I was working for a client Thursday whose office building uses Retriever Towing to enforce their 2-hour limit on the parking spaces around the building (Cascade Square on Cascade Ave in Beaverton). They towed my car. I admit that I was there over the 2-hour limit, but I was very surprised to find out that to recover my car it cost $305!
It broke down like this:
$125 for a Class A hook fee
$20 for mileage ($5/mile for the tow to their impound lot, which according to Google maps was 3.9 miles)
$40 for the use of towing dollies
$35 for 1 day of storage (all of about an hour by the time got there)
$20 for photos (which protects them if someone claims they damaged their car)
$10 Fuel surcharge (AFTER charging $5/mile!)
$15 Dispatch fee (Because they don't pay to have someone at the impound yard)
$40 Gate fee (Basically I get to pay them to unlock the gate where they're holding my car hostage.)
Now the guy that released my car gave me a nice little sheet that broke this down for me, which if I’m reading correctly would have only cost me $158 or $179 (depending on if they held my car for more than an hour) if this had happened in the Portland City Limits because Portland has passed an ordinance to regulate this sort of thing.
Basically, if I read what they’re telling me with the paper they gave me with breakdowns on it, because the City of Beaverton doesn’t have any oversight on the use of Private Property Impound Rates, these tow companies can charge whatever they want for this “service.” And what they want to do is bend you over and not offer to use any lube.
I remember hearing about the Portland ordinance on local talk radio, and I'll be honest, I didn't pay much attention. I didn't really care about it. I do now.
I'm a bit conflicted about this. Private property owners have the right to do what they want. If they want to limit people to only park two hours in their parking spaces, they have that right. They have the right to enforce that limit by having your car towed if you stay to long. But I don't think they get to hold your car for whatever ransom the tow company thinks they can get away with.
But I am highly dependent on having my car to make my living. I do as much as I can remotely from my office or home, but there are times when I have to travel to my clients office to install something new, or make physical changes to their hardware or just let them know that I care that their business is important to me. I can't do this is some tow company is holding my car hostage for some outrageous fee.
I seem to recall when Portland passed that ordnance. I think Lars Larson did a whole day on it. I honestly don't remember what the position of the right was on it. I didn't really care. For the most part, I pay attention to posted parking limits, and take care to park where I know I won't be overstaying my welcome.
In this case, I was delivering a new printer and doing a quick check of their server. No way that takes more than two hours, three tops. If I hadn't had the printer, I would have parked across the street in the employee garage area anyway, because I try not to think of myself as "special" when visiting my clients, and respecting their customer parking areas is one way I doing that.
I overstayed because the client complained of a spam problem and had delayed installing the new version of their anti-virus/malware protection software because they elected to use our basic monitoring service and that doesn't include updates, but because I was there with the printer it was a good as time as any. Then it took forever to get them to test the reason they got the printer in first place.
I am by no means saying I wasn't there for more than two hours. It was closer to 5. So when I saw that my car had been towed, I wasn't too upset. I figured it would cost around $150 to recover. But when the actual cost comes out to over twice what I expect, I'm going to get a wee bit angry.
Hell, I could handle the $179 if they can show the car has been in the lot for more than an hour, but what I got nailed for is a bit excessive don't you think?
Now I think government needs to be as small as possible, but sometimes there needs to be rules to make sure people aren't getting taken totally to cleaners, don't you? I think the city of Portland has the right idea here.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
A quick thought about marriage.
Personally, I feel government should not be in the "business" of marriage. That is a relative new development, starting in about 1850ish in the US. Before then, marriage was strictly the providence of the church. The other problem is that the federal government has left the question to be defined by the the states. Therefore the laws surrounding marriage change each time you cross a state border.
Let's be honest about it. Modern argument for or against marriage is about tax law, family law, family benefits and property. In other words, its all about the money. Personally, I'd rather all marriage laws be struck down. That said:
The problem with this debate is that I have yet see it argued properly from either side. Most of the proper argument against gay marriage boils down to this:
Our *SOCIETY* defines marriage as *ONE* man and *ONE* woman. Don't believe me? Try and pass a ballot to change that definition in your state. Even in the *VERY* Blue state of Oregon, a law to allow gay marriage failed at the polls. Until you change the minds of the majority of Americans this is going to continue as truth.
