April 18, 2005
Homeland Security 'Aghast' At Portland's Fareless Square
Feds Have A Little Too Much Time On Their Hands
Okay, so Isaac Laquedem beat us to this particular oddity, but since a reader just emailed us about it we figured now was as good a time as any to make at least a passing mention.
At issue is an Oregonian story from last week about potential changes to Fareless Square, including the possibility of, well, eliminating it.
But the oddity which Laquedem mentions, and which we want to mention here as well, is this peculiar little bit:
[Doug Roberts] said a Homeland Security official was "aghast" at the Fareless Square policy in light of a train bombing in Madrid last year that killed 191. Two bombs that inflicted casualties and major damage were contained in backpacks.
Doug Roberts, according to the article, is "a professional engineer with a downtown consulting firm" so we're not sure just how much connection he has to TriMet proper, but we feel compelled to say what we said over at Laquedem's site: If we were paranoid, this would begin to make us wonder if the Feds are going out of their way to try to screw with Portland.
Of course, even without such a cynical motive, the Feds may have some help, since the article also quotes Multnomah County Sherrif Bernie Giusto lamenting that the lack of tickets in Fareless Square prevents police officers from stopping passengers on the pretext of checking for valid fares.
Not much to say on that except to quote another commenter over at Laquedem's blog: "Is Giusto really admitting that currently, cops detain people without cause on the spurious basis of checking to see if they paid a fare?"
Comments (29)
Isaac Laquedem on 18 Apr 2005
Doug Roberts' connection to TriMet is that he's a member of TriMet's budget committee, though the Oregonian article didn't make that clear.
Bob R. on 18 Apr 2005
Overall, I think Fareless Square has been good for Portland. In addition to the convenience it provides, it has frequently been cited in tourist articles and publications as a great, friendly feature of Portland. I'm sure it has contributed to the success of Saturday Market and downtown merchants. It's as much an "image thing" as it is a "transportation thing".
That being said, however, I oppose extending the idea the entire transit system, as some (no one here yet, but it always comes up...) have suggested. There are several reasons for my opinion on this, relating to operation issues, system perception, rider behavior, and cost.
I also support removing the extension to Lloyd Center which was implemented a few years ago. Since the extension, there has been (in my perception) a significant increase in undesirable activity crossing over to the east side. Yes, there have been increases in ridership, and I'm sure Lloyd Center appreciates the extra shoppers, but also there have been increases in drug activity, petty crime and vandalism in Holladay Park, panhandling on the trains themselves, and litter.
I think transit should be widely available, high-quality, frequent and affordable. Good transit requires subsidy, and I support such subsidies. But users of the system (and our household uses transit very frequently) should pay some modest share. That which is perceived as being "free" can eventually have diminished perceived value and become neglected.
Gradual fare increases (in line with cost increases) allow users to "feel the pain" that the agency and taxpayers feel as transit is expanded and fuel costs rise. A fare-paying person is more likely to deter or report a vandal or litterbug, or to help keep a station area clean, if fares start to rise due to high station maintenance costs.
Further, a fareless "square" that extends far enough starts to include entire routes within a free area. An unintended consequence of this is that a bus or train can become a roving homeless shelter or a place to shoot up. A better use of subsidy in this case would be to provide more public restrooms and showers and services to the homeless.
- Bob R.
doretta on 18 Apr 2005
The so-called "pretext stop" is an interesting discussion topic.
A pretext stop is one where a person is stopped for a reason, such as failure to signal a lane change (or in the example above, to check for a valid fare), that is a legitimate reason for a stop but isn't the "real" reason for the stop. The pretext stop is used to initiate contact because an officer thinks something is suspicious but there is no probable cause directly related to the suspicion. Real reasons are things like: at an unusual hour a car left a location known to be frequently used for drug sales or a person is driving a vehicle deemed likely to belong to a drug dealer.
It's a law enforcement technique that I think most PPB officers would tell you is extremely valuable to them. I suspect that pretext stops are a significant percentage of stops on the street that end in arrests for something other than traffic violations.
