OREGON: Why are we paying for ODOT’s screw-ups?
Four Main Reasons:
Bad Management
Shit Math
Poor Planning
Fraud
According to Representative Cyrus Javadi
" I hear a lot of people ask, “Why are we paying for ODOT’s screw-ups?” Fair question. But you’re not. Not really.
Here’s what I mean.
To plan for that, they have to guess how much maintenance will cost over the next two years. It’s an educated guess, but still a guess, because weather, fuel prices, labor shortages, commodity prices, inflation, and disaster cleanup all swing wildly from year to year.
And, when the guess is off, the maintenance budget comes up short. Every. Single. Time.
But here's the thing: even if the guess were perfect, the money still wouldn’t be enough. Not by a mile. So, ODOT starts every budget cycle knowing they’ll have to defer some maintenance and hope nothing catastrophic happens.
Why? Because the State Highway Fund, which comes mostly from the gas tax, hasn’t brought in enough to cover basic needs for a very long time. They estimate how many gallons Oregonians will buy, multiply it by 40 cents, and that number becomes the spending cap. If it’s not enough (and it never is), things get pushed off.
That’s exactly why we need at least the six-cent increase. Not because of a mistake. But because the basic cost of asphalt, steel, concrete, labor, equipment, and emergency work keeps climbing, and the revenue hasn’t kept up.
Keep in mind, the six cent increase still doesn’t catch us up. It only keeps us from falling even farther behind.
When ODOT came back to the legislature in 2025 and said, “We can’t cut any more maintenance,” the legislature had two options: cut services and let the system deteriorate, or add revenue.
Six cents was the smallest lever that kept the doors open and the crews working.
You don’t have to love any of this. I don’t. But the honest explanation is simple: Oregonians aren’t paying for an accounting mistake, they’re paying the actual cost of keeping roads safe, drivable, and open.
And even then, it’s not enough.'
He then added nonsense imagery such as the following which is both misleading on one hand and a blatant fraud on the other.
🔎 Rebuttal: False or Misleading Claims in the Statement
1. “You’re not paying for ODOT’s screw-ups.”
False framing: Oregonians are paying for ODOT’s mismanagement. HB 2017 (“Keep Oregon Moving”):
Raised gas tax by 10¢ in phases: +4¢ in 2018, +2¢ in 2020, 2022, and 2024. HB 2017 layered new taxes (gas tax hikes, registration surcharges, payroll taxes) precisely because ODOT failed to prioritize within constitutional limits.
Constitutional fact: Article IX, Sec. 3a requires highway funds to be used only for highway purposes. Misallocation or poor forecasting is not excused by raising taxes.
2. “They have to guess how much maintenance will cost… Every. Single. Time.”
Misleading: Budget forecasting is standard, but ODOT has statutory formulas and historical data. HB 2017 already phased in predictable increases to account for inflation and rising costs.
False implication: This is not “guesswork” — it’s structured budgeting. Claiming chronic shortfalls every cycle ignores that ODOT receives billions annually from dedicated highway revenues.
3. “Even if the guess were perfect, the money still wouldn’t be enough.”
False: HB 2017 raised the gas tax by 10¢ in phases, plus registration surcharges, plus payroll taxes. These increases were designed to cover maintenance and capital projects.
No evidence: There is no statutory or constitutional “maintenance cap” (the alleged “6%” figure is fabricated). Maintenance is funded within the highway purposes mandate.
4. “The State Highway Fund… hasn’t brought in enough to cover basic needs for a very long time.”
False: The Highway Fund is constitutionally protected and has grown steadily with tax increases. HB 2017 alone added billions in new revenue streams.
Misleading math: Gas tax revenue is not capped at “40 cents × gallons sold.” HB 2017 raised the rate to 40¢ by 2024, but the fund also includes registration fees, weight‑mile taxes, and other constitutionally dedicated revenues.
5. “That’s exactly why we need at least the six‑cent increase.”
False claim: There is no constitutional or statutory requirement for a “six‑cent increase.” HB 2017 already phased in 10¢. Any new increase is a political choice, not a constitutional necessity.
Misleading: Suggesting that six cents is the “smallest lever” ignores that ODOT could reprioritize spending within existing revenues.
6. “The six cent increase still doesn’t catch us up.”
Unsupported: No legislative or audit report establishes that a six‑cent increase is insufficient. This is rhetoric, not documented fact.
Reality: EV owners already pay disproportionately higher fees (up to $115/year (not counting per‑mile charges)totaling ~$632 over 4 years. Adding more gas tax hikes compounds inequity without addressing efficiency.
Per‑Mile Charges: Oregon will mandate ~2.3¢/mile or a flat $340/year starting 2027.
If combined with registration surcharges, EV drivers pay more than gas‑vehicle owners, undermining adoption.
7. “ODOT came back to the legislature in 2025 and said, ‘We can’t cut any more maintenance.’”
Misleading: ODOT’s testimony often emphasizes funding gaps, but audits show inefficiencies and mismanagement. “Can’t cut any more” is a political statement, not a constitutional or statutory fact.
Reality: The legislature has discretion to redirect priorities within highway purposes; it is not bound to raise taxes.
8. “Six cents was the smallest lever that kept the doors open and the crews working.”
False framing: ODOT’s crews are funded by constitutionally dedicated revenues. HB 2017 already secured long‑term funding streams. Claiming “doors would close” without six cents is fear‑mongering.
Reality: The Highway Fund cannot be diverted to non‑highway uses, so “keeping doors open” is not contingent on arbitrary tax hikes.
9. “Oregonians aren’t paying for an accounting mistake, they’re paying the actual cost of keeping roads safe.”
False: Oregonians are paying for ODOT’s inefficiencies and layered taxation. EV owners in particular pay more than gas‑vehicle owners, despite lower road impact.
Reality: HB 2017’s revenue streams already cover highway purposes. Additional increases are not about “safety” but about expanding ODOT’s budget beyond efficient use.
⚠️ Additional Adverse Effects Ignored
Equity: EV drivers face stacked fees (registration + per‑mile), discouraging adoption.
Ratepayer burden: Grid upgrades for EV charging shift billions in costs onto households.
Environmental strain: Transmission expansion impacts habitats; fossil fuels still backstop peak demand.
Economic impact: Oregon already ranks among the highest in gas taxes nationally; further increases compound household strain.
Grid Strain: Oregon’s energy strategy projects a 9 GW shortfall by 2030, risking rolling blackouts.
Utilities must invest heavily in transmission and charging infrastructure, with costs passed to ratepayers.
Mixed Energy Sources: Oregon’s electricity mix still includes natural gas and coal alongside hydro and renewables. EVs therefore reduce but do not eliminate fossil fuel reliance.
Disproportionate Burden:
Individuals, not corporations, bear EV fees unless companies own fleets.
Everyday citizens face rising costs while large corporate emitters avoid EV‑specific charges.
🧩 Closing Rebuttal
The claim that “six cents is the smallest lever” is false and misleading. Oregon’s Constitution already dedicates highway revenues, HB 2017 already raised taxes, and EV owners already pay disproportionately. Oregonians are not simply “paying for asphalt and steel” — they are paying for ODOT’s inefficiencies, layered taxation, and misplaced priorities.
