BLOG: "...regarding Tryon Creek Farm...I will never, ever vote for you again..."
Sam Adams
I thought you might find this recent email exchange about the Tryon Creek Farm interesting.
For background information:
- Download city_doubles_its_pledge_in_farms_land_purchase.pdf
- Download tryon_life_farm_needs_sustenance.pdf
- Download editorial_making_a_modelfarm_dream_practical_and_sustainable.pdf
- Download from_a_kitchen_table_to_a_645acre_park.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rich,
Thanks for taking the time to e-mail me regarding the Tryon Creek Farm.
Storm water sewer fees cannot be used to help schools and my efforts to financially assist the Farm project are hardly promoting just a "private agenda."
I am responsible for five watersheds of the Willamette River where several species of salmon have 
been listed as endangered by the federal Endangered Species Act. The habitat for two of the salmon species includes the mouth of Tryon Creek. Tryon Creek is listed as in being "poor" condition by the State of Oregon. It is too warm, its water level gets too low in the summer and it is contaminated by development in its watershed.
The city of Portland is responsible for operating a sanitary sewer facility and a storm water sewer system. The sanitary sewer facility is what conveys human made waste. The storm water sewer system is what conveys rainwater that hits the surfaces of roofs, sidewalks and streets. In Southwest, the storm water system is ditches, coverts and streams. For example, rainwater that hits street pavement in Southwest Portland flows directly to the Willamette River via streams like Tryon Creek. Fanno Creek and Stevens Creek and others.
We have to show the state and federal agencies that we working to improve the water quality of salmon habitat. This year the city has set aside $8 million in storm water sewer fees to improve stream and creek water quality that is impacted by human-contaminated storm water via roofs, sidewalks and streets. Many of the city's investments have been along Johnson Creek on Portland's Eastside. The Tryon Creek Farm Project is a rare opportunity to spend $200,000 to buy a one acre conservation easement. The conservation easement will prevent development close to the creek. The City contribution also helps leverage $1.2 million in other public and private investments that will ensure that the remaining 6.5 acres are not developed.
I try to take great care in spending sewer ratepayer dollars. I know how hard it is for many people to pay the nation's highest sewer bills. For the City's $200,000, I consider the one acre conservation easement that is matched by $1.2 million on other funding a good investment in helping to avoid future government fines if we do not act to improve Tryon Creek.
We don't agree on this issue but I glad you emailed me so we could have this exchange of views.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Cunningham
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 6:30 PM
To: Sam Adams
Subject: Tryon Farm Project
Councilman Adams
What are you people in City Hall doing? This city is falling apart, there are holes in the roads, our schools are in chaos, the sewers are overflowing into the rivers, and here you are giving almost $200,000 to a private organization that is not only not in the city of Portland, it isn’t even in Multnomah County! You thinly veiled excuse that this “project” part of the Portland watershed is ridiculous and laughable. The Water Bureau still can’t even send out accurate water bills, and you’re spending what money they get this way! Give me a break.
I challenge you to show one environmental study that shows any benefit that the city receives from this project. Your statement that these “property owners” are committed to the watershed is also crazy. They aren’t property owners. If they were, they would not be raising money to buy the land. I have also have not seen any project that they are undertaking that will directly benefit anyone. They are simply an educational program, nothing else. That statement is from their own website. What benefit will the citizens of Portland receive from this investment that you committed to?
I want it clearly understood that it is stupid and idiotic wastes of public tax dollars like this that make me vote against any tax increase that comes from elected officials. If you want to personally contribute to this program, that is fine, that is your money that you are committing. But when you squander over $200,000 of public money, then it becomes my business. I seriously question the legality of your actions, even if it was with unanimous council approval. Just remember when you come crying to the public for money to fix our sewers or pave our streets, this it the type of government waste that makes people vote against your requests for funds.
I have lived in Oregon all of my life. It is a great place to live. But it is stupid actions like this that make me more and more want to go live somewhere else. The actions of the Portland City Council are not in the best interests of the city, only private political agenda of the elected officials. Remember this when you think about running for reelection, as I will never, ever vote for you or any of the current officials again.
Richard Cunningham
Portland Oregon
Posted by Sam Adams on January 8, 2006
(37) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Livability & Environment
Comments by site visitors
There was another sewer spill into the Tryon Creek watershed during December.
