This is one consequence of the City Council pushing marine industry out of North Macadam, and requiring industrial users on the Willamette to run public trails between their warehouses and their docks.

You should know by now - What Port of P wants, PoP gets.

They're one of those "profit" franchises Randy loves like the water bureau. All they have to do is send out bills and build bigger HQs.

This thing is far from over. The letters and testimony opposing WHI development were outstanding. A final decision on annexation is still a year away. The community stopped the Port on WHI in 1999 and we can do it again. To keep informed about efforts to oppose WHI development go to: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-West-Hayden-Island/136664296349832?ref=ts

Its not just the Portland City Council. Its the same globally...with climate change, etc. They dont care about the planet. Its all about who controls what, and who controls who.

Walmart bad for Hayden Island. Shipping good for Hayden Island.

Whatever ...

And to think of all the a** Mike Houck has kissed, including Sams and Robert liberty's.

Not to forget the POP has a boat load of engineers that need more make-work projects.

Oh yes, what became of the idea to expand airport parking to Government Island and connect it with two four lane tunnels?

Go here and join Portland Audubon to support Bob Sallinger and company, if you haven't already.

Bob Sallinger...thanks for your testimony and efforts on this issue. Keep us posted.

Has Kiddie Hall complied with the EPA requirements for an environmental impact study yet? And doesn't the PoP have a history of fouling the river?

And speaking of fouling the river, don't you find it interesting that your CoP water bill has an allocation for Super Fund clean-up? Which means we, the rate payers, are providing more corporate welfare since corporations did the pollution but they are not paying for the consequences of their actions. The rest of us are.

It's boring, unhip work like this that shows how "environmental" City Hall actually is. Which is to say not at all, really.

Fritz and Fish aren't working to protect the local environment. Saying that "nothing's been decided yet" yet voting to support what Adams himself proposed is tantamount to lying. By supporting the process, they support it. If they didn't support development of West Hayden Island, they'd vote no.

When I hear citizens waxing prosaic about how "green" Mayor Adams is, I'm stunned. He never has been--rather, he runs about compulsively making promises and pronouncements that sound frequently like the result of random Google searches.

This Adams pronouncement, however, is the result of lobbyist whispers. Adams is not going to work on hard local issues like this--he's going to invite "bag monsters" to dance at City Hall meetings and "vow" to "cleanup the oceans".

That is, until state legislators asked him to shut up.

H Y P O C R I T E S

Curtain Open:
Portland is green and sustainable, a constant theme.

Curtain Closed:
Behind the scenes, not sustainable, or green except money for the insiders.

Last Night the Curtain Closed had to be Opened to "the hypocrisy":
The Council meeting, had to open the Curtain to move forward. Perhaps it was open enough as a dress rehearsal tweaking here and there to proceed with plans and then will be much more polished and nailed down for the final performance.
It was open long enough for we the people to see what we have - hypocrites!!!

Now what do we the citizens do?
Do we need to wonder what that final performance will be? Too many have already been down that road and the merry little path the city sets for us!!

We Citizens throughout our city need to unite. Who and what will be next?

Ecohuman....we are on the same page.

Keep Portland weird!

Which means we, the rate payers, are providing more corporate welfare since corporations did the pollution but they are not paying for the consequences of their actions.

As I understand it, the corporations actually will be required to pony up, assuming they haven't gone out of business or been bought out by other companies that will contest any fees ultimately levied. Sewer ratepayers are paying for the city's share of the pollution, having dumped sewage into the river for over a century. You can thank the city's founding fathers for going the cheapo route and combining the storm and sanitary sewers.

Back to the Port Plan, it is good to see the Mayor caring about economic development and jobs for once; too bad it's on behalf of the obtuse, unaccountable Port. I'd love to see the data that justifies building more terminals on the island. If the port is actually bursting at the seams and shipping companies are clamoring for more dock space, then I'm for it. Actually, the Port would be smart to offer shippers an alternate West Coast unloading site, and could even underprice to take some business from Seattle and Long Beach.

But my guess is it's all based on rosy projections from unrealistic data massaged to justify the Port's continuing to milk tri-county taxpayers.

hey kids , that hideous dump Jantzen Beach Mall is closing up let's put a terminal there !
No wild life there to save , well except Hizzoner crashing into things ....

"No final decision has been made" makes it even more nauseating.

How true.

