This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 23, 2006 8:36 PM. The previous post in this blog was Question of the Month. The next post in this blog is Party on. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

What's the difference between Emilie and Lucinda?

The Trib is questioning "clean money" today. Shouldn't it be put up for a public vote?

Er, yes. Is this news?

Interesting, though, that the story discusses the scandal of the election just past without mentioning Lucinda Tate. The story's all Emilie Boyles this, Emilie Boyles that, but the author seems to have forgotten that Tate turned in signature sheets with the same apparently false data on them that Boyles did -- procured by the same villain who wrecked Boyles's campaign. By then, however, we "losers" were screaming our heads off about the apparent forgery, and the city bounced Tate on some technicality or other without ever getting to the fraud issue.

I guess I'll never figure out how they divvy up the free passes in this town.

Comments (11)

The part about "scheduled for a vote in 2010" is also amusing. It was long ago established that the City Council cannot legally do this so far in advance. Oh well, don't let the facts get in the way of a warmed-over story.

Jack, even when we get to vote in this town, there seems to be always "free passes".

A month ago the North Macadam URAC voted 5 to 2 against the proposed five year budget for NM URA.
Besides that not ONE media outlet reported this significant vote, the PDC is proceeding along with same framework for the budget not recognizing many of the objections to the budget from the URAC budget subcommittee nor it's own URAC". We vote and PDC "passes" by the objections and comments.

We continue giving Homer $5M for Block 49 for subidized housing when it's valued at $1.2M. Then in several years when the city wants to build housing on the site, Homer will sell it back to the city for $9M.

We give OHSU $3M now for 100 parking spaces in a future parking garage for future subsidized housing to be built above the parking garage. On top of that, we give OHSU all the rental income from the 100 parking spaces until the housing is built, which could be until 2015 or later. This could be over another additional $3M in rental income lost to the taxpayers.

We give OHSU and other property owners in NM over $22M in bio-tech, job creation incentivies; besides giving OHSU 50 cents of every dollar
given to NM from federal grants of any type.

The list of "gimmies" is numerous and keeps growing.

If the 8th Amendment to the NM Agreement is not a "done deal" as PDC claims then why aren't these concerns addressed? Amendment 8 is not a good deal for the public which is on the hook for over $600M in tax dollars (including financing costs) for NM.

You are talking common sense. But this is Portland.

Tom Potter's PDC won't be much better than Vera Katz's/Neil Goldschmidt's. I'm afraid I'm about to go from a hold to a sell on Grampy.

"We give OHSU $3M now for 100 parking spaces in a future parking garage for future subsidized housing to be built above the parking garage."

That's not all.
The agreement has the PDC providing OHSU a separate LID (Local Improvement District) to finance that single future building.
Apparently OHSU is so fiscally stretched they can't obtain conventional funding. Instead the LID mechanism must be retarded to fund a specific building for them.
The goings on at PDC as they scramble to falsify progress by giving away the farm many times over
is the outcome of lessons learned years ago.

Going back to earlier days when our shipyards and dry-docks were given away and the PDC, the Port, TriMet & Metro conspired to build airport MAX and Cascade Station (through no bid contracts and obscured agreements) officials figured out they had no constraints.
They learned that abuse of Urban Renewal and rampant misuse of public funds no oversight and leads to no consequences for anyone involved.

OHSU's SoWa venture began with scandalous methods observed by some who saw it clearly but were rendered helpless to act.

***Senator Schrader said, "Peter Kohler is a liar... he is extremely disingenuous" and "a poor steward of the medical community".

***Unfortunately our "representatives" seem to have a blind spot about the massive corporate welfare going to OHSU while people are dying from lack of social service funding

***We should not forget that in 2001 the Senate Democratic leader, Kate Brown, sponsored the giveaway of 200 million dollars of our money to OHSU for a business venture that even OHSU's own biotech guru, Dr. William New Jr., doubts will succeed. http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=16161
"""Not only that, when questioned about the bill, Brown claimed to not remember what it was. She either lied or forgot about $200 million dollars. Either is completely shameful."""


""" there wasn't much in the way of solutions that address the heart of the problem, the misallocation of money we already have""".

