To correct the false impression created by the above selective editing, you should read the whole article, or at least recognize the tenor of the article is anchored by a vibrant criticism of public art, not Oregon's tax structure:

PORTLAND, Ore. — It might be one of the prettiest jails ever built.

A long driveway circles past a modern-art sculpture on the front lawn. The main building appears like a manor, with pink stucco and glass tile on the outside. The interior motif leans heavily toward pastels. Vaulted ceilings and open-air corridors suggest the design principles of feng shui.

The Wapato Facility, in the city's northern outskirts, took $59 million and two years to construct. But in the nearly two years since its completion — as Portland has struggled with a crime surge — not a single inmate has set foot in the building.

Multnomah County, in charge of Portland jails, can't afford to open it.

"We held a ceremony, cut the ribbon — then locked the doors," says Sheriff Bernie Giusto, who attended the dedication in the summer of 2004. "We have a brand-new jail sitting here empty, and I don't have a good answer when the public asks me, 'Why was it built if there was no plan to operate it?'

"Even I get tired of telling people how dumb we are." (selective passages omitted)///

The sheriff's eyes wander covetously over dozens of never-used metal bunks arranged in neat rows and separated into spacious 75-bed dormitories. Flat-screen televisions adorn the walls in each dorm, where the ceiling soars 30 feet high. The county spent more than $600,000 on art for the jail, including the sculpture — meant to evoke river pilings — out front.

"The public has this image of inmates rattling tin cups on bars," Giusto says. "Take a look around. There aren't gun ports on the ceilings. Look at the colors. Private showers. If I didn't tell you this was a jail, you'd never know. Right?"

Right on Alice.

The Wapato failure has nothing to do with kicker rebates or property tax limits.

It was built after the passage of M5, M47 and M50.

Wapato is a prime example of a cavalier attitude that permeates Oregon political leadership. Elected officials are building monuments to their own shortsightedness while the common (apparently boring) work of local government is underprioritized.

Funny how much of that story has already appeared in the Portland Tribune, especially the bits on the guy who apparently stabbed the other guy downtown. Not sure the Times reporter even talked to to the people he mentioned in reference to that.

See for yourself.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33702

What a typical piece of spin doctoring here on BlueOregon!

I read that LA Times article, and silly me, I thought it was very critical of the idiocy of the ridculous excesses of Oregon-style public facilities and the lack of budget management.

I didn't realize until I read BlueOregon that the point of the article was actually to criticise Oregon's kicker law.

What would I do without Blue?

If you really want to understand why we can't staff Wapato and are constantly in a budget crisis, read my article at Oregon Catalyst.

Until we control the growing cost of public labor, we will never have stable funding for any public service.

Maybe Dr. Phillips can turn Wapato into a new school!

But you know what they say: you can lead a cop to school, but you can't make em think.

... or better yet, the state stipulates that certain types of amenities don't get to appear in prisons until they're already in public schools. Damn -- I wish I had private showers in middle school P.E.

What is surprising is that there has been nothing from the County Auditor's office on Wapato. At least that I have seen. You would think that this would be a juicy target for an audit with some suggestions on how to monitor projects in the future so that we aren't just following decisions made regardless of the change in circumstances.

Yeh, its politically charged, but isn't that why we have elected auditors? So they will jump all over issues like this?

I approve of Steven Maurer's point, but I'm not sure Wapato's even overbuilt.

I'm only a desultory student of environmental psychology -- the science of how our surroundings influence our thinking and behavior -- but I know that:

• A person who's in a particular setting 24/7 will be profoundly influenced by that setting.

• The county has a significant interest in influencing the thinking and behavior of inmates.

• In the long run, it costs more to run programs to reduce despair, or to control inmates with no motivation for good behavior, than to build a facility that doesn't drum the feeling of "grim... bleak... hopeless..." deeper into people's heads at every turn.

As for the specifics, I'd say that private showers are a pretty cheap first step toward fighting prison rape. And wouldn't a wall-mounted flat-screen TV be less dangerous than a standard CRT in a ripping-from-its-moorings-and-hurling situation?

And the landscaping, pink stucco and glass tiles on the exterior? Ummm... that's not for the inmates' benefit; that's for those of us up here in the "northern outskirts" who already have to look at more than our share of stuff this city wants to dump somewhere.

