What years long process is this clown referring to? If the city is actually considering selling park acreage then that should be made clear so we know which politicians to target for a recall. This proposal shouldn't be on the table for consideration. The interests of a private religious institution are irrelevant when weighed against the very compelling public need to preserve our parks. All this guy is saying is that they are going to go through a long drawn out process to let a private religious school buy park property rather than doing it behind closed doors like they did the last time.

Saltzman shouldn't be allowed to get away with such a carefully worded nonanswer to the simple question of whether he, Saltzman, is willing to consider selling off part of Mt. Tabor park. Citizens should be on the phone to everyone on the city council, immediately, to ask the straight up question: Are you considering the sale of part of Mt. Tabor Park. Yes or No.

If it only it were carefully worded. I don't consider possessive nouns in place of contractions and sentence fragments to be carefully worded. *sigh* Am I the only one who is annoyed when "official correspondence" shows up with such errors?

It was just an e-mail.

"Just an email?"
That's an official communication, and should be written as such. You need to check one of those style manuals; crappy language and spelling errors are for blogs and teens only. My book from Advanced Writing says don't ever write an email like that one, complete with spelling errors.

Sorry about the tangent. :-)

Your point about the poor grammar is well taken and, yes, it bothers me too. But poor writing can qualify as being carefully worded when the effect of it is to purposefully obfuscate the author's real intentions. This email from Saltzman's office is a fairly classic example. Take the second paragraph which leads with the totally ambiguous sentence fragment "Selling of land." It gives the impression that something significant on the subject is about to be said, but what follows is an entirely cryptic passive construction: "You can rest assured that the neighborhood, and city as a whole, will be closely engaged in the choices put forward for Council to consider," which leaves the reader totally clueless as to what the "choices" are and by whom they are being "put forward." The grammar may be poor and the style obtuse, but it doesn't look like an accident to me.

Or perhaps I should have said, "to obfuscate purposefully."

www.clovermoore.com/issues/environment/open-space/cpmpt/990719.htm

Perhaps the biggest loss during that period was when the old fair grounds in Centennial parklands was leased to Fox Studios. It was supposed to revert back to public parkland when it stopped being a fair grounds, but somehow was turned over to Rupurt Murdock's Fox Studios and became what appears to be an ammusment park and now on its way to being a shopping center. As you can see another brilliant idea was to put McDonalds in the Park.

Why should Portland be concerned.

The same person under whose direction the Centennial Parks Trust was under during the Fox Studio lease and the failed McDonalds invasion, is now an executive, another imported Aussie, to head "business development" for Portland Parks.

"
* Robin Grimwade, who recently moved to Portland from his native Australia. Grimwade has more than 19 years of management experience in parks, recreation and environmental issues.

Grimwade previously was managing director for Grimwade and Associates, a Sydney consulting firm.

From 1999 to 2001, he was managing director of Waste Service NSW, a large provider of solid and liquid waste management and recycling, and directed waste disposal and recycling during the 2000 Olympics.

During the 1990s, he spent more than eight years as director and chief executive officer of the Centennial Parklands in Sydney."

So Saltzman has hired himself a professional, I hope folks in Portland know what's coming at them in the public process. He learned from his last tango with Mt. Tabor. The link is to a letter written by the current Mayor of Sidney who is most recently undergoing an attack from Rupurt Murdocks paper on Family Values, she opposes the further degredation of Sidney's premier park which Mr. Grimwade was the Director and CEO when they cut the development deals with FOX Studios and McDonalds. It appears from the internet articles, the mainteneance was privitized.

http://www.clovermoore.com/idx.htm?http://www.clovermoore.com/issues/environment/open%2Dspace/cpmpt/mcdonalds/background.htm

"In 1995, a secret agreement for a McDonald's on Moore Park was made between the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust and Gameplan Sports and Leisure Pty Ltd, with the support of the then Liberal Environment Minister, Chris Hartcher, just before the March 1995 state election.
The restaurant, to have been located on the south east corner of Anzac Parade and Lang Road, would have alienated public land for unrelated commercial use."

http://www.clovermoore.com/idx.htm?http://www.clovermoore.com/issues/environment/open%2Dspace/cpmpt/mcdonalds/background.htm

Just like in the old Westerns, it appears that a professional Hired Gun has been put into parks management.

You notice no where in the e-mail Bad Grammer or not does Saltzman say Parks Land will not be sold and why has he hired a Business and Developement Manager that leased 30 Acres of Sidney's equivalent of Washington Park for 50 years to Rupert Murdock;s Fox Studios, and tried to get a McDonalds in the park.

Readers...it's quite obvious that once you begin reading the email from Matthew Grumm, of the Office of Commissioner Dan Saltzman, an interpretor is needed. May I offer the following...

