May 09, 2005
Unexpectedly, Matt Hennessee Talks Burnside Bridgehead
Also: Sten Wants City Council To Handle Beam Appeal
We had always intended to attend this afternoon's meeting of the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Advisory Committee. It seemed sensible to assume that somewhere on the agenda would be at least some discussion in the aftermath of the Portland Development Commission's decision to select Opus Northwest as the preferred developer for the Burnside Bridgehead project.
That much was confirmed to us earlier today when we had a copy of the agenda emailed to us. At the end was an item describing a "debrief" on the Bridgehead project.
What we didn't expect was for Lew Bowers of PDC to get up and leave the room fifteen minutes after the meeting began, only to return several minutes later with Matt Hennessee, PDC's Chair, firmly in tow.
When the time for the Bridgehead agenda item came, Susan Pearce (member of the URAC and serving as chair for the meeting) quipped: "I'm wondering if you two are wearing flak jackets."
But before we get to the remarks and discussion involving Hennessee, there are at least a couple of new pieces of information about where we are now in the process, in the wake of Beam Development filing an appeal of the Commission's decision.
First, according to Bowers, in addition to that appeal, Beam also has filed a public records request. "it will take a certain amount of time, hopefully not weeks, to get that information ready," he said. He did not describe the nature of the request.
At this point, Bowers said, "substantive discussions have been put on hold" until the appeals process exhausts itself. An open question, at the moment, is just how that appeals process will look. A few days ago, PDC released a memo which established the intent to have the appeal heard by the Commission itself, rather than by Executive Director Mazziotti.
(There's a rationale for that decision, which is that since the developer selection itself was changed from being Mazziotti's call to the Commission's, the appeals process also needs to be updated from being Mazziotti's purview to the Commission's.)
Michael Bollinger of the URAC asked what happens with the appeals process if its determined that the appeal does have grounds. As per the above-mentioned memo, Bowers explained that the full Commission would be the body to consider the appeal, its merit, and what to do with it.
"With respect, in the presence of Chair Hennessee," asked Susan Lindsay of the URAC, "is it appropriate for the Commission to hear an appeal that includes the conduct of the Commission itself?" She said that generally, when something is appealed because of concerns over the process used by the deciding body, "you tend to search for another body, a different authority -- either a higher authority or a lateral authority -- to render a judgment".
"In this case," she continued, "can [the Commission] with credibility hear an appeal objectively and render an opinion that is credible?"
Bowers said he believed it was possible, and that the question was if the appeal brings forward "new and different information that was not public or not aware to all parties when the decision was made" and of a sufficient nature to prompt a reconsideration of the decision. "There isn't a lot of precedent here," Bower said, explaining that they've been going through the history of Commission decisions and not finding much to go on.
"Should the Commission feel as though it can't fairly hear the appeal or that it won't be seen by the public as a fair hearing," Lindsay said, "I would [ask] that they would seek some sort of lateral body or other body to help them with this process."
Enter into the conversation PDC Chair Matt Hennessee, who explained that coming to the meeting had been on his schedule "probably for over a month". He also said that we was not going to speak to the merits of the appeal.
Saying that "this has been really difficult" Hennessee said that while it's not that he and his fellow Commissioners don't trust themselves or don't believe in their ability to be objective, they want to make sure the appeals process works. "Truly if there are things we overlooked," he said, "we want that to come to light." However, he added: "Obviously we're dealing more with perception."
Hennessee stressed that PDC staff hasn't been able to find many instances in which the Commission disagreed with the recommendations of committees convened to evaluate projects and proposals.
He explained that PDC's attorneys had "taken a long, long look" at the appeals question. "What there is in the law, evidently, is the issue of exhausting all administrative avenues," he said. "My struggle is [that] I want to be able to give this to a group of peers or somebody else," he added, "[but] the unfortunate thing is it doesn't allow for a lot of that. We're trying to figure it out."
"We are very sensitive to the situation," he continued, "and we want to do the very fair thing, and we're determined to do that."
Pearce joked that if they are looking for a higher power to handle the decision, why not try God. "You have connections," she said to Hennessee, who is also a local pastor.
