I stopped reading Bog's blog long ago. It's the online equivalent of a grumpy old guy sitting on his front porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn and reminiscing about the "good old days." Who really gives a rodent's rump what he thinks?

There is absolutely no doubt that San Diego had the exact same brand of naive and/or ethically challenged apologists, excuse makers and city hall saps attempting to provide the same kind of cover for their officials. Here on this BlueOregon blog can be found the biggest collection of active folks dedicated to re-electing the same people in city hall over and over again. Despite the exceedingly obvious and increasing occurrences of Bush/Chaney/Rove/Haliburton-like activities here in the Rose City, those who mock Bog give a green light to all of it. We have Goldschmidt/Carter/Wyatt/Mazziotti/Trammel Crow & Bechtel pilfering the public coffers while stacking up debt a regular basis and you either have no comment or defend it.
How you can pretend to be stand up Democrats and walk right by these local crimes against the taxpayers and basic services is a mystery. Group naivety perhaps, but true Blue you are not.

Mary, you make a lot of accusations, yet I fail to see these massive problems that you seem to imply. As far as I can tell, Portland is better off today than it was five years ago. Is there a massive structural problem looming? Are there kickbacks happening that are not being reported? Aside from one, very well-publicized bad deal involving the PDC, I know of none.

Personally, I don't pretend to be a Democrat at all. However, I see no crimes against "taxpayers and basic services."

I call B.S.

Where's your proof?

Agree with Mary. Most folks who hang here, and even worse on Portland Transport, have drunk the Cool-Aid and are willfully blind to the massive transfers of public wealth to private pockets that proceeds under the banner of "smart growth" etc. Proof? Just list any ten recent PDC projects. And anyone who isn't eager to throw another $100 million on the credit card (city debt load) must be a knuckle dragger.

Y'all need to understand that frugal fiscal policy is the necessary foundation of progressive social policy, and that heaping improvements on already privileged neighborhoods is an insult to the people in this town who eat ramen noodles so they can afford their property taxes. Accusing the have-nots of a bad attitude when they protest their taxes getting spent on more toys for the haves is not just undemocratic, it is ungracious.

Doretta, I get the feeling you and yours walk right by the sustance because you don't like the noise. All the while plenty of sarcasm, hyperbole and vial remarks are posated here every day.

"Modest re-developmnent help"?

This blog should be NaiveOregon.com And there is no real surplus. Countless millions are simply backlogged and off budget.

Obvioulsy everything really needs to be explained to you all from scratch, in elementary fashion, but it wouldn't sink in so forget it.

Garlynn said, "Aside from one, very well-publicized bad deal involving the PDC, I know of none" One? Each of these has a broader stench than the one line. How about the negative appraisel PDC tried to scheme through? How about the scam to give Trammel Crow a $10 million tax Abatement for a luxury SoWa tower? How about an $436K estimate for a SoWa intersection turning into a $20-$40 million unfunded cost. How about the entire SoWa budget for all of the public improvements in chaos? How about the 10,000 biotech jobs for SoWa? How about the PDC "creative services" building debackle? How about the PDC giving away the river front Holman building to the chair of the SoWa URAC? How about Homer transferring LID comittments? How about the Convention Center Hotel? How about Urban Renewal sucking a "modest" $65 million a year from basic services including $20 million from schools? How about money laundering PDOT millions in general fund money to OHSU through SoWa? How about the millions in back logged road maintenance? How about Parks diverting millions to SoWa? How about Cascade Station? Is this city's bright star Jefferson High School? You all must be proud of that. I'm sure you'll be pressing for another 25 years of the same. On and on and on. It's amazing how so much can be missed by people so observant, perceptive and critiquing on all things Bush and Republican. Clap on-clap off.

I mainly keep track of national events, so I came to the South Waterfront story late, mainly by reading Jack's blog. Since then, the things the people who marketed this project to Portland claimed would happen, have begun to come up way short. And the amount it will take to complete it keeps growing. The things that Jack and his readers warned would happen are coming true.

 I can compare it to national events and it's a little like the Iraq War. The reasons we invested so much in South Waterfront keep evolving. We are supposed to accept that forecasts were incorrect and move on. We are supposed to assume there was bad intelligence and that there was no deliberate misleading of the public. Cute words like "guesstimates" are employed and we're all supposed to buy it. I've even begun hearing the exact same thing President Bush says about his presidency: Just wait a few decades and you'll see how great this all was. 
  Meanwhile, it now appears we have spent hundreds of millions to build condos for rich people who don't want a car. I have no particular allegiance to any group but that sounds dumb to me. I'd rather fix other parts of the city. 
  How am I supposed to conclude that Jack was wrong when what he predicted is coming true?

Mary's list is a good start. But be sure to remember that you can be left and Dem and against all these give-aways of public resources to the fat cats, too.

Little has really changed in this town since a City Club recommendation to zone prostitution on the East side. The pressure on this site to maintain an "All Happytalk all the time,' format just protects the groupthink that is preventing real change that is good and needed. The diversion of $$ from the schools alone should be a source of shame to every elected official involved.

