This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 17, 2011 8:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was Like a circle in a spiral. The next post in this blog is Alarming news. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Eileen Brady favors paving over part of West Hayden Island

"We should be able to responsibly develop a portion of the island to create new jobs, while setting aside a large part of West Hayden Island for habitat and wildlife," candidate for mayor Eileen Brady's campaign said in a statement.

There goes her "green" cred. And our hopes.

By siding with the Goldschmidters from the Port of Portland on the Hayden Island plan, Brady's confirming what we feared: that the next mayor won't be any less beholden to the city's Old Money than the current one is. You can be darn sure old Charlie Hales could care less how many bald eagles he has to run over to get back on the public pad.

In Portland, when it comes to saving the environment, that's the little guy's job. No plastic bags at the grocery store, a recurring bottle-return ordeal, an absolute obstacle course just to get the garbage taken away from one's house every week, pay extra to leave your gutters hooked up to the sewer -- the list goes on and on. But when the Dunthorpe types want to steal wildlife habitat for their contractor buddies? Well, "we should be able to responsibly" do that.

To quote these guys, Come on, Eileen.

Comments (33)

"Natural Resources?" Nah! Asphalt, coal shipping facility, Jobs! Now those are natural resources! Dominion over the earth!
Bald Eagles?...open spaces?...we got enough of those! Who can't afford to own or rent a mega house in Bend or Sun Valley or Jackson Hole?
Oh we never fly commercial any more, Net Jets for us!

At last, a suggestion of a political position has been introduced into public discussion of this popularity contest.

Eileen has always been in the Saltzman camp. So why is this a surprise? Insider all the way and worse, because she denied it.

Who can't afford to own or rent a mega house in Bend or Sun Valley or Jackson Hole?

The majority of people cannot run to a house away from the city to "get nature."

Perhaps those making these kind of decisions can, is Portland then becoming a sacrifice zone?

May not mean as much to them to save special qualities of our area if decision makers can get away from pdx and frequently.

Very disappointing, this statement from Eileen Brady!

West Hayden Island is about 800 acres. They're talking about developing 300 and preserving 500. Not the end of the world.

Our system preserves land outside the UGB. The bargain is that you have to allow development within the UGB.

No one here has ever set foot on West Hayden Island, am I right? So what will you be missing exactly?

If you're worried about nature take a drive up or down the Columbia. You'll be reminded how much nesting ground we really have around here once you get past the city limits. It's okay for the city to be a city.

Snards - how far do you want the sprawl and industrialization to run?

Dear Readers:

Please let me clarify my position on this important issue: New Seasons.

Thank you.



Destroy fish & wildlife habitat for a coal export terminal. WTF is wrong with these folks?

Jack, sorry, I'm somewhat sympathetic with Snard's remarks.

I boated around Hayden Island last weekend. On the Hayden Island Channel there are 6 Portland of Portland enormous shipping cranes opposite of the west end of Hayden Island across a 400 ft channel. Plus, farther east it's all houseboats, marinas, more industry on the south side.

On the Columbia River side there were barges racked up to the island with 6 ships anchored waiting for a berth.

Yes, there were some blue heron, a peregrine nest and lot of cotton woods more on the west end, but essentially it is human occupied. Since we are losing industrial areas like where SoWhat was located, the inner eastside, SW Macadam, the Pearl District, now invasion into even NW Yeon surrounding area and inner NE Portland, where are we going to put our jobs? Our economy can't be coffee shops with unemployed creative class people sipping coffee.

Preserving 500 acres of 800 acres doesn't sound too bad. Yes, I like preserving natural areas, but Hayden Island isn't
a total natural area.

But there is a counterpoint. Are the Port facilities in Rivergate and Vancouver's port facilities adequate for the present and future? Media hasn't been even addressed this point beyond just a regurgitation of what Port of Portland hands out. Do we need to use the 300 acres of Hayden Island?

It's okay for the city to be a city

Let's develop Forest Park ASAP--it's wasted space now....

jimbo, Forest Park is a park. It's okay to have designated parks. But not every undeveloped space in the UGB is a park. Some are just undeveloped.

