Lots of smoke, but the fire's missing
The agenda for next Wednesday's Portland Development Commission meeting is up, and with it the PDC's financial statements for the year ended last June 30. I've barely scratched the surface of the city's financials, released the other day, and then here comes this additional mountain of numbers and spins. At least we have a whole year to try to figure out where the bodies are buried; a few readers have begun the search.
As for the rest of the meeting agenda, so far they haven't posted what are probably the most interesting documents -- reports on PDC property appraisal procedures and the agency's construction wage policy. That's where all the fireworks have been lately. In the meantime, we can while away the hours with Portland State's glossy report on its ever-expanding empire as a real estate developer and promoter of fine pizza.
UPDATE, 4:32 p.m.: The missing reports have been posted. The report on appraisal procedures is here. The one on the construction wage policy is here. The Trib has a related story here.
| Posted at 9:57 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (3)
Y'know...I keep hearing about what dire straits our state system of higher education is in. Then I look around and notice how much cash the local representatives of the state system of higher education have to throw around.
It kinda makes the poor sister claims a bit hollow.
But, then, maybe it's a matter of maldistribution.
Posted by godfry | January 5, 2007 11:18 AM
What I find funny --in that sorta ironic way things seem funny lately-- is PDC's "note":
NOTE: DUE TO SCHEDULED LIGHT RAIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ADJACENT TO THE PDC OFFICES, THE LOCATION OF THIS MEETING HAS CHANGED...
Too bad, I guess, that all the rest of the businesses adjacent to "construction activity" caused by this adsurd and expensive mall rebuild can't escape to somewhere else.
Posted by Frank Dufay | January 6, 2007 5:14 AM
From the Trib article: ...33 units of underground parking, a legal requirement on the property.
The press can be so infuriating. Why not ask how a 297 year "legal requirement" is created by a seller who no longer has a financial stake in a property, whose purchaser SKB-Lanoue LLC no longer exists as a business entity, but was administratively dissolved?
Why not ask why PDC paid $1,2 million for a property that had been bought less than 5 years before from RG Investments for $650,000...only now it had this 297 year "legal requirement" which created a "negative value" in the millions?
Why not ask how convenient it is that RG Investments has a "legal requirement" value in this property, for which it pays zero property taxes? How does this private encumbrance on public property not produce any private value worth taxing?
Why not ask...how did this property get into private hands in the first place? This used to be, after all, Police Headquarters, and as such was owned by the City, wasn't it?
Ask questions? Nah...let's just leave PDC alone.
Posted by Frank Dufay | January 7, 2007 5:02 AM