Measure 26-267
What is it?
Participatory budgeting! (PB for short)
To wit, the measure is:
An amendment to the city charter
that sets aside at least 2% of discretionary spending from the general fund (or an equivalent amount from elsewhere in the budget).
For residents to vote on through a yet-to-be-determined âopen processâ
In practice, it means a minimum of $16 million set aside yearly, and whoever bothers to get involved can vote on ways for that money to get spent.
PB is a little unusual but weâre not trying to entirely reinvent the wheel here. Several other cities already do something like it, with Boston, Nashville, and New York City as the closest comps I found, though all have nuances that make them a little different from this proposal.
Why is it on the ballot?
The pithy answer is because a lot of people asked for it to be. A campaign under the umbrella name âYour 2 Cents PDXâ gathered a record-breaking 78,743 signatures, which was more than sufficient to get it on the ballot.
Why now? The idea has been in the ether for a while. From a 2018 Street Roots piece in favor of it:
PB started in Brazil in the 1980s and has spread rapidly to well over 3,000 municipalities on all continents around the globe. Since PB launched in Chicagoâs 49th Ward in 2009, dozens of U.S. cities, both small and large, have begun allocating small but growing portions of their municipal budgets using PB.
The 2020-2022 charter commission1 supported creating a participatory budgeting program in their final proposals but as their recommendation was to make it as an ordinance, it wasnât part of the 2022 charter reform measure.
The mayor and council never subsequently took up the idea for a vote.
Folks who were still passionate about the idea put together the campaign to make it happen. You were probably asked to sign for it at a farmerâs market or street fair; enough people did, and here we are.
The Arguments in Favor
Proponents of participatory budgeting think that residents know their own neighborhoodsâ needs better than City Hall does, that itâs a way for residents to meaningfully participate in the budgeting process with binding control over a small slice.
They also think it brings in folks who are normally left out of the usual public-comment process.
On this second point, the proponents do have some data on their side. Per a study out of New York Cityâs implementation:
Comparing PB voters to similar individuals who were not exposed to PB, we find that engaging with participatory budgeting increased individualsâ probability of voting by an average of 8.4 percentage points. In addition, we find that these effects are greater for those who often have lower probabilities of votingâyoung people, lower educated and lower income voters, black voters, and people who are the minority race of their neighborhood.
Thatâs good, though I hesitate to read too much into a single study.
On the first point, whether or not local residents actually know more about their neighborhoodsâ needs than City Hall is open for debate. Iâm inclined to believe that at the hyper-local level, folks do (you probably already know which crossings on your street are more or less dangerous than others, while PBOT has to do a study to learn that). But I also think folks have a lot of biases and blinkered thinking so Iâm a little less certain as the aperture widens to neighborhood or quadrant.
Still, we have real-world evidence of how funds might be disbursed. Nashville used PB to allocate a one-time, $10M federal stimulus in 2023 and their residents selected 24 projects. It netted out to:
10 traffic safety, street, or transit updates
8 park or playground improvements
3 library upgrades
2 history-related choices
1 apprenticeship program.
Unlike Nashville, Bostonâs PB funds are ongoing but much more modest, ~$2M per year. Perhaps because two milli doesnât buy much in the way of infrastructure these days, theyâve tended to spend that money more on programs â immigrant legal defense, grants to non-profits for fresh food access, etc.
I canât speak to the value of these specific projects but in aggregate they strike me as the sort of choices that would naturally come out of a process like this. Real, tangible things that folks understand and want in their communities. Sometimes I worry about âtoo much democracyâ â about voting on things we donât understand or canât capably judge â but given the Nashville and Boston examples, I donât really think that concern applies to Participatory Budgeting.2
Portlandâs funds (~$16M) would be yearly like Bostonâs, but more like Nashvilleâs in scale.
The Arguments Against
Opponents, they have concerns. Among the most substantive:
The measure is underbaked. The text doesnât say how the voting will happen or how much it will cost administratively.
It diverts money from necessary city-funded services (fire, police, parks) when weâre already in a budget crunch. Since thereâs no new revenue stream, itâs zero-sum. Any dollar here is a dollar not spent elsewhere. (As a result, many public unions have come out against, out of concern for their membersâ jobs.)
Low turnout invites capture. The city already has some real challenges with non-profits of minimal value capturing public dollars and this would just exacerbate the problem, with well-organized groups working their rolodexes to ensure they become entrenched beneficiaries.
Maintenance could be a challenge. If folks vote for new facilities, will it balloon ongoing operational and maintenance costs?3
The spending floor is too high, and too difficult to change. Future mayors or councils canât adjust the PB allocation even in a crisis, and once itâs in the charter, the only way to adjust it is to re-amend the charter.
On every one of these criticisms, the opponents have a point.
To the first objection, proponents have a rejoinder. The measure is a little underbaked specifically because itâs going into the charter and this means we should leave a little flexibility in there rather than prescribe the exact implementation. What matters is the 2% floor and the fact that Electeds canât rob from this bucket any time they want. Other than that, the implementation details can be a little fluid and updated with time.
As for the other objections? Theyâre real, sure. But, to some degree, the fact that we all get to participate in PB means that if we make those trade-offs, weâve made them. We get to decide. Thatâs the whole point.
How am I voting?
Sometimes I think Iâve lost my fastball.
I am a man of a certain age, after all. It happens to the best of us.
The whole reason I started this blog was for me to work through, in public, my (often strong, sometimes incensed!) opinions about ballot measures. A strong yes on Charter Reform, a fiery no for the School bond, a tortured, drawn-out yes for Parks levy.
But with Measure 26-267, I ⌠donât really care?
Opponents have strong opinions calling it âirresponsibleâ, âpoorly written,â and âasinine.â
I honestly donât think it matters that much. Itâs mostly harmless.
Itâs 2% of the discretionary budget. Thatâs definitely meaningful but still a limited blast area, especially given thatâs only 0.2% of the overall budget. Money is fungible and ultimately this just isnât that much scratch, especially if it has the knock-on benefit of a more engaged, bought-in citizenry.
Based on how other cities have used their participatory dollars, itâs typically used for local pork and programs. Park upgrades, apprenticeship programs, crosswalks and traffic calming. Ultimately, isnât that what municipal government is for? I may not end up loving what people choose to fund, but hey, theyâre actively doing the choosing. Democracy in action.
In the end, Iâm mostly swayed by the fact that itâs a charter amendment, rather than an ordinance or pilot or a small, separate levy. Writing it into the charter means itâs rather difficult to change as the world changes. Backers say that is part of the point but Iâm unconvinced. You can draw a direct line from well-meaning but poorly conceived ballot measures4 to some of Portlandâs biggest governance problems.
The future is uncertain; a maybe-good idea should be easier to undo should the results underwhelm.
Iâm voting âNoâ on Measure 26-267. But you better believe Iâll participate if it passes.
Tune in next week for the rest of the Mortlandia endorsement slate. Please note that election officials are urging voters to use ballot drop boxes this year due to concerns about the speed and reliability of mail delivery. Official PDX ballot drop site map.
Also the genesis of our new and current city council structure
That said, I should note that once the money ran out, Nashvilleâs mayor didnât pursue another round of PB citing, in part, low engagement.
We already have this issue with System Development Charges (SDCs) â see this Parks post for more info.
Oregon measures 5 and 50 being the canonical cases here but I also have a deep well of ire towards the Arts Tax and the rejection of water fluoridation.