Clackamas County vote jeopardizes Sellwood Bridge replacement? (election results)

Media_httpmediaoregon_jvfzg
(click image to read article)..

Clackamas County commissioners whimper over their inability to ram this down taxpayer’s throat.. Taxpayers have had enough of the “Green” Agenda 21 and ICLEI mandates ( http://afpclackamas.posterous.com/#!/agenda-21-for-lower-living-standards-uni… ) that are designed to suck money from hard working taxpayers to fund bike paths and similar outrageously expensive misadventures. Multnomah county has misapplied taxapyer money to all manner of boondoggles, and was hoping to force Clackamas County taxpayers to help offset their incompetence.. (Clackamas County Commissioners more than willing to help! )

.. But City of Portland Mayor went on record several months ago, saying that even if the Clackamas County funds didn’t come through, the bridge would be secure.. This was not about the bridge.. it was all about light rail into Milwaukie… another favorite way to waste taxpayer money..

More disclosure regarding Multnomah County abuse of taxpayers…

http://oregoncatalyst.com/257-Exposing-the-jail-financial-crisis-myth.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/03/portland_ratepayers_p…

What the heck.. let’s talk a bit about the City of Portland’s abuse of taxpayers..

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121018631116985000

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/01/as_big_construction_proj…

OHSU Tram…

The tram’s construction budget was first estimated at $15.5 million in November 2002, excluding soft costs such as project management and architect’s fees. That figure was supposed to include $2 million from the City of Portland, $4 million from OHSU, and $9.5 million from local improvement districts of nearby property owners (including OHSU).

However, due to a change in location to the upper terminal and other issues, the final budget agreed upon in April 2006 was $57 million, including $8.5 million from the city.

— Let’s face it- Government has not “skin” in the game.  They are constantly spending someone elses money.  The evidence of an ingrained, and hardened disdain for answering to the taxpayer’s for what can only be described as incompetence and elitism- a deadly and very expensive combination.

 

 

Portland Sellwood Bridge- Clackamas Commissioners demand taxpayers in Estacada, Molalla, Canby, Boring, Sandy…pay up!

WHO’S LOOKING OUT FOR CLACKAMAS COUNTY??

 

Do you know what Clackamas County residents need?  Apparently Ann Linniger, Democrat Clackamas County Commissioner, does.  She thinks we need a bunch of lobbyists, developers and political hacks from Portland, Salem and, if you can believe this, New Jersey, to tell us about how critical it is that Clackamas County residents place another burdensome fee on the backs of an already over taxed and over fee’d population.  As the recession lingers on and most Clackamas County folks struggle to pay their bills, the lobby to extract even more of your hard-earned money to pay for fancy bike lanes, walking paths and a new bridge in Portland is being financed by the Multnomah County Commissioner, Jeff Cogan, a developer in Tigard and a consultant from New Jersey.  New Jersey!!  Really??  These are but a few of the 15 known groups, politicians and businesses that have contributed thousands to buy your vote.  Only two of the 15 donors that support sending your money to Portland are from Clackamas County.  Over 94% of the support for the Vehicle Registration Fee (ballot measure 3-372) comes from outside Clackamas County. 

 

So, who’s looking out for you?  Everyday citizens of Clackamas County.  Folks from Molalla, Canby, Boring, Estacada and Oregon City to mention just a few.  Mothers and fathers trying to make ends meet in a tight budget economy.  Small business people looking to serve their local community.  Virtually 100% of the money raised to fight the professional pickpockets disguised as Clackamas County Commissioners (notable exception: newly elected Commissioner Paul Savas) comes in the form of $5 and $10 donations.  They know that the $5 increase in the vehicle registration fee will go to $43 per year per vehicle ($86 per vehicle every two years – you do the math on how this will affect your wallet) in 2013.  Is there no end to the wanton desire, dare we call it greed, of the Clackamas County political elitists to pry open your wallet or purse so that they can fund pet projects that make them feel good and important and yet leave their constituents poorer and with nothing to show for their money other than pictures of happy Portlanders taking a carefree stroll or bike ride across the new Sellwood Bridge?

 

Make no mistake, the Clackamas Commissioners, again, with the exception of Commissioner Savas, are conspiring with out of county and out of state developers and consultants to empty your bank account and give it to people that, frankly, think that the everyday folks of Clackamas County owe them a living.

 

Vote “NO” on Measure 3-372.  I’m asking you to stand up and help take our county back.      

