2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Sam has analyzed transportation issues in our City extensively and has put together a proposal for improving and sustaining infrastructure in our city, particularly bikeways, with a street fee added to water bills. Despite a broad array of outreach and support for the proposal from the public, the proposal was put on hold as a result of a small group of business leaders, particularly convenience store owners and petroleum industry representatives. As a "businessman," would Sho favor a small group of businesses over the collective needs of the public? What is Sho's experience in balancing collective public needs with individual businesses who desire to increase personal profit and in the process shaft the public. Should we be concerned that Sho's business ties will lead to more of the same inaction experienced by Mayor Potter for fear of getting on anyone's (especially business leaders') bad side?

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context