A tree fell on a fully exposed pipe which bridges the creek. Breaking it and spilling sewage directly into the Tryon creek system.
Endangered species do not like sewage.
The city desperately needs money to fix the antiquated sewer system.
Where can they find more money?
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Jan 9, 2006 10:48:30 AM
Like most Portlanders, I am proud of the fact that we are paying to clean up the Willamette River...my sewer fees are some of the best money I spend every month.
Part of the clean-up/restoration is protecting watersheds...its a no-brainer to spend a few dollars to limit runoff from hard surfaces and let nature clean runoff instead.
What gripes me is that loads and loads of the run-off into the Willamette comes from roads and parking lots filled with cars that leak oil and gas and leave tire dust. But only residents are charged for what comes off our roofs (pretty clean) and driveways. The cars and their drivers get a free ride...dumping their waste out our expense. Sometime back in the dark ages, we began to discourage folks from using the street as a personal sewer. I wish we could get out of the dark ages when it comes to the waste generated by our motor vehicles.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Jan 9, 2006 11:23:13 AM
A couple brief comments.
Firstly, TLC Farm is indeed within both the City of Portland, and Multnomah County. Look up 11640 SW Boones Ferry Rd in portlandmaps.com.
More importantly, I think Sam expressed very well the importance and value of this use of funds. A small amount of government money -- which has acquired a permanent protective property right -- is also leveraging to protect the full area of land that has been identified as the most important private parcel with potential impact on Tryon Creek State Park and the Creek itself. That's a great example of community and government working together to use limited public funds wisely.
One last comment. For the long term, the way to address the water quality, runoff, and capacity issues of the storm and sewer system is to develop a deep transformation in our paradigms around sustainability and urban space. We need to minimize impermeable surfaces, sequester water in the ground, bioremediate water before it enters streams, and minimize sanitary water use. It's just these kinds of sustainability technological innovations that TLC Farm is researching, demonstrating, and providing education programs for.
Kudos to the City and to Sam in particular for foresight and wisdom. The overwhelmingly positive response from the community affirms the timeliness of this approach.
Thanks!
J. Brush
TLC Farm
Posted by: John Brush | Jan 9, 2006 12:21:13 PM
Good luck minimizing impermeable surfaces when the city's development objectives are ever increasing density, skinny houses on smaller lots and condo towers. Easy for you, with all the land you have at your disposal. Not so easy for Portlanders.
What you describe as a "small amount of government money" was actually a pretty big bag of RATEPAYER money. Ratepayer money which by charter could only be spent on water and sewer. The council's ability to morph your little pet project into a legitimate BES expenditure is quite a stretch... one which is definitely not palatable for most of the ratepayers.
Posted by: Dave Lister | Jan 9, 2006 1:09:27 PM
Hey J. Brush:
How do you quantify the "overwhelmingly positive response from the community..."? That sounds entirely subjective to me.
The policy wonks may have been paying attention. The rest of us had no idea the City was even considering the diversion of ratepayer funds to PDX's own little Biosphere III.
Can my kid pet your goats? I mean, now that I'm an investor in the farm and all. Got free Feta?
Posted by: OYE | Jan 9, 2006 2:08:48 PM
How do I measure overwhelmingly positive support? By an over 90% support ratio in our canvass of over 500 immediate neighbor households. By over a thousand private donations. By hundreds of deeply heartfelt letters from around the city. By the fact that to my knowledge not one single person that has been here, has taken a tour, has left saying that this wasn't a good idea or that taxpayer money was being ill-spent.
The money apportioned by the City absolutely does address water quality issues in important ways. Even besides the immediate watershed issues, which are primary: the Big Pipe (a heck of a lot more ratepayer money than this) will be obsolete in a few years. To truly be fiscally conservative, we must develop new models of urban density. We are and will be doing just that: how to have dense human occupation, while improving watershed health, native habitat, and including sustainable food production as well. Come, check it out for yourself!
And yes, your kid can pet the goats. Anyone can! We are a public resource, open twice a week or for school groups and the like. We invite to visit.
Be well,
J.Brush
Posted by: John Brush | Jan 9, 2006 2:58:50 PM
John Brush:
To truly be fiscally conservative, we must develop new models of urban density.
JK:
What's wrong with low density? Why do we need high density?
