UPDATE: TRAM TOWNHALL MEETING
Roland Chlapowski
NOTICE: Commissioner Adams and Mayor Potter to hold a Town hall to discuss Tram issues. THE DATE HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED.
Sam values transparency and open government greatly. In the spirit of open government, he is sponsoring a Public Town hall to discuss the tram project currently under construction at South Waterfront. It is open to all interested members of the community, and everyone is invited to attend.
This town hall will begin with a short presentation by the current tram project managers who will share information and bring everyone up to speed with the current status of the tram project. Most of the town hall, however, will be in a "question and answer" format.
Community members will be invited to ask Sam, the Mayor, and other city staff questions about the tram. Whether those questions are legal, financial, political or otherwise, we want to hear them all. We hope that this town hall will be an opportunity to share information, answer questions, address specific concerns, and have an open and constructive public conversation on the project.
TUESDAY, March 14, 2006 ( NOTE THE CHANGED DATE - no longer Thursday the 9th)
6:30-9:00 pm
Portland State University, 1825 SW Broadway.
Vanport Room at PSU's Smith Memorial Student Union; Room #338 (3rd Floor)
(Note changed time and Location- no longer 6:30-8:30 in the Ballroom)
We encourage you to attend, learn more about the project, and share your views. We look forward to an honest, constructive, and civil conversation on the tram. There is no need to RSVP. If you have any questions, please feel free to blog below or contact us:
Maureen (Office of Transportation) - 503.823.6047
Roland (Office of Commissioner Adams) - 503.823.1123
email: rchlapowski@ci.portland.or.us
Posted by Roland Chlapowski on March 6, 2006
(16) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (2)
Filed Under Events, Front Page, Good Government, News, Office of Transportation, Tram, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Too much mmmarvel on this site...I don't care what his/her point of view is...he/she just not that interesting to read so many times on so many issues...looks like mmmarvel is in love with seeing his/her name in print...
Posted by: Alice | Mar 1, 2006 6:32:13 AM
This tram will be a disaster like everything else the city government gets involve in. Remember this – if the tram is actually completed the final construction costs will exceed $100 million dollars (minimum). I base this on years of experience managing large construction projects. If Sam or any other incompetent bureaucrat really valued “transparency” then all the cards would be on the table.
Posted by: topdog | Mar 1, 2006 7:35:06 AM
Roland - Why not spare us the tension - this project will go on regardless of any outcry we make. Mr Adams will jsut find money from some other project to throw at it and then Homer Williams will be happy. I mean are the options like Mr Leonard's option of not one more penny beyond $3.5M real going to be brought up? Or is it just a vent session and then business as usual?
Posted by: Steve | Mar 1, 2006 8:18:51 AM
Whoa...
A quick backgrounder:
The City of Portland is the contractor for the tram.
Through PDC's tax increment funds we have $3.5 million thus far directly committed to the project. I would like to keep our out-of-pocket investment to that amount.
The City Attorney states that that we are not required to complete the project at a loss the the City. We are required to complete the project if the funds are provided to us to do so.
The City is not legally required to put more money into the project. I will not cut other transportation projects to fund the tram budget gap.
I beleive my record on managing this project these past eights months shows I am willing to make tough changes if I believe they are the right actions to take -- even if they make others unhappy. I intend to stick to this approach.
My purpose on holding this Townhall is threefold:
(1) to get all information I have out on the table;
(2) make sure that I have considered all questions and options related to the project; and,
(3) get advice.
This is a very complex project and I beleive people have a right to hear from me directly its status and provide input.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Mar 1, 2006 8:48:57 AM
Sam,
just remember as you go forward with this project, the tram provides a key transportation link for the only research institution in the region, for the largest employer in the city and a key engine for our regional economy in the 21st century.
The OGI branch of OSHU will be relocating to South Waterfront, adding another piece to the puzzle.
TIF resources are used throughout the city to finance projects that spur economic development and add jobs and housing. The payback comes when URA's are closed and the wider community gets its money from an enhanced taxbase. The return on the City's investment in the Tram is probably one of highest returns on investment, ever.