"Believe me," Hennessee responded. "I've been consulting that higher power a lot these days."
Linda Nettekoven of the Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Association (present in the very small audience of less than a dozen people), asked for clarification that PDC is not allowed to hand off the appeal to another body.
"It does not allow [that]," Hennessee said. "The important thing here is that we make sure that whatever we do, this is a fair, open public process [and] that those who are appealing feel very, very strongly and sincerely that they're getting a fair airing of the concerns that have been raised."
Hennessee was also asked what happens if the administrative avenues through PDC itself are exhausted but the Beam team remains unsatisfied.
"It would be more a legal challenge at that point, as far as we can tell," said Hennessee.
URAC members Pearce and Michael Whitmore (the latter from the Kerns Neighborhood Association) had questions about Mayor Potter's request for a delay, as reported by the local press, and whether or not that request has the intent, or even just the effect, of pushing the appeals process past the forthcoming departures of Hennessee, Mazziotti, or both.
"I don't know what the papers said," Hennessee responded. "What I know is what the Mayor talked about." He said that the "spirit and intent" of the Mayor's words were to not rush to judgment, making sure the proper amount of time was taken to review the appeal.
URAC member Michael Bollinger said that his take on the decision was that a lot of people walked away feeling that is was a preconceived outcome, and that what was needed now was to "take our time to make sure everybody has their opportunity to say what they feel and are heard'.
"The closure on this thing is the more important thing," he added.
"I so apologize and take full responsibility for our not saying more," said Hennessee, referring to criticisms that Commissioners did not take the time to make individual statements before voting on a Bridgehead developer. At the time, Hennessee had simply read from a prepared statement, called a quick vote, and then adjourned.
"We didn't come in with a preconceived notion," Hennessee said. "We actually came in with two resolutions, one for Beam and one for Opus." He said that the issue for the Commissioners was "looking for the opportunity to see substantive information that would have changed our minds".
(Meaning -- as can be inferred by the telephone poll Hennessee took of his fellow Commissioners prior to the April 27 meeting -- that the Commissioners indeed had all been leaning towards Opus, and for the April 27 meeting the Commissioners considered the burden to be on Beam to convince them otherwise. That's not an outright predetermined vote, but it's certainly a preconceived notion.)
Hennessee said that whatever process is formed for the hearing of the appeal, it would be a public one, in the Commission's board room. "I don't know exactly because we have not figured out exactly how it will take place." He said that he hoped it would be known within the next seven to ten days what the process will look like.
(Here there was some brief discussion about the formation of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and general agreement that some work on defining the structure of that can be done without having to await the result of the appeal, since such a committee would be formed no matter who is the developer for the project.)
URAC member Lindsay said that one thing that concerned her after the decision was the disappointment of neighborhood residents who had been stressing their desire that the project be focused on office space and jobs. She said there was "dismay about Opus, who is seen primarily as a housing and retail cornerstone".
She said there was some concern over some of the scarce remaining funds in the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area now going to "produce a project that didn't address [those] two items primarily: office and jobs".
"With the selection [of Opus]," she said, "we didn't really get what we went shopping for."
"I so respect what you're saying," responded Hennessee, but added that he thought his getting into the merits of one proposal or the other in the context of the URAC meeting was "not a good thing to do". Or, actually, he jestingly said it wouldn't be a good thing to do with a Tribune reporter sitting right in front of him.
One woman in the audience sought to have someone address her confusion over the status of Bruce Wood, who originally headed up Opus Northwest, but has now gone on to form his own company, but nonetheless will continue to head up the Bridgehead project.
According to PDC's Bowers, there is a contractual arrangement between Wood and Opus, through which Opus sticks to its original commitments regarding the Bridgehead, even though Wood is no longer actually with Opus.
(We're resoundingly unclear on this now, because the way Bowers described it -- "Opus has committed to back [Wood] on the project on the same terms as when he was an employee" -- makes it sound as if Opus Northwest in fact would no longer be the developer of the Bridgehead, but instead the developer would be Bruce Wood, through his new company, using Opus' money. So, if anyone knows the actual situation here, please spell it out for everyone.)
