March 03, 2005

(Updated) Breaking: Mazziotti Resigning From Portland Development Commission?

Stay Tuned Cites Family Reasons, Decision Effective In 90 Days

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

Over the transom a few minutes ago was reader email claiming that Don Mazziotti had resigned his position as executive director of the Portland Development Commission. Moments later, another local blogger who had heard that rumor emailed to ask if it was true.

We have no confirmation (nor, for that matter, denial) from PDC itself of this rumor as of this initial posting. However, what we do know is that they are sending out some sort of statement within the next several minutes. Updates to follow.

March 03, 2005

Update

Confirmed. Below are the three documents just released by PDC. We haven't read them yet, and are passing them along here right away.

March 03, 2005

Update

Unless we've missed something, nothing in any of these documents provides a reason for Mazziotti's resignation. We're somewhat speed reading here, so if anyone else saw a reason mentioned, please mention it.

His resignation will not be effective for another ninety days.

March 03, 2005

Update

Actually, we now notice that the subhead on the press release says he is resigning in order to "focus attention on matters closer to home". The cynic in us can't help but idly wonder if this is the same as the "personal reasons" or "family reasons" that officials often cite when they are being forced out. Please note that is, as we said, purely idle speculation on our part.

March 03, 2005

Update

Yes, speed reading doesn't help. "In the short term, it is my desire to concentrate on more time with my family," Mazziotti says in his statement. "I also intend to spend some time weighing various private sector opportunities, but will not rule out continuing work in the public sector."

« Previous Next »

Comments (70)

  1. Lily on 03 Mar 2005

    Probably more like resigning before the sh*t hits the fan about family of Funds.

  2. allehseya on 03 Mar 2005

    In my experience, Don was always very helpful and patient with all of the people and organizations seeking to prevent the demolition of Centennial Mills prior to the local elections. He was willing to listen to citizen input and concerns above and beyond the context of public hearings and testimonies and was patient in explaining how the PDC process works and who oversaw each aspect. He returned calls and emails in a timely manner and while our interactions didnt span a significant amount of time, I think it says a lot about an Executive Director -- especially when people in that position are notorious for being "too busy" to address grass-roots activists -- and have a tendency to allocate such things to their 'assistants'.

  3. Jack Bog on 03 Mar 2005

    Don is a total Goldschmidt lieutenant who ignored 95% or more of Portland's population to feed public money to Neil's clients. I'm sure he was very prompt in returning calls from Homer Williams and Dr. Kohler. Since Vera was also Neil's puppet, he was protected. But now we have a mayor who isn't beholden to the same old crowd, and "the Don" has been handed his walking papers. It is truly a great day for our city.

    Now the PDC needs to be disbanded, and urban renewal pladed back inside City Hall as a fully accountable bureau. The sooner, the better.

  4. The One True b!X on 03 Mar 2005

    Now the PDC needs to be disbanded, and urban renewal pladed back inside City Hall as a fully accountable bureau. The sooner, the better.

    I might be talking out of my ass here, but if I recall correctly, technically, the City Council itself could be the development commission.

    Although PDC was created as a Charter element, in which case it would take a Charter change to get rid of it.

  5. The One True b!X on 03 Mar 2005

    Yes, technically, City Council could itself function as Portland's urban renewal agency, as per ORS 457.045(3) (scroll down).

    There's also a provision which says that a municipality may "transfer the authority to exercise the powers of the urban renewal agency to any other body authorized to exercise those powers" -- but it talks of doing so by ordinance, whereas Portland's urban renewal agency was created by City Charter, not an ordinance, so presumably we'd still need a Charter change.

  6. Jack Bog on 03 Mar 2005

    Whatever. Bring it on. And then let that sleazy "Family of Funds" twist in the wind until it's dead.

  7. The One True b!X on 03 Mar 2005

    For the record, I wasn't dumping all the arcana into the mix to dissuade anyone, heh.

    Frankly, I'm all for having that conversation. I find compelling elements in the argument that Council should act as our urban renewal agency directly.

  8. Jack Peek on 04 Mar 2005

    OH PLEASE...let me comment!

    PDC partially financed my little pet issue to the tune of a loan to a "non-profit" (then Network behavorial)now Cascadia, at 3PERCENT,let me repete that less then market 3 percent loan to buy the criminally insane group home near Marysville grade school in SE where B!X will not live.

    The info was a FOIA request where the loan document said these people were "qoute, "difficult to place", no sh-- it must be real hard to place four murders and a arsonist in any neighborhood.

    Well that's true if it where Vera Katz's neighborhood, which got rid of a federal one.

    The PDC needs to go!

  9. cab on 04 Mar 2005

    How about we get rid of PDC along with Jack Peek and Jack Blog. Its tiring reading such negativity. Why do either one of you live in the city? I'm sure the beautiful Canby Oregon would be more to your liking. Its so obvious that the issue you both have is your hatred for living in a CITY.

  10. Jack Peek on 04 Mar 2005

    GEE..B!X thinks living next to a "nuthouse" is OK,perhaps you want one in your neighborhood, let me know...cause I know the right people to call.

    As far as "the "BOGGER" guy, why don't you ask him why he moved from the "Buckman" neighborhood, if he won't tell you, I WILL!

    The downside of living here??? better not go there.

  11. Jack Bog on 04 Mar 2005

    Whoever "cab" is doesn't deserve an answer, but let me try one.

    I love living in a city, and in this city in particular. But I want my city to strive to be as great as it can be, for as many people as possible. I want the people who run the city to put their own personal gain below the needs of others. And I want the city to know and honor its own uniqueness and history.

    The PDC is none of that. It's just overseeing the last throes of the Californication of Portland. It talks about helping "business," but the only business it's helping is condo development and construction -- and only about a dozen players. It's made a lot of stupid, expensive mistakes. Moreover, the way it's set up invites selfishness and corruption.

    I still love Portland. But it's a love tinged with some sadness. Come back, Tom McCall... maybe in the person of Tom Potter.

  12. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    But now we have a mayor who isn't beholden to the same old crowd, and "the Don" has been handed his walking papers. It is truly a great day for our city.

    That is pure conjecture -- and while I often find your opinions interesting at the very least -- it remains that -- an opinion -- no matter how ardently you try to make it appear as fact.

  13. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    disclaimer --- everything before the comma in the quote above (post 12) wasnt supposed to be included in the quote.

    The conjecture I was referring to on Jacks part is:

    and "the Don" has been handed his walking papers. It is truly a great day for our city.

    I voted for Tom Potter and do not feel that he is beholden to any one group or interest in the manner Jack Bog suggested of previous City Govt.

  14. cab on 04 Mar 2005

    Jack you ever think the city has passed you by? ALL your complaints lead back to your inability to deal with Portland "growing up" We are not the same city we were in 1970 and thank god for that. We changing and evolving as all cities should. From your righting the only thing your for is stagnation. The PDC has been making some bad choices of late, but they all are trying to make our city better. At least they are trying. YOur offering nothing but negitivity and bitterness.

  15. Jack Bog on 04 Mar 2005

    If anyone would like to see what I would have proposed for North Macadam, I'd be glad to show you. There are plenty of examples of healthy development I could point to that we could have modeled ourselves on, were it not for condo tower greed.

    But I'm not rich, and I'm not Neil G. or one of the West Hills elite, so nobody really cares.

    This city is making a lot of mistakes. And it's not just coping with Californication -- it's inviting it, and it's making it worse in many ways.