PS on that subject, I think it is time to close out Central Eastside URA and get that area back on the tax rolls.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 1, 2006 10:07:15 AM
No, Sam, actually your record on this for the past eight months shows that you're a coward and a bully. A coward for trying to blame the tram on others when you've been involved from the beginning, and a bully for trying to fight this in the papers instead of coming to the table in good faith.
Posted by: Sirajul | Mar 1, 2006 11:14:09 AM
Sam: the NM URAC committee 3 months ago asked for a true 20 to 50 year life-cycle cost analysis for the tram from PDC/PATI. No such report has been made. Don't you think such a report would be important to your townhall/decision making?
Also in your own commentary in the Oregonian a few weeks past, when you add up your summary of direct costs given to the tram by the taxpayers, it was over $11M. ($3.5M, $5M and $2.5M) And your analysis didn't include PDC/PDOT, planning staff costs, design competition costs, financing costs, land costs paid by the taxpayers. I think it is necessary to come clean on what the public costs are to date and for the future.
Plus, we know that behind closed doors there have been recent discussions on how to benefit OHSU and the LID property owners that will compensate them for the $15-$20M shortfall, so that you can claim that only $3.5M of public money is used for the tram. With OHSU using 90% of the tram (and maybe even a higher percentage), why should we (taxpayers) consider bumping up from $3.5M to A$5.5M ( 10% of usage) when we already exceed a fair contribution even by your calculations?_
Posted by: Jerry | Mar 1, 2006 11:16:30 AM
Given the price of this boondoggle project is now approaching four times its original advertised budget, the taxpayers of Portland must NOT be the ones left hanging on the cable to pay the escalating costs. Personal and individual taxes in Portland already subsidize too much for the lifestyle of others. Therefore, in addition to the primary beneficiaries, OHSU and developers like Homer Williams all stepping up with more cash, there needs to be some outside of the box, and outside the current political and social engineering agenda thinking to resolve this issue. The following is a list of funding ideas that should be placed on the table:
Sell advertising space on the outside of each tram car. A company can have their corporate logo appear on each side of one or both tram cars. Starting bids per car would be at one million dollars. Alcohol and tobacco advertising would not be allowed.
Sell advertising space in inside the tram cars. Allow for a specific limited number of placards.
Have advertising boards at the terminals where advertising can be sold. Such boards would be no larger than any directional signs displayed. .
Add a five dollar surcharge user fee or toll good for one consecutive hour use on the tram to cover construction and operation, or at the very least, to help pay off the cost of the tram. Frequent users could purchase debit like cards in advance. Bringing a bicycle on the tram would be an extra charge. Tri-Met fares would NOT be transferable.
Add a luxury tax to a top percentage of high priced condos being built in the South Waterfront.
Add a freight compartment to the tram cars and develop some sort of freight transportation tax. (Note: such a tax could be used for roads too.)
If some of these suggestions don’t fly because of a perceived agenda by some who want to keep the city so sterile that it is void of the charisma and tourist enticement that comes with bright lights and visible advertising, a sterility that only increases the costs of living inside urban Portland, then maybe two used Tri-Met busses, logos removed, could be hung from the cables, replacing the tram cars and thereby reducing the funding gap and lowering the costs of the project.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 1, 2006 11:49:32 AM
Lenny Anderson | Mar 1, 2006 Sam,
just remember as you go forward with this project, the tram provides a key transportation link for the only research institution in the region, for the largest employer in the city and a key engine for our regional economy in the 21st century.
JK:And how much tax money do they contribute? Corporate income tax? Property tax? Tri-Met payroll tax? How many of their highly paid staff pay Portland taxes? Compare these with the services they consume and get back to me.
Lenny Anderson | Mar 1, 2006 TIF resources are used throughout the city to finance projects that spur economic development and add jobs and housing. The payback comes when URA's are closed and the wider community gets its money from an enhanced taxbase.
