Amanda Fritz's blog
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 28, 2007 - 9:46am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 27, 2007 - 10:48am.
Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, was assassinated today. She could have elected to stay away from her home country, living a life of luxury lecturing in Europe and the Americas. She chose to return to Pakistan to challenge the military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
CNN reports: "Benazir Bhutto was the first female prime minister of Pakistan and of any Islamic nation. She led Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996. In a September 26 interview on CNN's "The Situation Room," Bhutto said she expected threats against her life as she prepared to lead a push for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
"After military dictatorship an anarchic situation developed, which the terrorists and Osama (bin Laden) have exploited," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "They don't want democracy, they don't want me back, and they don't believe in women governing nations, so they will try to plot against me.
"But these are risks that must be taken. I'm prepared to take them," she said. Bhutto narrowly escaped injury on October 18 when a suicide bombing near her convoy in Karachi killed 126 people.
"Soon thereafter, I was asked by authorities not to travel in cars with tinted windows -- which protected me from identification by terrorists -- or travel with privately armed guards," she wrote for CNN.com in November.
"I began to feel the net was being tightened around me when police security outside my home in Karachi was reduced, even as I was told that other assassination plots were in the offing.""
And yet she stayed.
I saw Benazir Bhutto speak at the Cambridge Union Society debating hall, in 1976 or 1977. She was finishing up her degree at Oxford, and even in her early 20s was considered a political world leader. I went to the Union Society debates for three years, and don't remember another speaker as charismatic or compelling -- although perhaps significantly, I can't recall her topic. I've followed her rises and falls over the decades with interest, and now feel sad her life is over.
Maya Angelou said,
"I am convinced that courage is the most important of all the virtues.
Because without courage, you cannot practice any other virtues consistently.
You can be kind for a while; you can be generous for a while;
you can be just for a while, or merciful for a while, even loving for a while.
But it is only with courage that you can be
persistently and insistently kind and generous and fair."
And Mark Twain wrote,
"Courage is not the absence of fear. It is acting in spite of it."
She wasn't perfect. But Benazir Bhutto was a courageous woman.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 26, 2007 - 9:00am.
It began snowing at our house, at about 650' on the slopes of Mount Sylvania, just before noon. The timing was perfect to lighten the mood as we scrambled to clean the house (how come the vacuum cleaner always breaks down at the most crucial time?) while preparing the feast. Wonderful. I hope you had a delightful day.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 24, 2007 - 9:47am.
I regret to report that as of 9:45 a.m. on Christmas Eve, our home is woefully unprepared for Santa (or anyone else) to visit. We put the lights up the weekend after Thanksgiving, as usual, but the stockings aren't yet hung, the fridge isn't stocked, and vacuuming and cleaning remains on the To Do list. But all will be well. Maxwell "Younger Son" and I are about to head out into the crowds to shop. Ali has taken on the job of housekeeping while I am campaigning, and my dear parents-in-love who are coming for Christmas dinner have long practiced forgiving my shortcomings.
Merry Christmas, readers.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 21, 2007 - 10:58am.
This column by Mikel Kelly in The Times of Tualatin/Tigard/Sherwood, describes the writer's dismay at discovering a trip from SW Portland to Milwaukie that takes 20 minutes by car, requires more than two hours on TriMet. It's an entertaining read, with a serious message.
We need better bus service.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 21, 2007 - 7:21am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 18, 2007 - 7:13am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 17, 2007 - 9:07am.
The Portland City Council Agenda for December 19 includes an evening hearing:
1519 TIME CERTAIN: 6:00 PM - Accept report Improving Bicycle Safety in Portland outlining initial City policy improvements and engineering enhancements undertaken to increase bicycle safety in response to recent tragic bicyclist fatalities (Resolution introduced by Commissioner Adams)
The Council may hold evening hearings every third Wednesday of the month, but rarely chooses to do so. I'm glad to see this important topic covered at a time when more citizens can participate.
The first item on Wednesday's Consent Agenda:
*1489 Allow City Council to hold its regular meeting and recessed sessions at Jefferson High School on January 16 and 17, 2008 (Ordinance; waive Code Section 3.02.010)
Good to see. The Council should hold meetings in the community more often, and regularly.