Does that definition violate the civil rights of gays? Probably one of my own pet peeves is the argument that denying the "right" of a gay man to marry another gay man is just as oppressive as being black was in the 50's and 60's.
Gays have the same rights and privileges as anyone else today, and those rights are protected under the law. Comparing today's oppression of gays to blacks before the civil rights movement insults what that movement did for *EVERYONE*, gays included. They can get married, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex.
People today, *ALL* people today, are truly equal under the law today. Sure, I'm not going to deny that there still incidents of bigory and what not. That's true for any class of minority. As a whole though, we all enjoy the freedoms and truths that were spoken about durring that period.
So why is gay marriage different? The same question can be asked about all kinds of "illegal" forms of marriage. Why can't I marry my sister? My brother? My Cousin? Why do we have to wait until we are 16? 17? or 18? Why can't I marry Grace and Kelly? What about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice? Why can't Elizabeth be married to both Ben *AND* Pardner?
There are as many or more reasons as there are questions, but the simple answer is simply: Because it's against the law. If you don't like it, you need to change the law, and to do that you need to convince 50% of the voters that you are right.
Let's be honest about it. Modern argument for or against marriage is about tax law, family law, family benefits and property. In other words, its all about the money. Personally, I'd rather all marriage laws be struck down. That said:
The problem with this debate is that I have yet see it argued properly from either side. Most of the proper argument against gay marriage boils down to this:
Our *SOCIETY* defines marriage as *ONE* man and *ONE* woman. Don't believe me? Try and pass a ballot to change that definition in your state. Even in the *VERY* Blue state of Oregon, a law to allow gay marriage failed at the polls. Until you change the minds of the majority of Americans this is going to continue as truth.
Does that definition violate the civil rights of gays? Probably one of my own pet peeves is the argument that denying the "right" of a gay man to marry another gay man is just as oppressive as being black was in the 50's and 60's.
Gays have the same rights and privileges as anyone else today, and those rights are protected under the law. Comparing today's oppression of gays to blacks before the civil rights movement insults what that movement did for *EVERYONE*, gays included. They can get married, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex.
People today, *ALL* people today, are truly equal under the law today. Sure, I'm not going to deny that there still incidents of bigory and what not. That's true for any class of minority. As a whole though, we all enjoy the freedoms and truths that were spoken about durring that period.
So why is gay marriage different? The same question can be asked about all kinds of "illegal" forms of marriage. Why can't I marry my sister? My brother? My Cousin? Why do we have to wait until we are 16? 17? or 18? Why can't I marry Grace and Kelly? What about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice? Why can't Elizabeth be married to both Ben *AND* Pardner?
There are as many or more reasons as there are questions, but the simple answer is simply: Because it's against the law. If you don't like it, you need to change the law, and to do that you need to convince 50% of the voters that you are right.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What should a truly Libertarian government look like?
Let’s see if I can gather my thoughts and try and be a little more intelligent about topic I was trying to discuss in yesterday’s entry. This is something that I think that all Libertarians need to think about and discuss, so even if you’re not an Oregonian, please feel free to add to this discussion. It’s my hope that this topic is an ongoing discussion for all.
It started from the question, “If we as Libertarians believe the first tenant of liberty is the right of the individual to have free expression how can we as a party impose a system of governance with rules that would attempt to force how the body would express that message?”
A good example came when we were discussing how we get the word about our ideas out to the people. Mark put it this way (I’m paraphrasing here), “Let’s say that I think that best way to spread our message is to have a parade of elephants. You may think that a website is the way to go. Jeff may think that a parade is fine, but that it should be a parade of dogs. Who is to say any of us is wrong? If I know a guy that has a business that runs a circus of midgets riding elephants, and you have the skills to setup a webpage and Jeff can organize his dog walking group who is the party to say that we all can’t contribute in each fashion? What would need to work out would be to make sure that if Jeff and I both want to have our parades on the same day; we need to make sure we don’t use the same streets.”
His point was basically punctuated by Wes mentioning that every time he comes in contact with other Libertarians, he constantly get told “You should do THIS.” In regards on how the party should express their message. To which he replies, “You know, you’re right. How are you going to make that happen?”
