PDC: It’s Time for a Change
Randy Leonard
On May 16, 1958, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) was created by a slim majority of Portland voters. Its creation was motivated to help Portland take advantage of the powerful economic tools allowed by urban renewal districts.
The PDC is a city charter created autonomous entity that has a board of five commissioners appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the city council. Its board develops and adopts its own budget, makes decisions on development independent of the city council and hires the PDC executive director.
For an excellent history of urban renewal funds in Portland, dating back to the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, read more here.
I support the original goals of creating urban renewal districts that focus on eliminating urban blight. As a lifelong Portlander, I am impressed with the neighborhoods of Portland that were once characterized by urban decay and crime that are now thriving and whose housing stock is in high demand.
I completely understand that it is the work of the PDC that has driven much of this excellent work over the past nearly 50 years.
However, I do not support some of the decisions of the PDC relating to guidelines for awarding tax abatements, continuation of some urban renewal areas and decisions that would appear to not respect public input and process.
Since arriving on the city council two and one half years ago, I have become convinced that the city needs to change the structure of how urban renewal dollars are managed in Portland. While the work of the PDC is important, Portland is unusual in how we administer our urban renewal districts through an appointed, independent body. For an example, the City of Gresham’s city council functions as its own development commission.
The time has come for Portland to administer its economic development dollars in a different, more inclusive way.
Therefore, I am proposing that the city council refer to Portland voters an amendment to the Portland city charter that would, if approved, eliminate the PDC and transfer its functions -in total- to a new Economic Development Bureau (EDB). The EDB would be assigned to one of the five members of the city council just as other city bureaus are currently. One of the benefits of a new EDB would be that all of the economic development strategies that are currently occurring in a number of different bureaus within the city, in addtion to the PDC, could be centralized within the new EDB.
Each of us on the city council is held accountable by Portland voters -rightly so- for the performance of all of the city’s functions. However, each of us, including the Mayor, has limited, indirect authority in effecting the same kind of change at the PDC as we can cause at bureaus over which we have direct administrative authority. In fact, that is exactly why the PDC was created, i.e., to be able to insulate itself from the political pressures of being overseen by an elected body.
That may have made sense in 1958. In 2005, it no longer does.
We now have strong neighborhood and business associations that have access to information and communication tools that did not exist in 1958. Also, the council wants to review budgets much closer than has occurred in the past. Currently, the PDC budget is not even on the same budget cycle as are the rest of the city bureaus. Additionally, there are conflicting opinions as to whether or not the city council can change the PDC budget over the objections of the PDC board of directors.
Change for changes sake is a short sighted and destructive endeavor. However, reacting to clear symptoms of dysfunction in government by defending the status quo is just as wrong.
Some will point to a specific incident at the PDC and conclude that I was motivated to take this action because of a single concern. They will be wrong. In fact, it is a series of decisions, positions and reactions of the PDC to recommended changes that causes me to draw the conclusion I have that the PDC should be eliminated and its functions transferred to a new Economic Development Bureau.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
7:29 p.m.
May 4, '05
Question: Why a new bureau under a single commissioner rather than simply designating City Council itself as the city's urban renewal agency?
7:42 p.m.
May 4, '05
"...that is exactly why the PDC was created, i.e., to be able to insulate itself from the political pressures of being overseen by an elected body.
That may have made sense in 1958. In 2005, it no longer does.
We now have strong neighborhood and business associations that have access to information and communication tools that did not exist in 1958."
I've always marveled at how the PDC seems to be public agency with only minimal accountability to any elected body - kind of like the Oregon Board of Forestry. They're pretty much free to do as they please without having to answer to anyone, as long as they don't get too far out of line.
Mr. Leonard's proposal sounds reasonable. But what I am wondering is:
1) Why did it make sense in 1958 to create a politically insulated PDC? I'd like to know exactly why people back then thought an independent agency would be better than a city bureau as Mr. Leonard proposes.
2) Why and how exactly do the "strong neighborhood and business associations" we have today negate the reasons for having a politically insulated PDC?
7:49 p.m.
May 4, '05
Some will point to a specific incident at the PDC and conclude that I was motivated to take this action because of a single concern.
Well, whether you've been planning this for months or not, Randy, one can't ignore the timing. Following what so many of us feel was at least very poor process in the Burnside Bridgehead project, your proposal puts an overdue question on the table: has PDC's time passed?
We should all be wary in making a judgment about the PDC so closely following the Burnside decision--on the other hand, we'd be foolish in not taking it into account.
Absolutely fantastic post.
7:51 p.m.
May 4, '05
FYI, the other bit of timing is that Potter's release of recommendations under his Bureau Innovation Project includes one to change the way PDC works.