Well I was wrong. The auditor did do an audit that included Wapato and you can find it here: Capital Construction Audit.

What I can't figure out is how the whole budget crisis snuck up on everyone. I haven't read it carefully, but the audit doesn't even seem to mention the lack of funds to open the jail or the changing circumstances of county finances between the original approval and final construction.

Half a million for artwork?

Isn't that required by state law? If not, it should be. The idea that public facilities should be built to some soviet-style engineering standard of spartan utility is an abomination. That's the problem with our highway departments, we have turned them over to traffic engineers whose sense of esthetics is smooth concrete.

I think there was a comment from some prison official in Finland who said, paraphrasing, "We take away their freedom, we think that is punishment enough." In the case of our jails, many of these folks haven't even been convicted of a crime. They are just awaiting trial or a hearing. Punishment first - trial later?

Aesthetics and artwork are very important elements of public buildings, to be sure. And Suzii brings up a good point about behavior-influencing design.

Who's been to a similarly-built public school recently? The ones that were built in the past twenty years are wooden huts on wooden foundations. The recommended life of those buildings is 5 years, but many schools are using them as permanent fixtures. There's no artwork. There's no flat-screen TVs in classrooms.

An example: Yes, flat-screen TVs may be safer in jails than regular TVs. Safer still... take the TVs out of jail and put them in the classrooms -- half an hour of international news each day, I say.

That dude from Finland... "we take away their freedom, that is enough..." If you want to mitigate punishment, knock a few months off of the sentence -- but don't start adding amenities.

At the worst, it's mismanagement. At best, it gives the anti-tax nuts something very effective to fly on their flagpole whenever they need something passed (or not passed).

You can have pleasant aesthetics without spending $800k on plop art. More to the point: how is it that the 1.3% for Public Art (recently increased to 2% in Portland, THANKS TO Sam Adams) is codified in law, but the law doesn't require lawmakers to provide operating funds to staff AN EMPTY JAIL? In January 1999, Willy Week reported that "Multnomah County is the largest local government to be ruled by an all-female elected council, according to the National Association of Counties."

They began construction on Wapato in 2001, and the Multnomah County Comissioners all had ample opportunity to see the train wreck coming:

Name...................Tenure Bev Stein:.........1993 to 2002 Dianne Linn:.......1998 to present Lisa Naito:........1998 to present Serena Cruz........1998 to present Sharron Kelley.....1989 to 1999 Maria Rojo-Steffey.2001 to present Dan Saltzman.......1993 to 1998

More to the point: how is it that the 1.3% for Public Art is codified in law, but the law doesn't require lawmakers to provide operating funds to staff AN EMPTY JAIL?

So that short-sighted people can't ignore esthetics to cut the cost of a building that may last for 50 years or more.

As far as I know, the county is paying to staff the empty jail. But an empty jail requires fewer staff than a full one. And it would be pretty stupid to require jails to be full wouldn't it?

the Multnomah County Comissioners all had ample opportunity to see the train wreck coming:

I'm not sure that is true. The Commissioners don't decide how the Sheriff spends his budget. Certainly Sheriff Noelle should have seen it coming and warned them but I am not sure he did that.

"That's the problem with our highway departments, we have turned them over to traffic engineers whose sense of esthetics is smooth concrete."

The problem with our highway departments is they got rid of the traffic engineers.

Wapato is not open because the Mult. Co. elected officials see everything else as more important and the county sheriff's department needs to restucture itself as is happening in Clackamas County.

Multnomah County Commissioners submitted Bond Measures 26-42 and 26-45 on the May 1996 primary ballot: they were approved by the voters and raised $169 million. Every County Commissioner who served from 1996 to the present knew that additional operating funds would be required to open the new jail. They built it anyway. No County Commissioner from 1996 to the present has provided the leadership necessary to achieve a funding solution. The lack of operating funds for Wapato has nothing to do with the economy or voter approved property tax limits. It has everything to do with spending priorities and a Board of Commissioners lacking the courage necessary to ask the voters for more money.

Here's a link to the 1996 Voter's Pamphlet.

For more than a decade, it was "out of sight, out of mind" despite the fact that we paid higher property taxes to build Wapato Jail. Now that Dianne Linn has realized she is about to be voted out of office, she has experienced an election year conversion to the critical need to open Wapato Jail, on a very limited basis. To which I say: too little, too late.