If somebody wants to tell a real history of Portland, let them dig out the first promise of an inner SE community center and pool. I'm sure you'll find the original promise appeared in official city documents over thirty years ago. Then do a year-by-year account AND MAP of where the $$ collected for that in one way or another went. Then do a list and map of all the other gifts and toys we have somehow found the $$ to buy for fat cat developers that easily could have afforded them without public subsidy.

Some of this stuff is hard to describe without sarcasm because it is so glaringly obvious. For instance, some of us knew the promise of 10,000 bio-tech jobs in SoWat was fiction on its face at first hearing. The reason is that, as is very well known in "development circles" no high tech company is going to site where the schools are floundering like Portland's are. All the flacks involved certainly knew it. How can you discuss a situation like that without sarcasm? The Blue Oregon way seems to be to not discuss it at all.

Mary:

Are you clueless? First, your list of things is populated with some things that have nothing to do with the City of Portland as a government. You're also complaining, then, about Metro, PPS, OHSU, State of Oregon, etc. Then there's your defamation, e.g. "scam" and "money laundering." And all of it is hyperbolic. The thing is, I agree that there are some trade-offs happening on the south waterfront that have to be scrutinized, but I've also seen lots of scrutiny and criticism, and so I don't think there's a basis for thinking all of this is swept under the rug.

And then there's the broader question, which is the obvious failure of Jack's prediction. While I would hope that he would defend himself by arguing that one of his missions is to throw some rocks to get the debate going, his prediction was -- if taken literally -- as hyperbolic as your rant.

Jonathan,

What a weak response. Mary laid out a laundry list. If you want to win this argument, then I suggest you copy and paste her list and go down the list explaining why each listed point is non-factual, then you can make the point that she is creating a hyperbolic argument.

Jonathan,

I appreciate the fact that all you did was implicate other gov't agencies. You didn't deny she was right on any count.

Your use of the term "trade-offs" is particularly rich.

The "obvious" failure of Jack's prediction isn't yet set in stone. It's only been a year. A breakdown in the SoWa project will take some time. Step back and watch.

People are arguing about two different things here, and in some sense both sides are right. First, Portland is not going bankrupt -- nowhere close. Yes, the bond rating agencies got it wrong in San Diego for a whole host of reasons, but that doesn't mean they have it wrong here. Millions of investors rely on the ratings agencies, and no one would listen to them if they got it wrong all the time. Portland is financially strong and has shown the ability to manage fiscal crises, like the last recession, better than most state and municipal governments.

Second, and unrelated to bankruptcy, Portland wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on projects like SOWA and the Pearl. These projects look nice when completed, but they mainly serve to enrich a handful of developers who donate large sums to local campaigns, and they cater to wealthy retirees from California at the expense of the local middle class. Jack and his readers have done a really nice job laying out the subsidies and giveaways and tracking the broken promises along the way. (And before someone says we need wealthy retirees to build our tax base, keep in mind that very few in Pearl or SOWA will pay any property taxes into the general fund for at least 10-20 years.)

The idea that Portland is financially strong and at the same time wastes hundreds of millions of dollars is not a contradiction. Jack's error comes about because he so dislikes where the City is spending its money he assumes there must be a negative outcome (i.e. bankruptcy). But government can make really bad policy decisions and still maintain its fiscal health. If the nation goes into a major depression then the City is screwed, but if that happens we have a lot bigger things to worry about. Under normal economic ups and downs, the City will be just fine.

What progressives should care about is this: How much is the City spending to create playgrounds for the wealthy and profits for Homer Williams, and could those dollars be used for other necessary core services? In some cases the answer is yes, and that should be an embarrassment to the local progressive community.

Miles, BRAVO! The fact that Portland's bond rating remains healthy does nothing to excuse the gravy train for in-crowd fat cats at the cost of decent schools and other basic services, nor does it make any of the litany of lies used to excuse it true.

Don't forget that our financial picture could change with GASB 45. Personally, I think the best use of our city government would be to prepare for the Big One. This would be wise. We should have 6 or 7 temporary bridges ready to go, and power generators scattered throughout town. We need water supplies and medicines stockpiled. Tents, the whole bit. We don't know what the condo market will do, but we are going to face a big earthquake someday and these politicians should be concetrating on that. Many geologists say we are overdue.

Jonathan, Am I clueless?

Thank you,I never thought about it.

The list I made was a demonstration of how things work around here and why more people should be alarmed and somehow put an end to it, once and for all. I know the whole list is not directly attributable to the CoP. But that wasn't the entire list of troubles right here in river city either.

There's also the Port of Portland, who works closely with Metro, TriMet and the PDC/CoP and regular basis on big ticket adventures. Cascade Station only recently unfolded as the monumental failure it is, relative to the intent and massive public investment. It's an outrage but this blog is calm. Not too long ago the Port, working with Katz et al to boost downtown, built a new headquarters. Now they are about to spend likely $100 million on a new headquarters out at the airport. The Port recently gave away, in a demonstration of complete fiscal irresponsibility, our public shipyards, dry docks, 53 acres, land under the river, and the floating dry dock. Before that it was the $50 million hangar fiasco. But don't assume that is all with the Port hierarchy.

And always remember the predominance of Goldschmidt cronies throughout ALL of the list.