"""Unfortunately this seems to be typical, that our "representatives" either are unaware of the fate of this massive amount of state money or they simply refuse to pay attention to it""".
"""$200 million to OHSU for a business venture that even OHSU's own biotech guru, Dr. William New Jr., doubts will succeed. http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=16161

Plus, there is a critical lack of transparency in a process where there's been testimony on an amendment to a bill that still isn't properly public. Even many legislators have no idea HB 5042 is to do more than just allocate OHSU's normal budget to them. The other $106 million is still, for all intents and purposes, an invisible amendment.

HB 5042 itself is startlingly simple and completely lacking any reference to the Oregon Opportunity money, yet a call to Steve Bender's (Legislative Fiscal) office will reveal that the Oregon Opportunity money is definitely a component of HB 5042, as an amendment that just never appears.
Steve Bender - Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO)

The rest of SoWa to date is history.
However, the long ago learned methods now championed by the PDC and the gang promise to deliver much more of the same as the reckless, unchecked and largely covert misspending soars.

Why not address how campaign money is spent rather than just the absolute value of the amount?

Suppose the clean money candidate was prohibited from paying anything to artificial entities such as incorporated non-profits or incorporated for-profit enterprises. This could be supported by a stated public purpose that such a limit on use is more transparent.

Suppose further that the clean money candidate was prohibited from paying any one individual more than 1,000 dollars. Or, alternatively, could only use the money to have face-to-face encounters with eligible voters; coupled with a demand that the clean money candidate-advocate obtain signature verification that the person spoken to was an eligible voter.

This latter alternative could even set a maximum amount of pay per signature-verified-face-to-face contact of a buck fifty, so as to maximize the number of such face-to-face meetings.

The purpose here would be virtually identical to the initial demand to get 1000 5's as a prerequisite; lots of one-on-one time. (And it keeps the O, or Mandate, from getting a dime; which is a bonus, or an unstated purpose.) And, it maximizes the opportunity for folks like the villain in Boyles's campaign (and Tate's campaign) to commit fraud to get their per-signature paycheck from the "clean money."

There are huge differences between Lucinda Tate and Emilie Boyles. Lucinda worked hard and honorably from September through mid-March, gathering $5 donations one at a time through sheer guts and determination. She knocked on doors, she attended meetings all over the city. She made one mistake at the end, in believing a person who told her he could provide 450 valid donations and signatures in a week - someone the Auditor's office told her had done the job well for Emilie. Dumb, yes. Evil intent, no.

She also made another mistake in failing to check her valid donations properly and submitting two duplicates, so she didn't get any city money. So another difference is that she didn't spend any improperly.

A third difference is in experience and conduct of the campaign. Lucinda presented good ideas and worthy perspectives at the endorsement interviews and public appearances she participated in before turning in the donations. She contributed to respectful public dialogue on important issues, and maintained a commendable public style.

I have many issues with the press coverage of this first run of public campaign financing, however the O and Trib leaving Lucinda uncoupled with Emilie is one factor I believe is accurate and appropriate. While she will be held accountable for the mistake she made, it's not fair to slur Lucinda's entire character or minimize the personal risk and sacrifice she made in stepping up to run.

It seems to me a major difference between the two on the surface of things is that Boyles knew Golovan from the beginning of her campaign. Regarding the broader question of who gets the free passes in this town: it seems to me that the free pass is the norm around here, which the good ole crowd enjoys on a regular basis. Those charged with enforcing the law and keeping the peace have to do SOMETHING once in a while, so they go for the easy marks like Boyles.

Great article in the PT. Lack of logic seems to be the hallmark of the progressive, 'clean money' [badda-boom] crowd. How about this statement we've all seen before defending this indefensible law:

"They say that the Boyles experience just showed that when people break the rules, they get caught."

Hello? There's no way to know how many people broke the rules. The reality is that the one(s) that didn't get caught... didn't get caught.

Meanwhile, Emilie and her daughter have lived a damn good life off our $150,000. Maybe Marshall and Opie can hold some "progressive" PBR keggers at the Roseland and get some of it back for us. I doubt we'll get a dime back from old Emilie.

Dumb, yes. Evil intent, no.

No difference proven between Tate and Boyles there.

Clicky Web Analytics