John Brush:
We are and will be doing just that: how to have dense human occupation, while improving watershed health, native habitat,
JK:
Dense human occupation is the main reason we have declining water quality.
John Brush:
and including sustainable food production as well.
JK:
How can a high density condo dweller grow food? Someone living on a few acres can, but that is against Oregon policy.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jan 9, 2006 4:03:58 PM
Did anybody have a response to Steve Schopp's allegation that we had a sewage spill into Tryon Creek just last month? Was the exposed pipe buried in the repair, or just patched up? Could if have been buried for $200k?
For $200k, I can create the mother of all petting zoos in my back yard. We will stay open 5 days a week, and I'll give the little ones all the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches they can eat. Organic peanut butter and jelly, too.
John Brush: I'm glad the neighborhood has been so supportive. I assume the possibility of seeing a bunch of new homes go up, not to mention all the construction noise, dust, and traffic had something to do with their support.
It may not have been pure altruism.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 9, 2006 8:22:02 PM
It is funny when Brush calls for limiting impermeable surfaces (as supplemented by Lister's post) while the City implemented the "snout house" regs and the now being reviewed "density project". Both increased impermeable surfaces.
Example: "snout house" regs have forced home/condo designs to place the driveway in the once front yard of a residence so that the garage door does not face the street within 180 degrees to the street (in the "L" shaped area left over after the garage/house footprint is placed on the site, possibly killing a tree ). Plus, city staff many times requests that you place your garage behind your residence so we can't see those "ugly" garage doors; thus, a much longer driveway possibly knocking down a tree or two, and of course more than doubling the impermeable area.
In the "density project" the city is advocating placing driveways in the side yard area and having garage entrances in the back. With the necessary turning radius, almost all the site becomes impermeable. But we don't have to see those "ugly" garage doors that indicate the horrible existence of the "car".
If Brush worked on these issues, the results would be thousands of times more effective than Try-on, and actually give money and benefits back to the city.
As to sewer breaks in Tryon streams, there has been numerous breaks in the city's sewers upstream from Try-on. Like in the ravine below SW 12th Drive and in the city's public park-Marshall Park that feeds into Tryon State Park, and is upstream from Try-on.( have data for the right party inquiry) I hope Brush and others put efforts first into those issues. It would be more effective use of public dollars.
A gallon of sewage does a lot more damage than a gallon of water off of a roof or driveway that has to meet the city's already stringent storm-water management requirements. Let us start thinking realistically and prioities our limited tax dollars where they would do the most good. It is not Try-on.Try-common sense.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 9, 2006 9:54:30 PM
W Bruce asked,
"""""Did anybody have a response to Steve Schopp's allegation that we had a sewage spill into Tryon Creek just last month? Was the exposed pipe buried in the repair, or just patched up? Could if have been buried for $200k?""""""
Not an allegation. Just by coincidence, I personally went to the site when called by a homeowner with concerns about it being mentioned in an inspection report.
I also was given the feedback from the city about it being repaired.
I saw the repair.
It is indeed a patched pipe, airborne over the stream.
When talk of an antiquated and dilapidated sewer system is heard understand that it is for real. Many lines are still made from brick.
Miles of sewer lines are in the West hills stream beds and on the surface in many areas.
The system has been neglected for years. It's my understanding that All of the DEQ fines were for spills which the Big Pipe will not remedy so claims of "were working on it" fall way short.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Jan 9, 2006 10:34:26 PM
First off;
Sam; Thank you for doing this. I grew up in Oregon and agree that this is a wise expenditure when the private funding is taken into account. For two-hundred thousand dollars you are securing a 1.4 million dollar investment which will reduce the impacts of run-off on our streams and rivers. I am curious if Rich is aware that the threat of not "making efforts" to clean the willamette will lead to federal intervention (and fines) which may very well incur much higher significant costs. "Rate payer money which should only be spent on water and sewer." Interestingly, if one goes legal - this is a legitimate expenditure in protecting a waterway from runoff, regardless of environmental impact.
On Density:
Higher density decreases impermeable surfaces it does not increase them. More people in less space requires fewer roads. When this is extrapolated to condo towers driveways are eliminated because they are typically in the building. Runoff is often decreased because driving is not required. You may not like it, but one hundred people living in a city block create a significantly smaller amount than 100 spred out over several.
