intersections.bsky.social
Love and justice in the Rose City. Unelected night mayor.
Local policy + politics. Blazers, beer + spirits, support the arts.
[he/they]
967 posts
414 followers
497 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
What an awful, demeaning way to speak of our homeless neighbors.
comment in response to
post
Seems like the move, thanks for sharing this. Disgusted that I used to recommend this place to friends.
comment in response to
post
thank you 🙏
comment in response to
post
what makes you so sure of that?
time.com/6977053/nich...
comment in response to
post
yikes
comment in response to
post
When staff respectfully spoke up, the owner told them they were sick of looking at them, threatened their jobs, and said they would never support Pride at any location. Today, part of the staff was fired for refusing to sign a paper prohibiting them from wearing any flags or banners at work.
comment in response to
post
I'm holding out hope for both venues. Jupiter needs to re-examine wtf they are doing for sure. DF needs to grit through the remodel. I think both are possible.
comment in response to
post
Jupiter also knew how huge of a pain it would be for DF to relocate.. they called the bluff, and here we are.
comment in response to
post
I've tried to glean what I can from the Jupiter ppl. When you're at the negotiating table you have to be willing to walk away right. Wish the parties had come to an agreement. That the Burnside space is still vacant indicates landlord terms (like requiring venue to run the restaurant) are a problem.
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile the Burnside venue and restaurant remain shuttered, a relic of what used to be. Jupiter has not been able to secure an operator for either, so they're left holding the bag as well. DF will hopefully emerge again to re-enter a changed live music landscape with new venues to compete with.
comment in response to
post
To move from a fully built out cherished location to this building that needed a ton of renovations and changes, with hundreds of checklist items to deal with, hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses, now 2 years later there's no venue, lots of show cancellations.
comment in response to
post
Appreciate that. We want ya'll to have a team too and I look forward to our future rivalry.
comment in response to
post
Understand you're frustrated that Sac doesn't have a team right now, but lashing out at Portland is not the way.
comment in response to
post
I also appreciate this as an option, and we can surely do more free public bathrooms as well, as we already do in our parks and libraries and public buildings already.
comment in response to
post
Sure, yet we do have public restrooms in our parks and libraries. We are not putting a farebox at the library doors, we are not putting fareboxes at the entrance to the playground. And we shouldn't.
comment in response to
post
I personally wouldn't mind paying for bathrooms either, but a fare mechanism there is going to exclude a lot of folks from access and we can fund it with other sources. I don't think people would want to pay a fee to use the playground or sit on a bench.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/inte...
comment in response to
post
As explained elsewhere, nobody is proposing fareless without new revenue to replace it.
comment in response to
post
You continue to call the idea of fareless transit problematic at its core, so yes, we don't agree.
comment in response to
post
Yes I do, and have explained in some other replies with more details. That's why this discussion is important and not one to be cast aside.
comment in response to
post
There is further discussion of this downthread with lots of good ideas. My overall point remains: let's stop wasting time writing off fareless transit as a concept, acknowledge there are merits to it and try to build as many tenets of fareless transit into the current system as possible.
comment in response to
post
The examples are it's successful in smaller cities with lower ridership and service levels to begin with, hard in big cities and while no actual leg proposals at the moment for us to even consider this here, there are programs that are very much a big step in that direction that need more support.
comment in response to
post
Not necessarily. If we are talking about hypothetical mechanisms here, you could certainly build more transit ridership into the incentive structure.
comment in response to
post
You have made false assumptions that transit advocates are not fareless advocates, or that we don't want increased service. We have also had a ton of engagement and discussion on this topic locally for many years.
comment in response to
post
Lower the barriers to transit access.
Reduce enforcement interactions and penalties for transit riders.
Reduce the cost of travel for the poor and working class without means testing.
Speed up boarding times.
Encourage choice transit ridership.
Reduce the use of SOVs.
All worthy goals on their own
comment in response to
post
Hell yeah, fully onboard with this proposal.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, that's a different pot of money :/
comment in response to
post
Or if we decide public services should have fewer barriers to access and removing those barriers will benefit the community. I think low income rider subsidies, transportation wallets, family fares and less emphasis on penalties for fare evasion is the way forward on this.
comment in response to
post
OK here's my proposal: replace farebox revenue with this other funding source. The funding source has ten billion dollars in it. Some of that goes to providing free transit, free transit lite, nonenforcement free transit, whatever style you want and the rest goes to new service. Boom, more service.
comment in response to
post
We could start charging fares to enter our local parks to take care of maintenance and put in shiny new bathrooms and such. I'm glad we don't. I think those shiny bathrooms are nonetheless a worthwhile goal and we should continue to work towards that end with a variety of funding mechanisms.
comment in response to
post
It was the first of a couple iterations (free rail zone came next) of free transit downtown, as it progressed there was momentum to keep non-fare paying riders off the system beyond the zone, and the board used cancelling it as a way to backfill budget shortfalls. Ended in 2012.
comment in response to
post
Yes, it's very difficult to pull off in big cities, and there are no current tangible proposals to do so, particularly given our current funding landscape. I don't think we need to spin our wheels too hard on this. To me, fully writing off the merits of free transit is a failure of imagination.
comment in response to
post
Demented.
comment in response to
post
This is a consistent straw man argument. No one is proposing to have free transit at the expense of service, it is a proposal to re-allocate revenue from the farebox to other funding sources.
comment in response to
post
That's awesome. The fare revenue would need to be filled from elsewhere for sure.
comment in response to
post
Once again: law enforcement are virtually useless for keeping our streets safe, let alone accountable. The city should act accordingly.
comment in response to
post
Sounds like Spokane has fareless transit, for kids :)