My only issue with Sten getting control over PDC's budget is that it probably won't reduce waste.

Erik and friends will probably get PDC to pick up the tab for more of his other responsibilities (like running VoE or wiring all new projects for 802.11 or making PDC pay for new bike lanes instead of PDOT or giving them a SDC assessment to ocver the police pension fund.).

It is another game of whack-a-mole with tax money.

They choose to ignore the efforts of the neighborhoods and their collaborative work with PDC to obtain projects in their URA.

The HAND and BUCKMAN neighborhoods have worked with PDC, in a very long, hard, and public process, to come up with what projects we --as residents-- recommend be funded in the Central Eastside Industrial District Urban Renewal Area. Our priorities are safe access to the river --for our existing neighborhoods-- and a Community Center, for our neighborhoods. We also have transportation needs. We have affordable housing we need to provide infrastructure and support for. Every neighborhood, every Urban Renewal area, is not the same.

It is very, very frustrating after all this work seeing --or fearing-- our efforts being thwarted with a cookie-cutter approach to using tax-increment money.

Chinatown is not the Pearl is not Riverplace is not Buckman is not South Waterfront. There's little enough nieghborhood control over what goes on in our neighborhoods. Now, in the name of reigning in PDC --whatever the merits of that-- we're going to impose even futher limitations on what little say we have over development in our neighborhoods?

I'm sorry, but I'm siding with PDC on this one. I strongly support "affordable housing" but I also think we need a balanced approach to using what is a limited --however abused-- resource. "More Power to the City Council" isn't exactly a call to revolution.

"More Power to the City Council" isn't exactly a call to revolution.

I will agree with you there, but leaving things in the hands of the PDC doesnt seem all that smart either. Maybe it just needs to go away.

Jon Maybe it just needs to go away.
JK: If it all went away, who would feed millions to Homer? Who would build tax freeloading condos for millionaires? Tax exempt towers for the docs? And full sized toy train sets?

Thanks
JK

I'm voting No on 39 (and all the other statewide measures except 44). I was surprised to learn during my stint on the Planning Commission that some property owners actually want to have their property condemned. Apparently there are tax advantages to selling by condemnation vs. willing seller. Plus, part of Measure 39 would further increase the power of property owners to claim higher prices for their land, reminiscent of SoWa-type deals that are costly for taxpayers.

Portland already has in place policies that limit condemnation. When each Urban Renewal Area is adopted, Council votes on whether to allow the potential of condemnation or not. In the latest URAs, Interstate and Lents, citizens refused to allow condemnation and the Council concurred. And one of my favorite memories from the Planning Commission was when a proposal to condemn a property on Burnside and turn it over to another private party was denied. It was one of the rare occasions when Steve Abel and I, often at opposite ends of the policy spectrum, moved and seconded the motion.

I agree with Frank, all URAs are not the same, each has their own "mission" to be solved. And sometimes, they don't even have a "mission" that needs solving. Let the free market play out.

I also think that the PDC/City Council feud has failure from each party, certainly based on what has happened in North Macadam. City Council, for the past fifteen years of NM planning, has had tremendous imput from the Planning Commission, Design Commission, numerous neighborhood groups, and SWNI that questioned earnestly most aspects of what the public deems shortsighted, illegal, corrupt about NM. The Council didn't listen as much if not more than PDC. And it continues, such as not one City Council member requiring an updated 5 year and 20 year budget with ALL costs accounted for in NM's budget.

This request does not require an "overhaul" of PDC and its makeup in regards to City Council oversight. Just do your job as is and stop spreading the blame.

Amanda, how do you feel about condemnation as it was used by PDC when it "condemned" the Double Tree Hotel property on SW Lincoln adjacent to PSU?

To do so, PDC extended SoWhat's URA boundary, four years after it was formed, west along SW Lincoln St. by over 10 blocks from the south boundary line of SoWhat to reach the Double Tree 4 acre site. Plus, Double Tree site had nothing to do with SoWhat's planning.

Also Double Tree was a case in point of "friendly condemnation". They wanted to be condemned so that PDC could buy the property and on the same day of purchase, sell it to PSU for further expansion of the campus. Plus over $1MILLION dollars of tax payments were lost because PSU doesn't pay taxes. This was a $24M deal.

Why didn't PSU just make a "fair-market offer" on its own and purchase the property without extending the SoWhat boundary with a snake-arm extension 10 blocks? Plus by doing so the State Urban Renewal laws only allow a 10% increase to an intial UR area's surface area from it's inception. This extension used up all of SoWhat's 10%, meaning if there is any other reason to expand SoWhat's boundary, like for additional sq. footage needed to make the I-5 pedestrian bridge work, or implementing whole or parts of the South Circulation Study concerning west Ross Island ramps and Naito, it couldn't be done.

