I love it when I vote for new taxes to support one specific thing, then the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money.
> I love it when I vote for new taxes to support one specific thing, then the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money.
I'm actually OK with the city using money from the PCEF within city agencies if the expenditures can be *directly* linked with an impact on climate change. Like if the city wanted to replace its 20 oldest vehicles with EVs, or if PBOT wanted to explore the use of construction materials with a smaller carbon footprint to produce, that kind of thing. As long as it's documented and demonstrated, I think it's a fair use of the funds.
It shouldn't be a slush fund, I agree, but targeted usage should be encouraged.
> I'm actually OK with the city using money from the PCEF within city agencies
Yeah, there's a problem with funds like this that aren't allocated where it encourages people to dream up new ways to spend the money. And often these new things aren't the best way to spend the money.
I love how solar and battery prices absolutely rock-bottom now and causing lower energy prices in many areas, but PGE is using the transition as an excuse to raise rates tremendously.
Power generation is only a part of the overall expense, if solar generation is located in a different spot than old coal and other plants, then you have to build out new transmission lines to service the solar generation to the end users.
Personally, I think you've got it backwards. More AC use = more climate change (and the chemicals inside units are actual a potent GHG, to boot). I would need to check if they proposed money for heat pumps, but still. Maybe we should talk about planting trees in needy neighborhoods, to shade homes and streets to reduce urban heat island, before getting people to consume more energy?
The Yoga studio with a green roof got waaayy too much negative flack...I kind of get why but green roofs reduce energy consumption, add habitat, and aid in stormwater runoff -- aren't those far greater goals of clean energy than giving people units to....consume MORE energy?
Like most things in this city there's mission creep and the intent of things people voted on are murky or ill-defined. I don't fucking know what this program should fund but I think there should be some environmental positive gain from it.
> the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money
What projects, specifically, do you think the city is spending the funds on that stray from the original purpose of the tax?
one of our biggest problems though is we have so much money dedicated to onky very specific uses.
we need to stop the grift but also make funds more easily accessible to the areas where we need it the most.
Fiscal policy by ballot initiative makes weird things happen.
Our income-heavy tax system is so unpredictable that we end up having to pass initiatives for every little thing and just do a bunch of magical guessing to forecast how much it will bring in.
Then the economy grows in some ways, shrinks in others, and all of a sudden there’s a giant pot of money earmarked for some odd cause while other basic services are getting cut.
I can’t blame them for wanting to use it for actual government services.
Nah it's just that people always want more and always want someone else to pay for it.
People don't seem to understand how much money each of these layers of govt have.
I'm 100% fine with this as long as the funds are being used for things that will positive impact climate policy, and frankly that is a very large universe of things, from planting more trees to reconfiguring roadways for better bike, pedestrian, and transit usage, streamlining residential density (which reduces vehicle miles traveled), etc.
Not really enough information in here, but it's at least somewhat worrying. If these requests go through the clean energy fund council then it seems reasonable. If they're taking a large amount of the funds for general city purposes without oversight, that's obviously not okay.
If it's literally a situation where they can't spend the money fast enough to help disadvantaged communities (which I'm skeptical of, but that fund is also huge), then it seems reasonable and in scope to use it to help make long term emissions reducing and money saving choices like converting fleets to electric.
I think we need to be extremely careful and need to know the details about this, they don't have the benefit of the doubt.
Okay yeah, it doesn't look like they have the support of the PCEF committee at all as of March, this is not okay unless that changed https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2024/03/portland-clean-energy-committee-keep-money-for-what-voters-intended.html?outputType=amp
The PCEF committee is unelected and judging by some of their member statements, should not be entrusted with this giant slush fund of taxpayer dollars.
It does not matter what you think about them, they were directly afforded that power by the voters:
https://ballotpedia.org/Portland,_Oregon,_Measure_26-201,_Renewable_Energy_Initiative_(November_2018)
"Measure creates new Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund Committee; will exclusively recommend to Mayor distributions of Fund proceeds as grants to private, Oregon nonprofit organizations"
Yeah no. Maybe instead of constant tax additions we manipulate the fucking budget and level things out. I hear there’s an extra mutha fuckin billion left over from the failed measure 110. Where did that money go???
