I predict a newly created, no show PERS job most likely in higher education... possibly near streetcar line. Something connected with "sustainability" and "visioning".

Here's the money shot: "We don't pave unpaved roads, we never have."

But he does fund an Office of Equity.

And he managed to scrape up several hundred million dollars for a soccer stadium remodel, a tram, a theater, and a bridge to nowhere.

None of which are more vital than paving roads, nor do they fall within any part of the City's Charter.

Other organizations can fund the arts, build the tram/stadiums/theaters, and subsidize condo developers. Only a municipality can pave the streets (or pay subcontractors to do so). Most of these improvements would pay for themselves in the form of increased property values. But don't confuse Creepy with economics, he understands bankruptcy and borrowing: everything else is too complex.

Because potholed and unpaved roads are so good for bicycling? What a moronic set of priorities.

As a recreational cyclist I ride a fair amount in city traffic. I don't like bike lanes and bike boxes. They give a false sense of safety to cyclists. Where cars are turning right, especially on a downgrade, the safest place to be on a bike is in the car lane.

ltjd,
This may be why Adams was so intent on building that sustainability center, so that he could be the director of it.
I'm with Jack, hope he moves.
I doubt he will, in my opinion, he has done what he needed to do in order to line up another job.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass, former Mayor.

Perhaps his dream job of working as an admissions clerk at Boys Town.

Mayor Creepy could "get religion" and join the priesthood?
As for the bike boxes..."the collisions seem to increase where the bicyclists pick up speed" ? So are the riders maybe trying to beat out the motorized vehicles turning right?
If this is what is happening, could the bike riders just maybe be at fault? Shouldn't they wait their turn to turn the corner?
But they should stop at stop signs too and that doesn't always happen, to put it mildly. Why is a bike/car or truck accident always supposed to be the fault of the driver of the motorized vehicle?
Green boxes are not going to fix stupid.

I'm no fan of Adams. Nor do I like his diversion of funds that could be used for basic services into the pet projects that Mister Tee outlined. But he was correct on one point.

This article is about urging the city to pave roads that were never paved by the developer in the first place (that was a mistake to allow, in my opinion). The local residents likely paid less to live along such a road. And it shouldn't be the city's responsibility to bring it up to the basic standard of paving and sidewalks; this falls upon the residents.

And once it's up to that standard, yes, then the city must take care of it.

This article is about urging the city to pave roads that were never paved by the developer in the first place (that was a mistake to allow, in my opinion).

Who allowed this to happen?

The vast majority of bicyclists arrogantly ignore traffic laws and taunt motorists while city law enforcement looks the other way. More bicyclists on the road only creates more of a safety hazard. If they were required to pay a user fee for to fund the specialized infrastructure they utilize and rant for, maybe a few of them would show a little more respect for the rules of the road.

Potholes are boring. This mayor doesn't seem to handle boring trivial duties very well.

Sam Adams, rightfully so I think, follows the new planning school of Jeff Speck & Co. This is great forward thinking that turns the automobile from master back into slave.
However, as Allan L. points out, potholes, cracks, and unpaved streets are extremely dangerous for even cyclists. It's not streetcar tracks that cause bicycle accidents (except for a few morons), it's the potholes and cracks.

Sam: you've spent enough on bike lanes and updates, good for you, honestly. Now focus on the roads you have. Otherwise do us all a favor; adopt two young kids and drive them around in the pouring rain for hours each day in a cargo bike on streets full of potholes.

Hopefully our new mayor sees that even hipsters grow up and have kids to drive around in a car. Please Charlie.

could the bike riders just maybe be at fault? Shouldn't they wait their turn to turn the corner?

Native, you obviously have no understanding of the law or of your responsibility at these intersections as a motorist. Do us all a favor and don't drive until you understand how to do it lawfully.

TR, every single word of your post is false.

Clinamen: Who allowed this to happen?

The unpaved roads are in sections of the city that used to be in unincorporated Multnomah County. These areas were developed without many county standards in the 1940’s and early 1950’s. The COP annexed these areas in the 1970’s to increase the tax base and mandate sewers so they could then build the big pipe. The city actually did promise some infrastructure improvement that never happened.

I really don’t think anyone here that is sensible will hire him. Look at his track record and his management expertise, totally dismal. Who would want someone like that? I think his current job offers are from flaky companies that specialize in door to door sales or pyramid schemes.