JK: Well, not exactly. The closing of the UR is when they can no longer issue debt. If they issue 30 year bonds in the last year, the district will still be sucking off taxpayers for another 30 years. When they finally start paying, the payment will be with dollars worth mere pennies compared to the tax dollars lost due to the time value of money. I asked this question of one TIF expert at Iowa State University in Minnesota and he thought it doubtful if the lost taxes ARE EVER RECOVERED. But no one seems to know for sure.
Sam: Please demand that someone do a real analysis of the cash flow over the whole life of a URdstrict out to when ALL taxes flow to the city. Preferable an independent entity. Although even if the PDC did it, it would be a starting point to question the assumptions and calculations.
Lenny Anderson | Mar 1, 2006 The return on the City's investment in the Tram is probably one of highest returns on investment, ever.
JK: Please point me to the analysis on this.
(I reap no income form city planning, city policy or smart growth, can my opponents say the same?)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Mar 2, 2006 5:59:00 AM
This kind of piggy-backs on what Lenny said, but really people need to take notice of the news. OHSU is moving the OGI to South Waterfront from Hillsboro. So instead of losing more money and structures to Hillsboro (which would have for sure happened with no tram) we are gaining all that was already out there.
While not happy the price has increased that much I believe it has now already paid for itself. Plus the fact so far the city's share has not increased so I fail to see the huge crisis. Even if the city's share is raised a couple million the return on gaining the whole Hillsboro Campus more than compinsates.
Posted by: Gerald | Mar 2, 2006 9:51:15 AM
Poor Hillsboro... maybe they can get a new Wal-Mart to fill in the vacancy.
Posted by: Justin | Mar 2, 2006 4:26:26 PM
Gerald: I thought METRO, and our own city has told us to think regionally, to have all our partnerships work together. What is the gain on a regional basis, if you think moving OGI from Hillsboro to NM is a good idea? It is sad to play one suburb off of the city or another suburb. Have you ever been to the OGI campus? Do you know of the poetential expansion that can occur there with their acreage? Is it best to site major, delicate research facilities on a liquifying site with a major fault line directly under the site? Or in a flood plain? Is it best to have a research campus of this sort where transit modility (services, etc.) will become gridlocked in the near future, and sometimes is now when one simple accident 10 miles away creates a bottleneck where 405 and I-5 comes together. This is just part of the analysis that needs to be made before one gloats on stealing a neighbors jobs and facilities.
Posted by: Lee | Mar 3, 2006 6:25:06 PM
Sam, maybe you should consider making this website your blog only. The public responses in here continue to be a few sad Rush Limbaugh listeners with nothing better to do with their anger but take it out on government and bike riders. Let's move forward, not backwards.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 14, 2006 5:23:55 PM
Does this sound like Rush Limbaugh? (quoting "Justin" above)...
"Poor Hillsboro, maybe they can get a new Wal-Mart to fill in the vacancy"
The proponents of taxpayer funding of political campaigns, plop-art, skate parks, 'public-private partnerships' (Armory, Tram, PGE Park) and HIGHER TAXES are well represented on this blog. I suspect that many of these proponents are either the recipients of the taxpayer subsidies, or they are employed by the City of Portland.
Ironically, "Joe the Progressive" finds it necessary to silence any dissent: those people who disagree with JOE are very dangerous!
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Mar 14, 2006 9:45:47 PM
Excellent comment Joe, keep it up. Just from reading through the comments on a few of these blogs, there seems to be a disproportionate respresentation of the mefirsters, anti-government, know it alls. Did you guys meet up at the local NRA chapter and decide to find a blog to flood with your radical sentiments? BTW, progressive liberalism rules!
Posted by: Ron | Mar 15, 2006 4:01:34 AM
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, I'd go, but why bother? If anyone thinks the tram won't be built, they need to get their head examined. You folks have decided that come hell or high water, damn the cost you ARE going to build the tram. You don't know the final cost, you don't know how much it will cost to run or maintain it but your attitude shows that you don't care about any of it - you're going to build it and worry about all those nagging details later.
This townhall is merely a dog and pony show, it will have zero impact on the entire project - bottom line, it's a waste of time and one of my most precious commodities is time. Thanks for the invite, I have better ways to spend (rather than waste) my time.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Mar 1, 2006 2:05:25 AM