  16. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    If you think Jack Bog is bitter- then colour me bitter as well. In the past 20 years I have watched Portland go from being an truly affordable city (not just affordable to the wealthy or folks with rich parents) that was a very pleasant place to live. I've watched my friends (happily) raise their families here.

    Thanks to Neil, Vera and the PDC, this is not even recognizable as the same city. Progress is a double-edged sword. Not all that is shiny and new is good. People with "normal" incomes cannot afford to lve in the inner-city anymore. There are houses listed in Buckman for $500,000-$775,000. Our schools and libraries constantly struggle for the funds to continue. Public programs go on the chopping block daily. Our city has become a place where you can't compete without lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    It could have been so different. There are plenty of examples of cities that have vital thriving urban renewal programs that actually work in tandem with ALL of it's citizens (check the Minneapolis Neighbourhood Revitalization Program for one). Instead we've had years of corruption, with public dollars going to the same old developers, for projects that enrich the same old developers, while the funding gaps (and there have been in just about every major PDC project) are taken up by the taxpayers in the form of bonds and so on. Who do you think pays for these bonds?? I saw a bumper sticker a few years ago that reminded me of the PDC "I can't possibly be out of money, I still have checks left." I say three cheers to Jack Bog and b!X for having the guts to tell it like they see it!!!

  17. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    P.S. "Cab" if you are so "tired of all this negativity" then why do you bother to read these blogs? What you read here and on Jack Bog's blog are things that the Boregonian won't touch for fear of offending the "good ole boys". Freedom of expression, ever heard of that? One thing I have noticed is that people like you sound as if you are younger, while we middle-aged folks have been around a bit longer and have watched the big picture for a long time now. Background. Content. Context. These are important parts of understanding issues.

  18. cab on 04 Mar 2005

    Lily, Jack has offered nothing other then complaints on this site for some time. As for prices, show me a popular city that isn't expensive? Again we don't live in a bubble. Outside influence is going to have an effect on us. God forbid the city tried to make this a better place and in the process drive up cost. I guess we could have let the Goodman families of the world put in abundent parking lots and Walmarts and lower our property values or let SW waterfront Rot. No doubt the PDC and the city have made mistakes, but all in all they have had a more positive impact then negative. You may not like the Pearl (I find it way to richy rich myself) but its added vibrancy to a once dead area.

    Sorry I haven't reach that age were the myths of the "good old days" are overblown because a person stops looking forward. I'm not afraid of change and when I see people like Jack bringing down anything new and different I have to call them on it. Why should the public who still have a positive outlook for the future suffer a person who doesn't realize that he didn't walk to school uphill in the snow both ways in the glory days?

    I have to ask, do you see anything positive about SW waterfront?

  19. doretta on 04 Mar 2005

    I have a lot of questions about PDC and how they operate myself and the Minneapolis program looks very interesting.

    On the other hand, I don't get the condo-phobia thing. Jack Bog, point me to some of those other examples you mentioned above, would you?

    If you want to allow more people to live near the core of the city, how do you do that with low density housing? Isn't the increase in housing prices a supply and demand thing? Demand for close-in housing is growing and by definition there is a limit on how much land there is close-in to build on. Isn't building higher density housing, e.g. condos, one way to help meet that demand? Would those homes in Buckman cost less if only they hadn't built all those condos in the Pearl?

    Lily, I certainly reject the contention that "middle-aged" and "bitter" have to go hand in hand or that a preference for positive energy is necessarily naive, even if cab did pick a rather strange way of expressing such a preference. I read Communique partly because b!X exudes positive energy even when he's being pissy--he always seems to have a point. That's as opposed to people for whom negativity appears to be the only point.

  20. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    One of the things I admire about Commissioner Sten is that he does address the issue of affordable housing within the vision of Urban Renewal. Sten understands the cost of our revitalized areas being a pitfall in the cities growth in that it limits the accessibility for all incomes. While Jack makes continuous references to the shortcomings of City Council and the PDC's role in working with/for them, I daresay that he neglects to keep in mind that there are voices that speak to his issues / concerns.

    And yes, Jack -- I'm interested in your showing me the proposal for North Macadam -- post a link or e-mail me. Maybe you can keep it handy when discussions begin again regarding Centennial Mills.

  21. The One True b!X on 04 Mar 2005

    For what it's worth, aspects of the neighborhood system in Minneapolis came up repeatedly in both the conversations of the Public Involvement Task Force here in Portland, and during last year's Council and Mayoral campaigns.

    If I recall correctly, it also came up at City Council this past week, although for the life of me I cannot remember the context.

    Don't be surprised if discussion of that model picks up here in Portland this year.

  22. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    Speaking of the Public Involvement Taskforce -- where do their proposed Recommendations for Neighborhood Involvement stand now?

    Has ONI presented them to City Council and if so -- were they adopted? (sorry if I may have missed any info posted on this)

  23. The One True b!X on 04 Mar 2005

    They have been in a holding pattern while ONI finished work on the Guidelines Review, Empowerment, and Assessment Taskforce.

    I do know that at one recent Council session, Mayor Potter referred to the need to adopt the PITF recommendations, so the matter certianly has not gotten lost altogether in the shuffle.

  24. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    No, I don't see anything particularly good about SW Waterfront. For one thing, the site is extremely contaminated with soil toxins, and was "given" to the city by the Schnitzers in order for them to avoid paying the hugely expensive price of clean-up. Not to mention they get a whopping big tax write-off. Where's the altruism in that? And why should we pay those costs?

    The Pearl was built with urban renewal monies and tax increment financing perks. The original Pearl "settlers" were given 10-20 YEAR tax breaks. Why should people who can afford to pay $500,000-$1 milion+ for housing pay NO property taxes? Do you understand that tax bases/dollars provide funding for our schools and so on? Every dollar that went into the Pearl could have gone towards improving other areas of the city, but where's the glamour in that? Where's the excitement? And most specifically, WHERE'S THE BIG TIME PROFITS FOR THE DEVELOPERS?

    A lot of people have become very wealthy thanks to all this urban renewal. People like Homer Williams, Doug Oblitz and so on. The same old developers get all of the contracts. Case in point: The Burnside Bridgehead Development project. Brad Maslin of Beam development has a very good solution that has received FULL support of the public, yet the PDC has bent over backwards trying to find a way to give the project to Gerding/Edlen. The public has spoken, but the PDC doesn't want to listen. Instead, they waffle and give G/E and/or Opus another chance to "get it right" (by stealing key elements of Beam's proposal). Bear in mind that when the Brewery Blocks were developed, Gerding/Edlen was a struggling new firm. The PDC put their money behind G/E, yet they are unwilling to do the same thing for Beam Development.

    Until this January, there has been little to no public process or transparency between the PDC and the public. Decisions were made in private and the results forced upon the public. Mayor Katz allowed this practice to go on during her entire reign. Don't you get it?? Ideally, cities are meant to work for everyone. On the masthead of this very blog you will see the C. E.S. Wood's quote " Great citizens are the riches of a city". That's ALL citizens, not just the ones with power connections and bucks to make things go their way.

    I am on the board of my neighbourhood association and I attend 3-6 meetings per week. All kinds of meetings, and for many years I have seen firsthand the kind of corruption that has been rampant in city government and private development. It really burns my *ss to see my tax dollars fund other areas, when we are not only without a community center here, but are threatened with the loss of our tiny pool located in Buckman Elementary School.

    You are so quick to condemn Jack Bog, yet are you really listening to what he has to say? Because when I read his posts and his blogs, I see someone who has a very clear picture of what goes on in this city. And who feels great sadness about the way things have come to pass here in Portland. I also see optimism and enthusiasm in his support of Potter. Some hope, tempered with realism. Then again, Jack and his wife lived in Buckman for years and so have seen the complete disregard of the city for the residents of poorer neighbourhoods.