I suspect that the biggest decrease in bicycle/motor vehicle accidents could be realized with cyclist education and subsequent adherence by cyclists to the laws governing use of the public streets. Given the number of stupid stunts I observe cyclists execute, I'm surprised that the morbidity and mortality rates are not higher than they are. Actual enforcement of those laws, actively citing cyclists for their illicit operation of a vehicle would also certainly help, too.

That they don't have money to pave unpaved streets is obvious. That's because they throw it away repaving already paved streets that don't need repaving...frequently. Believe me, just check out Clinton Street. It's had two repavings in the past ten years, both on an existing street which did not need repaving.

And, now...Time for a change of clowns.

Godfry, if you have information about bike/car crashes in which the cyclist was found to be at fault, please do post. I'm having trouble thinking of one. The unfortunate thing about the right-hook accidents is that, in nearly all cases, the cyclist has the legal right of way, right up to the point of death. We don't let motorists change lanes on multi-lane highways without checking for conflicting traffic. The same rule applies to the bike lane, but it seems to be hard for motorists to grasp and obey.

I do not think that Creepy will be hired in the short term by anyone. Having held elected office does this entitle one to collect unemployment benefits? If so what a shame.

JohnRettig, "The local residents likely paid less to live along such a road. And it shouldn't be the city's responsibility to bring it up to the basic standard of paving and sidewalks; this falls upon the residents."

A city that is interested in "Equity" and fairness wouldn't discriminate against the poor for having purchased a less desirable house on an unimproved street. To the contrary, many of these homeowners/renters didn't have the means to purchase in a nicer neighborhood.

Here's my bottom line: every streetcar/MAX/bike paths and city subsidized rec center, pool, theaters and stadium benefits a small percentage of the population disproportionately. Yet all taxpayers are footing the bill.

We all depend on passable roads, even if it's just to have reliable access to emergency responders and delivery men.

If we can spend $85 million on a friggin' tram, and then watch OHSU grow their biotech center in Florida, we can pave 59 miles of streets in Portland.

The increased property values will accrue directly to the city's bottom line in the form of increased property taxes and more turnover in formerly distressed neighborhoods.

We've had 4 years of Sam Adams telling us why he can't afford basic services. Perhaps Charlie can find a way to say yes to basic services, including the eradication of every unpaved street in town.

If Hales would pave and sidewalk all of the unimproved streets in Portland, he will be remembered as the best Mayor this town has ever had. Yeah, that includes Bud Clark.

You want the ultimate statement of these years in Portland?

Feast your eyes on this beast:

http://lostoregon.org/2012/11/13/mystery-structure-on-grand-near-the-hawthorne-bridge/

Oh, Allan, dear; you're dead right...

Allen L: I disagree with TR -- I believe the overwhelming majority of bicyclists are responsible and attentive operators of their vehicles; with any sizable community there are outliers who cause problems.
As for "right hook" accidents, there is the small matter of "yielding the right of way" to someone who has already entered an intersection. If the front half of a truck is already through the crosswalk and you get pinned under the rear wheels.... I don't take pleasure in anyone's pain or suffering, but each of us is responsible for his or her own safety and responsibility.

Oh, Allan, dear; you're dead right...

It's ALIVE!!

If Hales would pave and sidewalk all of the unimproved streets in Portland, he will be remembered as the best Mayor this town has ever had.

Question is, who pays?

Does the city pay for the paved streets?

As far as sidewalks, as I understand, I don't have exact figures, but it can run into thousands for each homeowner for sidewalks depending on the street frontage of a home, so in some neighborhoods having to pay thousands for sidewalk costs would be a real financial hardship.

Bill - I think that structure is intended for us to think we're living in the abandoned part of some industrial city, perhaps Detroit.

I'd bet that 99% of those unpaved roads were built prior to the city annexing the neighborhoods.
I had a thought during a run the other day about unpaved streets and streets with no sidewalks..
By not fixing them, and stating they city has no intention to fix them is not the city now in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ?
The city has gone to a fair bit of expense to go out into neighborhoods to put in curb cuts at corners. Sometimes within a block of a street with no sidewalks ..