Besides inappropriate use of "forced condemnation", there has been inappropriate use of "friendly condemnation".

Jerry, it cant possibly be surprising that a politician would not want to limit condemnation. Especially in Portland.

Whats the point in the middle class owning property if the government can just take it whenever they want? Oh, they will pay you for it. But they will pay what they think is fair. (You know, the same people, during a recent deal with a developer, who said a property was worth a negative two million $$ a while back?)

No wonder people call this "Moscow on the Willamette".

Its sick. You have Metro saying that property prices needs to be raised in order for their vision to work, but then if Metro wants your property, they can take it for less than market value?

Plus, part of Measure 39 would further increase the power of property owners to claim higher prices for their land, reminiscent of SoWa-type deals that are costly for taxpayers.

Good. Maybe the government would think twice about some of their stupid ideas if it cost more to implement them.

"Good. Maybe the government would think twice about some of their stupid ideas if it cost more to implement them"

I have absolute zero faith in that methodology.

In my opinion condemnation of private property for conveyence to another private owner is thievery, pure and simple. Yes on 39.

Jerry The Council didn't listen as much if not more than PDC. And it continues, such as not one City Council member requiring an updated 5 year and 20 year budget with ALL costs accounted for in NM's budget.
JK: Of course they don’t listen or watch the money. The goal is to spend money, not to build millonare condos or low income housing. It is merely to spend money to benefit their friends and campaign donors. And perhaps to increase the value of their brother-in-law’s land. (Strange how a county employee just happened to toss out some computer tapes that had indexes to land transactions.)

Jerry This request does not require an "overhaul" of PDC and its makeup in regards to City Council oversight. Just do your job as is and stop spreading the blame.
JK: My request is to perform bureaucide on the PDC. Then get the council out of the city redesign business.

Thanks
JK

Amanda, how do you feel about condemnation as it was used by PDC when it "condemned" the Double Tree Hotel property on SW Lincoln adjacent to PSU?

Opposed. But M39, like almost all ballot measures, is a sledgehammer approach to a complex problem. Dave Hunnicutt of Oregonians In Action is one of the Chief Petitioners, and calls it an extension of Measure 37. I think we're only just beginning to find out what bad policy M37 is. The appropriate way to make sure condemnation is used only as a last resort and only to serve the long term public good, is to elect decision-makers who believe in both those goals. And to take away decision-making authority on condemnation from those who are not elected. I still believe that, despite or perhaps because of my experiences on the Planning Commission and this past year.

Dave Hunnicutt of Oregonians In Action is one of the Chief Petitioners, and calls it an extension of Measure 37.

It's not about Dave Hunnicutt. What a weak argument. On the merits, condemnation of property for private development is bad policy. And Portland's a perfect example of what stupidity that power will be used for.

Opposed. But M39, like almost all ballot measures, is a sledgehammer approach to a complex problem. Dave Hunnicutt of Oregonians In Action is one of the Chief Petitioners, and calls it an extension of Measure 37.

Amen Ms. Fritz.

The appropriate way to make sure condemnation is used only as a last resort and only to serve the long term public good, is to elect decision-makers who believe in both those goals. And to take away decision-making authority on condemnation from those who are not elected.

Sorry, but these impulsive folks don't respond to "appropriateness". If they did, we wouldn't have needed M37 (and I believe we did) and we wouldn't need M39.

Nice theories and swell folks aren't what politics is about. It's about power and money. If one chooses to ignore that little fact, one is doomed to be victimized repeatedly. We need more limits on government not more reliance.

Governments are made up of people, elected or not, who are drawn to power in all its manifestations. There are certainly some that will not abuse it, but only a fool believes that the majority will not.

State and local governments in Oregon have brought citizens' intervention on themselves. Short of spending ALL our time monitoring government, measures such as 37 and 39 are necessary responses to restrain what is basically human nature.

In a perfect world, full of perfect people, we obviously wouldn't even need laws. But Kelo and other cases prove the rule.

...and Dave Hunnicut knows it.

Measure 39 is very similar to a measure on the Nevada ballot (Question 2) this year.

I'm inclined to go along with the idea that government taking of private property in order to give it to another private party is pretty much inherently evil. Kelo is an awfully slippery slope.

One side comment regarding the backers of these measures... the commenters on my blog who wrote in support of Question 2 (a NEVADA issue, remember) posted from New Jersey and New York. Funny that. Also, as I commented there as well, the flash animation that they prepared for Nevada is obviously done by the same (out of state) outfit that did the flash animation for Oregon's "Rainy Day Amendment". Links to both are on my blog.

Personally I don't care who's behind a proposal as much as I care about the merits of the proposal itself. But it's interesting that there's an organized nationwide campaign that ties all of these state-level measures together.

If "Dave Hunicutt's behind it" is the best argument you've got against Measure 39, then it clearly should pass.

