Rape of W. Hayden Island: Even architecture dude gets it
The paving over of wildlife habitat on West Hayden Island by the Port of Portland for a pointlessly redundant shipping terminal will be one of the final disgusting acts perpetrated by the Sam Rand Twins as they leave City Hall. Shame on the three continuing members of the City Council, who are playing right along, and shame on the Goldschmidt Party people who are pushing so hard to make yet more bucks for themselves and their friends at the expense of the birds and the bees.
The sacrifice of struggling wildlife for the sake of a quick buck is so egregious that it's even attracted the opprobrium of a local architecture critic, and that's saying something. Usually the architects are among the prime villains in the wrecking of Portland livability, and their media followers usually try to help them get away with it. But in this case, one such writer, Brian Libby, is speaking up eloquently:
Last night's hearing before the Planning and Sustainability Commission, the only opportunity for public comment, was practically a caricature of self-serving moneyed interests pitted against community members fighting only for values and their homes.Whenever someone testified in favor of industrial annexation, he or she came from an organization that would directly benefit from the environmental usurpation. A union representative whose colleagues would be hired for the construction on West Hayden spoke of "family-wage jobs," implying that trying to save endangered species directly resulted in his babies going unfed. A series of business and port alliance representatives, neckties removed from their black suits, sung the praises of industrial development and finished their remarks to the sound of silence from the packed audience or some poor unironic single clap. Whenever a homeowner about to be displaced or choked by diesel fumes pleaded with the council for mercy, or an environmental group leader pleaded for the accelerated timetable to be slowed down, a chorus of applause rang out from the commission chamber and its filled overflow-room....
The annexation of West Hayden Island would be troubling enough in its own right, but now Mayor Sam Adams is attempting to skip the unfolding process and bring about a City Council vote by the end of the year. Even those at last night's hearing tentatively willing to support the annexation admitted they felt blindsided and disappointed by the mayor's effort to seal the deal before he leaves office at year's end. Most of the community groups at the hearing, such as a group of Native American tribes with ancestral connections to the Columbia and to West Hayden, told the Planning and Sustainability Commission they had never been brought to the negotiating table until the deal was already done....
The West Hayden Island annexation plan is to take 300 of the remaining 800 acres for Port of Portland expansion. That may sound like a fair trade-off at first: wildlife still gets more than half. But think of those 800 total acres as the last toothpaste in a tube already squeezed to the limit. Aside from a few tiny parcels here and there, the city has already taken virtually all of the wildlife area that ever existed in the Portland area. If we take 300 of 800 acres remaining on West Hayden Island, we're not leaving more than half to wildlife and the floodplain. We're going from 98 percent of local wild areas claimed for development to 99 percent. We're squeezing the very last remnants out of the toothpaste tube and expecting no future cavities to form.
The whole thing is here. It's one of the best commentaries on Portland hypocrisy in a long time, and one of the very best things written so far about the shabby farce being played out around the environmental atrocities soon to come to West Hayden Island.
Of course, there's not much architecture involved in a shipping terminal -- a giant parking lot and some cranes -- and so it doesn't cost Libby too much to speak his mind. But he's noble to do so. It's too bad that as usual, the fix is in in Portland.
| Posted at 8:49 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (14)
Yeah, it's an OK post. But it's made much worse by the fact that Libby felt compelled to take a gratuitous shot at "Republicans."
Posted by ere | November 19, 2012 9:15 AM
We are already supporting a huge amount of park and other publicly owned land that doesn't pay property taxes. That's my first reason for questioning the new terminal project on West Hayden Island. The second reason is harder: what will the future look like? Will international shipping stay level grow or decline? If it doesn't grow then maybe a West Hayden Island would be a gamble the lost.
Note: Land not paying property taxes includes all publicly owned buildings, bus terminals, parks, MAX ROW and facilities and much more. Forest Park for example is a huge, non-tax paying piece already. Milwaukie MAX takes more properties (land, buildings) off the tax rolls. Of course churches and other non-profits don't pay property taxes on what they own either. Which leaves the rest of us ordinary, modest folk to pay for BFPDR and the all of local government and schools.
Posted by Don | November 19, 2012 9:23 AM
Most of the community groups at the hearing, such as a group of Native American tribes with ancestral connections to the Columbia and to West Hayden, told the Planning and Sustainability Commission they had never been brought to the negotiating table until the deal was already done.
