this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
75 points (98.7% liked)
politics
26257 readers
3553 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for the links. Apologies in advance for the long comment.
The increase is so high that it's basically calculated as if you had removed commercial property taxes entirely.
The levy is paying for continuity of existing services: parks maintenance (tree planting and timing, garbage cleanup) and amenities like summer camps, swimming lessons, etc. They basically don't devote any significant part of their funding to facility maintenance, which is why many of the hard tops and other things are in poor condition.
I guarantee you that even if this levy passes they will come back to voters down the road with a levy specifically for rebuilding park facilities.
The following gets a little into my philosophy on taxation, but in general I'm OK with paying for services (including increases) so long as outcomes are measured and city leaders hold themselves accountable to the public.
Partly I think parks funding is structured poorly, and partly that something must be done at the municipal level. The city keeps building parks they don't have to account for in the budget and that the parks service can't properly maintain at current funding levels. This and (as you noted) tax compression are the primary drivers for the increase.
I'm sympathetic to tax compression. But parks need to be paid for out of the general fund, not through levies. That way it forces the city to either build fewer parks or (ideally) properly fund parks through tax revenues. Levies should be used for extraordinary things, not regular operating budget. That they go this route is basically to work around property tax increase limits.
They should make the case to change the law and forgo levies in favor of the tax changes that are more representative of what the city actually needs to operate. To do that they should strive to become a model of transparency and accountability for the money they already receive, including publishing outcomes for their programs and special taxes, and redirecting funding where positive outcomes cannot be shown. This means, for example, increasing funding for auditors and creating statutory requirements around this kind of transparency.
Oh, they will DEFINITELY come back in 5 years... IIRC these bonds only last 5 years, the last one passed in 2020 with expiration this year.
But here's the thing, if you read the messure, this bond is 1/2 the parks budget. So if it doesn't pass, there will be a dramatic reduction in service.
https://www.portland.gov/parks/parks-levy-2025
"If a new levy is not approved, the Parks operating budget would be reduced by approximately half, resulting in fewer programs and services."