 

John Savory

 

Sellwood Bridge Carpet Baggers

It’s clear who is behind the effort to extort money from Clackamas County residents for the repair of a Multnomah County Bridge… Mostly, it’s Unions- and companies who stand to profit from the project, and/or from the light rail project which is REALLY what this effort is all about.  By the way, most of those who are raising money to try to ram this down Clackamas County resident’s throats.. don’t reside in Clackamas County.  Imagine that.  http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

Let’s examine who wants to take money from the pockets of Clackamas County residents…

The pro-Vehicle Registration Fee PAC goes by the name Clackamas County Citizens for Jobs and Safety. Interesting.. note how few are actually from Clackamas County.  If deception is involved from the very beginning, don’t you think you should look deeper into the actual reasons why we see this “Carpet Bagger” approach is being pressed upon us?  These outside interests happen to also influence the Clackamas County commissioners with “strings attached” campaign contributions.  These same commissioners had hoped to avoid a vote on this outrageous tax on Clackamas County residents in order to bail out fiscal mismanagement by Multnomah county by simply passing a fee designed by a State legislature last year with a super majority democrat house and senate.  The fix for extracting more money from Clackamas County was planned well in advance.  They didn’t expect county residents to go to the trouble of saying enough is enough.

To date, this Multmomah County based PAC has raised about $25,500 $68,000 $100,000+ (as of 5/10/11)  in cash to support the campaign for the proposed Clackamas county registration fee.   The fifteen largest donors account for 95% of those donations ($24,250).

Q.  Care to guess how many of those fifteen donors were actually from Clackamas County?

A. Two.

Here’s how the donors rank from top to bottom:

1.  Oregon AFSCME                                         $5,000  (Union PAC, Salem)
2.  CH2M Hill                                                    $2,500  (Engineering firm, Portland)
3.  Jeff Cogen                                                 $2,500  (Mult. Co. Commissioner PAC, Portland)
4.  T.Y Lin Int’l                                                 $2,500  (Engineering firm, Beaverton)
5.  CenterCal Properties, LLC                           $2,500  (Developer, Tigard)
6.  Oregonians to Maintain Comm Standards     $2,500  (Trade Union Pac, Portland)
7.  Harper, Houf, Peterson & Righellis                $1,250  (Engineering firm, Portland)
8.  NW Oregon Labor Council                            $1000  (Union PAC, Portland)
9.  Michelle Giguere                                          $1000  (federal lobbyist, Portland)
10. HDR Engineering                                         $1000  (Engineering firm, Portland)
11. OTAK Inc.                                                  $1000  (Architects, Lake Oswego)
12. Brenden Barnicle                                         $500  (financial analyst, Portland)
13. James Bernard                                            $500  (Clackamas County Commissioner)
14. Int’l Longshoreman and Warehouse Union     $250  (Portland)
15. Hatch Mott MacDonald                                 $250  (Consulting Engineers,  New Jersey)  

Here is another way to rank the top fifteen:

1.  51% Portland donors     
2.  20% Salem donor        
3.  10% Beaverton donor   
4.  10% Tigard donor         
5.    6% Clackamas donors 

Or another way:

1. 36%  Union donors
2. 35%  Engineers/architect firms
3. 12%  Politicians
4. 10%  Developer
5.   4%  Federal transportation lobbyist

Funny that a PAC that purports to speak for Clackamas County Citizens doesn’t draw much support from them. Probably shouldn’t surprise anyone though, since the PAC itself is located in another county.

Committee Information
Name: Clackamas County Citizens for Jobs and Safety ID: 14912
Statement Effective From: 01/11/2011 to present Filing Type: Original

Director Name
Effective From Effective To Address Phone Occupation / Employer

Joe Esmonde

(Union….)

01/11/2011 Present 15937 NE Airport Way
Portland, OR 97230
Business agent/Political director
IBEW 48, Portland, OR

 

Sellwood Bridge-fee foes turn in 7,792 signatures

Sellwood Bridge-fee foes turn in 7,792 signatures

UPDATED: Project may hinge on Clackamas County’s May ballot

ADVERTISEMENTS

Petitioners turned in 7,792 signatures on Wednesday, Feb. 16, the deadline to place a controversial $5 vehicle registration fee increase on Clackamas County’s May 17 ballot.

To refer an ordinance to voters, the petitioners had 90 full days to submit 6,252 verified signatures. On Dec. 9 the Board of County Commissioners passed the ordinance to help fund the reconstruction of the Sellwood Bridge.

