My blood pressure just went up reading this. When will the people of Portland finally revolt? Why do the citizens and business stand for this nonsense!? We get taken advantage of, yet where is the outrage? Are we just stupid, or do we believe that "you can't fight city hall"?

An emergency ordinance for a new park.... I wonder if we can get to it on the OHSU tram?

I'm with you, Karen. I'm all for the people in SoWhat having a park, but I don't see why they don't get in line with the rest of the city's neighborhoods.

Not a smart move, Dan. Not many voters in them thar towers, yet.

Don't forget about the "Tree Liaison Program" run out of the Parks and Recs Dept.

Check it out! Maybe you could be your neighborhood's Tree Liaison!

http://robkremer.blogspot.com/2005/09/portland-tree-police.html

OK, so if in my neighborhood we want to build a park everyone gets to pay prop taxes and SDCs, whay can't the developers do this?

Or better yet, make them buy the storage facility and build the park. I mean come on we've built a gondola (funicular is the Euro term for this), tax breaks and now a park and based on the Pearl I just don't see a lot of kids in this neighborhood.

No wonder Homer wants to build condos instead.

The Ordinance proposes to authorize the expenditure of $1,000,000 in existing System Development Charge revenue (can only be used for land acquisition under State Statute) and commitment and expenditure of up to $800,000 of future Park SDC's generated from residential development within the SOWA Central District. In addition, the Ordinance proposes to commit future developer contributions made to the SOWA Public Open Space Fund toward acquistion of this property.

The Parks SDC program was established to provide a funding mechanism for the City to have development pay a portion of the costs to address the impact of population growth on the City's park and open space resources. The expenditure is consistent with the Park SDC Methodology Update adopted by Council on 12/22/04, Ordinance No. 179008, as amended.

PDC will hold title to the property and construct and maintain interim improvements. PDC requested that the Ordinance be heard as an emergency to expedite reimbursement. It does not mean a park is immediately created, only title to the property.

And yes, Dan strongly supports protecting our urban forest.

Feel free to call your City Commissioner, Dan Saltzman with further questions.
503-823-4151
Matthew Grumm
Commissioners Representative

My bet the idea to create this South Waterfront Park just popped into somebody's head . . . about 40 years ago.

Take a number Sheepeople and stand in line.

PDC requested that the Ordinance be heard as an emergency to expedite reimbursement.

To which the correct answer is, "Sorry, your lack of planning does not create a valid 'emergency.'"

We deserve a hearing on this.

I wonder if Public Storage is selling voluntarily or under threat of condemnation.

Jack writes To which the correct answer is, "Sorry, your lack of planning does not create a valid 'emergency.'"

Matt Grumm (of Saltzman's staff) is right that there's always been a plan for a park in SoWa. I don't know, though, that $1.8 million in Parks SDC funds --which, like everything else, are in short supply-- was originally budgeted for this. The problem comes from the purchase price: $7,000,000 which PDC has already paid, hence the "emergency" to reimburse them.

Not a willing seller, no. However, this out-of-state owner's getting $7 mill for a property assessed at $2.2 mill (with a County suggested Real Market Value of $4.5 million). $2.5 million profit heading down to California? Maybe they'll at least buy one of the condos.

Oh, yeah...there's NO money budgeted for this park's operations.

"And yes, Dan strongly supports protecting our urban forest."

Which I suppose means he thinks the Tree Liaison Program is an effective use of public $$.

Of course, unless the city government took charge of such things, every property owner would cut down all their trees. After all, everybody hates trees on their property. They are such a bother.

Thankfully, we have the helpful hand of Dan Saltzman making sure we don't clear cut our cities.

Hmmmm. Let's see. Here's how to get a new Buckman Pool: (1) city sells Buckman Pool - after all, it IS closed (2) city buys back Buckman Pool as a land acquisition, thus a legal use of System Development Charge funds (3) city fixes pool with what's left of the $800,000 (or whatever) after the land acquisition (4) Buckman Pool reopens. (5) Serves 1000's. Ideal for summertime relaxation.

Ok! Time for somebody to bat this idea down like a pinata.

a legal use of System Development Charge funds

This is the root of the problem. All the "pots of money" bulls*** is just a smokescreen so that guys like Saltzman can throw money around according to a bizarre set of priorities that no voter in his or her right mind would ever approve of. Tax dollars are tax dollars and ought to be spent in a fair manner.

