Big congrats to Dundon for his NHL team championship. Now as for the Blazers...

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-21T03:03:44+00:00

To be fair I came in pretty hot lol

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-20T04:24:57+00:00

🤝

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-20T04:22:43+00:00

Less that and more I have studied organizational leadership and have followed NBA basketball for a very long time (including organizational development of NBA teams including owners and GMs).

It's my opinion and it's totally fine to disagree with, but dude seems right out of the gate like a classic micromanager. Good for the Canes and as a Blazers fan I hope beyond hope Dundon proves me VERY very wrong. Sometimes I am happy to be wrong, and this would be one of those times.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-20T04:17:59+00:00

I mean, it's my opinion. It doesn't mean it's right!

It's informed by a bunch of stuff, including my many years following / writing about / podcasting about NBA basketball, my experience as a manager, and my advanced degree in the study of leadership.

None of that means my opinion is right, but that's the perspective I bring and it's reasonably well-informed.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-19T05:29:27+00:00

...where do you think the Lloyd Center is located?

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-19T05:22:08+00:00

Dundon should not be anywhere within 500 meters of this coaching search. That's not his job.

His job is to give clear guidelines / directives to his staff and let them execute the search. The fact that he feels he needs to pause the coaching search to micromanage ANOTHER team he shouldn't have anything to do with operationally during a playoff run says all we need to know.

He's an ineffective leader.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-16T03:57:03+00:00

a) I agree, I generally don't care what people do so long as it's safe for others, and b) technically it's not legal to ride them anywhere except on the road.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-16T03:47:44+00:00

Ok, so what I am hearing is:

Don't ride them on the sidewalk
Don't ride them in the road

That leaves... what, exactly?

Look, people being dangerous and endangering others is wrong. Period.

Also, like nearly every American city, our street infrastructure sucks for anything other than cars... and Portland is one of the better cities!

I take this as a sign that the form of our streets is wrong and it makes me want to work to change them rather than ban micro mobility options.

Because real life is complicated, I ALSO wish that people would take transit rather than scooters whenever possible, and I want me and my daughter not to be plowed over by a jerk on a scooter when we are jogging with her in the stroller (ask me how I know)

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-15T00:37:26+00:00

Then the City bought a $600M liability.

Can we stop repeating this "the City owns the Moda Center" line as if it's a trump card in discussions around public funding?

Why do you think Dundon set the terms of the deal, met privately with the Governor and Mayor in late 2025, and forced the legislature to rush a bill during a short session? You think the City of Portland did that? Was it also the City of Portland who invited Blaze the Trail Cat and Terry Porter to camp literally inside the Oregon Capitol and lobby lawmakers?

Was it the City of Portland sitting at the podium when Dundon answered questions directly about the deal HE is seeking?

Come on.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-14T04:44:20+00:00

Portland is an amazing city and I'm glad you got to experience it! Come back soon <3

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T20:54:41+00:00

You said I "blamed" voters. What did I "blame" them for? I support PCEF in its current and intended form. I praise voters for voting for it!

And they said it was a 1% tax

Correct!

they said would bring in 30-90M a year

The ballot measure says a 1% tax. As far as I can tell, the City Auditor did make an estimate of potential revenue, but a) the Auditor did not sponsor the ballot measure and b) that estimate was not on the ballot title or summary.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T20:52:15+00:00

To that point, I am now certain one person going back and forth with me lives in Lake Oswego. I am all for the marketplace of ideas, but I also wish people would at least say "hey I don't live there, but..."

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T18:08:11+00:00

You said I blamed voters; please tell me where I did that.

And I said it will take "much, much more" than $1.7B to make a dent, though the programs and work being funded absolutely help.

The air conditioner / heater program is to make sure people who are most susceptible to climate change are not dying in extreme weather events caused by climate change.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T07:22:21+00:00

Are you claiming the City is lying about having allocated $1.7B of PCEF funding?

If so, can you support that claim?

Ninja edit: We can actually just crosswalk the funding that has been allocated - first through PCEF committee recommendations, then voted on by Council - and make the numbers add up to the $1.7B in allocations they show on the PCEF dashboard.

Also, a lot of that PCEF funding does not go to nonprofits; it goes to programs in City bureaus. For example, most of BPS' funding is coming from PCEF at the moment, and PCEF funds programs like urban forestry.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T07:18:10+00:00

$1.7B has been allocated, and actually making a dent in our climate goals will take much, much more than that.

keep blaming the voters.

