If not Amanda then architect and SoWa URAC member Jerry Ward.

Hopefully either one would bring a halt to the perpetual withholding and concealing of PDC Urban renewal spending accounts and budgets.

Something Potter could fix but blindly and willingly relies upon "reports" from the PDC without any coroboration.

Posted by: Steve Schopp at July 15, 2006 07:18 AM

I agree that we need someone who is NOT in the WestHills cabal or on the public payroll already. Ideally someone who speaks for taxpayers outside of downtown. I think she would be great.

Posted by: Steve at July 15, 2006 09:07 AM

Agreed. Amanda would be an excellent choice. For that reason alone, I have my doubts she'll ever be appointed.

Posted by: godfry at July 15, 2006 09:56 AM

I say appoint her. I don't want her lasting image in my head to be from "Candidates Gone Wild".

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 15, 2006 10:07 AM

Amanda Fritz would be a bad choice. She isn't a strong critical thinker and a few years at the PDC she'd come out thinking in developer-speak.

The whole "development follows infrastructure" line that justified the aerial tram would be spouted back as an excuse. The HQ Hotel would suddenly make sense to her.

If you want some type of reform or a slow down to the goofy projects you need a true fiscal conservative. Someone with a foundation in knowing why certain types of government programs are destined to not pay back.

I would nominate Jason Williams from the Tax Payers Association. If you want one odd-ball to ask questions on the PDC's board he'd do a great job.

You want someone to ask why and vote no. On a board there is nothing wrong with one person being cranky and asking all the indepth questions for the record. At the very least maybe the public will know more after the boondoggles happen.

Posted by: DarePDX at July 15, 2006 11:21 AM

I realize the hot topic is who should be the next PDC Commissioner, but I was afraid my comment would be lost in the bowels of this blog so it's a bit off-topic in this commentary, but I appreciate the opportunity to vent...

This message is for "Very Concerned", "PDCMole" and other "affiliates" of PDC making comments about PDC environment (chaotic/in upheavel, etc.): Please stop. My sense is that you are either a current or former employee (or relative/friend of one) who is angry/fearful/nervous because your leadership changed and now you're not in your comfort zone at work anymore. Your entitlement view/attitude is being challenged and, frankly, you don't like that. Okay, welcome to real life.

I'm a former PDCer and can tell you and the rest of the world - from real experience - that PDC is an incredibly challenging environment for its leaders and employees. Bruce Warner, his staff and, for that matter, everyone else at PDC must balance the needs/wants/demands, etc. of multiple stakeholders and influences on a daily basis. To keep every stakeholder pleased with PDC decisions and actions is understandably difficult and, at times, virtually impossible. Political decisions made over business decisions are sometimes the unfortunate consequence - but anyone who understands public agency life knows that's occasionally a reality in government.
So here's my point: it's very easy for disgruntled, misinformed, fearful employees, both current and former, to malign PDC and its leaders using a very public venue such as this blog. It's also this type of activity that makes it difficult for Bruce, his intelligent (and brave, I might add)crew to stay focused on the issues/concerns that matter. Most employees at PDC want their leadership to succeed in guiding PDC through its strategic plan. Most PDC employees want and do an exemplary job. Those employees who love an excuse to spend their days complaining with their conglomerate of naysayers about how awful it is to work at PDC appear to also waste their words in blogs such as these. If you don't like PDC, leave. Please. You're not working the problem; you are, in your own way, responsible for it.
Posted by UknowwhoIam at July 15, 2006 11:59 AM

Posted by: UknowwhoIam at July 15, 2006 12:12 PM

The moment the word "stakeholder" was used, I automatically stopped reading the rest.

Posted by: Hinckley at July 15, 2006 01:56 PM

I would nominate Jason Williams from the Tax Payers Association.

GONG!

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 15, 2006 02:05 PM

UknowwhoIam Those employees who love an excuse to spend their days complaining with their conglomerate of naysayers about how awful it is to work at PDC appear to also waste their words in blogs such as these. If you don't like PDC, leave. Please. You're not working the problem; you are, in your own way, responsible for it.
JK: Yeah, it must be really tough giving away hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, to political contributing, developers. It is much tougher than just lending money where you expect to get it back.

