Blog: 200+ Attend Tram Town Hall
Sam Adams
About 200+ people attended the tram town hall meeting tonight, hosted by Mayor Tom Potter and me.
Participants asked about 60 questions that covered a lot of ground. Staff representatives from Portland Office of Transportation, Portland Development Commission, Office of Management and Finance and the City Attorney’s office answered questions using the same information that we on the City Council will be using to make a decision on how to move forward with the tram project.
The Portland Development Commission is leading negotiations with South Waterfront property owners and OHSU to close the tram’s budget gap and fund projects of public benefit in the district. They will be announcing the result of their negotiations soon. The Portland City Council will be addressing the tram issue this Thursday during a work session.
Thanks to those that participated tonight.
We will post the questions, presentation slides and info from the gathering soon. In the meantime, feel free to post more questions or comments below.
Sam
Posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2006
(46) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Tram
Comments by site visitors
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You folks (city hall) have made up your mind that the tram WILL get built come hell or high water. You DON'T know how much it will cost to operate it. You DON'T know how much it will cost to maintain it - but you also don't seem to care. Full speed ahead, as usual, city hall knows best, you don't listen to the rest (the general population).
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 15, 2006 7:43:06 AM
Sam,
Please allow me to open this post with a “thank you” for the Town Hall meeting last night. I thought you did a good job of encouraging dialogue and answering questions.
I will say that I was disappointed that Mayor Potter added nothing to the discussion. I was hoping for some sort of statement from him, besides his initial greetings.
After taking some time to digest the information presented, I have a number of issues that I hope you’ll take the time to address:
1) I am anxiously awaiting the true total of the city’s cost. As I believe you’ve mentioned, and as was pointed out at the meeting, this should include lowering of certain rates payable by OHSU, the cost of land, the cost of debt service, etc. Why do we keep seeing a $3.5 million dollar commitment, when you yourself have admitted that city costs are much higher?
2) Why did the project manager reference a total cost that WAS NOT the latest revised total cost?
3) Why did the planner say at the end of the meeting that all the Gibb St improvements (and other traffic and pedestrian improvements) were previously planned and were not an effect to mitigate the effects of the tram, when earlier in the evening these improvements were listed under a slide entitled “Tram Mitigation”? (This was the same planner who quoted the West Side Rail cost when asked about the cost of a tunnel/elevator option for OHSU).
4) Does the “no more money over 3.5M” pledge by several commissioners still stand?
5) If the city’s commitment really is 3.5M, then why would we be on the hook for $20M if the project was stopped? Especially since we have no requirement to complete the tram if it’s not fully funded (which it isn’t).
6) Is it your position, as well as the position of the presenters at the meeting, that NO development would have occurred in the South Waterfront district but for the tram? Are we to believe that no development could have occurred otherwise, on prime waterfront land in a city with a very tight supply of available property? To the best of your knowledge, had other developers proposed to develop that property in the last 10 years?
7) I was very disturbed to hear several statements that were not quantified in the least. For instance, the comments that the tram can be expected to attract tourism. How many tourists? And would these be people that otherwise wouldn’t visit the city? Surely some sort of study would have identified this information, since it was an early selling point of the tram.
8) Another issue not quantified were the costs to stop or mothball the project. A couple times, your experts referenced “additional costs that would be incurred if the project was halted”, but did not assign specific dollar figures. How can you possibly do an analysis on whether the project should be stopped or not if you haven’t in the very least, estimated these figures?
9) In regards to TIF/UR funding, I’d like to ask if you agree with these statements: While the goal of TIF arrangements is to set aside the increased property taxes that would be the result of new development, they also have the effect of sequestering the annual average increase in taxes that occur as property naturally appreciates each year. These taxes (~3% or more per year?) are thusly diverted from the general fund before they have a chance to get there.
10) I’m concerned that the move of OGI from Hillsboro is seen as such a good thing. First of all, OHSU and the city never represented that their goal of South Waterfront is to pirate businesses from other areas in the metro area. And although this may be naïve of me, I hope you wouldn’t be too excited about doing so. The metro area is obviously a connected entity, and stealing from one city to move to another does not benefit the area as a whole. Do you agree with that statement?
11) Finally, the most important question – who is responsible for the mismanagement and misinformation given of this project? We’ve seen commissioners blame planners, commissioners blame OHSU, commissioners blame PATI officials, and OHSU blame commissioners. Where does the buck stop?
In closing, please allow me to nitpick on one more item – I thought it was extremely embarrassing for you and Mayor Potter, as well as the PDC personnel, when the PowerPoint presentation wouldn’t work. I know this sounds a bit trivial, but as someone who often has to present to potential clients, I cannot imagine this kind of error, especially when you’re trying to represent to people that “the ship has been righted”. If it were me, I’d fire whoever was responsible and didn’t take a moment before the presentation to make sure it would work. It seems to perfectly represent the difference in attention to detail between public and private entities. In my world, that sort of misstep can mean lost business.
Posted by: Larry | Mar 15, 2006 7:55:48 AM
Sam, missed the party, but here again are some thoughts.
City's share of Tram costs represent about 1% of annual PDC budget...lots of TIF dollars are being spent on all kinds of projects that don't approach the Tram's payback. But that's another discussion.
Clearly opposition to the Tram is fueled by Lair Hill residents over whom it will pass as well as the usual suspects who opposed all kind of pubic enterprises. The poor budget estimates have played into their hands on this item and left some basic facts in the smoke.
