Blogger and Portland City Council wannabe Amanda Fritz is mightily steamed that, while city voters puzzle over whether to grant the council budget control over the Portland Development Commission, there's a bill working its way through the state Legislature that would give the council that authority -- regardless of how the voters go on Measure 26-92. According to Fritz's post, the bill is pretty sure to pass, and so the whole ballot measure on the subject is highly likely to become a moot point -- in other words, a waste of everyone's time. (Oh, there are a few other things in that measure besides budget control, but they don't amount to a hill of beans.)
If Fritz is right (and she usually is), I'm not surprised. Politicians use public votes to provide an appearance of participatory democracy, when the reality is that the votes often don't matter. If the voters agree with the politicians' position, all the better. If they don't, the politicians just dismiss the vote or ignore it, and do what they want to do anyway.
The most prominent folks behind council control over the PDC budget are Commissioner Erik Sten and his newfound second vote on just about everything, Commissioner Randy Leonard. This issue arose during the height of the squabble between the PDC on the one hand and Sten and Leonard's union buddies on the other, about whether contractors on PDC-backed construction projects had to pay state-set "prevailing wages" to their workers. If I am recalling this correctly, Sten and Leonard were talking last fall and winter about taking the budget control matter to the Legislature, but the story that went around then was that they agreed with the mayor to put the question up for a public vote, and live with the consequences.
Maybe not. Maybe there's some sort of double-cross going on here. Or maybe I'm mixing this issue up with some other.
In any case, Amanda's angst is all part of the ugliest little election we've seen in the Rose City in many, many years. Thank goodness it will be over next Tuesday night.
Comments (24)
Regardless of these hijinx in
Salem, I am voting "yes" on this measure. The elected governing body should be the budget committee for urban renewal, rather than a board of Mayor-appointees. If they want to make a positive change to oregon budget law, they should eliminate the loophole that allows Portland (and Multnomah County) to escape the State Law that requires an equal number of citizens sit on the City budget committee - each having an equal vote, along with the City Councilors. That may restore some sanity to City finances.
So, let's see . . . through the vote we can reject the council's role in approving the PDC budget, leaving it to the mayor's appointees, but the legislature can override that by putting it with the council, but then we can, through the vote on the charter change, transfer all the council's responsibilities to the mayor? Can I lie down for a minute or two?
I hate to break it to you, but this is what you get when you have one party rule in a state for long enough. Eventually they realize they can just do whatever they want without fear of consequences. It is strange that the same people who supported Measure 37 and Measure 36 would turn around and vote for candidates that they knew would overturn those decisions if they could. For it is the doom of men that they forget.
My understanding is that for City Council to become the PDC's budget committee, BOTH (charter ammendment and legislative change) have to pass. Neither has any impact without the other.
City Council put this change on their legislative agenda earlier in the year, tasking their lobbyist with getting it done.
DOes it matter if PDC or Erik/Randy et al blow the $300M a year PDC gets?
That's what this boils down to is a big pot of money, so that if Erik has control, he can go tilt after his windmills, Sam can build more trollies, Randy can provide cover for PFDR, etc.
Now if you had a vote disbanding PDC and returning the money to taxpayers, I am interested.
I wrote about this after interviewing Leonard and Sten for my column in Brainstorm NW's January 2007 issue. They have not been silent about their interest in taking this to the legislature. The negative bazillion dollar appraisal of the Oak Street property was the straw that broke the camel's back on these PDC ripoffs.
Thank you for clarifying the need for the legislation in Salem, Chris. You are absolutely correct.
The city attorney advised that since the PDC is empowered from both a state statute and the city charter, both the statute and the charter would need to be amended to give the council oversight of their budget.
The bill in Salem says the Council IS the budget committee. Not "may be the budget committee if approved in the city's Charter".
26-92 says "If authorized by state law, the City Council shall be the budget committee for the Commission and shall have the duties and responsibilities of a budget committee as provided by state law."
So it's true the State law has to pass before 26-92 changes can be enacted, but not the reverse. I don't see any wiggle room in HB 3104. How can the Council say, "Ok, well, we're just not going to implement that State law", if HB 3104 passes and 26-92 fails?
HB 3104 says the Council is the budget committee. Read the bill, Chris and Randy, and please tell me how you interpret it to be permissive rather than mandatory.
My understanding is that for City Council to become the PDC's budget committee, BOTH (charter ammendment and legislative change) have to pass. Neither has any impact without the other.
Posted by Chris Smith
Nope - if 26-92 fails and the State passes the bill - the State trumps our lovely Charter.
Now if 26-92 passes - it does need the State pass the bill in order for it to be effective.