Thanks
JK

Posted by: jim karlock at July 15, 2006 03:45 PM

Heh...Yeah, I tend to stop reading when I hear the term "stakeholder", too. It suggests that they are those who get smacked in the head with the ten pound maul ostensibly being used to secure the stake.

To UknowwhoIam...I appreciate the fact that PDC staff members have made it known that they are not particularly enchanted with the leadership at PDC, now or in the past. I think it's a sign that independent thought is at least present at PDC, if not encouraged. The problem I've seen, from the outside, but still inside the development process, is groupthink. That goes with that "if you don't like it, get out" mindset. It reinforces the whole attitude of if you think something is wrong, illegal or unethical, you need to keep your mouth shut.

The leadership at PDC has, in my estimation, been corrupt and the only challenge I've seen them face is that of hiding the corruption from the public. It is nice to know that there are staffers who recognize this and are appalled by it. It's refreshing to know that not all our public servants are in on the corruption, nor approve of it.

As for you, all I can say is I'm damned glad that a subservient, pusillanimous, groupthinking apologist for corrupt and misguided political appointees no longer has a place in PDC. That's one...I don't know how many more to go.

Posted by: godfry at July 15, 2006 04:00 PM

Er, folks? Can we try to work on the civility? Thanks.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 15, 2006 06:36 PM

Since UknowwhoIam posted anonymously, I venture to guess that he/she is not an EX-employee at all, but still actively on the payroll and shilling for the PDC.

Posted by: Lily at July 15, 2006 10:31 PM

To the comment that the PDC's environment is challenging becuase of the near impossiblity of serving and satisfying all stake holders I have one comment in response.

It is impossible for government to develop in the private sphere without playing favorites. When the city of Portland plays favorites with developers it tends towards what most people in this city consider at best unnecessary corporate welfare and at worst corruption.

Therefore government has little reason to play in the private sector unless there is a total breakdown of the private sector. Curing true blight is one thing - running around blowing money on aerial trams and million dollar condos with property tax revenue originally destined for education is theft.

Mr. Bodanski-

Gong is probably the major consensus of Portland. But if you really want someone to ask critical questions and represent fiscal conservatives he would do a good job of providing your blog with alot of fresh material. Regardless, a much better choice than Amanda Fritz.

Posted by: DarePDX at July 15, 2006 10:49 PM

Let's talk about candidates who are somewhere within the realm of possibility.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 16, 2006 02:12 AM

Why not Dave Lister?

He's a member of the RGMAL Union: "Regular Guy Making a Living".

There's a group that is woefully underrepresented at the PDC.

Posted by: Mister T at July 16, 2006 06:26 AM

UknowwhoIam,

That was as disingenuous and misrepresenting as possible.

The PDC, Bruce Warner and much of it's management has become nothing but an out of control corrupted agency.

Hiding what it does, refusing public records requests, cooking books and reports to cover up the incompetence and reckless spending and bending over backwards to make the pitch for more of the same.

There is no excuse you and Warner's staff can dream up to justify the snow jobs perpetrated
on the taxpayers and in many cases city hall.

The PDC pitch made for the defeated Trammel Crow "Alexan" tax abatement was wholly dishonest, unethical and likely criminal.
I noticed the PDC found a way to pay Trammel Crow another way by giving them some real estate after concocting a negative value appraisal.

When Bruce Warner had his commentary in the O claiming SoWa was going as planned spoke volumes about the willingness of the PDC to defraud the public.

Your little visit here, with equally fraudulent commentary, shows this naysayer that the agency's status quo days are numbered.

Hopefully with indictments included.

You and yours can cover up the real books for only so long. When the upside down nature of SoWa's budget and other Urban Renewal schemes find their way to public view there will be no explanation for Warner to have the O help with.

I suggest you spend your time working on getting the information out sooner rather than later or find a new job.
One with a shred of honesty and pride.

Posted by: Steve Schopp at July 16, 2006 07:20 AM

If Lister is too conservative, how about Nick Fish?

Heaven knows he should be playing a larger role in civic life than host of a local public affairs show on the WB network.

Posted by: Mister T at July 16, 2006 08:16 AM

I would think that Fritz, Lister or Fish would all be good additions. I know nothing about Williams.