OSHU is the largest employer in the City; it is the only research institution of any consequence in the region; as one of the key drivers of the regional economy, its growth needs to be faciliated. Failure to do so will be a black mark on this City Council. Let's get the job done and celebrate a great new transportation option.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 15, 2006 9:26:58 AM
Lenny,
What a perfectly insulting and uninfomed post.
You obviously have not been paying attention and have not learned anything along the Tram/SoWa way.
Although you echo city staff rhetoric you are hopelessly misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting.
According to members of the SoWa Urban Renewal Advisory Committee the current city's share of the Tram is much more than the stated $3.5 million.
Details have been repeatedly posted those who know on various blogs.
I'm certain you have read them.
What is motivating you to ignore them?
What ever share the Tram is of the annual PDC budget is of zero significance while the greater SoWa budget now promises to devour at least $1/2 Billion in property taxes during the first 20 years of the UR district.
The role or "payback" the Tram will ultimately represent is purely imaginary and you have zero basis for making your "payback" statement.
Yes, that is "another discussion". One which you would no doubt be willing to help fully distort.
"""Clearly opposition to the Tram is fueled by Lair Hill residents over whom it will pass as well as the usual suspects who opposed all kind of pubic enterprises""""""
Clearly this demonstrates your lack of understanding of both the Tram and the "public enterprises" as you seek to defend the status quo.
""""The poor budget estimates have played into their hands on this item and left some basic facts in the smoke.""""""
There is no "playing into hands". There are realities of misleading management and misrepresentation of a public project.
No one at all needs you to remind them that OSHU is the largest employer in the City.
We can get that all day long from the SoWa cohorts and the Oregonian.
That should never give a green light to rampant misappropriations of public monies.
""""Let's get the job done and celebrate a great new transportation option""""
Why wait to celebrate?
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 15, 2006 10:05:27 AM
Clearly opposition to the Tram is fueled by Lair Hill residents over whom it will pass as well as the usual suspects who opposed all kind of pubic enterprises.
Wrong, Lenny. Take a poll, pal.
This kind of thing is why people all over the city refuse to pay any more taxes for luxury items like police and schools. It's another Goldschmidt boondoggle, but without Goldschmidt to ram it home (no pun intended). It deserves a decent burial now.
And a 50-year projected life for that thing? That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard yet. Check out what happens with ski lifts -- they get rebuilt every 10 years or so. They're a real burden to maintain.
If this ever works right (and I doubt that), we will be buying it over and over. Your political funeral, Sam.
Posted by: Jack Bog | Mar 15, 2006 10:35:56 AM
6) ... Are we to believe that no development could have occurred otherwise, on prime waterfront land in a city with a very tight supply of available property? To the best of your knowledge, had other developers proposed to develop that property in the last 10 years?
That is the City's position. But it's fallacious. In the late 1980's property owners attempted to develop down there. As part of the Pegasus debacle, Sten remarked, "We have the power to slow this down." The City stood in the way of development in North Macadam until Tramsville was proposed.
10) I’m concerned that the move of OGI from Hillsboro is seen as such a good thing. ...
Remember, too, that OHSU promised to continue paying a fee to the City equal to the property taxes paid by Schnitzer. Has this happened? Will it continue to happen.
7) ... For instance, the comments that the tram can be expected to attract tourism. How many tourists? ...
According to the RFP for operations, the Tram is going to be closed on Sundays and holidays. Are there other tourist attractions that are closed on the days that most tourists tour?
Posted by: Garage Wine | Mar 15, 2006 11:27:59 AM
Geesh!
It's really too bad that people who didn't go to the forum to get the most up-to-date and complete information are still ranting about things that they obviously don't care to learn anything about.
Mmmarvel wrote-
"You folks (city hall) have made up your mind that the tram WILL get built come hell or high water."
What I think is that there is a bunch of curmudgeons who are never going to be satisfied no matter what information they are presented with. Now, if you had actually gone to the townhall you would know that it will cost the city's general fund A LOT if we back out now, but NOT ONE CENT if we complete the construction. And you'd know that OHSU is footing the bill for the vast majority of it, including the operations.
So, I know all of you hate government and all, but please at least get your facts straight before you go off on your rants.
It's really annoying to the rest of us.
That said, for those of yoy who obviously did show up to the meeting (which is reflected in your much more intelligent commentary), THANK YOU - for at least being more committed to the truth than some personal ideological vendeta like your colleagues.
Posted by: LevelHead | Mar 15, 2006 3:12:16 PM
LevelHead, "Curmudgeons" is the perfect word for these folks who seem to have so much time to bombard Sam's blog just about every time the man posts something.
Luckily, I suspect, they are a dying breed, literally: stuck in the 1950s and terminally unhappy with the evolution of Portland into a magnet for creative (and mostly liberal-to-leftwing) young people and a place the rest of North America looks to as a model of sustainable development. In the tram they have found their ultimate bogeyman, and the media has been all too willing to fan the not-very-scandalous flames.
I at least feel comforted by the fact that this small yet vocal minority that has been relegated to haunting angry-old-white-guy weblogs like jack bog's will soon be gurgling baby food in their rest homes, oblivious to the ever-changing, imaginative, still-young city around them.
Fire away, folks. Just don't burst an artery in the process.