A more worrisome Consent item:
1500 Amend contract with Portland Streetcar, Inc. to provide additional professional services for project management and vehicle engineering services for production of a domestically manufactured streetcar (Ordinance; amend Contract No. 37119)
The ordinance increases the payment to Portland Streetcar, Inc., by $184,398, as number six in a list of findings that doesn't seem to me to relate to numbers one through five. And then the accompanying "whereas" list contains a convoluted series of contract takeaways and givebacks that will make most citizens' heads spin.
Another big ticket item on Consent:
*1503 Authorize two subrecipient contracts for $338,043 for winter housing services for homeless women and provide for payment (Ordinance)
Housing is part of the City's core mission and responsibility. A caring society helps people who would otherwise be outside in this cold, nasty weather. Jack Bog's blog notes today that operating expenses per capita of the Bureau of Housing and Community Development has fallen, relative to spending in other bureaus.
I don't see much controversy on the short Regular Agenda, other than the Wednesday evening bicycle issue. This item makes me wonder:
*1515 Accept a donation of $1,575,000 from the Portland Parks Foundation on behalf of an anonymous donor for the development of South Park Block 5 (Ordinance)
It's A Good Thing that we have the Parks Foundation to solicit and broker philanthropic donations, which then become tax-deductions for donors. And certainly, whoever is giving this large chunk of change could have chosen not to. But let's remember that sometimes, affluent donors can afford to give because they've made money on the backs of working people. I posted Who's paying for the new park on Block 5 in the South Park blocks back in August, and subsequently commented about Public philanthropy, private debts. I don't know who's giving this $1,575,000 donation. I wonder whether some of the money was accumulated because of tax breaks for downtown development, if not from underpaying janitors. These thoughts could be groundless. I've certainly experienced the benefit of completely wonderful philanthropists giving to the Holly Farm Park and other parks in Portland, with money earned and multiplied by open investments. I hope this donation comes from a source like that. Let's remember, too, that over $2 million for this new park is coming from City taxpayers.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 17, 2007 - 7:21am.
The Wilson High School choirs will be singing at The Grotto tonight. If that sounds too cold and wet for you, come to the holiday concert at Wilson, Thursday 12/20 at 7 p.m.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 16, 2007 - 1:54pm.
The Bridgeton Neighborhood Association has a proud history and recent successes in effecting positive changes in Bridgeton, a neighborhood between Marine Drive and the Columbia River, near the airport in North Portland. Portland Parks & Recreation's City Nature manager David McAllister does good work, too. And the worthy folks at the Peninsula Drainage District No. 2 also listen and think. Read about the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association's latest struggles to save trees on the Columbia River levee in today's Oregonian article by Anna Griffin.
I wondered about the final line in the article, stating Bridgeton is the smallest neighborhood in Portland, with about 600 residents. So I did a little checking. There are just over 300 residences in Bridgeton. In area and number of homes, Woodland Park is smaller, with 97 houses and about 300 people. And Healy Heights in SW Portland is even smaller, with only 70 or so homes and fewer than 150 people. There has been much debate over the years about the desired size of Neighborhood Associations. Some in Portland are bigger than many Oregon cities - Centennial, with over 7,000 households and 20,000 residents, for example. There are advantages and disadvantages connected with different sized Neighborhood Associations. While some critics would like to require uniformity, study after study has recommended continuing to allow Neighborhood Associations to choose their own boundaries. Anyway, now you know, Bridgeton is currently the third smallest Neighborhood Association. Sure to come up in a holiday Trivial Pursuit Portland game soon.
Reporters and others often like to dismiss Neighborhood Associations as argumentative, closed groups whose participants don't represent or care about the needs of the community as a whole. This Bridgeton story is but one more visible example of the many good things happening in Portland's recognized Neighborhood Associations. They also plan clean-ups, parties, block watches, tree plantings, and more. Collaboration, mediation, and compromise within and between Neighborhood Associations and other groups/individuals aren't nearly as rare as the article today seems to imply. It's good to see one success story highlighted as a fine example of all the good work Neighborhood Associations and other community groups do.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 12, 2007 - 7:25am.
Not Portland, but cool. Steve took it this summer at Arches National Park in Utah, using the Honda Civic's headlights for illumination.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 11, 2007 - 9:37am.