On the other hand, the examples I used above were not hypothetical, those were the real reasons for the stops that led to the James and Perez shootings. Since the real reasons for pretext stops are made based on the officers' judgment rather than on more direct evidence of wrongdoing, they leave the officers open to accusations of racial profiling or other motivations of questionable legitimacy. Having had many conversations with citizens on the subject, it's clear to me that the use of pretext stops does increase public distrust in the police.
On the other other hand, cocaine was found in the cases of both James and Perez. Officers are out there all the time, are trained to be extremely observant and often develop excellent judgment about the liklihood that something criminal may be afoot.
You don't want officers harrassing citizens for no reason. On the other hand, a simple request for a valid fare on downtown transit, something that happens many times daily all over the rest of the transit system, could indeed lead to behavior that would tip law enforcement off to the presence of a terrorist.
Whichever side in the debate you might lean toward, it does seem problematic that something law enforcement apparently feels is a critical tool is considered illegitimate by a good portion of the citizenry. Perhaps we'd all learn some new things and develop more of a shared perspective if we were to have a city-wide discussion of the subject. Maybe the City Club would be interested?
Bob R. on 18 Apr 2005
Without without mentioning any particulars, I can say that I once served on a Mult. Co. grand jury and a very significant percentage of the cases we heard had originated from what could be termed "pretext stops" as you describe.
Ray P on 18 Apr 2005
I don't mind stopping someone if there's a legitimate cause to believe a particular person has committed a minor crime, in the hopes that you'll find evidence of a larger crime. But if you're just stopping buses without evidence of any crime and inspecting riders under the theory that they could just possibly be doing something wrong is very different. Why not post officers at the corners of major commercial blocks downtown to chat up passers-by under the pretext that they could conceivably have merchandise stuffed unter their jackets?
Bob R. on 18 Apr 2005
Why not post officers at the corners of major commercial blocks downtown to chat up passers-by under the pretext that they could conceivably have merchandise stuffed unter their jackets?
Ray P. -
What you describe there is a different kind of "pretext" that goes beyond probable cause.
In the case of traffic stops, the pretext is something real and witnessed (at least we hope it is), although minor, such as failure to signal for the correct distance, improper lane changes, etc., stuff that is technically illegal but even the best drivers do eventually.
In the case of transit use, one of the conditions of using transit (outside of fareless square) is that passengers must carry and show proof of payment or validated fare. TriMet employs fare inspectors who occasionally check trainloads of passengers. Bus drivers do that inspection at the time of boarding.
I don't know if I buy that any of this is necessary from a "homeland security" standpoint, but being on transit outside of fareless square, under current law, does give transit officials and law enforcement the right to ask to see proof of payment or validated fare.
- Bob R.
doretta on 19 Apr 2005
For those of you who don't ride transit, you don't "stop the bus" to do a fare inspection. Fare inspectors sometimes ask for proof of fare from passengers getting off at a stop. Usually, however, they get on the train at a regular stop and walk down the aisle just like conductors do on trains all over the world. I think they have done for about as long as there have been trains.
In more than four years of using public transportation as my main method of travel in Portland, I've seen fare inspectors on a bus exactly once. They went down the aisle and asked for proof of fare from everyone just as they do on the train. I doubt you could have found anyone on the bus who believed it was a random inspection. The passenger sitting in front of me was fairly upset, in fact, and assumed that they were just harrassing the heavily minority population who usually ride that bus. My guess would be that they were looking for someone in particular and picked that bus because they had some reason to believe whoever they were looking for might be on it.
Dave Lister on 19 Apr 2005
I wonder if someone bent on committing a terrorist act outside of fareless square would buy a ticket?
Bob R. on 19 Apr 2005
Dave Lister Writes:
I wonder if someone bent on committing a terrorist act outside of fareless square would buy a ticket?
My Reply:
The argument, for what it's worth, is that police and transit officials have an excuse to talk to someone if they are in an area where fare is required. The issue isn't whether or not a terrorist actually buys a ticket, it is whether or not police can ask someone to present their ticket. Once a conversation starts under a legitimate pretext, it can continue along certain lines.