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 16, 2006 10:15:29 PM
Just a final aside: in my world, it's not ok to crack jokes about raping (excuse me, "ramming") young girls, no matter how much you crave attention.
Jack, me and my friends will give you a ride to the border anytime.
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 16, 2006 10:34:29 PM
Levelhead and youngnativepdxer,
Do your parents know you are posting here?
You really should not be jumping into the deep end with no floatation devices.
Your obvious lack of understanding of this discussion is something.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 16, 2006 10:50:17 PM
Steve: that was quite a snappy comeback (I'm sure Lars Larson would be proud of you), but I'm under 30, not under 20.
"You really should not be jumping into the deep end with no floatation (sic) devices."
That sounds a lot like your failed Metro bid a few years ago that appears to have been funded largely by suburban retirees and your property-rights buddies at Oregonians For Action. Steve, you are un-electable for a reason.
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 17, 2006 1:06:17 AM
Is the tram really a $107 million boondoggle?
Should we count $52 million more in the cost of the Tram?
One slide at the Town Hall listed a series of neighborhood improvements that added up to $52 million. The title of the slide was: “Tram Design Process and Neighborhood Improvements”
The rest of the slide:
$52 million in funded improvements
More than $14 million located west of I-5
Planned Improvements Include
*Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge
*South Waterfront Access Improvements/South Portland Circulation
*Gibbs Street Utility Undergrounding and Ornamental Street Lighting
*Liar Hill Street Planting Program
*Gibbs Basin Ivy Removal and Environmental Restoration.
*Gibbs Street Property Buy Out
*Lair Hill/Corbett Traffic Calming
*Marquam Hill Traffic Calming Study
Although several of the items appear to be unrelated to the tram, the presenter said they were all to keep the neighborhood happy (not a quote, but relays the meaning).
In response to my question another city guy said that they were all long planned projects.
Many neighborhoods have such long lists of “nice to do” long range improvements, most of which will never get done. It appears that these are only getting done because of the tram. As such the $52 million should be accounted for as a part of the trams cost. More importantly, most if not all of them would not be needed if there was no tram.
So, do we now have a $107 million Tram?
What other expenditures were made, that would not have been made without the tram? You know, like not counting the cost of moving utilities for the Interstate Ave train since it was paid for by the utility suppliers (and passed on to us in our utility bills)
A series of slides showed how far along the project was. Many of the big cost items were recently finished. One presenter said that they have spent 45% of the “revised budget”. Since the revised budget is only a month or so old (do I have that right?), that suggests that they had to know about the over-run a long time ago (when the issued the POs/let the contracts) and kept their mouths shut until too late to stop the project and/or they had to go public to get more money.
This looks, to me, like a successful, well planned scheme to lie to, and cheat the public in order to get a Goldshmidt pet project done. Everyone involved should be fired, (even those lower people who failed to squeal on their bosses) and the leaders should be charged with fraud for the deceit and cover up. Can we take it out of their PERS?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Mar 17, 2006 4:56:46 AM
Well youngnativepdxer,
Looks like you know as much about me and my Metro race as the issues discussed here.
""""funded largely by suburban retirees and your property-rights buddies at Oregonians For Action""""
Good example of your make it up as you
go approach.
""""""Steve, you are un-electable for a reason""""
I'm not running for anything but your conclusion that my few hundred vote loss, out of 34,0000 to the status quo establishemnt incumbant who out
spent me 4 to 1 and had every paper and status quo politician endorse him is real brillaint.
Back to the Tram.
The larger issue is the remainder of the SoWa budget which is as out of whack as the Tram.
If city leadership choses to disregard this reality they will soon be facing the challenge of explaining why they continue to ignore budgets and numbers.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 17, 2006 8:45:19 AM
Okay, boys. These personal shots are not an especially enriching part of the debate.
That said, Steve, if you are so old and wise, then I would hope that you would be mature enough that you would't be taking pot-shots at people who you know are younger than you.
By doing that, you really reflect more poorly on yourself than anything else.
But again, the right-wingers have shown that they don't give a damned about anyone else and will take low-blows to try to advance their cause.
Sorry Steve, but you are the prime example of why public debate in this country has become so debased. Instead of saying I have an "obvious lack of understanding of this discussion" why don't you talk put some facts on the table?
It's because you right-wingers don't care what the facts are - you "know" what you "know" and you are going to stick to the script.
I really wish that we could all have a constructive conversation based on real numbers (thanks at least for that, Jim Karlock, even though I think you are wrong), instead of just lobbing rhetorical bombs at Sam and/or into the public arena just to make a point.
Quite frankly, I am tired of it. And I believe I am speaking for the silent majority who is put off by your incessant posting of vitriolic and information-devoid troglodytic rantings.
For god's sake, shut up and let other people talk! You are crowding out the debate and not adding anything to it.
All I am saying is that we are tired of your caustic and repetitive "points" - and that in the end you catch more flies with honey...
Posted by: LevelHead | Mar 17, 2006 9:29:36 AM
And I guess I am also saying that you are keeping other people from posting because they don't want to have to deal with a bunch of immature ideologues jumping on whatever they say.
It is a shame, really. When Sam first launched his blog I thought it would be a good tool for him to get some public input and be at least somewhat reflective of what people in the city think.
But you guys have obviously kept that from happening by monopolizing the venue and effectively dissuading competing opinions from being posted. Can't you spend some time on some other blogs, or better yet, off the computer entirely?