Zeb, I'm not quite sure you get it. It's obvious enough if the truck or whatever is there first and is turning, not to ride straight into it. The way these right hook accidents happen, though, is that the bike and the motor vehicle are side by side, going in the same direction, when the motor vehicle changes direction.

I think it's unfair for the city to annex outlying neighborhoods with the blatant intent to collect more taxes and at the same time, neglect to take care of glaring infrastructure problems. Or at least put the problems of these neighborhoods further down the priorities list so that, in a sense, they are refusing to deal with them.

Isn't one of the indicators of an urban renewal area, "blight?" Many of the downtown areas that are designated over and over again don't have a fraction of the real blight that you can find on the east side of the river.

Re. Mayor Adams's job prospects . . . it's not a good sign that nobody has proposed naming anything after *him*.

There's an opening for towell boy at Steam Portland.

Come on folks... in his final hours lets try to be warm and friendly Portlanders. We really should place a memorial of some sort to the Mayor's illustrious career as a consumate politician. I propose a bronze plaque with his most famous quote. "I lied." Further, i propose this be placed in the inner stall of City Hall's third floor mens room.

Re: "Who should pay for paving those city streets that are unpaved?"

Answer: "The same entity that paid for the City of Portland Streetcar"

Oh, the City paid for yet another, redundant, unnecessary mode of public transit in a part of town already heavily served by transit operated by the appropriate government (TriMet), which included massive reconstruction of utility and street surfaces that were already in decent condition?

Surely the city can pay for basic pavement of city streets elsewhere...basic street maintenance is a primary city government function. Public transit is actually not, since it was ceded to TriMet back in 1969. Development of brownfields is not. "Make Work" projects to rebuild perfectly functioning streets and utility systems, for the sole purpose of placating developers (most of whom are out-of-state entities) with Streetcars, is not a city function. Serving city citizens who have paid taxes for decades and continue to pay their full share of taxes (as opposed to receiving tax breaks and abatements) is a basic city function.

Mayor Sam was nothing more than a kiss-ass to his special interest pals. His middle finger was firmly stuck in the "up" position when it came to ordinary citizens, and he displayed it with a smile and a string of cuss words not permitted on broadcast television.

http://www.corporateknights.com/report/2012-greenest-cities-america/top-10-green-mayors-americas-largest-cities

Guess Who?

More.
It looks like these people need to hear from bojack.org

http://www.corporateknights.com/report/2012-greenest-cities-america-0

Mister Tee: A city that is interested in "Equity" and fairness wouldn't discriminate against the poor for having purchased a less desirable house on an unimproved street. To the contrary, many of these homeowners/renters didn't have the means to purchase in a nicer neighborhood.

Here's my bottom line: every streetcar/MAX/bike paths and city subsidized rec center, pool, theaters and stadium benefits a small percentage of the population disproportionately. Yet all taxpayers are footing the bill.

A street improvement almost always benefits just the homeowners that live directly on it, unless it's classified neighborhood collector or higher - and I don't believe many of these 59 miles are so classified. In constrat, all of the other examples you gave above can benefit a much wider group of citizens, should they choose to use it.

John Benton correctly cited the reason that we have this legacy of unpaved streets: They were previously in unincorporated Multnomah County, and brought in as substandard. I wasn't aware of any agreements at the time for the city to improve them, but perhaps he could offer us the evidence. Barring that, why should house "A" on a paved street subsidize house "B" on an unpaved street, since the only beneficiary is house "A"?

A better way to handle this would be to offer low interest loans to cover an LID, and avoid hitting poor households with the up-front expenses.

Yeah, well, that is one seriously cr@ppy mayor we have suffered for a very long four years, not to mention his backroom deals as "lesser" commissioner and as Veracious's chief-of-staff.

I would say "glad it's almost over," but am not remotely convinced that this is the case -- Portland has had bad governance for many years, the fault for which rests solely on us, her citizens. I know it's a pat answer, but the only means by which our college dropout "Mayor Crappy" could have been elected in the first place was quite simple: an uninformed and disinterested electorate, voting on the basis of identity politics and branding (i.e., Sam starting to wear glasses during the 2004 campaign in which he squeaked by Nick Fish, and reinvented himself as a "wonk" rather than a corrupt backroom dealer.

