According to the state land use appeals board, it's o.k. to dedicate Pearl District property taxes to pay for a new public school way out on the eastern outskirts of town, rather than using those taxes to pay off the Pearlie "urban renewal" toy bonds or (heaven forbid) to pay for police, fire, street lighting, and other municipal services provided to Pearl District residents. If the state statute doesn't say you can't do something, then I guess the city bureaucrats can go for it, regardless of how badly they're twisting the intent of the law.
Oh, but you have to recite some sort of "benefit" that the Pearlies get from having a new school out in David Douglas. How long will it take the city's small cadre of paid liars to come up with that? About a half hour.
On with the bizarre story of Portland City Hall. Go by streetcar!
Comments (11)
Who cares any more? They make the rules up as they go and if not, then can venue shop until they find a judge to agree. I mean who the heck even knows what the exact purpose of a Urban Renewal district now is.
However, now that they can earmark taxes like this just think of all the opportunities for political favoritism. Now we can do all sorts of bright and shiny things to the exclusion of the boring things like infrastructure and potholes. All the better to distract the average Portland voter with.
I am still mystified as to how CoP can have any say in schools, but what the heck do I know - I just pay taxes.
"Is there a measure 5 problem here with local money going to school funding?"
The more I think about this, the more it bugs me. CoP took its most palatable case (taking money from an URD to build a school) to set a precedent.
If they get away with this, then they can probably start funding soccer stadia in the boonies with other URD monies leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the bonds for the improvements while they fund the unpopular items.
I wonder how this sits with the Pearl dwellers who have been wanting a park or playground for a while now? And I am not that familiar with the Pearl neighborhood...are there any schools of their own there?
I read LUBA's opinion. LUBA summarizes the City's argument to be basically this: the urban renewal area was so successful that it priced housing in the urban renewal area out of range of most people, who had to move out of town to places like the David Douglas School District. Therefore, funding the new school benefits the Pearl District because it provides a school and play area 10 miles to the east for people who can't afford to live in the Pearl District. LUBA told the City that it has to find families that were forced out of the Pearl District because they couldn't afford to live there any longer who then moved to David Douglas. If the City can't find these people, it's going to lose the second time around also.
Oliver Norville, the attorney who wrote the original charter amendment creating the PDC and most of the state legislation governing URA's was one of the plaintiffs. If the father of urban renewal in Oregon thinks this is dirty pool, I think LUBA is wrong.
Hopefully LUBA's decision will proceed to Oregon's Court of Appeals, then maybe on to the OR Supremes, because the LUBA ruling is setting very bad precedence.
Think of how this ruling could be used by other government agencies. Every statute, administrative law will have to include every use, benefit that an item can not be used for. LUBA's ruling states that since urban renewal didn't explicitly exclude "satellite" urban renewal extensions, then it is allowed. Forget the legislative intent(s), or Norville's direct imput on state legislation.
When did courts start to disregard "legislative intent"?
This is like telling your son, "Yes, you can have the car to go downtown to see a movie", then later find out that he also went to downtown Gresham, and son says, "Well, Dad, you didn't tell me exactly what downtown I could go to". I can now visualize new legislation having 500 pages of descriptions qualifying the parameters of how something can be dispensed.
This is a stretch, no matter how you look at it and however much anybody would like to see it work.
Erik Sten's plan resembles - in every way - the actions of the Cowbird which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds and then flies away.
The State of Oregon, which - in large part - funds schools, abdicates any further responsibility by forcing local districts to get frequent bond elections passed in order to keep schools running. It's a terrible system - particularly for small or poor districts - and David Douglas is one of the largest districts in the State.
Sten's other brainchild, the East Portland Action Plan is moving forward at a somewhat glacial pace. I believe it's up to these people to find a viable funding medium: http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=45448
Here is a link to Sten's memo from September 2007 which clearly does NOT make a case for a "non-contiguous expansion of the River District Urban Renewal Area." Egad, one might as well try to link Rockwood and the Centennial School District to the west side of the Willamette.
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 (11)
Who cares any more? They make the rules up as they go and if not, then can venue shop until they find a judge to agree. I mean who the heck even knows what the exact purpose of a Urban Renewal district now is.
However, now that they can earmark taxes like this just think of all the opportunities for political favoritism. Now we can do all sorts of bright and shiny things to the exclusion of the boring things like infrastructure and potholes. All the better to distract the average Portland voter with.