Chief petitioner and former Oregon City Commissioner Dan Holladay expressed relief that the campaign would “take advantage of the anger of voters” as soon as possible. If the petitioners had waited until the March 9 deadline, the issue would wait appear until the county’s Sept. 20 ballot.

By state statute, the Clackamas County Elections Division has 15 days to verify the signatures after they’ve been turned in. The required number of signatures amounts to 4 percent of county voters in the most recent governor’s race.

“We’ve been very careful going through these signature sheets deleting any outside of Clackmas County, so we’re confident that our petition will be accepted,” Holladay said.

Using the state-prescribed random sampling technique, Clackamas County Clerk Sherry Hall expected to determine whether there are enough valid signatures by the middle of next week.

After signing an agreement with the city of Portland this month, Multnomah County Chair Jeff Cogen said that bridge construction would be completed by the end of 2016, even if Clackamas County voters reject the fee. Cogen added that the partnership would “find a way” to complete the project.

Cogen later clarified that this statement was not to suggest that the contribution from Clackamas County was not essential to the Sellwood project.

“I was hoping to convey that we were very determined to move the bridge project forward, but the simple truth is that even with Clackamas County’s contribution we have a funding gap of at least $20 million,” he said. “Without Clackamas County’s contribution the Sellwood Bridge project is more than $40 million short, with no clear path to reaching the goal.”

Recent design changes may also reduce the estimated cost of the replacement project by $41 million – from $331 million down to $290 million.

Clackamas County Commissioners didn’t want to listen to the will of the taxpayers in Clackamas County. Multnomah County and the City of Portland area responsible for the Sellwood Bridge. Mismanagement of their affairs- and desparation to build light rail in Milwaukie- make our Commissioners blind to the will of the people. It’s time to send another message and gear up to replace those who insist we shut up and just take it.

Clackamas County Commissioners – Muzzle All Opposition Using “Ginned Up” Excuses

Re: Clackamas County considers ban on signs, added restrictions

No_speech_zone

County Chair Lynn Peterson is, as usual, simply making things up.

Her ginned up concern about “heart-wrenching” examples of county residents not being able to speak when people from outside the county dominated a meeting” is baseless, laughable and hypocritical.

That’s the story here. Too bad the reporter doesn’t get it.

Instead Peterson can make up anything to advocate getting her way.

Where is the “heart wrenching” example of county residents not being able to speak? Get real.

It is Chair Peterson herself who invites testimony from outside the county. In the case Portlander (and fellow Metro Bike Committee member) Jonathan Nicholas Peterson not only invited him but gave him preferential “invited” status usually granted only to public officials, staff or experts.

Allowing him to avoiding waiting in line and speak ahead of the general public.

In that Vehicle Registration Fee hearing process Peterson also enabled “Portland” Bike group members to stuff the testimony comments with emails supporting the fee. Allowing Peterson to then claim that there was more county support for the fee because of emails from “county residents”.

Her claim of support was reported repeatedly without any validation of those emails.

In stark contrast there’s been no coverage of the November poll of county residents even though the reporters and editors were provided the entire poll and it’s methodology.

So here it is again.

Nov 22 poll Clackamas County residents.
Pay for part of Sellwood Bridge 76% NO
New car registration tax 84% NO
Milwaukie Light Rail 71% NO

Chair Peterson’s shady methods have become increasingly transparent. In the case of these new guidelines they are a non-remedy for the non-existent problem she fabricated.

Making things worse by making more things up Chair Peterson tries to make sense out of her own nonsense.

This latest stunt of hers flies in the face of every other government entity holding meetings in the region and state where no such “behavior guidelines” exist. The idea that her board needs these to make her meetings “friendly, safe and secure to all members of the community” is nothing but yet another whopper by a county commissioner out of control.

Commissioner Paul Savas is a welcomed addition to the board. He reasonably would support guidelines that limit the size of acceptable signs in the meeting room. But Peterson and the other commissioners while foolishly claiming any size “could be” disruptive, have no legitimate basis at all for a total ban.

Commissioner Lehan piles on with more nonsense making up a scenario where imaginary people behind a holder of “any sized” sign has their entire view of the proceedings blocked. Proof again that any stupid fabrication seems to be acceptable.

I’ve got two better ideas for the Chair and Board of Commissioners and there is no legitimate reason not to do both.

1. Spend the relative pittance and conduct a county wide poll of your own with straight up questions on your current agenda.
(Perhaps they already have and didn’t like the results?)

2. Refer to the ballot, by board resolution, both of the petitions being circulated and allow the two public votes in May. The inevitability of both signature efforts making the ballot makes refusal to do so a deliberate wasting of county resident’s time and efforts.