In this case, the city wants to designate 500 acres of it as new open space. Not shabby at all.

The Oregon land use system REQUIRES that every UGB always include enough buildable land to last 20 years. Much of it will be developed at some point. That's what makes it "buildable land." Then you have to expand the UGB to maintain a 20 year supply. That is the law. It is the explicit trade off for protecting the land outside the UGB. It is not a bug, it is a feature.

Honestly, you people despise growth in every form and then wonder why we have no economy here. An extra terminal on West Hayden Island won't impact any of you one iota.

LucsAdvo, don't put words in my mouth.

An extra terminal on West Hayden Island won't impact any of you one iota.


I vote for more Baristas. Jobs are jobs.

And Obama is going to make a big speech about jobs. Soon. In September. Right after his vacation. I'm sure the speech will solve everything.

Yes really, jimbo. Unless you get a job there.

How else could building a new facility, on a parcel of land you've never visited, on the far northern boundary of town impact you?

Nobody on the ticket is going to be a revelation, but it's encouraging to hear her call out the mayor and city council for using the PDC "like a cookie jar" for pet projects. She also said the city permitting process needs to be more business-friendly, fire and police pensions need to be addressed, and the water bureau needs to reign in its scope-creep. Doesn't sound like 'insider' business as usual to me, just music to my ears.

Snards - Wow. You are defensive. I asked you a question. That's not putting words in your mouth. Apparently, the question made you nervous though.

"An extra terminal on West Hayden Island won't impact any of you one iota."

That is exactly the problem. We may well build something that will sit and sit and sit.


1) We can't accommodate the largest ships. Even with the recently completed dredging of the Columbia that increase the draft that can be accommodated to 43', 25 percent of the container ship capacity coming to the west coast (super post-panamax ships) cannot off load in Portland

And these are the ships being built now. 2/3 of ships on order for being built are super post-panamax ships.

Source: http://www.jocsailings.com/MaritimeNews/NewsArticleDetail/tabid/74/ArticleId/10466/Super-Size-Ships-Challenge-Capacity-Balance-Report-Says.aspx

Can we dredge deeper? Maybe. But it took 20 years of process and what not to get from 40' to 43'

Sorry to say, it's all about the big boats these days:


2) This will not reduce tariff costs or bring Portland closer to the Pacific:

Shipping via the Port of Portland has unique challenges and costs because ships must navigate the Columbia for 100 miles. Unlike other West Coast ports, two different pilots are required to operate boat traffic serving the Port (Source: Portland Business Journal - http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/12/14/story7.html)

BTW - If you really want a view of what this means, I highly recommend a visit the excellent Columbia Maritime Museum in Astoria:


This challenge of geography - which clearly will not change with a Hayden Island terminal - adds to the overall cost of shipping to Portland.

But in addition to this, the Port of Portland has the highest tariffs on the West Coast. In fact, even though its shipping was down some 30 percent, the Port increased it shipping tariffs again in 2010 (Source: Port of Portland Terminal Tariff Schedule).

3) The Port is already over-capacity for its marine traffic.

Existing Port of Portland terminals, with planned improvements in place, can handle more than double today’s cargo volume and still not be at capacity (Source: Port of Portland 2020 Marine Terminal Master Plan).

And the 2020 Marine Terminal Master Plan may not even reveal the full picture of existing capacity.

For instance, ICTSI just began operating Terminal 6 under a 25 year lease from the port. Recent comments from Enrique Razon, Jr. of ICTSI clearly point to existing inefficiency at Port facilities:

"Right now the port is very well equipped for the work it has," Razon said. "We could easily double the throughput," he said, using existing equipment.

Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/port_of_portland_longshoremen.html

The bottom-line? Shipping demand for the Port of Portland is not and has not been constrained by lack of capacity. A new terminal at Hayden Island will likely be idle or underutilized for many years to come.

So yes, at least once it's built, "An extra terminal on West Hayden Island won't impact any of you one iota."

