later, at everyone else's expense.
The only funding sources the proponents use as examples involve one-time housing and arts tax funds found during the past year to have accumulated rather than being spent for their intended programs? In the midst of a housing crisis, and school funding crises, do we really want to raid those funds even if it were legally permissible? And then when such accounts are drained, where does the money come from?
There's another troubling problem: who’s actually bankrolling this campaign and hiding it from you? While the article mentions the nominal funders,—some nonprofits— they have refused to disclose where the money really came from.
Voters deserve to know who is funding this scheme to permanently change how their tax dollars are spent. Portlanders shouldn't be locked into a permanent $16 million commitment by people unwilling to show their faces.
Lastly, claims that the community decides are intentionally misleading. Not all Portlanders receive a ballot. In Seattle, fewer than 1% of registered voters took part in deciding how millions in public money were spent. A tiny, self-selected group deciding how millions get spent isn't democracy.
Our elected council answers to all Portlanders. Our budget should remain transparent, accountable, and flexible enough to meet the needs of the whole community—not permanently siphoned off for a process dominated by an unrepresentative few.
VOTE NO on Community Budgeting for All (Except You and Me)!
I'm predicting this will pass by a landslide. I hope I'm wrong but fear I am right. When have Portlanders ever rejected a "feel good" measure and instead supported financial discipline and a focus on essential services? Not in recent history. If this passes one can guarantee the nonsense this $16 million will fund can be used as fodder for future Portlandia episodes.
Absolutely solid advice. Thank you Bob.
I share the concerns in the article and Bob Weinstein’s comment. I’d like to add that the measure exempts votes about the funding (to choose the projects) from all voting laws! That’s a big, vague, issue too. This article mentions that the decisions will be voted on by people not even registered to vote, but may it also be voted on by children and teens? By visitors to Portland? By dogs? Can people vote more than once? This measure leaves that wide open.
I see another slush fund for the councilors who will be the deciding vote on how the money is spent. 💱💱 Isn't their discretionary funding of $1.3 million enough for them❓
I want foie gras carts throughout the city! That’s my .02 cents worth.
Maybe next we might consider a measure to legalize all drugs and empty the prison system. Wait, what?