This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 17, 2010 10:23 AM. The previous post in this blog was Great moments in Criminal Law. The next post in this blog is Sick reaches a new depth. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Which one knows what he's talking about?

Here's an interesting debate. On one side we find a smart guy who's made many, many millions of dollars running a successful business, and given lots of it back to the local community. On the other side, we find... well... another guy.

Comments (13)

Sam Adams and credibility are mutually exlusive. He looks like he's lying. He sounds like he's lying. And he's been proven to be a liar.

Sorry, Jack, but this one is from the even-a-stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day department. Willamette needs all the help it can get when it comes to keeping industrial nastiness out of it.

BES had a dog and pony show at the St. Johns lab several years ago to review some of the processes they could use to remove this stuff. Costs were all over the place. For years Sam and Vera have been trying to delay with EPA, and point their fingers at business. (GASCO was a political solution). They would rather spend money on the old useless "River Renaissance". Superfund money seems to have evaporated for us. We now pay for it on our water/ sewer bill. The point being this is another poor management example from City of Portland and their attitude for business. Greenbrier is right on.

When will Portlanders wake up? We're circling the drain people! Vote in some NEW candidates!!!

The leopard reminds me of a trip to the Serengeti near Ngornogoro Crater. Probably in the same area as this photo. We were close enough, not unlike this photo to practically touch the leopard in the tree. He had an impala kill wedged in between two branches, and had little interest in us. Thanks for the great shot.

I might believe Furman if he would site specific examples of what the Willamette Plan will do to his business in detail. the Willamette plan is needed to address the sound environmental policy and jobs, they are not mutually exclusive. A clean healthy river, regulation to support business activities and those in support of citizens access to the river is needed.

I think the point is being missed here. We all want a clean river and water but opportunites to get it done long ago were squandered by Vera and Sam. EPA Superfund could have helped pay for it but they did not want EPA help because of oversight. Stupid decision. Now Superfund money is gone and no help from Feds. How many times and how long do businesses have to pay for poor CoP management and judgement?
The answer is: they are leaving fast and for good reason. It's an expensive mess that could have been avoided and finished long ago. Now we will all pay more for mistakes from elected idiots.

it's sad when advocates for a clean river have this guy as an rep. on TV--real bad PR.

In this economic climate, the city should be doing nothing that comes close to costing jobs. They sure as hell don't know how to attract or recruit jobs, so they should leave the ones we have alone. The economy is going to recover much more slowly than people seem to think. Political leaders should leave every existing job untouched. Five years from now, they'll be happy that they did.

The problem with Portland isn't that we love our beautiful local environment. We should. Or that we like bikes. They're nice and healthy. I'll even admit that streetcars look nice on a postcard. The problem with Portland is these things and others we tend to like don't pay the bills, and in fact many of them cost a ton of money.

Portland, and I'm talking individual Portlanders, have to learn to reconcile their politics with private business and understand their needs. Private economic activity pays for every public good we have. Our government and its big plans simply wouldn't exist without private enterprise. So if we want these community benefits, we have to get over our distrust of "corporations" and hear them out. They aren't all Mr. Burns. They're generally trying to help out a community that they love too.

Sam's "I don't by it" remark is not a good remark to make to entice cooperation in allowing industry to prosper and the environment to prosper along the lower Willamette. Notice that Sam cites some study that shows business is prospering along the Willamette. I don't by it. What study? Sam is good at pretending he is smart, knowledgeable about a subject matter-but not really. He employs this operandi at all the townhalls, and other public meetings to squelch public opposition, or even an honest discourse.

The point Furman is making is that it isn't a question of whether industry is prospering, but after having over 14 public agencies to satisfy to turn over even a shovel full of dirt, adding more layers of CoP RiverPlan requirements will send businesses away. And not encourage others to come. If the City wanted to do something, just enforce the regulations in place now.

On one hand you have the industries that caused a huge mess and have contributed vastly to the Portland Harbor being designated a Superfund site -- which has already cost 70 million to date for inventory[1], and will cost hundreds of millions more to get cleaned up. Clearly, it's not just the businesses that get handed an invoice, it's everyone.

On the other hand this is more regulation in the wake of huge job losses that certainly aren't going to help businesses by any means.

[1] http://www.millernash.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2768

I wish I could read the letter he wrote, why would KGW not post it?

Either KGW did a terrible job reporting, or Bill Furman is not making a convincing argument. I'm not exactly sure what Saks Fifth Avenue has a ton to do with the River Plan. The River Plan does have a lot to do with his business on the river's edge -- why not explain how the River Plan will affect his business specially, instead, and use numbers.

That's more of a cogent argument than saying, "There's a ton of vacancies in Portland, so that's why we shouldn't pass the River Plan".

I'm not sure why businesses threaten to move to Vancouver, usually when they do, they are making political statements instead of business statements. By all means, it would probably cost them a boat-load, quite literally, just to move.

If the economics of it were that great, they would probably have done so already.

But, I and many others want them in Portland instead, I just don't like the attitudes on both sides of the issue.

Ultimately some concessions need to be made.

"Willamette needs all the help it can get"

That'd be nice if they actually spent any extra funds on cleaning the Willamette.

How long were we dumping sewage into the same river before evil Bush and the environmentalists had to sue CoP to get them to stop.

They don't care one bit about the river, just procuring more funds to siphon off for pet projects.

And of course, there's Scam Adams, with smug, smarmy, condescending persona trying to tell us simpletons that of course we don't understand, it's so complex and governmenty and so forth. I'm sure he has a team of $100K consultants whipping up a report to suit his end goal which will amount to collecting more money from taxpayers and distributing it among the usual cadre of bandits.

Actually, I think Sam Adams is not so interested in Gunderson/Greenbrier and its hundreds of blue collar metalworking and welding jobs, but rather the 4,100 linear feet of land between Front Avenue and the Willamette River, that's between 600-700 feet wide, to use as prime redevelopment.

So what if it's next to a major railroad yard that is owned by not one, but TWO major railroads (both BNSF and UP, through the joint-owned Portland Terminal Railroad Company), that Adams would have no control or influence over? But if you get rid of all the industry in Portland, then that yard would become surplus and for sale (at grossly inflated prices, that no one in their right mind would pay for it. Except, of course, the City of Portland which would gladly pay - no questions asked - and would probably even pitch in a couple million extra!)

Erik H, your point about the two major railroads serving our city brings up a major point. Our city is fortunate to be located at several major transportation hubs of railroads, seaport/riverport, federal highways, and airport services; and all on the Pacific Rim. But with Sam who claims he sees the "big picture" he has little understanding how existing endless regulations and calls for new regulations affects even the continuation of what we have or their expansion.

You might be right, Sam may want to get rid of a pivotal transportation hub-railroads and ships, to build green condos along the river. How nice, how so forward thinking to substitute a Starbucks job for a Gunderson $70,000 job that lasts for a lifetime.

Clicky Web Analytics