Also, FYI on that recent incident: Beam has appealed PDC's decision to select Opus Northwest.
May 4, '05
"Question: Why a new bureau under a single commissioner rather than simply designating City Council itself as the city's urban renewal agency?"
B!X- Actually, I do think the urban renewal agency function should involve the entire council.
However, the day to day operations need to be overseen by a specific individual so that there exists a clear chain of command with an elected official at the top...consistent with related discussions of other city employees of late.
As far as the strong neighborhood and business associations that exist now that did not in the 50's, I do think it is important for a development agency to place a value on the considerations of neighborhoods and businesses that are impacted by development decisions.
8:11 p.m.
May 4, '05
So something like a single commissioner functioning as chair/director, and the other Council members acting like the full board?
May 4, '05
I am beginning to feel the blind ambition of Portland's City Council breathing down my neck. Portland wants their own counter-terrorism squad, their own electric utility, their own EPA regulations, their own retirement/disability fund scandal, and (now) their own economic development bureaucracy/piggybank.
For the last 10 years, I have composted grass clippings on the hillside below my home (city right of way), and a City of Portland nuisance inspector showed up to threaten me with a fine. Nevermind the fact the weeds in the vacant lot next door are waist high, and the blackberry bushes are taller than a semi-truck. Never mind the fact the neighbor who complained is a Russian immigrant with 14 adults living in a 3 bedroom 1.5 bath house (no violations there!): my lawn clippings are the real neighborhood menace.
If Commissioner Leonard's proposal can be reduced to simply making Portland's City Council:
A). Even More Powerful.
or,
B). Less Powerful.
I prefer option B. After the streets have all been paved, the homeless have all been sheltered, and the repeat drunk drivers all been offered treatment (or jail), then I would be willing to increase influence of the Portland City Council.
May 4, '05
B!X- Exactly...but please throw out other ideas as well...I will read them all and consider any thoughtful suggestion.
9:19 p.m.
May 4, '05
... wants their own counter-terrorism squad ...
I stopped reading your post after this lie. Hope there was nothing important or accurate in the rest of it.
9:57 p.m.
May 4, '05
Cmmr Leonard,
Randy,
In previous posts, you've lauded Portland's record on development, spearheaded by the PDC. You've defended the decision making process on a series of major redevelopment decisions.
It seems to me, based on your previous postings, that you think the PDC has not only done a good job, but a spectacular job.
I'm not clear why you'd want to change the workings of an agency with such a successful record.
On assigning to a bureau, I've posted elsewhere that I don't like the commissioner/bureau system. I'd be much happier if the whole council was overseeing the activities of the city, including development. Your own post is an indication why.
You wrote: I never have been nor do I pretend to be an urban planner. I am used to climbing flights of stairs in these high rises with full fire protection gear to put out a fire, not designing them.
Yet, you might be assigned the development bureau. Is this really the way to run a city?
Why the sudden change of heart?
May 4, '05
You may want to read again what I have said previously about the PDC. What I have said here is consistent with my previous spoken and written observations of the PDC.
11:54 p.m.
May 4, '05
I am beginning to feel the blind ambition of Portland's City Council breathing down my neck.
I find this amusing, because as it stands right now, nothing at PDC is accountable to the public the way elected officials are. Doesn't it make more sense for elected officials to be accountable for the decisions of the City's urban renewal agency?
Other localities designate their elected bodies as the localities' urban renewal agencies. What we need is to see if there's any data out there as to how that compares to the way we currently do it in Portland.
May 5, '05
The Burnside Bridge decision was the nail in PDC's coffin.
And Randy has been questioning the PDC since he first took office in 2000.
May 5, '05
Randy, with all due respect I think PDC has done a largely great job. Do they have issues with what they've done, yes, but would this city have the development in some areas without them, no. PDC is a model that other cities should follow.
That being said, I agree PDC does need reform, as suggested by the City Club. I also think, however, that more importanlty Portland's city government needs major reform. Now as a major urban center, we should not stick with a style of governemnt more apt for a farming community.
May 5, '05
I agree with Randy's basic assumption -- that the lack of public accountability calls for a fundamental change in PDC. I question the wisdom of placing PDC functions under the auspices of a single City commissioner, even subject to the review of the City Council. Thanks to Portland's Charter-mandated Bureau system, individual commissioners have the power to delay or even ultimately prevent even substantive policy issues from coming before the Council.
The solution is not a simple one. Perhaps most importantly, since PDC decisions have a significant impact on regional concerns as well as those that are Portland-specific, shouldn't Metro somehow be involved in the loop? It's easy to think of many areas of Portland that would benefit in an urban renewal sense from different land use decisions by Metro. The moribund NW industrial area, for example.