The real question for me about this policy is what happens at that next step, after the ticket is shown. If the hypothetical terrorist maintains a calm attitutde and politely declines to discuss other issues, there isn't anything police can legitimately do. On the other hand, someone who is nervous and edgy might make a mistake once confronted by inquisitive officers.
As I've said before, I support fareless square in general, but would like to see it reduced in scope (but not for reasons of "terrorism").
But let's assume for a moment that free transit is somekind of horrible defensive weakness when it comes to terrorism... Can you think of somewhere else that is a terrorist target that has free transit? I can! The free shuttle buses from remote parking lots to the airport terminal.
Now, of course, these small buses don't carry as many people as a train, so aren't an attractive tertrorist target in a numberse sense, but combine "airport" with "terrorist attack" and you've got a target with a high media impact.
So, to be fair, I think if Homeland Security is going to ask Portland and TriMet to get rid of fareless square, what are they going to do about airport shuttle buses?
- Bob R.
cleanhands on 19 Apr 2005
While I'm strongly in favor of doing things to bolster our ability to prevent terrorist attacks here, I have to admit to being troubled by the concept of the "pretext stop," particularly the comment above about things that are "technically illegal," but which everyone does "eventually."
Those dim old police state warning bells are clanging pretty hard when I hear explanations like that.
I do think that it's possible for law enforcement to be vigilant, and to find and demonstrate probable cause with enough alacrity to prevent terrorist acts, without having laws on the books that "eventually" make criminals of everyone.
All of that said, I am an ardent opponent of fareless square, and, for that matter, all of Tri-Met (particularly MAX), on the basis of economic reasons and principles of the proper role of gov't in society.
If it were run privately, and the riders were actually bearing the costs of the service, I'd be its biggest fan -- but snatching money from the pockets of those who are working hard, just to support some elitist, utopian transit crack dream, strikes me as being not only misguided, but actively harmful to the people Tri-Met purports to serve.
And don't even get me started on the land-use regulation that comes shuffling along in MAX's fetid tracks...
Bob R. on 19 Apr 2005
And don't even get me started on the land-use regulation that comes shuffling along in MAX's fetid tracks...
Where are the tracks "fetid"? Does this offensive odor eminate from the steel? How does it compare to the smell of asphalt or vehicle exhaust? :-)
FYI, my comments earlier about "pretense" and people violating code "eventually" should not be construed as an endorsement of that method of law enforcement - I'm merely stating something I see happening out there.
One of my feelings about the law is that if something is going to be illegal, it should be broadly and farily enforced, not selectively or occasionally. "Everybody does it" should not be an excuse to break the law, but it should certainly be a reason to rexamine whether a law should be modified or enforcement altered.
- Bob R.
Dave Lister on 19 Apr 2005
My "terrorist buying a ticket" comment was meant as a bit of humor. When you get right down to it, the entire MAX system is something of a fareless square due to the honor system. Regular riders know that fare inspections are at best sporadic. There is no way to track fare recovery, because there are no devices which accurately track ridership. As a business owner paying Tri Met payroll taxes I would like to see fare recovery in the areas where fares are supposed to be paid. I have nothing against the fareless square... it's probably a boon to downtown merchants.
Bob R. on 19 Apr 2005
Dave -
Are you saying that the infrared counting devices are inaccurate, the human counters dispatched to various stations at various times, or the statistical methods involved result in inaccurate ridership totals?
- Bob R.
Dave Lister on 19 Apr 2005
Yes. Independent "human counters" not affiliated with Tri-Met monitored the Interstate line during its first week of operation. Their figures are quite different than Tri-Met's. Tri-Met justifies their existence by providing their own ridership numbers. Where's the oversight?
Alan DeWitt on 19 Apr 2005
A couple years ago, I played local tour guide to some friends-of-a-friend. They were from North Carolina, and in town to play a music gig at Saturday Market. After the gig, the singer wanted a beer. I said "no problem" and led the three of them to MAX. They asked how much the fare would be, and I said it was free where we were going.
