I'm wondering why the litigants aren't public... since the PDC is a public entity, shouldn't it be posted somewhere by law?

Posted by: TKrueg at August 4, 2006 01:10 PM

This is neither here nor there, since there's no way to know what this is about, but having been at a few PDC exec sessions, sometimes these matters are far less interesting and far more mundane than speculation would hope for.

Posted by: b!X at August 4, 2006 01:18 PM

It's interesting. On the agenda it says that PDC in-house lawyer Matt Baines will be there, along with unnamed "outside counsel." Could be some big bucks involved.

I love how these guys release their agenda on Friday afternoon, when no one's watching. And heaven forbid we should know who the "outside counsel" is.

Posted by: Jack Bog at August 4, 2006 03:28 PM

There is no doubt that whatever PDC staff & lawyers report to the commission for consideration it will be a well obscured short version load of bull carefully crafted to extract the outcome Warner and company want.

The outcome will be made to appear as the only reasonable decision and will be derived from a near total absence of substantiating documentation.

The commissioners will feel confident they are relying upon the "professionals" at PDC and will not want to appear as trying to micromanage.

Curiosity will be killed by the fear of alienating themselves from the other commissioners by posing any probing inquiries.

However there may be some important looking chin rubbing to give the impression they were on the brink of proving genuine oversight.

Posted by: Steve Schopp at August 4, 2006 06:54 PM

Maybe in the spirit of OHSU theatening to sue before the "Man of Steel" saved the Tram. UO made some rumblings about it had invested in Old Town thinking PDC was going to make it into thier SoWhat.

Posted by: John Capardoe at August 4, 2006 08:34 PM

The commissioners will feel confident they are relying upon the "professionals" at PDC and will not want to appear as trying to micromanage.

I don't know. I have the gut feeling that Kadri and Rosenbaum killed the Fire Station deal, and are letting the convention hotel twist slowly in the wind, despite what the "professionals" want them to do.

Posted by: Jack Bog at August 4, 2006 09:54 PM

Could it be someone doesn't appreciate public policy based on fraud and is trying to recoup a financial commitment that was based on those lies?

Perhaps a governmental investigatory agency is seeking return of taxpayer monies that would have existed but for such a fraud scheme.

One can only hope.

Posted by: The Shadow at August 5, 2006 09:53 AM

Jack, Steve, et all- I think I have found the published information you keep asking for on the impact of tax abatements in the newly posted FY2006-7 Adopted Budget.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=125253

pages 285-291 in a title chapter "City Housing and Enterprise Zone Tax Abatements"

page 288 lists "Estimated Local Agency Levy and Revenue losses" and lists a $10-11 million annual loss to local agencies.

Posted by: Swimmer at August 5, 2006 11:35 AM

That's just tax abatements.
The added loss from Urban Renewal Tax Increment Financing is $65 million this FY.

CoP TIF now has over $4 billion in assessed value with all of it's property taxes diverted away from the taxing jurisdictions and basic services.

TIF $65 million
Abatements $11 million
waved fees
low interest loans
free or low cost property
public funded renovations
etc etc etc

Posted by: Steve Schopp at August 5, 2006 08:21 PM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]