Whitmore raised questions about the Request for Proposals specifying the concept of "developer capability" whereas the evaluation committee was asked to examine "developer capacity". He said that "capacity" was a much narrower issue, and that under the "capability" umbrella, the RFP meant to look at the capability of the entire assembled team for each developer in terms of their collective ability to manage and produce the project.
(The argument, as near as we could tell, being that when the PDC itself focused on the narrower issue of "developer capacity" and focused simply on the experience of the so-called Master Developer -- Wood in the case of Opus, and Brad Malsin in the case of Beam -- it was not actually consistent with what the RFP defined as the relevant issue.)
Whitmore also challenged the Commission's reference to the amount of public subsidy influencing their decision, arguing that the evaluation committee "saw it as being negligible between the two teams".
(Previously, we've argued here that the subsidy rationale was a misfire because the PDC itself had repeatedly stated that selecting a developer was not a commitment to filling that developer's alleged funding gap -- in which case it shouldn't really have been a factor at all in selecting a developer. Especially if the alleged gaps were so similar, which they were.)
Asked if the hearing of the appeal would occur exclusively in a public setting or if there would be exceptions, Hennessee said: "I don't feel that I came here equipped to answer that question." He said that he hoped the process will be an open one because he recognizes the number of communities which have an interest in it.
URAC member Kevin Kraus (who said he'd been keeping quiet on the subject because he either works or has worked for Reach, which was part of the Beam team) expressed how disappointed people were in the choice that was made, because of how much time and energy they had put into the process as it dragged on for months. He reiterated how many people felt the decision was pre-determined.
"From a lot of people's standpoint," he said, "the very big disappointment was in the openness of our government, and people felt really cheated by it."
"I really respect the comment," Hennessee replied. "The process was extended because it was made clear to us that particular members of the Central Eastside did not feel they were getting a fair shake in the process that was originally intended." He repeated his earlier urging to "remember all the things we've done together [where] we've tended to agree".
He also said that people forget that Commissioners "are volunteers too" who "suffer just like everybody else does".
"If everybody thinks we went home that night and just felt great," he said, "we didn't." He said that the easy decision would have been to "go with the flow" and that when things go right everybody else gets the credit, but when they go wrong, the Commission gets the blame.
After being saluted by URAC member Pearce for how often the public had been able to put a face on the Commission, due to its members being present at so many public meeting and workshops on the Burnside Bridgehead, Hennessee told another story of a meeting held at PSU, which one Commissioner attended by telephone from Europe, another attended briefly by telephone during an airport layover, and another attended in person with laryngitis.
"That's how dedicated we are to this process and to our City," Hennessee said. "Because it's our City, too."
URAC member Lindsay returned to the lack of comment from the Commissioners before they took the vote at the April 27 meeting, comparing it to City Council sessions where the public gets to have "a sense of where people are thinking".
She said that the April 27 meeting "feel apart" when Hennessee looked at the crowd and said they "were going to do something a little different" and then proceeded to read the prepared statement. "I felt right up until that moment," said Lindsay, "that things were going completely above board and fine."
She added: "And then there was that crashing moment."
"I think at the earlier part of this meeting," Hennessee responded, "I personally took total responsibility for that."
(For whatever it's worth, we don't think he can take responsibility for that. Any of the other four Commissioners could have stood up for themselves and made a statement prior to voting, explaining their decision. Not one of them did. Hennessee can't take responsibility for the individual choices of his fellow Commissioners.)
Whitmore suggested that much of the public's disappointment was in trying to understand the logic of the decision. What were the key factors that swung the decision, that made the Commission more comfortable with Opus?
Lindsay expressed her feeling that her time on the evaluation committee did not feel somehow wasted because the Commission chose Opus despite the committee recommending Beam. "The two proposals were close," she said.
Which brings us in a sense full circle back to the issues raised at the start of this. Just how will the appeal filed by Beam be handled?
When we came back from this meeting, and just before we sat down to start writing this item, we noticed that via email we had received a copy of a memo from Commissioner Erik Sten (pdf) to Mayor Tom Potter, requesting that the hearing of Beam's appeal be handled not by PDC, but by City Council instead.