You may have seen the commercial where audience members play bingo during a corporate training, tracking the speaker's motivational expressions such as "out-of-the-box-thinking", "win-win", "pro-active", etc. My personal favorite/pet peeve is the word "innovative", which seems to be required in many City of Portland press releases. "Innovative" has come to mean "speculative and likely to cost more money than promised", to me. That or, "completely obvious, should have been done years ago and probably was until the previous innovative idea was implemented". Either way, if it's "innovative", you have to support this if you're a progressive Portlander! Even if it means you're going to get worked over, again!
Back to buzz phrases in general. In today's Oregonian reporting on the Portland Police Bureau's plan to assign more officers to walking beats, this popped out at me:
""This is a continuum of care," Central Precinct Cmdr. Mike Reese said. "We're trying a holistic approach.""
"Continuum of care" and "holistic approach" are phrases I hear all the time in treatment planning on the psychiatric unit at OHSU. And they're not used because they're trendy, but because nurses, doctors and support staff remind each other that each 8 hour shift, each patient assignment, is part of our clients' ongoing lives. We can't help them reach long-term recovery unless we address housing, income, community supports and ongoing medical care, as well as medicating their brain's disordered biochemistry.
I'm glad to read the language of caring in a report on Portland Police Bureau programs. Another recent article, Officer defuses deadly situation, gave credit to crisis intervention training, now mandatory, for giving Portland Officer James Nett the skills needed to reach a peaceful outcome with a man holding a gun. As with other civic issues, too often the media gives extensive coverage to Bad Stuff and a paragraph (if that) to Good Stuff. I hope you noticed the Good Stuff articles.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 10, 2007 - 7:21am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 8, 2007 - 9:46am.
The most important items I see on the coming week's Portland City Council Agenda are on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, both Time Certain.
1483 TIME CERTAIN: 2:00 PM – Accept the report on Parks System Development Charge Update
Commissioner Dan Saltzman deserves huge credit for his leadership on this issue. The report covers Systems Development Charges for parks - fees assessed on new residential development to help pay for new parks required to provide the increased capacity needed by new residents. See previous post here from June. Commissioner Saltzman is proposing to assess fees on non-residential development, and to increase the assessment for new homes to 75% of the cost of providing service to them. "Evaluation of the current Park SDC rates revealed that since its implementation in July 2005 the current recovery rate had eroded from a projected 37% to 20% in central city and to 26% in the non-central city." In other words, new development is currently paying only 20 - 26% of the burden of service needs it's creating.
Key recommendations in the report - which is attached to the Agenda item, yay!:
* Within the Central City Park SDC Boundary, the Task Force recommends that the methodology allocate 50% of urban park acreage to local access parks and 50% of the acreage to citywide access.
* The recommended allocation is for local SDCs to pay 10% of the costs for Washington Park, while citywide assessments put in 90%; for the South Waterfront park, the recommended split is 50:50.
* The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on a recommended level of assessment.
The Task Force considered increasing the fee in a range of proposals from 33% to 100% cost recovery. Commissioner Saltzman earns kudos for proposing 75% - assuming this is still his position at the hearing on Wednesday. He heard significant opposition from development interests, and put the needs of the city and citizens first in going for a relatively high number to charge for the Parks SDC. It's still less than some neighboring jurisdictions, but I'm pleased to see greater parity in making new development pay its way. An exemption for affordable housing remains, so although the higher fees will indeed increase housing costs, there is some capacity for adjustment to meet other values and needs.
I don't see that 75% number in the report. Nor do I see reference to charging SDCs on commercial development, which I believe is part of the package. Although it's nice to have the link on line, it would be even more helpful if the proposal was clearly laid out with specifics.
I've seen emails complaining about lack of public outreach and involvement in this process. In my opinion, this issue has had one of the most extensive and diligent community input efforts in recent Portland Parks & Recreation history. The report notes:
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 8, 2007 - 8:39am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 7, 2007 - 8:39am.
