This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 27, 2007 11:20 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Who has seen enough?.
The next post in this blog is Semantics question.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
How many bureaucrats does it take to sell out Parks?
The push to commercialize the Portland parks continues apace. Now they're recruiting a new "senior management analyst," at up to $78,000 a year plus benefits, to serve as a "sponsorship coordinator."
Sheesh, the parks bureau already has a manager of strategy, finance and business development, and a manager of marketing and business development. How many "senior" people do we really need for the misguided task of sticking corporate names on park facilities? I'd rather see them buy a few more swing sets.
To complete your application, please state which big-money West Hills family you are connected to, and include three letters from members of the Arlington Club. Thank you.
Like "money for schools", "money for parks" goes for payroll first and books, computers, swings (and other, inherently dangerous) playground equipment), etc. second. When it comes to "human resources", the more the merrier.
Just don't question the system. There are more of them than us - or soon will be.
Oh yes, more grist for the gripe mill. See, you can criticize the City when there is inadequate oversight, and criticize the City when it wants more oversight. Criticize the City if it has bad public relations or "marketing" (in this case, to increase private contributions to maintenance of public spaces), and criticize it when it wants to devote staffing resources to getting private sponsorships. The gripe mill is just a wonderful thing, as long as all you're looking to do is gripe.
And I suppose when a "big money West Hills family" gets a park named in its honor, the gripe will be about the naming, and ignore the likely six-figure gift associated with the family.
Jon, there's a lot to gripe about. Parks is scrambling for help through sponsorship, donations, increased SDCs, even seeking more inmates to work where our children play! This year alone, parks spent millions on postage-stamp parks in the URAs, but negotiated privately to give away prized land in Mt. Tabor.
Parks wouldn't need to pay ineffective, overpriced, conflicted-out consultants to drum up philanthropy if it was a good steward of public resources. Nobody wants to give anything if the donee is going to turn around and waste the gift. If some philanthropic West Hills family wants to give their money to Dike Dame, or give their land to Warner Pacific, they can do that directly without using parks as the middle-man.
I don't see this as griping but as protesting a city government which is acting fiscally irresponsible. How the heck do you change governance if you don't protest somehow, someway? First comes protest (gripes), then maybe miraculously actual change in governance.
What it is is "empire-building". Consider the changes in the Parks Bureau staffing over the past five years. I'd bet that it has become more top heavy and those at the top are earning proportionally more than they were five years ago.
They have more than sufficient administrative personnel at this point. They don't need any more. If anything, they need is DIFFERENT administrative personnel. Ones who would be more attentive to the maintenance and upkeep of existing park facilities and programs, instead of pimping for hideously expensive new parks in developers' pockets and a narcissitic "legacy".
If they'd focus on what they were supposed to be doing, they wouldn't NEED a marketing person.
Sheesh.... How come no one ever considers that this position may be a good idea? I attended the Parks budget meeting and sorry, I didn't see any fat cat bureaucrats, just a bunch of folks trying to do their best with a relatively small budget. Sure,hold their feet to the fire, but reflexive nay saying is kind of boring and not that productive. If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing.
jhbjrpdx writes: "If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing."
Yes, but no one forces us to pay for it. Are dollars can always be spent elsewhere. Not so with government.
No you're right. You could choose to starve or raise you're own food rather than pay for the advertising and expensive packaging on that package of corn flakes.
Of course you could also move to someplace like rural Idaho where you wouldn't have to put up with this type of government either.
As you can tell I sort of support jhbr here. A little more thoughtful analysis rather than "boy these morons are picking my pocket again." speils would improve the threads.
"Sheesh.... How come no one ever considers that this position may be a good idea?
Um...Recent experience?
I attended the Parks budget meeting and sorry, I didn't see any fat cat bureaucrats, just a bunch of folks trying to do their best with a relatively small budget.
So, Zari and Robin weren't there? Or, you didn't recognize them as "fat cat bureaucrats"? Actually, I'd say that was an inaccurate label; I'd suggest "lickspittle lap dogs to non-bureaucratic fat cats" would be far more accurate. As in developer fat cats and their construction friends.
So, what miniscule portion of the total Parks and Recreation Bureau budget were they dabbling with? Did you happen to know that it was so small because major portions of it have been bled off of the operations budget to engage in such shenanigans as the unnecessary purchase of exceedingly overpriced brownfields in the SoWhat district so that Homer could build condos on the designated park space? Was that mentioned at all during that budget session? I suspect that what you saw was the window-dressing facade of public involvement.
Sure,hold their feet to the fire, but reflexive nay saying is kind of boring and not that productive.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that official malfeasance and fiduciary irresponsibility on the part of our public officials is boring and unproductive. That the situation has degraded to the current debacle of public funding is probably due to all too many other citizens who feel the same.
"Dumb citizens are the riches of municipal plunderers."
If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing.
Only if you buy the products and services of those companies. Luckily, not all private firms operate in that fashion. When they do, and I know about it, I generally terminated my dealings with such firms immediately. I don't have that luxury with my government officials who swing public projects bid out to friends and family.