Perhaps we rethink the entire structure. If PDC still is to exist, positions on the Commission should certainly be elective. If PDC is not to exist, the important functions it performs -- some of which, albeit, are now being performed horribly -- should be integrated into a larger regional whole, whether that entity be Metro or something else.
May 5, '05
I think the problem with the PDC is Leadership. Get someone in who respects the voice of the community local and who actually understands what makes PDX tick and PDC will be fine. Most of the problems of late fall in the lap of a few bad apples at the top.
10:20 p.m.
May 5, '05
Randy, I did look back -- you are right, you were consistent. I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't.
I'm trying to square your enthusiastic support for the various redevelopment efforts undertaken by PDC and your desire to change the way that it functions.
One question: isn't the PDC board appointed by the Mayor? Aren't they also removable by the Mayor? If we allowed the Mayor to nominate and remove the head of the PDC, wouldn't that provide accountability?
May 5, '05
Paul- While I do support urban renewal areas and tax increment financing, I have never been fully convinced that Portland's version of a development commission is the best way to manage the projects within urban renewal districts.
In fact, while the Mayor appoints PDC members with council approval, there are only limited circumstances that a PDC member can be removed.
Having said that, I do concede that it is an open question as to what the best change would be to improve the responsiveness and accountability of how our city's redevelopment projects are decided and managed.
This post is intended to encourage as much discussion as readers want to provide to help me and the council decide what -not if- changes should occur in how the city manages its urban renewal areas.
Change is going to occur at the PDC. How and what those changes are will depend on what ideas our citizens have, hopefully starting with the BlueOregon community and in addition to the idea I have posed here, that will guide the city council in making the changes needed in how our urban renewal districts are administered.
May 6, '05
Randy Leonard | May 5, 2005 11:13 PM: Change is going to occur at the PDC. How and what those changes are will depend on what ideas our citizens have, hopefully starting with the BlueOregon community and in addition to the idea I have posed here, that will guide the city council in making the changes needed in how our urban renewal districts are administered.
This posting will just scratch the surface of what I feel is wrong, based on my limited experience opposing elements of the St.Johns/Lombard Plan.
About outreach
Efforts must be made to reach all groups of people, not just PC minorities and the Starbucks crowd. Figure out how to get joe-six pack to participate.
Planners must present ALL known effects of their proposals and the costs involved. The current practice appears to be to promote the advantages of a proposal without mentioning the down sides. They never mention cost. I saw them ignore the possibility of increasing crime or increasing traffic congestion.
Planners should disclose when proposals are experimental. An experimental proposal is one for which there is no credible data showing that it has been implemented before with the premised outcome under similar conditions. I have been surprised by the number of proposed measures that the planners have no data on.
Planners must quit lying to citizens. I witnessed one planner saying that even with the proposed changes to Lombard, it would remain at an acceptable level of service. He neglected to tell people that “acceptable level of service” was redefined to include stop and go conditions on major roads during rush hour. I consider this a lie by omission. Such lies are illegal in several professions, and that should include planners.
In other words the planners should seek to determine what the people want and need, then figure out how to accommodate these needs and wants. The current practice appears to be to figure out how to trick people into accepting the planners vision of what Portland should be.
About endorsements
I saw several neighborhood and business associations take positions on the plan with no real input from the people that they claim to represent. One business association was forced by its members to retract its endorsement.
There should be a criteria for accepting endorsements to be sure that they are genuine.
Advisory committees
No member of an advisory committee should stand to benefit from its actions.
One Lombard plan Advisory committee had a land owner, who just happened to own land that ended up in the location chosen for the highest density development. One Sandy plan committee had over representation of the bike community.
In the Lents UR district the PDC ignored the advice of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and built an apartment complex in a location that reduced the chances of attracting a major employer to the area by taking up a piece of a large vacent plot of land. Newspaper reports said that the PDC claimed that the CAC did not represent the true feelings of the neighborhood.
Once you have representative committees DO NOT IGNORE them as has happened several times in Lents.
Zoning Changes
No zone change should occur without the consent of the property owner and surrounding properties.
The first public version of the Lombard plan had several longtime employers becoming conditional use. These employers were not aware of this proposal until a few days before it went to the planning commission (so much for City’s outreach - they heard of it from the opponents of the plan). They testified that such a change would probably cause them to leave the area because of the hassles associated with such a status. One of these businesses supplied steel to build Liberty Ships - a genuine long term, stable, employer that is the foundation of a successful city. The planners were ready to kick them out!
Randy: Would you shell out big bucks to re-roof a multi- acre building when you knew that, in the future, you had to get planners permission to take a shit (figuratively speaking)?