And Rob, please, enough with the trees. This thread is not about trees.

(can only be used for land acquisition under State Statute)

The land under Washington High School would be a nice acquisition.

The roof tops could be designated as space for roof-top bars, then sold to the city for use as roof-top parks.

Roof gardens and parks for sustainable cities "The cities of the future will be under a carpet of vegetation. So compelling are the reasons for this policy, they can scarcely be evaded:"

The dedication of roof-tops for parks could be a condition for approval.

Jack writes This is the root of the problem. All the "pots of money" bulls*** is just a smokescreen so that guys like Saltzman can throw money around according to a bizarre set of priorities that no voter in his or her right mind would ever approve of.

Keeping folks' attention riveted to the General Fund during budget discussions is like a magic trick...misdirect their focus from where the real action is happening. That's why PDC (and the School District, and EVERY governmental body) always likes to have a "free money pot" (free from serious public scrutiny) to play with. "Dedicated Funds, Enterprise Funds, Restricted Funds..." It's why PDC gets to spend money like a drunken sailor.

And $72,300 in "acquisition costs" fot this $7 million purchase? C'mon...

There's a reason Public Budgeting is a 5 credit --vesus the usual 3 credit-- class in Public Admin Grad School...it ain't easy learning to pull a rabbit out of your hat, or paying for a $40+ million tram when "Transportation money is tight", or spending $7 million for a piece of land for an unfunded future park, when Park Bureau resources are down to where we consider closing down pools and community gardens.

Karen,
Watch that blood pressure!
In today's O story on the Park Block parking gargae.
"The Portland Bureau of Parks & Recreation has identified $2 million so far for creating the surface park. Tom Moyer, principal of TMT Development, donated $1 million, and the Portland Development Commission has allocated $1 million generated from property taxes in the South Park Blocks Urban Renewal Area."
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/portland_news/1127214227239650.xml&coll=7

On the bright side the PDC pushed back it's schedule to pick a CC headquarters hotel developer.
That gives us more time to bury that boondoggle idea in the Alexan tax abatement graveyard.

The Public Storage site was the second site.
The first site was in a much better location, adjoining (separated by only a steeet) the greenway (glorified sidewalk) and easier to access.
BUT, Homer Williams controlled that first site and wanted to build a 325 ft. high rise on it.

So the city switched the site to one with owners of less influence and gave Homer what he wanted.

Can't blame the Public Storage owners for playing tough and getting as much as possible. They were facing condemnation and were losing a site for a high rise till Homer took over.

IMO, the city coughed up whatever it took to keep the issue (Homer tower) out of court and the limelight.

I requested to have the item pulled from the Consent Agenda. Anyone can pull an item off consent, not just Council members.

Linda Robinson and I, as co-chairs of the Citywide Parks Team committee, will ask the Council to discuss the process for deciding this park gets a chunk of Systems Development Charge funds, when there are many other parks-deficient areas of town that don't have the option of using urban renewal money to fund parkland acquisition.

So now there will be an opportunity for citizens to weigh in on this topic, where it counts at Council. Come on down!

Steve,

The greenway is far more than a glorified sidewalk. It provides a continuous and safe bike commute and biking route from Sellwood all the way to the Broadway Bridge (once the McLaughlin overpass is completed, all the way to Gresham). It provides an attractive route for walkers and runners. And it is a cheap and attractive way to show off the riverfront.

Correction
They were facing condemnation and were losing a site for a high rise BECAUSE Homer took over.

Okay stupid question time.
This is a high priced development
with most of the project being sold to those in the upper end economically as I understand.
If I understand it correctly this park
will make the place more attractive to sell
the units. If that is the case then it seems to me that the developer should have paid for a park in the first place.
Why then are the taxpayers spending money to help
a developer who may have not planned correctly?
M.

You just described a sidewalk/bikepath. So what.
For what the city gave away in zone changes it should have been much wider and greener.

I followed the "Greenway" process as it wound it's way through the so called compromising with developers process.
The new 325ft building heights, the widths and spacing make the greenway a bad joke on the public.
It's cheap all right. But the public paid heavily for it.
Have you even seen cross section of the paltry thing?

I support the SoWa development. I think its a good use of a brownsfield.

My problem is with the allocation of money. It just looks sketchy when the city council can't afford the most basic services for its established neighborhoods but can shell out big money for a new upper-class neighborhood.

Don't build what you can't afford.