Posted by: godfry at July 16, 2006 08:53 AM

Thanks for your ongoing support, Jack. We certainly need someone on PDC with strong union ties, perhaps one of the city's contractors who supports workers' rights rather than a union employee per se. But let's remember the Council just voted for a long extension and big increase in the Central Eastside Industrial district budget. All the talk about restraint, then they ignored the advisory committee's arduous work and authorized more money for PDC to spend. Seems to me the problems at PDC aren't going to be solved regardless of who is appointed to the fifth spot, until the five Councilmen are more clear, united, and consistent in their expectations.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz at July 16, 2006 09:04 AM

I agree with godfry that groupthink is a major problem in the land use/development arena and beyond "progressive". You gotta "get with the program or shut up and get out". I think this is because Portland is supposed to be liberal and enlightened. Something we miss, I think, is that truly enlightened people can talk to and reason with each other, can share nuanced points of view. Instead there arecertain "progressive" enshrined points of view that are permitted to be expressed. So the majority of Portlanders get hornswaggled big time.

Case in point: the other day the Oregonian printed a letter from someone who urged people to keep their pet cats and dogs on their property and "follow the law, alluding to the fact that Multnomah County has a cat confinement law that permits neighbors to trap your "trespassing" cat and take it to the pound. I wrote a letter to the paper explaining the ordinance was enacted with no public input immediately after a task force recommended county animal policy move in another direction, and that cat intake at the county shelter has increased by 70% since the ordinance was enacted. The driving force behind it was the National Animal Interest Alliance, an animal use group whose chief advisor is cat vivisectionist, Adrian Morrison. President Patti Strand, with a fox terrier of a husband trotting at her heels,posing as an expert "educating" them flirts and schmoozes with commissioners and reporters so that the public is not getting the whole story. Reporters say things like "I like babies better than cats". While this may give us reason to be concerned given the example Neil set, it is otherwise not relevant. People's pet cats are an important part of their day to day family lives, and they do not want to give them up unwittingly to the likes of Strand and Morrison.

Posted by: Cynthia at July 16, 2006 10:31 AM

With all these suggestions floating around, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration. It's tough because I was hoping a stint with the PDC, would give me a shot at my true dream - being a circus clown.

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 16, 2006 10:50 AM

Amanda...

Your comments highlight exactly why we need someone of your outlook on the commission. Someone there needs to stand up and point out that we're headed in the wrong direction...that our priorities are skewed.

I don't necessarily think we need to have a commission with a unity of direction and purpose, but we definitely need a development organization that is transparent in it's goals and processes. I tired of the "buffalo them with bullshit" attitude that Mazziotti and his cronies brought to the PDC administration. Let's see some daylight. PDC has a long way to go.

Posted by: godfry at July 16, 2006 12:08 PM

What in the world do roaming cats have to do with this topic?

Posted by: Phyllis Ruley at July 16, 2006 02:15 PM

"What in the world do roaming cats have to do with this topic?"

If there is a subliminal connection to the PDC board, I will think of it later. I brought that up as an example of "groupthink" mentioned by another commenter. To make the point that we in Portland often are required to accept a "party line" on a variety of subjects without public discussion.

Posted by: Cynthia at July 16, 2006 02:47 PM

p.s. And to make the point that sometimes, what is touted as "enlightened" is really just skilled special interests manipulating the press and the politicians.

Noticed in want ads today that the PDC is recruiting for a board administrator and some kind of sustainability coordinator. The ad is a piece of PR work to beat the band; I thought about it when I saw the ads for fabricators in the next category.

Posted by: Cynthia at July 16, 2006 02:55 PM

I don't think its so much "required" as it is "expected". If you don't behave and communicate as expected, that being to be entirely "in tune" with your organizational superiors, then your opportunity to advance and improve is sabotaged by those with more organizational power. When one is the odd one out in an organizational mindset, it becomes like being a pariah, particularly if their predictions of possibile outcomes is inerringly correct.

Despite all the charade about "thinking out of the box", they rarely achieve it. What is more of a concern is that their box has very little relationship to the population served.

Is there a pool on when the *tram* will actually run, for the first time, with ordinary passengers?

Is there a pool on the day/hour of the first breakdown of the *tram*? Minimum hold-up time: half hour (30 min).

Posted by: godfry at July 16, 2006 03:00 PM

Hi. I used to work at PDC too. It was a horrible place to work, probably the worst job I ever had. I was a temp and they treated the temps like second class citizens. It was a really unprofessional work environment too, that's for sure.