I guess if you don't object when abused, you must enjoy the abuse, eh?
Might it also be that you don't object because you intend to personally gain from a "marketing" position in Parks?
This position was in the policy on sponsorships and namings reviewed in public process this spring and summer, and adopted by Council after a couple of public hearings. My link there includes a quote from the Parks manager who gave citizens opportunities to review it, saying the position brings in more money than it costs.
I think the time to protest the funding of the position was during that process, rather than now it's finally being filled.
The fact that there were meetings I didn't go to doesn't change my opinion: If Zari, Grimwad and Nice Guy Schulz can't get park sponsorship done without another $78,000 position, they should all be fired.
jhbjrpdx sez: A hat tip to you for fighting global warming by never putting gasoline in your autos. Well done mate.
You're welcome.
Just out of curiosity, what local gasoline vendors are generating excessive waste in personnel costs? Is this waste avoidable? My impression is that most pump jockeys are at or near minimum wage. Perhaps it is in reference to hiring higher up the food chain in the retail fuel bidness? And, if you're going to pull out that old saw about having station attendants pushing up the cost of the product, why is it that gasoline in the state of Washington has been on par, or even in excess of the per gallon cost in Oregon of late?
Just for clarification, I don't put gasoline in my autos, because I have only one. That one stays parked in front of my house most of the time. I do use petrol, but it's limited to one tank (~18 gallons) per month.
Amanda and others: Is it good policy for the Parks Bureau to plan for parks in new URAs in the early stages, then wait 5 to 10 years to then purchase the necessary land for the identified parks after the infrastructure, (paid by taxpayers) are in place that raises substantially the value of the land to be purchased?
This is exactly what has occurred in The Pearl and SoWhat. For example, the PoodlePark-Grand Lawn raw land cost $7.2M plus brownfield cleanup costs three years after the park site was moved from near the river to the SW Moody site. In that time the land valuation tripled in cost. This park has been known by the Parks Bureau as a requirement for almost 10 years before today.
Same has happened at the two completed parks in The Pearl and the future RiverMeadows Park and River Front Park. This kind of "planning" has turned out to be a "payback" to developers that have enjoyed the land inflation at taxpayer's expense. For me, that is why I agree with Jack's scepticisms. Besides the several "senior management positions", we then have to pay for another media spinmeister "senior" to exlain and give us reasons for the Parks decisions afer the real decisions are made in the backrooms.
Is it good policy for the Parks Bureau to plan for parks in new URAs in the early stages, then wait 5 to 10 years to then purchase the necessary land for the identified parks after the infrastructure, (paid by taxpayers) are in place that raises substantially the value of the land to be purchased?
No, of course that isn't a reasonable way to do it, Jerry. You know how hard you, I, and others worked just to get the parks planned in South Waterfront. Purchasing the land should have been one of the first action items on the To Do list after the Council passed the plan.
Jack, the position being posted has been funded (for this purpose) for years. It's finally being filled, instead of using it in the shell game of "vacant" positions funding other work. With the policy on sponsorships now much tighter, with set public process built in, it seems to me there might be value in someone one step further away from the political powers implementing it. And in citizens knowing who that person is, compared with previous naming/sponsorship processing when it wasn't entirely clear who was making the decisions and how.
Amanda, you might want to consider applying for the parks position while you run for council. Either way the taxpayers would have a new perspectives, even though we might disagree on some points.
The Parks are the riches of the city, the trees in our Parks help clean the air. Downtown Portland could us a few more parks, it's sandwiched between two major freeways. Freeways pollute and cause asthma.
You forgot to add the Portland Parks Foundation, I believe they raised something like $700,000 for Amanda's park that just opened in SW. I believe they also were behind the Tim Boyle contribution. How do the goals of the the foundation jibe with the goals of Marketing and Business development.
sponsorship of public lands is one more perverse surrender of power to corporate entities for...cash. so we can depend on corporations to fund what little is left of unbuilt land?
but, i suppose, the fool believes what the wise man reasons away.
when we're fighting just to preserve patches of grass and trees within the city, we're lost.
it's already too late when the loudest environmental argument about South Waterfront was "how wide should the greenway be?" as if it really matters how wide it is...it's a strip, artificially constructed to appease one side and provide "nature" views for the other.
"nature" becomes parks. "nature" becomes parking strips. meanwhile, decisions about what constitutes "the environment" are made by people sealed up inside several million ton towers of concrete and glass, sitting under artificial lights in narrow cubicles, poring over a GIS printout, the nearest "nature" being a potted plant down the hall. so abstractly removed from "nature" so as to make the entire process absurd.
So ecohuman thinks the problem is that parks are not nature. It's why Central Park is such an abysmal failure? As someone who sits in an office building all day, I have somehow managed (i.e. it's not really very hard) to experience and appreciate a wide range of Portland parks: the Blues Festival on Waterfront park is amazing, and couldn't really be held in the wild; Wildwood trail, yeah; the greenways (yes, paved paths, which thousands of people get to enjoy, being outside); Forest Park, some rugged, some pretty refined; Mt. Tabor, pretty sculpted, but with huge beautiful firs. There's little that's environmentally sound in terms of untouched ... Bull Run the closest nearby? But take your blinders, or your two-eyed pirate patch off if you think parks are bad in Portland.