Posted by: LevelHead | Mar 17, 2006 9:36:10 AM
Levelhead,
I don't know where you and yours are coming from or where you are going but your complete lack of bringing anything but trash the messenger is
rediculous.
There isn't anything "right wing" about fiscal accounting and management.
The information I have shared on blogs is devoid of "wing", is extensive, gathered from reliable sources, includes PDC, SoWa URAC and other sources and is irrefutable.
You pop up here on a mission to shut people up and bring not a shred of information on anything.
I suggest you do some homework, look in the mirror and then walk up right with your real name and face the issues straight on.
If you have a single example of any point I have misrepresented let's have it.
On the issue of Urban Renewal and TIF few have gathered and shared as much as I have.
There have been abundant opportunities for the likes of you to contradict the
information disussed on these blogs.
What are you waiting for?
Claiming I or others haven't brought any is laughable.
I can only assume you have some conflicts of interest which produce your disingenuous methods.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 17, 2006 9:42:32 AM
Sam -
I hope you'll find some time to answer the questions I posted above after attending the tram meeting on Tuesday. I understand that it's a fairly long list, but I hope that you'll take a stab at answering what I think are revelant, "non-bombing throwing" concerns.
Levelhead, I don't understand where you are coming from... you may disagree with Steve S. on the tram, but if you follow this issue (and Steve's bigger issue which is the viability of UR districts in general) then you know that he consistently leads his arguments with facts and data.
Posted by: Larry | Mar 17, 2006 10:23:29 AM
^facts are irrefutable. Steve does not lead his posts with fact, he slants stats by leaving out key indicators and seldom produces the information on how he gets the results he comes up with. Steve also seems to be stuck on one topic and whether we are talking about the couplet, Tram, SoWa, Pearl, or any other topic, his same tired rants are posted with a potshot at whoever commented above in a way he chooses to disagree with.
Steve does not live in Portland, if he did, he couldn't have lost in the Metro 3 District Primary which covers portions of Washington and Clackamas County. I find his incessant chatter on this blog to be abusive and an affront to actual Portland citizens that do live in this city and have every right to have access to THEIR commissioner, where they can express their concerns and ideas.
Just to make sure we are pointing out the backwards people the Lair Hill Residents are banking their opposition on, Jim above seems to propose eliminating Lair Hill planned improvements including the Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge, Gibbs Street Utility Undergrounding and Ornamental Street Lighting, the Lair Hill Street Planting Program, the Gibbs Basin Ivy Removal and Environmental Restoration, the Lair and Marquam Hill Traffic Calming Study, and the Gibbs Street Property (directly under the tram) buy out.
The tram will be built. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that it can or would be stopped. We can argue how we got there, we can argue how we will proceed in the future, but the tram, for at least 50 years will be a significant piece of our skyline. What Jim is telling those residents is that we don't want to spend any additional money to improve your neighborhood since other neighborhoods would like to see improvements also. Hope you Lair Hill residents are reading this and make sure you stop allowing the Cascade Policy Institute to speak for the tram opposition. You want to talk about a Portland backlash...watch them keep pushing this issue even as the tram towers begin to rise out of the ground.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 17, 2006 12:20:19 PM
Mark, c'mon now. Steve S. DOES use a lot of data. He posts a lot of numbers... numbers that he gleans directly from PDC or other agency documents.
Like I said, disagree with him all you want, but you have to at least acknowledge that he comes from an informed place. You may not like the way he presents the information, but to say that he nevers buttresses his arguments with facts or data is disingenius.
The reason he keeps repeating the "same tired old rant" is because no city officials are answering him. Case in point - he's asked several times for the PDC to produce the yearly UR impact reports that they are required to BY LAW. That other cities, including Lake Oswego, are currently producing. At one point, Commissioner Adams even said he would look into. Yet to this point (correct me if I'm wrong, Steve), he still hasn't been answered.
Steve's issue is NOT the tram. To be sure, that's a part of it, but he continually is reminding folks that the tram is a small part of the larger problem, which is UR districts that syphon away dollars from critical services such as fire and police.
Why is a bad thing to debate the impact of UR?
Again, you may not like the way he presents his arguements. That's fine. But I don't like the way you present yours, and I'm not on here, or any other blog, spouting that you shouldn't be here.
Mark, please give me one argument of YOUR OWN that uses facts and data. I guess I'd have to go back and look at other posts, but I don't recall you ever posting anything based on anything but your own feelings and observations. Which is fine, but not when you're accusing others of doing the same.
Posted by: Larry | Mar 17, 2006 12:58:00 PM
MarkDaMan | Mar 17, 2006 12:20:19 PM Just to make sure we are pointing out the. backwards people the Lair Hill Residents are banking their opposition on,
JK: Glad to see that you are still utterly without arguments and again have to fall back on personal insults.
MarkDaMan | Mar 17, 2006 12:20:19 PM Jim above seems to propose eliminating Lair Hill planned improvements including the Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge, Gibbs Street Utility Undergrounding and Ornamental Street Lighting, the Lair Hill Street Planting Program, the Gibbs Basin Ivy Removal and Environmental Restoration, the Lair and Marquam Hill Traffic Calming Study, and the Gibbs Street Property (directly under the tram) buy out
JK: You need to re-read what I said. I was only talking about what should be counted as a cost of building the tram.