This evolved into, what I think, was the point of the discussion, and I think the deeper question that I titled this post with, that I don’t think we fully answered in the discussion. Wes expanded his point by pointing out that when the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 it was essentially structured just like other political parties using the same form of government everyone is used to. However, how can we continue to espouse a form of government that is based on personal liberty using a structure that restricts the same? If we do this and manage to put ourselves in a position of greater power don’t we then make ourselves hypocrites? Would it not be better to form a system of self governance, and if it fails, well so be it, it means we were wrong. However, if using a self form of governance ourselves then working our way into government positions of power do we not lead the way and make it easier for others to follow? I’m quite sure I’m mangling that message a little; hopefully Wes will explain what he said better.
A lot of what was said made a lot of sense to me. The current system, as it stands is that a very few individuals set the policies and tenants of our Party and take it upon themselves to express the beliefs of all the Libertarians in the party. Wes is working on ways to make it easier for all Oregon Libertarians to voice their opinion to the state group. I think the system as it stands does need to be changed, and I’d like to invite everyone to continue this discussion here.
Meanwhile, right now, I need to get back to work. A 15 minute break has turned into a full hour and a half, but that’s my problem, not yours.
It started from the question, “If we as Libertarians believe the first tenant of liberty is the right of the individual to have free expression how can we as a party impose a system of governance with rules that would attempt to force how the body would express that message?”
A good example came when we were discussing how we get the word about our ideas out to the people. Mark put it this way (I’m paraphrasing here), “Let’s say that I think that best way to spread our message is to have a parade of elephants. You may think that a website is the way to go. Jeff may think that a parade is fine, but that it should be a parade of dogs. Who is to say any of us is wrong? If I know a guy that has a business that runs a circus of midgets riding elephants, and you have the skills to setup a webpage and Jeff can organize his dog walking group who is the party to say that we all can’t contribute in each fashion? What would need to work out would be to make sure that if Jeff and I both want to have our parades on the same day; we need to make sure we don’t use the same streets.”
His point was basically punctuated by Wes mentioning that every time he comes in contact with other Libertarians, he constantly get told “You should do THIS.” In regards on how the party should express their message. To which he replies, “You know, you’re right. How are you going to make that happen?”
This evolved into, what I think, was the point of the discussion, and I think the deeper question that I titled this post with, that I don’t think we fully answered in the discussion. Wes expanded his point by pointing out that when the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 it was essentially structured just like other political parties using the same form of government everyone is used to. However, how can we continue to espouse a form of government that is based on personal liberty using a structure that restricts the same? If we do this and manage to put ourselves in a position of greater power don’t we then make ourselves hypocrites? Would it not be better to form a system of self governance, and if it fails, well so be it, it means we were wrong. However, if using a self form of governance ourselves then working our way into government positions of power do we not lead the way and make it easier for others to follow? I’m quite sure I’m mangling that message a little; hopefully Wes will explain what he said better.
A lot of what was said made a lot of sense to me. The current system, as it stands is that a very few individuals set the policies and tenants of our Party and take it upon themselves to express the beliefs of all the Libertarians in the party. Wes is working on ways to make it easier for all Oregon Libertarians to voice their opinion to the state group. I think the system as it stands does need to be changed, and I’d like to invite everyone to continue this discussion here.
Meanwhile, right now, I need to get back to work. A 15 minute break has turned into a full hour and a half, but that’s my problem, not yours.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Quick thoughts after Volunteer night
So I went to my first Libertarian Party of Oregon meeting tonight. It was the regular volunteer night for the party. I figure if I’m going to start talking the talk, I’d better start walking the walk. Besides, considering some of the things the Party as gone through since I officially joined the National Party last December (the reasons why I joined in the first place) , if I want my voice heard, I’d better start involving myself.
I met a number of the party officers, as well as a couple of the other regulars, although not much work was done because they ran out of toner in the copier so the plan to stuff thousands of envelopes kind of fell through. There was, however, pizza.
The night was not a total loss though. Wes Wagner, the state chair started a discussion about what the state committee should look like. It was a very good discussion that started with the question of “What should the state party look like?” letting the members brainstorm their way to the true question, which boiled down to: “How can an organization that espouses personal liberty force its members to do things?”