Right on Justin! Although I hate the amount of tax money being used on the SoWa project, I do think it will be good for Portland overall.

What kills me is that Portland doesn't know how to utilize the money they have. I used to live in SW Portland on a completely ignored unpaved road. The neighborhood was annexed by the city more than 50 years ago, yet somehow they never got along to pave the roads. And, now there's no money for it, but they do have money for a new park. Emergency money at that!

Portland needs business people running it, not people who have never lived in the real world responsible for real money.

Come to the other side and see the difference in Lake Oswego. Your money is actually used smartly and you can see the benefits of your hard earned tax payments.

Some other interesing thing about SoWa's Boondoggle Park:

1. The Public Storage property is not a brownfield. No contamination at all, in fact. Most eco-planner types now think that clean property should be for residences and brownfields should be for parks. So why did PDC condemn PS?

2. The only property that was condemned was the PS property. No points for guessing which property owner was the only property owner in the Central District that wasn't part of the Development Agreement.

3. PDC only budgeted $5 mil. for the acquisition of Boondoggle Park. I guess that's why its an "emergency" that the City pony up.

I think the more sinsiter take on this is the right one: let outlying infrastructure and public facilities deteriorate to the point where they will be eligible for urban renewal funds. 7 or 8 years ago, my neighborhood tried to create a local improvement district to repave a street with potholes one could bathe in. Though city engineers boasted our project as model consensus building, and we did everything right procedurally, Vera 86ed it off the record. (The neighborhood has redevelopment potential). Eventually, my neighbor had pavers come in at night. The Portland Tribune did a story on "bootlegged paving" when it first came out in 2001. But what wasn't reported is that the City's lawlessness begat citizen lawlessness.

Linda Robinson and I, as co-chairs of the Citywide Parks Team committee, will ask the Council to discuss the process for deciding this park gets a chunk of Systems Development Charge funds, when there are many other parks-deficient areas of town that don't have the option of using urban renewal money to fund parkland acquisition.

Go get 'em, Amanda. Keep us posted.

There are many, many illegally paved roads in SW PDX, as getting the city to do it (and the residents pay for it) costs three - four times as much as a private company on the sly.

I say if the city is too lame to do it, then we should be allowed to do it ourselves, our way.

I used to have an idea to invite Vera or now Mr. Potter out to lunch and get there by driving on the worst roads in Portland. Bruised kidneys might just get the point across!

Several years back I actually did seriously injure my ankle in a foot deep pothole while taking a walk. My husband wrote to Vera stating that something must be done to solve the pothole/unpaved road problem. She wrote back telling him that it was our fault that I fell in the hole and that is is the homeowner that is responsible to fix potholes on unimproved roads adjacent to their property.

All true!

What burns me about SoWa is that there seemed to be more hype than planning or alternatives analysis-what planning is really supposed to be about. Instead we get cookie cutter riverfront restoration and development-just another San Antonio-or Cleveland. Below is a link to an article by Liz Callison on how the city might have restored the waterfront for Salmon -and about the dangers of building in a brownsfield and on unstable soil in earthquake country. The Tribune can be credited for printing it. The O treats Callison like she has the Plague, ignoring her when she ran for Metro Council against Bragdon in 98, although she garnered 42 percent of the vote. http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?=19264

Good idea, Karen. But let the mayor do the driving and ruin his tires.

Yeah, god forbid we look more like San Antonio - a great city, great downtown and a great riverwalk.

a great city, great downtown and a great riverwalk.

Feh. It's o.k. Do they neglect everything and give away money to developers down there, too?

Cynthia have you been to San Antonio?
In the last 10 years?
San Antonio is a Great place, incredible affordable housing, outstanding double loop and spokes freeway system with frontage roads on both sides for businesses and such. With the Riverwalk, Alamo, Seaworld, Six flags/Fiesta Texas and Schlitterbahn it's the number one vacation destination for Texans.
Just like Austin with livability galore.

Steve,
Sorry I thought you didn't like the greeway (the way you said "glorified sidewalk"). I get your point--there's not enough green in the greenway.

I love the river path, eastbank esplanade, etc.

Mike, the parks in South Waterfront were put in the plan because of the advocacy of folks in the Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill neighborhood, the League of Women Voters, the Coalition for a Livable Future, and other concerned citizens, to make the new neighborhood a better place to live. We (I was on the Planning Commission at the time, and helped push for inclusion of the parks in the plan) didn't work for them to help the developers sell the homes.