MarkDaMan | Mar 17, 2006 12:20:19 PM stop allowing the Cascade Policy Institute to speak for the tram opposition.
JK: Red Herring. I didn’t mention that fine organization or refer to their fine work in my posting. BTW, am I to take it that you also disagree with them on drug policy?
Now the tuff questions:
Do you, MarkDaMan, receive any income from OHSU, the city, or any entity that benefits from building civic projects?
I have to note that we seem to have two new defenders of the status-quo here. YoungnativePDXer and LevelHead Do either of, by any remote chance, derive any income from this or other city projects or just happen to work for the PDC, OHSU or any other agency involved?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Mar 17, 2006 1:17:24 PM
There is another perspective in general to all of this...
On one side we have those who are pro- public "investment" into boondoggles like the tram, the waterfront, the Pearl District, happy to shower bucks on Goldschmidt (pre-scandal) and his cronies (to this day), and Homer Williams and other sweethearts. The rationale is that continual increases in overpopulation and overconsumption are desperately needed in the region in order for the economy to get on track or to heat up even higher. Of course, the definition of "economy" is not questioned. But it means one thing: More. But not more for everyone who already lives here. More for the already well-positioned elite. Such as investment fund managers, venture capitalists, corporate chiefs, OHSU honchos, real estate financiers, speculators, and builders. It does not mean more for the rest of us. Except for more traffic, more pollution, more climate change, more noise, more lights, more dogs barking at night, and more destruction of the local natural environment. But somehow, in the blind belief in the religion of economic growth, it is possible to mitigate all these devastating effects, that life will get even better for us all. That for the majority of Oregonians, quality of life and prosperity levels and social conditions have only worsened drastically since the Goldschmidt-fanned boom from the late eighties on is inconsequential to these adherents of growth.
Then, on the other hand, we have the "curmudgeons" who gadfly at every bit of public money spent on projects that do not support the automobile's high speed flights along free and open highways. To them, it is not okay to spend public money on mass transit in order to rid of air pollution, noise and disruption of walkable neighborhoods, but it is just dandy and in fact the highest civic duty to throw billions and billions, trillions and more, of public money on roads, bridges, oil, wars, medical expenses, and all the other aspects of an automobile dependent lifestyle in order to allow the "free" market of "free" transportation to continue unabated. A communitarian approach is total nonsense. The most environmentally friendly way to behave civically is by allowing people at least an acre of land between themselves, 5-100 the better.
Both factions, nevertheless, remain devout adherents to the religion of economic growth. One may be Catholic, the other Episcopalian, but they still remain the ever-faithful. Economic growth must happen; it is the manna of our civilization. The only difference in the two sects is how it happens.
Another approach exists, however, to the whole situation of a primarily imported populace in a fragile bioregion containing limited resources with limited human carrying capacity. And that is to break through the blind belief in economic growth, which is wholly dependent on ever increasing overpopulation and overconsumption and on continual expansion of the built environment onto once-open lands. By breaking through this blind belief, we will recognize that a healthy economy is wholly dependent on keeping our population and consumption within the carrying capacity of our limited local resources. And to do that, we must deeply localize. We must stop searching for ways to bring more tourists, more businesses, more "creatives," more shipping of products into and through the region, and we must decrease all of the above, focusing instead on greater prosperity, leisure time, nature, and comfort for existing Oregonians.
Thanks to the propaganda machine built by the elite, aided greatly by Goldschmidt and company, most Oregonians belief falsely that population and consumption growth are inevitable, that they are basically "acts of God," not the results of deliberate human acts. This false belief walks hand in hand with the one that says we can continue overreaching our carrying capacity and destroying the planet at the same time growing more "sustainable." But now that oil and water shortages will be staring us more blankly in our faces soon, we can no longer remain glued to our infantile religion of growth. We will have to localize. But if we choose to wait and keep our heads buried in our belief structures, then we will only face more hardship in the transition. It would be far better if we could choose to grow up a little now, shuck off the economic growth religion, and get on to the business of truly living.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 17, 2006 1:23:11 PM
"happy to shower bucks on Goldschmidt (pre-scandal) and his cronies (to this day"
damn, you've nailed me down! I follow the rule of Goldschmidt lock, stock, and barrel. It doesn't matter that I was only 6 when he became governor, or that I wasn't born AT ALL when he created light rail as mayor of Portland.
You see, you Cascade Policy Institute peeps really don't get it. You are elder cranky people that have made hounding city hall, and the citizens of Portland, your hobby. This has to stop! You may have opinions on the city of Portland, you may express your opinions about the city of Portland, but you don't have a say into the affairs of the city of Portland.
I'm sure Steve, that wherever you live in sprawlsville, that things are not perfect in your city. Pay some attention to the things happening in your own backyard. If you want to attack Portland. The Republican controlled Minnis state house (for a bit longer anyway) will be happy to scheme up something with you.
Larry, I've never said people don't have a right to their opinions, but that doesn't mean everyone should have free reign to present them over and over again in any environment at the expense of other voices. It is of my opinion that when a city councilor creates a web page to talk directly to the citizens of Portland, that those that aren't from Portland should preface their comments with that fact, or should find other ways to communicate with the commish. I think it is especially important when the number one commentor on this site doesn't live in city limits. If Steve or the CPI chooses to lobby Adams, there are more appropriate ways rather than hijacking the commissioner attempt to communicate directly with his citizens.
and as I said before, facts are irrefutable and nothing Steve has presented has been unquestionably correct.
