|
Portland: The City That Works (Over Poor People)
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
It is a tax on people who are building on a property. It might hit the occasional 'poor' person, but it is a tax that overwhelmingly targets developers and the rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:It is a tax on people who are building on a property. It might hit the occasional 'poor' person, but it is a tax that overwhelmingly targets developers and the rich. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I definitely have little to no sympathy for some of the other individuals discussed in the article. The solution is to have some kind of hardship waiver or similar provision. The problem here is that it’s apparently so inflexible that the city considered burning her house down to rules lawyer their way out of assessing it. Of course they did just waive it in the end - which makes me question why they were being so inflexible in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
xrunner posted:I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I definitely have little to no sympathy for some of the other individuals discussed in the article. The solution is to have some kind of hardship waiver or similar provision. I mean, it sounds like they don't charge you the fee if you don't build a single-family home on the lot. So it seems like there's a pretty simple way around it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I mean, it sounds like they don't charge you the fee if you don't build a single-family home on the lot. So it seems like there's a pretty simple way around it. The fee is limited to single family zoned lots so that doesn't seem like quite as much of an option as you might think (pretty sure multi-family lots don't get a choice about whether to improve the frontage). That said, it's not hard to find the lot in question with google and it's not at all upscale or in a particularly desirable part of town. I guess my point is that if you don't want a sympathetic face in the media for developers/rich assholes to use to villainize your tax, maybe build some relief into it - waivers or partial discounts for owner-occupied lots under a specific value with needs based screening. The kind of thing lawyers hate because the rules get really fuzzy but that help make sure you're actually taxing the people you want to tax (developers/speculators/rich assholes)... It's more of an administrative burden, but as mentioned above, you maybe don't get the bad press caused by this kind of ridiculous situation where the city apparently really wanted to help her out but felt their hands were tied so tightly they had to be absurdly creative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
xrunner posted:The fee is limited to single family zoned lots so that doesn't seem like quite as much of an option as you might think (pretty sure multi-family lots don't get a choice about whether to improve the frontage). That said, it's not hard to find the lot in question with google and it's not at all upscale or in a particularly desirable part of town. I guess my point is that if you don't want a sympathetic face in the media for developers/rich assholes to use to villainize your tax, maybe build some relief into it - waivers or partial discounts for owner-occupied lots under a specific value with needs based screening. The kind of thing lawyers hate because the rules get really fuzzy but that help make sure you're actually taxing the people you want to tax (developers/speculators/rich assholes)... It's more of an administrative burden, but as mentioned above, you maybe don't get the bad press caused by this kind of ridiculous situation where the city apparently really wanted to help her out but felt their hands were tied so tightly they had to be absurdly creative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
xrunner posted:The fee is limited to single family zoned lots so that doesn't seem like quite as much of an option as you might think (pretty sure multi-family lots don't get a choice about whether to improve the frontage). That said, it's not hard to find the lot in question with google and it's not at all upscale or in a particularly desirable part of town. I guess my point is that if you don't want a sympathetic face in the media for developers/rich assholes to use to villainize your tax, maybe build some relief into it - waivers or partial discounts for owner-occupied lots under a specific value with needs based screening. The kind of thing lawyers hate because the rules get really fuzzy but that help make sure you're actually taxing the people you want to tax (developers/speculators/rich assholes)... It's more of an administrative burden, but as mentioned above, you maybe don't get the bad press caused by this kind of ridiculous situation where the city apparently really wanted to help her out but felt their hands were tied so tightly they had to be absurdly creative. I think this is a frequent issue with Portland, in particular, you have initiatives that at least sound decent (the Arts Tax) in the beginning, but the end result is actually a relatively abusive flat tax. In this case, it sounds like the fee is also relatively flat and involuntary, which is going to actually hurt people in parts of the cities with little infrastructure more. There are plenty of areas of Portland that still have gravel roads, and they aren't on some type of mountaintop primed for a mega-development, but simply parts of the east side that the city couldn't be motivated to improve because they simply didn't give a poo poo about the people that lived there. So on one hand, I can see forcing developments to help pay for infrastructure is quite necessary, but the way the law is written is way-way too broad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think this is a frequent issue with Portland, in particular, you have initiatives that at least sound decent (the Arts Tax) in the beginning, but the end result is actually a relatively abusive flat tax. In this case, it sounds like the fee is also relatively flat and involuntary, which is going to actually hurt people in parts of the cities with little infrastructure more. There are plenty of areas of Portland that still have gravel roads, and they aren't on some type of mountaintop primed for a mega-development, but simply parts of the east side that the city couldn't be motivated to improve because they simply didn't give a poo poo about the people that lived there. Right? This nugget from the article is a bit eyerolly (and go Fritz - even if I'm not normally a fan)... quote:Commissioner Amanda Fritz didn’t believe the bureau had weighed equity appropriately. (The city zeroed in on Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood, Southeast Portland’s Division Midway district, and Tryon-Stephens in Southwest Portland for improvements.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