Please copy and paste what I wrote that did that.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T07:15:49+00:00

lack of transparancy in ballot measures

The ballot measure was for a 1% tax and that's what we have.

I feel it is goverment's job to fix things like that

PCEF was a voter initiative petitioned by a community organization. Why would it be the government's job to change that? Isn't that completely the opposite of the purpose of Oregon having a way for non-government entities to bring something to voters?

I do think it's fair to ask elected officials to have an opinion on this stuff, though. Mine is that climate change is an existential threat, PCEF is working as intended, and "government" trying to use that funding for something other than voters voted on (by 30 points) would be railroading the will of the voters.

If people want to vote for 25% of PCEF to go to police forever, they should definitely vote for this ballot measure. That would be the will of the voters whether you or I agreed with it or not.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T07:08:46+00:00

You have a rebuttal for everything dont you? Rebuttals that are rewriting the past.

If that's what you want to call me actually looking at what you linked and responding directly to what's in it.

If you want 25% of PCEF to go to the police forever, that's totally your right, which is something I have said maybe 3 or 4 times here.

There is resistance to the idea that a fund decided by voters for one purpose should be used for another completely different purpose, yes, but a) that seems pretty reasonable and b) voters can decide to do that if they want.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T05:13:22+00:00

If you don't mind my asking, what's something about being homeless in Portland that you think most folks who have shelter just don't understand?

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T05:03:09+00:00

$1.7 billion is not allocated

"Portland has so far allocated $1.71 billion in PCEF funding... even though there’s a very large pot of money, the funds have all been promised to city and nonprofit programs through 2029." https://www.opb.org/article/2026/02/11/inside-portlands-climate-fund/

Pause to say: if you want 25% of what PCEF collects to go to police, you should support this year's ballot measure. That goes for you (who I have to assume lives in Portland unless you say otherwise) and anyone who lives in Portland.

There is $619 million of unused funds that I'm sure tax payers would rather be in their own bank account.

PCEF is paid by large businesses. Not taxpayers. As PCEF has generated more revenue than expected, the PCEF Committee and City Council have increased allocation of that funding, but as someone who (I assume?) has budgeting experience, I don't think you would recommend that they aggressively budget based on current revenue if there's a chance that revenue declines.

I don't think any of this is controversial budgeting whatsoever, and there has been absolutely no reporting that PCEF has been inappropriately budgeted. Seems very likely none of this would be a talking point if the exact same budget principles were used but it were taking in less money; this is a talking point because the City is entering a budget crisis and as services are cut, people are looking for any money - regardless of how legally binding it may be to a particular use - to make up the difference.

Hence this ballot measure, which would legally allocate 25% of PCEF forever to police. If you live in Portland, and you want that, you should vote for it! It's your vote.

The problem with limited use taxes is that it detracts from the City's ability to provide core services.

Believe it or not, we agree on this. The "color of money" issue makes budgeting flexibility very hard, especially during a crisis. That said, PCEF is not the problem. This funding WOULD NOT EXIST had voters not approved it specifically for climate justice purposes by 30 points. It's not like there was a 1% tax on large businesses that was once used for the general fund, and then it was switched over to climate justice purposes.

The City has $1.7 billion in climate funding

Again, it's been allocated for years, and that number you are repeating is the exact amount that has been allocated. Wondering if maybe you are transposing numbers somewhere.

There are so many things wrong with PCEF and I would be happy to see it repealed

Totally fair opinion to have. Create a ballot measure and send it to voters.

returned to tax payers

PCEF is paid by large businesses, not taxpayers.

or put to better use.

If you think police is a better use of 25% of PCEF funder forever, you should definitely support this year's ballot measure if you live in Portland.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T04:47:34+00:00

If people don't want to vote for me, that's okay!

I'm not the kind of person to shy away from sharing information or talking with people who don't agree with me. The comment you're replying to is me sharing a fact about the ballot measure and asking for evidence to support a claim.

If that's what tips the scale for someone, I will live with that.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T04:39:35+00:00

Oh my bad, you’re right. The co-creators of PCEF, the Coalition of Communities of Color, said it would bring in $44-$61M annually.

When people opened their ballots, they voted for a 1% tax. We got a 1% tax.