This plan needs to be smothered in the crib. There is no effin way that a 300 acre port terminal can be made 'green'. It will destroy the 300 acres of irreplaceable wildlife habitat forever, and negatively impact the surrounding area at least that long. Kill this thing now.

Terminal is correct. Terminal insanity and terminal for life itself.

PoP .... if you're reading this, you cigar smoking, back room dealing, bozos... no taxation without representation...

Hell no, we shouldn't go paying...

Jack, You need a contest to guess the number of other public agencies with jurisdiction bypassed by this plan to level and pave 300 acres with black asphalt and modify the waterline. Metro, EPA, ODFW, the City's own Planning and Sustainability Commission, Corps of Engineers, DEQ...

dypeptic... can any of us count that high?

Hypocrisy:

http://www.portofportland.com/Env_GrnSide.aspx?group=pdx

Air travel is THE most fuel inefficient, and most polluting, forms of transport, bar none. Yet, we embrace it by greenwashing it over and over.

If Portland were green: We'd bulldoze PDX...replace the water frontage with a marine terminal (with EASY access to I-5, I-205, I-84 and SR 14 all within very close reach); restore the rest of the land to its natural wetlands (and throw in a few wind turbines for the heck of it - that way we don't have to totally rip out all the electrical infrastructure that's already there), and embrace water and rail transport - the two most environmentally friendly modes of transport.

And, for all intercity travel, we'd have a fleet of B99 biodiesel hybrid electric buses. Because motorcoaches are more fuel efficient than Amtrak. The wind turbines (located within the city) would be used to power a city trolleybus system with clean, renewable energy instead of the stuff PGE feeds us from Boardman to power MAX and the Streetcar; micro-turbines would be installed on the trolley poles to feed additional power into the trolleybus electrical grid.

Finally, we'd restore downtown Portland to its natural state - wetlands and marshes. Guilds Lake would take over the Pearl District. We'd remove the Expo Center, and most residents would be relocated to Vancouver and the Tualatin Valley.

But as long as the City of Portland is in charge, it's only "green" if they say so. That's why hydroelectric power is not considered "green"; Streetcars are preferable to walking; driving is preferable to buses; and tall people warehouses are preferable to small, efficient homes that don't require massive amounts of steel and concrete - but are built with renewable wood products and are surrounded by porous surfaces (yards) and trees rather than pavement.

What precisely is your objection to this, Jack? If they has rreje Ted an economic development package, you would have criticized the city for favoring green over working class jobs. Now you criticize them for just funding a study of a potential port facility on Hayden Island?

I'm with Eric; I am glad to see the City consider potential jobs producing development even if it may have some environmental cost. We have to get the economy going in this town and region.

I'm also not clear wht the PoP comes in for such heavy criticism here, PDX is the best run airport I travel through, hands down.

This same Hayden Island issue keeps getting fought over time and again. There are spaces that need to be saved and this is one of them. Living wage jobs are plentiful if the elected officials would spend the money responsibly....which they don't do. Building a MAX we don't need just to create temporary jobs makes no sense. Generate permanent jobs by being smart, a concept lost by City Council. Infrastrucure is falling apart and because it isn't new or "cool", it remains neglected. Start there.

Paul, good to see you and Eric shill for Bill Wyatt. Say hi to him for us. Jack is right on target.

If they has rreje Ted an economic development package, you would have criticized the city for favoring green over working class jobs.

How wrong you are.

It's amusing to watch the Blue Oregon crowd defend the incumbents around here, no matter how un-progressive their behavior.

Back in the Eighties, Dallas had a mayor just like Sam Adams. Her name was Annette Strauss, and she was heralded as a great new hope for our city. The economy was hurting due to the 1986 oil bust, and everyone just went on and on about how the first female mayor of a major Texas city was going to change everything.

Well, Annette was mayor, all right, in a city council system where the mayor had almost no real power. (To this day, the pay is so horrendous that anybody running for the Council needs to be independently wealthy, and that's absolutely deliberate.) That didn't stop her from making all sorts of proclamations. Since Austin and Houston were spending more on the arts than Dallas, Annette ran up bonds to pay for the imaginatively titled "Arts District" that magically took up property that the original owners couldn't sell with free beer. The fact that the owners were friends of Annette's family was just coincidence. Then, because the new and burgeoning Deep Ellum area was a threat to the Arts District plan, Annette worked with the Dallas Morning News to badmouth the Deep Ellum area as a haven for teenage delinquents and crackheads. When that didn't work, she ran up more bonds for Deep Ellum "restoration", which tore up the streets for years, killing established businesses and increasing property values for the vultures who swooped in.