Of course to get to that "no impact" point, there is still the issue of building it.

And since there is no infrastructure in the area, it's not free (at least not for tax payers).

The cost of development for the proposed access bridge for the facility is $120 million alone. And that is just the beginning.

This project makes no economic sense. Beyond short term construction jobs of creating it, it will do little or nothing for the regional economy.

The Mayoral race and council races are very much in their infancy. I am hopeful that as the candidates take the time to more fully review issues such as this that their position will evolve and deepen.


Snards - Wow. You are defensive. I asked you a question. That's not putting words in your mouth. Apparently, the question made you nervous though.

Nice try...

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1) Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

2) Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

That's WikiShick, but I'll add: Snards - Wow. You are defensive.
as the standard retort of the offender.

Predictable and equally invalid.

Kinda like the Apparently, the question made you nervous though. line - which is pure defensive inference/projection.


Thanks cc.

LucsAdvo, you don't make me defensive or nervous.

As cc says, I never said that I want sprawl and industrialization to run on forever. So your question is baseless.

If you're interested and/or capable of responding to any of my substantive points, I'd be happy to discuss them.

Let me break it down Snards.

What I don't understand is why you believe that nature should only exist out in the Gorge. Because that's what your writing implies.

One of the things I liked when I moved here in 1977 was that I could easily take public transportation or my feet to places that were not urban. I didn't own a car as a young transplant for well over a year Snards. When I lived in Boston I had to hitch hike out to nature.

I don't see the point of obliterating nature within city limits because the Gorge is out there. Hell there are people that want to change the nature of the Gorge.

And while we are at it, Snards. Just who benefits from the destruction on Hayden Island? Because it's not the vast majority of Portlanders. And the number and quality of jobs will be a joke.

Does that help you comprehend?

Our water margin with the Columbia should have natural areas on the order of Forest Park, Mary S Young State Park, and Powell Butte. Instead, we have pitiful little postage stamps of natural area that hardly represent the native ecology, and way too much pavement and crappy development. Oh, and let's not forget that the powers that be for decades gave the impression to those who cared that this area would be protected, all the while sneaking through measures to make it easier to pave and develop.

The answer is NO. NO big heat collecting swaths of pavement. NO more toxic dust blowing and washing into our air and water. NO enterprises that trade precious resources for a few forklift operator jobs that net negative if you count ANY of the public subsidies. NO more habitat destruction. Just, plainly and simply, NO.


LucsAdvo, Snards has already answered your question. Even though I don't like the whole land use thing we have going here in Oregon it's what it is. Land is sacrificied inside the UGB so that land outside of it doesn't get developed. Pretty simple concept.

My question to you is where else should they be developing 300 acres of adjacent land inside the current UGB that can be accessed by river traffic? If you have a good idea where such a plot of land is, go point it out to the Port of Portland and convince them it would be better then paving Hayden.

Or, go convince the the powers that be to remove Hayden island from inside the UGB.

You and I have agreed on many things.

Stopping those pet projects for one would provide money needed for jobs. There would be money for more teachers, more public safety jobs, more jobs for infrastructure work. Our city is looking rather shabby, lots of work there, roads, etc. Businesses would be more likely to come into the city if treated better by city policies, and if our water rates weren't increased, you get the picture. Taxes are unduly high with so much money going to many unnecessary and very expensive projects.

I have written before my thoughts about the UGB and the future here.

Many changes have taken place in the world, and are taking place with food commodities, and with drought and flooding in areas, we may need to rethink matters regarding the UGB here. Growing food and shipping food for example, these increases of food expenditures tells me that we need to save the BEST fertile land in the valley AND WITHIN our city in order to grow food if we need to. That is a basic necessity. Far too much of the good farmland has been covered with housing developments.

As far as Hayden Island, in my view more important to keep open space and habitat and positive landscape within our living area than to have paved asphalt strips for importing cars from China or exporting coal to China. The developmental arena benefits once again at what expense? Are we really providing jobs, or is this the ubiquitous mantra we hear when we are asked to sacrifice, similar to "it is for the children" and/or "it is for the jobs?"