“Howard”

(email verified)
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Clackamas County considers ban on signs, added restrictions

New rules aim to make meetings ‘friendly to all’

By Raymond Rendleman
The Clackamas Review, Jan 19, 2011

Oregon City resident Karen Lee, 63, a member of Americans for Prosperity, displays a sign at a recent Clackamas County hearing on the vehicle registration fee for the Sellwood Bridge.
A local expert in constitutional law believes that Clackamas County will have to significantly alter its draft resolution that proposed banning signs, clapping and personal insults, while giving “authority to enforce reasonable restrictions” on the times the public would be allowed to speak, and on the use of video recording equipment.
The county can impose or maintain order to the extent that it interferes with the process, according to Jordan Schrader Ramis attorney Ed Trompke, author of “Oregon Constitution: An Owner’s Manual,” due to be published this year by the Oxford University Press.
“But an occasional outburst probably shouldn’t result in an extreme measure such as expulsion, especially if it is an emotional issue,” Trompke said. “They can be admonished and be told that if they don’t control themselves, they will be asked to leave.”
Draft rules stipulate that the county chair would be able to remove someone from the commission room who’s not complying with the rules. Local police intervened in a commission hearing last month after a Canby resident made personal remarks against commissioners.
County Chair Lynn Peterson said she was more concerned about “heart-wrenching” examples of county residents not being able to speak when people from outside the county dominated a meeting. She’d also like to see the rules edited to suggest “positive” behavior that would be posted in front of county meetings and understood as engagement guidelines.
“What we’re trying to do is make sure that these meetings will be friendly to all, and it’s not just about the board members; it’s about other members of the community feeling safe and secure,” Peterson said.

Banning signs

Commissioner Paul Savas said he’d support guidelines that limit the size of acceptable signs, but he urged the commission to avoid overreacting.
“I’m kind of concerned that this might rattle some cages and there might be some questions with the First Amendment,” Savas said, adding that he would instead encourage the public to make the signs suitable for all ages.
Peterson and other commissioners argued that signs of any size could be disruptive.
“Even if your sign is relatively small, it blocks the view of the people behind you,” said Commissioner Charlotte Lehan.
“Whether to allow signs is a difficult issue, because it is expression, but it can block the view of other members of the public, so the county will have to be judicious in protecting the rights of everyone,” Trompke said.
Possible effects
Savas said that he’s learned to be careful after seeing a backlash on past commissions.
“I’m not advocating that people come in here with profanity or that type of thing, and I don’t foresee that happening, but that could be challenged,” Savas said.
Any of the rules could be challenged, agreed county attorney Agnes Sowle, “so what we’re trying to do here is fashion these (rules) in a way that has been acceptable in the past.”
The county resolution would only provide non-binding standards for conduct, as opposed to an ordinance, which Sowle sees as equivalent to a law. The resolution wouldn’t be subject to the referendum or initiative process, and wouldn’t be enforceable by police or county courts.
Chapter 192 of Oregon state law restricts smoking at public meetings, for example, but leaves many other rules to local bodies. The Oregon Supreme Court has also historically interpreted freedoms more broadly than most other states.
“The commission has to look not only at the First Amendment right of the public to speak and seek regress of grievances, but also at the state’s right of free expression, which covers a lot more ground in allowing for what’s acceptable,” Trompke said. “The presiding officer’s going to need to balance that with the need to keep order in a meeting, but politics is often not pretty.”
Commissioners directed county staff to survey longstanding rules of other local bodies to determine what has been acceptable. Commissioner Jim Bernard suggested following Robert’s Rules of Order as a standard to justify banning signs, applause, booing and other types of interruptions from the audience.
“That’s a standard that’s been accepted throughout the world,” Bernard said.
No one has recently taken a county agency to court for alleged free speech violations, but the issue remains a hot-button one for the U.S. as a whole.
The Pennsylvania State Superior Court ruled in June that a woman should be spared charges of disorderly conduct for disrupting a 2008 Blawnox Council meeting, according to reports by the Aspinwall Herald. The ACLU then filed a complaint in federal court on her behalf, alleging that a number of the council’s practices and handling of residents at borough meetings violated civil rights.
“I just want to make sure that we’re not seen as being restrictive, and as a result we might excite those who might feel that we’re trying to censor them,” Savas said.
In the coming weeks, commissioners will continue to discuss the guidelines for conduct in county meetings.
Copyright 2011 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 •