I can't tell I'd I'm just more aware of Portland leadership's bad ideas or if things really have gone downhill since I moved here back in '05. On almost every issue (housing and homelessness, almost any kind of funding, lead, PPS leadership and lack of union contract, last year's snowstorm (mis)handling, police oversight, etc.), the city leadership can't seem to keep from loving things up and/or failing to account for reasonable side-effects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Right? This nugget from the article is a bit eyerolly (and go Fritz - even if I'm not normally a fan)... Every mayor makes a promise "this time" East Portland isn't going to be totally forgotten and guess what happens. Also, there is the entire issue of BID/TIFFs, how much more infrastructure does the Pearl and a much of centrally located BIDs need? They have been using affordable housing as a defense for keeping them around, but there is a clear reason why Portland has a deficit, a ton of property tax revenue is still being sequestered in those districts. Sure, some of them need to pay off their bonds, but leaving them untouched while basic services continue fall apart is just a bit nuts. JohnnySavs posted:I can't tell I'd I'm just more aware of Portland leadership's bad ideas or if things really have gone downhill since I moved here back in '05. On almost every issue (housing and homelessness, almost any kind of funding, lead, PPS leadership and lack of union contract, last year's snowstorm (mis)handling, police oversight, etc.), the city leadership can't seem to keep from loving things up and/or failing to account for reasonable side-effects. I haven't been here since 05 but I have noticed as well how ineffectual the city government has gotten. Part of is I think Portland still has the political and physical infrastructure of a small city when it really isn't one anymore. Also, sometimes you just need to spend money on poo poo like "snow plows" or "not leaded pipes" and I guess that is simply too much to ask for them. Part of it is that groups like the PBA has way too much influence on city politics, and their ideas are actually counter-productive to themselves. Yeah, I know they don't want to pay a cent in taxes, but you need snow plows so customers can actually get to your store or maybe build shelter space so people have somewhere to be beside on the street? It just seems the city politics have become so ridiculously short-sighted and cost-phobic that almost nothing actually gets fixed or really done. I wonder how long property prices are going to continue going up when in reality the city is deeply dysfunctional (including if not especially PPS/PPD). Portland has great craft brews and weed and everything, but I don't know if I would like to dump a third of a million on a mortgage in a town like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Every mayor makes a promise "this time" East Portland isn't going to be totally forgotten and guess what happens. If you replace Portland with Oregon and city with state it pretty much still holds up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I don't understand how they can spend more when voters so consistently reject tax measures. Yeah you can reprioritize, but that would almost certainly come at the expense of poor people and so left leaning politicians won't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
therobit posted:If you replace Portland with Oregon and city with state it pretty much still holds up. Yeah, more or less, in some ways the state level, Oregon is even worse. porkface posted:I don't understand how they can spend more when voters so consistently reject tax measures. Yeah you can reprioritize, but that would almost certainly come at the expense of poor people and so left leaning politicians won't do it. A big part of it is that City Hall honestly has stuffed away a huge part of its tax base in TIF (Tax Increment Financing), basically, BIDs (business improvement districts) can squirrel away property tax increases to pay for local improvements. However, so many BIDs were created that a huge degree of the construction that has taken shape is essentially hidden in these BIDs. I think it is fair to shape them need to be widdled away and a city-ordinated plan put into place. Also, Portland voters usually approve most tax measures, they just won't approve anything. It doesn't help some measures like the Arts Tax sounded okay at first place, but were, in fact, a complete mess and totally unfair. PPS, for example, has multiple construction bonds but somehow the issue of the pipes still wasn't addressed. Ultimately, most taxpayers would still fund one that literally was called the "get rid of lead pipes levy." At the state level, it really doesn't help when the state basically lets Intel and Nike get off scot-free from paying taxes. Also Oregon could almost certainly use more progressive income tax brackets but that probably isn't going to happen either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, more or less, in some ways the state level, Oregon is even worse. I think the state as a whole outside of Portland is still getting over the end of timber payments and timber sales from state forests. When I was a kid there were a lot more log trucks rolling by on the highway, and a