Jim, I'm not going through this again with you. There is no secret to my being, I'm not an overly exciting person, I don't have a high ranking official job in any organization, nor do I consider myself an activist or drive a certain agenda. I'm just a simple twenty something year old that choose to move back to Portland because I love this city. I don't agree with everything the commish does, nor the city council, but I have respect for the office and take offense when people that don't even live in my city call my commish a liar, or tell him he his trying to be sneaky, or that his character isn't as stand up as I know it to be. I'm proud of my city council and I am damned tired of the disrespect coming from the CPI and the phoney baloneys that spout here.
Present your opposing view, let it stand on its own two feet, and if it lands with a thud, you know where you stand in Portland.
Jim said, "I didn’t mention that fine organization"
The Cascade Policy Institute is ABOUT as fine an organization as the Bush Administration, but in my good mind I can't even muster up enough effort to give you crooks that much credit.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 17, 2006 2:21:25 PM
Mark, you completely sidestepped the issue of true sustainability as I attempted to get you to consider. If you are one of the faithful in the religion of economic growth, then you are still placing yourself in the same non-sustainable system as the CPI folks. Tram or other boondoggles versus more roads: we still get them both in this system! Can you acknowledge that we are consistently reducing the resources upon which we depend, right here in the Portland area? Can you acknowledge that we can't afford to depend upon a global economy, which is completely unsustainable and will not continue in coming years? Can you acknowledge that we need to start thinking about growing, producing, and distributing our own food, clothing and other basic necessities right here, and stop wasting our time and money on more expansion of the built environment? If you can't, then you and the CPI folks really do have far more in common than either of you care to admit.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 17, 2006 2:55:15 PM
Irrefutably correct?
Try this.
The current SoWa budget, in addition to the Tram being $15 million unfunded, is another $100 million underfunded.
All sorts of vital infrastucure is not funded as outlined by the updated budget given to the SoWa URAC yesterday. The infrastreucture is NOT being built as needed or scheduled and will require massive alternative funding which does not exist.
The 19 page update with numbers missing and totals obscured is a a loud message Commmissioer Adams et al should be hearing.
The north and south portals, Moody street, the park, greenway, other street improvements, the I-5 ramp,
ped/bike bridge and other $52 million in neighborhodd improvements are unfunded.
SoWa is about to make the Tram look like chump change and the commissioners have been repeatedly warned.
There are state, federal, regional, county and city funds being devoured by this project with enormous ramifications in the transportation, land use and basic services arenas.
Anyone who doesn't want to hear or read this should find shelter.
And yes Sam I will ask again, will you insits the PDC complete the yearly impact reports as State Law requires?
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 17, 2006 2:56:07 PM
Sam, you've been given the numbers on the tram project, but I read that you're still considering a publicly financed option to the funding gap.
Is this true?
I strongly suggest you follow the lead of Cmmrs. Leonard, Sten and Saltzman and vote 'no' on more public money toward this project.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 17, 2006 3:02:23 PM
MarkDaMan,
I have to agree with you- it insults me, as an actual Portlander, to hear people smear public officials who are just trying to do right by the public.
Steve, your conspiratorial character assassination is unfounded and unproductive.
Sam has gotten a bum rap by all you right-wingers. He came into office and 6 months later he got PDOT and then he actually reigned in the tram situation. People calling him "tram scam sam" and whatnot on righwing blogs are simultaneously laughable and infuriating.
But our country's at a point where it is now a lot more infuriating than it is funny when you pull out your "Swiftboat" tactics.
And just because I want to hear other people doesn't mean I am trying to censor you, so give it up, please.
I just want this forum to be democratic and representative of the citizens that Sam represents. And I will even let people like you spout off from time to time. Just don't abuse your privelege!
Sam is way more open than his peers or predecessors, so abusing him via his blog really makes me mad - and I don't want people like you to ever make him think about being less open for his true constituents (like me).
Posted by: LevelHead | Mar 17, 2006 4:09:58 PM
I'll bet $10 that LevelHead and MarkDaMan are the same person.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Mar 17, 2006 4:52:44 PM
"Level" & "Mark"
Why don't you two trying acting like adults and quit with the partisan polemics? No one here but you guys have brought partisan politics into the conversation. It's obvious you two have no facts nor data to back up your pathetic rebuttals; hence your ad hominem attacks and childish ranting.
There's a rising tide of folks who are tired of seeing tax dollars squandered on public/private partnerships in this city. PGE Park and Cascade Station have turned out to be dismal failures and have siphoned off much needed funds for basic services. The Tram and SoWa are on the same path.
It's really sad that you two are more interested in lining big developers pockets than educating children and making sure the public is safe.
Shame on you both.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 17, 2006 5:02:15 PM
"""""Steve, your conspiratorial character assassination is unfounded and unproductive"""""
Mark are you on drugs.
Presenting numbers and facts for consideration and discussion is hardly
"conspiratorial character assassination".
You may be under the influence of something.
If you have nothing to say about the Tram, the budget, the process, Urban renewal, Tax Increment Financing, land use or transporation, what are you doing here?
And there is the fact that if I were simply attacking Commissioner Adams he would have said so long ago.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 17, 2006 7:39:36 PM
Sam,
At the tram town hall, there was a gentleman that spoke to the audience with a long list of hidden costs the City has encountered and has spent on the tram project. This included staff time, PDC time, the engineering contest, etc. These figures are a far greater amount than the publicized 3.5 million the City committed to just the construction portion of the tram. Will you please post a list of those expenditures and numbers so people can see the City’s true costs of this project?