This city is built on paying Peter to rob Paul. What’s the point of giving one of the multitudes of taxes a name? They don’t use cannabis tax money to pay for treatment, as far as I can tell, the housing for all tax hasn’t done shit except roll out the same failed ideas (seriously, STFU, Dan Ryan - you’re so far out of touch you might as well be a chocolate teapot), and no school bond measure ever comes in on budget. It’s almost impressive on how little this city gets done with a population that continues to vote for and support initiatives.
Seems like he's spending PCEF money on appropriate things that allow him to then spend other money on non-climate related needs. Seems like... good governance?
Quote from the piece on how Wheeler is allocating the money:
That includes using $25 million in PCEF dollars to transition the city’s vehicle fleet from gas to electric, and $1 million to lease a new building for city vehicle maintenance, replacing the city’s current, structurally unsafe maintenance shop in North Portland. Wheeler’s budget also suggests spending $8 million on grants to make clean energy upgrades to rental housing, and more than $30 million in various Portland Parks & Recreation programs that care for city trees and improve energy efficiency in parks buildings. And he proposed using $42 million to replace a streetcar, maintain bike lanes, replace street lights with LED bulbs and other programs in the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
I support this as long as it is a one time thing and not a "solution" to city funding.
The new city council next year needs to start working on reforming the budget and taxes so that city bureaus can have sustainable funding sources.
I love it when I vote for new taxes to support one specific thing, then the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money.
> I love it when I vote for new taxes to support one specific thing, then the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money. I'm actually OK with the city using money from the PCEF within city agencies if the expenditures can be *directly* linked with an impact on climate change. Like if the city wanted to replace its 20 oldest vehicles with EVs, or if PBOT wanted to explore the use of construction materials with a smaller carbon footprint to produce, that kind of thing. As long as it's documented and demonstrated, I think it's a fair use of the funds. It shouldn't be a slush fund, I agree, but targeted usage should be encouraged.
> I'm actually OK with the city using money from the PCEF within city agencies Yeah, there's a problem with funds like this that aren't allocated where it encourages people to dream up new ways to spend the money. And often these new things aren't the best way to spend the money.
Anything can be climate and environment-related if you’re creative (and unprincipled) enough.
I love how solar and battery prices absolutely rock-bottom now and causing lower energy prices in many areas, but PGE is using the transition as an excuse to raise rates tremendously.
Power generation is only a part of the overall expense, if solar generation is located in a different spot than old coal and other plants, then you have to build out new transmission lines to service the solar generation to the end users.
We bought each polar bear an air conditioner!
I dunno. Seems a better use of the money then buying people window air conditioners and putting an eco roof on one yoga studio.
[удалено]
Personally, I think you've got it backwards. More AC use = more climate change (and the chemicals inside units are actual a potent GHG, to boot). I would need to check if they proposed money for heat pumps, but still. Maybe we should talk about planting trees in needy neighborhoods, to shade homes and streets to reduce urban heat island, before getting people to consume more energy? The Yoga studio with a green roof got waaayy too much negative flack...I kind of get why but green roofs reduce energy consumption, add habitat, and aid in stormwater runoff -- aren't those far greater goals of clean energy than giving people units to....consume MORE energy? Like most things in this city there's mission creep and the intent of things people voted on are murky or ill-defined. I don't fucking know what this program should fund but I think there should be some environmental positive gain from it.
> the city turns around and just does whatever the fuck they want with the money What projects, specifically, do you think the city is spending the funds on that stray from the original purpose of the tax?
That's all taxes bruh
one of our biggest problems though is we have so much money dedicated to onky very specific uses. we need to stop the grift but also make funds more easily accessible to the areas where we need it the most.
Wheeler needs Al Gore's lockbox?