There is not a single incumbent County Commissioner (with the possible exception of Lonnie Roberts) that could pour piss out of a boot without an instruction manual, two assistants, and an environmental impact report.

We ought to take the County Commissioners and their staff and lock them up in Wapato for eight hours a day, five days a week, until they find a way to operate Wapato (and all existing jail beds) at full capacity.

Ross: having read some of your posts in the past, I don't believe you're that stupid. There is a huge shortage of jail space in Multnomah County. If you are interested, I can provide a link to mugshots and rap sheets on each and every thief, thug, pusher, and prostitute that was "matrixed out" due to inadequate jail space. Cut the b/s.

Wapato Jail has two full time employees currently assigned to it, full staffing/operating costs will exceed $20 million annually. This is a small price to pay if it means your house is not burgularized, your car is not stolen, or your friends and family are not assaulted. Every dollar spent on art, flat screen TV's, or other luxuries are dollars that can't be spent on keeping the criminals in jail. That hurts everybody: we are all potential crime victims.

Alice: Not one dollar spent on art or TVs could have been spent on operating the jail, even if the county had decided not to spend it on art or TVs.

Except in one way: First the county spends it on the work of a local artist. Then the artist pays it back into the general fund with her or his taxes. Then it can go to operating expenses.

And, let's see. S'pose for a minute we pretend we got a law passed to allow us to spend capital money on operations (I'm betting it would have to be a federal law, redefining the essential nature of municipal bonds and whatnot). You say we need more than $20 million to run it for a year. The whole damn facility only cost $59 million -- even if we just built a high wall with guard towers around an empty lot and made the bad guys (and suspected possibly alleged bad guys) do without luxuries like beds or plumbing or a roof, we still wouldn't save enough to run the joint for any appreciable time.

The whole argument that construction costs are in any way related to the lack of operating funds is bogus.

SteveLow: You've gotta be kidding. You think the problem with our schools is not enough TV???? Sheesh. If you need resources on international current events, download articles from the Atlantic Monthly or The Times of London and print up a classroom set.

Suzii: you are just flat-out wrong. The bond measures passed in 1996 covered both construction and operating costs. Unfortunately, the County Board of Commissioners (and Sheriff Dan Noelle) knew that the operating funds included in the levy would be exhausted before Wapato Jail was actually built.

More importantly, you need to recognize that taxpayer dollars are a limited resource. It doesn't matter whether the dollar is paid to the Federal, State, County, or City government: you can only tax people so much before they move to a lower tax venue, go broke, or quit working so hard.

As tax dollars are collected on an annual basis, each taxing authority (in this case, Multnomah County) divides them up into distinct budget categories (i.e. capital vs. operating) and decides what get's funded vs. what doesn't. Pissing off money (fully 2% in the City of Portland) on Public Art or flat screen TVs diverts those dollars from higher priority capital costs, and decreases the total pool of available tax revenue.

The left hand/right hand who's got the tax dollar sleight of hand is not going to cut it anymore. The voters are waking up.

"Every dollar spent on art, flat screen TV's, or other luxuries are dollars that can't be spent on keeping the criminals in jail. That hurts everybody: we are all potential crime victims."

If those TV's prevent one fight during their existance they will more than have paid for themselves just in saved medical costs to treat the injured combatants. This is the penny-wise pound-foolish approach to public spending that creates problems like Wapato. The money saved from eliminating those TV's probably wouldn't keep Wapato open for a day.

Public art in a public building is not a luxury any more than windows or public restrooms are.

"More importantly, you need to recognize that taxpayer dollars are a limited resource. "

I think you are the one who needs to recognize that, since limited resources is why Wapato isn't open. The fact is there are a lot of people who have priorities other than throwing people in jail. The folks on Sauvie Island want a bridge, many people think investments in drug treatment will prevent more crimes than staffing jails and that investments in early childhood development makes more sense than spending money to lock up the kids that fail. With limited resources, we elect people to set priorities and the people of Multnomah County have voted for people who place a high premium on social services.

