From its eight-year push for the unconstitutional Sit-Lie Ordinance, to its support of putting a tight squeeze on Portland Public Schools, the Portland Business Alliance (PBA) has made itself the target for some intense criticisms.
In addition, the highly influential PBA has continued on a seemingly never-ending lobbying pursuit to direct the development of this city in the favor of its biggest supporters, Portland’s mega-wealthy business owners. Along with tax breaks for those with high incomes and business owners, and deregulation strategies to reduce business fees, the PBA seems to have a political agenda a mile long.
Two particular pieces of legislation on which the PBA will be chiming in deserve special attention this year: the Schools Facility Bonds Measure 26–121 and the repeal to Measures 66 and 67.
Measure 26–121, coming up in the May election, will give public funding to Portland Public Schools to begin a much-needed rebuild of nine east-side schools, as well as contribute funds to upgrade learning environments and security.
The PBA wants you to vote “no” on 26–121. The reason cited is that “for too many years PPS used its maintenance budget for teacher compensation, rather than keeping school buildings up to date.” Is it too much to ask that we use public funds to pay teachers a fair wage and keep our schools up-to-date? The PBA presents its case as though it is an either/or proposition; meanwhile, the PBA supports funneling millions into its “build it and they will come,” strategy regarding Portland’s development.
Meanwhile, at a time in which more public funding is needed to support the jobless and the need for lower-income housing, the PBA has helped fund a campaign to repeal tax increases for the mega-rich and company owners. Measures 66 and 67, which passed with flying colors in 2010, are facing repeal in the future under the charge from the PBA that the tax kills jobs.
This classic Reaganomics-like take on taxes is exactly what Oregon doesn’t need right now. Measures 66 and 67 only create tax increases for an estimated 2.5 percent of the population.
Decreasing the taxes for this part of the population, which earns more than $250,000 per year in income, while then telling Portland Public Schools to keep it frugal, is exactly what the type of garbage one would expect from an institution whose sole purpose is to defend the interest of business.
What does that mean for the common good?
The problem with the ethics of lobbying groups like the PBA is just that—its allegiance lies with those who give economic support and power. Even if we vote against the bills and plans the alliance supports, they still will go right ahead and do it anyway, disregarding the public’s opinion.
As the alliance disregards the public’s opinion, it also disregards the public debts. As billions will be designated to fund transportation construction of new MAX lines, as well as the construction of the Columbia River Crossing, the Portland Business Alliance will keep rallying alongside its corporate friends to spend four to 10 billion tax dollars on the Columbia River Crossing alone. With a repeal to Measures 66 and 67 in hand, the alliance will do its best to make sure the industries who actually benefit from this transportation redirection pay as little of the bill as possible.
While it is important to be looking toward the future of our great city of Portland, it is also important that we don’t allow the PBA to ruin everything that is great about Portland. Fostering positive renewal and growth in our public schools, as well as supporting those other 97.5 percent of residents that are already in Portland, is essential if we are to maintain what makes Portland a great city.
We are not just a city on the rise; we are also a city that has maintained social justice movements, supported sustainable rather than “bigger is better” style of development and made attempts to ensure that governing bodies be held accountable to their actions.
The PBA rejects this accountability each time it pushes for bills that exclusively favor its business alliances, and then deceives us as to how they will be effective in the long term. ?