Portland is having an important argument right now, and it deserves an honest one.
I support public safety. I support cleaner, safer, more functional streets. I also support keeping faith with voters.
That is why I do not support changing the purpose of the Portland Clean Energy Fund without going back to the voters first.
PCEF was created as a climate and environmental justice fund. Under Portland City Code, its funding categories are tied to climate-related uses such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, climate jobs training, regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure, transportation decarbonization, and other work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gases.
A police-backed initiative is moving forward that would divert 25% of PCEF revenue to police hiring. Recent reporting says supporters are working on a compressed timeline to qualify the measure for the November ballot, after a judge largely ruled in favor of the initiative language.
This debate is no longer theoretical.
It is a real test of whether Portland will handle a major budget and trust question in a direct, transparent way.
Let me be very clear.
My position is not anti-police.
My position is not anti-safety.
My position is not a refusal to engage with the reality that many Portlanders feel unsafe, frustrated, and tired of government failing to deliver basic order.
My position is that we should not quietly change the terms of a voter-approved fund after selling it to the public as something else.
If Portland wants to make the case that PCEF should be used differently, then Portland should make that case directly to the voters.
That is the honest path.
Some people argue that PCEF has brought in more money than originally expected, and that Portland has urgent public safety needs.
I understand that argument.
But more revenue than expected is not the same thing as money without a purpose.
And that distinction matters.
Dedicated funds exist because the public was promised a specific use. Once government starts treating a dedicated fund as interchangeable with general budget pressure, people have every reason to wonder whether future promises will be treated the same way.
Trust erodes that way.
And once it erodes, it is very hard to rebuild.
I am not saying Portland cannot have a serious conversation about police staffing.
It should.
I am not saying Portland cannot revisit how it funds major priorities.
It should. And I am not saying every existing budget structure is untouchable.
It is not.
What I am saying is that if Portland wants to change the use of PCEF, that should happen openly, honestly, and with voter buy-in.
That is especially important here because PCEF is not a general reserve fund. It is structured in city code around climate and environmental justice purposes.
There may be lawful ways to review whether certain climate-related work belongs in PCEF rather than elsewhere in the budget. That is a legitimate policy conversation.
But that is not the same thing as pretending police hiring is itself a climate expenditure.
If this proposal makes it to the ballot, voters should get to decide it directly.
I respect that process. If Portland wants to rewrite the deal, then Portland should do it honestly and in public.
What I do not support is changing the purpose of a voter-approved fund through political maneuvering and then acting like it is just routine housekeeping.
It is not.
It is a public trust decision.
And the public should be the one to make it.
Public safety deserves honest funding.
Climate funds should be used for climate work unless voters decide otherwise. And Portland should not solve one trust problem by creating another.
That is not being soft on crime.
That is being honest with the public.