As for "J"'s earlier post: "negotiated privately to give away prized land in Mt. Tabor" ... yes, negotiated privately, but brought out into the public; not prized land (fringe Tabor land, used by the City, if it was actually part of Tabor, it would be the equivalent of the dump or the railroad tracks), and not "to give away."
I really miss b!X drilling down into this stuff (regardless of whether I always agreed with him), e.g.: (1) comparison of park employees (including management) with a private firm and a non-profit, and measure efficiencies (but taking into account the added "transparency" burden that is placed on government; (2) drill down into public-private partnerships in parks, including the foundation question posed in an earlier comment; (3) get some good numbers on park usage; ... I always found b!X to be the king of that kind of research.
So ecohuman thinks the problem is that parks are not nature
no. you completely missed my point, unfortunately. but, i've noticed that your posts consist almost entirely of telling other posters what's wrong with them.
let me clarify a bit. it's not about whether or not parks are "appreciated" by folks like you--it's about the progessive disappearance (and consistent attack on) such spaces, andthat the discussion about what constitutes "environment" continues to be narrowed down to discussions like the width of greenways and the number of trees on a lot.
so, while you're "appreciating", pollution worsens, superfund sites grow, the river gets dirtier, Mt Hood development expands, parks and community gardens decrease in size...shall i go on?
in other words, Jonathan, it's not about whether or not what exists is "enjoyed". it's about something far bigger.
I think the time to protest the funding of the position was during that process, rather than now it's finally being filled.
See Jack, you're griping is illegitimate since it comes too late in the "process".
How anyone can invoke that stuff with a straight face when discussing the whimsical, pandering, spur-of-the-moment machinations (hah!) of this city's mayor, council and bureaucracy is beyond me.
Well, eco, the problem with your getting on a stump at this point is that the south waterfront has not been anything remotely like pristine or natural for many, many decades. Nothing about what Portland Parks is doing has any remote relationship to taking truly natural spaces and turning them into greenways. Which means that decrying the present situation (e.g. people working in highrise buildings), adds absolutely nothing to an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces.
If, however, there was some reason to believe that Portland Parks was taking more pristine areas, grassifying them and putting in playground equipment, then I'm with you.
"an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces."
Isn't this what the Parks Foundation and their staff are tasked with? As a non-profit they have an audit trail that can make sure how the money is spent.
Well, eco, the problem with your getting on a stump at this point is that the south waterfront has not been anything remotely like pristine or natural for many, many decades.
the logic of using previous conditions as justification for any future "improvement" is nonsensical to me. as if it being "far from pristine" makes any environmental improvement at all "good".
Which means that decrying the present situation (e.g. people working in highrise buildings), adds absolutely nothing to an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces.
i disagree--it's all related. and i'm still waiting for you to add your own opinion to the discussion--that is, your own original thought, not thinly veiled ad hominems against those willing to share their own opinions. make sense?
1. This post seems to me to be a gratuitous attack on a government hiring action, without any real analysis of cost vs. benefit.
2. A more fruitful discussion (as opposed to griping in the ether) would involve statistics/research, etc. like b!X used to do (I listed three points above). Personally, I have neither the time nor resourcefulness (and frankly, don't have his skills, IMHO) to do it, but wish someone else could/would pick up his mantle.
3. If we can get corporate/private contributions to public parks, e.g. Nike funding tracks or basketball courts (which it does a lot), and get those from non-traditional sources (i.e. not necessarily sports companies) it would be a good thing. Having done a decent amount of volunteer fundraising, there are easy asks (e.g. Nike for sports fields) and hard asks (e.g. local business improving a nearby park just to be a good citizen). Hit-and-miss fundraising is not as effective as coordinated fundraising, and a staff person is a crucial part of coordinated fundraising. I say this not as someone who was even remotely involved with this process -- the point seems pretty obvious.
4. If Meg (first post) will do the job for the salary range, and is qualified, I hope she applies.
5. Public/private contributions to parks is a good thing. I don't like the costs coming out of South Waterfront, and I continue to turn my head a little at the parking garage/park on SW Park, but I like it when people try to do different things.
6. It is tempting for politicians to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, when there are inevitably naysayers out there to attack every expenditure. But non-public entities do this kind of hiring all the time, because it works. And I'm glad for this decision.
7. Based on Amanda's point, I'm disappointed that the hire wasn't done immediately upon approval.
John Radmacher, I am glad you are positive, but in actuality your posts are also critical in the same vane you accuse others of being.
To be fair to Jack, many of his posts go beyond "griping in the ether". For example, consider his time spent researching the "Portland Debt"; that is certainly similar to b!x's efforts. And why don't you elaborate on your call for "real analysis of costs vs. benefit" for this position?
J.R., cost benefit analysis like you're talking about is a red herring in this situation.