When did progressives make the sleazy little leap into believing that, since the Native American genocide was so long ago, the remaining tribes don't matter at all? You have Carla at Blue Oregon taking money to screw over Native Americans on the casino deal - or trying to anyway until the whole thing slid down the toilet along with her other work for Jefferson what's-his-name.
When did it become okay - in this equity-crazed environment - to kiss off one part of the population completely? My band used to rehearse on Sauvie Island and one day I saw mention of these villages there. Here's from the Sauvie Island Community Association: "The original inhabitants of the island were the Multnomah tribe of the Chinook Indians. There were 15 Multnomah villages on the island, and the 2,000 islanders lived in cedar log houses 30 yards long and a dozen yards wide."
I'm sure there are tribal connections to West Hayden and the idea that they weren't even consulted about something this big is disgusting.
I'm a progressive myself and I'm very disappointed at how they're acting lately. This post compares them to Republicans, but the whole thing smacks of another humanitarian crisis: Gaza. This is a polite Portland version of the Middle East - a land grab with the rights of the locals not even considered.
I don't know about the economic forecast but the guy mentions things that could happen in 20 years. We've heard that exact number before in trying to sell other scams. We shouldn't be stuck with something so Sam can try and prop up his legacy. I have a feeling in 20 years, he'll still be regarded as one of the worst financial stewards the city ever had, assuming the city survives that long.
Posted by Bill McDonald | November 19, 2012 9:26 AM
Libby's blog, Portland Architecture, has never been a media follower of the monied developer and architect crowd, championing them as they destroy Portland's livability.
Libby celebrates the small architects (and at times developers) on their way to creating projects that enhance Portland's aesthetic for the long term. If you ask me, Libby's voice is perfectly appropriate here. Good for him.
Porland Architecture does as much for setting Portland straight as Bojack, in different ways, of course.
Posted by PD | November 19, 2012 9:38 AM
"Aside from a few tiny parcels here and there, the city has already taken virtually all of the wildlife area that ever existed in the Portland area."
That is preposterous. We have the 2nd largest urban wild area in the country in Forest Park. We have given Metro a levy to buy up large wilderness areas around the Metro region. The reason that the city "takes" the wildlife area is that it is a city. Drive 20 minutes and you'll see thousands of square miles of wildlife habitat protected by the UGB. That is the explicit purpose and tradeoff of the UGB.
To me the question is, does the Port really need additional facilities? Probably a good argument can be made that they do not. But the wild life argument bugs me a bit. This land is not pristine either. My understanding is that it has been previously logged and used to dump dredge materials for decades.
Posted by Snards | November 19, 2012 9:42 AM
Yeah, Bill. And Sam took as good of care of Portland as he did of his pickup truck which he careened around in, beered up, with his pants down, smashing into traffic and bashing into parked cars, all the while trying to escape responsibility for his selfish ego-rampage of corruption, carnage, lies, and notoriety. And all in the service of the Goldschmidt Gang.
Posted by Mojo | November 19, 2012 9:52 AM
Aside from the irrelevant and stupid remark about Republicans this is a pertinent post.
The fact that this is even being considered is outrageous- hard to believe no one gives a damn and the Portland City Councilors rubber stamp this travesty.
Where are all the folks who should be protesting this? Where is the Occupy group?
Is no one paying attention? Mitigation for wildlife and low income citizens? Really?
Come on folks-organize and don't let this happen.
Posted by K.W. | November 19, 2012 10:43 AM
METRO is currently testing the waters for a bond measure to purchase even more land for environmental preservation.
So let me get this straight...the taxpayers will foot the bill to develop one wildlife area while we (potentially) foot the bill to buy others? Jesus H. Christ. It never stops, does it?
Posted by RJBob | November 19, 2012 10:45 AM
At the end of the day, the concerns I have shared on this blog in the past, with the Council, and in other forums on this issue have not changed in their relevancy over time.
The bottom line is that the concept plan put forward by the Port has a very weak business case and the economic development potential is likely
far below the presumptions.
I am not immune to the environmental and social impacts but the weak business case remains my single biggest concern.
What make the Port's plan for a marine terminal on Hayden Island weak?
1) Rail Capacity are the real challenge: The freight bottlenecks in the NW aren't marine facilities, it is lack of rail capacity and the dramatic pinch points in the regional freight rail system.
Even the Port recognizes this. In its "Working Harbors Reinvestment Strategy" report from 2006, the Port identified
"over committed rail" as the most pressing competitive issue for trade in the region.
