This just in from our spies in the Portland Parks Bureau:
From: Stites, Nancy On Behalf Of Santner, Zari
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:27 PM
To: Parks - Parks and Rec All
Subject: Mt. Tabor Resolution
Tomorrow, September 26, at 10:30 a.m., Portland Parks & Recreation and the Mt Tabor community will jointly go before the City Council with a
resolution that didn't seem possible a few months ago. Through extensive
mediation, PP&R staff and the community have forged a partnership to
update the Mt Tabor master plan, which will include the 20 acres that
house the Central Maintenance Yard, the Horticultural area, and the long
blocks.
If Council passes the resolution, we will then seek the funds to update
the master plan, keeping the Central Maintenance Yard and Horticultural
elements in place at Mt Tabor. We will look at how, through design, we can
improve efficiencies, honor the historical significances of the site,
incorporate safety measures, and sustainable practices. Also through the
design, we may have room for other features, such as a south entrance into the park.
I want to assure you that a public and staff involvement plan is in place
as part of the update and you will be involved if you wish. Expect to
hear more about this plan soon.
That must really pump up Francesconi's valuable reputation. Former Parks Commissioner can't even swing a rotten deal to get Warmer Pacific a soccer field on the cheap, with help from Portland taxpayers.
Does this mean the Warmer Pacific will now be moving? They did say that unless they got the soccer field, they'd have to move out of the city....
With respect to Warner Pacific, I heard a rumor late last Spring that they may acquire the land under the now former Kellogg Middle School at 69th and Powell (I attended elementary and then middle school there in the 1970s). It would make sense because it is relatively close (~5 to 6 six block straight over to Division) to their current campus and there is plenty of empty land in the front and the back to build on.
I find it sad that a commenter would decide to wish an institution of higher learning would move out of Portland because, presumeably, he doesn't agree with the fact that it is a Christian college.
I personally think the city should have sold the land to Warner Pacific so that it could expand its campus and bring another higher education choice for young men and women in the city and state and region and nation. I'll concede defeat on that score.
I do hope hilsy is correct and that there is an alternative for Warner Pacific to expand near its current site in Portland.
Is that just a passing comment or do you actually know something about the plan? If so then explainn to us please how the assertion is as you say "bulls**t".
Is that just a passing comment or do you actually know something about the plan? If so then explainn to us please how the assertion is as you say "bulls**t".
In an effort to satisfy your, no doubt, innocent curiosity, I'll explainn to all of you (what's with the "us" - royal "we"; or do you speak for others unnamed?) thus:
It was a snide comment based on past, documented, "secret" negotiations involving Santner's office and the Mt. Tabor property. Once burned, twice shy and all that.
Whether or not her earnest assurance reflects what's actually in the "plan", it seems prudent, in light of recent history, to be skeptical.
Where to start. Well the "us" merely meant the rest of the people who visit here and was not an attempt to project myself as some kind of higher personage. (Although like Jack I am entitled to be addressed as both Doctor and Esquire.)
Next, it looked to me that once burned by the lack of process in her decision making, Zari went back and did it "right" (or at least how the neighborhoods wanted the planning to happen.). Thus I was wondering if I was mistaken. That is did you know that the plan was done without sufficient process or were you just being "skeptical" based on your past history with Zari and the Parks Bureau.
First, I did not "wish WP out of Portland". I asked if WP was going to live up to the threat they made to the city and their neighbors.
But, I would not mind if they pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere after watching their very unchristian pronouncements and actions during this whole imbroglio. First, they spent good money to hire the former commissioner of Portland Parks Bureau, one James Francesconi, as their legal representative in attempting to purchase the land without any public input.
Then they pulled cheap tricks like the threat to pull up stakes if they didn't get their way and making half-baked promises about "joint-use" if it were their property.
If the actions of the Warner Pacific administration in this attempt to privatize public park property is any indication of the type of exemplars they intend to offer the students at Warner Pacific, then good riddance. We don't need another institution that is hypocritical about its mission and presents itself as something it is not. We don't need any more lying Christians; we've had all too many of those of late.
If it's "Christian", what ever happened to the admonition to "love thy neighbor as thyself"?
I guess Warner Pacific loved its neighbors so much, they did everything they could to hide it from them, grease the wheels with influence, attempt an end-run around public policy, and pull a fast one that they knew the neighbors wouldn't accept quietly. That's not Christian, that's just sleazy.
To Warner Pacific: If you're leaving, don't let the door hit you on the a** on the way out. If you're not, clean up your act and walk your talk. Your credibility as a "Christian institution" has been badly tarnished by your own actions in this affair.
Who do you think you are anyway? You have no business saying Warner Pacific won't share a soccer field when you don't know (and neither do I). I can only go on what they have said they intended to do. Get your comment in order before you open your preverbial keyboard hole.
