Next Up at City Council 11/28-29, 2007

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:


1421 TIME CERTAIN: 2:00 PM – Terminate Transit Oriented Development and Multiple-Unit Housing limited tax abatements for certain properties no longer eligible for the program (Resolution introduced by Mayor Potter)


1422 Terminate and deny Single Family New Construction limited tax abatements for certain ineligible properties (Resolution introduced by Mayor Potter)

Removing tax breaks from properties that don't qualify for them is A Good Thing. Makes you wonder how long the ineligible properties have been getting them, and whether others should be added to the list, doesn't it?


1423 TIME CERTAIN: 2:45 PM – Adopt the Small Business Bill of Rights as a resource and tool to support, promote and improve the small business climate in Portland (Resolution introduced by Mayor Potter and Commissioners Adams, Leonard, Saltzman and Sten)

Some interesting facts from the Resolution:


WHEREAS, the City of Portland recognizes that small local businesses are the backbone of our economy. In the Portland Metro area, 95.2% of all firms are small businesses;


WHEREAS, the Portland Metro area has 44,427 small businesses with less than 50
employees that employ 259,023 people and have a payroll of $2.2 billion; and


WHEREAS, in Multnomah County alone there are 20,654 small businesses that employ
125,032 people with a payroll of $1.1 billion and, of these, almost 13,000 are microenterprises with 5 or less employees;"

It's unfortunate the report and Small Business Bill of Rights aren't also posted as links to the Council Agenda.

The last item on Thursday:


1424 TIME CERTAIN: 3:45 PM – Accept State of the River Report 2006-2007 (Report introduced by Mayor Potter)

More studying by the Bureau of Planning. From the transmittal letter for the Report(again, would it be so hard to link directly to the document?):

"This year’s report describes 40 accomplishments, sets forth an agenda of over 35 river-related actions, and measures impacts through over 20 progress indicators. In addition, it profiles a number of river efforts by upstream communities and highlights key documents relating to riverfront redevelopment and watershed protection."

That's nice. In the meantime, eating from or even touching the Willamette is hazardous to health. We need more action, now.

Like any other project in

Like any other project in the region, the Columbia Crossing Project has a political preconceived agenda. It has been a back door approach to get light rail across the river and into Vancouver ever since voters said thumbs down to funding it. A less costly solution to doing just that would have been to construct a new six lane crossing for I-5 through traffic only and utilize the ground level existing bridges for transit and local traffic. This option however was never fully considered. Now we can expect the one-sided political powers behind the current concept to ask motorists to pay tolls for their extravagance. Breaking the costs down per mode (information which has yet to be released to the public but has been repeatedly asked for), any tolling must be designed such that motorists and motor freight carriers ONLY pay the costs for the local match of the highway portions of the project. Freeloading bicyclists must also be tolled to pay for the bike/ped portion of the project, and light rail/transit passengers must accept total accountability of any local monies spent on the light rail portion be it through farebox surcharges and/or fare higher transit fares. If tolling occurs and it can not be done in such an equitable manner where ALL users justly and without mode discrimination pay their fair share, then tolling must be totally thrown out as an option to pay for the crossing. Any local costs for bicycle infrastructure and transit infrastructure/operations must not be subsidized by non-users of those modes. Furthermore, when the project is paid off, the tolling should go away. Terry Parker

Now we can expect the

Now we can expect the one-sided political powers behind the current concept.... As the quotations from Metro Councilor Robert Liberty show, not all the political powers are lined up on the side of the expensive new bridge. It only takes one of the six jurisdictions to stop it. I hope other citizens will make time in their day this coming Wednesday to voice opinions to our Portland City Council - one of those six with veto power. Potentially spending $6 billion is worth our attention at least as much as renaming Interstate or 4th, surely.

which is somehow magically

which is somehow magically supposed to filter into three lanes at either end without causing backups and accidents Not to mention where I-5 shrinks down to two lanes on our east side. Travelling home after work I am always so, so glad I don't have to commute home to Vancouver. At least until they Pearlize my close-in SE neighborhood, going home over the Hawthorne Bridge --or even the misrouted/re-routed #14 Hawthorne going east over the Morrison-- is a relatively easy ride or walk. Feeling sorry for the commuters crawling along I-5, though, doesn't make this bridge a good idea.

So what exactly does the

So what exactly does the small business "Bill of Rights" actually do? Are companies going to get the city off of their backs? Is the city going to get out of the way of small business so they can make better progress, provide more services, expand downtown? Are they ever going to get a well deserved tax break so that motivations to be downtown will be met with a functional ability to be downtown? I've heard so often about small business's desire to be downtown, but so many of them can't afford it because of the excessive taxes and restrictions downtown. ABH - http://www.adronbhall.name