(If there is any popular demand, my next clueless list will be every name of every cronie and what they did)

And so it goes. Am I getting even more clueless?

Oh yes there is plenty to be clueless about OHSU's management. They (Kohler) hired a biotech expert to assess the potential for biotech. He was labeled a "biotech czar". When he concluded Kohler and Katz were having "delusions of grandeur" about biotech growth and 10,000 research jobs it was bye bye czar. Strangely the biotech jobs pitch sustained. SoWa and the Tram were on the heels of the State giveaway of $200 million dollars of our money to OHSU for a business venture that even OHSU's own biotech guru or czar, Dr. William New Jr., doubted would succeed. I wonder who was clueless here then? It wasn't only the jobs that SoWa critics raised. One was highlighted in OHSU's new spin this week when they stated that biotech venture companies were more interested in low rise clusters and not costly prime river front high rise towers. This was precisely what was said years ago. Yet ALL of those calling the shots, like everything else, ignored it.

If you thought some of my comments were "defamation" try this. "Peter Kohler is a liar... he is extremely disingenuous" and "a poor steward of the medical community". State Senator Kurt Schrader (D) said that when opposing the biotech funding.

Just "hyperbolic"? There are no "Trade-offs happening on the south waterfront". Most of the official "scrutiny" you have witnessed has been a charade to obscure and dismiss the growing public criticism and avoid consequences for the movers and shakers pulling in the big coin, fat retirements and private sector consulting jobs awaiting them. When PDC head Bruce Warner, works with PDC staff to put together a commentary for the O and claims "the SoWa plan is on track" , that my clued up friend is "sweeping it under the rug". This still doesn't complete the list of troubles right here in river city. Oh there's more. Our local journalists just can't find it in them to put it all in print.

But just forget all that "clueless" stuff.

Let's look at the "broader question, which is the obvious failure of Jack's prediction" ?

Now I get the clue. "Broader", go for "broader".

Thanks Jonathan,

Rant on rant off.

Ignore Jack. Spend some time over there and check out the sycophants the Censorer in Chief has surrounded himself with. Kind of pathetic for a former Stanford grad, really.

Blowhardanski has acheived the blogging equivalent of Denny's. He may be popular, but it's cheap and artifical and shouldn't be confused with the equivalent of real food. What's sad is to see a millionaire old man trade on half truths, conspiracy theories and venom- and claim that he's "for the people." Nice.

If he'd put half the time he spends sitting in front of a computer actually doing something constructive maybe the terrible city he lives in would get better...oh, that's right, this is about a personal ego trip for him, not actually making a difference, isn't it?

Portland won't go bankrupt as long as they can keep raising taxes. What mostly sank San Diego was an over-commit on employee benefits. Portland's solution for something like this is to raise prop taxes for the next 30+ years (a la PFDR - Mr Leonard's legacy to the youth of Portland.)

It can also bump up sewer rates to among the highest in the country because they took money for fixing that and blowing it on vanity items and ignoring things like road maintenance and yet they are still $100M short on SoWa for improvements.

Steve:

Under measures 5 and 50 local governments do not have the ability to raise property taxes unless voters allow through the creation of a temporary tax measure. In fact, property tax assessed value can only raise at a rate of 3 percent a year, which means that the disparity between real market value and assessed value will continue to grow, effectively meaning that property taxes go down each year.

My windows and doors are locked, but every politician and bureaucrat is out to get me! They lie and cheat, and all the media outlets ignore it! None of them dare touch the big story of this grand conspiracy, because they know that a big conspiracy story would never sell papers. They're all big-profit sell-outs! Yeah, sometimes they do great projects, which I'll pretend don't exist, but other times they predict things wrong. How stupid could they have been to want to invest in depressed areas -- if they fail in N/NE, I'll attack them, and if they succeed in the Pearl, I'll attack too! We should have condemned the south waterfront!

Put the foil back on your head, because pretty soon aliens will be trying to beam in signals to convince you that there are a lot of really dedicated people out there who spend all their day trying to do good things to make this city better. And then you might have to engage, instead of just throwing rocks.

"Rant on, haters. And Kari, thanks again for hosting threads like this. You're really uniting the Democrats and making lots of friends in the process."

Are you serious, Mr. BorJack? Have you re-read any of your threads lately, including your own comments.

You and your site is not exactly hate free, Mr. BorJack.

For an example,

http://bojack.org/2007/04/this_ugly_world.html

and there was this sweet post, sanz the exchange between you and an offended WWP.

http://bojack.org/2007/04/make_it_a_series.html

Apparently, you have no problem deleting comments that paint you as you really are. Hmm.

You can sure dish it out. Too bad you can't take it.

If I were a more profane person, I would use the common street thugs expression of disapproval that relates to one having intimate relations with ones self.

Doretta, No "Jefferson isn't suffering primarily due to lack of money". Far from it. In fact that's the perpetual excuse by those who control all of our schools. My point of using Jefferson was to demonstrate our local leadership's affection and commitment to failure. It's all about maintaining power and control over everything. The same people doing the same things over and over again with that same web of support so dominant right here at BlueOregon. Issue after issue it's the same thing. A green light pass, look the other way approach to everything. And you'll make sure Jefferson stays exactly the way it is for another couple decades.
From schools to the PDC to transportation it's the same self interested, we're in charge so shut up attitude now targeting Jack Bog for tainting because he dares to challenge the entrenched status quo regime.