The business interests didn't want the parks included in the plan, presumably because the unfortunate property owner whose site would be condemned wouldn't make as much money as they would by building condos. Even those who wanted a park didn't want it on their property. Plus, money for parks means less money for other improvements the city is funding in the area such as the streets and tram (rim-shot), and less capacity for tax abatements.

Perhaps there needs to be a discussion now about using those tax dollars the Council didn't give away to Trammell-Crow to fund the park purchases and improvements, rather than taking Systems Development Charge money from another parks-deficient area in NW.

Some of us in outer east Portland have been trying, for nearly five years, to get a park in the Gateway Urban Renewal area. We were told we had to wait until enough tax increment funding has been generated to acquire property for a park. We're still waiting...

This is a very park deficient area, in an established neighborhood. The neighborhood has also been experiencing a lot of new residential development near the Gateway Transit Center and along the East MAX line, but we haven't had access to SDC funds to acquire a small, inexpensive park to enhance our quality of living. In fact, it was my understanding, that SDC funds can't be used to acquire parks in urban renewal districts.

I'd really like some clarification on this.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against San Antonio. I enjoyed my trip to the riverfront and The Alamo about 15 years ago when I visiting friends in Austin (which I really enjoyed). My only point is that Portland might have done something different with its water front, something that might have enhanced one of the traditional industries: salmon. Instead we get on the latest national kick viz. building up the waterfront. Doesn't seem like great planning or leadership to me; it just seems like a city too dependent on the construction industry stutting its boring stuff. BTW, would people who are gung ho SoWa please vigorously defend their positions? It just seems to me that there is a presumption that it was an Act of God and we have to make the best of it. That OSHU couldn't have expanded elsewhere.

Re: OHSU expansion and SoWa, it was my understanding that there really wasn't any more expansion space up on the hill. Have you been there lately? It's pretty much built out anywhere possible. I do believe that the SoWa was very critical for OHSU if they intended to continue to expand.

OHSU's threat was that they would be forced to abandon Portland and move out to Washington County. Yeah, right. But, they do need more clinical space and research space and SoWa was the closest spot.

Now if we could only get a waterslide in addition to the tram. THAT would be cool!

No OHSU was NOT out of space on pill hill. In fact I believe they recently gave away land to the city.
And they are already in Hillsboro where they should have expanded.
Why? Because they could have spent less there on buildings, than the fancy river front towers, and more on venture capital to expand biotech research and revenue creation.
When the OHSU's own biotech czar (expert) said Katz and Kohler had delusions of grandeur, in regard to their biotech expansion plan, he had good reasons.
But SoWa was NOT really about biotech, brownfields, affordable housing, trams, streetcars or greenways.
It is forced, tax funded high density AT ALL COSTS. Period.

Update on the Council hearing:

As expected since none of the Council members had pulled the item off the consent agenda, the park funding passed 4-0 (Erik was absent), with no changes to the strategy of using $1m in money from outside South Waterfront.

The question most discussed was funding parks in SoWa versus funding parks in NW. The real question is funding parks in SoWa versus funding other infrastructure in SoWa, but the Council didn't talk about that. Nobody responded to my suggestion of taking the money not given to Trammell-Crow, to fund the park.

Sam Adams did pick up a question I asked, and got PDC to tell why they paid $7m if the site is assessed at $2.2m and has a Real Market Value of $4.5m, according to Multnomah County. Apparently the city's appraisal came in at $5.6m and the property owner's at $8.2m, so they agreed on $7m rather than fighting in court.

I'm glad we asked for the hearing. As a matter of principle the city shouldn't be putting such huge expenditures on the consent agenda. And the Council's public review of the details seemed helpful for those willing to listen, think, and learn. It was frustrating because nobody on Council asked why the city can't find $7m to buy a park within the hundreds of millions of dollars expected to be generated in the Urban Renewal Area. And as usual, the issue was framed pitting neighborhood against neighborhood, even though in this case, nobody from NW testified and it was SW and East Portland activists concerned about the citywide implications who raised the issues.

I used to live in SW Portland on a completely ignored unpaved road. The neighborhood was annexed by the city more than 50 years ago, yet somehow they never got along to pave the roads.

AND

There are many, many illegally paved roads in SW PDX, as getting the city to do it (and the residents pay for it) costs three - four times as much as a private company on the sly.