Certainly his true colors were presented on a weekly basis, beginning quite early on with his bailout of his Lordship Paulson of the Connecticut Paulsons. Time and time again he bent over for a wide variety of oligarchs, and sold the city down the river. I am certain that his whole baffled tenure was filled with self-doubt and the constant ringing question: "Why could I not have simply chosen Seattle for my carpetbagging? Same population, more functional economy, and not too much more of a drive from my trailer park in Newport. Gosh dang it all to heck! Randy, bring me a Tween in whom to drown my sorrows!"

But as to the question of how one goes about addressing the question of voter apathy and idiocy, i have no answer. Maybe mandatory voting for all, å la Australia? It might bring in a few people with some good ideas who don't vote due to their sheer disgust with the appalling local crowd of candidates. Runoff voting sounds good two, and one has only to look at the horrible applicants for the Portland mayoral seat this time around -- hopefully no one has forgotten that fiasco. Mayor Quimby will serve dishonorably, or not at all, dadgummit.

Happy New Year, nonetheless.

I should say too that I like Mr. Rettig's suggestion of low-interest loans for street improvements, or better yet, a revision of the Oregon IDA Initiative to allow "individual development accounts" to pay for such improvements.

That is one tax credit that has served low-income Oregonians very well for a number of years, and it's one program the state knows how to operate correctly. Why not find a way to apply it to the state's broken towns?

Voters in Portland are just as succeptible to the sub-conscious memes drifting about in the ether.

Currently the big memes are "green", "sustainability", "diversity", "livability", and "globalization".

Adams was perfect for selling these virtually meaningless memes. There was never a time when one or more of these memes did not sputter freely from his tongue.

Until we change the memes to something else, like "practical", "prudent", and "responsible", these cheap suit salesmen will continue to be elected.

John Rettig:

The OHSU Tram, the MLS Stadium, and the "living wage" subsidies paid to Paulson's hot dog and cotton candy vendors won't benefit 98% of Portlanders.

True, they can pay the price of admission to see a game or ride the world's most expensive Park & Ride, but most of them won't because they have no desire or need to do so.

Conversely, each dollar the city expends on road improvements will translate in rising property tax revenues and greater discreationary spending for those who didn't have to form a LID or get their transmission replaced.

Mister Tee:

Agree with your first two paragraphs. I wasn't necessarily defending all of the items on your list as being a sensible investment for the city; I was simply contrasting them against local street improvements, which can only benefit the homeowner.

But I disagree with what you are pushing in your last paragraph. Anything the city does that improves property values will increase the tax base, and if it has an immediate return to homeowners it will increase discretionary income. But that doesn't mean it should be done; we need better measures to assess such investments. And when it is done, the public interest needs to be protected much better than it has.

I believe in neighborhoods anyway it was that a street could vote for if they wanted a LID.
Remember Mayor's brazen move years ago, when he wanted to bring about the concept of a halo LID?
His pickpocketing all residents any way he could was his mode of operation.

...and one has only to look at the horrible applicants for the Portland mayoral seat this time around...

Would you say that all the candidates that ran for Mayor were horrible or just the ones that were presented as viable for us by the media?
There were good people that ran for Mayor.

What is unacceptable is to continue the process by which these people who end up being featured as the only candidates for our community are chosen.

This is why the continuing saga which includes Katz, Adams and now Hales must be challenged.

The web of power gives certain ones passes while the democracy for the rest of the residents gets passed over.

Here's some numbers to prove Mister Tees statement that improved street increases property values that increases tax revenue. Recently two lots on an improved street with curbs/sidewalks sold in our neighborhood for over $175,000 each. One block away with almost all the same site features except no curbs/sidewalks, but a rough asphalt street, three lots sold for $76,000 each. For one typical Portland block with 8 houses the property value difference, based on these comparable sales, would be over a $12,000 per year difference on the land only.

And in most cases, homeowners/builders build better quality of homes on improved streets than un-improved, so the property tax difference would even be much higher than $12,000. Many times a street block can be upgraded between $150,000 to $250,000. At minimum of $12,000 to $24,000 per year increased property taxes would more than pay off the street improvements in 10 to 20 years.

Why doesn't CoP factor in this kind of
common sense equation. I think many homeowners along a street would be willing to contribute a small amount like Rettig suggests with low-interest loans. But I disagree with Rettig stating that improved streets only benefit the owners along the street. That is totally contrary to the millennium of thinking about public right-of-ways. I guess the Romans had it all wrong, huh?