Of course, as you wrote, it is likely that this contractor will persuade corporate sponsors to flow more than $78,000 per year to to the Parks department. The position will probably pay for itself, but that doesn't mean it's a good deal for the city.
If the Parks department otherwise used its resources wisely, then paying a contractor like this wouldn't be a problem. But donors/sponsors can smell a spendthrift's desperation. They see the Parks department struggling to maintain what is has, getting ensnared in bad deals every week, and using its resources to help the well-connected. Then, in that context, they see that their money goes to pay administrative expenses like the cost of this contractor. This mix is a big turn-off for philanthropists.
When organizations try to substitute marketing and puffery for common sense and good planning, it never works out. The commenters sense this, just like prospective sponsors will, which is why there's griping in the ether.
JR
"If we can get corporate/private contributions to public parks"
That's all well and good, and who would oppose sponsorships?,
but the track record around here signals that would be an invitation to keep diverting park money to illegitimate uses and even more as sponsorship monies arrived.
As far as any "real analysis of cost vs. benefit" goes?
What a waste of time. I can't imagine how that would possible impact anything at city hall. It's wouldn't even be read let alone considered.
I mean when the city ignores all real analysis of cost vs. benefit related to 100s of millions in wasteful Urban Renewal spending why would they show any interest in one 78K position?
Get real man.
And you seem to be a little confused on some of the ciy's activities.
Parks recently divereted $4 million from their general fund to help bail out SoWa's spiralling down drain fiscal mess.
If you would endevor to gain a clearer understanding of the extent of the politicians penny-wise/pound-foolish activities you may becomes a naysayer attacking most major expenditures.
A belated correction to Swimmer's post - the Holly Farm Park isn't "Amanda's park". It came to be because of a true collaboration between the Parks Bureau, the Parks Foundation, the neighborhood, and a host of other public and private entities. In fact, it's a model for how to partner philanthropy with community involvement and government cooperation. No corporate logos there, just a modest plaque listing donors and volunteers. And in record time, with a relatively modest investment of city money, a wonderful new park is operational in a neighborhood where 45% of the elementary school kids get free school lunches.
Amanda it IS Your Park in your neighborhood, just as the very same Park belongs equally to the 45% of the kids who do get free lunch and the 55% that do not. The beauty of Parks and public spaces is the ownership of them by the people. In order to get the neighborhood to "own" their parks we need to celebrate that.
Thanks for your clarification, Swimmer. You're right, I hope every Portlander thinks "that's MY park" of the Holly Farm Park. And all Portland's other public places, too. Some staff in the Parks bureau have a disturbing practice of calling citizens their "customers". We are patrons and co-owners, not customers. Sometimes we are customers of programs that require additional purchases, such as swimming lessons, but all the time the parks belong to all the people.
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 (47)
I will do it for 58,692.
Posted by meg | November 27, 2007 11:35 AM
To complete your application, please state which big-money West Hills family you are connected to, and include three letters from members of the Arlington Club. Thank you.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 27, 2007 11:39 AM
Like "money for schools", "money for parks" goes for payroll first and books, computers, swings (and other, inherently dangerous) playground equipment), etc. second. When it comes to "human resources", the more the merrier.
Just don't question the system. There are more of them than us - or soon will be.
P.S. Don't tell anyone.
Posted by cc | November 27, 2007 11:44 AM
Oh yes, more grist for the gripe mill. See, you can criticize the City when there is inadequate oversight, and criticize the City when it wants more oversight. Criticize the City if it has bad public relations or "marketing" (in this case, to increase private contributions to maintenance of public spaces), and criticize it when it wants to devote staffing resources to getting private sponsorships. The gripe mill is just a wonderful thing, as long as all you're looking to do is gripe.
And I suppose when a "big money West Hills family" gets a park named in its honor, the gripe will be about the naming, and ignore the likely six-figure gift associated with the family.
Posted by Jonathan Radmacher | November 27, 2007 1:11 PM
Jon, there's a lot to gripe about. Parks is scrambling for help through sponsorship, donations, increased SDCs, even seeking more inmates to work where our children play! This year alone, parks spent millions on postage-stamp parks in the URAs, but negotiated privately to give away prized land in Mt. Tabor.
Parks wouldn't need to pay ineffective, overpriced, conflicted-out consultants to drum up philanthropy if it was a good steward of public resources. Nobody wants to give anything if the donee is going to turn around and waste the gift. If some philanthropic West Hills family wants to give their money to Dike Dame, or give their land to Warner Pacific, they can do that directly without using parks as the middle-man.
Posted by J | November 27, 2007 2:00 PM
I don't see this as griping but as protesting a city government which is acting fiscally irresponsible. How the heck do you change governance if you don't protest somehow, someway? First comes protest (gripes), then maybe miraculously actual change in governance.
Posted by Bob Clark | November 27, 2007 2:00 PM
J,
Extremely well put.
I'm jealous.
Posted by cc | November 27, 2007 2:05 PM
Damn those fat cats! Those clowns at city hall have done it again. What a bunch of clowns.