I say if the city is too lame to do it, then we should be allowed to do it ourselves, our way.

*************************************

This is a bad situation that not many people understand. The City will pay to maintain streets once they are improved to a standard where they will last.

When a developer builds a subdivision, he foots the bill for the street, the cost of which is passed through to the new home purchasers. The same goes for those who have paid for their street using the LID process. Those who have paid for their own streets shouldn't be subsidizing those who want an improvement but also want others to pay for it.

As for the illegally paved roads, how would you feel if the newly paved impervious surface now directed a whole block's worth of stormwater onto your property?

To get back to the parks money, Amanda, thanks for holding their clammy, stinky little clay feet to the fire. And for your diplomatic update. I would have said something incorrect like, "They're all still Homer's b*tches."

"Go get 'em, Amanda. Keep us posted."

So let me get this straight... Everyone sat at their desks with high blood pressure griping about this park and nobody took Amanda up on her offer to attend the meeting and show your disapproval publicly? There are 43 comments on this page and probably a few hundred heads nodding to each one silently, but if you spout off on the internets and don't stare city leaders in the face as they vote you down I can't say I feel so sorry. I'm pretty excited for Sowa; I think it will be a great place and a great extension of OHSU. I'm even going to take rides up the tram [rim shot] with a big smile on my face. But, I agree that the developers should have had to pay for this, and I agree that the CC hotel stinks, but you'll see me at a council meeting whining before you hear me griping here about it. Why? Cause none of y'all are council members...

There are 43 comments on this page and probably a few hundred heads nodding to each one silently, but if you spout off on the internets and don't stare city leaders in the face as they vote you down I can't say I feel so sorry.

Hey, we have jobs. If City Council meetings were held in the evenings, and somewhere other than downtown where it costs you $1.25 an hour to park a car and a half hour each way screwing around with traffic, the people who pay the bills might show up to be heard.

Which is exactly why this kind of garbage gets rammed through on an "emergency" basis at 9:30 on a Wednesday morning.

You'll understand when you're older and you're writing the check for your property taxes... unless you live in the Pearl or SoWhat, where I guess you won't have to.

As you can probably figure out with your sleuthing Jack, when I graduate, my degree will not be pulling in enough for a 300K studio... But the park! And the tram [rim shot]! Well, that I can "afford."

He he! You can recite poetry in the park for the SoWhat residents. Maybe they'll flip you a krugerrand if they like your stuff. Better brush up on the work of that great poet John Ashcroft, though; I've got a hunch they'll be Republicans. If they aren't when they get here, a year or two in the City That Work will turn them red. And then it's on to Lake O, and they can sell their condo to the next sucker moving here from San Jose.

That would be the bloody irony for many of us on the pro-sowa end to add several thousand red state voters. Although, then you might have some angry rich folks with no jobs to go to city council meetings on your behalf and gripe about taxes! Maybe they;ll even get an extension on their URA...

Ok, so as we follow our story...the money (System Development funds) is now legally out from under the legal contraints....and back into the "marketplace" albiet in the hands of a citizen/taxpayer (read: developer).

So, why doesn't the (now wealthier) developer show some compassion for those who do without.....and donate a cool $1 to PPS & establish a Parks Division trust fund (for operating expenses) refurbish/reopeon Buckman pool? Make Buckman School a true "treasure".

Hint: you could have naming rights...like the Staples Center in LA or the Fleet Center in Boston....

the (now wealthier) developer show some compassion

Now that's funny.

So, why doesn't the PDC show some compassion for the regular taxpayers?

WOW, Thanks for the byline Jack, just got caught up on my reading, back from hiking away from it. Perhaps the next question should be how does THPRD just a tunnel through the hills away collect 20% more in taxes and provide 200% more in services. It still floors me that in Portland the tax bill I looked at for the home near Grant HS showed a mill rate of $1.76/$1000 for Urban Renewal, and calculated out to $1.23/$1000 to run the parks system. (THPRD collects $1.46/$1000 and their General Fund budget is $30,690,073 for appx 220,000 people and COP Parks GF budget is $30,527,636 with the $8,623,250 collected from the levy for the 550,000 estimated here in the City. This pencils out to spending of less than half per capita ($139.50 vs $65). Since Urban Renewal is exempted from the tax limitation, it would make no sense to further burden the general fund monies to support an expenditure that should be paid for out of the urban renewal district.