Maybe not that question exactly, but the gist of the discussion was that if we want a government that is based on Libertarian values how can we govern ourselves using the same systems in place of other political parties and our current government system.
It’s an interesting idea, and I think it requires more in depth discussion, because right at this moment I’m having a very hard time putting to words ideas that were very clear to me just 4 hours ago. This is what I get when I wait until just before bed before trying to post anything.
I plan to spend more time posting here, and I’m promising myself to at least do more on this tomorrow.
I met a number of the party officers, as well as a couple of the other regulars, although not much work was done because they ran out of toner in the copier so the plan to stuff thousands of envelopes kind of fell through. There was, however, pizza.
The night was not a total loss though. Wes Wagner, the state chair started a discussion about what the state committee should look like. It was a very good discussion that started with the question of “What should the state party look like?” letting the members brainstorm their way to the true question, which boiled down to: “How can an organization that espouses personal liberty force its members to do things?”
Maybe not that question exactly, but the gist of the discussion was that if we want a government that is based on Libertarian values how can we govern ourselves using the same systems in place of other political parties and our current government system.
It’s an interesting idea, and I think it requires more in depth discussion, because right at this moment I’m having a very hard time putting to words ideas that were very clear to me just 4 hours ago. This is what I get when I wait until just before bed before trying to post anything.
I plan to spend more time posting here, and I’m promising myself to at least do more on this tomorrow.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Ron Paul who?
I’ve sat on the December 11th email from the LNC, wondering just what to think and I think I’ve come to the conclusion that it is going to be a while before we will be taken seriously as a political force. As long as Libertarians continue to chase fringe Republican candidates that don’t have a chance of securing the Republican nomination and ask them to run on the Libertarian ticket, that statement will remain true.
I think it is very hard to be taken seriously when the best we can come with are Republican cast offs. Ron Paul may have identified himself as a Libertarian 4 years ago, but it is clear that he wants to be identified as a Republican now. It is clear to me that he has resigned himself to the two party system, and is doing his best to work within that system.
That’s fine if he thinks that will work for him, but when that fails why should we then turn around and ask him to seek the Libertarian nomination in Denver in May? I understand Mr. Corey’s message in this email. That Libertarians that support Mr. Paul should encourage Republicans to vote for him in their primary without leaving the party, and that using LNC resources to help that effort can only help us, but…
I think it is very important that we spend this cycle seeking ballot access for our local candidates and attempt to make the changes necessary to allow easier third party access to ballots and get a more permanent place for Libertarians on the ballots all across this country.
I also think we should be focusing on finding a candidate for 2012 that can be the name and face of what it is that Libertarians stand for. What we need is a lightning rod. Someone who can go on CNN and make the liberals nod and agree with him on issues where they agree with our message and then get on FOX and let the Republicans do the same where our ideologies allign.
The thing is, I don’t see that person out there.
I have to admit that I briefly toyed with an idea when Lieberman’s endorsed McCain, that a McCain\Lieberman ticket would make a great lightning rod to get the party on the map, but isn’t that really just doing the one thing I said we shouldn’t do? (Chase Fringe mainstream candidates). Besides, it's right out of “My Fellow Americans” and wouldn’t that just smack as a setup? And neither of these guys are really all that Libertarian..
So I’m stuck asking myself, what would I do? And the only answer I can come with is that we recruit. We find a someone that embodies most everything we are as Libertarians and put our money behind him or her. It is probably a little late for 2008 (considering this election cycle pretty much started when the last one ended), but done right, I think we would a force to reckon with in 2012.
So the question becomes who? And I don’t have an answer for that. Maybe you have an idea or two. Let me know.
I think it is very hard to be taken seriously when the best we can come with are Republican cast offs. Ron Paul may have identified himself as a Libertarian 4 years ago, but it is clear that he wants to be identified as a Republican now. It is clear to me that he has resigned himself to the two party system, and is doing his best to work within that system.