Jonathan's last spiel was nearly verbatim to the usual neocon bit targeting liberals.

Change a few words and look.

----"My windows and doors are locked, but every Republican politician and Bushie is out to get me! They lie and cheat, and all the media outlets ignore it! None of them dare touch the big story of this grand conspiracy, because they know that a big conspiracy story would never sell papers. They're all big-profit sell-outs! yeah sure the economy is better, which I'll pretend isn't doing well, but most other times they do things wrong. How stupid corrupt could they have been to want to fight terrorism in Iraq, when they fail, I'll attack them, and if they succeed I'll attack them anyway. We should have impeached Bush by now. Put the foil back on your head, because pretty soon aliens will be trying to beam in signals to convince you that there are a lot of really dedicated people in the Bush Administration out there who spend all their day trying to do good things to make this country better. And then you might have to engage, instead of just throwing rocks."----

Jonathan's preference is to ignore all things locally because True Blue politicians run the show. Jonathan is misinformed and illequipped to ponder the details of dysfunction. The conflicts of interests and rampant diverting of public monies into illegitimate policies, programs and pockets of pals is too much to take on. His comfort zone of fingers in the ears, "I can't hear you" suits him and the status quo very well.

The city, basic services and and the taxpayers? Not So Much.

As a point of clarification, the "Jonathan" who commented at 11:01p.m. last night, with regard to Jack Bog (not me) is not the same who previously posted (me). While I certainly agree that Jack can be heavy-handed with those who comment on his blog (I believe I was banned for pointing out what I thought was some hypocrisy, and that his tone was a little lawyer-professorial), I'd not question Jack's absolute right to run his blog as he sees fit, particularly where (as he does) he makes everyone aware about the kinds of comments that he'll delete.

As for Mary, her comparison to the Bush administration misses a huge point in public governance, in that the Bush administration is secretive, to say the least, while the City of Portland's leaders seem to be doing a lot to bring transparency. They are not always initially successful, e.g. the PDC appraisal of the 1/4 block on 3rd. But the fact that we know about that, that elected leaders are going after that issue and not letting it stand, doesn't demonstrate a conspiracy or corruption. It demonstrates that the system works to make these issues transparent.

And I'm a neocon? Puh-leeease.

I also think the Pearl is a rousing success and is already making a very positive contribution to the viability of the city which will become more significant as tax abatements and the URA expire.

I also believe the Pearl is a wonderful place - I often shop, eat, and browse there. The question, though, is whether the cost-benefit of City investment is going to work out in our favor. I haven't seen a full accounting of government subsidies to the Pearl (mostly because I don't think anyone tracks it, or even could), but between the infrastructure improvements and 20-year property tax abatements it's clearly in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

What I find troubling is that liberal Portland just kind of shrugs its shoulders at this and says, "Yeah, but there are some fantastic restaurants and bars!" I believe a really detailed look would show that those benefitting are multi-millionaire developers and the upper crust who are getting subsidized $1 million condos. Maybe after 50 years this project will start paying off, but I'm not so sure. The important question is whether we could have accomplished much the same thing with a lot less public investment, freeing up money for other projects that perhaps would actually benefit those who need it.

Miles Maybe after 50 years this project will start paying off, but I'm not so sure. The important question is whether we could have accomplished much the same thing with a lot less public investment, freeing up money for other projects that perhaps would actually benefit those who need it. JK: Right on Miles.

Thanks JK

Jim:

Is the proper public policy question, then, how long we should calculate a project (or projects) take to pay off? The question arises every time a business gets a tax break to bring a company, right? You measure employee salaries (and those taxes), and a host of other kinds of tangible and intangible values that those developments bring along. Sometimes it doesn't work out, because the company goes belly up or bolts. But I, for one, think it would be a very healthy debate to think of it as a public investment in that sense: what's the dollar cost, and when do we reasonably anticipate recouping that in tangible or intangible benefits. Surely then we have a better yardstick for telling whether the investment was a good one.

Admittedly, this would be difficult, to say the least. How can we really measure whether some tourist spends a dollar in the Pearl because of something the City invested in. By the same token, you can measure Portland Center Stage ticket sales, but how easily can you say that a ticket was sold because PCS is now in the armory?

What Mary thinks of as fraud and money laundering is a question of investment, some good, some bad, and some not easily capable of measuring the costs and benefits.

Frank, I am aware of the "convertibility" of several aspects of Homer,Gerdling/Edlen, Weston projects in SoWhat as you mention of the tax obligation. There is also the transferring of the "affordable housing requirements" occuring in SoWhat-delaying the obligation for the housing.

Can you elaborate on what might be the dollar benefits of Homer's "transferring" of tram obligations to the LID?

Is it a fact that Homer hasn't/won't pay a dime for the tram until far in the future through the LID?

Are there other tax obligations that are being delayed, circumvented by Homer and others in SoWhat?

Your question on Zidell's property taxes need to be answered.

