Ticket the panhandlers, or the drivers?

I find myself lacking sympathy for panhandlers who are complaining about the Beaverton Police Department's diligence against them, but I also wonder if the police attention is too narrowly focused.

If a panhandler creates a "hazardous and dangerous condition" by stepping toward a car to accept money, is he (or she) the only one at fault? Wouldn't the driver be equally at fault for stopping unnecessarily and creating a hazard for the cars behind him? If so, I vote we ticket the driver and the panhandler.

A free-speech violation? Not as see it. The driver can still hand out his cash as he sees fit, but not to the detriment of others. I can yell "Fire," but not in a crowded theater where it might impact the safety of others.

As an aside, I find the fact that Beaverton firefighters essentially took on the role of panhandler to be contemptible (and the the fact that the legislature felt the need to exempt them from panhandling laws makes it clear that they had no business standing on street corners to begin with). It makes me less, not more, willing to donate to their cause.

Remember when we could tax you with impunity?

Ah, those were the days.

That's essentially the message in a column by Beaverton City Councilor Cathy Stanton, which appears in the June 2008 Beaverton city newsletter. (I can't find a copy of the current issue online, but you can sign up for it here.)

Stanton, elected last month to her fifth term, writes about her desire to update the city's charter, which was last revised in 1981. She says there are three potential changes to the charter "which would give us some flexibility" for the future. They are:

First, back in 1992, we increased the Privilege Tax. This was an additional 1.5% tax on our electric bill. We used this tax to pay for putting utilities underground when Murray Boulevard was widened. Once the project was complete, we rescinded the tax. If we had kept the tax in place and dedicated those funds, we could have placed all utilities underground when we improved Davis, Hart, and Hall over the last ten years. Wouldn't that have been nice?

Translation: Wasn't it foolish of us to remove that tax (even though it was probably intended only for the Murray project)? Wouldn't it have been nice to continue taxing you over the last 16 years so we could have more of your money than we already get for our current $160 million annual budget? Wouldn't it be great to say it's dedicated to utility relocation, but still have the money if we really needed it for some other really important project like The Round?

Second, the City used to have Urban Renewal Authority. We still do, but it requires a city-wide vote to implement. Rather than going through the expense of putting it on the ballot we have been doing the best we can to leverage federal and state dollars to improve the downtown. Oh, but if we only had that old authority.

Translation: We used to be able to spend your money without your approval, and we really want that back! We'll say the issue is an "expensive election," but really the issue is that we're afraid you pesky voters might say no, and really, we know better than you, don't we?

Third, Beaverton used to have a City Manager as well as a Mayor. In fact, as usual, we were one of the first cities in the State of Oregon to do so. But, I'm going to have to save that story for another article.

This is really funny, considering that A) This article came out after Dennis Doyle defeated four-term incumbent Mayor Rob Drake; and B) Stanton endorsed Drake. Now she wants the city to have a city manager? It couldn't have anything to do with her desire to take power away from the newly-elected mayor (accountable to the voters) and put it in the hands of a (less accountable) city manager, could it?

Stanton concludes:

Sometimes, it is wonderful to go forward and break new ground, trod new paths. But, it's also good to consider what we might miss if we don't see where we've been and what we might be giving up by going in a different direction.

Yep, we long for the good ol' days when we could tax you with impunity, and you voters weren't so nosy about how we spent your money. Won't you be accommodating?

I'll sleep well with protection like this

The latest owner of the Round development in Beaverton owes the city more than $800,000 in unpaid utility bills, but the city insists in its finest ostrich imitation that there are no problems.

This is the same developer (Dorn-Platz), whose defaults on city agreements have led to millions of dollars in foreclosures, unpaid taxes and construction liens.

This is also the same developer that, because of its defaults, forfeited the Round's heating plant to the city, and then started receiving almost $36,000 a month in rent from the city for that same plant. Exactly how long the city paid this rent is unclear, but we know the city was informed of Dorn-Platz's financial troubles almost a year ago, and it wasn't until sometime in 2008 that it stopped the payments. Let's be conservative and say it was seven months -- July 2007 to January 2008. So that's a quarter of a million dollars in rent.

And don't forget -- the city purchased this property for $5 million, which was more than its appraised value.

So what has the city done in response to Dorn-Platz's unpaid bills? It's seized a $250,000 security deposit from the developer, and authorized $79,000 for legal services from its Portland law firm.

Here's the best line of the Oregonian story:

City officials wouldn't talk Tuesday about their next move. But they insist that taxpayers will be protected and suggested that the Round's struggles have more to do with Dorn-Platz than a bad project idea.

I know the economy is an issue, but it's difficult to accept the latter part of that statement when the Round has had nothing but problems since the city bought the property. As an earlier Oregonian story noted:

The Round has struggled since 1997, when the city sold the former sewage-treatment plant to a developer and called for multistory buildings with ground-floor retail and restaurants with housing and offices above.

The first developer declared bankruptcy, and the city took back control of the site in 2001. Later that year, Dorn-Platz took over the project. The city, however, declared Dorn-Platz in default of its development agreement, penalized the developer and signed a new agreement.

So let's do the math: $821,000 in back utility bills, minus the seized $250,000 deposit, plus $79,000 for legal bills, plus $250,000 in rental fees for a seized heating plant, plus $5 million for the initial property purchase. That comes out to almost $6 million out of city coffers. And that, frankly, only scratches the surface of the city's financial investment.

I feel so protected. Don't you?

Understatement of the Day: Beaverton 'fees'

The Oregonian's Washington County blog made me laugh today, as I caught an entry from a few days ago. Here's the first sentence:

Beaverton officials have created a list of 23 priority transportation projects totaling nearly $16.6 million that they would pay for if the city adopts new fees.

"If the city adopts new fees." That must be government speak for raising taxes. The estimated population of Beaverton in 2005 was 85,775, so to raise $16.55 million would mean requiring an additional $193 from every man, woman and child inside the city limits.

And they wonder why some people throw such a tissy over the annexation issue...