From hearing the Mayor Tom speak on this, he said that he at least wanted people to be able to vote on it and not have the decisions made in Salem without Portlanders having a voice.
The elected governing body should be the budget committee for urban renewal, rather than a board of Mayor-appointees. If they want to make a positive change to oregon budget law, they should eliminate the loophole that allows Portland (and Multnomah County) to escape the State Law that requires an equal number of citizens sit on the City budget committee - each having an equal vote, along with the City Councilors. That may restore some sanity to City finances.
Frank (not Dufay), I think this is a contradiction. If you think PDC's budget should be controlled by the elected officials, why would you then argue that a panel of unelected citizens should have a vote on how to spend taxpayer dollars?
I am totally opposed to random unelected citizens having any power over my taxpayer dollars. I already think the five citizens that Portland includes in their budget process (without voting power) lack any accountability. Who do they listen to? What do they base their recommendations on? At least elected officials can be voted out -- unelected citizens are immune from any public backlash.
I believe that if the statute passes, it would require the PDC’s budget to be overseen by the council.
However, there are others, primarily those who either work with or benefit from the PDC’s work that disagree. They believe, I have been told from reliable insiders, that Portland has “local control” over its financial affairs (arguing Portland is a “Home Rule” city) and that without a charter change any change in the state statute would be irrelevant. I have been told they are willing to go so far as to challenge the statute in court if the charter amendment fails.
Thus, there is in fact a group, led by PDC Chari Mark Rosenbaum, that has created a PAC and are raising money to defeat the PDC charter amendment ballot measure. Obviously, Mr. Rosenbaum and his fellow contributors (they include developers and former PDC members) are well aware of the state legislation. However, they are focused on stopping council oversight of their financial affairs even if it means going to court to challenge the state statute.
It is my opinion that the political will exists at the legislature and within the Portland electorate to reform how PDC does its business. Thus, to remove any doubt of the proposed budget oversight by the city council, I have advocated seeking the language change necessary in both the state statute and the city charter.
Miles - the citizen participants on local budget committees everywhere in Oregon - except here in Portland - have an equal vote with the elected body in "approving" the budget. The elected body has the sole authority to "adopt" the "approved" budget. The elected body can also change the "approved" budget prior to "adoption". Arguably the citizen members really don't have much authority in this model, but it's a model that works well everywere else in our State. Portland's efforts of late to include citizens, albeit informally, is laudable. Why not give Portland (and Multnomah County) citizens the same status they have in the budget process throughout Oregon?
I like what Randy is saying here. First, it seems to me that Mark Rosenbaum wouldn't fight this so hard if the PDC board was on the up and up. What graft is going to be uncovered if the measure passes?
Second, even if Erik Sten gets suckered into another crazy scheme to waste the PDC's budget, how would that be any worse than what's happening now? I have a little more confidence that City Council would be a better steward of taxpayer's money than the PDC board.
I'm not sure how the PDC board chair getting involved with a PAC (oh the horror) has anything to do with what's going on in Salem today.
As for graft, I see less opportunity for that at the moment than I did, say, three years ago. But if it exists, don't expect it to be uncovered, by anyone, ever. That is not how things are done in Portland, Oregon.
The quality of priority-setting isn't likely to improve much, if at all, under enhanced City Council oversight. But at least there would be one more avenue for the public to find out what's going on.
Randy, you've spilled a lot of ink here, but seem to be missing the fundamental question:
If there is even a possibility that HB 3104 could trump 26-92, then why would you push for the consideration of 3104 before the election? Why should anyone give a damn what you're "confident of" regarding the electorate's opinion, when we will have a decisive answer next week?
If there's a good possibility, as you suggest, of litigation, that only compounds your apparent disregard for the process you set in motion with an apparent willingness to waste tax dollars on potentially senseless litigation.
The difference is that you elected the City Council, but the Mayor appointed the PDC Board. It's not a minor difference.
I meant that there is NO difference on what the money is spent on. Whatever it is, its not going to help Portland, and most likely the voters dont want it.
Let's see. Potter selected all the current members of the PDC, most of whom have close relationships, connections and even friendships with developers. After two years, Potter curiously has sought to give a number of developers what they want; often ignoring the pleas of neighborhood activists (and mayor Bud Clark) who helped get him elected. And developers are providing financial support to Potter's rush to change the city charter (when voter turnout is traditionally low).
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
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
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
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
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
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)
Regardless of these hijinx in
Salem, I am voting "yes" on this measure. The elected governing body should be the budget committee for urban renewal, rather than a board of Mayor-appointees. If they want to make a positive change to oregon budget law, they should eliminate the loophole that allows Portland (and Multnomah County) to escape the State Law that requires an equal number of citizens sit on the City budget committee - each having an equal vote, along with the City Councilors. That may restore some sanity to City finances.