"a question of investment, some good, some bad, and some not easily capable of measuring the costs and benefits."

Totally with you. I would add, however, that the best way of measuring the worth of those investments, is elections. If we as voters feel it's reckless, we'll vote the losers out. If we generally feel that they're making good investments, we'll keep them around. If we keep idiots around, it's as much our fault as theirs. The fact is that this group [and those likeminded] that Bog and his pals malign on a regular basis have been planning and driving the ship for decades now, and we're doing pretty well. We're the envy of the nation and most who live here consider it a pretty swell place to be. So don't tell me we're a bunch of ignorant, blind kool-aid drinkers. I actually LOVE LIVING HERE.

"Under measures 5 and 50 local governments do not have the ability to raise property taxes unless voters allow through the creation of a temporary tax measure."

Exactly, Mr Leonard got the voters of Portland into paying this thing as an extra levy that doesn't follow the 3% increase rule. One more thing for your children get to pay for is the plan he designed. So, I guess I agree with most of the BlueOregon crowd that voters don't know hat they are voting for some times (a la M37.)

"Not to mention how demoralizing this post must be for the troops."

Especially the ones who work for MUltnomah County which is merely a financial prelude for the CoP. CoP just knows how to better dun the people of Portland for taxes.

Frank,

It's useful to note that this property has been assessed at $6,000 since 1997, which far precedes the deals made for SOWA. If there's a good/bad reason, it's independent of this discussion. I'd like to know why it's assessed so low as well, but my guess is that it has nothing to do with Homer and the usual suspects of the Bog crowd. Further, I think you can find examples of this outside SOWA. PortlandMaps.com is a great tool, and provides alot of great info, but can be dangerous when used by people who really don't understand it. You and I are both in this category tonight, but sometimes it's Karlock and the guys who claim that entire buildings in the Pearl aren't paying any property taxes, when they indeed are. Hopefully a subsequent commenter has a better answer to this question.

Hey Steve,

I know exactly what the levy cost me, and I know what it's for, and I'm pretty ok with it, as are most of the progressive people who visit this blog, I imagine. Unlike Measure 37, the resulting costs for individual families are pretty easy to quantify.

God, that was easy. I already located the info that you should have looked up before you posted that, Dufay. 3121 SW Moody is broken up into several tax listings. I can't tell you why, but I can tell you that altogether, that address is assessed at $673,320. I'm not saying that's the correct value to assess it at, but I am saying that you should have fully looked into it before you stated an assessment value that's a tenth of that. That's how rumors start...

Rumors? On the internets?! Hey, it's what keeps some blogs in business, baby!

I would add, however, that the best way of measuring the worth of those investments, is elections. If we as voters feel it's reckless, we'll vote the losers out. If we generally feel that they're making good investments, we'll keep them around.

This is only true to a point. The democratic process gives power to the people for major corrections in direction (i.e., in 2004 the majority was still okay with the Iraq war, but by 2006 they weren't). However, it doesn't do a good job correcting for individual policy decisions.

I would agree with you that Portland is moving in the direction that a majority of voters want it to. But that doesn't mean that the taxpayer subsidies that created the Pearl and SOWA were good policy decisions, because they weren't. In addition to elections, the democratic system also needs a strong, independent free press that highlights bad policy decisions and embarasses public officials into correcting them. I just can't with a straight face say that the Oregonian is up to that task.

Miles,

You're right. And that Willamette Week, the Trib and Portland Mercury are toadies to the man/Goldschimdt/Katz/PDC conspiracy as well. Right?

Give us a break. There is plenty of free press in this town. You just don't happen to like what you read. That's a different problem. Then again, that's why you have bojack, where the "news" is manufactured to fit your world view.

Do you have documentation of 20-year property tax abatements in the Pearl?

I thought they were for 12 years, but some of them are still pretty amazing, like 625 NW 11th with an AV = $1.325M and prop taxes = $125. Unless, of course, you have a friend in city govt who can extend that exemption.

Is the city going bankrupt? Apparently not, if you can believe the debt-raters. Will the city continue in sound financial health? That remains to be seen. The city has roads, sewers and water pipes that are extremely old, and much in need of fixing or replacing. The cost will be enormous. The city also has some federal actions looming over it's head, that could cost a lot to comply with - namely the endangered species act, the safe drinking water act, and the superfund program (can't remember the federal enacting legislation - CERCLA?? somebody help me our here) It's sure nice to build these new neighborhoods for rich folks, but what about this other basic stuff that we need to take care of? I love this city. I hope we are able to hold it together.

DE; if the Zidell property has been valued at $6T since 1997, before the actual beginning of SoWhat, I don't find that this information is "independent of this discussion".

One would think that since over $288M of hard cost taxpayer funds, per 1999 SoWhat Budget,($1.5Billion of hard/soft costs, but this is even low with all projects so far over budget) will be spent for SoWhat and close to $100M has already been spent, that this would increase the value of Zidells property.

Escalation has certainly been true on all recent property sales in SoWhat such as Homer buying Block 49 for $3.2M then selling it to the taxpayers less than a year later for $7.2M. You would think that city appraisers would find Zidell's 1997 value increasing some in ten years.