That’s fine if he thinks that will work for him, but when that fails why should we then turn around and ask him to seek the Libertarian nomination in Denver in May? I understand Mr. Corey’s message in this email. That Libertarians that support Mr. Paul should encourage Republicans to vote for him in their primary without leaving the party, and that using LNC resources to help that effort can only help us, but…
I think it is very important that we spend this cycle seeking ballot access for our local candidates and attempt to make the changes necessary to allow easier third party access to ballots and get a more permanent place for Libertarians on the ballots all across this country.
I also think we should be focusing on finding a candidate for 2012 that can be the name and face of what it is that Libertarians stand for. What we need is a lightning rod. Someone who can go on CNN and make the liberals nod and agree with him on issues where they agree with our message and then get on FOX and let the Republicans do the same where our ideologies allign.
The thing is, I don’t see that person out there.
I have to admit that I briefly toyed with an idea when Lieberman’s endorsed McCain, that a McCain\Lieberman ticket would make a great lightning rod to get the party on the map, but isn’t that really just doing the one thing I said we shouldn’t do? (Chase Fringe mainstream candidates). Besides, it's right out of “My Fellow Americans” and wouldn’t that just smack as a setup? And neither of these guys are really all that Libertarian..
So I’m stuck asking myself, what would I do? And the only answer I can come with is that we recruit. We find a someone that embodies most everything we are as Libertarians and put our money behind him or her. It is probably a little late for 2008 (considering this election cycle pretty much started when the last one ended), but done right, I think we would a force to reckon with in 2012.
So the question becomes who? And I don’t have an answer for that. Maybe you have an idea or two. Let me know.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
We're suppose to be a Country of Laws.
One of the things I just don’t get about this country is how we are so willing as a government and as a people it seems are so willing to look the other way when people break our immigration laws. The far right seems to think its okay because it means cheap labor, and the left seems to think its okay because it fits with their idea of a global government.
What is so wrong with us that we don’t want to protect our borders, or enforce our own laws? Nearly every other country on the planet will strictly enforce their border policy, even as far as to do so with their standing army. Make any suggestion that we as a nation do the same, and look out for all the labels being thrown your way.
I look at this way, if someone is willing to enter this country illegally and break that law, what other laws are they going to not bother following when they’re here? Case in point is a story from Portland Oregon about two cousins who currently stand accused of killing a 15-year old girl in Milwaukie Oregon. Both of whom, admit to being in the country illegally.
As more of the facts seem to find their way into the media about this case I start getting angrier and angrier that we as a country seem to think that breaking immigration laws is okay. The murder apparently took place during an attempted rape. It turns out the one of the cousins had recently pled guilty of drunk driving *AND* not being a resident, yet he was not remanded to ICE.
This whole attitude of “Not My Job” has got to stop when it comes to law enforcement. If you stop someone for a standard traffic stop, what harm is there in running a cross check for legal status? If you’re in this country illegally, and you get caught, and I don’t care by whom, you need to be deported.
Of course this means we also actually have to enforce our borders. I don’t care if we put our troops on the border or build a couple of walls, it needs to get done. People willing to break our laws and enter this country illegally are going to be willing to break other laws. Drug trafficking, and DUI are probably just the most common.
Not everyone who wants to be here as the right to be here. If you want to live here, follow the rules.
What is so wrong with us that we don’t want to protect our borders, or enforce our own laws? Nearly every other country on the planet will strictly enforce their border policy, even as far as to do so with their standing army. Make any suggestion that we as a nation do the same, and look out for all the labels being thrown your way.
I look at this way, if someone is willing to enter this country illegally and break that law, what other laws are they going to not bother following when they’re here? Case in point is a story from Portland Oregon about two cousins who currently stand accused of killing a 15-year old girl in Milwaukie Oregon. Both of whom, admit to being in the country illegally.
As more of the facts seem to find their way into the media about this case I start getting angrier and angrier that we as a country seem to think that breaking immigration laws is okay. The murder apparently took place during an attempted rape. It turns out the one of the cousins had recently pled guilty of drunk driving *AND* not being a resident, yet he was not remanded to ICE.
This whole attitude of “Not My Job” has got to stop when it comes to law enforcement. If you stop someone for a standard traffic stop, what harm is there in running a cross check for legal status? If you’re in this country illegally, and you get caught, and I don’t care by whom, you need to be deported.