It was Annette's proclamations, though, that remind me the most of Sam. Dallas had and still has a lot of problems, and a mayor with some kind of social conscience would have stood up to fix these. Problem was, most of the causes of those problems were family friends, business cohorts, or campaign contributors, and they spent a lot of money to get her into office instead of someone who might want to be proactive. When she wasn't getting her name on new plaques all over the city on silly restoration projects that were abandoned a year later, she was stopping important city business to issue resolutions protesting the war between Iran and Iraq or human rights abuses in Africa. She became internationally famous when Donald Wildmon made up insane lies about how an episode of The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse showed Mighty Mouse snorting cocaine, and she issued a proclamation protesting that. (As was typical for Annette, she was too stupid to know the difference between Mighty Mouse and Mickey Mouse, so she had the resolution sent to Disney.)

Even for Texas politics, and we're willing to take the blame for Joe Barton, Annette became increasingly erratic and goofy in public, and she was encouraged to step down so US Rep Steve Bartlett could run for mayor in his hope for a Presidential bid by 2000. (Bartlett was run out on a rail. As people joked, Barton couldn't be a weasel, because weasels have a spine.) When she died in 2002 of a brain tumor, the only question anyone had was "How could you tell?"

Paul - I don't what the hell you've been ingesting but PDX is very poorly run. If it were properly run, the constituents who foot a lot of the bill (the taxpayers with no representation) would not be terminally pissed at PDX. Do you want a laundry list?

First, there is the whole noise issue and buzzing of neighborhoods far away. The Port's mechanism for handling that sucks so much that we have all given up.

Then there are the repeated issues of pollution both involving de-icing at the airport and the potash allegations at the shipyards and you can read here

http colon //www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/super1.htm

about how the Port and other polluters stick property owners with the Superfund costs to clean-up the Willamette. Yeah, it's really well run if you are not one of the taxpayer stakeholders. If you are an employee or an airline or an shipper, you are in heaven. The rest of us can burn in hell.

I am glad to see the City consider potential jobs producing development even if it may have some environmental cost.

How much "environmental cost" would you be willing to pay for every so-called "job"? I'd be interested to know.

The problem, readers, is that always--ALWAYS--cities are seeking to grow. Not maintain or shrink, but grow. And sooner or later, they run out of room, out of resources, out of ecology, and out of money. There is no Infinite Bank of Nature out there, and Portland (thanks in large part to schizophrenic, delusional public servants like Adams) is dangerously close to the point where the line on the chart goes permanently downward.

But of course, no city sees this until they're already there, and no city admits it until it's too late.

Hope you all are emailing city hall and expressing your opinions. Whether your focus is conservation or the economy, this project is a loser. By the Port's own estimates, it will produce a measly 4 jobs per acre. Just the publicly funded cost of the new $150 million dollar bridge to reach this new development will mean that we will subsidizing the cost of every new job created at this site to the tune of more than $100,000 per job.

Paul:I'm with Eric; I am glad to see the City consider potential jobs producing development even if it may have some environmental cost. We have to get the economy going in this town and region.
I'm also not clear wht the PoP comes in for such heavy criticism here, PDX is the best run airport I travel through, hands down.

Those who are so concerned about jobs and want to get the economy going need to look behind the curtain to see why our water rates are increasing.

Heavy criticism here is because many are watchdogs and are justified in their comments. There is more going on here than the airport. Perhaps you travel much and cannot keep up on the shenanigans.

Shame on our City Council for just about everything they do now week after week.
This last week's decision on West Hayden Island shows that they cannot be believed when they talk sustainable. Those who still believe Adams sustainable agenda, why??

We need this for imported cars in 2040???
This is thirty years from now, much will change, this is insane.

In the Sunday O's editorial section, Jack Hart, a former editor, wrote that growth, by its very definition, is an unsustainable activity. The world's population growth, times increasing consumption, are leading the planet to a place where it will implode/explode, perhaps in the not-too-far distant future. Thus, talk of all of these jobs that can be added can in no way be seen as sustainable or green, no matter how much City Hall wishes to paint them in that way.