"The lack of operating funds for Wapato has nothing to do with the economy or voter approved property tax limits. "

This simply isn't true. If the economy had continued to grow from 2001 to 2005 at the rate it did from 1996 to 2000 there would be a lot more money for all of the county's priorities. Likewise, if the county still had the flexibility to increase property taxes there would be solutions other than gutting every other county program to pay for jails.

"For more than a decade, it was "out of sight, out of mind""

I think that is right. And I think that a lot of elected officials pay attention to the immediate problems and ignore things that may or may not be a problem a few years from now. That's what gets them reelected. Whose fault is that?

I think the reactions to the Wapato fiasco make it pretty clear why no one wanted to touch it. There were three solutions that I see. One was to raise taxes to pay for it - an option limited by our state tax measures. The second was to gut the rest of the county's programs to pay for it. And the third was to not build, or further delay building, Wapato since there was no money to operate it. Which one of those has public support?

Ross:

If they had put another public safety bond levy on the ballot -- limited exclusively to opening and fully funding Wapato -- it would have passed by a wide margin.

Most of us are sick and tired of the Multnomah County's "revolving door" for repeat offenders. The only reason we didn't get to vote on a bond levy is because the County Commission didn't have the guts to ask us to.

Any bond levy that does pass would have increased property taxes above the pre-existing statutory limit: that's why it has to be voted on.

Public Art in any vacant facility is an absolute waste of money. Public Art in a vacant jail is even worse. I can't believe that anybody would support spending money on public art (mandated by law!)and flat screen TV's when our political leadership didn't have the foresight to say "we're going to need more money to operate Wapato: if we don't get that funding approved in advance, then we shouldn't build it."

Jail is not the YMCA or summer camp for criminals. It's supposed to be punishment, and a deterrent to future visits.

Jail is not the YMCA or summer camp for criminals. It's supposed to be punishment, and a deterrent to future visits.

Actually, jail is mostly a place to hold people who are accused of crimes until they are brought before a judge. As far as I know, no one who has been convicted and sentenced is getting matrixed out.

Public Art in any vacant facility is an absolute waste of money

Not as big a waste as the rest of the building. Public art and televisions have nothing to do with the issue of Wapato. They are just soundbite distractions.

The only reason we didn't get to vote on a bond levy is because the County Commission didn't have the guts to ask us to.

And no one was willing to gather the signatures to put it on the ballot.

Any bond levy that does pass would have increased property taxes above the pre-existing statutory limit: that's why it has to be voted on.

I don't think that is true. Not even the voters can push up the property tax limits in measures 49 and 50.

Alice says: The bond measures passed in 1996 covered both construction and operating costs. Unfortunately, the County Board of Commissioners (and Sheriff Dan Noelle) knew that the operating funds included in the levy would be exhausted before Wapato Jail was actually built.

Right. That's measures, plural. Measure 26-45 was a capital construction bond measure. Not one dollar of it could have been spent on operations. You may think that money is money, and that it's legally and politically possible for commissioners to ignore what the voters said was to happen with a particular fund, but most people don't. Neither do most parents, when they send their kid to the store with money for milk and bread, react cheerfully to seeing them return with comic books.

Measure 26-42, on the other hand, was not a bond measure; it was a serial levy. Serial levies have beginning dates and ending dates and 26-42 ran only through mid-1999. It was never intended to operate Wapato, and nobody responsible ever pretended that it would. It was intended to fund operations in 1996-1999, and again, I just don't see it as a reasonable thing to ask a politician in 1997 to say, "Yes, you're paying the money we said we'd need to keep these 560 beds in Inverness Jail open, but we're closing them anyway because it's more important to save that money to operate different jail beds in 2004." Maybe you know different politicians than I do.

We can ask why 26-42 wasn't set up to run longer (although I doubt anybody would care to predict our need for jail operating funds more than 10 years out, so it wouldn't help us now anyway) and we can ask why there haven't been more recent levies to operate jails. We can't pretend we've already paid for this and it's somebody else's incompetence that's keeping Wapato from opening.

It's as if, having once bought a ticket on Delta flight 1569, you expect Delta to let you on that flight again the next week, and the next, and...

I read the Portland Tribune article. Seems to me the only common ground was about 7 or 8 words having to do with a murder. The LAT piece was a piece of real journalism. It looked at the big picture. The Tribune - a glorified police report, I'm afraid. Sorry.