You cannot imagine the magnitude of their shock and disbelief at this. It took me several minutes to convince them that I wasn't pulling their leg; once they believed (and rode) they went on and on about how Fareless Square (and Portland in general) was the coolest thing ever.
They proceeded to buy McMennamin's beer and food, then I took them to Powell's where they went a bit berserk. we made a few other stops... I seem to recall that Lloyd Center was involved, but I don't recall how. Anyway, by the time I dropped them off back at their car, they'd spent well over $100 and were planning to tell their friends what a wonderful place Portland is.
The lesson that I took away from this is that Fareless Square is a subsidy that generates a lot of economic activity. (And I'm not even counting downtown workers.) Anyone who wants to eliminate Fareless Square had better look carefully at the business and goodwill that would be lost along with it. It'd take a whole lot of tourism marketing dollars to make up for it.
Bob R. on 19 Apr 2005
Dave -
If you could point me to a source for this study, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
- Bob R.
William on 19 Apr 2005
If it were run privately, and the riders were actually bearing the costs of the service, I'd be its biggest fan -- but snatching money from the pockets of those who are working hard, just to support some elitist, utopian transit crack dream
Because the price of gasoline really IS just 2.50 a gallon. Yeah, allowing oil companies to pollute relatively freely isn't costing us a hidden dime, the highways are maintained for free, the small particulates in the air from so many vehicles don't impact our nation's health care costs, and the wars we fight have zilch to do with keeping natural resources cheap. I'm with you, cleanhands. Oh yeah, and those damned transit elitists should recognize that it's a lot more modest to own a car than to take the bus. Stupid elitists taking the bus. How much more elite can they get than promoting public transit and having us foot the bill?
Ray P on 20 Apr 2005
William, it's all how you look at it. You have turn up your nose and scoff, "I'm chauferred by any vehicle of my choice from a multi-million dollar fleet because driving is so burgeois."
Dave Lister on 20 Apr 2005
Bob,
I have the results of the independent counts of the interstate Max line in a PDF. The counts were done by the Oregon Transportation Institute. Their website is www.ortrans.com. I don't find the interstate count document on their website, but there's a lot of good, independent information concerning fare recovery, etc. If it's okay with b!X, I will post my e-mail address in a subsequent comment so you can send me your e-mail. It's really very interesting stuff.
b!X... is that okay with you?
doretta on 20 Apr 2005
"Independent" in this case obviously not meaning "unbiased". I checked out the website. The "Oregon Transportation Institute" appears to be a few guys who don't like public transportation in general and really hate light rail and who promote Los Angeles as a model urban area. They don't say who they are on their website and the one MAX usage study I looked at was almost completely lacking in any description of methodology and other particulars. It may be that TriMet plays fast and loose with their numbers but these guys don't make a very compelling case.
Bob R. on 20 Apr 2005
Ahh, Oregon Transportation Institute. Any group which posts reports from the thoroughly discredited paid political hack Wendell Cox is automatically suspect in my book. But I still would like to see the report and see if it has enough information to evaluate on its own merits. Please email it to bob@peak.org
Thanks,
Bob R.
Dave Lister on 20 Apr 2005
The person with ORTRANS who I have come to know and admire is Mel Zucker. Mel's been analyzing these issues for many years and his command of the facts has impressed me. I want to be clear about one thing, I support public transit and I think a good system is essential. My 24 year old son has never driven, gotten a license or owned a car and Portland's transit system serves him very well. The debate, in my mind, is about where public transit dollars are best invested, not about whether they are invested at all.
Bob R. on 20 Apr 2005
Dave emailed me the "report" privately and I have reviewed it. It seems to me that Ortrans' own numbers back up TriMet's.
I have posted the PDF on my web site _temporarily_ (it's not worth keeping around), so that others may see what we're debating over:
http://www.bobrichardson.com/temp/zucker_karlock.pdf
This isn't really a "report" so much as it is a series of powerpoint slides, with no explanation of methodology or sources.
Before getting into the numbers, I should address some of the pics as I think they give a flavor of the biases exhibited by ortrans.