I don't think everyone there is bad, but they sure seemed to had some funny business practices. As a tax payer I wouldn't trust them.

Maybe it is hard to balance all that politcal stuff, but how can an agency be expected to treat the public well when they treat the people that work for them like c*ap?

I don't know if its right for employees and ex-employees to post comments here, but there were a lot of pissed off people working there when I did so I'm not much surprised by all the comments.

Anyway, good luck to everyone.

Posted by: CivicDuty at July 16, 2006 05:06 PM

Your comments highlight exactly why we need someone of your outlook on the commission.

The person who appoints PDC members is Mayor Potter, and he actively campaigned to make sure I wasn't elected to voice my outlook on the Council. I think the chance of my being asked to serve on PDC is about the same as Cristiano Ronaldo's prospects of being welcomed with a standing ovation at every football stadium in England next season.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz at July 16, 2006 06:18 PM

P.S. Thanks, though, to those who have posted in support of Jack's idea. It makes me happy to know we will continue to work together.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz at July 16, 2006 06:26 PM

"What in the world do roaming cats have to do with this topic?"

It finally hit me when I was waiting to get my hair cut this afternoon: The PDC is sh*tt*ng in our garden and we have no recourse! So, I will put on my white coat like a sc-eye-N-tist's and go "educate" the press, urging that the greater good and public safety demand that it be eradicated, tossing the newsfolk a tidbit of flattery-or something more substantial-to keep other points of view out of the news.

Posted by: Cynthia at July 16, 2006 07:57 PM

"We certainly need someone on PDC with strong union ties"

I thought almost every public employee already had pretty strong union ties?

Posted by: Steve at July 16, 2006 08:21 PM

I am confident that Bruce Warner would be happy to sit, listen and help problem-solve many of the issues so many of you are bringing up concerning PDC. I'm hoping those of you who feel so strongly having already called and made arrangements to talk with him, or have made arrangements to comment at the next PDC public meeting. In other words, for those of you who are convinced that change is needed at PDC, why not get off the blog merry-go-round and let Bruce, his staff and PDC commissioners know your thoughts in a manner that allows them to really understand and focus on resolutions?

Posted by: UknowwhoIam at July 16, 2006 08:50 PM

UknowwhoIam,

Are you playing some game?
The PDC didn't just discover there was some blogging about their agency.

Bruce Warner and his subordinates have had countless opportunities to respond to inquiries and have avoided providing information over and over again. Inquires from their own committees, journalists and private citizens. City commissioners are even waiting months for requested budgets which should be readily available.
The PDC continues today by not providing a SoWa budget,
they refuse to provide updated project estimates, revenue forecasts and running totals of costs and expenditures,
they refuse to provide TIF debt service costs for SoWa or anything else,
they refuse to provide the State Law required yearly reports on UR impacts to basic services,
SoWa URAC (and budget subcommittee) have made repeated requests for information only to be brushed off at every meeting.

Either you are under the impression these fundamental responsibilities and accommodations are being met or you are a PDC associate attempting to muddy the waters and marginalize the mushrooming skepticism over PDC activities.

If it's the later forget about it.
The cat is out of the bag.
PDC's covert methods, instability and overall shady operation shady are becoming common knowledge.
Shady in how they spent thousands to counter a CC expert by hiring a hired gun consultant to come to town concoct a Convention Center Hotel promo.

I would suggest you report to Warner that the only thing many people want from him are the PDC books.

Cynthia,

""""and some kind of sustainability coordinator""""

A couple months ago it was reported in the Biz Journal that the PDC embarking on an agency wide program to make the City of Portland s "Sustainability Cluster."

Apparently they grew weary of prior flops such as the "Creative Services Cluster" and the never quite kicked off "Biotech Cluster" and have moved on to something new for their 230 employees to work on with their 220 million budget.

So look for the Sustainability Industry promotions coming from the PDC with possibly a new Sustainability Building like the "Creative Services" building.
That cluster didn't work out so the PDC moved into that building themselves. Nice digs too.

Posted by: Steve Schopp at July 16, 2006 09:56 PM

I just found the PDC's secret plan for Portland:

http://www.faltplatte.de/index.php

(English link in lower left corner.)