On fiscal conservative - since this whole winge seems to be about spending money on pet projects - higher density has a lower per capita support cost. Case in point 100 homes in a condo tower require single connections to a cities water, sewer, power, and roadways. Not so for 100 homes in a subdivision. Once the water main hits the tower, HOAs cover internal maintnenance, while in non-condo tower development those services are paid for by rate payers. If this section were developed, how much would portland subsidize the development's construction of infrastructure and infrastructure maintenance?
-Lane
Posted by: Lane Inman | Jan 10, 2006 3:20:06 AM
Lane asked """"I am curious if Rich is aware that the threat of not "making efforts" to clean the Willamette will lead to federal intervention (and fines) which may very well incur much higher significant costs.""""""
I'm sure most people are aware of the need and efforts to cleanup the Willamette.
This expenditure is precisely the opposite.
Unless there is documented current pollution coming from this parcel and the purchase will lead to stopping it the claim that it is a fabrication.
The sewer spills into the Tryon Creek watershed are documented.
This purchase takes money that could go towards real remedies.
The farm property, if developed, would have to follow current regulations and city requirements to avoid runoff and pollution.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Jan 10, 2006 9:02:24 AM
Lane,
Yes and no. Yes, there may be less impermeable surface *overall* when you have density, but what is needed is a balance between permeable and impermeable surfaces over a given geographic area.
I don't know the right ratio, but I know it's not so simple as saying more density=more permeability.
By forcing higher density, we may be increasing the proportion of impermeable to permeable surfaces in a given area, and thus increasing runoff.
It doesn't do us much good if the surrounding farmland can absorb all the rainwater that is coming down on the rooftops in Portland.
Posted by: rainman | Jan 10, 2006 11:16:07 AM
What about the $100,000 for "Artist Living Space?" How is this artist living space protecting the watershed?
Maria Thi Mai was unable to respond to the question, what about you, Sam?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jan 10, 2006 12:07:37 PM
So;
Rich; it is not said that this will remove a source of polution. It will prevent another source of polution. Interestingly, the Big Pipe is being built to separate storm water overflow which is a direct result of impermeable surfaces - the exact things that this is preventing from being built next to a creek.
As to rainman - so you agree that having very low density - ala a farm - right next to a creek is a good idea as opposed to having homes and higher density housing next to the creek. (Farms add a lot of polution as well) Ideally, one would build a high density development separated from the creek with a buffer zone.
As to 100K??? eh? This seems like a completely unrelated subject.
-Lane
Posted by: Lane | Jan 10, 2006 1:40:19 PM
Lane: As to 100K??? eh? This seems like a completely unrelated subject.
Me: No, it's not. BES gave $100K to the farm for artist living space. Maria Thi Mai had to abruptly recuse herself from an interview with Lars Larson when he brought up the "Artist Living Space" subject.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jan 10, 2006 3:11:50 PM
Sam,
It appears to me, when you voted to increase the storm water run off tax last year; you broke a campaign promise not to raise taxes. In that Portland has some of the highest sewer taxes in the nation, and some of these tax dollars are now being siphoned off to protect a private piece of property from being developed, two things need to take place. First, density requirements for the City must be reduced. Attached green spaces such as yards and setbacks for single family homes, common lawn areas and setbacks for multi-family developments and ground permeable areas for commercial development must be required in zoning and with all new construction. Second, the owners of all properties and dwellings that currently have such green spaces, including homeowners with small yards and lawns, must also be financially rewarded from city sewer funds. It is called equity!
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jan 10, 2006 4:36:12 PM
Thank you Chris for the clarification, I don't typically listen to Lars...
As for paying home owners with lawns... I would prefer they pay for the associated with the roads and sidewalks needed to get to their homes. Perhaps adding a lot's frontage to the overall sewerage bill to provide real equity.
-Lane
Posted by: Lane | Jan 11, 2006 1:57:13 AM
Why is it that the Farm will not be required to meet the zoning codes minimum density requirements for it's zone classification? Why is it when I and an adjacent neighbor wanted to slit a 50 ft wide lot between us that is vacant, that has slope instability problems, springs, etc., that the city refused to allows us to do so because of the minimum density reuirement?
