Elect Joe Rowe - Portland Oregon House Dist 44 - We deserve universal healh care. End generous gifts to corporations making billions. Put people above profit - Do not vote for Tina Kotek



About Joe Rowe

Facbook here. Like us!
Our Campaign Goals:
Healthcare as a human right
Rent Control Now
End Oregon no cause evictions
Fund Schools not prisons
#BlackLivesMatter
Faster and more public transit
More classroom funding
Make polluters pay to cleanup and test 24/7
Pro-Choice
Pro-Labor
Pro Taxing the rich, not the poor
Endorsed by Greens, The Pacific Green Party

Joe in blue jacket
 

- Green Party Candidate
- Public School Teacher
- Public School Parent
- Active in the community
- Accepts money from Humans only
- No group or corporate Money!
 

Campaign Flyer

Donate

Other donation options: You can always call me (414) 465-8805   I'll send you my home address to send a check, or take your VISA info over the phone with my Square Register account.  I take only money only from individuals, and only $100 or less. I'll take any donations of skills or money.  

 

 

Fund schools & Fix our Criminal Injustice System

We could have prevented this week's murders of several innocent black men and 5 police officers.

  • Oregon is in the 3rd worst of states of funding higher education.
  • Oregon is in the top 5 states for spending on the unjust corrections system.  Pic from OregonEd.org
  • Oregon is the best state for #CorporateWelfare
  • Oregon has quadrupled corrections spending over the last 2 decades
  • Oregon per pupil funding has declined the last 25 years  OEA.org 

Put these 5 things together, and don't blame republicans.  Democrats in Salem have controlled our laws and the office of Governor  for many years. They've made only small changes.  Some of these small fixes are welcomed, but the main problem is money and priorities.  Oregon has been going in the wrong direction giving away more school funding to corporate gifts to Nike.    My opponent appoints all the House committees who draft our laws and kill reforms in committee; they don't even allow reforms to come to a vote.  Inflation is real and #CorporateDemocrats lie when they say they have increased funding for schools.  It's never gone up the last 25 years.   As MLK said in his letter from Birmingham jail: Our true enemy is the white moderate, not just the radical right.  All the laws to reform our system never see a dialog because they are killed in committee, and the person who assigns those committee members is your opponent and my opponent:  Tina Kotek. ( A white moderate who often votes against Democrats and with Republicans ) 

in 30 years we have quadrupled the prison budget

 

End no cause evictions - Elect Joe Rowe North Portland State House Dist 44

       Oregon needs BOTH - a) Rent control now  b)  Halting no cause evictions.  Thse tools only work as a pair.  

       My opponent ( Tina Kotek ) refused to answer 3 people at a town hall who asked about Rent Control. After 3 people asked, she finally said she opposes rent control, and said she was sorry when asked for a reason why.  Not a single reason given.   Many Democrats in Oregon have total contempt for renters, they won't even answer questions about rent control. 

     Right now your Oregon landlord can evict you anytime and raise rent by any amount.  Your only safety in Oregon is 90 days to find a new place.  People with a year long lease have only 12 months at that rate.  If you are month to month, you are screwed.   The fix is simple.  Rent control is simple - Once you start a rental, the price only goes up with inflation.  Once you select to leave, your landlord can jack up the rent to whatever the market can get.   Lawmakers in Oregon are very proud they recently moved the 30 day limit to 90 days, but they should be ashamed of that law.  