  25. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    I

    agree

    with

    Potter.

    They are taking too !!#@(*8!! long.

  26. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    Doreeta- Where in my post did I say that middle-aged and bitter must go hand in hand? I think you are projecting that "contention". Ever seen that bumper sticker "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention"?

    When this city is addressing the needs of ALL it's citizens, then I'll be happy.

    P.S. I have been touting the Minneapolis project for years now. I sent a link to their website to both Sam Adams and Tom Potter when they were campaiging. A responsible city government CAN happen. But it takes watchdogs like b!X and Jack to keep us informed as to what is REALLY going on.

  27. allehseya on 04 Mar 2005

    But it takes watchdogs like b!X and Jack to keep us informed as to what is REALLY going on.

    The only danger lay in confusing their opinions as facts.

    b!X does a wonderful job in clarifying the difference between the two and cites sources where we can draw our own conclusions -- with all due respect -- I cannot say the same for Jack. I do, however, look forward to reading his opinions.

  28. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    Actually, Allehseya, I think Jack does provide plenty of links to substantiating sources on his site, and he is also quite upfront that his opinions are just that- his opinions. If you don't like what he has to say, then perhaps you should a) stop reading his blog, and/or b) create your own blog. Myself, there's no way I would ever have the time or skills to run a bog. So I'm grateful to those who do, such as b!X and Jack B. Then again, I am quite capable of reaching my own conclusions.

    P.S. An old saying from Poman times- Don't shoot the mesenger!!

  29. Cab on 04 Mar 2005

    Lily I totally agree with you on the burnside bridgehead issue. If the PDC doesn't pick Beam they should get roasted. But the idea that we don't get public benifit from both the Pearl and SW waterfront doesn't make sense. I cannot wait until the industrial waste dump is CLEANED and we connect the public walkway and bicycle path along the waterfront. I don't see anything wrong with turning a toxic graveyard into a public asset. We will get over a mile of new waterfront open to the public, we get 3 new parks and we eventually get a huge tax base. I know in the short term the tax issue doesn't look good, but in the long run this area, just like the pearl, will pay more taxes then any storage warehouse or empty lots ever will.

  30. Lily on 04 Mar 2005

    Cab- I just think that there is a time and a place for projects like the waterfront, but that is AFTER the basics are set. When the city is running smoothly and public service programs aren't continually threatened with extinction, then that's the time to look into other projects.
    Case in point: The absurd Tram project which will cost hundreds of millions and will enrich only the developers. Or how about the Armory project?? Why should the city spends millions on that project when there are thousands of homeless people wandering our streets? When the quality of our children's education is threatened, and people are going without food.

    Work with the city that we have, here and now. Make it a better place for EVERYONE, not just the people with lots of money. Portland has it's own charm and I'd like to see those things encouraged, instead of this race to be just like Seattle or San Francisco.

    Just for the record- the Pearl most ashuredly does NOT create alot of tax dollars because of the property tax abatements/giveaway by the PDC. It'll be decades (if ever) that the Pearl pays it's own way. That area was built on the backs of the taxpayers (people like you and me). The only people to profit were the developers. Homer made beaucoup dollars because he was able to sell all of those condos with tax abatements, which in the long run, you and I pay for, in lost tax dollars which fund our schools etc. So who ends up taking the slack?? We do!

  31. cab on 04 Mar 2005

    Cities have to be looked at in terms of decades not a few years. The fact is in the long run the development in the Pearl will pay for itself. As for the Tram, how would YOU have kept OHSU from moving to Hillsboro? Would you like to be the PR person telling the citizens of the city that we let thousands of jobs leave? I agree I wish we could take care of the basics, but again in the US tell me a place that is taking care of these basics? Schools throughout our country are failing, we have the most expensive heathcare in the industrialized world. ALL cities are seeing massive homeless problems. These problems exist because of US policy, you can only do so much locally. I just don't see anything wrong with the city helping private industries create and or save parts of downtown for all of our futures.

  32. Richard from the Pearl on 04 Mar 2005

    Cab is Homer Williams. I recognize the sleeze.

    To Cab and little for Lily

    Try the whole REAL picture

    Cab,"""or let SW waterfront Rot"""

    The planing department with it's 109 planners and the developers have successfully created this nonsense that no other option existed for SoWa in order to move on their agenda of density and profits at every and all costs.
    That's why the city council says they had no idea some of the major property owners, 12 years ago, had plans for developing much of SoWa without urban renewal. They still could.
    Fire Gill Kelly and fire the planners.

    Lily """The Pearl was built with urban renewal monies and tax increment financing perks"""
    Fire Gill Kelly and fire the Planners.

    Whole city blocks of tax abatements resulting in hundreds of luxury condo owners not paying the bulk of their property taxes.
    Fire Gill Kelly and fire the Planners.

    Lily"""No, I don't see anything particularly good about SW Waterfront. For one thing, the site is extremely contaminated with soil toxins, and was "given" to the city by the Schnitzers """"""

    The Schnitzers are one major property owner in Sowa.
    PART of SoWa is a a brownfield. The EPA and federal funding is contributing to most of the cleanup of that portion. It doesn't need Urban Renewal.
    You have been lied to.
    Fire Gill Kelly and fire the Planners.

    Don Mazziotti is Goldschmidt thru and thru.

    For those who he has helped line their pockets, there have been many a party on tropical islands with laughter and ridicule aimed at the elected and taxpaying public in Portland.

    Fire Gill Kelly and fire the Planners.

    Cab, what a piece of work.

  33. The One True b!X on 04 Mar 2005

    Am I the only one seeing the irony in that last comment coming from someone whose name indicates they live in the Pearl?

  34. doretta on 04 Mar 2005

    Although tax abatements may have their place, I get the argument that luxury condos don't jump right out as the most sensible candidates.

    What I don't get is generic opposition to condo towers as an element of Portland urban development. What I want to know is what people have against condos per se.

    Likewise I get the argument that PDC has wasted a lot of taxpayer money. What I don't get is the argument that what PDC has done is somehow responsible for the high cost of housing in Portland.

    I'm still waiting to be enlightened on those points.

  35. Jack Peek on 04 Mar 2005

    YOur offering nothing but negitivity and bitterness. Yes, CAB SAID THIS.

    Well, I first met Jack at a meeting in Buckman, then actually protested a national neigborhood conference with him, a good friend of mine was a student of his.

    He, like me protested the influx and saturation of Buckman with so-called "social service" agency's like the OYA, and a host of others ,he moved and others moved because as a good father and husband that he is, he felt meth-clinics and homes for "at risk youths" like "Kip Kinkle" types don't make for good neighbors.

    I personally know of one family that was threatened with violence(she was on a town hall tv show with me) her very little kids and her were scared because nobody,namely Katz and Hales would do a damn thing about it.(YOU WONDER WHY I TRIED TO RECALL THE..."Don't say it Jack"

    Jack B. should run for something (Even as left as he is..HE WOULD GET MY VOTE)

    Portland is full of "do gooder's" like "CAB" it's not OK for an agency of the city to promote and finance something that puts anybody at risk.

    Don't any of you tell me, that nothing has happen because I CAN document in too many other places where it has happen an the profile we have now is too close to a bad 6 pm newstory.

    The elected's here are in for a nightmare when it does..we need to clean up PDX..SE is not a dumping ground for such places, this has to be fixed...NOW!