"As the officials elected by the citizens of Portland to make key decisions for the city," Sten writes in the memo, "I believe it makes the most sense for the City Council to hear the appeal of PDC’s decision on the Burnside Bridgehead."
Clearly, it does not appear to be the belief of the PDC that this is even an option, if Hennessee's remarks at today's Central Eastside URAC meeting are any indication.
Just as clearly, that's the next major political and public policy battle over the Burnside Bridgehead: Just who has the authority to hear Beam's appeal, who doesn't, and who will actually get to do so?
Comments (31)
Lily on 09 May 2005
Hennessee is just out doing damage control. "I so regret this" and I so respect that". Uh huh, yeah right. But he didn't "so regret" anything on April 27th. Personally, these guys don't fool me at all. They are scrambling for their jobs now and will say anything. After 12 years riding shotgun with Vera, the PDC has gotten pretty cocky. So it's mildly amusing to watch them scrambling to cover their *sses, but I don't believe any of it for one moment. Call me cynical, I guess.
Jack Bog on 09 May 2005
Matt -- keep your day job. You ain't gonna be elected to anything any time soon.
Jack Bog on 09 May 2005
Let's count the highly suspect statements:
1. "coming to the meeting had been on his schedule 'probably for over a month'."
2. "I don't know what the papers said."
3. "We didn't come in with a preconceived notion. We actually came in with two resolutions, one for Beam and one for Opus."
Did I miss any?
The One True b!X on 10 May 2005
1. "coming to the meeting had been on his schedule 'probably for over a month'."
I don't actually suspect this, for whatever that's worth. Your mileage may vary.
2. "I don't know what the papers said."
Here I'm in agreement with you. This one makes little sense to me. At the very least, he'd better know what the papers say, if only to be aware of what his organization's employees are reading. PDC's website has an entire page, updated daily, with links to news stories mentioning PDC -- both positive and negative. They also go on PDC's intranet (or maybe the external news stories page is just mirrored on the intranet, I'm not really sure).
At any rate, point being: One should probably know what one's staffers know, orthink they know, by at least being aware of the same news stories.
3. "We didn't come in with a preconceived notion. We actually came in with two resolutions, one for Beam and one for Opus."
Here I'm less suspicious than healthily skeptical, and I suppose one way to know for sure is to find out if the records of any given Commission meeting include everything the Commissioner's brought with them, or just whatever was officially introduced. If the former, then the other resolution would be in the file somewhere.
Erik Sten on 10 May 2005
b!x,
Terrific reporting. I appreciate it. I've just understood from your report and this morning's Oregonian that PDC is taking the position that it can not assign the appeal to the Council. Without conceding that legal interpretation, that response clearly misses the point. PDC can and should voluntarily agree to implement the Council's decision. If there is a compelling argument for some other body than the Council to hear the appeal, I would be open to that. What is clear is that a sitting body can not judge the merits of an appeal of its own decision.
I'm open to constructive suggestions on how to best resolve this situation and restore lacking public trust, but I don't accept the argument that the Commission's hands are tied. That just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
Erik Sten
tom on 10 May 2005
I can understand, though not agreee, with the PDC wanting to try to "fix" their own mistakes, its a natural reaction when you come under fire. But in the historic context of the PDC and public perception I think its safe to say there is a gap between good intentions and actual outcomes.
At the very least there should be an oversight on the whole process from another part of the city power structure which includes a good proportion of active citzen involvement.
The thing I keep getting from the progress of the Bridgehead project is the neighborhood citizens want a part of the decission making process that will impact thier day to day living. If the riches of the city feel short changed nothing much good will come of a project regardless of the intent.
So whatever solution is had for the next phase of this process it had better give the locals a sense of participation and stewardship.
-tom
thinkbigPDX on 10 May 2005
Opus Northwest and Bruce Wood are partners in the project. Opus Northwest will provide the financing, the construction expertise, etc., etc. Bruce Wood will serve as the lead project manager. That is not an official word, but that is what I understand.
The commissioners are volunteer business people. They are there to represent the community and help to make rationale decisions in cases where emotion may be seizing the momentum. Beam Development was asked repeatedly to produce a breakdown of their equity contribution for the project. They never provided this. If you can’t show(me the money) where your equity is coming from you aren’t going to get investment support from a bank. The PDC knows this and chose not to take this chance.