QUOTE: This is an important issue and we need to keep the lines of communication open.
INTERPRETATION: Go ahead and mail in your comments, even appear at a public hearing, but we still aren't going to change our mind... the decision is made.

QUOTE: No land has been put "on the market" or is currently up for sale. This needs to be clear.
INTERPRETATION: It's going to be sold at a "silent auction," time and location NOT to be announced.

QUOTE: You can rest assured that the neighborhood, and city as a whole, will be closely engaged in the choices put forward for Council to consider.
INTERPRETATION: Didn't I already tell you... the decision is made? Do you actuallly think we'd let you have a chance to offer any "choices put forward for Council to consider."

You're catching on!

I hope the Mt. Tabor Selloff idea by the Parks Bureau isn't like the SW Slavin Rd. 5 acres Parks identified for a park. The city owned the land. They sold/gave it away to a developer that resulted in 100 condos back in the early 90s.

The Parks Bureau had determined that the CTLH Neighborhood (now South Portland) Assn. was the most park deficient on the west side. So, a decade before, the Slavin Rd. property was requested to become a park when the city determined its use as a street maintenance dump was fulfilled. Guess what, Diane Holuka of city's Property Management Bureau decided to sell/give it away without any public hearings. Then they helped the developer remove the environmental zone off the property. The fix was in and screw the neighborhood and the rest of the city.

We give city owned land away, identified as park land; then we are asked to pass a bond measure to buy more park/open space land. I don't understand.

INTERPRETATION: Didn't I already tell you... the decision is made? Do you actuallly think we'd let you have a chance to offer any "choices put forward for Council to consider."

I've worked with Matt on the City-wide Park's Team and he and Saltzman spoke to this issue at our meeting last week. Matt's been a straight-shooter in my dealings with him and, yes, I believe no decision has been made. (And keep in mind he knows I supported Amanda Fritz in her campaign against Saltzman)

The idea of selling off park land when some folks are working on a bond measure to buy park land and open space is a non-starter. I just can't see it happening. A lease would be more likely, but even then, it would be politically suicidal to negotiate a deal that didn't provide benefits to the Mt Tabor community, i.e. public access to any new facilities that were constructed, like a sports field.

At any rate, whatever process happens needs to be transparent and open. The reality is if the Parks Bureau is going to shut down its maintenance facility there, something has to happen with it. That something needs to be something the neighborhood --and the rest of us who love and support our parks-- can readily support.

I truly hope this causes everyone to vote against the parks measure. Isn't this rather Kelo-like, if the government is going to forcibly buy up valuable land for parks, then turn around a few years later and sell it to the highest private bidder?

I am sorry Frank, I have seen Matt Grumm and he seems like a nice young man, but the City has a way of changing sincere nice young men into bozos and patseys. I know as a City Employee it must be scary, when you live in Oz. Look at Eric Sten, and Sam Adams, bright young people, who got swept up by the system.

In older days Mike Lindberg, now a consultant and fomerly PATI, Matt Brown prince of SOWHAT, didn't you say in an earlier post he was a nice guy too. Its a slipery slope, and they get compromised. These seasoned politcos send out these young and idealistic guys to front for them, and Matt Grumm may believe it but he may have to play along like Matt Brown, they either bail like Phil Keisling did or end up like Saltzman.

What the citizens of Portland need is a Bill of Rights, not just the children, and to see and have some control over thier assets, more than a sham court and shell game they have now. I clicked on what happened in Austrailia, do you really think a local boy like Matt is going to be able to have any influence on that.

I truly hope this causes everyone to vote against the parks measure

There is no Portland Parks measure on the ballot this fall. There is a Metro measure to buy natural areas. Different government, different purpose. The bond measure on the ballot is to buy natural areas to save them from development and keep them for fish and wildlife habitat. The 1995 Metro measure promised 6000 acres, purchased 8100 acres, not one of which has been sold for development. Without the bond measure, all the land to be purchased will be developed instead. Vote Yes on 26-80.

Amanda is right on target.

This is when we should be buying the land before it has been developed. Not spending millions for a pea patch as Jack pointed out in SoWhat. The natural areas are essential for clean water, mitigating stormwater runoff and a healthy enviroment, as well as a normal persons sanity to be able to get back to nature,hear birds sing, and see green, smell the earth without spending hours in a car.

The key is to keep that land in public ownership, and spread it equitabley though the neigborhoods. Not build small expensive to maintain "showcase" parks for the Condo Towers when kids need a place to play.

"if the government is going to forcibly buy up valuable land for parks, then turn around a few years later and sell it to the highest private bidder?"

the Metro measure also stipulates that Metro will only purchase land from willing sellers. There is no forcible purchasing in Metro's Parks Bond.

Amanda, John, and MarkDaMan; I'm sorry but I, and many do, make a connection between the City of Portland selling off park land with several examples, and having METRO asking taxpayers that include City of Portland taxpayers for a $280M bond measure. It is a different government but the taxpayers boundaries overlap.