Kelo is based on the assumption the condemned property will generate more tax revenue when developed. And the expected increase in revenue is considered a common good for the public. What a load.

Sorry Amanda, but defining increased tax revenues as a "common-good" is incredibly disingenuous. The CoP has done a terrible job of managing the budget it does have. No to mention other state and local government spending ineptitude.

Government needs to prove they budget tax dollars wisely before they get more money.

Amanda's and Chris McMullen's comments help prove two of my points.

Amanda's: "electing decision makers" does not guarentee proper use of comdemnation because in the Double Tree Hotel condemnation, elected City Council members had to vote on the case-all yeas.

Chris: You're right, condemnation "is based on the assumption the condemned property will generate more tax dollars". Well, Double Tree Hotel condemnation took a $24M dollar property off the tax roles, plus all the tax dollars from all their employees and on down the "tax chain".

Yes on 39. Taking private property to give to another private entity is wrong. Doing it under the guise that adding tax receipts is "for the public good" is wrong.

I keep hearing the argument that it's a solution in need of a problem - that we haven't had any condemnations of this sort here. That may be true, but I also know of several instances where public entities have THREATENED condemnation for the benefit of a private developer. And that is enough right there to pass the measure.

Amanda wrote: "Plus, part of Measure 39 would further increase the power of property owners to claim higher prices for their land, reminiscent of SoWa-type deals that are costly for taxpayers."

Aren't we talking about condemnation on behalf of another private entity? There shouldn't be any costs attached to taxpayers anyway...

it's a solution in need of a problem - that we haven't had any condemnations of this sort here.

Then government officials and wannabes should have no problem with outlawing such condemnations.

There hasn't been much public torture of political dissidents lately, either, but it's probably a good idea to have that prohibited by law.

On the merits, condemnation of property for private development is bad policy.

The folks in Hillsboro would say that Intel's Ronler Acres site could not have happened without comdemnation as one of the tools in the land assembly.

Was that bad public policy? It has driven much of the prosperity of that community.

Thank you, Homer Williams.

"Kelo is based on the assumption the condemned property will generate more tax revenue when developed. And the expected increase in revenue is considered a common good for the public. What a load."

A sledgehammer approach?

I recently was reading through last June's edition of The bar's real estate and land use disgest; there is an article about a Pennsylvania case limiting Kelo. Editorial comment urges a broad reading of "public use for redevelopment". We need something like M39 to set some boundaries; I am voting for it.

Chris wrote, "The folks in Hillsboro would say that Intel's Ronler Acres site could not have happened without comdemnation as one of the tools in the land assembly. Was that bad public policy?"

If they condemned private property to give to Intel, then my opinion is yes, that IS bad policy.

Sorry Amanda, but defining increased tax revenues as a "common-good" is incredibly disingenuous.

And exactly where do you read that I said increased tax revenues is part of the long term common good? I didn't say that, you did, Chris. Talk about disingenuous....

Portland has used condemnation for private development projects 15 times in the past 20 years. Its use is already very limited. The solution is for us to elect people with principles who would NOT vote for projects like the Double Tree deal Jerry references, rather than passing another ballot measure with unintended consequences. That's why I believe Hunnicutt's sponsorship is relevant. M37 is still being figured out by the courts, even after its fundamental constitutionality was approved by the Supreme Court. I am not voting for any ballot measure unless a whole bunch of experts I trust agree that all its language is correct and appropriate.

And Larry, it does increase costs to taxpayers, because it changes the rules for condemnation even for public projects. Under BM 39, if the court sets a higher purchase price than the government's initial offer -- even if the government has since made a higher offer, or the value of the property increased over the course of the case -- then the property owner is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs. From the government. Which is us, the taxpayers.

I don't think this measure will make a huge difference in Oregon, one way or the other. I do believe it will make public projects even more expensive.

Amanda, I don't mean to pound the issue into the ground, but there are major costs to execute condemnation as well as the after-affects taxpayer costs. For example, the Double Tree Hotel condemnation expended a large chunk of taxpayer dollars in PDC, City Staff, PSU staff, Council time/staff and even the Planning Commission's time that you were serving on, to process.

The Hilton Corporation that owns the Double Tree brand certainly had the resources to sell the 4 acres without using "friendly condemnation". They claimed to the PDC and City that condemnation was needed to execute the sale to PSU because of some property restrictions on their earlier purchase agreement that only allowed the sale if their was condemnation action. Even after request for that "clause" in the purchase agreement from PDC, there never was any substantuation of that claim.

So why was condemnation used, when Hilton could have just sold it to PSU? Was the $24M a trumped up price? If Hilton couldn't have sold the property as they claimed because of some purchase agreement, then the property would be devalued/unsaleable because of that agreement.