As for B!X it may have been unexpected to him that Hennessey showed. But, it was not unexpected by the Chair or members of the URAC. His sarcastic tone is what makes his discourse edgy, but also skews reality for the reader. The reader — given enough time to investigate every detail of any particular situation — could, in theory, get the real story, but a little objectivity would make this all so much less painful. But I have posted on this elsewhere, so enough.
I will address the Eric Sten comment in the new thread that continues to bring more info to this conversation.
Gen. Ambrose Burnside, Ret. on 10 May 2005
Commissioner Sten's proposal for the city council to handle the appeal process in this matter is a fully rational solution to the Burnside Bridgehead development matter. As Mr. Hennessee himself indicates, the PDC is "dealing more with perception" here -- an increasingly wide variety of unseemly perceptions that the commission makes a pretense of conducting public processes, while implementing back-door meetings in violation of its own rules; perception that the commission issues no-bid contracts to cronies; and, as of this week, perception that the commission and its counsel wish to interpret the city charter and state statutes in such a way that the commission's power may not be subject to external review.
The fact that various commissioners and their legal representatives would leap to prevent an external appeal process ("it [the charter and the ORS?] does not allow [that]"), while there does indeed appear to be a degree of flexibility in charter section 15-103, serves only to reinforce the perception of mishandling.
Such indications are appearing in a variety of media sources, and the "real story," in all of its complexity and despite a complete lack of transparency, is in the process of being collated and assembled.
This particular eastside resident sincerely hopes that whatever supernatural beings inform the development commissioners' decisions will lead them to an appreciation of how such mounting "perceptions" are painting their deliberative body in an increasingly poor light.
Thanks to Commissioner Sten for taking action on this matter, and to b!x for what appears to be sound and objective reporting.
Erik Sten on 10 May 2005
thinkbigPDX,
How about spelling my name correctly and sharing yours?
You know way more about the details than I do. In addition to an unnecessary and unsigned personal attack on me, you make an untrue and telling assumption that I have chosen a side in this decision. One of the reasons to have a separate appeal is so that both proposals can be viewed cleanly without all the spin that you and others are trying so hard to have determine the outcome.
If the decision is as clear and compelling as you argue, then the PDC Commissioners will likely be successful in explaining their thinking and you have nothing to worry about.
Erik Sten
The One True b!X on 10 May 2005
As for B!X it may have been unexpected to him that Hennessey showed. But, it was not unexpected by the Chair or members of the URAC.
The post makes it very clear that it was I who did not expect Hennessee's presence.
It also makes it clear that Hennessee expected to be there, because the post very obviously indicates that he said as much.
Whether or not the URAC expected it, I have no idea, because none of them said. All I know is that his presence wasn't on the agenda which was distributed.
Next.
pdxkona on 10 May 2005
[Hennessee] also said that people forget that Commissioners "are volunteers too" who "suffer just like everybody else does".
Oh yeah! It really gets into the heart of things that statement. Irregardless of Hennessee specifically as a person, but think rather of PDC as an overall structural arm of the city govt. these are my thoughts:
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.
thinkbigPDX on 10 May 2005
eriK-
Reverse order, just for fun.
I have nothing to worry about either way beyond being a concerned citizen and not wanting to see tax dollars spent where they shouldn’t be and tax credits allocated in ways that were not intended by those who created them.
My problem with the city council reviewing something that is so clearly not within their sphere of influence is not about who wins, but the process. See what Keith said on the 10th at
http://communique.portland.or.us/05/05/further_notes_on_who_will_or_can_hear_the_beam_appeal.html#comments
As for who I am, B!X says you should read the posts, not care about who posts them. Additionally, it should be none of your concern beyond the fact that I am a citizen of Portland, concerned with the truth and the behavior of politicians who want to take advantage of a situation, but are hoping to escape the risk that is always associated with any reward. Talk about spin—what is it called when you pretend to jump in and serve the community, when the reality is that the upside is a marginal, temporary increase in political capital with the CES? The residents of the CES should be thinking why would you want this capital? What are you about to ask them for? Why do you think that you will need their support in the near future?
