ricky's ragg
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
 
I'm reduced to this

I've been temporarily (permanently?) banned from Jack Bogdanski's blog. It must have been something I said. But, since I continue to visit it several times a day, and there's always so much going on (things to laugh at or marvel at, or both), I'll have to blog on a blog.

On Monday, Bogdanski came out in favor if Potter's new city income tax.
He cites several factors, but "for the children" (sound familiar?) is the ultimate one.

Or is it something else?

This guy sees crooks around every corner in publicly financed projects (see: The Aerial Tram [rimshot], SoWa in general, and on, and on). He's a bulldog with spin. He accurately perceives the "crooks" behind this tax. So, you'd think he'd (reluctantly, I'd have thought) oppose it. Wrong. On this one, he just rolls over; sorry, "...(he) thinks it's the right thing to do.".

"What's it all mean, KC?"

"Simple, Sam, here's my take:"

I don't think he's a hypocrite
I know he's not fooled by the PRBS from PPS and others.
I'm sure he honestly "cares about kids".
I'm sure he, like most of us, is rightfully pessimistic that the legislature will "save the day".

BUT

I think his aversion to waste tends to diminish when the waste benefits public employees (as opposed to the Homer Willliamses of the world)
I sense in his verbal shrug about the inequity of the tax, especially re "...state government pensioners..." a certain "flexibility" not present for others who avoid their "fair share".
I think he honestly believes the OEA and their political and PR juggernaut are unstoppable.
I think his stated admiration for Potter is affecting his judgement more than he'll admit.
I'm sure - he basically states it - he's willing to "pay the ransom" to make this issue "go away"; knowing full well it'll be back.

Why?

I think he's just too uncomfortable with the thought of what's in store if the tax fails. Real school reform, not just school financing reform, is the likely outcome. It'll be messy, bloody, partisan and prolonged - and he doesn't have the stomach for it.

He's just unable or unwilling to suppress his city-centric, liberal empathy; for government institutions in general, unions, teachers, Tom Potter and, of course, "the kids".

Real school reform is for "the kids" and he knows that too.

It's just too painful to contemplate.











 
Monday, January 30, 2006
 
Property tussle just a snapshot of bigger issue

Monday, January 30, 2006

Just across the Willamette from West Linn, in the historic little riverfront community of Canemah, there's a guy with a new dormer on the front of his old house.
Andy Parker likes government.
Government knows best.
Andy Parker trusts government.
Government provides for the common good - painful as it sometimes is for them.
Andy Parker praises the brave, self-righteous Oregon City council and Historic Review Board.
Protectors of all that they, in their wisdom, have ordained is fitting in the Canemah Historic District.
In his column in Monday's Oregonian, The owlish Andy Parker makes the case.
It starts with a story about a frustrated homeowner's (R. Hunter Leigh) travails at the mercy an agenda driven review board. The board consisted of members appointed by the mayor: Architect, remodeler, neighborhood activist, etc.; the usual suspects. The board, piqued because Leigh did not apply for permits, "reviews" Leigh's application, rejects the staff recommendation to allow (with conditions) the homeowner to proceed with repairs/remodeling, and tells Leigh to start over.
Using this anecdote as a springboard, and with a strange side trip to the unrelated subject of population density, which has no bearing on this story, Parker finally gets to his real subject; the need for governments to guide us poor, benighted souls - along with a couple of gratuitous shots at those not quite so enamored of the process.
"The odd thing is that in Oregon, as population growth, land-use laws and building restrictions shove us all closer together, you can imagine Hunter becoming a martyr, a property rights hero."
Huh? The guy is a personal friend? I thought his last name was Leigh.
Hey, the guy didn't get permits. That means he's a hero? To whom?
Oh, I see, he's a hero to all of us lawless terrorists who believe in property rights. Subtle, Andy
"Regulating uses of private property has never come without fights in this country. But zoning lines have to be drawn, rules and laws passed."
Translation: "Well, them injuns may not like it, but we're here to stay, so they'll just have to get used to it."
One of the reasons for the "fights" is that regulation has always been arbitrary, capricious and top-down. Frequently, the regulators have some personal "stake" in the process, either directly or indirectly. (Check the makeup of the OC Historic Review Board, for instance)
"But the city's hardest work in Canemah, like that of planners across the county, lies ahead as our area absorbs hundreds of thousands of newcomers.
The best of our elected officials understand that governing frequently comes down to the largely thankless work of doing not what's best for any one individual, but for the greater good."
Ah, the "greater good" now it makes sense. The true heroes and Parker's true colors are revealed at last.
"Maybe Leigh's right. Maybe the rules should be more flexible. Maybe he should be more flexible.
Either way, the work Leigh's done on his property is of great benefit to the community.
Almost as great as the work city officials have done."
With a condescending pat on the back, Parker dismisses the efforts of the homeowner as well-intentioned but meaningless in comparison with the "heavy lifting" of the enlightened ones in government.
Just so we know where you're comin' from, good buddy.