UGB saving farmland? I see much of the farmland now growing urban street trees and peppered with McMansions and estates.

BC for example is another community that has farmland and city combining in what I consider more livable ways than our plan here.

Could not find the link, but had this August 14, 2005 Oregonian article "Curbing urban sprawl Canada style".

Oregon vs. British Columbia - two approaches to protecting farmlands:

Created: Both systems set up in 1973;both lauded as successful.

Emphasis: British Columbia drew boundaries around farms; Oregon around cities.

Acreage: British Columbia gained 160,000 productive farm acres; Oregon lost 900,000 acres since 1980.

So, it isn’t always as we are told, that we are saving farmland. In my view, we have had to sacrifice too much of our quality of life for the UGB.

I am just going to say thank you to dyspeptic and clinamen for their points. Because they get it.

And Darrin, bring me some hard numbers on jobs promised versus jobs delivered for pet projects with costs (economic and/or environmental) to the citizens of this city. Then let's see how it really plays out. Why don't you go look at every promise of jobs at the expense of liveability and jobs in the last 5 years and then look at the reality of what happened and the ROI and tell me how that goes. I am expecting overwhelming silence when all is said and done.

That should have read

"Why don't you go look at every promise of jobs at the expense of liveability and tax payer subsidies/monies in the last 5 years"

After reading Tony's post it would be helpful that media and Port of Portland respond to many of his succinct points. I'd like to hear the rebuttals. Tony helps answer my point of "do we need it?"

LucsAdvo, you're switching topics on me. I wasn't talking job creation and you know it. I was talking about using land inside an UGB to "save" the land outside UGB. How about addressing that?

BTW, I think we have the same opinion on how well Portland gov't does on creating jobs.


A picture is worth a thousand words:


LW - I have been working these points with Council and others for over a year now. No rebuttals to date.

That said, although I have a background in business development and economics, I don't presume to be an expert in marine trade. It will be interesting to see if the report that is expected from EcoNW is rigorous in its assessment overall.

Unfortunately, I don't believe they are charged with assessing the "business case" for the proposed development, or reviewing the cost-benefit of any public investment with a clear eye toward opportunity costs. Thus may well continue the trend of taking the Port's assertions of job creation and the like at face value.

On a final note regarding the "do we need it" question, in 2006 the core conclusion from business leaders participating in development of the Port's "Working Harbor Reinvestment Strategy" was that "over-committed Rail" was the most pressing competitive issue for trade in the region.

To be clear, this particular concern was shared fully by the managers from the Ports of Portland, at least in 2006. At that time, they view rail capacity as the single biggest limiting on expansion of marine activity.

In other words, the core bottleneck identified five years ago was our regional rail system and access, not marine terminals, and that particular bottleneck was having an effect on our ability to use existing capacity at marine terminals.

Needless to say, since 2006, that particular bottleneck (rail) has not been remedied in any tangible way. As such, if there is a investment in freight-mobility (in the broadest sense) that should be at the top of the list, it's freight rail capacity and mobility.

Darrin:...I was talking about using land inside an UGB to "save" the land outside UGB. How about addressing that?...

Does that include selling a park, Johnswood Park in N. Portland for a housing development project?

Does that include wrecking nice neighborhoods with ubiquitous flag lots and ghetto style housing projects?

Does that include covering up our best fertile farmland within the UGB for developments?

Does that include wiping out huge groves of firs and cedars within our city to accommodate the development?

Does that include not caring whether SoWhat was built on a greenway?

The list is long. There are reasons why making our city a sacrifice zone has gone too far.

How about "saving" livability within our city as that is where we live, isn't it?

Of course, there are some neighborhoods that have been protected from the wreckage of this plan, they may not understand what I write about here. Perhaps some tour buses are needed.

clinamen - Don't you know neighborhoods like Alameda are sacred and sacrosanct?

They may be sacred and sacrosanct, however, some matters of protection are beyond that, such as radon prevalent in the area due to those old Missoula floods.

Clicky Web Analytics