Page 4, the first photos in the presentation, shows two signs indicating that pedestrians should not tresspass down the tracks. What is the point of them including that? Are they trying to imply rail is unsafe? Are pedestrians somehow safer if they walk down the middle of an auto lane or bus lane?
Page 6, showing the "before and after" of street changes/improvements made by construction. The text notes that "some are not counted in $350 million cost" but says nothing about which things, how much money, etc. Is "some" $1 million, fifty bucks, twenty million, what? Whose budget, what for?
Page 8 leads with the false premise that some unnamed person claims "Roads divide neighborhoods". I've never heard that. I've heard people say that FREEWAYS and MAJOR HIGHWAYS divide neighborhoods. The photo suggests that MAX is a major barrier. Perhaps for some autos, which will need to use primary streets to cross the tracks, but not for pedestrians. As a pedestrian who has walked numerous times along the entire corridor, I can attest that MAX makes crossing Interstate Ave MUCH EAISER. There are numerous pedestrian islands along the residential stretches, and instead of having to cross multiple lanes of traffic unprotected, the crossing can be made one lane at a time. The ortrans presentation selects a worst-case photo and does not provide any context or alternate examples.
Page 9 - A photo of a limo. What's the point of that?
Page 10 - This is my favorite. The photo is shot from an angle to imply that trucks can't get to I-5 from this intersection. Total BS. There are alternatives for trucks over 50'. (Those are big trucks, by the way.) For example, down by the Albina/Mississippi station, there is a special turning block for big trucks. Again, no context or explanation.
Pages 12 and 13 - Bus service before and after Interstate Max. It would be most helpful if they'd provide any text whatsoever explaining the changes - the maps look very similar except that the "before" map is suspiciously cropped so that you can't see Janzen Beach or Clark County.
Page 14 - Now finally getting into some numbers. These appear to be trimet's numbers for first week ridership, with some penciled in subtotals and a divide-by-two estimate of one-way ridership. Total weekday riders: 11,660. No comment yet, but we'll compare back to these figures.
Page 15 - TriMet's 2004 average ridership figures for the #5 bus line. Total weekday riders: 6830. Note that Interstate MAX, which travels in the same corridor as the old #5, captures a significant percentage of new riders. Now, in the first week, there were likely a large number of trial riders just taking the line to see what's new, so I'd like to see more recent figures, but still, jumping almost instantly from 6,830 to 11,660 is something.
Page 16 - An estimate of how many cars are removed from I-5 coming from Clark County based on park-and-ride lot counts of cars with Washington plates. I guess they are trying to argue that Interstate Max was a complete waste of money because it's only purpose was to reduce the # of cars coming from Clark County, even though it doesn't (yet) go to Clark County, and all other purposes don't count. They then go on to joke that for $80 billion we could remove half the cars from I-5. Very funny. But for less than $1 billion (much of which would be paid by Clark County and the feds), Interstate Max could be extended accross the Columbia.
Pages 17 to 24 - The counts performed by ortrans, the meat of the document. These counts are of boardings during a 3 hour period between 6AM and 9AM only at the new Interstate MAX stations, not counting the portions of the line that go over previously existing tracks (downtown). In both directions, they counted 1077 boardings. If we assume (as they do) that these are rush hour boardings, we can assume that evening rush hour will carry a similar number of riders, thus doubling the daily boardings in this corridor subset to 2154 boardings, and that still leaves many service hours uncounted. (An earlier report on ortrans' web site claims that MAX boardings are more evenly spread throughout the day, so just counting rush hour here seems a bit unfair even by their own standards).
Now, look at that number again. 2154 boardings along the new Interstate Avenue Stretch. Now go back to Page 14. The penciled in figure is 5040 for this leg. That's TriMet's number for the ENTIRE SERVICE DAY. Interstate Max has service for 19 hours, approx 5AM 'til midnight. Ortran's counts were for only 3 hours, which can easily be extrapolated to 6, but that still leaves 13 hours. EVEN IF WE ASSUME that MAX's off-peak ridership is half per hour what it is during peak, Ortrans' figures get us to TriMet's totals just fine.
