June 17, 2005
Council Hears Testimony On PDC, Part Two
Mazziotti Continued And The City Club Of Portland
Before we so rudely and with such utter cruelty interrupted our report on Wednesday night's City Council hearing on reforming the Portland Development Commission, we had left off near the conclusion of testimony from outgoing PDC executive director Don Mazziotti. Naturally, that's where we will pick up here.
First, however, a reminder: The public conversation about the future of PDC continues tomorrow this afternoon courtesy of the City Club of Portland.
For what it's worth, they finally secured a representative of PDC for their panel: Mark Rosenbaum, newly-appointed to that agency's board. Well, no, actually, that's not true. Within hours of announcing Rosenbaum's participation, City Club issued a second news release saying that current Commissioner Doug Blomgren would be taking Rosenbaum's place.
All of that distracting introduction out of the way, we return you now to our previously-scheduled second part of this report from Wednesday night's meeting.
Don Mazziotti (Continued)
"I think I can speak with regard to the achievements of urban renewal," Mazziotti continued his remarks. He argued that without the flexibility, knowhow, staff, and "freedom from shifting political actions" which PDC's semi-independent structure allows, many projects simply would not have happened.
His list of those projects will be read differently by different people, and we imagine will do little to change any opinions either for or against PDC. They included: the Meier & Frank renovation, Interstate MAX, Airport MAX, the relocation of Fire Station 1, and South Waterfront. Mazziotti also cited programs for homeowner assistance, the recruitment or retention of "almost 7,000 jobs, 1,300 of which were at small businesses," the Eastbank Esplanade, lighting in Lents Park, street improvements on MLK, and the Holman Building.
Regarding the entwined issues of transparency and accountability, Mazziotti said this: "In the past several months, we've taken a number of actions to respond, Commissioner [Leonard], to your complaints and those of other commissioners."
He referenced the agency's new public involvement policy "that's been under review for six months" and a public involvement handbook "to show our staff how to get involved with the public and stay involved with them."
In the end, Mazziotti said that the most improtant reason for the agency to remain independent was the danger of elected officials engaging in real estate transactions. "We want to continue the 48 years of history that has been largely successful," he said.
"The structure is fundamentally sound ... [and] I'm extremely proud of the work we have done and the history we have." He added: "I'm no apologist for PDC or any process that's broken."
In response, Leonard said there was a "healing effect to hear someone be as candid as you are." Mazziotti replied: "We've made some mistakes [and] I'm sure there will be more that will be reported."
Commissioner Adams asked Mazziotti to expand upon the argument that elected officials should not engage in real estate transactions, and Leonard asked him to compare and contrast Portland with other cities whose urban renewal agencies are not independent.
"We're the only agency in Oregon that does not have the City Council as its governing body," Mazziotti said. However, he said, there are cities elsewhere in the country whose development agencies are independent in ways similar to PDC.
Mazziotti said his concerns were with "the temptation of elected officials [to] become involved in real estate transactions to the benefit of their constituents or their supporters, or those people with whom they have relationships that are primarily political in nature."
(For what it's worth, you're not alone if you think can hear Jack Bogdanski throwing a shoe at his computer monitor upon reading that line.)
He added: "That's not to say that necessarily commissioners are wrong-doers at all, but I think the barrier is an important one, especially in real estate."
(Not to overdo the parentheticals, but does anyone else read this and wonder if Mazziotti supports publicly-financed campaigns, since the argument for them is much the same as the one he makes in this context? At any rate, in a similar vein, Adams did take this opportunity to push his plan for lobbyist registration, saying it would cover people lobbying PDC, and adding "that kind of additional transparency wouldgive rgeater comfort to the citizens as well.")
City Club Of Portland
At this point, Leonard started to move on to public testimony. A voice from the audience erupted in protest. "We were promised some time!" or some such similar thing. That would be one of the three representatives of the City Club of Portland, to whom Leonard apologized and mentioned out that a note about the Club's slot was sitting on paper right in front of him but managed to slip his attention anyway.
That cleared up, three representatives of City Club -- Sue Thomas, David Mandell, and Paul Meyer -- offered their own bits of testimony. All three were members of the committee which produced the City Club of Portland report on PDC (pdf). At this point, we're not even halfway through our notes on this meeting, so much of what follows may end up falling into the form of bullet points.
Thomas (who chaired the PDC report committee) said their study had "uncovered significant concerns," some of them internal, and many of which now have been extensively covered in the local press. She said there also were "larger and more complex questions" relating to such things as the sustainability of development funding, the drain on the budgets of other taxing jurisdictions, and the difficulty of making urban renewal work in residential areas.