2)The Columbia Will Not Become Deeper. We can't accommodate the largest ships. 25 percent of the container ship capacity coming to the west coast (super post-panamax ships) cannot off load in Portland. Further, this is the area of growth in shipping; 2/3 of ships on order at present are super post-panamax ships, so this competitive disadvantage will only grow.
3) The Columbia Will Not Become Shorter. Shipping via the Port of Portland has unique challenges and costs because
ships must navigate the Columbia for nearly 100 miles. Unlike other West Coast
ports, two different pilots are required to operate boat traffic serving the
Port.
4) We Have Enough Marine Capacity. The capacity is not needed. Existing Port of Portland terminals with planned
improvements can handle more than
double today’s cargo volume and still not be at capacity (Source: Port of Portland 2020 Marine Terminal Master Plan)
When ICTSI began operating Terminal 6 under a 25 year lease, their CEO, Enrique Razon, stated to the Oregonian:
"Right now the port is very well equipped for the work it has," Razon said. "We
could easily double the throughput (using existing equipment)."
Most of the press coverage on West Hayden Island has ignored examining the business case in favor of a "jobs vs. environment" narrative. This is unfortunate since it plays to knee jerk positioning rather than thoughtful dialogue and review.
The simple truth is that if the Council hands this unique parcel over to the Port to support its ill conceived development plan, the real tragedy will be that the environmental degradation and community impact will be for a project that is destined to miss every promise of job creation and regional significance.
I strongly encourage anyone concerned about this project, to contact all the Council members today at tell them to either vote against the annexation or remove any consideration of West Hayden Island from the Council agenda for the foreseeable future:
Amanda Fritz: 503-823-3008
Dan Saltzman: 503-823-4151
Nick Fish: 503-823-3589
Randy Leonard: 503-823-4682
Sam Adams: 503-823-4120
Thank you for reading all the way to the bottom of this comment.
Posted by Tony Fuentes | November 19, 2012 12:18 PM
Tony,
Way to bring it with the information. Are you the same Tony Fuentes I did the cyber-interview with a while back? If so, thanks again.
Posted by Bill McDonald | November 19, 2012 1:08 PM
This is such a bad business plan you'd think somebody must be on the take.
Of course that kind of thing couldn't possibly happen here in sleepy little Portland.
Posted by Tim | November 19, 2012 1:11 PM
You are welcome Bill. And yes, I followed in Jack's footsteps as one of the Armchair Mayors on Neighborhood Notes.
BTW - among the reams of information on this project proposal is a summary of all the rail issues in the region and, notably, nearly none of the rail freight mobility projects have any funding identified:
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/397943
One of many key quotes -
"During the (West Hayden Island) planning process, several stakeholders have raised concerns over the effect marine terminal development may have on the BNSF main line and the Columbia River rail bridges, which are perceived to be congested choke points."
That "perception" is only one of the major realities in our region when it comes to our major freight rail challenges.
Posted by Tony Fuentes | November 19, 2012 3:44 PM
SIncere thanks for the positive feedback on my blog post. Not only is it great to hear this piece resonated, but also to hear that someone associates me with little-guy architects and firms over the big boys. Great to hear.
I know I'm honestly probably more of a liberal than a lot of the people reading this, but I love the idea that there are some issues or projects that we can see eye to eye on as both left and right of center people. I feel very "conservative", for example, about the Columbia Crossing, which I see as a tragic billion-dollar mess.
Someone made note of my wisecrack about Republicans, and honestly, I'd take that one back if I could. It was unnecessary and I'm sorry about that one.
Cheers,
---Brian Libby
Posted by Brian Libby | November 19, 2012 6:06 PM
Libby is, as he says, very liberal. And, as he also says, there are many points all political spectrums can agree on, Hayden Island and the CRC included. But most architects today worship the God of Smart Growth, and even the little guy architects fall for the no-car apartments as part of Portland's "livable" future. In LO and Clakistan we are fighting against not just "smart" growth, but the sameness of thought and creative expression that is coming from these so-called creatives in urban planning and design.
Whatever happens with Hayden Island, sadly it is just a small piece of what has been going on in the Metro area for decades. The fix is in before the public ever hears about or gets to comment on a development, and the metro area is being developed in ways that are making it less and less livable. Developers and ideology trump livability, creativity and public preference every time.
Posted by Nolo | November 20, 2012 3:31 AM