Of course this means we also actually have to enforce our borders. I don’t care if we put our troops on the border or build a couple of walls, it needs to get done. People willing to break our laws and enter this country illegally are going to be willing to break other laws. Drug trafficking, and DUI are probably just the most common.
Not everyone who wants to be here as the right to be here. If you want to live here, follow the rules.
Monday, August 6, 2007
A bridge too far
I started the introduction post with the intention of writing this entry, but I didn’t want it to go very long. One thing you’re going to find out reading this blog, is not only am I a blowhard, I can be a long winded blowhard. It’s my nature to want to explain everything. Why? I think I’m pedantic. [1]
Basically, this whole mess in Minnesota has me thinking about how our government has a tendency to spend our tax dollars. Especially those tax dollars that are collected in the name of “Road Safety.” Now the Minnesota state officials were quick to point out that this section of the bridge was “under repair” when this tragedy occurred, and are not speculating if this may have contributed to the disaster or not but let’s face it, either way this a pretty big oops for whoever screwed up the engineering either in the original design or the reconstruction.
Thing is though this, now national, catastrophe has a lot of local news agencies stirred up about the state of the bridges in their local markets, because it makes good news. What this doesn’t make is for good government decisions. Any time a government agency tries to fix something so that some disaster that occurred somewhere else doesn’t occur here, all they’re really saying is: “Open up your pockets and give us your money.” I’m quite sure when this story hit the national news, at least 49 bureaucrats around the country started salivating at the thought they could now use this disaster as an excuse to get more money out their local state constituencies.
Now some of this can be directed at how our current federal tax system works in the way they construct boondoggles and pork in the name of state and county subsidies, which is a rant for a totally different time, and one I’m sure we’ll get into at some point in the future, because my fix for that little system while simplistic in design would be a bitch to get through congress in any form.
The thing is there is already enough money in the system to fix and or maintain our roads and bridges as they exist now. Or at least there should be. Or there would be if the taxes collected in the name of such things actually went to paying for such things. They’re not. At least not in Oregon where I live, which is where I will always turn to when it comes time to pony up examples and what not. Why? Because it effects me and therefore what I’m gonna know. If you want to know about what happens to the money in your neck of the world do your own research.
Oregon’s constitutionally dedicated State Highway Fund derives most of its revenue from three major highway user taxes: vehicle registration fees, motor vehicle fuel taxes (primarily the gasoline tax), and motor carrier fees (the weight-mile tax). There are some other taxes as well, depending on what you drive and what not, but for the most part, most the money that is for Oregon roads and bridges comes from these sources. This is all fine and good. If the money that was brought in by these measures actually were spent on these measures. They’re not.
The problem, at least in Oregon, is that a lot of the revenue collected across all sources in up in that nebulous black hole known as the “All Funds Budget.” Where all sorts of things like the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon State Police, and a bunch of other departments find themselves trying to cut themselves a piece of this pie.
The other issue is non-roads related projects. Mostly mass transit and bicycle related projects. A huge portion of the ODOT budget seems to find itself allocated for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with where the money came from and isolated to a very small geographic area of the state in part because that is where a good portion of the voter base is.
There are other issues involved, such as the fact that the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) [2] is a bloated piece of garbage that continues to suck larger are larger portions of everyone’s budget. Meanwhile roads continue to deteriorate, and bridges, such as the Sellwood Bridge [3] in Portland is a bright shining example of Government ignoring the problem because they don’t want to deal with the real answers.
The real answers are simple. Spend the money where it is suppose to go, fixing current roads and bridges, and adding new ones as capacity needs increase. However, new roads and bridges aren’t as sexy or politically correct as light rail, bike paths and 9 Million dollar tram project [5] so that doctors that live in new million dollar waterfront condos don’t have to take a stinky bus to the hospital on the hill.
Now I need an Ibuprofen, I’ve got a headache.
--------------------
[1] Hi Les! [4]
[2] PERS issues are huge blog post of their own.
[3] An 82-year old bridge that scores a 2 on the 100 point federal bridge sufficiency scale, yet it is still deemed safe for cars and trucks, as many as 31,000 that cross it on a daily basis. Just don’t count mine as one of them.