BoJack gives the opportunity to read something about our city that we all love that isn't all tainted by Sinclair Syndrome-"Babbitism". Wonderful places are not made only by "pollyannism".

This is part of a comment I was going to post a few days back over here to an Amanda Fritz response involving VOE and bankruptcy.

[Editor's note-- The following is a long and largely incoherent comment by Ron Ledbury, bojack regular.]

On Morality Banter (Paul Allen/Incorporations)

Any incorporation, at the instant of incorporation, typically wraps in a limit on personal liability as is allowed by state statutory law and is recognized in federal bankruptcy court. Does this not morally translate effectively to an advance filing of a bankruptcy petition by any individual? (It does scale well to the liberal attitude to the business judgment rule, and executive extraction of corporate resources.) I hope you would share my view that all incorporations, for-profit and non-profit alike, that do avail themselves of such a limit on personal liability should never themselves be a recipient of any gift from any person by way of the taxing power of the government. The list of such gifting is astounding. (Read deeply and you will see opposition too to tax deductibility of gifts to entities that claim, hardly verifiably but by their own word, that they work for the public benefit. If such personal gifts were after-tax-only it might constrain the gaming of the tax break opportunity, just as with gaming the public funding of an election campaign where someone is unable or unwilling to obtain voluntary donations from individuals. Ending the break or gift also removes the opportunity for government meddling, where enabling such meddling is the real goal behind the offer of breaks and delivery of unearned gifts.)

While the state law allows a private entity to announce to the world by way of their filing of articles of incorporation that the operators and donors/beneficiaries have limited personal liability (even as a default position provided in a statute) this would not prohibit a city from precluding any gifts or even any dealings whatsoever for any contracted services or other dealings with entities that do not formally disclaim, in writing, any assertion of any limit on the personal liability of the operators and beneficiaries, and perhaps even donors. (This formulation is designed to rebut anyone from the "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" crowd and to outrun anyone that would claim to be working to help "people" in their individual lives. Anti-Corporatists too need only bark "personal responsibility.") I can only imagine the howl of absurdity from the folks the cannot live but by way of their claim to exemption from personal responsibility. Likewise, failure to adopt such a condition could be viewed as city support for a dizzying array of personal responsibility avoidance schemes. It would be nearly impossible to find anyone that is not tainted by an overlay of the many personal responsibility avoidance schemes that are available.

Is extraction of corporation resources from a municipal corporation worse than that of extraction of corporation resources from a private corporation who's investors are exclusively voluntary? (Think whining about CEO salary.)

When the tax code is used to funnel money away from small and local sole proprietorships into Wall Street-type investments is this a good or bad thing? Is the issuance of public bonds to obtain cash to cover so-called GASB Wall Street fancy math actuarial soundness to funnel right back into the Wall Street-type investments a good or bad thing? (The earlier GASB left the door open to a local conclusion that unsoundness in pension design was NOT A REASON TO ISSUE BONDS to cover unsoundness but a reason to fix the unsoundness of a pay-as-you-go pension so as to restore a SOUND optimum fund balance of ZERO.)

"Social investing" is an excuse to take over all CORPORATIONS and the benefits of ownership, and the benefit of limited "personal responsibility/liability", to be shared by public employees uniquely and exclusive from anyone else.

It is my contention that it is the Ds that would rail the loudest were I to push an initiative to ban gifts to any corporation or even to ban or sharply limit any city contracting with any entity that claims an exemption to "personal responsibility" by way of incorporation.

Suppose that I were to insist that the acceptance by "FOUR COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION" (a mutual benefit corporation) of an unearned gift from the City of Portland constitutes a taint on their claim to be private, at least for purposes of public records law; or for their status as a private mutual benefit entity such that their status must be changed to that of a public benefit so that none of the "gift" can be converted to the individual members of the corporation. I wonder what they would think of my view that the city limit gifts and contracting with limited-personal-liability entities of any form?

If I can't stop the city from gifting of personal tax collections toward incorporated entities then perhaps I can attack the so-called private entity's acceptance of gifts so as to purge them of their advance filing of bankruptcy (relative to the little people who's tax proceeds they obtained or any contracting party, public or private) by way of their incorporation.

Let's call the recipients of public gifts Voter Owned Enterprises and then ratchet up the demands on the recipients. The first such demand is the complete abandonment of any assertion of "limited personal liability" for purposes of any bankruptcy petition. Another demand would be to insist that they waive any claim to judicial assertion of freedom to spend their money to the full extent of that allowed by the judicially recognized "business judgment rule." Another demand would be that any spending or pay decision by the "private" entity to which the city gives gifts or contracts with waive objections to a look-back into any decision dating back to the first gift or contract relationship – or their acceptance of any tax break.

Do not underestimate the fury of a guy who wants to slay the Sallie Mae way of assuring riches for some at the expense of the inalienable liberty interest of vulnerable students/people – achieved by way of cover by the tax man who then asserts that an obligation is direct to the government and where the bankruptcy code and the nature of the party demanding payment can declare that no time limit on collection of a judgment is effective against the government. The MO for obtaining riches today is to launder "responsibility" by way of prostituting the government to serve special interests at the direct expense of personal liberty for an even greater number of individuals.