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 17, 2006 9:09:49 PM
I have to agree with Chris McMullen. A lot of, lot of people have been bone tired for years of these "public-private partnerships" that really serve one purpose, and I will say it again: feeding the religion of economic growth, which according to official state statistics, has resulted in the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, quality of life and the environment plummeting, and the rest of us getting stuck with the huge bill.
"Liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans alike have put their shoulders together to make these "partnerships" happen. Sam was very much a part of the corporate-happy Vera machine; he was her chief of staff, after all, and Vera was very much a tool for the Goldschmidt cartel. Sam may have seen the light, at least partially since Vera's departure, but he can show us this by using his position to team with the rest of the commissioners and the mayor to end all the subsidies to developers (particularly cut Homer off) and end the corporate trough-feeding as well. If any developer or company wants to try and extort more public giveaways for themselves, well stare them down. If they want to move, then let them--good riddance, for once and all. In fact, tell them, please leave! And how soon can you?? We don't need your thieving anymore!
The so-called business community in Portland, Oregon, and the region really needs to wake up. Will it take a rude awakening, such as will surely come if we don't change our ways now, or will it take the awakening of informed choice, that we cannot continue on with business as usual, with the PDC gamesmanship and the whole rest of the so-called economic development paradigm that has caused so many ills and destruction since the late 1980s. Increasingly unfunded schools is just one example of how suicidal the growth economy is. This will only continue so long as we continue with the corporate and developer giveaways and so long as we continue to pray in our respective churches of economic growth.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 17, 2006 11:41:19 PM
"I'll bet $10 that LevelHead and MarkDaMan are the same person."
I hope you are ready to pay up cause I don't know the guy.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 20, 2006 9:32:07 AM
"""""Steve, your conspiratorial character assassination is unfounded and unproductive"""""
Mark are you on drugs."""
and you prove my point. You aren't on here to join the discussion, you are here to be the center of the discussion. Read my comments and see if I said that anywhere.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 20, 2006 1:16:30 PM
Jim Karlock, I am an underpaid social worker.
Mr. Schopp lives in Wilsonville, of course. To see the contributions to his failed Metro campaign, go to: www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=8675
Long View, thanks for your perspective. Despite my pragmatic day-to-day support for "smart growth" policies VERSUS the regressive CPI "we love roads, cars, sprawl, and smog" b.s., what you're saying is pretty much right on. Time will inevitably prove that, and we'll leave the earth with an environment exhausted not just on a relatively small scale (i.e. previous civilizations) but globally.
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 20, 2006 5:49:33 PM
All I gots to say is this:
"there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-guess which end of the spectrum statistics lie at?
Posted by: noone | Mar 21, 2006 4:33:36 PM
Dear underpaid social worker,
I don't live in Wilsonville.
Why would you want people to go to my paltry and meaningless old contributor list? Is there something on there that is supposed to mean more than the realities of SoWa the Tram and Urban Renewal?
It would be a better idea for them to go the "smart growth" SoWa plan to see how it is NOT working?
http://www.pdc.us/pdf/dev_serv/pubs/dev_macadam_report.pdf
The whole plan is laid out there and on a spread sheet with projected revenues, expenditures and costs.
Of course if cost and performance are no longer "smart" considerations by all means don't bother looking.
But if you're tired of basic services coming up short of revenue and service
take a look at SoWa.
And FYI, this massive diverting of property taxes to private development doesn't help social work.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 21, 2006 5:08:56 PM
"Mr. Schopp, a resident of Wilsonville the last time we knew his whereabouts..." (oregonmag.com)
Guess you moved, huh? I'd bet my last dollar that you moved somewhere else out there in the 'burbs, somewhere near autotopia, far away from the dreaded realm of "ecotopia" and its unwashed masses.
I direct people to your paltry contributions because they provide evidence of the larger political agenda you advance, in league with groups like Oregonians In Action and the Cascade Policy Institute. No matter how valid and relevant your points are about SoWa (and the whole project is certainly looking... problematic), that broader agenda should make everything you write SUSPECT to the folks reading this blog, as well as the countless others you post to, all day, every day, with the same obssessive and sneering tone.
Fellow Portlanders, beware of people like Steve, with an agenda inimical to many of the things that have made Portland one of the few cities left in this country worth living in, hitching a sneaky ride on the SoWa mess.
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 21, 2006 9:21:32 PM
Do Social Workers use the word "inimical" in their quotidian lives?
I had to look it up: it means some prick is using four dollar words to attack Steve Schopp's integrity rather than debate the ugly reality of SoWhat and Tram subsidies.
Posted by: Alice | Mar 21, 2006 10:00:00 PM
YoungnativePDXer,
I doubt Sam intended for this to be some personal bashing ground but what a hoot!
Your're warning people about my "agenda"? And they should therefore be suspect of the Tram, SoWa info, PDC reports and information I post?
What agenda anyway?
Interesting approach. Have YOU nothing to say about the Tram, SoWa, Urban Renewal, Tax Increment Financing or any other topic?
I get the impression you have some conflict of interest driving your attack on me versus the information I brought.
I can certainly handle what little you brought.
