May 25, 2005

(Updated) PDC Announces Process To Consider Appeal Of Burnside Bridgehead Decision

Will Unfold Over The Course Of Next Month

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

Just in via email is a press release from the Portland Development Commission (pdf) outlining the process through which they will consider Beam Development's appeal of PDC's decision on April 27 to select Opus Northwest as the preferred developer for the burnside Bridgehead project.

In keeping with the earlier opinion from PDC staff that the Board of Commissioners should hear the appeal, the release details the steps it will take to do so.

  • On or before June 9, Beam Development must provide any additional information it may have in support of its appeal. In addition, on or before this date the other teams -- Opus Northwest and Gerding/Edlen -- may provide information in writing.
  • On or before June 16, staff at PDC will prepare a written report on the appeal and the information provided by Beam and the other teams.
  • On June 20, a special meeting of PDC (at 6:00 PM) will be held to allow staff to summarize their report, Beam to make its case, the other teams to offer testimony, the public to provide comment, and the Commissioners to ask questions of any or all of these parties.
  • On June 22, at its regularly-scheduled meeting (at 8:00 AM), the Commissioners will make their decision on the merits of the appeal.

Both meetings are scheduled to be held at PDC's offices, located at 222 NW 5th Avenue in downtown Portland. Presumably in the next couple of days, given this announcement, we might soon hear something about the status of the collaboration talks between Beam and Opus (about which we are skeptical, since we're unsure there's an approach to cooperation that would work from a logistical standpoint).

May 25th, 2005 Update

PDC has posted the addendum (pdf) to the Request for Proposals, which outlines the process described by the press release.

Posted at 05:04 PM | PermalinkComments (16) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development

« Previous Next »

Comments (16)

  1. Jack Bog on 25 May 2005

    On June 30, two of the five people who made this decision will no longer be on the board. But they'll get to thumb their noses at the public one last time. How sweet.

  2. Mark Oliver on 26 May 2005

    Just curious B!x, but what are some of the specific roadblocks you envision that might interfere with a collaboration between Beam and Opus?

  3. The One True b!X on 26 May 2005

    It's really just a visceral hunch. I guess I don't see how they can manage to successfully go from being two complete and self-contained teams to pulling off pieces from each to make a third entity.

  4. allehseya on 26 May 2005

    "It's really just a visceral hunch. I guess I don't see how they can manage to successfully go from being two complete and self-contained teams to pulling off pieces from each to make a third entity."


    It's a common practice in Public / Private Partnership arrangements though. I have models around somewhere that I could reference if I dig up old research archives -- but it's a process that other Urban Renewal Offices have in place in other cities that have worked fine -- although that is when there are more than one developer in partnership with the city to generate city-wide revenue.....or when it addresses specific city issues -- such as affordable housing, etc.


  5. Lily on 26 May 2005

    Talk about leaving the fox to guard the henhouse......

  6. Michael Whitmore on 26 May 2005

    PDC Commission "new" appeal review process?,... what process?

    Maybe Randy Leonard and fans will now start to seriously consider scuttling the PDC boat and refloating a cleaner version, wearing the PDX colors. How arrogant and self serving can they (PDC) get, especially after a very nice and diplomatic recommendation from the Mayor's office to wait on the appeal, until after certain PDC Commisioners and Director are gone, (my opinion)... so that some new and perhaps unbiased eyes can review the Beam appeal. Since the latest PDC announcement appears to be ignoring the Mayor's request, what is the Mayor's next move? I might suggest an executive order from the Mayor would be in order, to fire them all -PDC Commissioners, and then perhaps let the City Council hear the appeal in their absence?

    Meanwhile, just discovered yesterday at the grapevine, that Opus is offering up a crumb (ort) to Beam for the co-venture discussions at the Burnside Bridgehead. When I heard what the crumb is, I was outraged. If the crumb is revealed, I think everyone else associated, will also be outraged. I can say that it's an insult to Beam and to the rest of us Eastsiders that unanimously supported the process, the concepts and the identity that the Beam team proposed.

    If the PDC Commission made their decision to pick Opus based on the risk factor, just wait until the Opus version of the BB project is built and no one shows up to support it, my opinion, of course. But then, Opus won't care, because by then, they will have already sold the whole project to a big insurance investment group and be long gone.

    As someone from the past used to say, "just follow the money" ....to where the "aroma" is really coming from. It might help explain the "wrongheadedness" of this whole stinkin' mess. I ask, has there been the appearance of collusion, or, the as yet unmentioned smell of "money" anywhere in these past few weeks? If the answer is yes, then something fishy has probably been going on and needs investigation.

  7. mark on 26 May 2005

    One true said:

    "It's really just a visceral hunch. I guess I don't see how they can manage to successfully go from being two complete and self-contained teams to pulling off pieces from each to make a third entity."
    --------

    I had the same hunch, and perhaps still do -- I even scoffed a bit when hizzoner suggested it a couple of weeks ago. I'd be quick to admit, though, that it is increasingly enticing to think of this charged issue in a less binary fashion.

    Not that I wouldn't be a hell of a lot more comfortable if the city council were hearing this appeal -- this plan is outrageous in its flaunting of the commission's untouchable and unaccountable nature. To wit, as Michael points out above, the PDC's arrogance in ignoring suggestions from the mayor and city council, not to mention a similar treatment of the input of the public and its own evaluation team. These people either need some education in ethical public process, or a dramatic increase in their PR budget, to make them appear accountable.


    [joking about the PR budget.]