Thanks to
americandreamcoalition.org

Thanks

JK

Posted by: jim karlock at July 16, 2006 10:01 PM

Mr. Schopp:

It so happens that PDC "books" and requested financial information has repeatedly been provided to City Council members and those who have requested and should have access to this info. Moreover, PDC has complied with public requests as is their responsibility as a public agency. Once again I implore you and others: Go talk to Bruce Warner and the Commissioners and ask these questions to their faces. Having experienced just a couple of days of this blog, I can see why any direct responses from Bruce and/or his staff would be both ill-advised and...dare I...masochistic?

Posted by: UknowwhoIam at July 16, 2006 10:22 PM

No, there are fundamental problems with PDC that I've complained about here for years, and that never get addressed. PDC has its own private web page that links to this site, and PDC staffers come here, several every workday, to see what is being said. There is never any response, public or private. Indeed, I'm told that PDC staffers are forbidden to comment here.

PDC refuses to comply with state law that requires cities to reveal the impact of their urban renewal activities on property taxes in their jurisdiction. They constantly hide the ball and screw over the neighborhoods. They're screwing over Saturday Market right now. They screwed over the Beam firm on the Burnside Bridgehead. They screwed over the Lair Hill neighborhood on the aerial tram [rim shot]. They're bankrupting Portland, and giving away tax dollars to a handful of sweetheart developers.

I'm sure Mr. Warner has read the complaints here, just as his predecessor, "The Don," did. It's the nature of his job to ignore them. If he'd like to schedule a town hall on urban renewal in Portland, where everyone gets 10 minutes to speak and a month's advance notice of the meeting, he'd get an overflow crowd. But that isn't going to happen, ever.

BTW, if you don't like this blog, go away. Anonymous posters who are overly argumentative in the comments here don't usually last long.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 16, 2006 10:32 PM

UKnowWhoIAm,

Your defense of the PDC is pathetic, filled with giant holes, and it just doesn't hold up to the facts presented in this case. Furthermore, it is very easy to blame responses on a blog as being the problem, but it is hard to believe or even understand PDC when they do such a woefully bad job at communicating and responding to the public in the first place. Perhaps if your defense was actually based on some sort of evidence to the contrary then you wouldn't be getting so slammed on this blog. Just a thought.

PDC has not provided information that they are legally bound to do regarding URAs. This is fact. In addition, didn't PDC just get slammed in two seperate City Audits and an independant City Club report for not providing good or timely information, responding well to the public, rational reporting or providing success measurements, including finciancial information and justification of expenditures to the public? Finally I do believe that PDC has conducted many internal reports that come to the same conclusions. Also, wasn't there a big old article in the O this morning about members of City Council continuing to question PDC and wondering many of the same things? Why don't you ask citizens that questioned the Burnside Bridge deal how easy it was to get public information from PDC? Wait, it's everyone else right? It couldn't be that these critisms and reports actually are based on something.

Anyway, I did like your idea of contacting Bruce so that he (to quote you) can "sit, listen and help problem-solve many of the issues so many of you are bringing up concerning PDC." Great idea!

Anyway, I drafted the below letter. I'm going to e-mail it to him Monday. I would suggest others do the same. Bruce can be reached at warnerb@pdc.us

Dear Mr. Warner,

Many of us are very concerned with how things seem to be going at PDC. It seems that every week or so the media has another article that makes us question your agency's integrity and ability to act as balanced and fair stewards of public resources. We have heard from many claiming to be employees, ex-employees or affiliates of the PDC, and almost all of these comments are negative. We have heard that staff are quitting in droves, that the Public Affairs department is a wreck, that PDC cannot find or report on important financial information, and that City Council is up in arms and feels another audit is necessary. What gives?

Someone claiming to be an ex-employee suggested we contact you and that they are certain you would love to meet with us to listen to, respond to, and discuss our concerns. Would you?

If so, why don't you set up a meeting? Please make sure to announce it more than one business day before it is scheduled so that we have a chance to fit it in our busy schedules, and by the way, maybe a time scheduled after 5PM would make more sense so the public can actually attend? Just a thought.