I didn't really have time to fit in a lunchtime meeting on Wednesday. The lack of posts here and elsewhere is because Tuesday night, my Neighborhood Association Board held a Special Meeting to review the Portland Bureau of Development Services' Staff Report on a 12 lot subdivision application. I recently stepped down as the land use chair after fifteen years, but both the new land use volunteer and the Neighborhood Association President live too close to the proposed development to be able to sort through the various conflicting values without being accused of personal bias. I've long committed to serving on this particular application... which has been in the pipeline for several years. I've spent most of the past two days engrossed in the five-inches-thick tome known as Title 33, happily tapping out the response agreed by consensus at our meeting. Happy because I love land use cases, where the rules are clear and it's a matter of detailing whether the application meets them or not. And because the level of agreement we reached at our meeting on Tuesday was unexpected, given that we were talking about change, development, and not getting everything everyone wanted. I'm submitting our memorandum this morning.
I took time out Wednesday lunchtime to attend the League of Women Voters of Portland's monthly meeting, at the Central Library. It was a panel discussion on the virtues and flaws of middle schools and/or schools teaching kindergarten through 8th grade. The speakers were Dennis Hartinger, eighth grade teacher at Roseway Heights School; Kimberley Campbell, Assistant Professor of Education, Lewis & Clark College in the Masters of Teaching program (where my son Luke hopes to be accepted - sadly, I didn't get a chance to put in a word for him after the meeting); Joan Miller, former principal and current Portland Public Schools (PPS) administrator as Coordinator of PK-8 Reconfiguration; and David Wynde, PPS School Board member. Each spoke for 15 minutes then took questions. Dennis firmly believes middle schools are better for more kids and teachers. Kim said the research evidence is mixed. Joan advocated for the k-8 approach, and David provided a reality check by reminding the audience the decisions to blend and close schools are at least in part due to budget constraints. It was an interesting session. Probably everyone in attendance (and it was a good turnout) had some preconceived beliefs validated. Middle schools allow more choices in electives, provide counselors, and draw teachers who truly want to specialize in early teenage education. K-8 reduces isolation of adolescents through ongoing relationships with staff they've known for years, as well as by contact with younger kids. The K-8 configuration can also help support keeping neighborhood elementary schools open, and allowing students to stay closer to home for middle school.
The comments of district administrators sounded to me like the spiels Steve and I heard as parents of grade school children in the early 1990s -- perhaps the darkest days of budget/staff cutting in the aftermath of Measure 5 passing. Then, administrators spent most of the time at parent meetings trying to convince families that "blended classrooms" are good for kids. Blended classrooms are where two or more grade levels are taught together. We experienced one or more of our children being the lower and upper halves of 1st-2nd grade blends, and 3rd-4th, and 4th-5th. While the blends may have helped them socially, in some ways, I don't believe the assurances we were told that they would not affect academic progress held true. And frankly, I would have preferred being treated as an adult, and rather than being told the blends were chosen for academic success, the administration should have said clearly, "We have to do this for budget reasons."
This year is the first year in 17 years of being a Portland Public Schools parent that I haven't had to worry about cuts as we started school in September. We're not out of the woods yet, by any means. The article in Wednesday's Willamette Week about underfunding and underfstaffing the Young Mens Academy at Jefferson is but the latest reminder of that. As David Wynde said, money isn't the only factor making good schools, but it is one factor. One of the primary reasons for moving to k-8 configurations is budgetary, and I think it would be helpful if we all agree on that, and change the focus to how to make it work best. Endless discussion of whether 8th graders are good influences on kindergarteners and vice versa, or not, wastes precious time and energy if the decision on grade configurations is really already determined by economics.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 5, 2007 - 3:12am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 4, 2007 - 9:05am.
There are some weeks when the Portland City Council's public hearings agenda looks dull to most people. I hope that by posting Next Up at City Council regularly since the beginning of the year, I've helped readers see that interesting/important/dangerous stuff sometimes lurks underneath. This week, as I worked on the latest edition early Sunday morning then finished it up on Monday, my review seemed particularly important, with a $77 million item sitting innocently in the list.
So I was highly chagrined when I checked in here yesterday evening, and found the post disappeared. As noted last week, we're changing hosts, and apparently I unknowingly uploaded Next Up in the midst of the switch. And thereby lost it. Thankfully, fairy blogmother Lynn Siprelle is not only a genius, but also dedicated to helping out in multiple ways. She retrieved and posted it, and if you scroll down to yesterday's posts, you'll see it back up. Or click here.