Posted by Casey | November 27, 2007 2:16 PM
On the point.
What it is is "empire-building". Consider the changes in the Parks Bureau staffing over the past five years. I'd bet that it has become more top heavy and those at the top are earning proportionally more than they were five years ago.
They have more than sufficient administrative personnel at this point. They don't need any more. If anything, they need is DIFFERENT administrative personnel. Ones who would be more attentive to the maintenance and upkeep of existing park facilities and programs, instead of pimping for hideously expensive new parks in developers' pockets and a narcissitic "legacy".
If they'd focus on what they were supposed to be doing, they wouldn't NEED a marketing person.
Posted by godfry | November 27, 2007 2:16 PM
Sheesh.... How come no one ever considers that this position may be a good idea? I attended the Parks budget meeting and sorry, I didn't see any fat cat bureaucrats, just a bunch of folks trying to do their best with a relatively small budget. Sure,hold their feet to the fire, but reflexive nay saying is kind of boring and not that productive. If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing.
Posted by jhbjrpdx | November 27, 2007 2:38 PM
jhbjrpdx writes: "If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing."
Yes, but no one forces us to pay for it. Are dollars can always be spent elsewhere. Not so with government.
BGTI
Posted by Better Government thru Intimidation | November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing.
But...
...we're not compelled to.
Posted by cc | November 27, 2007 3:36 PM
****we're not compelled to.*****
No you're right. You could choose to starve or raise you're own food rather than pay for the advertising and expensive packaging on that package of corn flakes.
Of course you could also move to someplace like rural Idaho where you wouldn't have to put up with this type of government either.
As you can tell I sort of support jhbr here. A little more thoughtful analysis rather than "boy these morons are picking my pocket again." speils would improve the threads.
JMHO
Greg C
Posted by Greg C | November 27, 2007 3:56 PM
If Zari, Grimwad and Nice Guy Schulz can't get park sponsorship done without another $78,000 position, they should all be fired.
Yeah, that's a gripe. A legitimate one.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 27, 2007 4:09 PM
jhbjrpdx sez:
"Sheesh.... How come no one ever considers that this position may be a good idea?
Um...Recent experience?
I attended the Parks budget meeting and sorry, I didn't see any fat cat bureaucrats, just a bunch of folks trying to do their best with a relatively small budget.
So, Zari and Robin weren't there? Or, you didn't recognize them as "fat cat bureaucrats"? Actually, I'd say that was an inaccurate label; I'd suggest "lickspittle lap dogs to non-bureaucratic fat cats" would be far more accurate. As in developer fat cats and their construction friends.
So, what miniscule portion of the total Parks and Recreation Bureau budget were they dabbling with? Did you happen to know that it was so small because major portions of it have been bled off of the operations budget to engage in such shenanigans as the unnecessary purchase of exceedingly overpriced brownfields in the SoWhat district so that Homer could build condos on the designated park space? Was that mentioned at all during that budget session? I suspect that what you saw was the window-dressing facade of public involvement.
Sure,hold their feet to the fire, but reflexive nay saying is kind of boring and not that productive.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that official malfeasance and fiduciary irresponsibility on the part of our public officials is boring and unproductive. That the situation has degraded to the current debacle of public funding is probably due to all too many other citizens who feel the same.
"Dumb citizens are the riches of municipal plunderers."
If you want to laugh about waste, check out the jobs websites for many of the local private companies. They really put government to shame. And, btw, we pay for the waste to in product and service pricing.
Only if you buy the products and services of those companies. Luckily, not all private firms operate in that fashion. When they do, and I know about it, I generally terminated my dealings with such firms immediately. I don't have that luxury with my government officials who swing public projects bid out to friends and family.
I guess if you don't object when abused, you must enjoy the abuse, eh?
Might it also be that you don't object because you intend to personally gain from a "marketing" position in Parks?
Posted by godfry | November 27, 2007 4:16 PM
"When they do, and I know about it, I generally terminated my dealings with such firms immediately."
A hat tip to you for fighting global warming by never putting gasoline in your autos. Well done mate.
Posted by jhbjrpdx | November 27, 2007 5:09 PM
This position was in the policy on sponsorships and namings reviewed in public process this spring and summer, and adopted by Council after a couple of public hearings. My link there includes a quote from the Parks manager who gave citizens opportunities to review it, saying the position brings in more money than it costs.
I think the time to protest the funding of the position was during that process, rather than now it's finally being filled.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | November 27, 2007 6:08 PM
The fact that there were meetings I didn't go to doesn't change my opinion: If Zari, Grimwad and Nice Guy Schulz can't get park sponsorship done without another $78,000 position, they should all be fired.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 27, 2007 6:16 PM
jhbjrpdx sez: A hat tip to you for fighting global warming by never putting gasoline in your autos. Well done mate.
You're welcome.
Just out of curiosity, what local gasoline vendors are generating excessive waste in personnel costs? Is this waste avoidable? My impression is that most pump jockeys are at or near minimum wage. Perhaps it is in reference to hiring higher up the food chain in the retail fuel bidness? And, if you're going to pull out that old saw about having station attendants pushing up the cost of the product, why is it that gasoline in the state of Washington has been on par, or even in excess of the per gallon cost in Oregon of late?