       We could instantly have rent control at zero cost under current law. The gatekeeper: The Democrats you voted for.   Any city or state lawmakers could instantly, and legally, start rent control in Oregon. We have these powers to declare a disaster, and don't use them locally or statewide. Oregon Law states "Cities, counties and state agencies may impose temporary rent controls (due to) disaster"   

       The just cause eviction text below is from Seattle City Code as of June 2016.   Seattle limits evictions to 16 just causes.  In Oregon you can be evicted at any time for no reason and you have just 90 days to find a new place for your family.  This is Oregon where democrats have fully controlled the house/senate and governor's office for over 3 years.  Prior to that they had near full control, with a tie in the State Senate in 2012.   Oregon democratic lawmakers are running for office and their material says they are proud they extended the eviction to 90 days from 30 days.  Democrats should be ashamed and shown a new career.  Please volunteer for a true progressive candidate near you.  http://electjoerowe.com/donate

a. The tenant fails to comply with a three day notice to pay rent or vacate pursuant to RCW 59.12.030(3); a ten day notice to comply or vacate pursuant to RCW 59.12.030(4); or a three day notice to vacate for waste, nuisance (including a drug-related activity nuisance pursuant to chapter RCW 7.43), or maintenance of an unlawful business or conduct pursuant to RCW 59.12.030(5);

b. The tenant habitually fails to pay rent when due which causes the owner to notify the tenant in writing of late rent four or more times in a 12 month period;

c. The tenant fails to comply with a ten day notice to comply or vacate that requires compliance with a material term of the rental agreement or that requires compliance with a material obligation under chapter 59.18 RCW;

d. The tenant habitually fails to comply with the material terms of the rental agreement which causes the owner to serve a ten day notice to comply or vacate three or more times in a 12 month period;

e. The owner seeks possession so that the owner or a member of his or her immediate family may occupy the unit as that person's principal residence and no substantially equivalent unit is vacant and available in the same building, and the owner has given the tenant at least 90 days' advance written notice of the date the tenant's possession is to end. The Director may reduce the time required to give notice to no less than 20 days if the Director determines that delaying occupancy will result in a personal hardship to the owner or to the owner's immediate family. Personal hardship may include but is not limited to hardship caused by illness or accident, unemployment, or job relocation. For the purposes of this Section 22.206.160, "Immediate family" includes the owner's domestic partner registered pursuant to Section 1 of Ordinance 117244 or the owner's spouse, parents, grandparents, children, brothers and sisters of the owner, of the owner's spouse, or of the owner's domestic partner. There is a rebuttable presumption of a violation of this subsection 22.206.160.C.1.e if the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family fails to occupy the unit as that person's principal residence for at least 60 consecutive days during the 90 days immediately after the tenant vacated the unit pursuant to a notice of termination or eviction using this subparagraph as the cause for eviction;

f. The owner elects to sell a single-family dwelling unit and gives the tenant at least 90 days' written notice prior to the date set for vacating, which date shall coincide with the end of the term of a rental agreement, or if the agreement is month to month, with the last day of a monthly period. The Director may reduce the time required to give notice to no less than 60 days if the Director determines that providing 90 days' notice will result in a personal hardship to the owner. Personal hardship may include but is not limited to hardship caused by illness or accident, unemployment, or job relocation. For the purposes of this Section 22.206.160, an owner "elects to sell" when the owner makes reasonable attempts to sell the dwelling within 30 days after the tenant has vacated, including, at a minimum, listing it for sale at a reasonable price with a realty agency or advertising it for sale at a reasonable price in a newspaper of general circulation. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the owner did not intend to sell the unit if:

1) Within 30 days after the tenant has vacated, the owner does not list the single-family dwelling unit for sale at a reasonable price with a realty agency or advertise it for sale at a reasonable price in a newspaper of general circulation, or

2)Within 90 days after the date the tenant vacated or the date the property was listed for sale, whichever is later, the owner withdraws the rental unit from the market, rents the unit to someone other than the former tenant, or otherwise indicates that the owner does not intend to sell the unit;

g. The tenant's occupancy is conditioned upon employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated;

h. The owner seeks to do substantial rehabilitation in the building; provided that, the owner must obtain a tenant relocation license if required by Chapter 22.210 and at least one permit necessary for the rehabilitation, other than a Master Use Permit, before terminating the tenancy;

i. The owner (i) elects to demolish the building, convert it to a cooperative, or convert it to a nonresidential use; provided that, the owner must obtain a tenant relocation license if required by Chapter 22.210 and a permit necessary to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy, or (ii) converts the building to a condominium provided the owner complies with the provisions of Sections 22.903.030 and 22.903.035;

j. The owner seeks to discontinue use of a housing unit unauthorized by Title 23 after receipt of a notice of violation. The owner is required to pay relocation assistance to the tenant(s) of each such unit at least two weeks prior to the date set for termination of the tenancy, at the rate of:

