Q: When is a developer not a developer?
A: When the City Council says so.
City Council yesterday approved the appointment to the Planning Commission of Catherine Ciarlo, who as I mentioned in Next Up at City Council was Executive Director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, and Jill Sherman, Development Manager at Gerding Edlen Development Company. Jill Sherman has experience developing affordable housing; she sounds like an excellent person who will be an asset to the Planning Commission. But there are already two Planning Commissioners whose primary employment is development of real estate for profit – the maximum allowed by state law. Don Hanson, the Planning Commission’s Vice President, is Development Services Manager for OTAK. Paul Schlesinger, its President, is a partner in BPM Development. A third development professional should not have been appointed to the Commission, in my opinion. Despite the careful questioning of Commissioner Leonard, the Council chose to approve the nomination by accepting the Bureau of Planning’s testimony that Don Hanson isn’t primarily employed in development.
The principle most of the Council chose to ignore is the balance of interests on the Planning Commission. Randy Leonard did an excellent job yesterday of raising concerns about a third developer; still, the vote to confirm was 4-0, with Commissioner Sten absent. With the approval of the two new nominees, there are 5 members of the Planning Commission who work in development-related fields, 2 who don’t. That’s not balanced. Gil Kelley said at the hearing that the Bureau of Planning is especially interested in recruiting someone with urban design skills for one of the other two vacancies – that will make 6 to 2. And while he mentioned “arts and culture expertise” as desirable for the final spot, and that would make three Planning Commissioners who don’t stand to profit from real estate development in Portland, adding an arts/culture expert to the current mix would likely leave the Commission without any representatives with experience in land use reviews from the neighborhood perspective. That doesn’t quite match the Portland code in 33.710.040, which requires “a broad representation of Portland’s community” on the Planning Commission.
I have great respect for both Don Hanson and Paul Schlesinger. Jill Sherman seems fine, too. The issue isn’t personal, it’s one of principle – and state law. As noted on the Planning Bureau’s page on the Planning Commission, state law mandates “no more than two members may participate principally in, or be an officer or employee of a corporation that participates principally in, the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit”.
To allow the appointment of Jill Sherman, the Bureau of Planning claimed that Don Hanson doesn’t work principally in the development of real estate for profit, because his company, OTAK, also does other kinds of work. And because “The bureau believes that there is an important distinction between developers and persons who provide services to developers.”
Facts:
* When Don Hanson was appointed to the Planning Commission, the Daily Journal of Commerce (the City of Portland’s newspaper of record for official announcements) wrote an article titled, “Veteran developer Hanson takes seat on Planning Commission.“ Gil Kelley, Planning Director, is quoted saying Don “has good practical experience in the development business”. Don Hanson is quoted referring to his “fellow developers”.
* His job title is “Manager of Development Services” at OTAK, a firm that provides services to for-profit developers.
* OTAK’s site says on its Development Services page, “Planning. Permitting. Annexation. Public involvement. These core services provide the backbone of any development project….we can help guide your project from conception to completion.”
* Don Hanson is listed as the applicant in multiple development applications, plans OTAK’s clients’ developments and advocates for their approval. He was a key member of the application team winning approval of the 600 acre Forest Heights development in the early 1990s, the largest subdivision in Oregon.
When I mentioned to a fellow neighborhood land use volunteer that the BOP doesn’t consider Don a developer, her response was, “Well, what is he, then?”
If Don Hanson isn’t a developer, the Bureau of Planning should state which profession is he counted as representing, so the public will know when there’s a second one on the Planning Commission and that profession has its two spaces. The code not only limits the makeup of the Commission to two with principal employment in development, but also mandates no more than two members may be engaged in the same business or profession. So everyone needs to know what profession or business the Council now considers Don Hanson to be engaged in, since they’ve determined he isn’t principally in development for profit.
Commissioner Adams asked Jill Sherman yesterday whether she would be able to be objective and not always on the side of developers, when making decisions on the Planning Commission. Of course, she answered that she would. The question pretty much missed the point of the state law and the principle, though. No matter how open and unbiased a person may be, s/he will think from the perspective of her/his experience. That’s one reason it’s important to have people with diverse backgrounds and cultures making decisions. Another is public perception and trust. Citizens testifying to a Commission loaded with professionals profiting from development may doubt the majority will understand and consider neighborhood concerns, even if they do.
An underlying question that wasn’t addressed yesterday, is why there are so many vacancies on the Planning Commission. That’s an issue for another post.