"""""'a resident of Wilsonville the last time we knew his whereabouts... (oregonmag.com)""""
If you have a fixation on where I live it is on the outside border of Tualatin. Oregonmag got it wrong but I don't live in either city. What's your point?
""""" out there in the 'burbs, somewhere near autotopia, far away from the dreaded realm of "ecotopia" and its unwashed masses"""""""""'
I'll leave that for readers to interpret. My guess is you have some disdain for people living outside of Portland?
""""""In league with groups like Oregonians In Action and the Cascade Policy Institute"""""
What does "in league with" mean? Yes, OIA helped me with my campaign.
Why not? I was glad they did and I almost won.
OIA also helped the 60% of Portlanders who voted in favor of the OIA Measure 37. That must mean 60% of your fellow Portlanders are also in league with Oregonians in Action?
That aside, why would you say,
"""'''No matter how valid and relevant your points are,,,,,that broader agenda should make everything you write SUSPECT """""
Does that make sense? "No matter how valid"? Since I wrote it it's suspect?
Does "suspect" cancel "valid"?
I don't know what you think my "broader agenda" is but I'll guess every day many more folks in Portland and the region are getting sick of the broader agenda coming from the status quo planning agencies and the Oregonian every day. I know plenty of Portlanders of every political stripe who are becoming increasingly suspect of everything they write.
Being more concerned about me, apparently you are not one of them
I grew up in SE Portland, lived in Vermont Hills, out at Sunnyside, near PCC Sylvania, now I live next to Tualatin. So what. My neighborhood is no different from may places in Portland. What difference does it make?
I doubt too many people share your bizarre concern about me tainting the information I post.
It's usually easy to link and check.
But you go right ahead and throw all the mud you want.
I'll be right here "hitching a sneaky ride on the SoWa mess".
For more information related to OHSU/SoWa/Tram go to www.BIO2006.com and look at the national and foreign biotech competition and note not a single OHSU or Oregon presence. That would make the notion, that because of the Tram OHSU is this emerging biotech power house, pretty "suspect".
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 21, 2006 11:00:12 PM
Alice, yes, apparently social workers are capable of using a word like "inimical" (fyi, I work for one of the three agencies in the homeless youth continuum). And for the record, I did have to look up "quotidian"! Take a deep breath...
Steve, what a hoot indeed. Golly gee whiz, in fact. My point, my "bizarre concern" in your words, is this: I hope readers keep in mind the broader right-wing philosophy you have been pushing for years (anybody can do a google search and decide for themselves about this), long before the tram came along. My worry is this: that the SoWa funding debacle that is rapidly developing will be used by people like you to try and derail the entire planning process in Portland that favors rail over roads, density over sprawl, increasing bike infrastructure, etc, etc. Hate to disappoint you, but that is the extent of my "conflict of interest".
Posted by: YoungnativePDXer | Mar 22, 2006 10:52:17 PM
youngnativepdxer,
I contend you are both dishonest and misguided.
The SoWa scheme is one of many which devour huge sums of basic services dollars while NOT accomplishing any of your theories.
I don't need to "use" anything.
The public just needs to see the numbers and the truth.
You, while hiding your identity, on the other hand want the snow job and mispending to continue.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 24, 2006 7:52:57 AM
I have an idea for what to do with the fixtures of the tram project if the decision is made to abandon construction of the tram.
The work that has been done so far (the bottom, middle, and top structures already built) could be turned over to the artistic community.
I know many artists who anc be very creative with those structures and make them into very unique sculptures.
A group like PNCA would be very appreciative of those structures.
Furthermore, if the decision to abandon the project is made prior to next summer or fall, perhaps the transformation of these structures into sculptures could be part of the PNCA's moveable art festival.
Truly
Cleara
(Mark Allyn)
Posted by: Mark Allyn | Apr 3, 2006 7:56:02 AM
I love the tram idea, the benefits and event the construction jobs it brings to PDX. Let's make sure we keep it and other projects bicycle friendly.
Thanks!
Posted by: Joe Johnson | May 23, 2006 6:06:40 PM
Joe: what's bike friendly about the Tram?
Besides the $9 dollar r/t ticket (no, your bus pass won't be accepted).
Posted by: Alice | May 23, 2006 9:52:32 PM
Steve Schopp:
I posed your question about PDC filings to the City Attorney's Office. This is the reply I received:
"The only state statutory requirement I can find is in ORS 457.460. That requires that each urban renewal agency prepare an annual statement containing:
A. The amount of money received from tax increment and from indebtedness in the past year;
B. The purposes and amounts for which the money received were expended in the past year;
C. An estimate of the moneys to be received in the current fiscal year;
D. A budget for the expenditure of the money expected to be received; and
E. An analysis of the impact of carrying out the urban renewal plan on the tax collections for the preceding year for all taxing districts within the urban renewal area.
The statement is supposed to be filed with the governing body of the municipality that created the urban renewal agency.
PDC tells me they do file this statement."
This seems different than what you have told me. Can you give me the source of your understanding that PDC should be filing with the State and they are not?
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | May 29, 2006 7:15:40 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.
I was not able to make it, but I talked with a a couple of friends who did. It came across (and also on the news reports) as a presentation followed by polite listening and no other action points besides creating another presentation about the presentation.
Meanwhile, the tram continues on unabated. In reality, what has changed? Have they stopped construction, please something of substance.
Posted by: Steve | Mar 15, 2006 6:17:19 AM