Did the City, PDC, and PSU inappropriately help out Hilton by condemnation if that was the only way to sell the property at the top of the real estate bubble? Were there any "kickbacks" for the "help"?

Double Tree condemnation demonstrates how condemnation can be used "inappropriately" whether it is a private to private exchange or private to public.

Then there was the SoWhat "park" land, for $7 million ($3.3 million an acre, and somewhat contaminated to boot). The city had to threaten to condemn that, because Public Storage never, ever sells real estate unless it's condemned. It's now a bare patch of grass for Homer's condo suckers' poodles to poop in. Worth it to the public? I think not.

Of course, they'll still get away with that one after Measure 39 passes, because nowadays the landscaping that the taxpayers build for the private condo jungles are passed off as "public" property.

Jack, I met with the attorney representing the Calif. holding company that owned Public Storage. You are right, they do not like to sell land. They were inquiring about the history of how PDC decided to try to acquire their property since the park was to be located on a block adjacent to the river and the greenway trail to the south. But guess what? Homer Williams, etc. owned the block and wanted it for another 25 story building-so, no park. He kindly offered Public Storage.

Public Storage did not want to sell and were threatened with condemnation. But they also knew that there were not any parcels left that Homer, Mark Edlen and others would allow for a park and meet the requirements for a park. So Public Storage had a strong bargaining position and got their $7.2MILLION. Good attorney.

Now we have SoWhat's only usable park located right along busy, noisy SW Moody with 48,000 vehicle trips per day, and no direct connection to the river or Greenway as the early site afforded and what was sold/adopted by Council in 2001. "Homered" again. And the taxpayers paid for the toxic site cleanup.

You also have a recent example of how even just the threat of condemnation can be misused.

Chris (PDC-city hall groupie) Smith,

Condemnation was not used for Intel's Ronler Acres site.

You are spreading propoganda like you do on a daily basis.

Your pitch that condemnation "has driven much of the prosperity of that community"
is thoroughly consistant with your public deception blog.

Eminent domain wasn't used for Ronler Acres, but the theory is that the having it as an available tool brought the fragmented property owners to the table and got the deal done.

I'm undecided on 39. I don't buy all this boogeyman 'They'll take your house' stuff. However, it seems clear that this measure will add millions of dollars to government budgets with everyone winding up in court to argue about property values. At the end of the day, we the taxpayers will end up paying more for the property, plus enriching all the big ticket attorneys the property owners retain. So this solution basically means that to get *any* development done of any sort, we get an expense hijack situation in court, right?

If I could see that we'll save ourselves dough in the long run, fine. But I'm not willing to pork out the budgets to the tune of $15-30million a year to only MAYBE make things tougher for Homer and co. That seems fiscally dumb.

defining increased tax revenues as a "common-good" is incredibly disingenuous.

But business as usual for the government class running (ruining?) this city & state.
All you have to hear is a couple of the recent debate soundbites from our governor. Its all about taxes. Its all about money.

Aren't we talking about condemnation on behalf of another private entity? There shouldn't be any costs attached to taxpayers anyway...

Except the taxpayers are the middle man.
The new buyer doesnt buy directly from the owner. They can do that now. Why would they need the gov't to be involved?
Unless....the gov't is in bed with the buyer, and is making money too...(or losing money as in some recent local cases)

And if they were at all interested in collecting more taxes for the "greater good" then why so much bitching about M37?
The gov't gets more tax money from a few acres of homes than it ever would from a field of brush or a unused farmland.

Portland has used condemnation for private development projects 15 times in the past 20 years.

Still too many times. And this is a state-wide measure. How much has it been used statewide? The most recent case I know of was in Keizer to build a freakin Krispy Kreme.

My source for Ronler Acres comment is the City Club report on Measure 39.

Rather than trust my interpretation, I suggest you read the report for yourself.

Chris,
Go read it yourself.

Your Ronler Acres comment is exactly what the Oregonian used in their anti M39 editorial.
But at least they got it right with the "threat of condemnation" being used at Ronier acres.
I suspect you knew that but embelished your comment to mislead people. Like you always do.

I don't trust you or the O.
Being the perveyor of all things PDC, Metro and TriMet you got your work cut out for your.

"The most recent case I know of was in Keizer to build a freakin Krispy Kreme."

Vital public purpose:keeping cops in doughnuts.

Even if it's never happened in the entire state, M39 is a prudent response to the Kelo majority opinion (which a future court is likely to reverse)...

Until then, we must protect private property rights on a state by state basis.

Yes, even the "THREAT OF CONDEMNATION" has been used insidiously by government. I have been in several city council hearings, meetings with PDC staff and CoP, and even at a METRO hearing where the "THREAT OF CONDEMNATION" has been used "politely" to demonstrate the muscle of government. It is not a good position to be in to have public officials "lightly" use the threat. It can be just as effective as it's actuality.