Posted by Frank | May 8, 2007 6:23 AM
So, let's see . . . through the vote we can reject the council's role in approving the PDC budget, leaving it to the mayor's appointees, but the legislature can override that by putting it with the council, but then we can, through the vote on the charter change, transfer all the council's responsibilities to the mayor? Can I lie down for a minute or two?
Posted by Allan L. | May 8, 2007 6:31 AM
I dont think that will help, Allan. It will still be confusing when you get up.
Whats going on with these people we elected? Did they all have a meeting and decide to hose the public?
Posted by Jon | May 8, 2007 6:48 AM
I hate to break it to you, but this is what you get when you have one party rule in a state for long enough. Eventually they realize they can just do whatever they want without fear of consequences. It is strange that the same people who supported Measure 37 and Measure 36 would turn around and vote for candidates that they knew would overturn those decisions if they could. For it is the doom of men that they forget.
Posted by John Fairplay | May 8, 2007 7:10 AM
My understanding is that for City Council to become the PDC's budget committee, BOTH (charter ammendment and legislative change) have to pass. Neither has any impact without the other.
City Council put this change on their legislative agenda earlier in the year, tasking their lobbyist with getting it done.
Posted by Chris Smith | May 8, 2007 7:12 AM
DOes it matter if PDC or Erik/Randy et al blow the $300M a year PDC gets?
That's what this boils down to is a big pot of money, so that if Erik has control, he can go tilt after his windmills, Sam can build more trollies, Randy can provide cover for PFDR, etc.
Now if you had a vote disbanding PDC and returning the money to taxpayers, I am interested.
Posted by Steve | May 8, 2007 7:24 AM
I wrote about this after interviewing Leonard and Sten for my column in Brainstorm NW's January 2007 issue. They have not been silent about their interest in taking this to the legislature. The negative bazillion dollar appraisal of the Oak Street property was the straw that broke the camel's back on these PDC ripoffs.
Posted by Dave Lister | May 8, 2007 8:34 AM
Thank you for clarifying the need for the legislation in Salem, Chris. You are absolutely correct.
The city attorney advised that since the PDC is empowered from both a state statute and the city charter, both the statute and the charter would need to be amended to give the council oversight of their budget.
Sorry...I have to go now...Erik is calling.
Posted by Randy Leonard | May 8, 2007 9:08 AM
The bill in Salem says the Council IS the budget committee. Not "may be the budget committee if approved in the city's Charter".
26-92 says "If authorized by state law, the City Council shall be the budget committee for the Commission and shall have the duties and responsibilities of a budget committee as provided by state law."
So it's true the State law has to pass before 26-92 changes can be enacted, but not the reverse. I don't see any wiggle room in HB 3104. How can the Council say, "Ok, well, we're just not going to implement that State law", if HB 3104 passes and 26-92 fails?
HB 3104 says the Council is the budget committee. Read the bill, Chris and Randy, and please tell me how you interpret it to be permissive rather than mandatory.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | May 8, 2007 9:22 AM
My understanding is that for City Council to become the PDC's budget committee, BOTH (charter ammendment and legislative change) have to pass. Neither has any impact without the other.
Posted by Chris Smith
Nope - if 26-92 fails and the State passes the bill - the State trumps our lovely Charter.
Now if 26-92 passes - it does need the State pass the bill in order for it to be effective.
From hearing the Mayor Tom speak on this, he said that he at least wanted people to be able to vote on it and not have the decisions made in Salem without Portlanders having a voice.
Posted by LMNOP | May 8, 2007 9:44 AM
OK, I will admit to being officially confused :-)
I am not certain it's true that the legislation trumps the charter, but the finality of the legislative phrasing is daunting.
Posted by Chris Smith | May 8, 2007 9:48 AM
The elected governing body should be the budget committee for urban renewal, rather than a board of Mayor-appointees. If they want to make a positive change to oregon budget law, they should eliminate the loophole that allows Portland (and Multnomah County) to escape the State Law that requires an equal number of citizens sit on the City budget committee - each having an equal vote, along with the City Councilors. That may restore some sanity to City finances.
Frank (not Dufay), I think this is a contradiction. If you think PDC's budget should be controlled by the elected officials, why would you then argue that a panel of unelected citizens should have a vote on how to spend taxpayer dollars?
I am totally opposed to random unelected citizens having any power over my taxpayer dollars. I already think the five citizens that Portland includes in their budget process (without voting power) lack any accountability. Who do they listen to? What do they base their recommendations on? At least elected officials can be voted out -- unelected citizens are immune from any public backlash.
