October 02, 2003
(Updated) Opposing Sides On Reservoir Burial Dig In
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
This past Sunday, opponents of the City's plans to bury the Mt. Tabor reservoirs once again encircled Reservoir No. 6, although the original plan called for assembling enough people to join hands around No. 5 as well, with a "waterfall" of people down the stairs between.
The demonstration, meant to build local support for leaving the picturesque ponds intact, is part of what promises to be a long and noisy fight over their fate, organizers said.
"This is a shot across the bow to the City Council," said Paul Leistner of the Mount Tabor Neighborhood Association. "This is a first shout to get their attention."
Which of course makes no sense, since people have been shouting about this for months now. On a parenthetical note, the parade up SE Hawthorne Boulevard to Reservoir No. 6 was delayed, reportedly because the march permit listed a 1:00 PM start time rather than the earlier one announced by organizers.
There's a small bit on the ongoing reservoir controversy in The Portland Mercury today as well.
Some coverage (scroll down) of this continuing battle reports that a poll by a business coalition opposed to the burial project "found that 77 percent supported reopening public comment on the reservoir plan, 51 percent said Portland water rates are already too high, and 74 percent favored an independent audit of the water bureau."
And despite Phil Stanford's assertion that "in private, Commissioner Dan Saltzman is expressing doubts about the water bureau's cockamamie multimillion-dollar plan to cover P-town's reservoirs," the City Council yesterday approved bonds which include money for the project.
Meanwhile, burial opponents continue to target the ballot box, most recently by petitioning to refer yesterday's bond ordinance to voters -- although The Oregonian reports that the City elections officer expects to reject it on the ground that so-called "emergency" ordinances cannot be referred to voters. In the meantime, two initiatives targetting the Water Bureau (#2 and #3 on this page) are currently being petitioned.
And while I'm not absolutely certain, I'm inclined to suspect that the first letter in Tuesday's Tribune is by an occassional commenter here.
Update
Phil Stanford updates his previous report:
Contrary to what you may have read in certain newspaper columns, says Commissioner Dan Saltzman, he has had "absolutely no second thoughts" on the water bureau's $77 million (or is that now $107 million?) plan to cap the city's reservoirs. ... A poll, currently circulating around City Hall, shows that 77 percent of the city's residents think the city should reconsider the project -- which, as Saltzman acknowledges, will raise water rates at least another 8 percent. ... Saltzman, however, is unimpressed. "I don't think we should be subject to public opinion polls," he says. "Sometimes we do unpopular things." ... Sometimes we sure do.
Parenthetically, I should say how grateful I am that the Tribune stopped posting their articles online full of crappy "smart quotes" that always get messed up during cut-and-paste operations.
Comments (1)
Dave Lister on 02 Oct 2003
Dear b!X and readers,
You may be absolutely certain that the letter printed in the Tribune was mine, because it was. I stand by those comments 100%.
As a professional business software developer I became interested in Water Bureau matters last December when it was announced that Saltzman intended to scrap Sten's botched billing system. I put forward to Commissioner Saltzman and OMF an approach which would have allowed a firm like ours to solve the problem for less than one million dollars. Based on the advice of an out of area consultant, they have decided to buy a new, multi million dollar billing software program and all new equipment upon which to run it.
The Portland Water Utility is absolutely hemorrhaging money and the ratepayers are getting hosed (no pun intended). The consultant who was retained to help select new software was paid a half million and I understand the consultant on the burial scheme is being paid five million. These are fees incurred before one line of computer code is generated or one shovel of dirt is lifted. Aside from the onerous residential water and sewer rates, I am concerned that large commercial water users will be forced to leave the city thereby increasing our unemployment and furthering Portland's reputation as being business unfriendly.