lot of families even here in the Portland area had lumberjacks or mill workers among them. The log trucks back then also had a lot fewer logs per truck, because the logs were bigger. I remember sometimes as a child I would see one where the whole goddamn load was one tree. 3-5 log loads were not uncommon. That wasn't sustainable, and while people like to blame the spotted owl, a much bigger part of the end of widespread logging here was competition from cheap, subsidized Canadian softwoods. A lot of the mill communities have never recovered and those people are bitter as hell. Now than timber payments have ended, they are looking at increasing taxes if they are gonna have public services at all, in counties where a majority of the land is state and national forest and therefore excluded form the tax base. Those communities had their guts kicked out in the 90s by the end of timber combined with Oregon's lovely economy in that decade, and then meth finished off a lot of people in the early oughts. If we are ever going to get those people on board with higher property taxes, we have to offer them something more than "keep the library open" in exchange. They need economic options in their counties that aren't resource extraction based. e. That is, of course, easier said than done and I don't really know what we could do for them to achieve it, but it is an extant problem that plays a big role in the urban-rural divide that contributes to the ungovernability of the state. While they may not be 100% victims and some of their own choices have contributed to their situation, I don't think it is moral to write them off the way that valley politicians seem to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
The future seems uncertain because of Federal hostility, but a lot of Washington former logging towns are transitioning into cannabis growing or processing towns. It brings a ton of tax dollars in as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
It's huge in rural Oregon as well, but the impression is that most of the tax money isn't coming back to us where it's grown so a lot of people aren't thrilled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
To be honest, it pisses me off that areas when ban the sale of pot are benefiting from the tax revenue. I don’t how bad it is in Oregon, but up here there seem to be a ton of small towns that are banning the sale entirely. Edit: holy poo poo, a white christmas! Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Dec 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:The future seems uncertain because of Federal hostility, but a lot of Washington former logging towns are transitioning into cannabis growing or processing towns. It brings a ton of tax dollars in as well. Raymond tried that, but the town is still dying, sadly. Weed won't save everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Raymond tried that, but the town is still dying, sadly. Weed won't save everything. Yeah towns that had 3 mills running 3 shifts and the rest of the men out in the forest dawn to dusk are probably not going to see that kind of economic activity happening from a handful of weed wars and some processing or whatever. Every little bit helps but we need to re-train these people and see if we can create new options within their communities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Most small mill towns are going to die, and no amount of tourism or 'retraining' is going to save them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Granted, most of them are already economically depressed and basically living off social security, pensions, and services. There really isn't a future for them, and that accounts for a significant chunk of the political division of the state. That said, I actually don't think they are even really the problem on their own, but rather Oregon democrats constantly talk a great "game" but generally never deliver. Most change in Oregon comes from direct propositions (for better or worse). In the end, there is a general libertarian core that is at the heart of Oregon which makes it a fun place to be a 20 something for a while, but honestly kind of a terrible place to raise a family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Oregon democrats constantly talk a great "game" but generally never deliver
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats not just an Oregon problem. Yeah, it is just that Oregon is sometimes held up as a "liberal paradise"...it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, most of them are already economically depressed and basically living off social security, pensions, and services. There really isn't a future for them, and that accounts for a significant chunk of the political division of the state. FRINGE posted:Thats not just an Oregon problem. Ardennes posted:Yeah, it is just that Oregon is sometimes held up as a "liberal paradise"...it isn't. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, it is just that Oregon is sometimes held up as a "liberal paradise"...it isn't. Only people who aren't from/don't live in Oregon actually believe this. Oregon is a red state with a blue spot big enough to crush the outlier communities. Most of the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Even that blue spot is a pile of racist garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