Jay makes some good points in his <a href=http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?/archives/129-Achieving-Fiscal-Sustainability.html

Oregon Catalyst article.

Here are some thoughts I had about it.

........

Jay, you make interesting observations regarding PERS. Your arguments on the PERS issue definitely merit further study and consideration.

As for your thoughts regarding health care costs and privatization, I have some comments.

I don't doubt that if you open government up to "competition," you will in the SHORT RUN reduce costs of labor.

However, for those necessary services that continue to be adequately provided without advocacy from public employees, you'll end up with people working for private contractors or non-profits. They won't have (adequate) health care benefits; their pay will be crappy; and their work situations will be unstable. Hence they will frequently be receiving unemployment benefits, and they won't have savings. In particular people over 55 will have a harder time holding on to a decent job becuase younger employees are just less risky. So, when they have health problems and are let go by their employers, they will either:

a) forego that retirement trip to Las Vegas; b) have relatives support and take care of them;
c) go to the emergency room; d) hope age 65 and medicare benefits arrive soon; d) suffer quietly e) die; or
e) commit suicide;

Only in the case of 'c' and 'd' will society foot the bill.

In the LONG RUN, either:

a) non-profit/contactor employees would find a way to organize themselves and unionize.

b) with a very large increase in the number of uninsured in the US that would likely accompany a significant level of privatization of public services, a new constituency for universal health care would be created. This would tip the balance on elections for politicians who would institute universal health care that would have to be financed through progressive taxation. (Bummer for the upper class)

c) a funny thing happens when you don't adequately pay guardians of the public good. They become corrupt. Our country would continue along its current path toward more and more corruption (e.g. widespready tax evasion, widespread violation of labor laws by employers who hire illegals, the k-street project, etc.) If you ever lived in a country with rampant corruption at the low levels, you might know that it's a downward spiral with unbelievably high social costs and inefficiencies. If not, I encourage you to visit such a country so that you can evaluate potential consequences of your proposals.

d) possibly concurrent with 'c': politicians who are currently anti-public sector are also pro-contractor (e.g. think Bush/Cheney/Haliburton). These politicians would reallocate government spending that previously went public employees to pay for services provided by contractors. Unfortunately, since the opposition would have no ability to oversee implementation of the now privatized programs, there would be very limited checks on the quality of delivery. In addition, we'll have to pay the CEO what the board of directors thinks (s)he's worth (wink, wink).

My preferred option is 'a' since it would take care of so many loose ends.

Morally, I would argue that we should all have access to health care. One reason it is so expensive in the US is because young people, who are healthy, risk it and opt out. I know that I did. A universal health care system would make young people contribute and the costs would be more spread out over the life cycle.

I agree that there are some perverse incentives for not taking care of yourself when health care is guaranteed. But there are better rocks to look under if you want to encourage healthy life styles that reduce long term social costs of health care.

For public employees, the absolute FIRST rock I would look under would be the employee cafeterias in Salem. I cannot believe the sugary-greasy "food" they serve there. (Interestingly, I bet you that food provider is a private contractor.) Also, it's telling that McDonalds is one of the closest off campus options for a hungry Salem bureaucrat.

Are these what Marx called contradictions of capitalism?

More generally, VAST health care savings are available if we:

1) Stop subsidizing an energy-transportation-settlement system that has made walking a thing of the past; 2) Reallocate farm subsidies FROM corn and wheat TO fruits and vegetables.
3) Change school cafeterias to serve good healthy food. 4) Teach school kids a useful skills like how to prepare healthy meals (Don't tell me that's for parents to teach! I might agree with you on sex education … but parents in the US know far less about healthy nutrition than they know about sex or the morality thereof.) 5) Encourage genuinely caring communities that value everyone (I know my self-care suffers when I am depressed and dump on myself; I know I feel better when I am part of a caring community.) 6) Make it expensive and undesirable to smoke, drink, do drugs and eat junk food. 7) Make access to excerise classes and facilities inexpensive.

Ross Williams wrote: Not even the voters can push up the property tax limits in measures 49 and 50.

Your simply incorrect, Ross. The voters can approve a local option property tax increase to fund jails or schools if they get a double majority. The politicians have to put in on the ballot first, and build a coalition to support it.

