Next Up at City Council, 10/24 – 25, 2007

I realized on Thursday that I didn’t post Next Up at City Council last week – one of the few times I’ve missed doing so this year. I’m sorry for myself as well as for not providing the service to you – I don’t like having so little time to pay attention to important issues. I hope you looked up the Agenda for yourself.

Here are the highlights the Portland City Council’s Agenda for this coming Wednesday and Thursday, as I see it:

On the Consent Agenda:

*1264 Authorize payment of $30,000 from the Parking Facilities Fund to Pioneer Courthouse Square, Inc. as a contribution to the holiday tree lighting ceremony at the Square (Ordinance)

Is the construction going to be done by then? Is it still worth importing and lighting the tree in the Square, if most citizens are down on 3rd and 4th or up on Broadway? Just askin’.

Regular Agenda:

1274 Authorize City Attorney to settle litigation brought by Portland General Electric (Resolution introduced by Commissioners Leonard and Sten)

Looks like the City and PGE have agreed what records are provided/viewed, with no damages/cost awards to either side. At least, that’s how my slightly frazzled brain reads it.

“Upon completion of review of the documents, and submission of the report, if any, the City Council will formally acknowledge the report and acknowledge PGE’s full compliance with the subpoena. If no report is issued, the City will formally
acknowledge, by resolution, PGE’s full compliance with the subpoena as a result of this process no later than April 30, 2008.

Within 10 days of the City’s resolution acknowledging compliance with the subpoena, PGE will dismiss all lawsuits arising from the subpoena and the appeal, without costs.”

*1271 Amend contract with Henderson, Young & Company to develop a Transportation System Development Charge overlay for the North Macadam area (Ordinance; amend Contract No. 36811)

“The proposed contract amendment for $131,495 provides for professional, technical, and expert services to develop a North Macadam TSDC rate study, project list and fee schedule that is compatible with the citywide TSDC program, coordinate with the North Macadam Transportation Development Strategy, and provide public engagement throughout the process.” [TSDC = Transportation Systems Development Charge – fees assessed on development to help pay for infrastructure improvements needed because of it]

We all know sometimes it pays to spend money in order to generate it. But which pot of money is this $131,495 coming from? The General Fund? Why wasn’t this expense budgeted into the latest Urban Renewal Plan amendment?

And see the asterisk, indicating an emergency ordinance? It’s an emergency to increase the contract amount by $131,495, apparently. Oh puhleese, here’s the explanation for why it’s an emergency to pay the contractor more, immediately:

“The Council declares that an emergency exists because a delay in commencing work could delay collection of revenue essential to funding capacity-increasing infrastructure improvements in the North Macadam area;”

The company isn’t going to start work on figuring out fair SDC charges until they have the money in hand? That doesn’t make sense to me. If the Council passes the ordinance and it takes effect in 30 days, that’s not good enough? That’s a stretch considering how much debt the City carries.

1281 Amend contract with Friends of Burnside Couch, Inc. for additional work for the Burnside Transportation and Urban Design project (Previous Agenda 1251; amend Contract No. 35678)

I spotted this one when it was first on the Council’s Agenda, then missed Willamette Week‘s attention on it last week until later. As an aside, I think “Portland Streetcar, Inc.” is a more honest name for a group of this nature than “Friends of Burnside Couch”. Most Portlanders would associate a “Friends of” group with a host of philanthropic volunteers, like Friends of Trees.

There’s no meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

THURSDAY, 2:00 PM, OCTOBER 25, 2007

1286 TIME CERTAIN: 2:00 PM – Appeal of Eric Rystadt, applicant, against the Hearings Officer’s decision to deny a 73-unit Planned Development with Modifications to landscaping, setbacks, height and loading spaces at 4027 SE 174th Avenue (Hearing; LU 06-185546 PD M)

Another denial of a subdivision coming from the Hearings Officer to Council. Seeing several appeals should prompt the Councilmen to consider whether it’s time to re-evaluate the rules. Or, to clarify to developers earlier in the process that no, you don’t get to “modify” a whole bunch of standards intended to ensure livability and good development, in order to squish something onto a site that doesn’t really fit. Sadly, I don’t have time to look into this case right now. If anyone knows more about it, I’d love to read your comments.

Two interesting items on the Regular Agenda after the land use appeal on Thursday:

1290 Urge support for the passage of Measure 49 (Resolution introduced by Mayor Potter and Commissioners Adams, Saltzman, Leonard and Sten)

Better late than never, even though many citizens will have returned their ballots this weekend.

1291 Declare the City’s intent to rename a major arterial street in honor of César E. Chávez and establish a process to complete the street selection by July 1, 2008 (Resolution introduced by Commissioners Adams and Leonard)

If the Councilmen had followed the law in the Code (it’s here in Chapter 17.93) – instead of now moving to “establish a process” – in this and previous cases, it would have been more cost-effective, less contentious, and easier to have figured out how other factors such as racism and political gamesmanship are playing into this matter. This, gentlemen and gentle readers, illustrates why public process and respecting law matters. A whole bunch of time, money, and mental anguish has been expended, and will be spent on the new “process”, because those in power haven’t followed the rules. And worse yet, instead of the discussions having helped promote understanding and respect, the horrible messed-up “process” has polarized communities and interest advocates.

Citizens don’t have an unlimited amount of time and energy to devote to civic engagement. So when folks show up, leaders should ensure their participation is meaningful, productive, and constructive. I haven’t heard of many participants coming out of the Interstate/Chavez meetings so far making comments on the lines of, “That was interesting, I hadn’t thought of it that way before, the people on the other side must feel hard-done-by.” When groups start with a “position” for or against, and leaders aren’t following or even setting at the start a clear public process, it’s very difficult to talk about values, principles, underlying influences, or potential for reaching consensus that might be something other than the original polarized positions.

The Code specifies a process for renaming City streets, and the Council should respect those regulations. The Council doesn’t seem to have learned from the past, or even from this current debacle. Renaming City Streets should follow the process in the Code. If the Councilmen want to honor the request and hard work of the proponents of renaming a street for hero Chavez, as they should, they should look at something within the law. What’s the process for renaming state and federal highways?