What exactly could Democrats do to revitalize small towns? Most of those towns were founded to exploit natural resources that are no longer there. They will die, and accepting that is more sensible than pretending magical *real* leftists would save the small towns somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Sadly, telling people "your tiny town is probably going to die, you best accept it and come up with an out plan" is truth, but won't win you votes. Raymond is close to my heart since my mom grew up there and I spent nearly every Christmas there as a kid (and everyone knows of the town because they've probably driven through it at some point), so it's hard to see the community go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:What exactly could Democrats do to revitalize small towns? Most of those towns were founded to exploit natural resources that are no longer there. They will die, and accepting that is more sensible than pretending magical *real* leftists would save the small towns somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:What exactly could Democrats do to revitalize small towns? Most of those towns were founded to exploit natural resources that are no longer there. They will die, and accepting that is more sensible than pretending magical *real* leftists would save the small towns somehow. Give them the money. Basic income, more than enough to live on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Infrastructure projects, but for more than just internet access. Roads and bridges need to be maintained. Schools and hospitals and railway systems can be built or improved upon. There's zero reason we can't see another public works administration in our lifetimes. Additionally, medicare for all would put a huge dent in meth and opiate abuse, which would in turn cause a decrease in theft and other small crimes. Heck, I did a ten month stint in the Washington Conservation Corps (offshoot of the CCC if the program isn’t familiar to you) and we were restoring salmon streams in Oso of all places. It was really great working in the community, meeting folks, making a difference and getting money for college. Vastly expanding that and similar programs would really help out a lot of folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Give them the money. Basic income, more than enough to live on. Oh, definitely. I am a big proponent of mincome. But while it will help everyone, it won't necessarily keep people in these small towns that don't have a reason to really exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:What exactly could Democrats do to revitalize small towns? Most of those towns were founded to exploit natural resources that are no longer there. They will die, and accepting that is more sensible than pretending magical *real* leftists would save the small towns somehow. Give them a new industry or replace the income. "those poors should just abandon their homes and join their betters in the city" isn't a solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Oh, definitely. I am a big proponent of mincome. But while it will help everyone, it won't necessarily keep people in these small towns that don't have a reason to really exist anymore. To be honest, I could see a lot of them becoming like some small towns in Eastern Europe (if they aren't already), just populated by people that have nowhere left to go. Some of them might survive on tourism depending on their location (if there are near any sort of highway), some of them are really pretty screwed. Many of them going to continue to be a breeding grounds for the far-right. I don't think there was any other future for the timber industry either, most of Oregon was logged out and the industry was rapidly mechanizing. Oregon's timber industry really didn't even stop but still only employ around 3,000 people or so (according to state data).
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Javid posted:Give them a new industry or replace the income. "those poors should just abandon their homes and join their betters in the city" isn't a solution. No one is saying that people in small towns are worse than people in cities. My point is that the industry that drove these towns is gone, and isn't coming back. And there is nothing that will change this, regardless of politics. Mincome will help give people money to survive, but it won't give people a reason to stay in a small town that has no future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Counterpoint: "your jobs are gone and never coming back" appeals to nobody. And there is nothing that will change this, regardless of politics. Let's say you're 100% right. Nobody affected is buying. Your policy platform is "sucks to be you, bruh" and not a solution. "Just casually uproot your entire family and move with the money you aren't earning, and train into a new career at 40/50/60 with more of that money, and MAYBE you'll get a new job until that industry shits itself too" E: also I find cause to wonder if the people who seem to think rural Oregon is "logged out" ever actually visit the woods there. There's like tiny rear end specks of clearcut dotting roughly a fuckbillion cubic light years of solid trees out here. Whatever the reason for the decline in logging, it isn't "we ran out of trees" E E: a real solution would be like, to actually pay for the above stuff. Not some means-tested reimbursement six months down the line. Straight up pay people's expenses to transition to a new, gainful industry. Javid fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
I dunno about Oregon but the forests in California are super overgrown and could use some smart logging
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Uh that's why we have all these fires now I thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Well it's complicated and there's multiple causes but putting out every fire leads to fuel accumulation which means that the next time lightning strikes during mega fire conditions, the spark has the fuel it needs to actually form that mega fire. There's multiple ways to attempt to combat this and thinning is one and has the nice side effect of allowing you to sell the lumber. I don't know the situation with Oregon's forests but I bet the forest service is mismanaging them in similar ways and thinning would do them good and provide some logging jobs
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Well it's complicated and there's multiple causes but putting out every fire leads to fuel accumulation which means that the next time lightning strikes during mega fire conditions, the spark has the fuel it needs to actually form that mega fire. There's multiple ways to attempt to combat this and thinning is one and has the nice side effect of allowing you to sell the lumber.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 05:21
|
|