You discredit a school like Warner Pacific because it was trying to get something to share with the community and used its knowhow to do it. I know of many people who use the schools parking lot for their park purposes and who have dogs who take dumps in the green areas in front of the school that Warner owns. Warner also invites the community in on many days during the year and really is a place for the community surrounding it. If you want to fault someone, fault the city who couldn't look past its own incompetence to realize the citizens wanted input.
What I find most ironic is you want a maintenance yard preserved. Keep your stupid maintenance yard. Maybe you can use it to house the community golf carts or the gardening tools for the entire county that we can check out on a library system. Notice that she never mentions getting rid of the yard, just improving efficiencies.
What you lose here is much more. You lose a school that has its students rent a lot of off campus housing and work to maintain the area. You lose a class of people who don't put graffiti and endanger your lives when they walk around the neighborhoods. You also gain an eyesore in the old campus sitting idle. All you have done is hastened your own demise as a neighborhood by killing one of its mainstays which I find idiotic and negligent as a community.
I know park space is at a premium, so you all should have talked to Warner as a community, gotten a written agreement with guaranteed shared use and allowed them to stay.
You get a commitment from Warner Pacific to put up the money to transform the maintenance yard into a soccer field (including covering the cost of building and maintaining alternate storage facilities for the park equipment) and gift it to the city. The property will then remain part of the city park assets and Warner Pacific can schedule use of the field from the CoP Parks Bureau.
How's that grab you?
No need for the city to give up any land, and everybody gets a soccer field that is part of the public domain, not part of some private institutional holding that can be denied public access and/or turned into high-priced condos at the whim of the board of directors at WP.
The point is, once that premium park space becomes private, the private owner can do whatever they please with it. Not so as dedicated park land....although former commissioner Francesconi seems to think he can get the city to sell it for a song....and Francesconi did that at the behest of WP, not the people of the city of Portland. WP made the approach to the misguided administrators of the Portland Parks Bureau through their former boss. It was very nearly a fiat exchange, with only a few well-connected folks in the loop. I can only extend what has been less than transparent dealings on the part of WP to what they would do in the future.
I'm not impressed.
I think Warner Pacific leadership would be happier with their institution in Newark, New Jersey.
Y'know, the land that Warner Pacific sits on should, by all rights, be part of Mt. Tabor Park.
I wonder if it's a sleazy story about how it came to a private owner, rather than being part and parcel of the regional park that it abuts.
If Warner Pacific does decide to move, they should gift the property to the City of Portland for park property. That would be the Christian thing to do.
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 (13)
kum bay friggin ya!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdO3R5MlbxA
Posted by Frank | September 25, 2007 7:11 PM
ORLY?
That must really pump up Francesconi's valuable reputation. Former Parks Commissioner can't even swing a rotten deal to get Warmer Pacific a soccer field on the cheap, with help from Portland taxpayers.
Does this mean the Warmer Pacific will now be moving? They did say that unless they got the soccer field, they'd have to move out of the city....
Darn!
Posted by godfry | September 25, 2007 8:56 PM
With respect to Warner Pacific, I heard a rumor late last Spring that they may acquire the land under the now former Kellogg Middle School at 69th and Powell (I attended elementary and then middle school there in the 1970s). It would make sense because it is relatively close (~5 to 6 six block straight over to Division) to their current campus and there is plenty of empty land in the front and the back to build on.
Posted by hilsy | September 25, 2007 9:04 PM
I find it sad that a commenter would decide to wish an institution of higher learning would move out of Portland because, presumeably, he doesn't agree with the fact that it is a Christian college.
I personally think the city should have sold the land to Warner Pacific so that it could expand its campus and bring another higher education choice for young men and women in the city and state and region and nation. I'll concede defeat on that score.
I do hope hilsy is correct and that there is an alternative for Warner Pacific to expand near its current site in Portland.
Posted by Urban Planning Overlord | September 25, 2007 11:32 PM
Christian college...higher education?
Surely you jest, sir!
Posted by KISS | September 26, 2007 6:15 AM
I want to assure you that a public and staff involvement plan is in place
as part of the update and you will be involved if you wish.
I want to assure you that that's bulls**t.
Posted by rr | September 26, 2007 10:51 AM
*I want to assure you that that's bulls**t.*
Is that just a passing comment or do you actually know something about the plan? If so then explainn to us please how the assertion is as you say "bulls**t".
Greg C
Posted by Greg C | September 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Is that just a passing comment or do you actually know something about the plan? If so then explainn to us please how the assertion is as you say "bulls**t".
In an effort to satisfy your, no doubt, innocent curiosity, I'll explainn to all of you (what's with the "us" - royal "we"; or do you speak for others unnamed?) thus:
It was a snide comment based on past, documented, "secret" negotiations involving Santner's office and the Mt. Tabor property. Once burned, twice shy and all that.
Whether or not her earnest assurance reflects what's actually in the "plan", it seems prudent, in light of recent history, to be skeptical.
Or don't you think so?
...and if not, why not?