She cited "deeper issues that if left unaddressed negatively affect the quality of life in Portland," and said that while it might be tempting merely to "tinker" with PDC's structure, that would only be a "superficial solution to surface issues". Thomas said that there are questiosn to be answered about the role of City Council, and called for periodic performance audits of PDC to be performed by the City Auditor.
Mandell focused on issues surrounding urban renewal's use of tax increment financing, saying that any reform of PDC needed to take those issues into account. He urged the City Council to "take seriously the financial impact on other City services and those of government partners" when approving new urban renewal areas.
He argued that there were four "basic facts" about urban renewal that needed to be considered, beginning with the fact that TIF money "is not free." He explained that even if there are long-term revenue benefits once an urban renewal area's bonds are paid off, during the URA's lifetime "other taxing jurisdictions bear some of the cost."
Second, he said that the "value of urban renewal" needed to be measured in terms of things such as teachers and police left unhired and rivers never cleaned.
Third, he pointed out that "urban renewal can at most only reach 15% of the City at a time" and that this restriction "shouldn't become an excuse to neglect the rest" of Portland.
Fourth, Thomas said that while the goal of urban renewal has been to address inequalities between different parts of the City (hence the need for findings of "urban blight"), TIF-funded development in Oregon after the passage of Measure 50 "can augment rather than reduce these disparities."
Thomas urged that "any changes to PDC ensure wise stewardship of these TIF dollars" and to "keep these facts in mind when approving or renewing urban renewal areas." Concluding, he said that in order for the public to decide, "there needs to be clear information about these financial impacts" and about both the short-term costs and the long-term benefits.
Meyer said there were "good reasons" why City Club decided that PDC should remain an independent agency.
First, he argued, as an independent agency, "the business community perceives it as more accessible than other City departments." Second, removing Council from the day-to-day process insulates PDC from political pressures. Third, it would be "difficult" for Council members to engage in the "vast amount of time" PDC spends "exercising its functions." That independence, he said, "is viewed by cities around the nation" as a model of urban renewal that works.
"That being said," Meyer continued, "there is a serious disconnect between the [Bureau of Planning] and PDC." Explaining that the dynamic should be one in which "Planning plans and PDC implements," Meyer said that PDC's greater resources give it greater influence. Further, having a single Council member overseeing both Planning and PDC "did not solve the problem."
Meyer argued that the City Council needed to establish structures to "ensure effective coordination" between the Bureau of Planning and the Portland Development Commission, and any "significant disputes" between the two organizations need to "immediately" brought before Council.
He also faulted Council for failing to "take the time and resources necessary to engage in long-range strategic planning."
Continuing, he said that PDC itself "must find the time to establish policies of transparency and public involvement." He described an initial flaw in PDC's proposed public involvement policies, wherein the Board delegated authority to "revise and update" the policy to the executive director. "PDC should never delegate authority to define policy to the executive director," Meyer argued. (He pointed out that the staff's recommendation was changed to "accomodate" the City Club's.)
Meyer expressed the hope that with PDC experiencing "the infusion of new commissioners and hiring a new director," a new Mayor, and increased public focus, the City Club's report would be "studied closely."
"As a candidate and Mayor," said Mayor Potter, "I read it from front to back."
Note: We still are not halfway through our notes from this meeting. What remains is all of the public testimony, and follow-up comments from Council members. It is our intention to try to get through that prior to posting any reports from Friday's discussion before the City Club of Portland, but all told, the final batches of material from Wednesday's hearing and Friday's forum may not be posted until we get into Saturday.
Comments (1)
Chris Lowe on 18 Jun 2005
Two comments on City Club testimony:
1) "Insulating PDC from political pressures" sounds like a good thing, but may not be. Public accountability is a form of political pressure, and the current structure seems also to insulate PDC from such accountability. The purpose of transparency would be to subject PDC to public, i.e. political, pressure.
The comfort level of "the business community" with their access, when compared to the perceptions of elected officials and the non-business general public of abysmal access and transparency, suggests that the PDC is insulated from some political pressures but not others.
The City Club also seems to ignore the role of the PDC as a source of political influence and pressure, given the enormous amount of money they control with limited oversight. A species of patronage politics, resting with the PDC commissioners and upper level management, seems to be at the heart of much of the discontent with the PDC.
2) There seems to be "a disconnect" between the idea of "insulating PDC from political pressure" and the idea that the Council can and should establish structures to "ensure efficient coordination" between the Bureau of Planning and PDC, both presumably subject to the "long-term strategic planning" to be carried out by the Council. Plans reflect the values and goals of those directing the planning process. What the City Club calls for might reduce the latitude of the PDC to exercise independent patronage power to a degree, but is it clear that the Council actually has the power, either formally or practically, to establish such structures and ensure coordination?
If the answer is no, this recommendation may amount to a recommendation for significant restructuring.