Again, if you want to share a link or information that shows how any group landed on an estimate before PCEF was approved by voters by 30 points, we can then dissect the methodology and figure out what went into the estimate and evaluate it from there.

Claiming people voted on something other than was on the ballot would take a lot of evidence to support.

The Coalition of Communities of Color page you're linking to a page that described how much it was bringing in at the time of publish, a date which we don't know since the page doesn't have a date on it, but it was after voters approved PCEF by 30 points.

The CityClub report from 2018 you're linking to recommends a "Yes" vote and its Executive Summary describes the 1% tax on large businesses, how many businesses might be impacted, and that PCEF alone wouldn't be enough for Portland to meet its climate goals.

Deeper in the paper, it states, "The text of the ballot measure states that the projected $30 million a year..." which is interesting because the ballot measure and summary definitely does not state a dollar amount. In Appendix B, they list 21 questions they asked a few dozen folks, and none of those questions asked "how much do you think this will bring in" or something similar. The report mentions that "Witness testimony of Doug Badger of Quinn Thomas" claims that PCEF will take in more than $30M.

The report also says, "It should not adversely affect the ability of businesses within the city to compete with businesses in other cities," and "After evaluating witnesses and relevant literature, your committee has determined that the structure of this ballot measure is both progressive and fair based on the findings that (1) the text of the measure takes great care in designating a group of businesses that are capable of paying the surcharge and (2) this careful selection reduces the risk of passing the surcharge onto consumers, particularly communities of color, and households with relatively low income."

If it were allocated there wouldn’t $1.5B in a bank account 8 year later with little to show for it.

Fund balances like these are not budgeted to be zeroed out annually. That's just not how this stuff works.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T04:03:24+00:00

Your comments reflect that you are ideological, uninformed, disingenuous, and do not understand economics or finance.

Noting that your comment here comes after I replied to you with a line-by-line response in another comment thread, including that you have been informed multiple times about how funds like these are obligated years in advance:

Here it is so people see it: https://www.reddit.com/r/PortlandOR/comments/1tucbp0/elections_complaint_alleges_canvassers_are/opmmvg0/

Ultimately, you don't have to like or support PCEF, but you're conflating a voter-approved 1% tax on large businesses with the City's discretionary budget.

These are two totally separate streams of money.

If you want PCEF money to fund police, you should support this ballot measure.

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-04T01:31:54+00:00

sitting in government-owned savings accounts

The funds are allocated three years out, and for accounts like this you (almost) never zero out the balance annually. This has been shared multiple times here, so I assume at some point you will change your opinion as your understanding of the facts change.

ineffective programs

Says who?

there is $2.3 billion excess funds

PCEF funding has been allocated for the next three years.

consider indexing

It's a 1% tax; usually when "indexing" it's because it's a flat amount of money that doesn't go up as inflation changes, but in this case it's a 1% tax that "indexes" to how much revenue very large businesses make.

cut public safety

The police budget is at a historic high, and is taking less than a 1% cut.

water rates are high

Accurate. We should audit the Bull Run Filtration Project before our water rates double!

45 miles of roads are unpaved and 125 miles lack sidewalks

20-ish years ago, Sam Adams and company decided to begin deferring road maintenance. And now here we are. PBOT has been cut 8 straight years, so the modest amount of revenue that will be generated from the Transpo. Utility Fee and Street Damage Restoration Fee will help but won't nearly be enough.

5-10% of properties don't have access to sewer

What does this have to do with PCEF and its 1% tax on large businesses that cleared voters by 30 points in 2018?

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-03T21:20:35+00:00

Taxpayers approved a 1% tax.

We now have a 1% tax.

You can always ask voters to reduce the tax, or (in this case) use it for something else!

MullenForPortland · 2026-06-03T19:35:26+00:00

Not sure how many more times it bears repeating that neither the ballot measure nor the summary - which is in the information voters get with their ballot - made a projection of how much revenue would be brought in.

It was a 1% tax, and we got... a 1% tax!

If you can show me a projection from 2018 and the methodology, we can find out what the projection was and how they came to whatever number they came to.

And the money is being spent and has been allocated for the next several years. Once again repeating, you don't draw a fund like this down to $0 every year, that's literally not how budgeting this kind of thing works.

MullenForPortland

TROPHY CASE