January 07, 2003
City Dismisses Opposition to Reservoir Plan
Sorry, Friends of the Reservoirs, but despite the rather impressive success of this past Sunday's protest event, the city's government cares not what you think:
The Portland City Council is showing no signs of changing its decision to cover the city's open reservoirs, despite increasing pressure from neighborhood activists who say the $76 million choice was made behind closed doors and without public participation.
Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who oversees the Portland Water Bureau, said opponents "are interested in changing the outcome of a City Council decision that was made. And I have not had one council member approach me and express any interest in changing that decision."
In the insular world of insider politics, I suppose this makes sense. In the real world that Portland residents inhabit, it's the frilly equivalent of saying, "Screw you!"
Regardless of whether or not the plan to bury the reservoirs is legitimate, it's increasingly apparent (to me at least) that the entire process of public input into this plan has been seriously botched. That primary decision -- to bury them -- simply should not have been an almost completely private City Council affair.
According to the Tribune, this where it all stands:
There were no public hearings on what the city should do about the open reservoirs. The City Council voted during budget sessions last spring to partially fund the project by raising water rates by about $1 per month.
The city has since formed a committee of Portlanders to help decide what to build on top of the buried reservoirs. Options range from skate parks to reflecting ponds. The city recently increased its budget for landscaping work to $11 million.
Oh, and of course there's also this tidbit:
Opponents say they have concerns about conflicts of interest. The public process was designed by Montgomery Watson Harza Inc., a global consulting firm that is bidding for the contract to bury the reservoirs.
I wonder if anyone reading this is up to speed on the actual legal basis for public input into such decisions here in Portland. Are public comment requirements broad, vague, and general? Or are they very specific and distinct, and can therefore be compared against the process by which the early reservoir decisions were made?