

We accept advertising through Blogads. If you're interested, click the "Advertise here" link above, or go here to place your ad through Blogads. For assistance, e-mail me here; I'd be glad to help. Reach lots of viewers -- we're up to about 3,800 unique visits a day, and more than 61,000 page views a week (as of November 4). Our rates are dirt cheap for the exposure you'll get! If you'd like to advertise without going through the Blogads system, that's do-able, too. Just e-mail us here for more information.
As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
Cameron, Chardonnay
B.R. Cohn, Cabernet, Silver Label 2006
Graffigna, Cabernet 2005
Palo Alto, Reserve Red 2008
Menguante, Garnacha 2008
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Felsina Berardenga, Vin Santo 1997
Anne Amie, Pinot Gris 2009
McKinley Springs, Bombing Ramge Red 2007
Vieux Papes Red
Dionysius Chardonnay 2009
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2009
Vega Montan, Mencia 2008
Chateau la Vernede, Coteaux du Languedoc 2007
Mount Defiance, Hellfire (White) 2008
Root: 1, Cabernet 2008
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Pinot Grigio 2009
Columbia Crest, Two Vines, Vineyard 10 White, 2008
Columbia Crest, Two Vines, Vineyard 10 Rose, 2007
Abacela, Grenache Rose 2009
Avia Cabernet 2004
Lemelson Pinot Noir, Thea's Selection 2007
Chateau de la Roulerie, Rose d'Anjou 2009
Casal Garcia, Vinho Verde Rose
La Ferme Julien, Rose 2008
Cana's Feast, Bricco Red, 2006
Hogue, Genesis Merlot, 2008
Owen Roe, Sharecropper's Cabernet, 2008
Kim Crawford, Unoaked Chardonnay 2008
J. Scott, Pinot Noir 2008
Edmunds St. John, White, Heart of Gold 2008
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2006
Stevenot, Cabernet, Sierra Foothills, "Stanford" 2000
Portuga, Vinho Rose 2009
Taylor Fladgate, First Estate Reserve Porto
Franciscan, Cabernet, Napa 2006
Chaparral de Vega Sindoa, Garnacha 2008
Quinta da Aveleda, Vinho Verde 2008
St. Francis, Chardonnay Sonoma 2008
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone Blanc, 2007
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly, Gamay Noir 2008
St. Innocent, Pinot Noir 2006
Jigsaw, Pinot Noir 2007
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Merlot, Indian Wells 2007
Charles Shaw, Chardonnay 2008
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly, Gamay Rosé 2009
Cameron, Willamette Valley Chardonnay
Il Valore, Sangiovese, Giovane, Puglia 2008
Duck Pond, Chardonnay, Wahluke Slope 2007
Kim Crawford, Marlborough Pinot Noir 2008
Domaine du Pesquier, Cotes du Rhone 2005
Cantina Zaccagnini, Montepulciano d'Abruzzo 2006
Domaine Matrot, Chardonnay, Bourgogne 2007
David Hill, Oregon Sparkling Wine, Brut
Chandler Reach, Monte Regalo 2006
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2008
Kirkland, Columbia Valley Merlot 2008
D'Aragon, Old Vine Garnacha 2008
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2005
Pavin & Riley, Merlot 2006
David Hill, Estate Pinot Noir, Barrel Select 2006
Castle Rock, Paso Robles Cabernet 2006
Magnificent, Cabernet, Steak House 2008
Conundrum 2008
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1998
Saint Cosme, Cotes-du-Rhone 2007
La Granja, Tempranillo 360, 2008
Santa Rita, Mendalla Real Cabernet 2006
Columbia Crest, Grand Estates Merlot 2006
Andezon, Cotes-du-Rhone 2007
Collegiata, Montepulciano d'Abruzzo
Troon, Druid's Fluid 2008
La Granja, Tempranillo 2008
Monte Antico, Toscana 2006
Vieux Papes, Blanc de Blancs
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Miles run year to date: 54
At this date last year: 50
Total run in 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (24)
Here's another misleading one in today's Trib:
the research hospital’s new building in the South Waterfront
How much "research" will actually be done in the new building? As I understand it, little or none.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 3, 2006 4:01 PM
I listed others on your other thread entitiled
"New tram tab: $55 million -- or maybe more"
Posted by steve schopp | February 3, 2006 4:05 PM
Well, to be fair it IS a research hospital. The headline doesn't say that building has anything to do with research.
Posted by Abraham | February 3, 2006 4:47 PM
sorry -- didn't mean headline... Meant line,
Posted by Abraham | February 3, 2006 5:02 PM
Someone needs Econ101 on sunk costs.
Posted by j | February 3, 2006 5:03 PM
From the Tribune
""""The OHSU Center for Health and Healing now being completed there will house 100,000 square feet of clinical research labs""""
This is new.
The building is 16 floors and now in the heat of criticism they are all of a sudden calling 8 to 10 floors of it "research labs"?
Can this get any deeper?