  36. Richard from the Pearl on 04 Mar 2005

    What's the irony?
    There are lots of folks who live and work in the Pearl.
    I haven't heard anyone jump on the "Pearl".
    It's the bogus use of tax dollars as fun money by irresponsible dishonest planners, officials and developers. The Condo owners who buy a condo have nothing to do with the Urban renewal, tax abatements or any of the lying CORRUPT crap this city breeds.
    Doretta,
    What or who have you been listening too?

    >>>What I don't get is generic opposition to condo towers as an element of Portland urban development. What I want to know is what people have against condos per se.

    What are you talking about? I have followed the entire house of cards in Portland and all of the boiling condemnations. Followed closer than you can know.

    Not once have I heard anyone have any "generic opposition to condo towers". There are condo towers in this city as older than you and I and no one is barking up any condo trees.

    Try like heck to pay better attention.

    >>>Likewise I get the argument that PDC has wasted a lot of taxpayer money. What I don't get is the argument that what PDC has done is somehow responsible for the high cost of housing in Portland.

    Of course the PDC has contributed to the high cost of housing. Just as Metro and the city has. They participate in all kinds of development which is supposed to help with a component of affordable housing. But their practices are so reckless and unsound they end up forcing the most expensive developments with the highest cost of housing.

    Transit Oriented Developments are some of the most expensive. Tax dollars are used to jack up the cost for the sake of density. Remember it is density at every and all costs.

    A simple mulit-unit mixed use development will get millions to cram more units on the same site through more expensive construction and/or under building parking etc.

    Also the PDC has been the tool of choice for widespread Urban Renewal abuse which has a wide set of costs and detriments. Primarily it is the bureaucrat planners, a few politicians and the powerhouse developers making all the moves. Coming up wtih all the BS justification for most all of downtown being in an UR District.

    The scheming is half public relations to get commissioners and groups to buy into the nonsense like South Waterfront having no way to be developed without big public money.

    Leonard, I see, bought all of that hook line and stinker.

    I believe they were so successful in that regard Leonard never even heard of any other options from the planners. That the property owners would have and could have done well with the site on their own.

    Yes, even with the Brownfeild to deal with.

    Actually if it were not for the planners, city, PDC, Metro and alike, large amounts of property taxes and other revenues would now be flowing from SoWa to local basic services budgets including schools and affordable housing programs. But instead the opposite is happening big time, and will take decades of debt service while the rest of the city pays for services to SoWa.

    The DoubleTree Hotel was added into a new finger of SoWa Urban Renewal so that the PDC could spend money and enable Portland State to take an existing revenue stream of 1.5 million per year and end it by expanding onto that site. Outside the university district.

    The PDC withheld the name of the property, business and tax implications until after they pursued the recommendation from the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee. URAC was asked to recommend something they were told little about. The same thing is happening with the PDC Franz Bakery "investment". URAC was not told of the business or it's business plan before they had recommend the 2 plus million dollar "investment".

    Is there any wonder about Mazziotti?

    There is one rule to remember in the Portland area. The more you look and dig the more the stench. And if anyone thinks things are as bad now wait till SoWa, Transit mall, Tram and more light rail and trolleys start eating up every dollar left in sight all at the same time.

    You aint seen nothin yet.

    Put your boots on folks here comes Cab (Homer)


  37. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    If you haven't heard anyone jump on the Pearl, you haven't actually been paying attention to this thread.

  38. Richard from the Pearl on 05 Mar 2005

    as Lily mentioned
    >Just for the record- the Pearl most assuredly does NOT create a lot of tax dollars because of the property tax abatements/giveaway by the PDC. It'll be decades (if ever) that the Pearl pays it's own way.
    In this context, like myself, of course the Pearl is being jumped on. But it is the abatements and UR abuse which is being attacked. Not "generic" opposition to the Pearl neighborhood and condos.
    A real laugher is today's Oregonian lead editorial. Those clowns haven't a clue what they are talking about. As usual they echo out praise for things they previously hyped. Even now as we witness many troublesome outcomes they enabled over the last couple decades they deliberately ignore any potential for decades of detriment.
    Their preaching about South Waterfront, Interstate light rail, etc., bringing great benefits is more of their role in the mushrooming burden which may soon become insurmountable with their help.
    The South Waterfront plan excluded basic planning on many fronts.
    Interstate light rail will never be more than the hype driven, most expensive transit, convolution possible.
    Airport MAX the same, and is proof that our rail fantasy is not what stimulates any development. Hell the real numbers show it doesn't even stimulate transit ridership or reduce pollution. Sow what's it for? A Portland feeling?
    Here in the Pearl and all of downtown would have been served far better with rubber tired trollyes such as SF. They could look the same and photo as well, be free to move about to other areas, hook up to the overhead power drive in key corridors and move out of the way in break downs. The rail obsession only delivers less transit and fewer riders and shoppers.
    And we want more? Not according to science or vote. It's something else at work here.
    Dishonest fools at our only major newspaper for starters.

  39. cab on 05 Mar 2005

    I'm honored you think I'm Homer, but I would think a guy in Homers position would have other things to do and be a better speller :)

    Mr. Richard of "the Pearl" you need some anger management. Your taking advantage of an area that would NOT exist without the help of Portland/PDC. Again you don't seem to understand that in 20 years the pearl will be a much more profitable tax base developed then as a empty railroad and warehouses.

    What is so bad about giving people more options. There are plenty of low density sprawl in the Portland area, but virtually NO high density neighborhoods. If you want to live in high density neighborhood you choices are limited to small parts of Portland or you move to Seattle or San Fran. What is so bad about giving people options that will in the long run be a positive for both the city tax base and the viabrancy and diversity of the city?

    I truelly think many get so upset about this subject because they are uncomfortable with being a real CITY. If you don't like density then move to a town or suburb, I hate to break it to you but Portland is a city and any respectable city is built on high density walkable neighborhoods. Please don't bring progress to a halt because you don't get the fact your more suited to suburban life. Move to tualatin were they are subsidizing road widing projects and low density sprawl with tax dollars. At lease Portland is trying to give people a choice.

  40. Jack Peek on 05 Mar 2005

    There is one rule to remember in the Portland area. The more you look and dig the more the stench. And if anyone thinks things are as bad now wait till SoWa, Transit mall, Tram and more light rail and trolleys start eating up every dollar left in sight all at the same time.

    You aint seen nothin yet.

    Put your boots on folks here comes Cab (Homer)

    B!X....Are you sure you are not Richard?

    If he is Richard from that "lofty" area, then he is an answer to my looking for someone to support in the next election cycle.

    Since I have been allowed to "vent" here, I was hoping to see someone reconize we have been screwed black and blue by the past and with possibly some exceptions the current elected bunch.

    Maybe it's like the "Blazers" enough is enough, and we damn well better take downtown back, if we haven't already lost the whole "frigging" city, not to mention the state.

  41. doretta on 05 Mar 2005

    Richard, really, just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I ask a question about a particular opinion you personally don't happen to have expressed, the appropriate thing for you to do is to forbear responding to my question. The "anti-condos per se" sentiment has been expressed before by at least one person who is taking part in this discussion.

    While I'm at it, your ad hominem jibes at cab do not add to the credibility of your arguments.

    As to the high cost of housing, it appears your argument is that PDC supports the building of expensive housing instead of inexpensive housing, thus leaving the city with less inexpensive housing than it would have had they done the opposite. While that may be true, it doesn't speak to my actual question. The claim was that it's PDC's fault that houses in Buckman now cost upwards of half a million bucks.