The last bond measure did include several purchases within Portland's boundary, and the proposed bond measure publicity has included additional lands within Portland's boundary.

This is not to say that I do not support the intentions, benefits you outline, but to look at the reality that we buy, we sell, we give away public land, and in most cases not to the "highest private bidder", that we should question the process, practice that the city employs. The Slavin Rd property did not have one bidder. Period. City of Portland actually gave the developer a $250T dollar credit as a public donation for tax purposes.

By the way, the developer for the SW Slavin Property was and still is a big contributor to city council members. Interesting.

"Without the bond measure, all the land to be purchased will be developed instead"

I'm sorry but that is flat out false.

There are environmental zones protecting vast amounts of that land along every stream and no development willbe allowed in those setbacks.
Furthermore, there are all sorts of other restrictions and environmental requirements for any adjacent developemnt.

This land and money grab by Metro is low priority and is being perpetrated under false pretenses.
Vote No on 26-80

Many of the millions they will get will be distributed to their various activist organizations.
Primarily amoung the Coalition for a Livable Future member organizations.

Organizations who fully support SoWa and all of the PDC/Metro/TriMet schemes
and are working to stop any and all road projects desperately needed for our worsening congestion problem.

Organizations who also enable politicians to steal basic service revenue for their funny money Urban Renewal games.

You want to help parks, schools, libraries police and fire?
Vote no on 26-80.
It not an environmental measure, it's
a con job and money grab.

I am sorry Frank, I have seen Matt Grumm and he seems like a nice young man, but the City has a way of changing sincere nice young men into bozos and patseys.

Who is "the City?" Some mythical beast who lives in the bowels of City Hall, eating the hell-spawn of the Civil Service System?

I mean, really...what do we MEAN when we say "the city"? Is Potter the same as Vera the same as Neil the same as...??? Are we all just captives of some evil empire that grinds its employees into dust, or else lets us escape as chattering, well-trained and obedient monkeys (with PERS pensions)?

And Portland is SO much more in the clasp of the dark side then, oh, say...Salem? Eugene? Sherwood? Tigard? Jersey City? Boston? Paris? London? Moscow? Tehran? Mogadishu?

I think most city employees are great. That doesn't mean we're not like every OTHER organization...full of suck-ups, back-stabbers, layabouts, and slackers. I know I'M perfect...but, y'know, you gotta cut other folks some slack. You've got to, in the final analysis, trust SOMEBODY to not BS you. Or, I guess, you can figure everybody --and everything-- is too compromised, too messed up, too diabolical...and sit on the sidelines. But then do what?

You fight in the trenches, you get muddy. Sometimes you keep your head down, sometimes you charge. That's life. Personally --and this is a very personal opinion-- I think the Council's too smart to even try to sell off a chunk of Mt Tabor. But I'll also admit, I've been wrong before.

The challenge is to do what's right in an environment where a hundred opinions each think they're right. Is Homer Williams "the City?" Nope. Melvin Mark? Nah. Steve Shoppe? Jack Bogdanski? Mr. T? Cynthia? Markdaman? Me?

We are ALL the City. THAT's the hard part to understand, as is figuring out how best to serve us all.

Frank,

My point was not that Matt, and others were the many colorful names that you described, but that they are used and abused by those who deserve the label. It works kind of like ole Neil raping the 14 year old, after a while she adapted and it was the thing to do and she was compliant in the affair for a couple of years, until he got bored and dumped her.

I agree that this is the case in other cities as well, but does that mean we should accept it here. Does that mean we shouldn't try to find a different way to make sure the government operates for the good of the common man and not the special interests of a few "leaders" or power brokers. Should we stop fighting.

The best media presentation I think I have seen on this is the Enron Movie, "the smartest people in the room". The folks there went over the edge on a regular basis on thier financial anaylsis, cut throat competitive practice, and to hell with benefitting humanity, with the California energy shortage fraud, robbing peter to pay thier sleazy debt.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was the old black and white newsreal of the tests done on people post WWII, to see if someone in "authority" told them it was OK to hurt someone they did it. A large number of good people, regular folks, pressed that button to give the person on the other side of the screen increasingly heavy shocks while they were screaming for mercy. From the dress and era of the news real, probably those tests were done to find out how the holocoust could have happened.

In that most horrible of circumstances where saving Jewish people meant death, there were good people who risked thier lives to do so, as well to resist, the madness that swept that nation.

Really Frank, how many people do you know in your social circle who have had sex with a 14 year old, forcibly raped thier college girlfriend, if you believe the Oregonain reports, threatened thier wives or husbands, and these are or have been our Asst. Police Chief, Councilman, Congressman, and Mayor.