Ortrans' numbers get us 359 boardings per hour in peak periods. If we assume 50% of that boarding rate in off-peak, that gets 180 boardings per hour. Take 359 x 6 peak hours = 2154 boardings, 180 x 13 off-peak hours = 2340 boardings, for a total of 4494, totally within range of TriMet's 5040 figure.
Now, if you think all my extrapolating and assumptions are bogus, congratulations, you've just spotted the flaw in Ortrans' report. They only did one sample on one day during a 3 hour period. And working from that sample, it isn't hard to get in range of TriMet's figures. So where's the beef?
Page 25 - "Culture is Who We Are". So they don't like the art element on the bridge - so what?
Next report, please.
- Bob R.
Larry on 20 Apr 2005
Mr. DeWitt -
I feel compelled to comment on your very nice story of entertaining your guests from North Carolina. I think it's REALLY a reach to say that Fareless Square compelled your friends to spend the money that they did in our fair city. While I'm sure that they were very impressed with the free MAX ride (by the way, I am generally in favor of the Fareless Square concept), I believe that they would have went shopping, browsed Powells, and drank beer even if they had to deposit a couple bucks into a transit kiosk first. I don't believe your assertion that not having to do so resulted in increased revenue for the city and its businesses. After all, have you ever met a band member who didn't pine for a beer after a gig? :-)
Speaking for myself, when I have visited a new city, I have NEVER ONCE based my economic activity based on whether or not I had to pay a couple bucks for a bus pass or light rail ticket.
You took them to some very neat, very "Portland" places... and they certainly could have returned to NC raving about our beautiful city just based on those.
My point - be careful what you attribute things to.
Alan DeWitt on 20 Apr 2005
Larry-
Well, yes, you're correct. There was more than one factor at work. However, by the time they actually came to believe that they could ride for free without being fare-jumpers, they were predisposed to see everything in a good light. The fact that I follwed this up by leading them to decent beer and a mega-bookstore was bonus. At that point, I'd have had to work pretty hard to screw up the first impression of Portland they got from fareless MAX. (A mugging probably would have done the trick, though.)
Fareless Square removes some friction from the downtown engine of commerce. Whether this subsidized commercial lubrication is worth the cost is not my call; I don't live there anymore. My anecdote is indended to show that some positive effects are more subtle, and consequently harder to measure in dollars, than the cost of the subsidy.
My point is that I think anyone analyzing the value of the subsidy will have to be very careful to avoid missing some substantial but non-obvious benefits. It's be embarrasing to shut down fareless square to save costs, only to find later that it cut downtown shop revenues more.
Francis Ferguson on 11 May 2005
I think fareless square is a fabulous concept. I use it regularly as I work downtown. The Homeland Security issues about the square are entirely ridiculous. The Madrid bombers (who, I think, are the model here) didn't sacrifice themselves, the left explosive parcels on the trains--or in stations. The entire argument really is that we should all have to purchase tickets so that the police have an excuse to interview us--"may I see your ticket, please". Since 9/11 we've gone a _very_ long way toward facilitating things for law enforcement--further than we've ever seriously contemplated before. You do understandfor example, that the President can now "disappear" anyone he chooses with no comment or justification to anyone. The Patriot Act does still more of this.
I don't thing we should sacrifice fareless square to the mantra of easing the task of law enforcement--even though proponents talk of increased activity by drug dealers. There is a line, a fine line, between reasonable police powers and complete aquiescense to law enforcement desires. When you cross that line, you become a police state. We are very, very close to that. We should go no further.
I think the fareless square issue is important. Let's not give this up as a sacrifice to law enforcement. Indeed, since TriMet is a largely subsidy funded organization which earns a mere fraction of it's costs from the farebox, I recommend we maximize mass tansit use and make the whole system fareless.
justa guy on 12 May 2005
U.S. Intelligence Source: “We are Extremely Concerned”
by Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
& Randy Taylor, Senior Analyst
11 May 2005; 7:30 PM: There have been over a hundred documented cases of restricted airspace violations over Washington, DC within the last ten years, according to published FAA reports. Since September 11, 2001, there have been several significant breaches of airspace, although none to date has caused the level of reaction and near panic as we have seen today.