    If some mechanism other than supply and demand is operating here, I'd like to understand how that works. It seems to me on the face of it that half million dollar condos should be decreasing the price pressure on half million dollar houses in Buckman, not increasing it.

    Perhaps I should have made my question "anti-high density housing per se" since you do seem to subscribe to that one. As I understand it, your argument is that high density costs more to build per unit. Even if that's true, however, it seems to me that housing prices in Portland these days are not being driven primarily by cost of construction, but, again, by low supply and high demand. If that's the case, the extra supply would do more to keep housing costs down than the incremental construction costs would do to boost it.

    Again, I'm not defending tax abatements in the Pearl, renewal of the downtown urban renewal district, PDC's lack of transparency or excess profits for developers. I do think PDC needs reforming and it appears to me that is going to happen, thanks in no small part to our new mayor. I'm all for keeping the pressure on until it does.

    That will still leave the interesting questions about what we should be doing once the process is fixed.

  42. allehseya on 05 Mar 2005

    heh.

    I truelly think many get so upset about this subject because they are uncomfortable with being a real CITY. If you don't like density then move to a town or suburb, I hate to break it to you but Portland is a city and any respectable city is built on high density walkable neighborhoods.

    ...do be careful, cab -- pretty soon you'll be called (the lowest insult in these parts) a californian and then be told to go back where you came from, you aint welcome in these parts.

    For what it's worth, I agree with you. Portland is conflicted about growing into a City and is suffering an identity crisis as to what kind of city it wants to be once it grows up.

  43. Richard from the Pearl on 05 Mar 2005

    This is absurb.

    "I truelly think many get so upset about this subject because they are uncomfortable with being a real CITY. If you don't like density then move to a town or suburb, I hate to break it to you but Portland is a city and any respectable city is built on high density walkable neighborhoods"

    Real? That's what all the irresponsible waste and corruptin has been doing? Making things real?
    Wow! I can honestly say I have not met or heard of anyone of the "uncomfortable" people you just made up. Yes you just made that up because you are confused and haven't the slightest idea what Portland and the Region is, was, or has done, is doing. You just assume it's a real city in the making. Density has it's place. But why would any city be so stupid as to take school and other basic services tax dollars and force excessive densities where and how the free market would not chose?
    The Pearl will be many decades trying to catch up to the siphioning and subsidizing the rest of the city is providing. Hell it's not even paying for it's own city serives due to so many tax abatements.
    What is it that makes people look at pretty stuff
    and not weigh the pretty against the cost?
    Of course the Pearl is cool. It damn better be for what it is costing.
    This is like the Esplanade. Of course it's cool.
    It cost 38 million dollars. It would have been even cooler if it cost 65 million.
    But did the city give the eastside neighborhoods a choice between spending $38 Million on the a floating sidewalk or $38 Million on all their parks and playgrounds near their homes?
    Could $38 million not have provided anything preferrable? Portland's not suffering from an identity crisis. It's starting to boil from the new insane decisions following the insane decisions over 20 years.
    Some of you folks are living in the PDC fog.
    The biggest problem the region has with the high density push is it's so completly narrow minded and negligent as to it's impacts, literally on everything. Planning while not planning is chaos.

  44. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    But why would any city be so stupid as to take school and other basic services tax dollars and force excessive densities where and how the free market would not chose?

    Of course, the City isn't doing this, because public education is funded by the state, not the City.

    Oops!

    The Pearl will be many decades trying to catch up to the siphioning and subsidizing the rest of the city is providing. Hell it's not even paying for it's own city serives due to so many tax abatements.

    And yet you yourself are supporting -- and thereby endorsing -- that behavior by living there.

    Oops!

  45. Lily on 05 Mar 2005

    Just for the record- I did NOT blame the PDC for the high cost of houses in Buckman. I was merely pointing out the growing lack of liveability in Portland.

  46. Lily on 05 Mar 2005

    Regarding the Esplanade: that $38 milion would have paid for an Inner SE Community Center outright. But tourists wouldn't SEE a community center. Katz made her mark on this city, alright. Even if all of this rampant development of unnecessary projects stopped today, we're in for VERY troubled times financially (if not out and out bankruptcy). If those urban renewal monies really went to addressing our biggest problems, affordable housing and some sort of shelter for the outdoor poor, we'd be in much better shape now. Just because every American city has homeless people doesn't mean we should sit back and be complacent about it. Practically every project done by the PDC esp. in last 12 years has required a big subsidy from our tax dollars. I, for one, would rather have had my money actually suppport needed services instead of giving subsidies to people who don't need them. Just another form of coporate welfare.

  47. Jack Peek on 05 Mar 2005

    While I'm at it, your ad hominem jibes at cab do not add to the credibility of your arguments.

    You know, I get the above when I post something too, it's ususally after I get too close to the truth as Richard has with his "on the mark", on point ,on message, direct truth message.

    That message,(and I DON'T CARE, who I offend) he is right, this city has a vailed,possible corruption issue, and we for sure are not that big......YET!

    The elected, the old line familes, and others who get way too much for nothing...need to start examining things real soon...OR THEY WILL BE GONE FROM A BASE OF POWER...Some people like Richard are waking up to the crap being pulled.

    The real state of Portland,Oregon can easily be seen on each evening national news weather report, "the temp in San Francisco is 55,and Seattle is 67 degree's an Portland is never mentioned...so PDXERS...fix the ego soon, the rest of the country thinks you have dropped off the map.

  48. Richard from the Pearl on 05 Mar 2005

    wow B!X
    >Of course, the City isn't doing this, because public education is funded by the state, not the City.

    Are you just lying?
    You can't possibly be that out to lunch.

    Not only does the city do it. The city does it big time. The PDC and Metro both take millions by Urban Renewal, Tax increment financing, LID's to force excessive densities without regard for cost or impact.
    And yes the money they use is property taxes which would otherwise go to basic services including schools.
    Portland does it, Beaverton does it and wastes it on the Round. It's happening all over.
    All over Oregon and every portion that would go to schools doesn't. In Portland the amounts are so huge when you add up all the tax abatements and TIF's that you should be outraged instead of playing it down for some yet to be revealed reason. Especilly when many Portlanders are complaining about the City sudsidizing rural schools.
    All I can imagine is you are protecting some of the politicians you like or you are getting blog support from Homer.

    Come on. Urban Renewal is out of control in this city.
    An $800,000 condo paying 300 in property taxes for ten years hurts schools, police fire, parks libraries and affordable housing.

    But don't listen to me One True.
    Go look at www.saveportland.com

    Then try out the
    National Education Association
    Protecting Public Education
    Property Tax Abatements,Tax Increment Financing, and Funding for Schools
    From Tax Giveaways to Corporations
    www.nea.org/presscenter/images/protectingpubliceducationfullreport.pdf

    Living in the Pearl is "supporting -- and thereby endorsing -- that behavior"?
    Oh, it's the people's fault? What are you some kind of neocon?

    You're on a real loser here B!X.

  49. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    "Before 1990, property taxes provided about two-thirds of school funding and about one-fourth came from state income taxes. The pasage of Ballot Measure 5 cut property taxes and shifted school funding to the income tax. Now state income taxes provide three-fifths of school funding and local money provides a little more than one-fourth. The ability of local communities to use property tax to fund schools is now strictly limited."

    From this document (pdf) from Oregon Stand for Children.

  50. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    In other words, document your crap or put it back in your ass.

  51. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    Living in the Pearl is "supporting -- and thereby endorsing -- that behavior"?

    Oh, it's the people's fault? What are you some kind of neocon?