The city said that we need density, another house on this vacant lot. We were just trying to be environmentalist by adding the 25 ft to each of our built-upon lots to protect the trees, mitigate the slope and water problems. This is what the city is so much about-hypocrisy. With so many stated goals, policies, codes, etc, the city and the politicians can justify in any convoluted way any of their pet projects-like Sam is doing with the farm.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 11, 2006 10:51:29 AM
Notwithstanding the merits of this particular watershed investment - I can't help but wonder whether anyone would have even noticed the purchase of a $200,000 conservation easement in Tryon Creek, had the seller been a profit-making corporation staffed by folks wearing business suits. I doubt it.
Frank Ray
Posted by: Frank Ray | Jan 12, 2006 12:35:17 PM
Sam,
Last I checked, we already had voted to get someone else to work on conservation projects like this. There is a group called METRO right across the river that has this one by the tail. Check out details at...
http://www.metro.dst.or.us/article.cfm?ArticleID=587
On a related subject...
Is it just me or does it seem ironic that we, as State, have gone to great lengths to limit urban sprawl in the interest of preserving agricultural lands and the City of Portland is now involved in siting a farm within the UGB that will demonstrate urban "sustainability"? Let's not even go into "minimum density" policies.
Speaking of buzzwords..
If you are into the Tryon Farm mission of "integration of social, ecological and economic sustainability" you might check out the T-Horse project. By attaching wings to a 1979 Toyota pick-up "...the T-Horse is an inspiration and model opportunity for all of us to take responsibility for making the places we live socially, economically and environmentally sustainable".
Of course I am being sarcastic Sam, but the point is stay on target. We need less 'feel' good and more measurable 'do' good. We are counting on you!
Thanks,
Zac
Posted by: Zac Christensen | Jan 12, 2006 1:27:15 PM
Sam,
Last I checked, we already had voted to get someone else to work on conservation projects like this. There is a group called METRO right across the river that has this one by the tail. Check out details at...
http://www.metro.dst.or.us/article.cfm?ArticleID=587
On a related subject...
Is it just me or does it seem ironic that we, as State, have gone to great lengths to limit urban sprawl in the interest of preserving agricultural lands and the City of Portland is now involved in siting a farm within the UGB that will demonstrate urban "sustainability"? Let's not even go into "minimum density" policies.
Speaking of buzzwords..
If you are into the Tryon Farm mission of "integration of social, ecological and economic sustainability" you might check out the T-Horse project. By attaching wings to a 1979 Toyota pick-up "...the T-Horse is an inspiration and model opportunity for all of us to take responsibility for making the places we live socially, economically and environmentally sustainable".
Of course I am being sarcastic Sam, but the point is stay on target. We need less 'feel' good and more measurable 'do' good. We are counting on you!
Thanks,
Zac
Posted by: Zac Christensen | Jan 12, 2006 1:28:10 PM
The "$15 million dollar tram" barely raised an eyebrow when it was proposed (from a budgeting standpoint) with the exception of all those pesky flyover houses (who doth protest too much).
Why get all tied up in knots over $200k? The public treasury is the City Council's silk purse: when they need more money, they'll ask our permission to raise our taxes, and a majority will go along with them. I don't know why, but they always do.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 12, 2006 5:57:05 PM
Bruce, you are totally wrong that no one "hardly raised an eyebrow" over the tram's initial budget.
Many indiviudals, plus several neighborhood asssociations strongly questioned the budget when it was first proposed at $8.5M, then raised to $15M. Numerous testimony/comments were made at City Council, PDC Bd meetings, URAC meetings, press, etc., all at the early stages, and beyond. And it wasn't just by those having to live under it. CTLH, Homestead, SWNI and others spent thousands of hours trying to get the issues out.
Early on, the comparison of shuttle buses to a price tag of $8.5 to $15M Tram costs were questioned. Many times city staff, council, PDC were told that the budget was a Scam (TRAM SCAM). This was ignored and the press followed.
We know how this can be corrected for $6M (per Adam's staff analysis)or less-stop it; and this amount will almost be less than the debt service on Leonard's correct assessment that the Tram cost will reach atleast $60M. When you consider an accurate true life-cycle-cost for a 20 year or more period, the $6M is a bargain considering the life cycle cost approaches $216M.