The sad thing is, they are so consumed with the Bridgehead that they are blind to this manipulation and are only thinking you can help the home team (BEAM) come from behind in the greatest reversal of fortune since game 4 of the Red Sox/Yankees series last year.
Third Rail eriK, 3rd rail.
justa guy on 10 May 2005
In today's Portland Tribune article, it's reported that the head of Walsh Construction, part of the Beam team, discussed "the contributions of the equity partners" with Commissioner Doug Blomgren via telephone, in violation of a prohibition in the Request for Proposals against outside communications between the developers and the Commissioners.
Its just more of the same...The "thinkbig" guy has you scattering B!X for cover at times, Why don't you prove him wrong and explore Walsh Const. and their contracts and an "ALL" their contacts in Goverment.
The One True b!X on 10 May 2005
The "thinkbig" guy has you scattering B!X for cover at times
Heh, I'd like to see you support that contention.
justa guy on 10 May 2005
You know way more about the details than I do. In addition to an unnecessary and unsigned personal attack on me,
Eric: He does know a bunch more then you do, an he makes sense, you don't. Perhaps some on the council needs to listen for a change.
justa guy on 10 May 2005
Heh, I'd like to see you support that contention.
Keep responding, he will keep proving he has your number, and whats' more fun, he makes it look easy.
The One True b!X on 10 May 2005
Keep responding, he will keep proving he has your number, and whats' more fun, he makes it look easy.
Coming from the only other reader here who habitually misrepresents what I've posted, I'd consider this, at the very least, damning thinkbigPDX with faint praise.
torridjoe on 10 May 2005
Erik, thanks for participating.
Let me say for the record I agree that the reviewing body cannot handle an appeal of its own decision properly, especially when the allegations on appeal are of improper process. I haven't decided if Council is the best place, because there is a legitimate point here made that amid strong "home team" sentiment for Beam, elected officials may find themselves subtly bending to public opinion when fiscal and economic development expertise may be the better tools.
In any case, can you clarify something you just said?
"One of the reasons to have a separate appeal is so that both proposals can be viewed cleanly without all the spin..."
This suggests that you would want the opportunity to review the proposals freshly, which IMO doesn't seem to be the purview of the appeal. As I said above, a large part of the complaint is alleged rule-changing and failure to follow procedure in one way or another. If I may take a touchy subject and apply the legal principle, it sounds like you're looking for a de novo trial, when what Beam needs is a de novo review of process.
Perhaps you misspoke or I misunderstood, or that's really what you want, which is why I would appreciate clarification.
torridjoe on 11 May 2005
And if it pleases the Commissioner: I'm Mark, I'm Fire's Data Analyst, and we've met at station openings and whatnot.
Pliny on 11 May 2005
toridjoe: Actually, reviewing the proposals from scratch may be exactly what an appeal will lead to. If the circulating Beam protest PDF is the real deal, Beam's claims that they were denied several chances to clarify, modify, and amplify their proposal will have to be taken into account.
It'd hardly be fair to allow Beam to refine their proposal this way, without giving Opus a crack at it was well.
justa guy on 11 May 2005
Why don't you prove him wrong and explore Walsh Const. and their contracts and an "ALL" their contacts in Goverment.
B!X...As ususal, you attack the messenger ,and ignore the above.
This is one reason the "bigPDX"guy know's what I know, that while "talented' as you are, you would rather just "Flaunt your dissent" then write a Pulitzer prize winner, but hell B!X, you come by that naturally.
justa guy on 11 May 2005
Thanks to Commissioner Sten for taking action on this matter, and to b!x for what appears to be sound and objective reporting.
Now doesn't this sound like the self-congratulatory BS of another elected offical? Another commissioner perhaps.
What is right, and it "kills" me is the fact ,"fireman RANDY" is right about PDC, and all the threads about these "jerks' are correct for the times we find them in.
torridjoe on 11 May 2005
pliny--at this stage, I wonder if that's not putting the cart before the horse. I envision the appellate body as one to say "You did this wrong; now try it again," rather than "Just let us handle it now."
doretta on 11 May 2005
You mean justaguy is Jack Peek in disguise? If so, he should keep the new persona, this one doesn't seem to shout so much.
