Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain
Randy Leonard
The Portland Development Commission (PDC) has been under enormous scrutiny the past few years, and it’s worth taking a moment to review the reasons why. First it was questions over buying first class dinners and drinks at some of the best restaurants for…executives that worked at the Portland Development Commission.
Next, it was the PDC’s questioning the authority of the city auditor to audit their books—a position that was revealing if not foolish—and the refusal of the PDC to allow the city council to review their budget before it was approved by the PDC commission.
Then the PDC approved gifting a prime piece of downtown property at SW 3rd and Oak to a developer to build market rate condominiums.
In fact, it wasn’t that proposal that raised eyebrows (and my attention) but, rather, the PDC’s curious publishing of an appraisal for the property that said the property was worth negative $2.7 million…that’s right, their argument was that the PDC would have to pay someone $2.7 million to take the property off of their hands, property which, by the way, had already had the unsightly building torn down and removed making the quarter block property “shovel ready”.
So it was with not a small amount of amazement when I watched the city club debate yesterday between PDC Chairman Mark Rosenbaum and Commissioner Erik Sten on the future of the PDC, when I heard Chairman Rosenbaum make the following announcement:
“I still think the city council made a mistake by not supporting our proposed SW 3rd and Oak deal. That deal would have brought market condominiums and a tax base to a piece of property that has been vacant for years.”
Really.
So, Chair Rosenbaum, maybe you can help us understand the elements of the good “deal” you think the council ruined for the PDC by answering a few questions right here on BlueOregon.
Why did the PDC allow Trammel Crow, the developer that was to be gifted the property, to write the appraisal instructions that ended up producing the negative $2.7 million value?
Are you not at all concerned of the apparent conflict of interest in allowing Trammel Crow to help determine the value of the property they were to receive from the PDC?
If you think PDC’s behavior was defensible, why did you resist turning over the 3rd and Oak documents for 6 months after the city council passed a resolution requesting them…and then only after the council threatened to subpoena the documents?
How do you explain the independent analysis done of the 3rd and Oak appraisal that said the PDC appraisal (really the Trammel Crow appraisal, wouldn’t you agree?) should never have been used as a basis for giving the property to Trammel Crow?
Finally, if you really do think the construction of the market rate condominiums was appropriate for the 3rd and Oak site, why didn’t the PDC use the actual value of the property ( +$1.86 million as determined by a truly independent appraisal) to transfer the parcel to Trammel Crow and simply state that, in the PDC’s estimation, that was a reasonable contribution by the city to develop a good tax generating project on the site (Hint for future consideration…I wouldn’t have questioned the integrity of that kind of above-board proposal).
Absent credible responses to these questions, I am left with one conclusion. The PDC is unrepentant and truly does not understand the questions surrounding not only its judgment but its very ability to manage the significant responsibility it has been given in the form of an annual budget of over $250 million.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 3, '07
Randy asked, "Why did the PDC allow Trammel Crow,,to write the appraisal instructions,,producing the negative $2.7 value?"
The same reason the PDC helped Trammel Crow pitch their South Waterfront luxury apartment-Alexan Tower tax abatement application.
The PDC is functionally of criminally corrupted.
Although denied by a council 3-2 vote the applicant, with help from PDC's John Warner, tried to convince the Council that 48 of the towers 330 luxury units would be "affordable". Fortunately 3 city commissioners, Randy, Dave and Sam, weren't going for the pitch that the 511 sq ft units renting for $850.00/month-minus any parking space or fee, were either affordable or a benefit worthy of the 10 year-$10 million Tax exemption. Unfortunatley the PDC didn't waste any time, allowing Trammel Crow to craft other ways to line their credenza with bureaucrat cash.
Far more unfortunate is these methods are commonplace at the PDC.
Today's front and center mother load of city shenanigans is at South Waterfront where funny numbers and PDC budget spread sheets look like accountant comedy acts. A very simple audit and accounting of all monies spent, and to whom, in South Waterfont to date will reveal a fiscal shell game resulting in career losses and possible jail time for a few charlatans.
Of course if the city lets the PDC write the audit "instructions" we know what they'll find. Not so much.
Mar 3, '07
What tax base is Rosenbaum talking about? How long would it have taken the Trammel-Crowe development to pay enough property taxes to cover $2.7 million? And was the development going to be tax abated?
Mar 4, '07
There's something I don't get about the debate (as it's generally conducted, not here).
Is there any question that the recent(ly ended) trend to buy old houses, level them and build a few new expensive town houses, would never have occured without the PDC and the Urban Growth Boundary? In every other city I've ever lived in builders would simply have grown outward and those old neighborhoods would be ghettos.
What I don't get is how that's not obvious and if it is, why anyone would want the alternative. Is there something subtle I'm missing? I just see where there's anything to debate, on that level, at least.
As far as the corruption goes, I'll ask for the million and first time why we can't make the salaries very low, barely a living wage, with the idea that it is a service, not a career. Is the feeling that no one would do it and/or the volunteers would not be qualified? Personally I've found neither to be true. As long as you make it a career, it's natural for people to want to get ahead. Personal getting ahead is, IMHO, incompatible with public service. That's heresy isn't it?
6:09 p.m.
Mar 4, '07
In every other city I've ever lived in builders would simply have grown outward and those old neighborhoods would be ghettos.
PDC destoyed a ton of housing when it redeveloped the South Auditorium area. That gave us, among other things, the three Portland Center apartment towers (where I once lived) that are now being turned into condos.
The same thing could've happened to our close in SE Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, especially when the Mt Hood Freeway would've cut through it, but now we've got thriving neighborhoods without the freeway --or PDC's "help"-- with a substantial stock of older, quality homes, and new development --largely condos-- filling in.
I lived in a part of Brooklyn, NY, nearly 35 years ago when it was more barrio than the gentrified brownstown neighborhood that it is today. Housing goes in cycles. You can level the ghetto...or you can rehabilitate it. The latter tends to work better for existing residents.
8:39 p.m.
Mar 4, '07
Is there any question that the recent(ly ended) trend to buy old houses, level them and build a few new expensive town houses...
FWIW, there are plenty of old houses that being purchased, cleaned up, and lived in, too.
I've been to Detroit, and I don't want Portland to ever approach even 10% of the urban blight that place has.
8:43 p.m.
Mar 4, '07
As far as the corruption goes, I'll ask for the million and first time why we can't make the salaries very low, barely a living wage, with the idea that it is a service, not a career. Is the feeling that no one would do it and/or the volunteers would not be qualified? Personally I've found neither to be true. As long as you make it a career, it's natural for people to want to get ahead. Personal getting ahead is, IMHO, incompatible with public service. That's heresy isn't it?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You want to guarantee corruption? Pay 'em "barely a living wage". Then the only way to "get ahead" is corruption. Ask a third-world police officer.
The way you avoid corruption is to honor work in government by paying people fair compensation for their skills, energies, and dedication. Taxpayers are footing the bill, and they should expect high-quality employees, not the cheapest employees.
Mar 5, '07
Wow, the PDC is shady?! SHOCKING.
Mar 5, '07
Lets see you create a public entity and ask it to function like a private one and when it follows standard private business practices its now considered shady? PDC is doing exactly what it was built to do, play in the private realm.
Mar 5, '07
Exactly, Dude. The only reason Leonard and Sten are taking on PDC now is because it's good politics. They both want to run for mayor.
SoWa and the Tram debacle is blowing up in the Council's faces, and now all of a sudden members are pointing the finger at PDC.
But who has been on watch for the past decade? Exactly ...
3:55 p.m.
Mar 5, '07
But who has been on watch for the past decade?
Vera Katz and Tom Potter, the commissioners-in-charge of PDC?
Mar 7, '07
Kari- Does it bother you at all that as long as your point of view is expressed so cynically that it makes it impossible for those that would do it to try? Or are we not enough in number to matter/probably crazy?
Randy, if you were independently wealthy would you do it?
Mar 8, '07