May 06, 2005

MarkDaMan on 06 May 2005

Whatever the outcome, I'm glad the city is taking a look at the PDC. I have never been an advocate for abolishing the PDC, but after the recent BurnsideBridgehead decision and the messed up way they have handled Vanport Square (not to mention giving another company headquartered in Portland reason to look elsewhere) I think the council should at least have some say in their actions. It's ashame that our biggest city sponsored economy driver appears to be completely divorced from that same cities goals and dreams.

Amanda on 06 May 2005

It's unfortunate Commissioner Leonard rushes to a proposed solution, allowing only a month for public discussion. A better approach would be bring a broad range of both experienced/informed and fresh/open minds to the table, to discuss the ways PDC is broken before leaping to a preferred fix.

Randy Leonard on 06 May 2005

I am not recommending that the council take action on the night of the hearing. Rather, the hearing will be the first forum in what I hope to be a series of such public discussions for the public to give their input on the proposed resolution and/or any other suggested proposals as to how urban renewal areas could be best administered in Portland.

As I attempted to make clear in my comments after my Blue Oregon post earlier this week, this proposal is simply my best take on what needs to be done to correct the ongoing problems I and others have experienced at the PDC. Some have suggestions that are different than what I am putting forth. Both the Mayor and I hope to actually develop a synthesis from the divergent ideas that are being suggested.

I would be interested in reading any ideas you may have on what can be done to improve the PDC.

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

Here's one idea Randy:

Do not allow PDC to finance a group home under the heading of "low income housing" for,qoute" difficult to place clients"/CRIMINALLY INSANE, going into Portland neighborhoods.

We get here at my house at least 2-3 calls per month from neighborhood associations asking for data I have on "CASCADIA BEHAVORIAL HEALTHCARE,and what they should do when a placement of the above or similar type "community placement" of the mentally ill or a treatment center or a place that may not be an upbeat idea for any neigborhood.

The latest call was today from the Cully neighborhood people.

This discussion needs to get out in the open, your leading the charge on the review of PDC, lets start with a license of such place's with strict oversight if one of these placements causes damages too anyone in anyway.

If you don't wish to pursue this discussion, then the outcome rests with you. We have had our problem's, most created by me because I'm sick of telling these people the truth when they call me.

The fact is until someone is killed by a client of such a place( all of them are not high risk) but the one I focus on is.....until we get to that point and demand that the people running these places be held accountable for any damage whatsoever...We then have the sick job of naming a law after someone who is killed to get to the point of doing something.

Ok Randy....here is the olive branch.

Randy Leonard on 06 May 2005

Jack-
As I have responded to you many, many times, I did set up such a meeting. I had Cascadia reps, county reps, state reps and non profit reps at the meeting. I organized the meeting for you to attend with me present so we could spend as many hours as it took to come up with a plan. None of those who attended the evening meeting wanted to come with you present because of each of their prior interactions with you. I asked them to please do it for me...not for you...reluctantly, they all showed up.

After waiting for you for over one hour, we bagan the meeting without you present. You never did arrive and you never called to tell me you weren't. After a few rounds of "We told you so" you later informed me that you did not intend to come to the meeting although you had agreed to it prior to my organizing it.

I cannot work with someone to solve a problem who sabotoges my attempts to help them.

You have repeatedly convinced me and others that you prefer to complain and threaten over actually solving the group home issue.

Jack Bog on 06 May 2005

A better approach would be bring a broad range of both experienced/informed and fresh/open minds to the table, to discuss the ways PDC is broken before leaping to a preferred fix.

Yes, how about a blue-ribbon panel headed by Diana Goldschmidt, with Randy Gragg as vice chair? Maybe we need to get Len Bergstein and Bill Scott involved. Or some of the nine zillion people who, ahem, used to work in Planning.

Randy, don't waste time. Prove that you really are "different." Hold a couple of hearings, and then, unless somebody can come up with a good reason not to, shut the dang PDC down. I will stand at the corner of Sandy and Burnside with a sandwich sign on for 40 hours in support of the effort.