1)$2,000 for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months at or below 50 percent of the County median income, or

2)Two months' rent for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months above 50 percent of the County median income;

k. The owner seeks to reduce the number of individuals residing in a dwelling unit to comply with the maximum limit of individuals allowed to occupy one dwelling unit, as required by Title 23, and:

1)a) The number of such individuals was more than is lawful under the current version of Title 23 but was lawful under Title 23 or Title 24 on August 10, 1994;

b)That number has not increased with the knowledge or consent of the owner at any time after August 10, 1994; and

c)The owner is either unwilling or unable to obtain a permit to allow the unit with that number of residents.

2)The owner has served the tenants with a 30 day notice, informing the tenants that the number of tenants exceeds the legal limit and must be reduced to the legal limit,

3)After expiration of the 30 day notice, the owner has served the tenants with and the tenants have failed to comply with a ten day notice to comply with the limit on the number of occupants or vacate, and

4)If there is more than one rental agreement for the unit, the owner may choose which agreements to terminate; provided that, the owner may either terminate no more than the minimum number of rental agreements necessary to comply with the legal limit on the number of occupants, or, at the owner's option, terminate only those agreements involving the minimum number of occupants necessary to comply with the legal limit;

l.1) The owner seeks to reduce the number of individuals who reside in one dwelling unit to comply with the legal limit after receipt of a notice of violation of the Title 23 restriction on the number of individuals allowed to reside in a dwelling unit, and:

a)The owner has served the tenants with a 30 day notice, informing the tenants that the number of tenants exceeds the legal limit and must be reduced to the legal limit; provided that, no 30 day notice is required if the number of tenants was increased above the legal limit without the knowledge or consent of the owner;

b) After expiration of the 30 day notice required by subsection 22.206.160.1.1.a above, or at any time after receipt of the notice of violation if no 30 day notice is required pursuant to subsection 22.206.160.1.1.a, the owner has served the tenants with and the tenants have failed to comply with a ten day notice to comply with the maximum legal limit on the number of occupants or vacate; and

c)If there is more than one rental agreement for the unit, the owner may choose which agreements to terminate; provided that, the owner may either terminate no more than the minimum number of rental agreements necessary to comply with the legal limit on the number of occupants, or, at the option of the owner, terminate only those agreements involving the minimum number of occupants necessary to comply with the legal limit.

2) For any violation of the maximum legal limit on the number of individuals allowed to reside in a unit that occurred with the knowledge or consent of the owner, the owner is required to pay relocation assistance to the tenant(s) of each such unit at least two weeks prior to the date set for termination of the tenancy, at the rate of:

a)$2,000 for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months at or below 50 percent of the county median income, or

b)Two months' rent for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months above 50 percent of the county median income;

m. The owner seeks to discontinue use of an accessory dwelling unit for which a permit has been obtained pursuant to Sections 23.44.041 and 23.45.545 after receipt of a notice of violation of the development standards provided in those sections. The owner is required to pay relocation assistance to the tenant household residing in such a unit at least two weeks prior to the date set for termination of the tenancy, at the rate of:

1) $2,000 for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months at or below 50 percent of the county median income, or