Or, one could be more "politically correct" and just put a hold on the Tram to see if all the"biotech" jobs really develop down in North Macadam. I will offer my services to shuttle the 12 doctors to their new penthouse offices at the "so-called OHSU health club building until there are 500 bio-tech jobs in NM. Well, I want to qualify that offer: if I get paid the same as Tri-Met costs are for running their dail-up mini buses.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 13, 2006 12:04:18 AM
The City's $200,000 purchases two conservation easements. The agreement with TLC Farm to pursue future development of artists' live/work space involves no money.
Posted by: Tom Miller | Jan 14, 2006 11:07:14 AM
I have to point out that Zac's quote about the T-Horse leaves out an all-important qualifier ("In this way, the T-Horse is...") and is taken somewhat out of context.
It's not that the truck is a 'model' of anything; it's that the the _events_ hosted with the truck help build community by giving neighbors an opportunity to build and enjoy something together. When people feel connected to their neighborhood, they take more responsibility for it, and hopefully act to make it better. People can read the whole quote for themselves at:
http://www.cityrepair.org/t-horse.html
As regards the Farm... I think what that group of folks is doing at the Farm is an extremely valuable example of sustainability practices, and I think it's a wonderful idea to have such a resource within City limits. I think the Farm (and its the educational programs and demonstration projects) needs to be seen for itself for its value to Portland and the region to be truly appreciated.
Posted by: Daniel Lerch | Jan 18, 2006 1:54:42 PM
thank you, daniel, for beaming a little light through the moronic fog.
Posted by: andrew | Jan 18, 2006 9:16:45 PM
So Zak: by your logic, is it also ironic to reserve parcels of undeveloped land for future parks/open spaces instead of piling infill on every available inch? Would you also prefer that Forest Park were converted to a patchwork of housing? Would YOU want to live in such a city?
Why can't you see that local government's action is critical to saving open spaces for the betterment of current AND future generations?
Let's just cut the crap and accept that Portland is a better place for having places like Tryon Creek Farm than not.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 18, 2006 11:18:25 PM
Is Try/On the highest use of this parcel? It adds 1% to the existing watershed. It has road frontage and is zoned R10, which in any other neighborhood would be developed into McMansions. This parcel lost its farm exemption in 1991. It has a conservation easememt for the hillside and the surrounding trees, leaving the bare core with its existing house and barn, which could be developed with landscaping into a better watershed area than it has been for decades. The 23 homesites that were planned for this property would have added enough taxes to buy another classroom. The warming of the stream occurs when the shallow surface flow is exposed to sunlight, not when it is passing through the water table from dry wells and soakage trenches. And, do native runs of salmon and steelhead actually spawn below the railroad bridge? My opinion is that this project was protectionism for the art and exerise and not because it would make a measurable difference in the environment. Or, was it because the neighbors on Boones Ferry didn't want more development and traffic in their neihborhood?
Posted by: Don Bartley | Jan 23, 2006 1:59:34 PM
Sam -
At a minimum, I sure hope that for the money you spent that you got the Tryon Creek Farm folks to agree to completely rehab the acre in question with native plants. If its anything like the rest of the area, it is overrun with ivy.
Personally, I think that for the money that everyone put into this thing that the entire property should be required to be rehabilitated and planted with 100% native vegitation and if they want to grow something, that is what they should grow. If they are growing, lettuce, apple trees, corn, pumkins and the like they are growing alien species and not meeting the goals of improving the watershed.
Dave
Posted by: David | Jan 23, 2006 2:42:04 PM
From the City of Portland Notification Service January 23 2:05pm:
Oregon Sustainable Agriculture Land Trust (OSALT) has recently received title to two more properties, including the well-publicized Tryon Life Community Farm, which operates on 7 acres in southwest Portland. Co-founder Will Newman said, "Agricultural land need to be as close to those it feeds as possible,
and we are particularly excited to accept Tryon Creek Farm and the site
of the future Greeley Orchard as excellent examples of urban
agriculture."
Don responds:
Preserving actual agricultural land, as in the Rossi Farm in Parkrose which is jointly owned by the Parks Bureau, only delays the inevitable. Part will become urban parkland, the rest will be condos. The majority of people need to live in proximity to jobs and services, to reduce urban sprawl that results from too many people living on too large lots. The very same land use planning goals that prohibits development outside the Urban Growth Boundary, says this is supposed to be a residential area, not a farm. There is nothing I have seen that would indicate the Tryon Farm could produce any credible knowledge regarding farming sustainable quantities of crops on a property that excludes growing edible produce because it is supposed to be residential. OSALT preserving actual farmland in Canby is creditable. Sticking a prime developable Portland lot into agricultural trust is short-sighted and self-serving. And, I don't think the salmon will notice or care.