If Thinkbig is to be congratulated, it's for most words to the least effect.
yoyoboy on 11 May 2005
Eric, you need to back off these blog things. Seriously, you are not helping your cause against TBPDX, in fact he is kicking your butt here.
Admitting you do not know the facts of the case, and have not read the RFP or the appeal, but want the city to take over the process is scary, real scary.
I smell the water bureau thing all over.
People, take out the emotion and OPUS won this fair and square. As someone who votes in this city and lives in another area of town, I find it appalling that CE wants to steal tax credits from the rest of the city. In the words of Bill Clinton, "its the economy, stupid"!
Commissioner you have lost my support.
yoyo
Alan DeWitt on 11 May 2005
"As for who I am, B!X says you should read the posts, not care about who posts them."
Actually, tbpdx, you've made it matter and I'm afraid it's partially my fault. Because of my random potshot at you, speculating that your pseudonym might be a front for a certain PR person, the opinions you set out might be attributed to him so long as you remain anonymous.
I had no idea that you'd turn out to be such a dreadful troll. If I had predicted the magnitude of your folly, I would not have maligned that PR person by linking his name to your pseudonym in any way. I only intended to dig at you and mock him, not cripple his carreer further by creating an association where probably none exists.
It appears that at least two city councillors are now annoyed with your persona, and that at least one of them considers my wild guess to be a real possibility. Other posters have made speculations similar to but less specific than mine.
If as I now believe you are not that PR person, you need to know that you are doing him no favors by remaining anonymous. If you sincerely don't want him to be unfairly tried in the court of public opinion, your best course of action would be to disclose your real identity and/or shut the heck up. Your denials are clearly not cutting the mustard. (Largely because your credibility here has already evaporated in your blasts of hot air.) Leaving any preventable suspicion that your incompetent and incoherent anonymous ravings might belong to him or any of the other public figures involved is just plain unkind. With a friend like you, they don't need enemies.
Doretta-
Jack doesn't misrepresent b!X's posts, he ignores them. :-) Seriously, Jack's a saint compared to the current crop of trolls; at least he stands for something.
Yoyo and Justa-
Umm, no. The ass-kicking is indeed one sided here, but you're not right about who is winning. It's devolved to the level where it's actually quite sad to watch.
b!X-
To save the reputations of certain folks who might be maligned by anyone's speculative association with thinktroll, would you be willing to investigate and confirm that his posts are not coming from IP ranges owned by any major public or private entities involved in the bridgehead mess?
Paul Gronke on 11 May 2005
I'm not sure on what basis the Council would review the decision nor how such a review would proceed. Commissioner Sten's memorandum is very unspecific, calling for a "review of the decision." This is far too openended.
Would this be analogous to an appeals court, reviewing only procedural challenges? If so, then the best the Council could do is recommend throwing out the current decision and suggesting that the PDC reopen the process. This seems reasonable.
But if the suggestion is that the Council could reverse the PDC, this presumes a level of expertise on the Council that I simply cannot see existing. How can we possibly substitute one or a few Council meetings for a eight months long process involving multiple public hearings, staff reviews, PDC board meetings, and the like?
torridjoe on 11 May 2005
Paul, I think you and I are on the same page here.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
FYI and FWIW, prior to the start of today's Portland Development Commission meeting, Chair Hennessee told us this post accurately reflects the way the URAC meeting in this post played out.
Paul Gronke on 11 May 2005
Joe,
Yes, you posted a far more coherent version on another thread. Thanks.
Appeals don't equal reconsideration of the decision from the ground up, which is what some are advocating.
justa guy on 11 May 2005
Umm, no. The ass-kicking is indeed one sided here, but you're not right about who is winning. It's devolved to the level where it's actually quite sad to watch.
Ok, it's a "blue" Blog, it's starting out like "lets all be friends" then it's a feeding frenzy unlike anything seen in a shark movie.
If you can't post anything but blind agreement, then where is that spirit of dissent B!X was raised on?
Get off the "You must post your real name, and screw your "creditabilty rant...that goes both ways. Just shutup and debate and post what you feel like as the thread goes.