2)Two months' rent for a tenant household with an income during the past 12 months above 50 percent of the county median income;

n. An emergency order requiring that the housing unit be vacated and closed has been issued pursuant to Section 22.206.260 and the emergency conditions identified in the order have not been corrected;

o. The owner seeks to discontinue sharing with a tenant of the owner's own housing unit, i.e., the unit in which the owner resides, seeks to terminate the tenancy of a tenant of an accessory dwelling unit authorized pursuant to Sections 23.44.041 and 23.45.545 that is accessory to the housing unit in which the owner resides, or seeks to terminate the tenancy of a tenant in a single-family dwelling unit and the owner resides in an accessory dwelling unit on the same lot. This subsection 22.206.160.C.1.o does not apply if the owner has received a notice of violation of the development standards of Section 23.44.041. If the owner has received such a notice of violation, subsection 22.206.160.C.1.m applies;

p. A tenant, or with the consent of the tenant, the tenant's subtenant, sublessee, resident, or guest, has engaged in criminal activity on the premises, or on the property or public right-of-way abutting the premises, and the owner has specified in the notice of termination the crime alleged to have been committed and the general facts supporting the allegation, and has assured that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has recorded receipt of a copy of the notice of termination. For purposes of this subsection 22.206.160.C.1.p, a person has "engaged in criminal activity" if he or she:

1)Engages in drug-related activity that would constitute a violation of chapters 69.41, 69.50, or 69.52 RCW, or

2)Engages in activity that is a crime under the laws of this state, but only if the activity substantially affects the health or safety of other tenants or the owner

https://www2.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT22BUCOCO_SUBTITLE_IIHOCO_CH22.206HABU_SUBCHAPTER_VIDUOWTE_22.206.160DUOW

You can find a google doc listing these eviction just causes here www.tinyurl.com/seattleevictions or  electjoerowe.com/evictions

Democrats promote corporate heath insurance waste

My platform and volunteering support health care as a human right.

Speaker Tina Kotek hinders Health Care as a human right, and uses marketing to hide it.  a) She appoints the committies that killed several bills co-sponsored by 23 fellow democrats b) she refuses to co-sponsor Oregon Laws to promote health care as a human right. 

This is the main reason I am running for office against Speaker Tina Kotek in Oregon.   It's no shock that she takes money from the corporations who feed off the people who lack care and pay high premiums for insurance.     I'll start with a picture, and a link to a power point that has a lot of great citations to the claims it makes.   Vote Joe in Nov 2016   See also http://www.hcao.org 

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbia.edu%2Fcu%2Fepic%2Fpdf%2FEPIC_Pierson_lect.ppt

picture shows Canada and USA costs in healthcare, USA wastes more

Greedy Corporations elect lawmakers

Oregon lawmakers have been too generous to corporations.

Short list of taxpayer gifts to corporations::
Intel     $766 Million
OHSU   $200 Million
PSU     $169 Million  ( Developers near PSU actually )
Nike     $150 Million
Hayatt   $80 Million

Still in doubt about the 1.4 Billion in handouts?

Click these links to open a new window to show the details:  

 

$766 million, Intel click here

$200 Million OHSU 

$169 million PSU & Downtown developers

$150 million Nike, click here

$80 million Hayatt Hotel  

Footnote:  Newspapers don't endorse me because I lack "institutional support".  That's the paradox.  I don't support giving these instituions 1.4 billion of taxpayer money.  I'm proud that I stand up against our greedy institutions such as Nike and Intel.  http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-22478-don%E2%80%99t_piss_it_away.html?current_page=5

 

Tina blocks Heath Care, Rent Control, See her vote and appoint committees

Where are Joe Rowe and Tina Kotek different?  Health Care, Rent Control, No Cause evictions.    

See Tina pass laws for corporations!