The Northeast Intelligence Network has received specific information from a well-placed source within the DC intelligence community, speaking on strict condition of anonymity, that current intelligence has recently been collected domestically and abroad from human and electronic sources that identify very detailed and specific threats to political, economic and strategic targets located within the continental U.S., including high value targets in Washington, DC., New York, and about two-dozen other cities across the U.S.
“We are reviewing very recent and highly credible information - information that was obtained within the last few months, of plans that include a significant series of attacks that involve the use of unconventional weapons.” We are talking about a mass casualty event or series of events with the use of WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] and some rather unique delivery methods. We are also reviewing attack plans that include the use of aircraft of all types and sizes as well, even remotely controlled aircraft.” According to this source, intelligence officials are unsure whether the attack plans are intended to take place at the same time or will be a timed series of events. “We don’t have a handle on any sort of timetable, but I can tell you that we are very concerned with the short term,” stated this source.
The One True b!X on 12 May 2005
What does this have to do with fareless square, Jack? Nothing. Knock if off.
Guy Berliner on 06 Jun 2005
What a lot of you don't seem to appreciate is the fact that Fareless Square is one of the factors that make Portland such a civilized place. People have literally been gunned down by cops in this city elsewhere after being stopped on the pretext of not having paid a fare (thinking now especially of the Mejia Poot case, a particularly hideous travesty). How's THAT for a "public safety issue"?!!! Eliminating Fareless Square based on some cockeyed Police State internal security reasoning, or to further extend the already deathgrip stranglehold of savage capitalism over us all, would do a lot to make Portland a less civilized, less desirable place to live. Just by further extending the hassle of constantly having to reach into one's wallet even to literally move, eliminating Fareless Square would help to further colonize our daily lives with monetary transactions.
It is one of the great ironies of life in this country that, more than any other, we live under the motto of "rugged individualism," yet Americans as a whole are the biggest asskissing brownnosing conformists of any major country on Earth. This is the product of savage capitalism: Never mind "Big Brother," we live under the thumb of a multiplicity of "Little Brothers."
Every move you take in this country, literally, is determined by the Almighty Dollar. You have to pay for EVERYTHING. Most places in the US, there is no adequate public transit. People feel compelled to buy their own car. We have the highest per capita transportation expenses as a proportion of wages (1/6) of any country. As private real estate developments become increasingly unaffordable, we have no comprehensive, affordable public housing programs to offset them. Inadequate to nonexistent healthcare benefits. Again and again, reach for your checkbook (and it's a BIG reach at that). Inadequate to nonexistent unemployment benefits. And so it goes. So, we don't need Big Brother. We all have bosses whose ass we'd better be kissing 1/2 our waking hours, or we'll be out on the streets.
Ironically, you have to go to one of the dwindling Euro-socialist countries to find true individualism. One of the reasons that Europe is so much more civilized than America is precisely because the people there are not as under the thumb of capitalist brutality as we colonists. People can actually AFFORD to be individualists, because they will not be rendered destitute, sans shelter, transportation, medical care, etc, the minute they stop kissing their bosses ass and lose their job.
Enter Fareless Square. The Powers That Be think they'd like to see us all doing a little more asskissing. Portland's just a little too independent and freethinking. In these days of Fatherland Security, that can't be stood for.
We should be rebelling against even the threat or rumor of eliminating Fareless Square. Now is the time for Little Beirut to rise up and shake off its slumber. Even this rumor, which one is starting to hear on the street these days, is insidious and malignant. It's a way of preparing the ground so people will accept the foul deed as a fait accompli when it really does get formally proposed. "You can't fight City Hall," the saying goes. But this is Portland. We're different. Not so easily cowed. This is the city that took back its waterfront from the freeway. The city that ran the Shrub out of town with an army of 5000 righteous pissed off citizens -- just like it did his daddy!
Are we going to take this sh*t lying down?? I didn't think so!