Just for clarification, I don't put gasoline in my autos, because I have only one. That one stays parked in front of my house most of the time. I do use petrol, but it's limited to one tank (~18 gallons) per month.
Posted by godfry | November 27, 2007 6:58 PM
"saying the position brings in more money than it costs"
(Oh, well hire ten of them).
Hmmm? That's nearly exactly what was said about the cost of SoWa.
Posted by Sandy | November 27, 2007 7:11 PM
Amanda and others: Is it good policy for the Parks Bureau to plan for parks in new URAs in the early stages, then wait 5 to 10 years to then purchase the necessary land for the identified parks after the infrastructure, (paid by taxpayers) are in place that raises substantially the value of the land to be purchased?
This is exactly what has occurred in The Pearl and SoWhat. For example, the PoodlePark-Grand Lawn raw land cost $7.2M plus brownfield cleanup costs three years after the park site was moved from near the river to the SW Moody site. In that time the land valuation tripled in cost. This park has been known by the Parks Bureau as a requirement for almost 10 years before today.
Same has happened at the two completed parks in The Pearl and the future RiverMeadows Park and River Front Park. This kind of "planning" has turned out to be a "payback" to developers that have enjoyed the land inflation at taxpayer's expense. For me, that is why I agree with Jack's scepticisms. Besides the several "senior management positions", we then have to pay for another media spinmeister "senior" to exlain and give us reasons for the Parks decisions afer the real decisions are made in the backrooms.
Posted by Jerry | November 27, 2007 7:12 PM
Is it good policy for the Parks Bureau to plan for parks in new URAs in the early stages, then wait 5 to 10 years to then purchase the necessary land for the identified parks after the infrastructure, (paid by taxpayers) are in place that raises substantially the value of the land to be purchased?
No, of course that isn't a reasonable way to do it, Jerry. You know how hard you, I, and others worked just to get the parks planned in South Waterfront. Purchasing the land should have been one of the first action items on the To Do list after the Council passed the plan.
Jack, the position being posted has been funded (for this purpose) for years. It's finally being filled, instead of using it in the shell game of "vacant" positions funding other work. With the policy on sponsorships now much tighter, with set public process built in, it seems to me there might be value in someone one step further away from the political powers implementing it. And in citizens knowing who that person is, compared with previous naming/sponsorship processing when it wasn't entirely clear who was making the decisions and how.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | November 27, 2007 7:39 PM
Amanda, you might want to consider applying for the parks position while you run for council. Either way the taxpayers would have a new perspectives, even though we might disagree on some points.
Posted by Jerry | November 27, 2007 8:03 PM
The Parks are the riches of the city, the trees in our Parks help clean the air. Downtown Portland could us a few more parks, it's sandwiched between two major freeways. Freeways pollute and cause asthma.
Posted by Randy | November 27, 2007 8:25 PM
Jack,
You forgot to add the Portland Parks Foundation, I believe they raised something like $700,000 for Amanda's park that just opened in SW. I believe they also were behind the Tim Boyle contribution. How do the goals of the the foundation jibe with the goals of Marketing and Business development.
Posted by swimmer | November 27, 2007 9:32 PM
sponsorship of public lands is one more perverse surrender of power to corporate entities for...cash. so we can depend on corporations to fund what little is left of unbuilt land?
but, i suppose, the fool believes what the wise man reasons away.
when we're fighting just to preserve patches of grass and trees within the city, we're lost.
it's already too late when the loudest environmental argument about South Waterfront was "how wide should the greenway be?" as if it really matters how wide it is...it's a strip, artificially constructed to appease one side and provide "nature" views for the other.
"nature" becomes parks. "nature" becomes parking strips. meanwhile, decisions about what constitutes "the environment" are made by people sealed up inside several million ton towers of concrete and glass, sitting under artificial lights in narrow cubicles, poring over a GIS printout, the nearest "nature" being a potted plant down the hall. so abstractly removed from "nature" so as to make the entire process absurd.
Posted by ecohuman.com | November 27, 2007 9:32 PM
So ecohuman thinks the problem is that parks are not nature. It's why Central Park is such an abysmal failure? As someone who sits in an office building all day, I have somehow managed (i.e. it's not really very hard) to experience and appreciate a wide range of Portland parks: the Blues Festival on Waterfront park is amazing, and couldn't really be held in the wild; Wildwood trail, yeah; the greenways (yes, paved paths, which thousands of people get to enjoy, being outside); Forest Park, some rugged, some pretty refined; Mt. Tabor, pretty sculpted, but with huge beautiful firs. There's little that's environmentally sound in terms of untouched ... Bull Run the closest nearby? But take your blinders, or your two-eyed pirate patch off if you think parks are bad in Portland.