I would be willing to grant that the first or second time these young people cross the line or start sliding down that slipery slope, they don't even know what they are doing, but having crossed, it becomes easier each time they hop the fence.

That is not to say there are not some really good people at the City, I am pretty comfortable from reading of your escapades in WW, that you are probably one of them, I have never said anything different. But you know the old saying about what a few rotten apples can do the the barrel. The young people by and large are going to follow the rules of the "successful". It is our responsibility as citizens to expose that success when it is gotten by questionable means.

"We are ALL the City. THAT's the hard part to understand, as is figuring out how best to serve us all"

I agree, but the "figuring out" has to start with city officials NOT misleading the public and witholding germane information.
With such widespread official obstruction, obscuring and manipulation
endless speculation and arguement fills the void.

Frank,

I don't know that everyone thinks he/she is right or if pleasing all of us is really the point. If City Council were just concerned with allowing the public access to real facts and figures so it can figure out what the heck is going on and FORM opinions. We are in the dark a lot of the time until it is too late to have an impact, where having one might be in the public interest. I remember reading an article that explored the different definitions of public interest. I guess one I am comfortable with would involve transparent process, hard information, open respectful debate, and a focus on basic services first. Whether I get my way is not relevant.

And planning, accounting and other activities should be perfomed according to some accepted standards, not so "creatvely".

Oops-creative spellling...

There are environmental zones protecting vast amounts of that land along every stream and no development willbe allowed in those setbacks.
Furthermore, there are all sorts of other restrictions and environmental requirements for any adjacent development.

Riiiiiight, Steve. Just like the 300' setback recommendation from the Fish & Wildlife experts to protect the Willamette in South Waterfront.... that worked out really well in implementation, huh?

Environmental zones limit development but don't prohibit it in most instances. And when environmental restrictions do prohibit development, it gets to the level of a takings (especially with Measure 37) and the government (i.e. the public) has to pay.

The Metro measure should be one where liberals and conservatives can both agree it is much fairer for the public to pay to purchase private property from willing sellers, than to take it by restrictive regulations. And anyone who wants to know whether the money will be spent on the right parcels which will be kept to benefit air and water quality can look at the 1995 bond measure. It made a huge difference in Portland's neighborhoods and natural areas, was managed efficiently and cost-effectively, and should serve as a model for a government doing exactly what it said it would with money raised through a bond measure.

Amanda,
There are setbacks, (prohibited development) protecting Environmental zones/watersheds and all sorts of regulations that cover water runoff and other factors.
300 feet is ridiculous. That was what the failed Portland Healthy Streams proposed.

SoWa property owners didn't need M37 the city changed all the zoning they asked for.
The Metro measure isn't just buying up some land to preserve.
Conservative should cringe over the rest of it. $15 Million of it for lefty activist groups and Metro's typical 10% handling fee promise to extend the loony planning around.

With Metro councilors Rex Burkholder and Robert Liberty working to stop all road construction while promoting more of SoWa even liberals should stop supporting the snow jobs.

Your view of measure 26-80 is far too narrow and misses the worst elements.

Amanda, as you know since you were there with some of us at many of North Macadam hearings, there never was one, one environmental organization that commented on the rezoning of NM; increasing density six times; increasing height from 45 ft. to 325 ft.; ignoring the fed, state, city standards of setbacks from the river; ignoring the city/state standards of stepping of building heights down to the river; ignoring the Greenway Standards that development in the zone has to be "similar in scale to nearby development"; ignoring the fed. standards of building in a 100 year flood plain; the list goes on.

Even with Standards, Guidelines,
Regulations, many times extreme non-compliance occurs. As you know, I am generally for moderation (numbers) in all these controls, but I am more disappointed in how these controls are so easily manipulated-by government as well as the public. The playing field has not been level. But that is reality, but can't it be a little bit more level?

Amanda Fritz wrote "Without the bond measure, all the land to be purchased will be developed instead"

Steve Schopp responded "I'm sorry but that is flat out false."

Steve. I am afraid you are the one spreading falsehoods.

Using data from an inventory in 1989, researhers have estimated that Portland-Metro region lost roughly 16,000 acres of natural areas in the 1990s. That is an area roughly the size of of the current City of Gresham. There is absolutely no question that we would have lost more if voters had not passed the 1995 Regional Greenspaces Bond measure that protected over 8,000 acres in the region.

Portland's ezones don't stop development, they require avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating environmental impacts to the extent possible. In only some instances do they require the most environmentally sensitive areas to be entirely avoided. A good visual example is the Forest Heights development between 1990 and 2002. See:

http://www.urbanfauna.org/files/1984.html

With Measure 26-80 Metro and local governments already have local options on property near Forest Park and in Johnson Creek Watershed. If the Bond Measure does not pass these areas WILL be sold to developers. No question.

Jim Labbe
Urban Conservationist
Audubon Society of Portland