  • HB2922 (Assigned committee members who killed Health Care as a human right in Oregon, won't join 23 co-sponsors),
  • SB863 (GMO/Monsanto Voted yes, along with every Republican who voted) 
  • HB4200 (Voted yes, Tax Break for Nike )
  • HB2800 (Voted yes 30 year debt of $5 billion to $10 billion
  • HB2236 (assigned committee members who killed it) 
  • SB861  (Voted yes, cut pensions for low income seniors, assigned committee members who wrote it)

 

 

HB2922 Health Care as a Human Right.   Tina refused to cosponsor.  Chip Shields (North Portland Senator) co-sponsored it.  23 Democrats co-sponsored.  There are 90 lawmakers, so this should have passed easily with Democrats in the Majority.
 http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2013/HB2922/

 

 

HB2336 Tina silent,  refused to co-sponsor a law for cleaner air, died because Kotek appointed the committee that killed it. 
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2013/HB2336/
Yes  Sen. Chip Shields co-sponsored HB2336, He's your senator for District 44
 

SB863  Tina Voted Yes, Monsanto protection act. Prevents Portland from labeling GMO foods.  Kotek appointed the committee

Declared a false emergency
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2013/SB863/
 Kotek voted yes, as did every republican lawmaker who voted, SB863.   This law tells you where she stands when the chips are down. Senator Shields from Tina's same district opposed the Monsanto Protection act, Sen. Shields voted NO!   Most democrats voted NO.  Rep. Tina Kotek often stands with Republicans to undermine progressive issues. She stands with Corporations.  She did vote horse trading and was the lead negotiator to pass SB863.

 

HB 4200 Tina voted Yes.   Allowed Nike $150 million back door deals.  (Click here PDF)  PDF is written and signed by the Gov and Nike

See item 3b.   500 jobs created by Nike and gift of $150 million from taxpayers. Do the math.  It's an average of 300k per one job Nike creates.
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2012/HB4200/

HB2800  Tina voted Yes.   Take out 30 year bonds to spend $3 billion to construct a freeway and pay another $2-7 billion in bond interest and related costs and cost overruns.   Declares a false emergency.  WA stated rejected "sufficient funds".  Oregon now wishes to pay for WA state debt of $ billion with a plan called the "Oregon Only CRC"  plan.
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2013/HB2800/

 

SB861  Tina voted Yes.  Senator Shields voted no.    Cut the cost of living increase.  This is unconstitutional and breaks contracts to keep money for low income people in line with inflation.    
 

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2013/SB861/

Other news:
 

Kotek attempted to push laws for big corporations to sell hard liquor in Oregon ( Costco, Walmart)    Data collected by reporters shows that our liquor is cheaper than WA state with liquor in every store.   People in Oregon can't buy liquor on impulse or at all times.  This is a good thing we need to preserve.  
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21685-price_check_on_fireball.html

Feel free to vote for Tina Kotek if you think her values best represent you and those who can't vote in her district.  You might want to call her if she has yoru vote and is doing things to harm you, your food, or your neighbors  Kotek's Salem Office is  503-986-1200  Her North Portland office is 503-286-0558

 

North Portland Launches drive to buy air testing

Today I have launched a crowd sourcing fund drive to setup the first independent air testing in North Portland.    I was inspired to do this after attending a kickoff party for testing equipment at Chapman Elementary in NW Portland.   It's a school that's downwind of some very toxic industrial facilities.  

Here is a link to see the equipment at Chapman Elementary:
http://youtu.be/EzsGmHbMWFE

Here is the link where people can spend 3 minutes and $5 to get the testing started.
http://igg.me/at/testitstopit/x/6218773

 

 

Kickoff Party

You are invited!  Campaign Kickoff Party

Friday January 3rd, 6PM
7600 Hererford Ave, Portland Oregon 97203  - map http://goo.gl/maps/YqlBb  
( The nearby intersection of Lombard and Portsmouth is served by Bus #35 or #75 high frequency)
Free childcare provided ages 2-10. RSVP for childcare  (414) 465-880Five    joe@electjoerowe.com

click to add -     or  Apple calendar: cal pic< click icon

please like us on facebook   http://www.facebook.com/electjoerowe  

it's optional but you can RSVP on facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/590172351032520/?ref=22

 

Pages