Or better yet, there's this little thing called blogging on something called the internet. Have you heard of it? Blogging is part of a thing called electronic social networking and many are saying that it is radically changing the way citizen involvement and democracy works. Blogging can also be a very effective way to have open two-way discussions with the community. Other government and corporate entities all over the world, including ones in Oregon are doing it. Give it a try? It doesn't cost anything, doesn't require a specific meeting time, and anyone with internet access can join in. You could let the press know about it and lots of folks could participate!

There are lots of blogs out there besides this one you could join in on. Hey, maybe Sam Adams will let you borrow his blog?

Anyway, we really hope to hear from you!

Your Caring Constituency,

Posted by: Because I Care at July 16, 2006 11:37 PM

NO, We don't know who you are,

But one thing is for sure, your uninformed suggestions are pathetic. Absent any real understanding, possibly deliberately so, of the degree at which many people INCLUDING city council, citizen advisory groups, journalists and individuals have attempted to acquire basic information only to be perpetually stone walled.

You are talking to many people here that have repeatedly eyewitnessed the PDC withholding fundamental and crucial information. Even when committes pass resolutions requesting it.

A recent laugher was the long awaited life cost estimate for the Tram.

After PDOT reinvented LCC estimating, debt service wasn't included and the PDC wouldn't even report what the costs are.

Instead what we got was the same thing you echo, "The information is available form the PDC".

This isn't just some misunderstanding or people needing YOU telling them to make public records requests and call Bruce.

Enough of your elementary and lame suggestions.

Put up or shut up. Go get any single piece of information and demonstrate how obtainable it is. That people need only ask.

As an example of the covert books, If you have ever seen any of the so called budgets for SoWa you would know that half the items have no numbers next to them and there is not a single full account to be had.

I was quite specific in my earlier post in terms of what cannot be had from the PDC.

PDC "books" and requested financial information has NOT been repeatedly provided to anyone.

I implore you call Bruce yourself come back with something, anything resembling a real piece of financial information.

Here's an easy one. Get the current and last 10 years TIF interest rates.

The original 1999 SoWa plan projected $160 million in debt service for the first 20 years. There is no up date. Interest rates were lower then. It may have doubled.

SoWa public project costs besides the Tram have soared.

The 1999 plan and spread sheet is on the PDC website.

Go get an updated versionof the 1999 plan with current numbers. Good luck.

I challenge you to go get anything without gapping holes in it.

There is only one reason there are not any "direct responses from Bruce and/or his staff" and basic information is not provided. It's because they do not want the public, PDC commissioners or city council to know too much.

There's no mystery here. This is a classic scenario of a government agency withholding the accounting of their activities from official and public scrutiny.

Having some clown peddle excuses for them is just part of the cover.

I hope your not being paid by the PDC, you're not very good at it.

You should have at least thrown in a few Urban Renewal TIF lies.

Posted by: Steve Schopp at July 17, 2006 08:02 AM

A couple months ago it was reported in the Biz Journal that the PDC embarking on an agency wide program to make the City of Portland s "Sustainability Cluster."

Oh, they got the "cluster" part right...needs four more letters added it to though. I just can't post them here...

Posted by: Jon at July 17, 2006 10:19 AM

meant to say added "to it", sorry...

Posted by: Jon at July 17, 2006 10:20 AM

I remain puzzled by the "union" focus; as in labor union, as in presently existing union organizations (as entities in and of themselves) to the exclusion of unorganized laborers and unorganized taxpaying folks in the bottom third or even bottom half of the population.

The unions owe their existence to the notion found in the US Constitution that an "individual" can choose to associate with whom they choose. This could be joining the Rotary Club, or the owners of restaurants joining the Oregon Restaurant Association, or perhaps even simultaneously being a member of the Republican Democratic and Libertarian party (even if the state only recognizes one such affiliation for primary electoral purposes). One can also be a CPA and a member of the OSB and Certified Internal Auditor, simultaneously, for their own political and financial advancement. One cannot take just one such affiliation and then turn it into a justification to override the superior obligation to support the interests of all, notably the right to associate, to effectively associate.

I would prefer to have a designated seat reserved for someone that represents the role of protecting the right of individuals to associate with whom they choose, to the exclusion of folks that seek to convert general law into a scheme the looks more like a pow-wow of tribal warlords. I had thought this understanding was understood by all and considered supreme in the whole scheme of "democracy" by and for the individuals.