And of course the health club is a "wellness center"
Posted by steve schopp | February 3, 2006 5:15 PM
Thanks J. I'm glad somebody out there remembers Econ 101. Potter got a BA (generally a sciences degree) in Business from UP. He should know better. I don't think anybody else on city council has a single economics course under their belt, let alone practical experience. I'm sure Erik Sten didn't have to explain elasticities of substitution to get his BA in English.
Posted by Robert Ted Hinds | February 3, 2006 5:19 PM
The Orgo editorial is raging CODE RED for Tramland Security. Publisher and editors are blaming anyone, anywhere else but inside their own flim-flam myth mouth.
The tram's dead. The paper killed it with false hype. Their editorial endorsement -- or worse, if The O Leads The Band to do promotion for your project: it's the kiss of death. The paper's pumping for you is like having Liars Larson favor your campaign. That breath on it is the black plague, you're a goner.
The zerO never gave Portlanders the design and development fantasy-facts. They did not report the budget began bleeding buckets until blogs did. Remember, it's only graft and fraud if the paper says it is.
And the glow-in-the-dark dirt is not a deadly toxic dump ground until Stickel Says it's toxic. Besides, somebody's gotta get sick and die or the doctors don't have work.
City oversight could just shut down the tram and tell everyone the low-ball newspaper lied about Waterfront Money Demands to start a ponzi-scheme invasion of the area. Portlanders would be dancing in the streets to see the Enron of Info Inflation popped and flattened, and the politicos who pin it on them where it belongs, would be reelected unanimously. With the grateful thanks of friends of journalism everywhere.
Posted by Tenskwatawa | February 3, 2006 9:25 PM
Did anyone catch the Trib's note about $32 mil in cost overruns for the transit mall light rail project? The Trib basically made it sound like projects like this always have $30-40 mil in cost overruns. Of course, the the original estimate for that project was well over $100 million. Leaving aside whether it is a sane project, the transit mall light rail deal is not expecting an increase of 267% over the original cost. The tram gets that distinction.
Posted by pankleb | February 3, 2006 11:26 PM
To continue the Oregonian lack of reporting, or some may call it "lying".
The latest North Macadam 5 year budget presented at the Jan. URAC meeting had a total of $60.75M of public dollar expenditures. Of that amount there are three significant line items that the public will find interesting:
North Mac. Strategic Opportunity Fund-$12.532M
Description; Fund future public investment opportunites such as development agreement with property owner
Business Loan Program-$5.208M
Description; Financial assistance through loans and grants (e.g. the Quality Jobs Program) to help firms grow and create jobs. Also generates program income and leverages PDC dollars with private or public funds.
BioScience Development Strategy-$400T
Definition; Develop program/project recommendations to create jobs in target area sectors with high concentration, including accelerator facility.
These three items total $18.140M-almost ONE-THIRD of the whole 5 year budget. And these three items are what I call "gimmies" "fluff" "paybacks" at taxpayers expense. What do they have to do with what urban renewal is suppose to do? Do you want your tax dollars to be used this way-pay for a OHSU accelerator? Loans to the developers?
Now, couple this thought with items that the public thought they might be getting in the near future of at least 10 years in NM. Moderate Income Housing; Streetcar; Greeway along the Willamette; Park @ Moody; Park under Ross Island Bridge; Transportation improvements;etc.-they are all under or unfunded in the 5 year budget.
And PDC's Larry Brown admitted this at our last NM URAC meeting.
Here's another news item the media hasn't reported:
Another line item in the budget is:
Harbor-Naito Redevelopment Strategy & Implementation-$7.09M
Description; Redelopment strategy for Harbor-Naito area, bounded by Harbor, Naito, I-405 & SW Clay St. Estimates in FY 2008-09 & FY2009-10 include large amounts for transportation improvements.
In the area directly west of the existing RiverPlace area- the hillside between Front Ave. and the 1-5 entrance, PDC is planning to sell off land to create over 1,000,000 sq. ft. of offices, commercial, etc. buildings along SW Front. This is the only north portal point to exit North Macadam Urban Renewal area with projected 15,000 people. It is already a choke-point, now add additional 1M sq ft. of buildings and their traffic generation. Planning? $7M of the $60M budget?
Posted by Jerry | February 4, 2006 12:32 AM
The thing which struck me about the article on Friday was Stadum opining about how OHSU was reluctant to pay any more on this. Big surprise.
Along with that there was the very clear implication that the delays and cost overruns were the fault of the city construction management. That sure looks to me like they are trying to pin overages on the city.
I'm telling you, the city has been set up to be the fall guy on this. Expect OHSU to file a suit that the city mismanaged the project and should pay the cost overruns (probably after a certain date).
Get the city OUT of this thing ASAP!
Posted by godfry | February 4, 2006 8:43 AM
Hopefully the City isn't on the line to back PATI. That would be the smoking gun of corruption.
Mr. Karlock, thank you so much for posting the tram documents on your website. They have proven an invaluable resource for my campaign.
I cannot believe that the City of Portland does not put "kill fees" directly into any of these projects. By that I mean, if you are going to grossly misestimate project costs or put something in motion eight years ago, like the downtown transit mall, there should be "kill fee" escape hatch clause in any contract that let's the City say, "We're getting way over budget," or "This doesn't make sense any more, not right now" and allow the City to just write a check for $1 million or whatever and walk away. The way things are beginning to look, City Hall was either grossly negligent or in cahoots with the big developers from day one.