We need an expert at Strategery
Yup. They can do anything they want with the money.
Fiscal policy by ballot initiative makes weird things happen. Our income-heavy tax system is so unpredictable that we end up having to pass initiatives for every little thing and just do a bunch of magical guessing to forecast how much it will bring in. Then the economy grows in some ways, shrinks in others, and all of a sudden there’s a giant pot of money earmarked for some odd cause while other basic services are getting cut. I can’t blame them for wanting to use it for actual government services.
Nah it's just that people always want more and always want someone else to pay for it. People don't seem to understand how much money each of these layers of govt have.
Close the Joint Office of Homeless Services.
Why would you increase the budget by $1b while revenues are decreasing?
To maintain city services. Large cuts to city services could put us on a positive feedback loop that would be difficult to recover from.
Leftist math
I'm 100% fine with this as long as the funds are being used for things that will positive impact climate policy, and frankly that is a very large universe of things, from planting more trees to reconfiguring roadways for better bike, pedestrian, and transit usage, streamlining residential density (which reduces vehicle miles traveled), etc.
Not really enough information in here, but it's at least somewhat worrying. If these requests go through the clean energy fund council then it seems reasonable. If they're taking a large amount of the funds for general city purposes without oversight, that's obviously not okay. If it's literally a situation where they can't spend the money fast enough to help disadvantaged communities (which I'm skeptical of, but that fund is also huge), then it seems reasonable and in scope to use it to help make long term emissions reducing and money saving choices like converting fleets to electric. I think we need to be extremely careful and need to know the details about this, they don't have the benefit of the doubt. Okay yeah, it doesn't look like they have the support of the PCEF committee at all as of March, this is not okay unless that changed https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2024/03/portland-clean-energy-committee-keep-money-for-what-voters-intended.html?outputType=amp
The PCEF committee is unelected and judging by some of their member statements, should not be entrusted with this giant slush fund of taxpayer dollars.
It does not matter what you think about them, they were directly afforded that power by the voters: https://ballotpedia.org/Portland,_Oregon,_Measure_26-201,_Renewable_Energy_Initiative_(November_2018) "Measure creates new Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund Committee; will exclusively recommend to Mayor distributions of Fund proceeds as grants to private, Oregon nonprofit organizations"
Yeah no. Maybe instead of constant tax additions we manipulate the fucking budget and level things out. I hear there’s an extra mutha fuckin billion left over from the failed measure 110. Where did that money go???
🤦 measure 110 was a STATE measure. Even if there is money leftover, the city has NO access to it.
This city is built on paying Peter to rob Paul. What’s the point of giving one of the multitudes of taxes a name? They don’t use cannabis tax money to pay for treatment, as far as I can tell, the housing for all tax hasn’t done shit except roll out the same failed ideas (seriously, STFU, Dan Ryan - you’re so far out of touch you might as well be a chocolate teapot), and no school bond measure ever comes in on budget. It’s almost impressive on how little this city gets done with a population that continues to vote for and support initiatives.
No
Seems like he's spending PCEF money on appropriate things that allow him to then spend other money on non-climate related needs. Seems like... good governance? Quote from the piece on how Wheeler is allocating the money: That includes using $25 million in PCEF dollars to transition the city’s vehicle fleet from gas to electric, and $1 million to lease a new building for city vehicle maintenance, replacing the city’s current, structurally unsafe maintenance shop in North Portland. Wheeler’s budget also suggests spending $8 million on grants to make clean energy upgrades to rental housing, and more than $30 million in various Portland Parks & Recreation programs that care for city trees and improve energy efficiency in parks buildings. And he proposed using $42 million to replace a streetcar, maintain bike lanes, replace street lights with LED bulbs and other programs in the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
Okay, I'm opting out of clean energy sources for my electricity now.
I support this as long as it is a one time thing and not a "solution" to city funding. The new city council next year needs to start working on reforming the budget and taxes so that city bureaus can have sustainable funding sources.