  8. mark on 26 May 2005

    Wait, I forgot to mention my favorite sentence in the appeal-process press release: their description of Malsin's protest being filed "six days after the commission selected Opus Northwest to develop the Burnside Bridgehead development following five months of intense community outreach and public input." I am just particularly interested in the use of the term "intense" here; it is a difficult word to parse, since it serves primarily as an intensifying adverv. It either says a lot, or nothing at all. Was the process intensely painful? Or intensely devastating? Or intensely forgettable?

    The release does, in fact, go to great lengths at a couple of points to express just how public and transparent the whole process was.

    Apparently, they bent over backwards to serve the public interest, public be damned. That is intense.

  9. Jack Bog on 26 May 2005

    The process was intensely phony.

  10. Michael Whitmore, Kerns Neighborhood Association on 26 May 2005

    PDC Appeal Process-Next thoughts

    Jack Bog sums it up well, also, the term charade comes to my mind. It's entirely possible that PDC picked very early, when they couldn't get the "big box" GED-Home Depot developer, their fall back position was the Beam copycat Opus-Suburban Mall developer.

    At this point, I'm for rejecting the Opus decision all together and starting over. The Opus proposal just doesn't fit and isn't wanted by anyone, except the PDC.

    As stated earlier, maybe Commissioner Leonard needs to really get serious about starting the necessary moves to rein in the PDC. This whole Burnside Bridgehead process clearly illustrates the systemic flaws of the PDC charter. So Commissioner. Leonard, what's next? And as asked earlier, how is the Mayor going to respond to this obvious snub. If the Mayor can stand up to the FBI, then PDC should be cake?

    We all elected you folks to properly run this City, we all love, so, now let's get to work and really make a difference.

  11. Lily on 26 May 2005

    i agree with Michael- Scrape the whoe concept of a combined partnership, for starters. And, hey, why not give the contract to the people who:
    A) had it right to begin with.
    B) had FULL support of almost everyone in the Inner SouthEast.

    On a slight side note, one of my neighbors has just listed her home for sale. She can't afford to pay Multnomah taxes and she is outraged to see the "developer welfare" continue with HUGE tax abatements given to wealthy people who are paying upwards of $400,000 per condo. Why should the wealthy get the pork?? Why can't some of those tax abatements trickle down to just plain folks like my neighbour, who could really use it?? She makes the third neighbour who's sold and moved away since November. If this city is to be truly for "everyone", then things need to change, and soon. Meanwhile the PDC continues to give out pork to the developers and the wealthy, who are the LAST people/entities who should be getting it.

  12. doretta on 27 May 2005

    You know, I have yet to hear in all of this "scuttle PDC and make it a city bureau" talk any understanding of why PDC was structured like it is in the first place.

    Back in the good old days, with the city directly in control of development-related decisions, the mayor and the commissioners were in a position to take major graft from developers in exchange for making some of the same kinds of decisions the PDC board makes today. And my undestanding is that they did.

    The current structure has an analog to the whole JTTF thing. Think of the PDC as the FBI. Under the current structure, the PDC board members are the ones in position to sell their decisions to developers. However, the mayor and city council oversee the PDC board and if members of the PDC board get involved in ways they shouldn't, the city government can replace them.

    The current structure is not perfect, if the city doesn't provide the appropriate oversight, that's a problem. It is still possible for the city council and PDC to get together and collude with developers. What if the Justice Dept. had given in and allowed the mayor the same clearance as the JTTF officers and we had left the officers on the JTTF? It would still be possible for the mayor to fail to oversee the officers and it would still be possible for the mayor to go along with the FBI breaking Oregon law. Those things happening would just be a lot less likely, just as the current structure provides the mechanism to make shenanigans much less likely on the PDC.

  13. paul gronke on 27 May 2005

    Thank you, Doretta, for providing a bit of historical context, so often missing in the heat of the moment.

    Lily,
    There is just no evidence for the (B) that you list above. We've hashed this out before in many discussions.

    I also find it ironic how outraged the readers got here at unsupported assertions of payoffs from Beam to B!x, but that doesn't stop the same readers from suggesting payoffs from Opus to PDC without a shred of evidence.

  14. Lily on 27 May 2005

    PAul- Actually, I believe there IS evidence that Beam had the full support of just about everyone in the Inner SouthEast (at least those contacted). At least that's what I heard from the folks at kerns NA, HAnd, Sunnyside and most defintely Buckman. And on April 27th, during the testimony at the bogus "hearing", only 2 people spoke up in favour of Opus. At least 20 spoke up for Beam.

    As far as my thinly vieled contempt for the PDC, why started quite a while ago, when the Pearl was just a twinkle in Homer's eye. Talk about no public transparency. And there is plenty o imperical evidence as far as the tax abatement giveaways from the PDC.

  15. doretta on 27 May 2005

    Can someone cite chapter and verse as to a couple of those "big money giveaway" tax abatements in the Pearl? Like which specific buildings are controversial? How much tax abatement in each case would also be helpful but I'd settle for just the addresses of the buildings.

    I'd be interested in following up on those with some research if someone would give me a couple of specific examples.

  16. Laura Logicev on 29 May 2005

    "Eastsiders that unanimously supported the process, the concepts and the identity that the Beam team proposed."

    I can tell you that the Eastside was NOT unanimous in it's support of Beam. I witnessed several people that testifed against Beam that live on the eastside. I live on the eastside and did not support the Beam proposal. I think fiscal responsibility is an important factor in this deciscion.

Trackbacks (1)

  1. PDC: Pretty Darn Comical on 26 May 2005

    I see that the capable folks at my favorite quasi-accountable public money slush fund, the Portland Development Commission, are at it again. Now that they've been outed for entering into a series of highly questionable no-bid contracts for "management ...