    No, I just think it's funny that you have such a big problem with the ways in which districts like the Pearl are created, but are perfectly happy to take advantage of the fact that they exist, which they wouldn't if not for the methods you claim to abhor so much.

  52. The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2005

    Oddly enough that same PDF also appears here (pdf), from the Citizen for Oregon's Future. I assume there was some evolution from one organization to the other.

    At any rate, also see this page on yet another site.

    While yes, I over-stated the case and made it sound as if nothing local has anything to do with school funding, that was mainly the result of a mental spasm caused by the self-contradictory bizarreness of the person I now find I cannot keep from calling Richard Pearl.

  53. cab on 05 Mar 2005

    Actually lily, that 38 million would have been much less. By labeling the eastbank Esplanade a transportation corridor those dumbies at city hall were able to leverage funds from the feds that would never have been send to the region for a community center. Again we don't live in a bubble, that toy tram you so hate is keeping Portlands largest employer in the city. How would you keep OHSU here? Build a community center? Poor that money into schools so Salem can turn around and cut more of our local school money. Did the PDC pass measure 5? Or did you?

    Those toy trains some hate so much are half paid by federal funds. Should we tell the Feds we don't want the money? The No, No, No attitude gets us nothing but stagnation. All these projects people are bitching about have leveraged money this region would never have seen. Thank God the Jacks & Richards of the world are not in a position to tell people offering cash there standard line: NO.

  54. Jack Peek on 05 Mar 2005

    The real state of Portland,Oregon can easily be seen on each evening national news weather report, "the temp in San Francisco is 55,and Seattle is 67 degree's an Portland is never mentioned...so PDXERS...fix the ego soon, the rest of the country thinks you have dropped off the map.

    Maybe the "JACKS AND THE RICHARDS" of this world should be listened too and the Cabs an B!xs should "stfu".


    We took FED dollars (transportation $$$$$) and built a stupid fishing dock. We, meaning "you people" pretty much stole the money and used it for things that could have paved streets, installed traffic lights ,stop signs, you know, transportation things. Bill Clinton's twist on the word "IS" comes to mind on the use of those dollars.

    The whole tax increment deal is taking money from the basics.. the things I want my dollars spent on, schools, fire, police, water(as long as Sten isn't in charge of that area)when we get there, maybe this city will look good to all of us, not a chosen few.

  55. Jack Peek on 05 Mar 2005

    REGARDING MEASURE 5:

    When elected goverment uses the money given too them is a wise manner..."neckties" around their neck like "5" will not happen.

  56. The One True b!X on 06 Mar 2005

    When elected goverment uses the money given too them is a wise manner..."neckties" around their neck like "5" will not happen.

    The flagrant stupidity of this attitude, let alone how depressingly prevalent it is these days, is staggering. In essence, it means that the people who believe it are willing to inflict harm upon themselves in order to teach politicians a lesson. Politicians who themselves won't be harmed by it much at all.

    It's sheer idiocy.

  57. Richard from the Pearl on 06 Mar 2005

    B!X & CAB you guys need to wake up.

    B!X you need to grasp how many millions in local property taxes are diverted or abated and realize where that money would be going.
    I'm abundantly aware of the school funding structure in Portland and the State and do not find your elementary run down helpful at all.
    Your "no big deal" song is way out of tune.
    Take a singing lesson.
    Too many Portlanders are waking up to the saps making excuses for Portland's style of corruption. Your apparent attempt to put the cat back in the bag will fail miserably.

    Cab, If you aren't Homer you may be one of the biggest saps in town with this comment of yours.
    >that toy tram you so hate is keeping Portland's largest employer in the city

    I can't tell folks how comical that claim is. Not only is it utterly baseless but to say that the 11500 employees and all of OHSU would leave town because a Disney ride is not built really requires one to be slapped for his own sake.
    Where were you when the notion of biotech swarming to town was thoroughly debunked as delusional by OHSU's own expert? Where were you when the first OHSU building details showing administration offices, a health club, woman's clinic and a dash of lab space was revealed?
    You are either involved in the problem or haven't a shred of knowledge about
    OHSU's play in South Waterfront. Which is it?
    Perhaps you are waiting for a biotech job?
    If you ever scoured the country and looked at biotech you would know what is even obvious to most who haven't. OHSU is not going to be stimulating any new venture capital with an expensive building full of administrators, their tax subsidized health club and a Disney ride.
    OHSU would have been better off granting the entire spending package to researchers and give them space they already have with the new building on the hill. A building they are $90 million short of equipping and staffing I might add.
    So you tell me. Why should they spend $15 million towards the $40 million dollar Tram?

    Cab, You further stumble through nonsense with
    >Those toy trains some hate so much are half paid by federal funds. Should we tell the Feds we don't want the money?
    Now I am thinking you work for TriMet or Metro. That's one of their favorite slogans.
    It's not the toy trains folks "hate" (love the injection of that) it's the numbers, impacts and waste they dislike. If you can't understand something go do some homework. There were and are alternatives to waste. The way
    we avoid wasting is to actually track the real outcomes. Instead of looking to the Oregonian editorial pages for a pat on the head. Boy have they been chronically wrong.

    You go on
    >The No, No, No attitude gets us nothing but stagnation.
    This is classic. You lay out the situation as if no one has the slightest idea how to spend the billions more wisely that wasting it. So they must mean we don't want the money at all?

    > All these projects people are bitching about have leveraged money this region would never have seen.

    OK you work for PDC or you are Homer indeed.
    It wasn't the wasted toy train money at all doing any leveraging. It was the funny money handed out by PDC and Metro to force their agenda of excessive ill planned density at all costs. Big costs with no regard for any impact at all.
    Every single Transit Oriented Development got funny money. The developers for these mixed use projects would have proceeded without help but were paid to increase the number housing units and other changes. Along with tax abatements and other public costs the whole approach is a farce.

    Portland and the region has been more concerned about their stupid vision than funding the Sellwood bridge, now closed to Transit and trucking.
    What better example of chaos can there be.
    To actually burn thru billions over two decades and leave in tatters a main artery of, commerce, transit and commuters.
    The Port of Portland is equally threatened after years of mismanagement wasteful spending, and negligence.

    With B!X and you it appears there are still a few hold outs touting the collective failure as a model for the nation.
    It may be hopeless for you as persuasion will not be ushering you along to reality.
    But know this.
    The numbers of people I hear screaming for their neighborhoods, the streets, sidewalks, parks, schools and things that touch their lives makes it harder every day to hear your cheer leading for corruption.
    Mazziotti won't be the last one to leave. He is the first at the PDC. I predict others and Gill Kelly at planning will be gone in a couple months as well.
    I may visit here a few more times as folks here seem to want your mold broken apart.
    However, please bring new stuff. It's getting pretty old slicing up the same old crap over and over again.
    "The Tram is keeping OHSU here". Man that is flagrantly stupid!

  58. Jack Peek on 06 Mar 2005

    The flagrant stupidity of this attitude, let alone how depressingly prevalent it is these days, is staggering. In essence, it means that the people who believe it are willing to inflict harm upon themselves in order to teach politicians a lesson. Politicians who themselves won't be harmed by it much at all.

    It's sheer idiocy.

    OK...your so smart,(or claim too be) What's your answer? How can we "harm" the idiots like Leonard and others who seems so eager to vote for these deals we have written about here(please note who Randy got all that money in his coffers from)so that we will not have a SHAM city council that works for others and not the "real people" who live and work here.

    You beat the hell out of my recall, you helped kill it .....just one offical knocked out in a recall would send a message.."DONT SCREW WITH US AGAIN!"