 
Sunday, January 29, 2006
 
Apropos of nothing in particular:

I saw Jack Bogdanski's picture for the first time in the O today and was struck by the strong resemblance, (complete with "military-style haircut" as described in the O), to the unknown Tri-met passenger who persuaded Randy Albright to graciously allow his bus to proceed.

But Jack seems like a much mellower guy.

To get a feel for the paranoid, black-hole like egocentrism of some bicyclists in Portland, read the comments here.

Funny, my urge to "share" the road with these gentle souls is diminished.

After visiting this site I am quite certain that bicyclists should by licensed and insured. And in some cases, like Albright's, registered like sex offenders. You just know he's going to re-offend.
 
 
A no-win tax in Portland

Portland schools need local money, but no one needs the risks and costs embedded in Mayor Potter's plan




The Oregonian's editorial board is torn - they want a tax "for schools" just not the one Tom "I've got my nose in everything" Potter is proposing. The underlying message is: "a new tax is needed" (the default position) but proponents have got to be careful now that the public is on to their mendacious ways. The O evidently has a different plan, involving property taxes, which will be easier to pass. So the issue devolves not to substance but to style. Any "different" tax would fulfill the "... promise that the city, county and schools made that a local school income tax would indeed be temporary.

I'm insulted. How about you?

Potter's plan would affect too many already "cranky" voters to have a chance. You know those "cranky" folks who believed Linn and her kin when they proposed the "temporary" MultCo "I-GOUGE". The deceit and ineptitude on the part of its authors and beneficiaries is pretty hard to miss with the advantage of three years of perspective. Here we are and all the same laments are coming from all the same people in the "Government/Education Complex". Even the O perceives that a simple "sleight of hand" move to a city tax won't fool enough people. Give Potter credit, however, for "...spending so much time on the school funding issue." What else has he got to do?

The case for a property tax based approach is probably strategically better since the key demographic in either scenario is renters. While property taxes are in essence "hidden" taxes for renters, income taxes (at least non-withheld income taxes like the ITAX) have a direct impact on these folks - prompting the awakening of tax consciousness - perhaps the only good thing about the ITAX.

There are three categories of renters who are in play here: 1) young, childless (overwhelmingly Democrat) couples among whom the herd mentality dictates SUPPORT SCHOOLS. 2) couples with children in school and single parents who are terrorized with scenarios about huge class sizes, teacher layoffs, school closures, drastically shortened school years. 3) older, childless, non-retired people and people whose children are grown and out of school.

All three of these groups tend to strongly "support schools" in the abstract - who doesn't when it's phrased that way. But having a dollar sign in front of the vague concept tends to "focus the mind wonderfully" (apologies to Mark Twain). Its the "unfocused mind" that the O instinctively senses is most vulnerable - the same way a predator senses prey.

What's missing, as usual, from the editorial is any mention of WHY we're at this impasse again (and again) other than the de rigeur blaming of the legislature. But note that the legislature is always being blamed for not coming up with enough money. The logical inference is that the problem is only lack of money. Try, however, to get ANYONE in the Government/Education Complex to tell you how much money is enough money, and you'll get an answer that begs a question - MORE!

Real accountability in public education is a moving target. Sure, interest groups mouth the platitudes, but, when the rubber meets the road, as limned sharply in the Oregon Trail School District strike, the primary concern of most in the education establishment is, however you spin it, selfish. Sure the "kids" enter into the equation, and sure the vast majority of teachers are "good teachers" - but it's the "equation" that creates school funding problems - not tightwad taxpayers. Even good teachers have to balance their concern for the kids with their allegiance to a system which wilfully fails to reconcile (or even recognize, in some cases) the rights of the taxpayers with their responsibilities as educators.

The system, as it now stands, is dysfunctional. The quality of the product getting delivered to the customer isn't worth the price the customer is being asked (forced) to pay. That's a scenario which could describe any number of failed or failing Socialist and Communist countries. There ARE options (vouchers, charters), but in this state the oppressive ruler (the G/E Complex) tolerates no dissent and has henchmen on the payroll to enforce their will. If that sounds like hyberbole, so be it. You try to broach any sort of market-based alternatives and see how far you get.

Now, however, even in the "City that Works" the apparatchiks are restless and there's revolution in the air.

What a refreshing breeze.

With any luck, it will fan a tiny flame into something that forces real change.



 
make sense or shut up - unless I think you're funny ----- spelling and grammar WILL be scrutinized ----- ideas count - especially if I like them ----- no profanity - no exceptions

<$BlogMember$>
ARCHIVES
January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / July 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / December 2007 /


Powered by Blogger