Suzii wrote:

We can ask why 26-42 wasn't set up to run longer (although I doubt anybody would care to predict our need for jail operating funds more than 10 years out, so it wouldn't help us now anyway) and we can ask why there haven't been more recent levies to operate jails. We can't pretend we've already paid for this and it's somebody else's incompetence that's keeping Wapato from opening.

I never suggested "we've already paid for this". To the contrary, the County Commissioners knew they passed an operating levy that was inadequate (and too short) for the task of opening Wapato Jail.It was more than three years from date that construction began until the riboon cutting ceremony: elected officials had plenty of time to adjust their spending priorities accordingly or (as I believe was necessary), pass another bond measure. They didn't even try.

Ok, Alice, what have you done so far to get a new levy (not a bond) on the ballot? Are you waiting for "the politicians" to do everything for you? Did your junior high civics teacher not get around to the part about "government by the people"?

Suzii: this process we are currently engaged in (public debate, which informs the electorate) is democracy in action. I've gathered signatures for other causes, and I expect the candidates who replace Dianne Linn and Serena Cruz will be much more interested in funding public safety. If they don't then I hope you will be my co-petitioner on the "Full Funding for Wapato" serial bond levy ballot initiative.

If Multnomah County had concentrated on Wapato's operating budget with the same time and energy devoted to gay marriage, a new serial bond levy would have passed last November with a 70% majority.

There is rich irony in all the progressives crooning "leave elected officials alone" on the VOE debate, and your suggetion that private citizen's should have initiated a public safety bond issue when our elected officials failed to provide any leadership.

"Your simply incorrect"

No, I am not incorrect (other than it was measure 47, not measure 49). There is nothing simple about Oregon's property tax laws and that is part of the problem here.

<href="http: www.oregon.gov="" dor="" stats="" docs="" 303-405-04="" appendix-b.pdf#search="oregon%20tax%20limitations%20%20measure%20%20compression%20measure%205%20%2047%20%2050" "="">Here is an overview of that system quoted below:

"Measure 5 introduced limits, starting in 1991–92, on the taxes paid by individual properties.

The limits of $5 per $1,000 real market value for school taxes and $10 per $1,000 real market value for general government taxes apply only to operating taxes, not bonds.2 If either the school or general government taxes exceeded its limit, then each corresponding taxing district had its tax rate reduced proportionately until the tax limit was reached. This reduction in taxes to the limits is called “compression.”"

The voters, even by double majority, cannot raise property taxes above the limits in measure 5. Local levies are the first ones eliminated to get under the measure 5 cap. As I understand it there are several parts of Multnomah County that are at or near the limit in part because of the limitations on assessed value adopted in measures 47 and 50. So any special levy for Wapato has to come out of the library and any other local levies that are on top of the levies for local governments established in Measure 5. That will not be true for the entire amount, but it is simply, or not so simply, innaccurate to say the voters can simply approve an increase and that is the end of it.

Just to be clear - I am not sure I really understand the Oregon property tax system so I may well have missed something. But it requires more than a "simple" vote to overcome the limitations established in the constitution by MacIntire and company. They were not interested in giving voters at the local level the power to overturn their efforts to lower taxes.

our elected officials failed to provide any leadership.

But then elected officials aren't leaders by and large, they are followers. We throw the ones that aren't out of office. You keep insisting that a bond measure to open Wapato would have passed while it was being built, but I don't see any evidence to support that. It became a real issue with the public only after the Oregonian decided this was their county story last spring and covered nothing else in the budget. It seems like they did a couple stories a week whose only news value was "Wapato is still closed."

The Link didn't work. Here is overview of the Oregon property tax system

to panama boy, who left the e-mail address of the Times piece's author:

Part of the Times story seemed to plagiarize the Trib because Mr. Tizon never spoke to the people he mentioned in that portion.

Also, check the Portland Tribune's coverage of this issue for the last year -- nobody else in town has been anywhere close. Not the Oregonian, not WW, not TV -- and certainly not the L.A. Times.

The Sheriff's Office PIO even directed Mr. Tizon to the Trib's stories, and pointed directly to the one he borrowed from without attribution.

For reference:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=29769

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=29928

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30093

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30201

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30214

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30505

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=31270

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=31466

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32156

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32331

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32713

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32941

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32970

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33019

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33239

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33466

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33702

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33918

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34291

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34385