Posted by Robert Ted Hinds | February 4, 2006 11:08 AM
Hopefully the City isn't on the line to back PATI. That would be the smoking gun of corruption.
Mr. Karlock, thank you so much for posting the tram documents on your website. They have proven an invaluable resource for my campaign.
I cannot believe that the City of Portland does not put "kill fees" directly into any of these projects. By that I mean, if you are going to grossly misestimate project costs or put something in motion eight years ago, like the downtown transit mall, there should be "kill fee" escape hatch clause in any contract that let's the City say, "We're getting way over budget," or "This doesn't make sense any more, not right now" and allow the City to just write a check for $1 million or whatever and walk away. The way things are beginning to look, City Hall was either grossly negligent or in cahoots with the big developers from day one.
Posted by Robert Ted Hinds | February 4, 2006 11:11 AM
Seems to me, as a rule, nobody "owns" a non-profit. Somebody controls it, but is accountable to the public for its assets.
Posted by Allan L. | February 4, 2006 11:12 AM
RT Hinds sez: "Thanks J. I'm glad somebody out there remembers Econ 101. Potter got a BA (generally a sciences degree) in Business from UP. He should know better. I don't think anybody else on city council has a single economics course under their belt, let alone practical experience. I'm sure Erik Sten didn't have to explain elasticities of substitution to get his BA in English."
I've got some bad news for you, RT. Mike Lindberg, the past city commissioner and current presiding officer of the PATI board, is a former professional corporate economist....I believe for what was then Pacific Northwest Bell.
Which is why I keep saying he should have known better.
I got my undergraduate degree in economics.
Posted by godfry | February 4, 2006 12:36 PM
Tenskwatawa: I love it!
Posted by Cynthia | February 4, 2006 1:48 PM
BTW: Who owns the tram?
In one of the SoWhat agreements -- the Development Agreement, I believe it is -- it's very specific that the city will own the tram.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 4, 2006 5:52 PM
The tram contract is with the City of Portland. PATI is a non-profit suborganization to the City. Confirmed by a PATI bd. member
Posted by Jerry | February 4, 2006 6:37 PM
"The tram contract is with the City of Portland."
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Posted by Allan L. | February 4, 2006 7:35 PM
What, no LID payment either!
In looking at the Tram docs Jim posted it appears the OHSU Medical Group,,,,(the 501c3 doctors who own the first SoWa building),,,,,,,,,,
Here's who they are:
What's Up, Doc?
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3203/6965/
On the Waterfront
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3201/6926/
,,,,,,,,,have avoided any contribution to the Tram LID (Local Improvement District).
No property taxes, no TriMet payroll taxes, no business taxes and now we find out that they are not paying for any of the Tram that goes to their building?
Maybe I'm missing it, but if I am not people should know.
Posted by steve schopp | February 4, 2006 7:39 PM
If "PATI" is Portland Aerial Tram, Inc., which I believe it is, then it's not a non-profit, but is an ordinary business corporation. This evening the secretary of state's website shows it as having been formed on July 20, 2005 as a domestic business corporation, registry no. 300838-93. Its registered agent is J.R. Davis of 2331 SW 6th Avenue, Portland. Someone had tried to form a corporation of that name earlier, on June 22, 2005 (registry no. 293948-97), but the filing fee was returned and the corporation was not formed.
Posted by Isaac Laquedem | February 4, 2006 9:55 PM
Correction: the contract is with Portland Aerial Transportation, Inc., registry no. 077976-99, which is a public benefit non-profit. Mike Lindberg is the president and Steve Stadum is the secretary.
Posted by Isaac Laquedem | February 4, 2006 10:07 PM
"The tram contract is with the City of Portland. PATI is a non-profit suborganization to the City. Confirmed by a PATI bd. member"
Jerry,
http://www.filinginoregon.com/
Registry number 077976-99
PORTLAND AERIAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. (PATI) is not a suborganization of the city. It is a full fledged incorporated entity with all the powers that that entails, inclusive of pulling a Paul Allen if they do not like interest rates on a Rose Quarter deal (say oops, bankruptcy) or . . .
. . . if they do decide that they are no longer satisfied with the deal they made on August 22, 2003, that gives their consent to the city to negotiate construction costs even though the city only covers a fraction (with a 2 million max for the city at the time of signing).
The city could demand that under the terms of the contract that PATI come up with the necessary resources to cover the negotiated costs or declare PATI to be undercapitalized and not a trustworthy partner. It is PATI that could be in (anticipatory) breach for publicly asserting that they can optionally ignore their earlier contractual grant of consent. A really good thing, for good fun that is, would be to re-estimate the costs at 120 million and then demand that PATI put more cash into their own accounts immediately, in anticipation.
Posted by Ron Ledbury | February 4, 2006 10:20 PM
Ron, that is interesting. At least two PATI bd members think the tram ownership is entitled to City of Portland. Does this say something about the PATI Bd.?
Posted by Jerry | February 4, 2006 10:36 PM