I am still mystified as to how CoP can have any say in schools, but what the heck do I know - I just pay taxes.
Posted by Steve | January 5, 2009 8:28 PM
I wonder if there are issues involved here other than land use? Maybe a venue other than LUBA could issue a verdict here.
Posted by jimbo | January 5, 2009 8:54 PM
It will likely go to the Oregon Supreme Court. Beyond, if needed? Other jurisdictions, possible.
Posted by Lee | January 5, 2009 9:00 PM
Is there a measure 5 problem here with local money going to school funding?
Thanks
JK
Posted by jim karlock | January 5, 2009 11:57 PM
Couldn't they require David Douglas to rename their school "Cesar Chavez High School" in exchange for the funding?
Two birds, one stone.
Posted by PanchoPDX | January 6, 2009 12:29 AM
"Is there a measure 5 problem here with local money going to school funding?"
The more I think about this, the more it bugs me. CoP took its most palatable case (taking money from an URD to build a school) to set a precedent.
If they get away with this, then they can probably start funding soccer stadia in the boonies with other URD monies leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the bonds for the improvements while they fund the unpopular items.
Posted by Steve | January 6, 2009 7:18 AM
I wonder how this sits with the Pearl dwellers who have been wanting a park or playground for a while now? And I am not that familiar with the Pearl neighborhood...are there any schools of their own there?
Posted by Jon | January 6, 2009 7:54 AM
I read LUBA's opinion. LUBA summarizes the City's argument to be basically this: the urban renewal area was so successful that it priced housing in the urban renewal area out of range of most people, who had to move out of town to places like the David Douglas School District. Therefore, funding the new school benefits the Pearl District because it provides a school and play area 10 miles to the east for people who can't afford to live in the Pearl District. LUBA told the City that it has to find families that were forced out of the Pearl District because they couldn't afford to live there any longer who then moved to David Douglas. If the City can't find these people, it's going to lose the second time around also.
Posted by Isaac Laquedem | January 6, 2009 9:32 AM
Oliver Norville, the attorney who wrote the original charter amendment creating the PDC and most of the state legislation governing URA's was one of the plaintiffs. If the father of urban renewal in Oregon thinks this is dirty pool, I think LUBA is wrong.
Posted by Dave Listerq | January 6, 2009 9:45 AM
Hopefully LUBA's decision will proceed to Oregon's Court of Appeals, then maybe on to the OR Supremes, because the LUBA ruling is setting very bad precedence.
Think of how this ruling could be used by other government agencies. Every statute, administrative law will have to include every use, benefit that an item can not be used for. LUBA's ruling states that since urban renewal didn't explicitly exclude "satellite" urban renewal extensions, then it is allowed. Forget the legislative intent(s), or Norville's direct imput on state legislation.
When did courts start to disregard "legislative intent"?
This is like telling your son, "Yes, you can have the car to go downtown to see a movie", then later find out that he also went to downtown Gresham, and son says, "Well, Dad, you didn't tell me exactly what downtown I could go to". I can now visualize new legislation having 500 pages of descriptions qualifying the parameters of how something can be dispensed.
Posted by Jerry | January 6, 2009 2:00 PM
This is a stretch, no matter how you look at it and however much anybody would like to see it work.
Erik Sten's plan resembles - in every way - the actions of the Cowbird which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds and then flies away.
The State of Oregon, which - in large part - funds schools, abdicates any further responsibility by forcing local districts to get frequent bond elections passed in order to keep schools running. It's a terrible system - particularly for small or poor districts - and David Douglas is one of the largest districts in the State.
Sten's other brainchild, the East Portland Action Plan is moving forward at a somewhat glacial pace. I believe it's up to these people to find a viable funding medium:
http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=45448
Here is a link to Sten's memo from September 2007 which clearly does NOT make a case for a "non-contiguous expansion of the River District Urban Renewal Area." Egad, one might as well try to link Rockwood and the Centennial School District to the west side of the Willamette.
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:E7WNjzj84SAJ:www.pdc.us/pdf/future-of-urban-renewal/westside/2007/0925/david-douglas-memo.pdf+%22David+Douglas%22+%2B+largest+school+district+in+Oregon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
Posted by NW Portlander | January 7, 2009 10:57 AM