With a little research I could list hundreds of possible voluntary-participation organizations for which a seat could be reserved on the PDC. Shall we have 100 seats on the PDC to accommodate them all or do we need 200? The one and only "stakeholder" is not a person or group but an idea, one that "all" people can support.

Amanda,

"We certainly need someone on PDC with strong union ties, perhaps one of the city's contractors who supports workers' rights rather than a union employee per se."

I see some hope in your understanding, as expressed above. Every resident should have an equal opportunity to offer labor services to the public, so as to feed themselves and obtain shelter and medical care, and to contemplate the expensive proposition of having kids and raising them. To tax the bottom half anything (including "home-owners" with near-zero equity) just to raise someone else's financial well-being is the economic equivalent of cannibalism, or simply a negative benefit as measured from the aggregate well-being of all the affected parties. A reserved seat for a "union" representative is just as analytically bankrupt as would be a reserved seat for Homer-and-Neil-and-Friends.

I had prodded Randy to openly express a willingness to let me post labor organizing fliers at all the locations that present safety workers' representatives are allowed to today; on behalf of the lowest retirement-tier workers of today and tomorrow.

DarePDX, "She isn't a strong critical thinker"

Yeah, like I have made great strides trying to get you to see the "union" issue as one of vindication of an "individual right" to associate that is only superficially differentiated from that of the ORA collective action in the legislature, for example. Jason has baggage, and his ideological and financial sponsor, an economist, is just as superficial -- that is, fails to display Critical Thinking skills. As proof, just thumb through the list of initiatives for 2008. The guy who writes ScappleFace.com offers real critical thinking skills, coupled with entertainment to boot.

Support tier-three teachers and even tier-three CoP employees. Read the articles of incorporation for the Associated Portland Educators via PDXAPE.us. Specifically read "Article V: Limitations" as a retort to the "political" ambitions of what passes as a union today.

Would a "union" representative on the PDC board support bargaining with the lowest pension tier PDC staff as a distinct bargaining unit? Would they even let me post labor organizing fliers? I think not. Imagine The O proclaiming the wonderful harmony between labor and management in the PDC (with the tier-three members) with the same enthusiasm they support PAT harmony with PPS. The harm of a strike would just be too disruptive for the community.

Posted by: Ron Ledbury at July 17, 2006 11:22 AM

I've let it be known to many at city hall that I would be proud to serve on the PDC board. Like Amanda, I think my chances for being considered are slim to none.

Posted by: Dave Lister at July 17, 2006 02:09 PM

from Mr. Ledbury's post: "I remain puzzled by the "union" focus; as in labor union, as in presently existing union organizations (as entities in and of themselves) to the exclusion of unorganized laborers and unorganized taxpaying folks in the bottom third or even bottom half of the population."

This has a lot more to do with Tom Pottie's political identity than anything else; he has been a silent and ineffectual character while in office, and has only his weakly defined political character to help him get re-elected. He is "Friend to the unions," and "The guy who only took small donations," and that is really about it.

The PDC runs the show in this town in more ways than one, and the commissioners who recognized this, e.g., Sammy Trammy, are the one's who have a political future.

Posted by: Ambrose Burnside at July 17, 2006 03:18 PM

Tommy sings an Ode to the children as a preface to each advertisement of who he represents (or his sole) each time he speaks. I hope he is not just including the children of the entities excluded from being subject to registration under Sam's Lobbying ordinance -- and the children of their silent-partner-brethren. It is a PR formula, like with CareOregon, to cloak one's self interest in the innocent goodness of children. He is like a real live walking and talking add, for the children. Yet he is just like Jim Carrey, as Truman Burbank, in The Truman Show; but I have yet to determine if he really knows the game yet and that he can really break free, and really advocate for the children in the next episode . . . or just leave the stage.

Sam can Don the Cloak too. The movie producers at Pac West Communications have a long list of clients, i.e., experience at shaping public perception. They can just find another gullible actor to replace the last one, and bath them with public accolades from all corners of the political sphere.

"Pac/West Communications offers premier public relations and government affairs services. Our award-winning team of media specialists can turnkey a unique intermedia marketing campaign for you or professionally steward your existing brand and identity."

Tommy does NOT sing an Ode to unions as a selling point each time he speaks (publicly).

Posted by: Ron Ledbury at July 17, 2006 04:36 PM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]