    But as much as I admire your writing, you offer nothing except the SOS! That sir, is why in 08, with the exception of here...YOUR NOT GOING TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE BACK AGAIN.

    What piss's me off more then anything is you and Leonard ignoring the issue I write and bitch about so much. You say it doesn't interest you,with Leonard it's just personal...I didn't follow a stupid idea he had so he could say he tried to assist me...then walk away.

    Hello!!!! the both of you, not one issue of this thread that so much has been posted about will get you killed,(except a MAX train running a light)but the placement of five, "difficult to place" clients(those words out of the finance documents from PDC)IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO A GRADE SCHOOL WITH 400 LITTLE KIDS WILL.

    The message is the both of you have no answer...that is sick, and sad!

    .

    PS..In essence, it means that the people who believe it are willing to inflict harm upon themselves.

    And this statement in your post sounds like a threat...You know something I dont?

    All I want is a safer Portland, the rest will take care of it's self!

    I will take one thing more from your response,

    The flagrant stupidity of this attitude, let alone how depressingly prevalent it is these days, is staggering.

    DITTO!

  59. doretta on 06 Mar 2005

    "Thanks to Neil, Vera and the PDC, this is not even recognizable as the same city. Progress is a double-edged sword. Not all that is shiny and new is good. People with "normal" incomes cannot afford to lve in the inner-city anymore. There are houses listed in Buckman for $500,000-$775,000."
    ...
    "Just for the record- I did NOT blame the PDC for the high cost of houses in Buckman. I was merely pointing out the growing lack of liveability in Portland."

    Lily, when you figure out what your position actually is, I'd love to discuss it with you.

    I think you have made a number of good points and you probably know more about a lot of what has gone on than I do. Until we can link cause and effect more coherently we won't be solving our biggest problems, however.

    You sound really frustrated with high costs and low return in services. I am too. I'm particularly frustrated with city government's failure to get real about the money problems we have. I hope that's changing with the new mayor and city council and I'm certainly going to do everything I can as a lowly citizen to encourage them to confront reality.

    I've been attending the police budget forums and hearings lately and playing with the numbers and it's been enlightening. I understand that right now they are focused on this year's budget and what they can do with that is limited. As near as I can tell, city services and budgets are currently locked in a very destructive negative feedback loop. Since much of what is causing that is probably not amenable to short-term fixes, it seems to me that if we don't interrupt it soon, we're looking at a disaster that goes well beyond community centers vs. explanades.

  60. The One True b!X on 06 Mar 2005

    Not only is it utterly baseless but to say that the 11500 employees and all of OHSU would leave town because a Disney ride is not built really requires one to be slapped for his own sake.

    I don't recall anyone ever claiming that OHSU would leave Portland, only that they wouldn't expand without the tram.

    That's certainly a debatable point, and I've never actually seen convincing -- meaning backed up with evidence -- arguments on either side of the notion that OHSU would not expand in Portland without the tram. But the dispute was never about them leaving altogether, as far as I ever saw.

  61. Jack Peek on 06 Mar 2005

    OK...your so smart,(or claim too be) What's your answer?


    One thing I can count on in this Blog...when you "leftys" are cornered, you ignore me and Richard or others who see through your "attitude" that others know nothing except you.

    Answer to some of this is "PERS"....very poor accountability....citizens that will not rein in the Goverment because they work for it.....People who want the Goverment to provide from cradle too the grave ,(that would be most of you) the "get back to basics approach" left out to spend money on "FEEEEEEL GOOD BS!

    Well some of you may have reached a point it's finally hurting you(so typical of the left),that SOB, YOU WANT ANSWERS!!! As Jack Nicholson said in the movie, "You want the truth, you can't handle the truth!"

    God!!! this is going to be so fun too watch, some of you actually calling out the city/county elected officals and asking just how much money do you want and what do you want it for???

  62. Richard from the Pearl on 06 Mar 2005

    B!X
    Quit doing the Portland shuffle.

    The Tram is asinine. Anyone who believes that damn thing has anything to do with OHSU viability or expansion or anything else is someone telling the lie or someone believing it.

    You may in your ignorance believe it to be a "Debatable point" but you are one believing the lie. In your case it may be your bias towards those pushing it. After all they wouldn't be fools or lie would they?

    What's debatable about it?
    If you've, "never actually seen convincing arguments on either side" why is the idea then viable and debatable? Because Vera wanted it?
    Can't you think it over yourself?
    What scenario demands a Tram to shuttle WHO between the Hill and North Macadam?
    Busy researchers will be working at both campuses? They'll have to scurry up the hill once in a while and a vehicle shuttle won't do? Is that the beauty of the Tram? It isn't a vehicle?
    Suppose the busy doctor or researcher doesn't work right next to the Tram and wants
    to go somewhere else on the other campus where the Tram also doesn't go.
    He or she then treks a few blocks to the Tram. Finds the thing just left. Waits for another, gets on and takes the ride. Gets off the other end and has to trek a couple more blocks to his destination.
    How the heck is that worth $40 million dollars?

    It's amazing that you act like it is a toss up.
    There has been better and cheaper alternatives to provide any needs for shuttling between the hill and N. Macadam. OHSU forecasts it would only use 30% of the Tram and that's if the cheaper more flexible and BETTER shuttles don't come about.
    If the Tram gets built will be a need to have shuttles as well which further demonstrates the absurd waste in the Tram.

    What is the business basis for it "being vital" as touted?

    You said, "the dispute was never about them leaving altogether, as far as I ever saw"

    I was responding to Cab saying,
    "that toy tram you so hate is keeping Portland's largest employer in the city"

    What has been said by Kohler Katz and PDC is the Tram is vital to the OHSU expansion.
    They didn't bother to make a case of course. Just as they did not make a case for the promise of 10,000 biotech jobs.Or 5000 or whatever the number was at various points.

    I suppose you haven't figured that out either B!XY?

    What slogan do you have to offer for the bio scam?

    It's debatable? Is the PDC Creative Services Building fiasco debatable?
    Is the Round in Beaverton debatable?
    How about Cascade Station? Is that debatable?
    Is the Port dry-dock and shipyards giveaway debatable?

    There are no boondoggles. Just debatables.

    How about this one. Was there efforts to develop South Waterfront without the city and Urban Renewal?
    If you think that is debatable you are either a liar or you deliberately ignored that knowledge when it crossed your radar screen.
    Is all of South Waterfront a toxic wasteland? Is that debatable? No, that is a lie to justify the already made decision to spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
    PART of it is a brownfield which the EPA and fed money is helping to remedy.

    I predict right now the Tram will not be built. When it comes down to it the city leaders will fall to the truth and save the few shreds of credibility they still have.
    OHSU will not expand with biotech in SW as hoped for. There will never be a need for a Tram.
    I also predict the Transit Mall will not be build as the case for that debacle can never be made either. It is a certain loser as the history of transit malls (including our own) shows.
    Portland and the region is at a critical point when even the most proven failed leadership will turn from their proven failed approaches.
    Of course guys like you will be there calling everything debatable to avoid facing the truth.

  63. The One True b!X on 06 Mar 2005

    What has been said by Kohler Katz and PDC is the Tram is vital to the OHSU expansion. They didn't bother to make a case of course.

    Which is what I said. They claimed it was necessary to secure in-Portland expansion, opponents said it wasn't. Neither side has ever provided much evidence for their position.

    Hence, it's a debatable point, which is what I said. And which is precisely not me believing a lie. I never called the idea viable.

    All I said was that neither supporters of the "tram is necessary" proposition nor opponents of it have ever adequately backed up their position.

    When you decide to stop lying about my positions, maybe I'll engage you in debate. Until then, have fun on your own.

  64. doretta on 07 Mar 2005

    Jack,

    Isn't living with all those straw men awfully itchy?

    Almost every post you make is >90% your heated imaginings about what everyone else thinks. Don't you find it burdensome to be inventing everyone else all the time instead of engaging the real people around you in conversation?

    You come across as one of those guys you don't want living next to you.

  65. Jack Peek on 07 Mar 2005

    You come across as one of those guys you don't want living next to you.

    Yes I SURE am, sorta like the guys on my back fence...they are "criminally insane"..I'm damn close too it.

    My dear, There is no debate, none of you want it, nor do you have any answers to the things Richard an I are posting too.

    We have a runaway elected, we have a "cradle to grave" demograpfic population.

    In the words of a friend(a good friend since high school)via an email:

    "More validation for my decision to leave that leftist, anti-American city. This is the same city whose school board forbids military recruiters from entering school grounds. Portland is the city that tolerates anyone, no matter how deviant or traitorous. Oh wait, there are a few exceptions. If you are any of the following, they'll ridicule you and run you out of town: Patriotic, conservative, Christian, pro-gun, pro-life, heterosexual marriage affirming, American car driving" There is no debating this message!

    If just one of you ever stopped for a moment and thought that some of us would respect things you seek, if we thought we may be given the same, I would be someone not only a good neighbor, but a friend you would want for ever in the worst of times!

    Doretta, I'm not going to backdown...so if that is a problem, do like Leonard has done as well, but you live with this...he also ignored 5 criminally insane men....walking with 400 little kids each day(unsupervised)this is as nuts of a deal as they are. You and he ignore me, but please don't ignore those kids. They have the right to a safe school day and the safety as best we can in these times to a full life. Randy has ignored them...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TOO DO?

  66. Richard from the Pearl on 07 Mar 2005

    B!X
    I wonder if you can take criticism? You seem to have some self image obstruction in that regard.
    Anyway,
    Get over yourself.
    I understand what you said.

    Many folks in the South Waterfront process researched and presented evidence the Tram had no merit. It was entirely lopsided. Because you apparently missed out on it and have seemingly imagined a case for it, you can conveniently defend the scoundrels who are promoting it.

    Randy Gragg of the Oregonian wrote that the opposition to the Tram was "anti-Tram extremism." Now that's solid evidence.

    My point with you is you have no credibility on this issue. You are classic Portland politics.
    You obviously pay attention on issues but when maleficence pops up by those you support your bias takes over and prevents you from doing or saying anything which may be damaging.
    Hypocrisy, sellout and phony come to mind.
    Your ridiculous defense of Urban Renewal as not
    siphoning away any school dollars was a premier example.
    Your posture in that exchange took the usual path of ignoring the other key elements such as other basic services budgets. The Urban Renewal/tax abatements drain on police fire parks libraries and affordable housing is equally egregious yet your soul effort was to quell criticism of Urban Renewal as it relates to school funding.
    We can't allow anyone to think the Portland ruling elite would do anything to divert or waste school revenue now can we.
    The waste on all budgets has been tremendous not debatable.
    By the read of your other topics it is clear your priorities are nearly exclusively with partisan politics.

    I happen not to care about party outside my natural bend towards the obvious pro-choice and tolerance side, but that should not give license to rampant MIS-leadership and waste in all other areas.

    I read this problem through just about every thread.

    The chronic defense of the indefensible so that not any maleficence can topple any of our icons.

    This progressive would gladly sacrifice a token seat or two in local governance in exchange for honest and responsible policies in other critical areas.
    You would not. Choosing instead to allow dysfunction to permeate our region as long as our people are in charge.

    I don't care what kind of debate your brand of progressive frames. Defending, minimizing, neutralizing and ignoring critical problems might keep the Katz types around but in the long run it means tremendous losses we cannot afford.

    So while you continue to package and push issues don't be surprised when folks not marching along with you push back.

    And I still say the Tram will never be built.

  67. Amanda on 07 Mar 2005

    I hesitate to comment when so many of the posts attack other writers' motives and credibility rather than the substance of their posts, however....

    OHSU did indeed threaten to move its entire operation to Hillsboro if not only the tram but also the rest of the North Macadam (later South Waterfront) development package wasn't approved. The Planning Commission listened to Ernie Bonner and to me, and didn't buy it, but the Council did.

    Similarly, the evidence was in the record at the Planning Commission that the likelihood of biotech becoming a major success here is slim, to put it kindly. Council chose to disregard that evidence, relying instead on consultants' reports that compared Portland with North Carolina while ignoring the existing biotech centers in Seattle and San Francisco.

    OHSU is now talking about putting employee parking in South Waterfront, connected to the Hill by the tram. The most expensive Park-and-Ride ever?

  68. Richard from the Pearl on 07 Mar 2005

    Amanda said "OHSU is now talking about putting employee parking in South Waterfront, connected to the Hill by the tram. The most expensive Park-and-Ride ever?"

    Since the biotech promise had no foundation at all and the Tram is a scam, the most important thing here is to reach conslusions and act on them.
    The process pushing South Waterfront has been as irresponsbile as possible with planners and Council ignoring fundemental caution at every turn.
    This cannot be acceptable no matter what.
    The Planning Department and Council must be held accountable somehow.
    As I stated before I believe the Tram will never be built. It's anticipated cost will shift even higher as it's merit further disintegrates.
    Engineering misteps will prove to be the folly in the estimates, making the cost soar to 50 or 60 million. What started at 8.5 million cannot have the same attraction at 40 50 or 60 million, period.

    What I see in OHSU's message is that if their biotech pusuits (not the Tram) do not pan out they are facing possibly an insurmountable insolvency trend.
    They have made this their only option.
    To grow, through biotech, their way out of the fiscal corner they find themselves in.

    It would be interesting to see to what degree their current finacial status is dependant upon the 200 million voter approved spending on biotech and South Waterfront succeeding sooner rather than later.
    Exactly how weak is OHSU and does the proposed merger with PSU have anything to do with a level of weakness not yet revealed to the public.

    Let's face it. There are some very dangerously serious faulty decisions being made right now which MAY suggest a panicked state of affairs. Or worse, incompetance and corruption.

  69. doretta on 07 Mar 2005

    Jack,

    I'm not asking you to back down. I don't expect you to see things the same way I do. Just stop spending nearly all your time mischaracterizing the rest of us and let's get down to a real conversation about the issues.

    I'm not "the left", b!X is not "the left", and Randy Leonard is not "the left"....

    I am a patriotic citizen of the USA and happy to be a resident of Portland. Neither of those things means I won't disagree with our national or our city government and say so and I don't question your right to do so either.

  70. Jack Peek on 07 Mar 2005

    let's get down to a real conversation about the issues. Dorretta said this.


    OK...This thread, the vote on the SOUTH WATERFRONT.

    My view, It's frought with possible conflicts of interests. One electeds vote for sure.

    The need for such investment VS the basics that we really need, My view..its a horrible waste of money.

    Then I want your honest position on the group home deal, I have asked B!X to allow it, please support the idea because its reaching a critical mass need to look at it.

    After that...the JTTF. pick your poison!

Trackbacks (1)

  1. Same as it ever was on 15 Jun 2005

    When the news came out that Don "the Don" Mazziotti was on the way out as CEO of the Portland Development Commission, it looked like a golden opportunity for much-needed change in the way that agency does business, and even...