[4] Welcome everyone to the footnotes portion of my rant. This is where the fun is. [6]
[5] Actual Cost: 60 Million dollars [7].
[6] Hi Sherry! Thought I forgot about you huh?
[7] Don’t get me started. The amount of future rants I see coming just from this one, could keep me writing all night. I’m supposed to be working here.
Basically, this whole mess in Minnesota has me thinking about how our government has a tendency to spend our tax dollars. Especially those tax dollars that are collected in the name of “Road Safety.” Now the Minnesota state officials were quick to point out that this section of the bridge was “under repair” when this tragedy occurred, and are not speculating if this may have contributed to the disaster or not but let’s face it, either way this a pretty big oops for whoever screwed up the engineering either in the original design or the reconstruction.
Thing is though this, now national, catastrophe has a lot of local news agencies stirred up about the state of the bridges in their local markets, because it makes good news. What this doesn’t make is for good government decisions. Any time a government agency tries to fix something so that some disaster that occurred somewhere else doesn’t occur here, all they’re really saying is: “Open up your pockets and give us your money.” I’m quite sure when this story hit the national news, at least 49 bureaucrats around the country started salivating at the thought they could now use this disaster as an excuse to get more money out their local state constituencies.
Now some of this can be directed at how our current federal tax system works in the way they construct boondoggles and pork in the name of state and county subsidies, which is a rant for a totally different time, and one I’m sure we’ll get into at some point in the future, because my fix for that little system while simplistic in design would be a bitch to get through congress in any form.
The thing is there is already enough money in the system to fix and or maintain our roads and bridges as they exist now. Or at least there should be. Or there would be if the taxes collected in the name of such things actually went to paying for such things. They’re not. At least not in Oregon where I live, which is where I will always turn to when it comes time to pony up examples and what not. Why? Because it effects me and therefore what I’m gonna know. If you want to know about what happens to the money in your neck of the world do your own research.
Oregon’s constitutionally dedicated State Highway Fund derives most of its revenue from three major highway user taxes: vehicle registration fees, motor vehicle fuel taxes (primarily the gasoline tax), and motor carrier fees (the weight-mile tax). There are some other taxes as well, depending on what you drive and what not, but for the most part, most the money that is for Oregon roads and bridges comes from these sources. This is all fine and good. If the money that was brought in by these measures actually were spent on these measures. They’re not.
The problem, at least in Oregon, is that a lot of the revenue collected across all sources in up in that nebulous black hole known as the “All Funds Budget.” Where all sorts of things like the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon State Police, and a bunch of other departments find themselves trying to cut themselves a piece of this pie.
The other issue is non-roads related projects. Mostly mass transit and bicycle related projects. A huge portion of the ODOT budget seems to find itself allocated for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with where the money came from and isolated to a very small geographic area of the state in part because that is where a good portion of the voter base is.
There are other issues involved, such as the fact that the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) [2] is a bloated piece of garbage that continues to suck larger are larger portions of everyone’s budget. Meanwhile roads continue to deteriorate, and bridges, such as the Sellwood Bridge [3] in Portland is a bright shining example of Government ignoring the problem because they don’t want to deal with the real answers.
The real answers are simple. Spend the money where it is suppose to go, fixing current roads and bridges, and adding new ones as capacity needs increase. However, new roads and bridges aren’t as sexy or politically correct as light rail, bike paths and 9 Million dollar tram project [5] so that doctors that live in new million dollar waterfront condos don’t have to take a stinky bus to the hospital on the hill.
Now I need an Ibuprofen, I’ve got a headache.
--------------------
[1] Hi Les! [4]
[2] PERS issues are huge blog post of their own.
[3] An 82-year old bridge that scores a 2 on the 100 point federal bridge sufficiency scale, yet it is still deemed safe for cars and trucks, as many as 31,000 that cross it on a daily basis. Just don’t count mine as one of them.
[4] Welcome everyone to the footnotes portion of my rant. This is where the fun is. [6]
[5] Actual Cost: 60 Million dollars [7].
[6] Hi Sherry! Thought I forgot about you huh?
[7] Don’t get me started. The amount of future rants I see coming just from this one, could keep me writing all night. I’m supposed to be working here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