Posted by Miles | May 8, 2007 10:26 AM
I believe that if the statute passes, it would require the PDC’s budget to be overseen by the council.
However, there are others, primarily those who either work with or benefit from the PDC’s work that disagree. They believe, I have been told from reliable insiders, that Portland has “local control” over its financial affairs (arguing Portland is a “Home Rule” city) and that without a charter change any change in the state statute would be irrelevant. I have been told they are willing to go so far as to challenge the statute in court if the charter amendment fails.
Thus, there is in fact a group, led by PDC Chari Mark Rosenbaum, that has created a PAC and are raising money to defeat the PDC charter amendment ballot measure. Obviously, Mr. Rosenbaum and his fellow contributors (they include developers and former PDC members) are well aware of the state legislation. However, they are focused on stopping council oversight of their financial affairs even if it means going to court to challenge the state statute.
It is my opinion that the political will exists at the legislature and within the Portland electorate to reform how PDC does its business. Thus, to remove any doubt of the proposed budget oversight by the city council, I have advocated seeking the language change necessary in both the state statute and the city charter.
Posted by Randy Leonard | May 8, 2007 11:11 AM
Miles - the citizen participants on local budget committees everywhere in Oregon - except here in Portland - have an equal vote with the elected body in "approving" the budget. The elected body has the sole authority to "adopt" the "approved" budget. The elected body can also change the "approved" budget prior to "adoption". Arguably the citizen members really don't have much authority in this model, but it's a model that works well everywere else in our State. Portland's efforts of late to include citizens, albeit informally, is laudable. Why not give Portland (and Multnomah County) citizens the same status they have in the budget process throughout Oregon?
Posted by Frank | May 8, 2007 12:11 PM
PDC controls the money, or the City Council. Really, whats the difference?
Posted by Jon | May 8, 2007 12:13 PM
The difference is that you elected the City Council, but the Mayor appointed the PDC Board. It's not a minor difference.
Posted by Frank | May 8, 2007 12:23 PM
Sorry...I have to go now...Erik is calling.
Ain't it the truth. He just had another big idea.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 8, 2007 12:39 PM
I like what Randy is saying here. First, it seems to me that Mark Rosenbaum wouldn't fight this so hard if the PDC board was on the up and up. What graft is going to be uncovered if the measure passes?
Second, even if Erik Sten gets suckered into another crazy scheme to waste the PDC's budget, how would that be any worse than what's happening now? I have a little more confidence that City Council would be a better steward of taxpayer's money than the PDC board.
Posted by sammy | May 8, 2007 12:52 PM
I'm not sure how the PDC board chair getting involved with a PAC (oh the horror) has anything to do with what's going on in Salem today.
As for graft, I see less opportunity for that at the moment than I did, say, three years ago. But if it exists, don't expect it to be uncovered, by anyone, ever. That is not how things are done in Portland, Oregon.
The quality of priority-setting isn't likely to improve much, if at all, under enhanced City Council oversight. But at least there would be one more avenue for the public to find out what's going on.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 8, 2007 12:58 PM
I just posted extensive new questions and analysis on my blog on this topic, too long to put in Jack's comments.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | May 8, 2007 1:27 PM
I have it on good authority that the State Senate won't be taking the bill any further until after the dust settles on the election.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 8, 2007 1:29 PM
Jack, I hope you're right.
Randy, you've spilled a lot of ink here, but seem to be missing the fundamental question:
If there is even a possibility that HB 3104 could trump 26-92, then why would you push for the consideration of 3104 before the election? Why should anyone give a damn what you're "confident of" regarding the electorate's opinion, when we will have a decisive answer next week?
If there's a good possibility, as you suggest, of litigation, that only compounds your apparent disregard for the process you set in motion with an apparent willingness to waste tax dollars on potentially senseless litigation.
Posted by Pete Forsyth | May 8, 2007 2:18 PM
The difference is that you elected the City Council, but the Mayor appointed the PDC Board. It's not a minor difference.
I meant that there is NO difference on what the money is spent on. Whatever it is, its not going to help Portland, and most likely the voters dont want it.
Posted by Jon | May 8, 2007 3:17 PM
Let's see. Potter selected all the current members of the PDC, most of whom have close relationships, connections and even friendships with developers. After two years, Potter curiously has sought to give a number of developers what they want; often ignoring the pleas of neighborhood activists (and mayor Bud Clark) who helped get him elected. And developers are providing financial support to Potter's rush to change the city charter (when voter turnout is traditionally low).
Makes you curious and suspicious...
Posted by Shadow | May 8, 2007 3:45 PM