Financial realism
In all urban renewal districts, do a cash flow projection for life the bonds, not just the UR life. Normalize all money to present value. Does tax money collected 30 years out make up for money not collected now?
One little detail: the projections must be realistic, not analysis designed to support a pre-ordained conclusion. (this, of course represents a complete turn around from current practice)
Misc (because it is too late to finish this)
Concentrate on needy areas, not yuppie playgrounds. The Pearl should have been cut off years ago. Same for most of downtown (most of which is in one UR district or another). Do not form UR districts to raid money for other purposes like was done with the Interstate Ave district to get funds for Vera’s toy train. That is not honest.
Should government try to pick winners? My favorite story is that of post war Japan concentrating on heavy industries to recover from war damage. Money was short and a license was required to spend money out of the country. A new upstart company wanted a license to buy a license form Bell labs. It took a year or two to get permission for Sony to pay for a license to produce the first transistors in japan. Had the government not tried to pick winners, Sony probably would have marketed the world’s first transistor radio.
Does Portland government really think it is better then individuals at picking winning industries? And with taxpayer money at risk?
Fundamental question is what kind of city do people really want?
Do we want to become a little New York? A new Los Angeles? If the answer to these two questions is no, then admit that as we increase Portland’s population density we are becoming more like Los Angeles (the densest region in the country) and more like New York (the densest city in the country). Or maybe we should get really serious about density and emulate Hong Kong or Bombay?
Of course all of these examples also have some of the worst traffic congestion in the country and the longest commute TIMES, effects that the planners never seem to mention as they promote density. Who would consider these city’s examples of great livability? Who thinks that Portland is more livable than it was 10 years ago? (BTW, who has a written, understandable, definition of livable?) Who would choose more congestion and longer commute times? -- but that is the path we are traveling. (You might want to view some of the videos on saveportland.com , especially “Urban Trends Around the World Wendell Cox (24 meg)”
Is that what average Portlander wants? Or would we like to just be the, most livable medium sized city in the country? Should we just strive to be the best place to live and do business. And by business, I mean small, medium and large. IE: neighborhood coffee shop, Columbia sportswear and Nike. (Recognize that all jobs are created by business, not government)
If we want the best quality of life , I suggest the the PDC be renamed (to reflect reality) the Portland Destruction Commission and quietly killed. (Like Goldshit (sp?) promised years ago in order to get elected.)
Jim Karlock
May 6, '05
Jim Karlock:
Ever thought about running for the City Council?
It would be my pleasure to spend a few Saturday mornings looking for $5.00 contributions to get you qualified for up to $350,000 in "free" campaign funds.
Plain spoken logic, defended by specific evidence of how the process has broken down. I LIKE IT! Your above post made my day!
1:19 p.m.
May 6, '05
Randy,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Do you think this matter is an appropriate topic for the Charter review? Or is this separate? What do you think would be the appropriate way to proceed?
Glad to see JTTF ended so you and I can be back on the same page! ;-)
May 6, '05
I generally agree with City Club's analysis of PDC, and believe that some reforms to make it more accountable to city government are needed.
I am a bit worried that making it a city bureau and removing it's charter, and the special privileges that the organization enjoys because of it, will make it just a little bit less entrepreneurial, though. For example: Doesn't PDC currently enjoy more at-will employment policies than city bureaus? And doesn't PDC have different procurement rules than the city? I would suspect that some of those factors might be what have made PDC so entrepreneurial. Of course, the flip side of entrepreneurial is 'not accountable'.
Given those thoughts, I support keeping the PDC structure and just reforming it's charter and building some additional oversight without actually turning it into a bureau. Then, when we do a real and comprehensive charter review, the longer-term questions of where economic development functions fit (Metro? Reporting to a city manager? etc...) would become much more apparent.
1:39 a.m.
May 9, '05
FYI, this thread is mentioned by specific URL citation in Monday's Oregonian story on Leonard's proposal.
May 9, '05
As usual, we support your ideas. This PDC needs to go.
May 10, '05
Re The Burnside Bridgehead Project. I agree the process was horrible. However I'm not convinced that the Malsin proposal was the best. Consider this: 1. In January the evaluating team said Beam's proposal was "boxy" the weakest design. In April it gave Beam top position for the same design even though it recommended including elements of OPus' design. 2. At least two people on the evaluation team had worked with Malsin on an Eastside strategy also conducted by the PDC. 3. Opus design had far more affordable housing that included housing for poorer Portlanders. Yet gentrification and its impact on poor residents has never been addressed in the public process. 4. Beam needed a higher public subsidy from funding that is supposed to benefit poorer neighborhoods. When will we deal with the poverty problem instead of exporting low-income, minority working class people to the suburbs.