As far as I am concerned, Blue Oregon is a site only for weak and fake claims for reforms, it gives the mere appearance of reform for the public so as to thwart genuine reforms that help the little people. Can I find ONE anti-corporatist or ONE person that rails on CEO pay (or ONE "Progressive") and convert them into a person that would insist that all contracting by government at all levels in Oregon be conducted only with those entities that waive any statutory privilege of "limited personal liability" for owners or operators or for anyone that claims any beneficial interest in the corporation?

The City of Portland is already morally bankrupt. If you settle for getting CEO pay, or at least double the median private sector wage (to be paid by these lesser folks), for yourself and your friends by way of government taxing power you can hardly claim to be advocating for the little guy rather than your own self-interest.

Jack seems to be the most vigorous advocate for personal accountability, at least publicly. His failure, if any, is that he is not vigorous enough, as far as I am concerned. His views sure beat those who want less accountability. But that is just my opinion.

Perhaps my problem, if it is a problem, is that I view Condo subsidies and so many other big ticket items in much the same way I would a World Bank initiative to induce a lesser industrialized country to build a big dam on borrowed dollars and then repay the debt in US Dollars, with interest. It is the most direct route to induce debt slavery on a countrywide scale. The Condo game kills two birds with one stone, inducing both private debt and public debt. Freddie Mac wants to "help" the poor by making them pay for their homes over forty years rather than thirty years. Suppose I said that people should instead pay it off in twenty years time or ten years time? The price level of homes would drop and so too the interest collections and property tax collections from the high-debt-loaded locals. We can't have that now can we? It might mess up the Capital Gains tax game too and a "belief" that high debt on a home equates to high wealth, that must be taxed, to restore income equality but always loaded up with debt. I think a price level tied to repayment in ten years is better than repayment in forty.

I can't go wrong – can I – if I isolate on individual liberty and the prime directive for the formation of this experiment in democracy as the most effective means to preserve that individual liberty? I don't much care for descriptions of the flavor of the opponent to this view as I see only the severity of threat to my liberty. Any favor for any special interest or group necessarily dilutes the liberty for us all. When Bank of America can participate in an offer to buy Sallie Mae, an original Public Private partnership sort of monster where odd legislation has had time to "season" by finding support in the courts, I just see a convenient opportunity to obtain jurisdiction in an Oregon court to wrestle my right to receive Social Security back from the perverse premature transfer of it to the hands of Albert L Lord, who it seems once worked for the accounting firm of KPMG. EVERY government guarantee of private debt between private parties has a similar sort of perversity of private capitalism and risk. Is debt slavery to government any LESS perverse than solely between two private parties? Or, is it WORSE? Just as with taxes, government has a way of qualitatively taxing individual liberty.

It is not my job to support the expectation of private profit for any partner with the City of Portland, for any deal entered into in my name – inclusive of those with labor contractors and their public and private allies. A call to restore "personal responsibility" to any artificial entity that claims to assert "limited personal liability" -- who game citizens and government deal makers (rather than just other like organized entities) -- is pegged to present a road map to achieve harmony and preserve my liberty.

The most direct way to anger someone that offers only Fiat money as a way to develop or meet the needs of the community is to halt using that money to measure the value of the exchange of goods among the locals. If we used "technologically primitive" Shell Money this would lower our risk of becoming, collectively, debt slaves to remote masters and their Shall Games. Even creating Sten Dollars would preferable to the use of US Dollars, and it would assure that the holders of the greatest number of Sten Dollars would suffer the greatest loss of "wealth" relative to those that owe tax obligations measured in Sten Dollars if the market determined that too many such dollars were being floated to accommodate private exchange of goods and services among the locals. Ask not whether someone has a willingness to continue to lend to us but rather whether they would accept Sten Dollars instead of US Dollars. In a sense – ANY DEBT is bad.

I thought they were for 12 years, but some of them are >still pretty amazing, like 625 NW 11th with an AV = >$1.325M and prop taxes = $125. Unless, of course, you >have a friend in city govt who can extend that exemption.

Actually the City has nothing to do with that assessment. It's a "Historic" property tax abatement that comes out of State law. Those row houses would get that abatement if the City never did a thing. In fact the Everett Street Lofts whiche were the fist of the Pearl rehabs was the first Historc Commercial to Residential rehbabilitations done in the early 90's before the Pearl District was the Pearl District.

Greg C

<In fact the Everett Street Lofts whiche were the fist of the Pearl rehabs.....

Sorry I mispoke. It was the Irving St Lofts on NW Irving between 13th & 14th that were the first Historic to Commercial rehab that I know of in Portland. Again the developer goes straight to the County to sign up for this State mandated Tax Abatement.

As an aside, a real estate agent's crack that the Irving Street Loft building was a "pearl" cast amoungst the swine is supposedly the genesis for the Pearl District's name.

Greg C

Incoherence is a relative term. You would be good at selling a dam to a third world country, as a true believer that it is in their best interest. Look how beautiful it is. . . . You too might share Paul Wolfowitz's puzzlement that any foreign society might be reluctance to view receipt of US Dollars (a stack of papers) as somehow the equivalent of genuine aid and the panacea toward autonomy and genuine development. Many fell for the trap in the past, but they are wiser today – on balance. We need to become wiser too.

