This afternoon we got this breathless e-mail message:
Portland Public Schools is planning to change their policy concerning the disposition of real property. They are planning to discontinue the notification of the City of Portland, Multnomah County, Portland neighborhoods, and the public when they are planning to declare a property surplus /(see pages 8 - 15 of PPS Final Board Book).
The 1979 Portland City School Policy was developed during the comprehensive plan process and is still ORDINANCE (Ordinance 150580). It states very clearly the intent and importance of a public partnership among School District #1, local government, neighborhoods, and the public. The above policy changes by PPS #1 seem to be in conflict with the City School Policy, Comp Plan and State Law.
If you are able, please check into this policy change and let Portland Public Schools know of your opinion about the need for the public to remain part of this process and tell others about it.
As today was apparently the comment deadline on this issue, we took quick action and e-mailed Cameron Vaughan-Tyler at the school board to protest the deletion of the notice requirement.
She promptly responded, and it turns out that our e-mail correspondents were mistaken:
There is nothing in the proposed policy that would discontinue notification to the City of Portland, Multnomah County, or the Portland neighborhoods.
The notification is clearly stated in the policy. I can send you the whole policy if you like, but here is the piece you are referring to:
The policy directs the following:
(1) Superintendent’s Surplus Real Property Recommendation: The Superintendent shall develop and adopt administrative directives establishing a process for developing recommendations to the Board on surplus properties. The process shall include at a minimum the following components:
(a) Notification of the Portland Public School Board,
(b) Notification to the City and County, and other public agencies as appropriate, providing an opportunity to purchase the property, and notification to the local neighborhood association, and the public at large.
(c) A reasonable time for public response or comment.
(d) A summary of the factors considered in the development of the recommendation.
In other words, there's nothing in the current proposal that would change the existing notice rules. School board watchers are wise to keep an eye on this whole topic -- there are condo tower developers salivating over Lincoln High School, school board headquarters, and other school properties -- but in this case, the watchdogs appear to have sounded a false alarm.
UPDATE, 5:52 p.m.: Or maybe not. One commenter to this post suggests that further changes are quietly being discussed.
Comments (5)
I wonder if that has anything to do with the Lincoln HS property? A while back there was some sort of crazy plan to build a "school/condo tower/mini mall" or some crazy thing.
I am with the school of thought which says that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay multiple times for the same property, which is what happens when the first unit of government subsidiary to the state sells it to a second unit subsidiary to the state. That is what the state law is intended to avoid. Reversion to the state keeps in in public ownership without the public paying twice, while the unit that surpluses it sheds maintenance and operating costs.
The amendments they aren't discussing suggest that we might see PPS sell one parcel to another unit of government (public pays a second time) and then come back to the public for a bond measure to buy another piece that it likes better (public pays a third time).
While I understand the distrust around the notion of selling public assets, particularly given past District actions, the reality is the policy as revised still requires public process and notification for any sale of property, and contrary to the past, the district is focused on retaining and improving our assets, since enrollment is growing and there is projected growth in the Portland area.
In short: This is *not* an attempt to remove public oversight or sell off a bunch of school property.
The revised policy retains the public notification/process requirements and it removes all the 2002 language that gave the Real Estate Trust a direct role (including the option to serve as owner and developer).
"future comment will be restricted to those who have submitted written comments by close of business today" - Per the process for policy changes, there was a Nov. 18 deadline for comments following the Oct. 27 first reading of the proposed policy revisions. The comment period has now been extended, see below. The reason for setting a deadline for public input is to give staff enough time to take any written comments/suggestions from the public into consideration in preparing the final version of proposed policy. But there's no restriction on people continuing to comment to express their opinions about the policy, whether in writing or by coming to board meetings, etc.
Steve R., the public notification requirements are still in the policy (see text of policy in the main post). Yes, additional detail is now in the supporting administrative directive. However, a superintendent cannot get around the process/notification requirements that are clearly stipulated in the policy.
Both the policy and the AD are posted on the PPS website: http://www.board.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/10818
Staff are going to be posting more information as well as the before/after of the 2002 and proposed revisions to the policy.
Since there has been considerable concern & confusion over this proposed revision, the review & comment period has been extended & the board will be revisiting this in January rather than at this Monday's meeting. Thanks to everyone for your diligent oversight of public assets. It is smart to question when a policy changes and I appreciate all of your comments, whether supportive or not. Allowing this extra time will ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to ask questions, compare the documents and understand our intention in updating this policy.
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
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
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: 29
At this date last year: 66
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 (5)
I wonder if that has anything to do with the Lincoln HS property? A while back there was some sort of crazy plan to build a "school/condo tower/mini mall" or some crazy thing.
Posted by Jon | November 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Sounds like the fixers are at it again.
I'm told future comment will be restricted to those who have submitted written comments by close of business today.
I'm also told that the key issues are:
1. Dodging state law, which provides that real property owned by school districts reverts to the State when declared surplus.
2. Making previously mandatory public involvement optional.
Says everything you need to know that rumor mills are more reliable sources of information than the elected officials.
Posted by Arbitrash | November 18, 2008 5:45 PM
I am with the school of thought which says that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay multiple times for the same property, which is what happens when the first unit of government subsidiary to the state sells it to a second unit subsidiary to the state. That is what the state law is intended to avoid. Reversion to the state keeps in in public ownership without the public paying twice, while the unit that surpluses it sheds maintenance and operating costs.
The amendments they aren't discussing suggest that we might see PPS sell one parcel to another unit of government (public pays a second time) and then come back to the public for a bond measure to buy another piece that it likes better (public pays a third time).
Posted by Arbitrash | November 18, 2008 5:57 PM
The notification requirements were moved from board policy to administrative policy, which can be changed at the whim of the superintendent.
So a superintendent may change this policy at his or her whim, without board approval or public notice.
Posted by Steve R. | November 19, 2008 11:19 AM
Hi all,
While I understand the distrust around the notion of selling public assets, particularly given past District actions, the reality is the policy as revised still requires public process and notification for any sale of property, and contrary to the past, the district is focused on retaining and improving our assets, since enrollment is growing and there is projected growth in the Portland area.
In short: This is *not* an attempt to remove public oversight or sell off a bunch of school property.
The revised policy retains the public notification/process requirements and it removes all the 2002 language that gave the Real Estate Trust a direct role (including the option to serve as owner and developer).
"future comment will be restricted to those who have submitted written comments by close of business today" - Per the process for policy changes, there was a Nov. 18 deadline for comments following the Oct. 27 first reading of the proposed policy revisions. The comment period has now been extended, see below. The reason for setting a deadline for public input is to give staff enough time to take any written comments/suggestions from the public into consideration in preparing the final version of proposed policy. But there's no restriction on people continuing to comment to express their opinions about the policy, whether in writing or by coming to board meetings, etc.
Steve R., the public notification requirements are still in the policy (see text of policy in the main post). Yes, additional detail is now in the supporting administrative directive. However, a superintendent cannot get around the process/notification requirements that are clearly stipulated in the policy.
Both the policy and the AD are posted on the PPS website: http://www.board.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/10818
Staff are going to be posting more information as well as the before/after of the 2002 and proposed revisions to the policy.
Since there has been considerable concern & confusion over this proposed revision, the review & comment period has been extended & the board will be revisiting this in January rather than at this Monday's meeting. Thanks to everyone for your diligent oversight of public assets. It is smart to question when a policy changes and I appreciate all of your comments, whether supportive or not. Allowing this extra time will ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to ask questions, compare the documents and understand our intention in updating this policy.
-Ruth Adkins
PPS board member
Posted by Ruth Adkins | November 21, 2008 7:40 AM