Dave Lister has it right. Sell off about half the junk in this little empire, and you'd balance the municipal budget for a half-dozen years or more.

The One True b!X on 06 May 2005

Oops. Busted.

Heh.

The One True b!X on 06 May 2005

That last was re: Jack P. not Jack B.

tomhiggins on 06 May 2005

Commish, you have shown a greater deal of respect and patience with citizen peek than I can rightly ask of any offical. You need to get an "Above and Beyond" reward of some sort.

Keep up the great work regarding the PDC. When my wife and I heard the news on OPB while driving around town doing hte days chores we let out a little whooop. You make following our city's progress a rewarding endevour.

-tomhiggins

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

As I have responded to you many, many times, I did set up such a meeting. I had Cascadia reps, county reps, state reps and non profit reps at the meeting. I organized the meeting for you to attend with me present so we could spend as many hours as it took to come up with a plan. None of those who attended the evening meeting wanted to come with you present because of each of their prior interactions with you. I asked them to please do it for me...not for you...reluctantly, they all showed up.

After waiting for you for over one hour, we bagan the meeting without you present. You never did arrive and you never called to tell me you weren't. After a few rounds of "We told you so" you later informed me that you did not intend to come to the meeting although you had agreed to it prior to my organizing it.

LETS JUST SAY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION...ITS ALL TRUE!

Minus the fact you never met with me to discuss as a constituent what I THOUGHT...you did a ride along with the otherside never giving me the benifit of any discussion to have you do anything that had a chance of happening.

The damn fact Randy..is the problem still exists, so with that in mind....call the CULLY people and tell them they are screwed.

Randy...you seem to back away from the truth of the issue, this isn't about me and me being beyond pissed at you, its a fact, that certain "community placements" of certain types of clients are dangerous.

Maybe I should have former Washinginton state rep Ida Ballishiotes write you a letter as to why she got into politics for ten yrs and was a real "B-word" to do business with as the chair of the committee that oversaw the state of Washington's parole board.

Her daughter was brutally raped and killed by a "walk away' from a work release center...SHE WAS HELL TO GET ALONG WITH.

Your story is straight, but you left out the part about a nearly two yr battle with all of those wonderful people you mentioned, culminating with a "good neighbor agreement" that has no force of law..it's no better the T-PAPER.

The placements need to happen because we cannot turn some of these people loose, maybe you should have funded the state hospital when you were in Salem, then we would not be having this "nice talk!"

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

DEAR TOMMY HIGGINS:

Please call Cascadia Healthcare, ask them to bring a "community placement' to your neighborhood, then do a flyer in your neighborhood that you have committed your neighbors for such a placement and sign it with your email and phone number...tell them you want a PSRB group, don't bother to tell anybody about your "NEW NEIGHBOR'S" they will call you soon enough. DO THAT..I'll never post again.

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

This discussion needs to get out in the open, your leading the charge on the review of PDC, lets start with a license of such place's with strict oversight if one of these placements causes damages too anyone in anyway.

The above was what you never asked about nor have you ever tried to find out what I was asking for.

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

OK...enough of this crap, its an open door as to what is happening, what can happen, and the fact you have chosen to do nothing because "we don't see it your way!"

Maybe your right...nothing has happen....YET!

The file of incidents and injuries and worse I keep finding from all over the country about such places, keeps getting bigger each month.

I'll hold on to it....and write a book someday about the stupidity of asking any elected offical do do something before and not after someone is killed.

UNTIL THEN.....its all in your court. The deal makes me ill!

I'm DONE WITH IT.

The One True b!X on 06 May 2005

LETS JUST SAY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION...ITS ALL TRUE!

And so, at last, Jack Peek confirms what many readers here have suggested: That he's all hat and no cattle.

Amanda on 06 May 2005

Yeah, how about a blue-ribbon panel headed by Diana Goldschmidt

I was thinking more along the lines bringing to the same table, at the same time, members of the League of Women Voters, and citizens on current Urban Renewal committees such as Gateway; residents with experience in Albina, Interstate, New Columbia, and other "revitalized" areas; NoTram representatives, School Board members, etc. As well as Homer Williams, OHSU and other developers; and current and past PDC commissioners and staff. Supporters and critics from all perspectives, charged with reaching whatever agreements and recommendations might come out of their in-depth discussions, over say six months. THEN go to Council with a proposal.

Instead of leaping to solutions, we should start by looking at accurate data, and get clear, verified facts as to how much has been spent on what, and what it's accomplished over 47 years, or not. An independent audit of PDC would be a useful way to begin. A proposed solution on the table is fine for people who want an end-point to agree or disagree with, rather exploring of a range of options. For something of this magnitude, with the amount of money at stake, I believe more careful analysis and inclusive discussions are needed.

But I'm pleased to see Jack B. and others not known as rampant endorsers of city efficiency, supporting the idea of entrusting the whole thing to a city bureau.

Jack Peek on 06 May 2005

B!X...don't have kids, this issue isn't me!

Its really a gas watching Progressive's "feed" on something,(ME) and ignore the truth as to what I have written about. It may have something with your lineage B!X, The folks you came from were in a bit of a haze when you were concieved....and their so proud of there "little boy!"

She sure has alot to be proud of for sure.

Randy Leonard on 06 May 2005

Amanda-
My experience is that the kind of approach you are suggesting soon grinds to a halt for lack of direction.

I understand you do not like my approach, but it is one that I think will, in the end, produce a result that does take into account the concerns of the various groups you identify.

I infer from your comment that you do not like the solution I have proposed. In light of that, do you support the PDC in its current form? If not, what do you suggest as an alternative to what I have proposed?

Lily on 06 May 2005

Just great- 6 out of the 16 posts were from Jack Peek, and they WEREN't about the thread. Love the new format, b!X. Now I can spot Peek's coments well in advance and skip right over them.

Lily on 06 May 2005

P.S. Commissioner Leonard- Great idea for the PDC!!

Randy Leonard on 07 May 2005

Thanks, Lily.

Jack Peek on 07 May 2005

Changing whats wrong with PDC...HELLO, PEOPLE, HELLO...PDC spent your money too finance a Qoute, "DIFFICULT TO PLACE CLIENT"! grouphome.

Even Randy will say, that as long as it wasn't next to his wife and kids, its OK! So when I call back the lady from the Cully neighborhood ,who called about information on this subject that none of you want to face, because you haven't been threatened by a client from the places RANDY will not talk about. Here is my request, that the city quit giving my number as a "neighborhood resource' on this subject...then have Randy's office take these calls...OK WITH YOU COMMISS?

PS. GO RANDY,I SUPPORT YOU PUTTING A COLLAR ON IT ASAP.

Jack Peek on 07 May 2005

Maybe I should have former Washinginton state rep Ida Ballishiotes write you a letter as to why she got into politics for ten yrs and was a real "B-word" to do business with as the chair of the committee that oversaw the state of Washington's parole board.

Her daughter was brutally raped and killed by a "walk away' from a work release center...SHE WAS HELL TO GET ALONG WITH.

I will have the former state rep write a letter to the editor of the Oregonian...WANNA BET IT ISN'T PUBLISHED?

She wrote more laws that stopped sex offendors/reined in work release centers in neighborhoods...nailed social service idiot's / elected officals that didn't do their jobs. Too bad she won't move here...WHO CAN BLAME HER WITH THIS THIS GUY IN A POWER POSITION.

Frank Dufay on 07 May 2005

Commissioner Leonard writes Both the Mayor and I hope to actually develop a synthesis from the divergent ideas that are being suggested.

That's fine as far as it goes, Commissioner, and bold action is all well and good. But what about the rest of the Council? Wouldn't it make a more powerful statement to have this resolution introduced jointly... by more than one Council member?

"Abolishing PDC" sounds more like a slogan than a plan. There are lots of folks out there who have issues and suggestions and ideas of how to fix the problem with PDC, and integrating those ideas and synthesizing them into a real framework for change is the challenge. That become a little harder when you step to the plate before everyone else...however much you deserve persoanl credit for doing so.

Anne Dufay on 07 May 2005

Amanda writes>>>But I'm pleased to see Jack B. and others not known as rampant endorsers of city efficiency, supporting the idea of entrusting the whole thing to a city bureau.

A fine irony, indeed...

I am concerned that the serious nature of this endeavor is getting swept up in "new baby" fever -- when we can't take care of the "babies" we already have. Public outreach "weaknesess"? No-bid contracts to cronies? Questionable hiring and promotions of the possibly unqualified because they've got the right friends? Cozyness with developers?

--Am I relating common-as-dirt complaints about PDC, or the bureaus?

(And, by the way, there are many fine, highly motivated, highly qualified, highly ethical folks who work at PDC right now. And, not surprising, such folks do many good things for this city. I fear that fact, and potentially, their good work, is in danger of getting lost in the current feverish atmosphere.)

Without significantly greater care than the current process appears to evidence, (I support Amanda's strategy, in other words) we will simply wind up with all the usual suspects, in a bureau characterized by money, deals and deal-makers.

I fail to see what that will accomplish, though it will certainly provide ample fodder for blogs and bloggers for years to come.

Anne Dufay on 07 May 2005

Amanda writes>>>But I'm pleased to see Jack B. and others not known as rampant endorsers of city efficiency, supporting the idea of entrusting the whole thing to a city bureau.

A fine irony, indeed...

I am concerned that the serious nature of this endeavor is getting swept up in "new baby" fever -- when we can't take care of the "babies" we already have. Public outreach "weaknesess"? No-bid contracts to cronies? Questionable hiring and promotions of the possibly unqualified because they've got the right friends? Cozyness with developers?

--Am I relating common-as-dirt complaints about PDC, or the bureaus?

(And, by the way, there are many fine, highly motivated, highly qualified, highly ethical folks who work at PDC right now. And, not surprising, such folks do many good things for this city. I fear that fact, and potentially, their good work, is in danger of getting lost in the current feverish atmosphere.)

Without significantly greater care than the current process appears to evidence, (I support Amanda's strategy, in other words) we will simply wind up with all the usual suspects, in a bureau characterized by money, deals and deal-makers.

I fail to see what that will accomplish, though it will certainly provide ample fodder for blogs and bloggers for years to come.

voline on 07 May 2005

This is only my opinion, but Jack Peek's contributions are clearly far more noise than signal. Responding to him only wastes your time and encourages him to post further, thus cluttering up the site with off-topic, poorly-reasoned ravings. In the process he often succeeds in dragging the conversation off-topic, as he has here.

I think that Jack Peek is the functional equivalent of a troll. If we ignore him he may go away, or he may not. Either way the discussion will certainly be more on-topic.

The following are excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on "internet trolls":

"An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent with such content. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" and ultimately from trolling for fish . . .

Troll food refers to replies to the original controversial troll posts, that the trolls subsequently use as feedback to throw more fuel to the fire of their posts.

"Please do not feed the Trolls" is a warning sign that other article readers post to warn newbies that they believe the original poster is a troll.

. . . In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention.

Amanda on 07 May 2005

Randy: you asked if I support PDC in its present form, and if not, what I propose as an alternative solution.

Like you, I support some of PDC's past choices, disagree with others. There are some advantages to the current form and functions, some problems. On some issues you and I concur (yeah, disconcerting, I know), other times not. I opposed much of the direction in South Waterfront, which you approved with your votes. In tandem with Noell Webb, past PDC commissioner, I questioned many of the tax abatements that went through while I was on the Planning Commission, which you subsequently also challenged at Council.

[Noell is one person I'd want on a think-tank committee, btw. I agree with a comment above, that there are many fine people on PDC staff or who've served honorably as PDC commissioners, and it's unfair to suggest everything and everyone connected with PDC is horrible. That's not directed to you, Randy; I recognize you haven't said or implied that.]

Some folks like your idea of making PDC a city bureau. Do they like it as much if [fill in your least-favorite Councilman's name here] is assigned to be in charge of it? Do they support the Mayor being in charge of it, creating a much stronger Mayor? Again, fill in the name of your least-favorite Mayor of the last 50 years - still support it? Do these concerns change (and does the best PDC solution change) if we also change the the Charter to elect Commissioners by district, or switch to a City Manager, or adopt some other structure that may come out of the Charter review process?

My alternative solution is outlined above - don't start with an end-point, begin with accurate data collection and bringing all interests to the table. Get an independent audit. Review the City Club report, seek input from the League of Women Voters and citizens who've been part of urban renewal projects. Hold a hearing on what the public sees as pros and cons of the current structure and past decisions, and what the options might be for changes. Appoint a broad, balanced committee of citizen volunteer experts, with a goal-directed, efficient chairperson and a set, short time-frame so the process doesn't drag out without a proposal. And consider it in the context of the Charter review, since any change in PDC will require a Charter amendment, and any other Charter amendments may affect the best future structure for PDC.

Nathan Koren on 08 May 2005

I still feel like a relative newcomer to Portland, after not quite three years, and I can hardly claim to be terribly knowledgeable about the various virtues and misdeeds of the PDC. However, I can offer the following observations.

First of all, whatever they have done wrong -- and I'm sure they have done plenty wrong, as incompetence and corruption are pretty much the norm everywhere -- but to the extent that they bear any responsibility for Portland's recent development (the Pearl District, the Streetcar, the Waterfront, et cetera), they have also done a LOT right, at least in comparison to every other city that I have ever lived in or studied. While there may be alternatives that are better than the current arrangement, I think it behooves us to study those alternatives VERY carefully. In particular, comparisons with similar institutions in other cities are necessary. Have those alternatives been tried in other cities? How did they work out there? If in the course of asking those questions we stumble upon a better solution than the PDC, I would cautiously support going for it. However, given that Portland has developed VASTLY better than any other city I can think of, I am initially skeptical that such solutions exist.

Second, there is a lot about good urban planning that is not politically palatable, and in my mind this argues for a certain degree of separation between urban planning professionals and that abattoir of intelligence known as electoral politics. For example, I was recently at a PDC presentation on the Meier and Frank redevelopment project downtown. Someone asked what they planned to do about all the panhandlers which currently congregate around the building. The PDC staffer's answer (I wish I could remember his name) was that when panhandlers are practically the ONLY element on the street, they are indeed a problem. However since there is no way to get rid of them in a non-totalitarian society, the only viable solution is to make sure that they are NOT the only element on the sidewalk. By bringing more shoppers, business people, residents, families, retirees, schoolkids, hotel guests, et cetera into the mix, the panhandlers will become a minority element and will become far less disturbing.

Now, the thing about this answer is that it was 100% CORRECT. In fact, it was damned near enlightened (and I told him so), and if implemented correctly, will work fantastically well. However, it's not something which is easy to sell to the general public. The public much prefers to "just get rid of the problem" through measures like police harassment, covering every horizontal surface with metal spikes, and other things intended to "make it go away". Unfortunately, these are among those "simple solutions to complex problems which are invariably wrong", and, when implemented, result in an urban area which is unpleasant and uninhabitable for everyone (except, often as not, the panhandlers, who still don't have anywhere else to go).

Urban planning is a subtle art and/or science which takes a lot of specialized knowledge and training to successfully engage in, and which often bears little resemblance to "common sense". (The same can be said about every from quantum physics on up; it's astonishing how often common sense can be just plain wrong. If this comes across as elitist, then take it up with the Universe, not me -- because this is just how things work.) I guess my fear is that by making the PDC's functions more explicitly tied to politics -- particularly any kind of popular, electoral politics -- our urban planning might become more "common sense," which would mostly be a disaster.

So my final analysis (which has developed as I've written this) is that:

1.) If something isn't broke, then don't fix it.
2.) If something IS broke, then DO fix it.
3.) Only if something is useless should you throw it away.

From what I'd observed, the PDC is possibly in category #1, probably in category #2, and definitely NOT in category #3. (The same cannot be said for one Mr. Peek, who appears to be as sane as a rabid mongoose and as useful as wisdom teeth. No need to be a life-long resident of Portland to make THAT assessment.)

ron ledbury on 08 May 2005

Jack has a valid concern, safety. But, if the PDC was less in the pockets of special interests they might actually be able to expand the number of group homes. This would be in the public interest. Jack is actually counter productive to his own interest in weakening the PDC because he highlights what seems to be the only real public interest activity left in the PDC; now that is insane from a tactical perspective.

Randy Leonard on 08 May 2005

Thanks for the comment, Amanda. Your suggestions and insights are good and appreciated.

I have felt that the problems at PDC are more systemic because of how it is structured. I do not find fault with those whose job it is to work within that structure. They didn't create it, they are just attempting to work within the structure as it exists.

However, I do think that the same issue that we debated recently with the JTTF applies here; accountability. Literally, as you pointed out in an exchange with Jack Bog a while back, if the Mayor asked a PDC member to resign, they could simply point out what a nice day it is and ignore him (or her). In my opinion, that is the fundamental flaw in PDC's structure.

Having said that, I did discuss this concept with the Mayor and we both felt that the resolution I will be filing tomorrow will generate discussion that could cause some other solution to surface. I am very open to that.

With respect to the charter review commission, I am worried that if we wait to discuss what to do about PDC until then, it will get lost in the discussion re changing the FPD&R system, reorganization of the city council and a myriad of other issues. Additionally, in my experience, when a number of fairly complicated issues are contained within a proposal (the Ball amendment on the city reorganization comes to mind) the chances increase that the whole proposal will be voted down because different segments of the population and interest groups have their own particular dislikes within the measure and vote no even though there may be proposals within the proposed amendment that they like.

Having said that, I am open to discussing other strategies as long as a proposal to revamp PDC that contains more accountability within it is moving forward.

I have been on a number of city committees over the past 30 years, beginning as an activist in the Concordia Neighborhood Assn in 1975, that have bogged down because of the number of conflicting opinions on a given topic. Having worked as close with the PDC as I have the past two and one half years, I have concluded that its structure, notwithstanding the excellent work they have accomplished, is deeply flawed.

I chose this time to propose this referral to the voters because of the juncture PDC is at now with both its Chair and Executive Director departing at almost the identical time. This window of time allows the council and the community to earnestly look at changing PDC's structure without threatening anybody's job or position. After those two important posts are filled, the window of opportunity to propose a change will close for a long time, in my opinion.

Sometimes the ability to change an organization can only occur if the timing is right. I believe that the time is now to discuss and propose changes in how our city's urban renewal areas and economic development tools are managed.

paul gronke on 09 May 2005

Randy,

I think the problem that many of us are having with the proposal is this:

1) You and others admit that Portland development, in some respects, has been an international model for the past two decades. PDC deserves a lot of credit for this. So why are we changing the structure of what is apparently such a successful agency?

2) Moving PDC into the City *cannot* be separated from one's opinions about how the current commissioner/bureau system functions. It's impossible to keep them separate.

I'm confident in your ability to keep PDC on the front burner. But I have to agree with Amanda -- it's vital to make sure that we approach these issues in the proper order, and with as close to full information as possible.

Amanda on 09 May 2005

Randy, if "the fundamental flaw in PDC's structure" is that PDC commissioners are appointed for life, why doesn't your proposal start with changing that? Adding term limits is a relatively minor Charter amendment that wouldn't be affected much by other changes. Although I wonder who you believe is such a bad influence on PDC decisions, and why you see this as "the fundamental flaw".

Randy Leonard on 09 May 2005

I did not mean to suggest that the fundamental problem with PDC is that the PDC Commissioners are appointed for life. If fact, they are appointed for only four year terms.

The fundamental flaw with the PDC, I attempted to point out, is that they lack any accountability process other than not being reappointed at the end of their four year term.

To elaborate on that point, my experience with the PDC over the past two years is that they have resisted efforts to make their processes more open, objective and fair.

For an example, I have attempted to put specific criteria in place that would cause abatements that are given to certain developments to be much more difficult to obtain and keep if they are granted.

The PDC has resisted those efforts.

The issue that has received the most attention lately is, of course, the Burnished Bridgehead Development.

Back in December of 2004 I met with neighborhood and Central Eastside Business representatives because of their concern that a big box retail store was going to be built at the Bridgehead over their strong objections.

Commissioner Sten and I sent a letter to the PDC asking them to slow their process down and include the businesses and neighbors reactions to any proposed development.

To their credit, that is exactly what the PDC did. Additionally, they appointed a citizen committee to review all of the development proposals. The citizens group picked one plan and the PDC, without even acknowledging the work of the public committee they appointed, picked another.

If they were not going to take into account the work of the citizen committee they appointed, they should not have put them into the position of doing all the work they did. Instead, they should have said they, the PDC, were going to make the decision on who the developer was and they were not going to include any other input in coming to that decision.

That would have come off as harsh, but at least forthright.

Unfortunately, that example reflects some, but not all, of the experiences my office has had with some at the PDC.

I do not feel as though I am doing the job I was elected to do if I were to take the easy way out and not address the enormous task of restructuring how our urban renewal area dollars are being managed. And to be sure, that is what this debate should be about, i.e., the PDC is simply the vehicle we have chosen to manage Portland's urban renewal and economic development. We should not be married to that model as the only model to do that work just because it is what exists now.

Again, those who confuse my support of urban renewal and economic development with the PDC are missing the consistent message I have sent since first joining the city council. Yes, we need this great work to continue. However, I do not think that work is threatened by the entity overseeing those projects actually responding positively to community concerns as to how the project actually looks when it is built.

paul gronke on 09 May 2005

Randy,

With all due respect, this is simply not true: To their credit, that is exactly what the PDC did. Additionally, they appointed a citizen committee to review all of the development proposals. The citizens group picked one plan and the PDC, without even acknowledging the work of the public committee they appointed, picked another. ... If they were not going to take into account the work of the citizen committee they appointed, they should not have put them into the position of doing all the work they did.

The main problem is that the final public meeting was a sham, and the PDC had already made its decision. But it is unfair to claim that the citizen's report has no influence on their decision making unless you are privy to insider conversations between the board members.

All the evidence is just the opposite--that the developers and the PDC responded in significant ways to the public input.

Comments here and in other fora stray perilously close to suggesting that only selected Beam would have been the only decision, otherwise they were ignoring the public. That is simply wrong.

The citizen's committee ranked the proposals on a variety of criteria. Overall, they did select Beam. However, as reported in the O:
Although the evaluation committee favored Beam, it ranked the team last in developer capability. That quality was most important to the commission, Hennessee said.

It seems to me eminently reasonable for a public entity like the PDC to decide that the Beam proposal, even though it may have been appealing to citizens, was far too risky for the public at large, due to its far heavier reliance on public funds.

All in all, the process of public input seems to have worked exactly as people wanted it to. As you point out, the winning proposal was significantly modified as a result of publiic input. There were many public meetings. The alternatives were openly presented and debated.

In many if not most respects, the process worked exactly as we'd want it to. Public opinion does not need to always control outcomes for a system to be fair, open, and permeable.

The One True b!X on 09 May 2005

The problem is that, to my recollection, and as near as I can tell from my notes from all of the many. many meetings on this I attended since last Summer, at no point did Hennessee or any other member of PDC say that developer capacity was being weighted more heavily than the other criteria.

So the issue here actually is that Hennessee appears to have pulled that out of thin air at the last moment.

pdxkona on 09 May 2005

I think the problem with the PDC is mostly the perception that it is an arm outside of the city's control. It runs like it is a volunteer board, like a vote-in position board that is seperate and hence unaccountable to the city. However, it's not a voted board; if it was, there would be an internal accountability (for reelection). The checks and balances of the structure of democratic politics. Heck, I'd vote for Dan Ryan for PDC.

There are two kind of forced accountability I see for this situation; forced through being an employee and forced through the election process.

Either it needs to be reigned in tight, or let loose to be open govt. Because the midway ground is where folks can get away with unaccountability. Either make the PDC paid positions with the city govt. that have to go through reviews like all employees, or let it loose and have open elected positions.

I personally prefer the reigned in, city paid structure better for reason I won't go into in this post.

Gary Marschke on 09 May 2005

Process transparency and direct-electorate accountability for decisions made are crucial. Community involvement and input (businesses and residents) are also necessary if there is to be a working model for the next 50 years. (But let's not confuse input with action - just because they listen doesn't mean they will - or should - act accordingly!)

There are many quality-of-life issues that simply didn't exist even 20 years ago. There is a population that didn't exist even 10 years ago. To even suggest that something that has worked for 50 years should somehow be exempt from change is scarier than the kind of thinking that caused this discussion.
Regardless of timing or who floats the idea, PDC reform is obviously one whose time has come.

If we can all simply listen more than we talk (2:1 ratio?), we may just come up with a workable solution.

paul gronke on 09 May 2005

b!x,

I'm not sure you would have wanted to tell an advisory commission that you were weighing one criteria more than another. That may have biased their report.

The One True b!X on 09 May 2005

I'm not sure you would have wanted to tell an advisory commission that you were weighing one criteria more than another. That may have biased their report.

I could possible be convinced of that reasoning. Of course, even if so, that just underscores all the more how much they botched the vote process itself, by not each taking time to explain how they came to their decision and why, rather than going the route of a single prepared statement read by the Chair.

FWIW, Hennessee how says that they had two resolutions prepared in advance -- one for Beam, one for Opus -- although he didn't mention if there were also two prepared statements.

Then again, Hennessee also now is claiming sole responsibility for going the prepared statement cut-and-run approach to the end of the April 27 meeting, which doesn't hold water with me since the other four Commissioners are free individuals and any one of them, of their own volition, could have done the right thing and looked the crowd in the eye to offer an explanation.

At any rate, my point is that if the Commissioners were weighting one or more criteria more heavily than others, the April 27 vote would have been the place to clearly and precisely explain the hows and whys of that. They didn't, and so I stand by my "rogue decision" characterization.

doretta on 10 May 2005

I'm not sure you would have wanted to tell an advisory commission that you were weighing one criteria more than another. That may have biased their report.

B!X might be persuadable on this point but I don't think I am. The criteria and their weighting should be as transparent as possible from the very beginning, in my view, and the advisory committee is the least of the reasons for this. If you don't do this, you run the risk of stringing people along at substantial cost to the developers as well as to the advisory committee and the general public.

The question this whole exercise brings up for me is whether or not a smallish, relatively inexperienced local developer has any chance at all to get the nod on a project like this one no matter what the merits of his proposal, his financial backing or the experience of his team. If there are threshholds a developer needs to meet to be a serious contender, those need to be spelled out up front, not pulled out at the end.

The Long-Term Future Of The Portland Development Commission on 07 Jun 2005

While not explicitly including it in the Charter review proposed by Mayor Potter's Bureau Innovation Project, that project also includes a goal t...