We are still having minor difficulties with the blog - an old page from my first campaign keeps mysteriously appearing as the home page, rather than the latest blog posts. We're working on it.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 4, 2007 - 8:52am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 3, 2007 - 6:44pm.
The Portland City Council's Agenda for this coming Wednesday morning shows a scheduled hearing on allocating over $76 million in funds to various bureaus and projects. Any questions? Feel like you've had plenty of input into how to spend $76 million? Good! Moving on....
No, backing up, $76,678,593 is a lot of money. The City calls it the "Minor Supplemental Budget for the FY 2007-08 Fall Budget Adjustment Process", sometimes known as the "Fall BuMP" (Budget Monitoring Process). Some will say that $76 million in a budget of over $2.5 billion is a small fraction. But it seems to me that most of the notices I've seen coming out from City email sources over the past month or two have been on raising additional funding for transportation improvements, increasing the Parks Systems Development Charges, ongoing invitations to continue Visioning, and watershed planning events. Allocating $76 million? Not on the community involvement radar screen until it shows up on the Council Agenda. Can any reader help the rest of us out, and make time to look into what's being proposed? One snip:
"The fall Minor Supplemental Budget increases resources and requirements by $77.1 million, in nineteen funds. The largest of these are the General Fund ($55.2 million), Federal Grants Fund ($8.4 million), General Reserve Fund ($3.9
million), Housing Investment Fund ($3.2 million), and Parks Capital Construction & Maintenance Fund ($2.5 million)"
In skimming the report, it seems some of the money is carryover from the previous fiscal year. I also notice that paragraph says $77.1 million while the ordinance says $76.6. I hope staff financial experts in all five Council offices have looked into the reports in detail. But experts and concerned people in the community should have adequate opportunity to look it over and give input, too.
OK, back to the Agenda. Two of the three Citizen Communications seem particularly compelling:
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on December 3, 2007 - 7:15am.
I heard it's leaving.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 30, 2007 - 7:06am.
With the possibility of snow, and certainty of a cold afternoon watching the Civil War in Eugene tomorrow, I'm posting this to remind myself of all the lovely summer days where we can sit around at night in Portland without bundling up.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 29, 2007 - 2:56pm.
My two sites were down again overnight, due to a second wave of attacks against another of Lynn Siprelle's mothering sites. We've switched to a new provider with better defences, and hope that's the end of disrupted service.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 28, 2007 - 4:20pm.
The Oregonian's Dylan Rivera reported today that "experts" say a new $4.2 billion bridge is needed to replace the current bridge on I-5 between Portland and Vancouver. I first covered the proposal on this blog back in January. As mentioned in the latest version of Next Up at City Council, the Portland City Council coincidentally had a minor contract on their Agenda this morning. I used the opportunity of the hearing to outline some of my questions and concerns.
I posted my comments to Council on my campaign site. Subscribers using the comment guidelines are welcome to comment on that post, here.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 28, 2007 - 7:25am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 27, 2007 - 9:29am.
That title got your attention, didn't it?
The Oregonian reported Sunday that biofuel production is increasing the price of beer, threatening significant impacts on Portland's thriving microbrewery industry.
"Hops and barley acreage has been declining -- hops because of a 10-year glut and barley because many farmers are planting corn for ethanol instead. Ethanol has also diverted corn from the feed market, often making it more lucrative to sell barley for feed instead of to the malting houses that supply brewers."
OK, now can we start talking about the moral and economic impacts of burning food for fuel? Can we discuss the trade-offs in Oregon's agricultural, microbrewery, and other industries, related to biofuels? We're not talking about raising the cost of staple-food tortillas in Mexico now, we're facing increases in the price of Portland's beers.
Future state and local subsidies for biofuel crop production should include analysis of what is not going to get grown/eaten/drunk if farmland is used to grow stuff for fuel. If either humans or animals eat a crop, that product shouldn't be used for biofuels. Cellulose, waste products, used fryer oil - sure, convert them all to biofuels. Land where nothing edible can grow, and hardier plants suitable for conversion can be sustained without significant environmental impacts? Waste not, want not, as the saying went during World War I. Corn, canola, and other foods are needed for hungry people and animals, not car engines. Portland's brewers and the people who enjoy their products are stakeholders in the City's subsidies of biofuels. Care and attention must be given to which biofuels to support.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 27, 2007 - 7:11am.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 26, 2007 - 2:19pm.