Posted by rr | September 26, 2007 3:35 PM
Where to start. Well the "us" merely meant the rest of the people who visit here and was not an attempt to project myself as some kind of higher personage. (Although like Jack I am entitled to be addressed as both Doctor and Esquire.)
Next, it looked to me that once burned by the lack of process in her decision making, Zari went back and did it "right" (or at least how the neighborhoods wanted the planning to happen.). Thus I was wondering if I was mistaken. That is did you know that the plan was done without sufficient process or were you just being "skeptical" based on your past history with Zari and the Parks Bureau.
Greg C
Posted by Greg C | September 26, 2007 6:56 PM
UPO ~
You assume incorrectly.
First, I did not "wish WP out of Portland". I asked if WP was going to live up to the threat they made to the city and their neighbors.
But, I would not mind if they pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere after watching their very unchristian pronouncements and actions during this whole imbroglio. First, they spent good money to hire the former commissioner of Portland Parks Bureau, one James Francesconi, as their legal representative in attempting to purchase the land without any public input.
Then they pulled cheap tricks like the threat to pull up stakes if they didn't get their way and making half-baked promises about "joint-use" if it were their property.
If the actions of the Warner Pacific administration in this attempt to privatize public park property is any indication of the type of exemplars they intend to offer the students at Warner Pacific, then good riddance. We don't need another institution that is hypocritical about its mission and presents itself as something it is not. We don't need any more lying Christians; we've had all too many of those of late.
If it's "Christian", what ever happened to the admonition to "love thy neighbor as thyself"?
I guess Warner Pacific loved its neighbors so much, they did everything they could to hide it from them, grease the wheels with influence, attempt an end-run around public policy, and pull a fast one that they knew the neighbors wouldn't accept quietly. That's not Christian, that's just sleazy.
To Warner Pacific: If you're leaving, don't let the door hit you on the a** on the way out. If you're not, clean up your act and walk your talk. Your credibility as a "Christian institution" has been badly tarnished by your own actions in this affair.
Posted by godfry | September 26, 2007 9:50 PM
Godfry,
Who do you think you are anyway? You have no business saying Warner Pacific won't share a soccer field when you don't know (and neither do I). I can only go on what they have said they intended to do. Get your comment in order before you open your preverbial keyboard hole.
You discredit a school like Warner Pacific because it was trying to get something to share with the community and used its knowhow to do it. I know of many people who use the schools parking lot for their park purposes and who have dogs who take dumps in the green areas in front of the school that Warner owns. Warner also invites the community in on many days during the year and really is a place for the community surrounding it. If you want to fault someone, fault the city who couldn't look past its own incompetence to realize the citizens wanted input.
What I find most ironic is you want a maintenance yard preserved. Keep your stupid maintenance yard. Maybe you can use it to house the community golf carts or the gardening tools for the entire county that we can check out on a library system. Notice that she never mentions getting rid of the yard, just improving efficiencies.
What you lose here is much more. You lose a school that has its students rent a lot of off campus housing and work to maintain the area. You lose a class of people who don't put graffiti and endanger your lives when they walk around the neighborhoods. You also gain an eyesore in the old campus sitting idle. All you have done is hastened your own demise as a neighborhood by killing one of its mainstays which I find idiotic and negligent as a community.
I know park space is at a premium, so you all should have talked to Warner as a community, gotten a written agreement with guaranteed shared use and allowed them to stay.
Posted by Stephen | September 27, 2007 3:44 AM
I'll tell you what, Stephen.
You get a commitment from Warner Pacific to put up the money to transform the maintenance yard into a soccer field (including covering the cost of building and maintaining alternate storage facilities for the park equipment) and gift it to the city. The property will then remain part of the city park assets and Warner Pacific can schedule use of the field from the CoP Parks Bureau.
How's that grab you?
No need for the city to give up any land, and everybody gets a soccer field that is part of the public domain, not part of some private institutional holding that can be denied public access and/or turned into high-priced condos at the whim of the board of directors at WP.
The point is, once that premium park space becomes private, the private owner can do whatever they please with it. Not so as dedicated park land....although former commissioner Francesconi seems to think he can get the city to sell it for a song....and Francesconi did that at the behest of WP, not the people of the city of Portland. WP made the approach to the misguided administrators of the Portland Parks Bureau through their former boss. It was very nearly a fiat exchange, with only a few well-connected folks in the loop. I can only extend what has been less than transparent dealings on the part of WP to what they would do in the future.
I'm not impressed.
I think Warner Pacific leadership would be happier with their institution in Newark, New Jersey.
Posted by godfry | September 27, 2007 3:11 PM
Y'know, the land that Warner Pacific sits on should, by all rights, be part of Mt. Tabor Park.
I wonder if it's a sleazy story about how it came to a private owner, rather than being part and parcel of the regional park that it abuts.
If Warner Pacific does decide to move, they should gift the property to the City of Portland for park property. That would be the Christian thing to do.
Posted by godfry | September 27, 2007 4:46 PM