 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Meals on Wheels | Letters | Home |
The Mid-county Memo is your newspaper. We want to hear from you. Discuss an important issue or address a concern you want to call to the attention of the community. Letters to the editor will always be edited for space, style, grammar and issues of clarity. We prefer emailed letters to the editor sent to Darlene Vinson at editor@midcountymemo.com. Please put “Letter to the editor” in the subject line. You may also mail your letter to 3510 N.E. 134th Ave., Portland, OR 97230 or fax it to 503-249-7672. Deadline for the June issue is Thursday, May 15.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
To the Editor:
I've been reading about the meetings and planning for the Gateway area. As a resident of about 47 years, I have seen many changes in restaurants, businesses and traffic. One change I hope we don't see is a planned park. One only needs to look at a “beautification” project on the northeast corner of 102nd Avenue and Weidler Street with those red sticks. On any given day, the homeless occupy it, complete with their shopping carts. On each street corner of the same area, there are the homeless carrying signs saying they need a job or money.
We on our street have seen a big increase in the homeless going up and down our street with their worldly possessions in tow. I feel for them and hope their lives change for the good, but in the meantime and in my opinion, that park would provide a perfect home for the homeless until that life change can happen. Money could be spent on sidewalks for 111th Avenue where kids and families walk to school or for traffic control for speeding cars that has increased in area tenfold.
Please-no more “beautification” projects. Let's get some help with the problems we are having now. Maybe that beautification can come later. Besides, the Gateway area is pretty nice already.
Thank you.
Judy Yost
Gateway resident
--------------------------------
Taxation without representation?
To the Editor:
In December of 2013, the East Portland Action Plan in a letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern” and signed by Mike Vander Veen as Co-Chair of EPAP, reference was made to an initiative petition sponsored by the Portland Public Water Bureau [sic].
Should the initiative petition qualify for the May ballot and be passed by the voters, the proposed measure [according to letter writers] “would shift control and control of the Bureau of Environmental Services, the Water Bureau and their $15 billion in public assets from Portland City Council and the City Auditor and put these bureaus and public assets under the control of a new special district. The new water district would be run by a seven-member board with yet un-mapped districts similar to those of the Portland Public School District Board. The measure would also institute provisions limiting which Portlanders could run as District Board Commissioners.”
The letter further states, “On Oct. 9, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Leslie Roberts certified an official ballot title language for the proposed measure.” Also, “Specifically the judge determined the new commissioners for the new water district would be elected from Portland Public School District zones. This would exclude representatives from the 20 to 25 percent of the city's population living in East Portland (roughly those living east of 92nd Avenue).” That area includes ALL of Parkrose School District, most of David Douglas, a good part of Reynolds and possibly part of Centennial.
While the Portland Public Water Bureau [sic] provides a service, and supposedly the new water bureau, if established, would do likewise, the effect of the overall results seems to me to be indistinguishable from something I'd thought we'd gotten rid of years ago: Taxation without representation. What do you think?
Sincerely,
Earle C. DeKay
Parkrose resident
--------------------------------
East Portland taxpayers represented
To the Editor:
There are two key points about the Portland Public Water District ballot measure which voters should not be confused. First, the measure covers the whole city. If you are a registered voter anywhere in Portland, you can serve on the new agency's board and vote for board members.
Second, if elected to the new agency's board, you can run for re-election.
One source of confusion appears to be the ballot title, which says (1) board zones are to “approximate Portland Public School zones,” and (2) the measure does not address what happens outside the boundaries of PPS.
The first part of the ballot title is at least partly right: PPS zones are a starting point for the City Council to draw zones for the whole city. The second part is simply wrong. The measure does address the parts of the city outside PPS.
The measure requires City Council- “to the extent feasible and consistent with law”-to draw zones that are coextensive with the zones established for the board of Portland Public Schools.” The key words are “to the extent feasible and consistent with law.” The City Council may not draw zones that disenfranchise city residents outside PPS.
Leaving residents out of city decision-making would not be “consistent with law” even if it were “feasible.”
The reference to PPS zones is only to give Council a starting point for drawing the first zone map for the new board. There are seven PPS zones of relatively simple east/west, and north/south orientation. Starting with these boundaries maintains simplicity and prevents gerrymandering.
For Portland's west side, the Council's job should be straightforward. Adjusting PPS zones to accommodate the new water board should require little more than moving eastern boundaries a bit further east to encompass a full one-seventh of the city's population.
As the map moves east to encompass areas within the city not within PPS, the drawing of the zone boundaries will require thought that is more original. That is why the measure provides that “if possible, the council shall establish zones so that a distinct community of interest or neighborhood is within a zone. In establishing the zones, the council shall consult with the Population Research Center at Portland State University.”
There are other places where the measure makes clear that everyone in the city governs the new agency, not just residents within PPS. For example, the measure provides the new agency “shall be administered by a governing board of seven directors elected by zone from among the electors of the city” - from the “electors of the city,” not some of the electors of the city.
Another misconception about the measure is that a board member cannot run for re-election. The measure does not say that. What the measure does say is: “The following individuals may not run for election to serve on the board of the Portland Public Water District: An individual serving in a public position to which an individual may be elected.” This provision prevents a board member from running for re-election only if you interpret “election” to include “re-election.” In Oregon law, typically you say re-election when you mean re-election. For example, Oregon's constitution refers to “incumbents who seek re-election,” not incumbents who seek election. Under this provision, you can't run or serve on the board if you hold an elective office in some other government; however, you can run for re-election to this board.
To limit officials' terms, you say so expressly along the lines if Multnomah County's charter: “No incumbent or future elected officer of the county shall be eligible to serve more than two full consecutive four-year terms in any in elective county office within any 12-year period.”
This measure offers interesting issues for voters to debate, such as whether water and sewer service would be better and cheaper if provided by officials independent of the City Council.
Whether the measure covers the whole city and whether board members can run for re-election shouldn't be the subject of debate.
Thank you,
Gregory Chaimov
A Portland attorney, former director of the Oregon Legislative Counsel Office, and author of the proposed ballot measure wresting control of Portland's water and sewer agencies from Portland City Council control.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home