My two sites, and others under fairy blogmother Lynn Siprelle's wand, were down this morning. Lynn explains here. If I had to lose service, I'm proud it was due to blocking porn uploads on a site intended to help teenage mothers.
Pretty much every day, I delete new subscribers on this blog who are obviously not real people. Some e-mail addresses are give-aways (hmm, a "nude-pix.com" address, wonder if that might be a spammer?), other robots sign in with a string of letters that couldn't mean anything even in this acronym-crazed town. But what was most interesting to me was that when my parents were visiting and I wasn't posting much, the robot sign-ins also decreased dramatically. Who knew they care about readership statistics?
Anyway, normal service will now resume. Whatever "normal" means these days, which I'd be hard pressed to articulate.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 25, 2007 - 8:25am.
Nobody had an A-ha moment with Thursday's photo quiz, so here is another shot from the same park as a clue.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on November 24, 2007 - 10:47am.
Far and away the most important item on this coming week's City Council Agenda is
*1415 Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Columbia River Crossing Project (Ordinance)
I covered the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) issue in January, twice, with an update on the process in July. I'm now hearing the estimated price tag for the new bridge The Powers That Be apparently want is FOUR BILLION DOLLARS. And this for a bridge that would be six lanes of car/truck traffic in each direction, which is somehow magically supposed to filter into three lanes at either end without causing backups and accidents. It doesn't make sense. Read more about Metro Councilor Robert Liberty's concerns about the project, which I share, in this article by Libby Tucker in the Daily Journal of Commerce (DJC). No wait, this says the price tag may be SIX BILLION DOLLARS. Surely we can build an arterial bridge for local traffic at a cost of less than six billion dollars. From Libby's article:
"DJC: So how would that money get spent throughout the region, if it's not on CRC?
Liberty: We need people to understand that it's in competition with other projects. Some elements of the business community are just cheerleaders for whatever project the departments of transportation come up with. They need to do their due diligence, too. People in the freight community are supporting projects where trucks are going to be stalled in massive traffic jams. We need to talk about freight movement that's separate. We need to look at freight lanes that maybe are tolled at certain times of the day. Another point is we need to maintain what we have. We're way behind on maintenance. Fix it first. The cost of maintaining and repairing it is a pittance compared to the cost of building it."
Yet again, this agenda item has an emergency clause (denoted by the asterisk). The Columbia River Crossing bridge was discussed at the Planning Commission during my service prior to January 2004. I'd like to know why this ordinance wasn't brought to the Council in a timely manner.
The ordinance is to authorize provision of City services totalling $83,674.52, just for the next phase of scoping. The total cost for studying this humongous bridge is tens of millions of dollars - yes, just to study it. Any one of six jurisdictions can pull the plug on this project. The City of Portland is one of them. I plan to testify on Wednesday, asking the City to spend our transportation dollars on safety and maintenance of Portland's neighborhood streets, rather than further study and eventual, inevitable massive funding of a ridiculously expensive new bridge.
There are many other interesting items on the Wednesday morning agenda, which I wish I had more time to review. One follow-up from this past Wednesday's session, with the first reading of
1417 Authorize a major encroachment to bSide6, LLC to install, use and maintain building improvements in the airspace over a portion of the E Burnside St right-of-way at SW corner of SE 6th Ave and E Burnside St and
1418 Authorize lease agreement with bSide6, LLC in the amount of $1.00 per year to construct, use and maintain building improvements in the airspace over a portion of the E Burnside St right-of-way
which will be voted on this week at their Second Reading:
The project is the first of what Commissioner Adams hopes will be "arcade-style" development (presumably this means the overhang above the sidewalk) along Burnside. Sam said the Office of Transportation usually charges 10% of the value, per year, for use of the airspace over the right-of-way, such as skybridges. For this case, the assessment would be $2,500 per year, rather than the $1 annual fee being charged. It seems to me that a developer would still want $22,500 in extra revenue each year, even if they had to pay $2,500 annually for it instead of $1. And this vote sets a precedent for all subsequent desired "arcade-style" development to have the fee essentially waived. That will add up to a lot of lost revenue, over time.
Four Time Certains on Thursday afternoon: