Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Oregon Live)   Tough town to make a living - 92% of its voters say 25 is too old for a ho   (oregonlive.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Voting, Voting system, residents of Baker City, Election, Democracy, Voter turnout, city charter, use of this site  
•       •       •

3521 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2020 at 10:27 PM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
5 days ago  
I, personally, vote on sentimental value.  I STAND WITH THE 200!
 
5 days ago  
I spent two weeks in Baker City one night.
 
5 days ago  
We don't talk about them over there. It's a strange place.
 
5 days ago  
nbc.comView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

Combustion: I spent two weeks in Baker City one night.


I have also been to Baker City.
 
5 days ago  
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
There is a funny backhoe joke in the episode of 3rd Rock From the Sun titled "Dick and the Single Girl" but I can't find a screencap of it so fark it.
 
5 days ago  
Baker City is where those asshole conservative churches found a sympathetic judge to rule against the Governor's emergency orders, which caused chaos as suddenly the orders became null and void.  That is, until the Supreme Court stepped in (basically immediately) and stayed that ruling until they can review the case.  Oh, and that judge is Facebook friends with one of the plaintiffs.  

Basically, Baker City can go fark itself.  I hope this backhoe sells for less than that to spite them.
 
5 days ago  
Of course, that means that more than 7% of voters, 200 people, voted to keep the quarter-century-old piece of equipment, perhaps for sentimental value.

That's pretty good - I bet if you had an election that said "voting yes on this gets you shot in the head" - the yes voted would be close to 10%.
 
5 days ago  
Article didn't explain the value of the machine very well. Is a 25 year old piece of capital equipment still not depreciated on the books? Did it cost 10k in 1995? Are they hoping to sell it for 10k? Either way, that's some serious micromanaging bullshiat for a 10k person town.
 
5 days ago  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Article didn't explain the value of the machine very well. Is a 25 year old piece of capital equipment still not depreciated on the books? Did it cost 10k in 1995? Are they hoping to sell it for 10k? Either way, that's some serious micromanaging bullshiat for a 10k person town.


Adjusting for inflation, $10,000 in 1995 dollars is roughly 7.3 million.
 
5 days ago  
1995 is not really that old for a backhoe. There are still many from the 70s in service.
 
5 days ago  
Baker City has two supermarkets, across the street from one another.

Safeway and Albertsons.
 
5 days ago  
Which I GUESS would be kinda cool... "Oh that one is busy, let's go to the other one. That was fast."

They use the same ads now, so I imagine regular prices are similarly mandated by the corporate office.
 
5 days ago  
They went to all the trouble (and financial expense) of holding a vote to sell off a piece of equipment because they valued it over $10,000.

I'm glad that the community seems to be making cooperative decisions together, but I'm seriously going to laugh my farking ass off when they end up selling it for well below $10,000.
 
5 days ago  

Corvus: Of course, that means that more than 7% of voters, 200 people, voted to keep the quarter-century-old piece of equipment, perhaps for sentimental value.

That's pretty good - I bet if you had an election that said "voting yes on this gets you shot in the head" - the yes voted would be close to 10%.


It sounds like you know some libertarians.
 
5 days ago  

emtwo: They went to all the trouble (and financial expense) of holding a vote to sell off a piece of equipment because they valued it over $10,000.

I'm glad that the community seems to be making cooperative decisions together, but I'm seriously going to laugh my farking ass off when they end up selling it for well below $10,000.


They *really* should not have a problem getting $10-15k out of this. What's more, there might be reason given Oregon's lack of sales taxes for someone to drive from Idaho or Washington to pick it up.

10 years newer and that might sell for $25k if in the right shape.
 
5 days ago  
Mike Mulligan and Mary Anne are getting nervous.
 
5 days ago  

emtwo: Corvus: Of course, that means that more than 7% of voters, 200 people, voted to keep the quarter-century-old piece of equipment, perhaps for sentimental value.

That's pretty good - I bet if you had an election that said "voting yes on this gets you shot in the head" - the yes voted would be close to 10%.

It sounds like you know some libertarians.


Never shot a libertarian in the head.  It doesn't hurt the libertarian and you'll just drive yourself mad with the whistling sound when the wind rushes through the hole.
 
5 days ago  

mark_bert: 1995 is not really that old for a backhoe. There are still many from the 70s in service.


There are plenty of front hos from the 70s still in service, too, but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
5 days ago  

mark_bert: 1995 is not really that old for a backhoe. There are still many from the 70s in service.



That reminds me - say hi to your mom for me.
 
5 days ago  

stoli n coke: mark_bert: 1995 is not really that old for a backhoe. There are still many from the 70s in service.

There are plenty of front hos from the 70s still in service, too, but I wouldn't recommend it.


rackafargabargagrrrrrrrr
 
5 days ago  

emtwo: They went to all the trouble (and financial expense) of holding a vote to sell off a piece of equipment because they valued it over $10,000.

I'm glad that the community seems to be making cooperative decisions together, but I'm seriously going to laugh my farking ass off when they end up selling it for well below $10,000.


The rule is probably anchored to purchase price or total capital investment, specifically to prevent the council from pulling some shiat like soliciting an intentionally low false assessment from a crooked assessor to steal city property.

This rule is designed for real estate, by the way, to block an eminent domain scam so farking common that the problem is more that every city doesn't have this law. Seize a councilor's property for a city project, assessment is mysteriously high, project doesn't happen so the bylaws say the former owner gets a first chance to buy it back... Oh, look, the assessor hired by the city just realized the actual value of that property is almost nothing, what a mysterious series of events.

Basically having direct voter oversight automatically trigger at some point puts a choke on money laundering in a situation where normally oversight isn't possible due to the small size of the community. You actually see similar mechanisms very often in other kinds of corporations as well for similar reasons: the CEO has authority to make purchases and dispose of real property up to value x, value > x requires the board of directors to sign off. It's considered something of a common sense provision.

// The fact that the city at one point purchased construction equipment outright instead of renting it or having contactors deal with it as part of a contract kinda speaks to why the voters voted for these kinds of limits to begin with: feels like it was probably a response to some specific ongoing incidents of corruption or mismanagement instead of paranoia.
 
5 days ago  

Jim_Callahan: emtwo: They went to all the trouble (and financial expense) of holding a vote to sell off a piece of equipment because they valued it over $10,000.

I'm glad that the community seems to be making cooperative decisions together, but I'm seriously going to laugh my farking ass off when they end up selling it for well below $10,000.

The rule is probably anchored to purchase price or total capital investment, specifically to prevent the council from pulling some shiat like soliciting an intentionally low false assessment from a crooked assessor to steal city property.

This rule is designed for real estate, by the way, to block an eminent domain scam so farking common that the problem is more that every city doesn't have this law. Seize a councilor's property for a city project, assessment is mysteriously high, project doesn't happen so the bylaws say the former owner gets a first chance to buy it back... Oh, look, the assessor hired by the city just realized the actual value of that property is almost nothing, what a mysterious series of events.

Basically having direct voter oversight automatically trigger at some point puts a choke on money laundering in a situation where normally oversight isn't possible due to the small size of the community. You actually see similar mechanisms very often in other kinds of corporations as well for similar reasons: the CEO has authority to make purchases and dispose of real property up to value x, value > x requires the board of directors to sign off. It's considered something of a common sense provision.

// The fact that the city at one point purchased construction equipment outright instead of renting it or having contactors deal with it as part of a contract kinda speaks to why the voters voted for these kinds of limits to begin with: feels like it was probably a response to some specific ongoing incidents of corruption or mismanagement instead of paranoia.


I'm not knocking the policy; I'm merely rooting for irony.
 
5 days ago  
Once upon a time not long ago...
NSFW

Mariahlynn - Once Upon a Time (not long ago, I was a HOE)! OFFICIAL VIDEO !!
Youtube 1IPtQCo-Ah8
 
5 days ago  
Baker City has four Starbucks, across the street from one another.
 
5 days ago  

red5ish: Baker City has four Starbucks, across the street from one another.


You misread. That was SheepF*cks
 
5 days ago  
Jim_Callahan:
This rule is designed for real estate, by the way, to block an eminent domain scam so farking common that the problem is more that every city doesn't have this law. Seize a councilor's property for a city project, assessment is mysteriously high, project doesn't happen so the bylaws say the former owner gets a first chance to buy it back... Oh, look, the assessor hired by the city just realized the actual value of that property is almost nothing, what a mysterious series of events.

http://oregonvotes.gov/pages/local_me​a​sures/2020_P_1-99.pdf


That might make some sort of sense, but the code apparently states that this law applies to anything except real estate?   What the fark?
 
5 days ago  

BretMavrik: Mike Mulligan and Mary Anne are getting nervous.


Nice reference
 
5 days ago  

Kuta: Once upon a time not long ago...
NSFW

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/1IPtQCo-​Ah8]


I like her!
NSFW

MariahLynn - Too Much Money (Official Video)
Youtube 5edZL8hAXrw
 
5 days ago  

Corvus: Of course, that means that more than 7% of voters, 200 people, voted to keep the quarter-century-old piece of equipment, perhaps for sentimental value.

That's pretty good - I bet if you had an election that said "voting yes on this gets you shot in the head" - the yes voted would be close to 10%.


I'd say closer to 15%
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.