As for "J"'s earlier post: "negotiated privately to give away prized land in Mt. Tabor" ... yes, negotiated privately, but brought out into the public; not prized land (fringe Tabor land, used by the City, if it was actually part of Tabor, it would be the equivalent of the dump or the railroad tracks), and not "to give away."
I really miss b!X drilling down into this stuff (regardless of whether I always agreed with him), e.g.: (1) comparison of park employees (including management) with a private firm and a non-profit, and measure efficiencies (but taking into account the added "transparency" burden that is placed on government; (2) drill down into public-private partnerships in parks, including the foundation question posed in an earlier comment; (3) get some good numbers on park usage; ... I always found b!X to be the king of that kind of research.
Posted by Jonathan Radmacher | November 27, 2007 10:01 PM
So ecohuman thinks the problem is that parks are not nature
no. you completely missed my point, unfortunately. but, i've noticed that your posts consist almost entirely of telling other posters what's wrong with them.
let me clarify a bit. it's not about whether or not parks are "appreciated" by folks like you--it's about the progessive disappearance (and consistent attack on) such spaces, andthat the discussion about what constitutes "environment" continues to be narrowed down to discussions like the width of greenways and the number of trees on a lot.
so, while you're "appreciating", pollution worsens, superfund sites grow, the river gets dirtier, Mt Hood development expands, parks and community gardens decrease in size...shall i go on?
in other words, Jonathan, it's not about whether or not what exists is "enjoyed". it's about something far bigger.
Posted by ecohuman.com | November 28, 2007 6:47 AM
I think the time to protest the funding of the position was during that process, rather than now it's finally being filled.
See Jack, you're griping is illegitimate since it comes too late in the "process".
How anyone can invoke that stuff with a straight face when discussing the whimsical, pandering, spur-of-the-moment machinations (hah!) of this city's mayor, council and bureaucracy is beyond me.
Unless they have embraced the darkness;-)
Posted by rr | November 28, 2007 9:47 AM
"Purchasing the land should have been one of the first action items on the To Do list after the Council passed the plan."
You're right Amanda.
But today's O editorial says it was a "carefully and painstakenly negotiated plan".
Posted by Ben | November 28, 2007 9:50 AM
Well, eco, the problem with your getting on a stump at this point is that the south waterfront has not been anything remotely like pristine or natural for many, many decades. Nothing about what Portland Parks is doing has any remote relationship to taking truly natural spaces and turning them into greenways. Which means that decrying the present situation (e.g. people working in highrise buildings), adds absolutely nothing to an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces.
If, however, there was some reason to believe that Portland Parks was taking more pristine areas, grassifying them and putting in playground equipment, then I'm with you.
Posted by Jonathan Radmacher | November 28, 2007 9:55 AM
"an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces."
Isn't this what the Parks Foundation and their staff are tasked with? As a non-profit they have an audit trail that can make sure how the money is spent.
Posted by swimmer | November 28, 2007 10:28 AM
Of course you could also move to someplace like rural Idaho where you wouldn't have to put up with this type of government either.
Portland - Love It or Leave It.
That's the ticket!
Posted by cc | November 28, 2007 10:45 AM
Well, eco, the problem with your getting on a stump at this point is that the south waterfront has not been anything remotely like pristine or natural for many, many decades.
the logic of using previous conditions as justification for any future "improvement" is nonsensical to me. as if it being "far from pristine" makes any environmental improvement at all "good".
Which means that decrying the present situation (e.g. people working in highrise buildings), adds absolutely nothing to an evaluation of whether the City of Portland should hire someone whose entire job is focused on trying to get private contributions to public spaces.
i disagree--it's all related. and i'm still waiting for you to add your own opinion to the discussion--that is, your own original thought, not thinly veiled ad hominems against those willing to share their own opinions. make sense?
Posted by ecohuman.com | November 28, 2007 10:49 AM
and it looks like i'm the guy who got everything going in italics. sorry, folks.
Posted by ecohuman.com | November 28, 2007 10:54 AM
To summarize what I've already said:
1. This post seems to me to be a gratuitous attack on a government hiring action, without any real analysis of cost vs. benefit.
2. A more fruitful discussion (as opposed to griping in the ether) would involve statistics/research, etc. like b!X used to do (I listed three points above). Personally, I have neither the time nor resourcefulness (and frankly, don't have his skills, IMHO) to do it, but wish someone else could/would pick up his mantle.
3. If we can get corporate/private contributions to public parks, e.g. Nike funding tracks or basketball courts (which it does a lot), and get those from non-traditional sources (i.e. not necessarily sports companies) it would be a good thing. Having done a decent amount of volunteer fundraising, there are easy asks (e.g. Nike for sports fields) and hard asks (e.g. local business improving a nearby park just to be a good citizen). Hit-and-miss fundraising is not as effective as coordinated fundraising, and a staff person is a crucial part of coordinated fundraising. I say this not as someone who was even remotely involved with this process -- the point seems pretty obvious.
4. If Meg (first post) will do the job for the salary range, and is qualified, I hope she applies.
5. Public/private contributions to parks is a good thing. I don't like the costs coming out of South Waterfront, and I continue to turn my head a little at the parking garage/park on SW Park, but I like it when people try to do different things.