If the largest grocer here held a market share that did not exceed one percent of the market there is no effective way to extract economic rent from abuse of monopoly or to also spirit those benefits away from the region. In a foreign country the method to mess up the local economy and small businesses is associated with securitizing the entities that represent local business. Here, it is folks like Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts that enter into a strategic relationship with the State Treasurer to sabotage local small and non-monopolistic enterprises and the autonomy that they once had.

One could point to Fred Meyers, not as it was in the early days but as it is today, and claim that it is a great success. And it is, depending one one's political alignment.

If my job were to build a dam (or was employed by a Dick Chaney affiliated enterprise) I too might find joy and beauty in my day to day livelihood and thus the world around me. If I had a home on land that was destined to be swamped to accommodate the dam (or accommodate the smothering love of the activist aiders of "targeted" investments, but not me) I might have a different view.

Wrap in the notion of perspective . . . in addition to audience.

Just as my post here on Blue cannot be characterized as anything but badgering my contributions over a Jack's site have much more to do with badgering too – I don't high-five anyone. I might note that I can adopt some reasoning as my own as it meets some criteria of coherence, and even then it is usually when it is just a better argument to badger.

So, what about reintroducing "personal responsibility" to any enterprise that wants to claim in advance the benefit of personal liability protection in bankruptcy court? Remember too that the worst case scenario for city bankruptcy is that city bonds cannot be held by certain financial institutions at their face value for five years – and then the lenders can once again start lending. I would favor a clean slate initiative too that wiped out all disparate tax treatment as I believe that it all largely violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause, even though it (or precisely because it) deals with economics as it largely severs risk from the party that seeks private gain and has been delivered to the general public.

The Pearl District was named for a resident named Pearl by the other residents, mostly starving artists, whom she nurtured.

"Actually the City has nothing to do with that assessment."

I thought the CIty had to approve a property status as historical to qualify it. In any case, this just seems abusive that a building is gutted, called historical, then gets its prop taxes reduced by 99%.

I mean there are 20 house on that block, that if RMV = $1.3M, should be paying $15000 a year or $300K/yr or $3M over 10 years without indexing. Is it really worth that much to give rich people some place to live so cheaply while the common guy pays full tab?

Hawthorne writes: Give us a break. There is plenty of free press in this town. You just don't happen to like what you read. That's a different problem. Then again, that's why you have bojack, where the "news" is manufactured to fit your world view.

Wow, you sound angry. I really don't want a flame war, so I guess we can just agree to disagree about the quality of our local press. With a few exceptions, I just haven't seen the type of hard, investigative reporting necessary to uncover a lot of the inside deals that are happening in City Hall. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory, just that in Portland deals are made with people you know, and everyone has the best of intentions but no one does the due diligence necessary to really figure out if it's the right thing to do or not.

Charlie writes: Of course we should question the value and benefit of public investments. But Portland’s made some pretty good decisions that have changed the direction of our city for the better.

I agree that Portland is a fantastic city, better than pretty much everywhere else. And I want to keep it that way. And the way to do that is to ensure that we're not becoming complacent, letting the end (e.g., a successful Pearl district) justify the means (e.g., millions in subsidies for wealthy developers and rich retirees).

I agree with you about the bankruptcy, but I'm worried that the lynching of Jack Bog is obscuring the fact that there is some truth in what he writes. And progressive Portlanders need to ask some hard questions about what our city government is doing, and whether it really is, in the end, progressive.

Charlie -- he's a guy with a blog. He writes well, has some good sources, is often interesting, sometimes warm and celebratory, sometimes over-reaching, snitty, short-fused and, sorry to say, also sometimes right. Not always. Is that really such a surprise to you? Is that really, gulp, news?

I'm a "nice" person. But I still like reading Mencken. (And yes, I know all about his dark side). And I think there is an even more important role for muckrackers in today's more finely "spun" world. So I say, go Jack. I just wish you weren't right as often as you are.

Do I always like some of his more personal attack methods? No. But I'm a big girl and I can pick and chose what to read, and if I do stumble across a meany statement, I don't melt. Basically I figure he's writing it, it's his choice what to write and mine what to read and I choose to pass on the spleen. I'd suggest others do the same...

In addition to reading Jack I also read Blue Oregon. Ditto Portland Transport and Amanda and more. I'm a curious person, I consider each worth the visit. There are days when I'm in the mood for short and sassy. There are days when I want to see beautiful pics or read something meaty (Amanda's blog) or read a good joke (hey, thanks Bill.) There are also days when I want to read a Portland-centric blog. Then I read Jack. Plus, he gets points for keeping the comments short.

Oh yeah, commments. I had to giggle when I read your heading on Ron L's post, Kari, about how he's a "bojack regular." Good grief, what's that supposed to mean? (And, am I to presume that the person who regularly comments on bojack under your name, is not you :-)) Actually, I first read Ron's (multitudious) contributions on this very blog and have always associated him more with this blog than any other... But the truth is that by and large you'll see the same names commenting on all the blogs. (Barring banning.)