Posted by: Don Bartley | Jan 23, 2006 3:09:47 PM
Thank you to the comments by Lenny Anderson and J. Brush. I fully support the Farm and thank Sam for showing political courage on this issue.
This is an investment in the future of Portland.
Lets take the next step and reduce the impact of auto runoff on our roads.
Posted by: Aaron | Jan 25, 2006 9:59:44 PM
I heard on the channel 6 news this morning (1/26/06) that the ship dismantling business is now looking at two sites along the Willalmette River. One almost across from Linton and the other next to Cathedral Park at the old Marcom site. To even suggest that these two sites are in the running is so incredibly ludicrous. Are we not spending millions of taxpayer dollars on the Portland Harbor clean-up which includes both these sites. Wouldn't this business be a detriment to that clean up? Then the State is considering giving the company $200,000 as an incentive to bring their business here. Please, Sam say it isn't so. Are we so cash starved as a state that we need to prostitue ourselves to attract a business that states they only want to build here because it's cheaper than California
Posted by: Sharron Ray | Jan 26, 2006 7:31:55 AM
"I heard on the channel 6 news this morning (1/26/06) that the ship dismantling business is now looking at two sites along the Willalmette River..."
Good, it's about time we started bringing industry back to Portland. We can't survive in an economy based on latte stands and hemp clothing manufacturers.
New industries are forced to abide by stringent environmental laws. There's no reason to think the ship dismantler will be pouring waste into the river (like the City of Portland does).
I am against any corporate welfare, but it would be wise for Portland to make it easier for businesses to locate and operate here.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jan 26, 2006 11:53:53 AM
I wanted to complement Sam for making his project happen and the mayor and all of the commissioners for the more business like way the city is running.
For example -
A top to bottom review of bureau budgets, with taxpayer input and priorities
The removal of several staffers and managers who were not doing their jobs
Less back room dealing as things were done in the past
Commissioner Adams actually getting out and talking to Portland's businesses
What's businesslike about this city project? The 7 acres if developed for housing would require roads, driveways and patios. A rough rule of thumb would be about 15% coverage by hard surfaces for a luxury development like this. (With density as some of the commenters above propose, it could be much, much greater.) So 1 acre of hard surface. At 45 inches of annual rainfall - say - 3.5 feet - falling on one acre of hard surface is over 1 million gallons a year. (43560 sqft/acre x 3.5 ft annual rainfall / 7.5 gallons per cuft = 1.1 million gallons) The houses would of course require sewer hookups too. If you look at the map, or visit the site, you will plainly see that the sewer lines and storm water will have to be piped through the Tryon Creek State Park - downhill. Even with permitting charges, and given the history of sewage leaks in the park, the City will save much more than $200,000 by not having to build the sewage pipes to serve 10-20 (or more) new homes. What is especially businesslike of the City is that the City share leveraged much more private money.
Keep up the good work and smart economic analysis!
Posted by: Rob W | Jan 26, 2006 3:48:13 PM
Beating the dead horse (apologies to PETA): A sewer line runs along Boones Ferry. I saw it going in, the PortlandMaps confirms it. The developer would be responsible for the roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines from the street into the development. The city would do the last 8 feet of sewer hookup, and maybe a small pump station to get it up to the line. The Maps also show an open ditch draining the "Farm" toward the creek. One of the complaints downstream is that development has reduced the volume of flow in Tryon Creek, which is raising its temeprature by the time it goes under Hwy 43 into the spawning grounds. Adding more hard surface, and guiding it toward an upgraded and landscaped central trench through the development, would increase the creek volume, reducing its heat absorption, which in this case would be a good thing. With the already bare core of this property, the development could have occured without cutting a single tree in the conservation easement.
Posted by: Don Bartley | Feb 1, 2006 5:40:47 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam, y'all should do Rich a favor and excise his email address from this post. Posting email addresses online is the single largest source of spam.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 9, 2006 9:01:37 AM