6. It is tempting for politicians to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, when there are inevitably naysayers out there to attack every expenditure. But non-public entities do this kind of hiring all the time, because it works. And I'm glad for this decision.
7. Based on Amanda's point, I'm disappointed that the hire wasn't done immediately upon approval.
Posted by Jonathan Radmacher | November 28, 2007 11:23 AM
i liked that post, Jonathan. thank you.
i'd only add that i differentiate between corporate "contributions" and "sponsorship".
Posted by ecohuman.com | November 28, 2007 11:34 AM
To summarize what I've already said:
1. This post seems to me to be a gratuitous attack on a government hiring action, without any real analysis of cost vs. benefit.
2. A more fruitful discussion (as opposed to griping in the ether)
Just a warning to Janathan Radmacher: You'd better read the comments policy. If you have questions or concerns, e-mail me off-blog.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 28, 2007 1:52 PM
John Radmacher, I am glad you are positive, but in actuality your posts are also critical in the same vane you accuse others of being.
To be fair to Jack, many of his posts go beyond "griping in the ether". For example, consider his time spent researching the "Portland Debt"; that is certainly similar to b!x's efforts. And why don't you elaborate on your call for "real analysis of costs vs. benefit" for this position?
Posted by Lee | November 28, 2007 2:23 PM
No, this is not going to become a place for a review of this blog. There are plenty of hater sites where you can get into that if you want.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 28, 2007 2:36 PM
Correction (bad use of terms on my part, "post" vs. "comments"):
I wrote:
1. This post seems to me to be a gratuitous attack on a government hiring action, without any real analysis of cost vs. benefit.
I should have written:
1. Many of the comments to this post seem to be a gratuitous attack on a government hiring action, without any real analysis of cost vs. benefit.
Posted by Jonathan Radmacher | November 28, 2007 3:44 PM
Bill would be soooo proud.
Posted by cc | November 28, 2007 4:08 PM
J.R., cost benefit analysis like you're talking about is a red herring in this situation.
Of course, as you wrote, it is likely that this contractor will persuade corporate sponsors to flow more than $78,000 per year to to the Parks department. The position will probably pay for itself, but that doesn't mean it's a good deal for the city.
If the Parks department otherwise used its resources wisely, then paying a contractor like this wouldn't be a problem. But donors/sponsors can smell a spendthrift's desperation. They see the Parks department struggling to maintain what is has, getting ensnared in bad deals every week, and using its resources to help the well-connected. Then, in that context, they see that their money goes to pay administrative expenses like the cost of this contractor. This mix is a big turn-off for philanthropists.
When organizations try to substitute marketing and puffery for common sense and good planning, it never works out. The commenters sense this, just like prospective sponsors will, which is why there's griping in the ether.
Posted by Pat | November 28, 2007 8:35 PM
JR
"If we can get corporate/private contributions to public parks"
That's all well and good, and who would oppose sponsorships?,
but the track record around here signals that would be an invitation to keep diverting park money to illegitimate uses and even more as sponsorship monies arrived.
As far as any "real analysis of cost vs. benefit" goes?
What a waste of time. I can't imagine how that would possible impact anything at city hall. It's wouldn't even be read let alone considered.
I mean when the city ignores all real analysis of cost vs. benefit related to 100s of millions in wasteful Urban Renewal spending why would they show any interest in one 78K position?
Get real man.
And you seem to be a little confused on some of the ciy's activities.
Parks recently divereted $4 million from their general fund to help bail out SoWa's spiralling down drain fiscal mess.
If you would endevor to gain a clearer understanding of the extent of the politicians penny-wise/pound-foolish activities you may becomes a naysayer attacking most major expenditures.
Posted by Ben | November 29, 2007 2:33 PM
A belated correction to Swimmer's post - the Holly Farm Park isn't "Amanda's park". It came to be because of a true collaboration between the Parks Bureau, the Parks Foundation, the neighborhood, and a host of other public and private entities. In fact, it's a model for how to partner philanthropy with community involvement and government cooperation. No corporate logos there, just a modest plaque listing donors and volunteers. And in record time, with a relatively modest investment of city money, a wonderful new park is operational in a neighborhood where 45% of the elementary school kids get free school lunches.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | November 29, 2007 11:12 PM
Amanda it IS Your Park in your neighborhood, just as the very same Park belongs equally to the 45% of the kids who do get free lunch and the 55% that do not. The beauty of Parks and public spaces is the ownership of them by the people. In order to get the neighborhood to "own" their parks we need to celebrate that.
Posted by swimmer | November 30, 2007 7:51 AM
Thanks for your clarification, Swimmer. You're right, I hope every Portlander thinks "that's MY park" of the Holly Farm Park. And all Portland's other public places, too. Some staff in the Parks bureau have a disturbing practice of calling citizens their "customers". We are patrons and co-owners, not customers. Sometimes we are customers of programs that require additional purchases, such as swimming lessons, but all the time the parks belong to all the people.
Posted by Amanda Fritz | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM