Public Process Problems – Block 25 and Beyond

As noted in Next Up at City Council, 2/13/08, below, the City Council is making some highly suspect decisions in siting the Resource Access Center for homeless people in Old Town/Chinatown.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the pros and cons of two potential locations for this particular facility, let me tell you why I am steamed.

The Council is making the same process mistakes they showcased in the Chávez street renaming fiasco:

* Not following the process in the Code

* Making deals and promises to some stakeholders

* Not allowing adequate time for transparent, accountable public process in open meetings

Neighbors have been told that if they agree to the siting of the Access Center on Block 25, the neighborhood will receive $200 million in urban renewal money. But that money does not yet exist.

In order to generate the funds being promised, all three of the Portland Development Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council must vote to allow the River District Urban Renewal Area to borrow more money, AND change the boundaries of that URA to include parts of Old Town/Chinatown. EVERYONE IN PORTLAND HAS TO RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE ANY OF THAT HAPPENS. Council members are promising neighbors that all these changes will surely happen, before public hearings and votes have been held.

City Council members are talking as if $311 million in new debt for the River District is a done deal. The Portland Development Commission should at least do the same analysis they do before creating an urban renewal area in the first place, before approving this increase in debt. They are required to have an analysis done that shows financial feasibility and how the district could be expected to perform with and without tax increment financing. This is especially important because it makes absolutely no sense to increase debt on a district that is such a success. Doing the homework would be the responsible thing to do when the increase ($300+ million) is well above the original district debt limit of $225 million. Why isn’t this analysis happening? Why isn’t Council waiting for it before charging ahead with spending the new (borrowed) money?

This is a huge public process problem.

Ok, now to the particular issue of siting the Resource Access Center:

The Resource Access Center itself is A Good Thing. It will provide not only one-stop shopping to meet the social service and job placement needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens, but also affordable housing above the ground floor offices and retail businesses. That will give people currently living on the streets in the area, a safe place to stay in the neighborhood. The Center will be big enough that folks waiting for services won’t have to queue outside.

That said, the City Council once again seems to be running a public process that is favoring one minority community while disrespecting another – just as they did in the Interstate/4th Avenue renaming debacle. Once again, the Council members are ignoring regulations in the Code and Charter. Once again, decisions are being made without following the required steps, in order.

That block is across Flanders Street from the Chinese Garden. It appears to be the favored site of many advocates for people who will use the Resource Center most. Many residents and businesses in Old Town/Chinatown, and many Asian leaders, would like to see the Center sited on Block U, which is further north near Union Station and the Post Office. The core angst for the neighbors is not “Not In My Back Yard”, rather “Here in my back yard, rather than There”.

Supporters of locating the center on Block 25 point out that part of that block is already occupied by the Blanchet House, which provides services to homeless people and has been planning to upgrade its facilities for many years. People favoring Block 25 would like to see all the services in one place. A representative from the Blanchet House said last Tuesday that their plans are independent of the apparent desire of the majority of the City Council to take the rest of that block for the Resource Access Center. Blanchet House can redevelop in its current location whether the bigger project is on the same block, or on Block U.

Some advocates for homelessness people believe the Block 25 location is more central, and that putting the Center on Block U would feel more “out of sight, out of mind”. Those who prefer Block U point out that when Union Station is revitalized and the Post Office site is redeveloped, that end of the neighborhood will have a much more uptone look and feel. Proponents of Block U believe that putting social services in the heart of the neighborhood on Block 25 would not stimulate urban renewal the way market rate housing and/or retail would.

That certainly rings a bell with me… the bell of the Gateway Urban Renewal Area. There, the Council insisted on locating Multnomah County’s Children’s Receiving Center in the heart of the business district. The Receiving Center takes in children in emergencies, before finding foster homes for them. A great cause and a necessary service, but not a good building to have in the core of the urban renewal area. It is tax-exempt, and brings in no paying customers that support nearby businesses.

Folks opposed to siting the Resource Access Center on Block 25 point to the need to attract middle-income/market rate housing to this neighborhood, which currently contains mostly low-income rentals. They feel the glory and public investment in the Classical Chinese Garden calls for something splendid being built adjacent to it, both to honor focal point for the Asian community and to stimulate investment in the district. The central location of Block 25 is why both sides passionately want it developed to meet their vision – two visions that may be mutually exclusive. Perhaps not… the process has not been given time to simmer, so it’s not clear whether a compromise can be found.

At the very least, the Council should allow the Portland Development Commission time to do thorough analyses on issuing more debt to cover the desired expenses, and on the pros and cons of Block 25 and Block U in the long term plan for the area.

The Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association is one of the few I know where homeowners do not make up the majority of the Board. Business owners, renters, and social service providers are all represented. I have attended attended several OTCTNA meetings over many years. I have always been astonished and impressed at their huge turnout. They have many functioning committees, and do all kinds of events and multiple community involvement activities. OTCTNA is an exemplary organization of good-hearted volunteers. City Council members should listen to and respect their advice. And, Council members should give the neighbors time for proper public process … and follow it themselves.