Outstanding work!

How perfect. You stand on the sidelines in your status quo suit and commit zero analysis to ANY of the boondoggles and poor decisions by the current city council but find the time to play with numbers in a hypothetical commute scenario so you can attack a candidate who would bring responsible leadership to the city.

Obviously your priorities are reelect the same people or their clones in order to continue everything currently taking place.

Including all the shady budgeting and spending, all of the PDC activities, $1/2 billion for SoWa/Tram developers, the convention center hotel, $557 million transit mall/light rial, Burnside couplet, every new tax and NO consequences for any elected local official.

What exactly are you warning us of?

There are addresses on DexOnline with similar names in Beaverton, Aloha, Portland(SW 123rd), Wilsonville and Clackamas. It's possible he shortened his commute to/from home, while increasing his commute to his client base. He (and all employees) also saved on the Multnomah County I-tax on W-2 earnings. Additionally, they will save on any additional taxes the city imposes on businesses in the future.

More importantly, as of January 31, 2006 he is not listed as a candidate of record in the Sten Race. The filing deadline is March 6, 2006 according to http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=chbbe&a=ecbefPortld

Could someone suggust a city in the US that is cheaper to run a business then its neighboring subburbs?

There are thousands of Businesses in Portland who value place as much as bottom line and feel responsible for supporting the added city services. Its obvious Dave Lister's priorities are his personal bottom line (Hey Dave China's even cheaper!!). I hope he enjoys the commute and traffic (boy is the Kruse way area getting congested, how long before Lake Oswego has to raise taxes to allievate that mess?)

"""""""""" (boy is the Kruse way area getting congested, how long before Lake Oswego has to raise taxes to alleviate that mess?)"""""""

Kruse Way works fine and it didn't take ANY Urban Renewal swindle of millions of tax dollars to build. The mess is next door on I-5 and 217 which is s result of decades of neglect and disregard for the needs of growth by our planners.

If you mistakenly think Kruse Way is a "mess" you must think $1/2 billion tax funded SoWa won't be? Or that the $200 million empty Cascade Station was a needed and good investment to attract an Ikea big box? Or how about the 3744 acre North Interstate Urban Renewal District and it's property taxes going to light rail instead of schools and other basic services? How about the other 9000 acres worth of Urban Renewal district property taxes being used similarly?

How about a Blue opinion on the PDC not providing the State Law required yearly Urban Renewal basic services impact reports? I haven't seen any Blue interest there. Are basic services budgets not important to livability or sustainability?

On top of zero study of the greater SoWa budget by city council Mayor Potter and Eric Sten voted in favor of the Alexan Tax abatement which would have handed over $10 million in property tax exemptions in exchange for absolutely nothing in return.

So while you're making "assumptions" about Lister's business motivations stay clear of any conclusions about his opponent's abhorrent track record.

The anti-tax message that tries to show that taxes drive businesses away from city cores isn't always true. If it were why is NYC a thriving metropolis with a 12% sales tax? Why do businesses stay in downtown Boston? Granted there are some city cores that have dried up, but taxes are not often the primary reason. Portland's city core will not likely dry up because it draws in people from outside.

As to Kruse Way; I love when auto-slaves talk about wonderful roadways! I was raised in LA, a place where Kruse Way's are everywhere and traffic is awful no matter where you go. "If you build it they will come." Why build sidewalks? Pedestrians have to walk on the street or on the grassy knolls. Nothing enforces structural violence toward the poor more than designing cities that entirely cater to cars and lack decent bus service. Most people can't even imagine going without a car or even walking around the block on their own power! Hence one of the reasons why American is the fattest nation in the world. I'll just drive one block to buy a gallon of milk!

Clearly, the anti-tax, pro-car, anti-pedestrian libertarian way of thinking has damaged our culure making it selfish and self-serviving. But, no one wants to think about this because they are happy slurping their coffee, talking on their cell phone, no hands on the wheel, honking, flippying people off... is this the type of insanity that we want in Portland? Maybe so... but going down this path will make Portland less Portland and more LA.

Is it not interesting that Mr. Lister moved his business out of this fair city, but just can't seem to keep his nose out of Portland civic life? Could it be that the vibrant and diverse urban fabric that defines a good city is actually worth some extra public investment? As a city resident I am willing to pay more for what is available to me. Whether that enriches my bottom line or my spirit.

Well Kari, you're now two for two. Would you please give us a disclaimer about your work for Erik (with a K) Sten, as you have previously trashed a truly progressive opponent (Ginny Burdick) and now Dave Lister who across Portland's blogs has smartly challenged the status quo. And anyone who disagrees with you is not immediately a righty - he or she just doesn't drink the same Kool Aid as you.

As you suggested above, settle down and enjoy honest conversations about this race at a very important time. Erik (with a K) must defend his record on very suspect votes. Ginny, Ted Hinds, Lister and others must convince voters they're the better choice.

I'm looking forward to the conversation - not the sniping I expect from Karl Rove's footsoldiers.

For those of us who live outside Portland, this topic has a different perspective. Had I lived in Portland and worked for a Portland employer who then moved to Tigard, I would have looked at both mass transit options to commute to Tigard and other employment nearer where I live.

I don't think

"Once you start adding in the opportunity cost, the cost of gas, and the travel time of your employees - well, the "value" of moving to Tigard probably goes negative. Welcome back to Portland, Dave."

is as snarky as writing "Erik (with a K) Sten" twice and not mentioning the employer/ clients of "a truly progressive opponent (Ginny Burdick)".

And about " Dave Lister who across Portland's blogs has smartly challenged the status quo", a guy who moves his business out of a city and then runs for city government in that city sounds to me like the question of whether Lars Larson is truly an Oregonian or did I hear he moved to Washington state?

And I also find it interesting that there are something like twice as many comments on this topic as on the Jim Hill topic. Could that have something to do with the perception that Blue Oregon often seems Portland-centric? Or is it just that it is easier to argue about city government than the possibility of a new voice in the Governor's race which might blast some preconceptions (like the one that it will be a dreary Mannix/Kulongoski rematch)?

Thanks for the mention on your blog, Kari.

I am running against Erik Sten. My filing paperwork was submitted to City Hall on Friday but the elections officer, Susan Francois, was out of the office until Tuesday. There was no one else to certify the paperwork so I presume it will be certified on Tuesday.

I look forward to an open and honest debate about the current policies of the City of Portland where I was born in 1954 and have lived all my life.

Dave, A city raises you and provided for you for 50 years and you leave to save a few bucks? Sorry your going to get worked over in this elections. How about you save the money your going to spend on your campaign and use it to bring your business back to PDX. Get that hour commuter time back and call it even :)

Erik Sten's track record of mismanagement is long and glorious. He doesn't mismanage because of any leftist ideals, he's merely incapable of sound management. He became entwined with civic politics early in adulthood and never felt it necessary to expose himself to the education or experience necessary to understand the challenges of private business, project management, ore civic leadership.

Erik was not born with the necessary traits needed for natural leadership (few are) and has failed to take the required steps in his personal development to acquire any leadership skills. Therefore Mr Sten is in a public leadership position without the ability to lead.

IT'S NOT HIS FAULT DAMN IT!!!!! RE-ELECT HIM ANYWAY!!!

He's worth the entertainment value.

The company is not mine solely. I have a 50/50 partner. My partner has lived in Sherwood for the last thirty years. He had been commuting 26 miles one way for the last eleven years.

The Business Income Tax was not enough to make us move out of Portland, if that were the only factor we would not have stayed in Portland 11 years. It did become a significant factor, however, when we decided to look for a new facility.

The move to Tigard equalized the commute for all our employees and the tax savings allowed us to give our employees much deserved raises without requiring that we increase the rates we charge our clients.

Jeff, The dishonest debate was launched with Kari's plunge into his speculative and presumptive story telling in regard to Lister's business decision. (something which I know little about as well) My delving into Karis' agenda driven, self serving uninformed case or point about Lister would be giving it undeserved credibility.

Kari just made it up. He came up with a theory he thought would tarnish Lister and he posted it. It was neither informed or accurate.

One thing I did find out is Lister has a business partner who lives in Sherwood and they picked a new location halfway between their two homes which increased Dave's commute but cut his partner's in half. Kari's speculation was petty.

Jeff said """disingenuously changing the subject"""""""

Isn't that over the top judgmental?

One of my points was that Kari doesn't devote much analysis to many of the most heated city policies and problems yet he saw fit to do this little study of Lister. In fact the silence here at Blue on many key and worsening local problems has been deafening.

You say "a lot of things like the tram also bother you"?

That's news to me. I don't remember any thread here on Blue addressing the Tram, SoWa, the PDC or other pressing issues. Did I miss where you did background work and discussed it here on Blue?

Either on the Tram or SoWa or the Alexan Tax abatement, the PDC, Urban renewal, convention center hotel, or the effects of it all on basic ("useful functions") services???

Who's offering the "zero-sum debate"? You seem to prefer more money first and handle the waste later, if ever?

At nearly every discussion of these issues, which you rarely contribute to, there are many comments, by many, of useful functions this wasted money could be and should be performing. But first we must stop the reckless long term spending.

I don't know Lister well but every time he has chimed in, where I have read, he has solid comments on the management of the public's interests and dime. And from a responsible and thorough approach. Not left or right.

If you admit the Tram "sucks", as you say, then why aren't you chiming in with more of a contribution? How about the greater issue of SoWa?

I'll, (as Kari did) assume, there may be some conflicts of interests with some of you regarding these policies.

Is it that you find no fiscal or design problem with any SoWa budget item or Urban Renewal because you support the high density agenda? What is it? Sure haven't seen any concern from any of the usual groups either. Not one actually. Plenty of neighborhood and other democrats though. Not one Metro Councilor either. It doesn't matter how much SoWa, et al.? Where was the Coalition for a Livable Future when 325 ft buildings were OK'd along the planned and paltry "greenway" which isn't funded? Or the widening and closer spacing of the towers? Or the changing of the park site? Or on anything in SoWa?

Back to Lister. My impression has been that many people perceive him to be fairly moderate and very reasonble. Just what the Portland city council needs.

Phil Stanford failed to mention the sherwood partner in his little dig. Not surprised by his half ass reporting, just suprised he didn't blame your move on the Tram.

I know many business owners who's businesses are thriving specifically because they have their businesses in Portland. If they moved to suburban areas they would lose more money due to several factors such as decreased sales, commutes, difficulty for clients to reach their places of business... than they currently pay in city taxes. Their bottom line is to stay in business by making profits, and if that means staying in Portland and paying extra taxes so be it.

How the city spends those taxes is a topic for another discussion, and one that will surely be brought up on this blog. But based on Kari's post, my understanding is that this is about the math of running a business in Portland vs. a suburb of Portland, not about "how" the city spends our tax money.

Sid, Feb 4, 2006 4:47:30 PM: "I know many business owners who's businesses are thriving specifically because they have their businesses in Portland. If they moved to suburban areas they would lose more money due to several factors such as decreased sales, commutes, difficulty for clients to reach their places of business..."

JK: Columbia Sportswear, Pacific Metals, Multicraft Plastics, Radar Electric. Just to name a few that I recall off the top of my head.

Are they all fools??

I doubt it. Some are even moving closer to their customers who left Portland earlier.

Those that ARE REALLY tied to customers here are probably mostly resrtuants - truely pillars of family wage jobs.

That is the Portland that Vera and Neil have given us.

Our job is to pick up what peices are left and try to salvage a viable city before Portland competes it's transition into Detroit while trying to replicate LA.

PS: It is the Portland of "backroom Vera" and "rapist Neil" that Dave's company left, not the Portland we grew up in.

Thanks JK

I can cite several clients that I've had that have moved from Portland in there growth process. An example is a small computer bd. manufacturer that did analysis on taxes, commutes of employees, livability of employees as well as owners, managers. They chose Scappoose. I imagine Lister also considered these factors. Taxes are a big factor for employees as well as the owners. When you consider that you can pay 20%, or more, less in taxes in all of its various forms, an employee will vote to join the move. Its simple.

I also had a client that looked for a long time in SW Portland for a home to purchase. They finally looked at a house 15 blocks farther out in Tigard and saved over $2500 dollars in taxes for the same kind of house and lot size.Beautiful home with curbs, sidewalks, good schools, a backyard for a hoop court and swing set. Simple again

Erik Sten sure drives you tighty righties bananas. Kind of like Bill Clinton did.

I think it's because deep inside you all know that your right wing philosophy is bankrupt, and any time someone gets close to effectively pointing it out, you start frothing at the mouth like a cornered animal.

This reminds me of the selfserve arguments Kari (and others) bandied about a couple weeks ago.

Here's Kari's tactic, he picks one aspect of a multi-faceted argument, gives it a shortshrift analysis and announces rhetorical victory.

With selfserve gas, he continued to argue that gas prices in Oregon would not be reduced by introducing self serve because he has been to states where selfserve was just as expensive as Oregon. Even when it was pointed out to him (by many) that the price of gas in other states is also affected by a host of other independent factors, he stuck to his premise - changing to self serve won't result in lower gas prices.

Now Kari has a new premise - the Business tax isn't driving away Portland businesses and Dave Lister's company must have left for other reasons.

Even though the evidence is clear that businesses are leaving and that many of them (Lister's included) cite the business tax as one of the factors contributing to an unfriendly business climate, Kari remains resolute.

Sometimes when I read the Blue comments, I think I must be reading an online version of some Ayn Rand book warning people what happens when you let government interests run amok.

Welcome to "Portland Shrugged" where a bunch of government control freaks remain in complete denial of the practical effects of their policies.

Please be polite and refrain from pointing it out to them.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33329

Portland has been the 10th fastest growing economy in the country over the past decade. That's even after absorbing the massive blow caused by Dave Lister and his secretary heading five miles south.

It's you people who are anti-tax at any cost, under any circumstances, who are selective in your reasoning.

Mr Chisholm - I would suggest you focus on bigger picture item than a 5 person company. These can move in and out of town based on personal preference like Mr Lister did. There probably are small companies that move into Portland also.

However, if you look at the basic business areas where vacancy rates are tight and demand is, Portland is not even competitive. Wilsonville (look along I-5), Kruse Way (sorry, again), Vancouver (business growth in high tech and right by the river), Hillsboro/Beaverton (driven by Intel and high-tech.) If you know of some big empoyers moving into Portland correct me.

This is typical of the mindset running Portland. They seem to believe central planning and tax breaks for mass transit and condo builders, building a bigger convention center and more trolleys and 2% for art will somehow make employers want to move in. Portland doesn't have a clue.

Almost all the areas above are NOT serviced by light-rail, trolleys or trams and yet employers go there. Meanwhile, police/fire disability tax demands grow and schools (compare PDX to Vancouver, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lk Oswego or Wilsonville) go into a downward spiral.

I think it should be obvious what local politicians value and it is not school children or employers.

However, if you look at the basic business areas where vacancy rates are tight and demand is, Portland is not even competitive. Wilsonville (look along I-5), Kruse Way (sorry, again), Vancouver (business growth in high tech and right by the river), Hillsboro/Beaverton (driven by Intel and high-tech.) If you know of some big empoyers moving into Portland correct me.

Clark COunty/Vancouver continue to lag in terms of job growth outside housing construction. Which is why the I-5 corridor continues to fill up with Clark County commuters coming to work on this side of the river.

One of the attributes pitched for Kruse Way is its proximity and easy access to downtown Portland. Portland is not a likely alternative for the high tech businesses that are locating in the Hillsboro/Beaverton areas for the same reason those areas are not alternatives for many of the companies located downtown. For most businesses there is a preferred location that has nothing to do with who the government is or what its policies are.

While I know it doesn't please the idealogues, there are businesses attracted by the central city for whom the business tax is the price of doing business in a premiere location. There are also businesses which are more interested in reduced taxes, cheaper land and other reduced costs associated with developing in the suburbs.

Almost all the areas above are NOT serviced by light-rail, trolleys or trams and yet employers go there.

As far as I can tell, none of the areas listed have anywhere near the employment densities of downtown Portland or the Lloyd Center. And if those areas were to attempt to achieve similar densities they would not be able to do so with their current transit service. (The exception being Wilsonville which has invested in an extensive free transit system that connects to Tri-met on one end and the Salem transit system on the other.) This is the reason Washington County is working on a commuter rail line connecting Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard, Washington Square and Beaverton with the explicit anticipation of being able to increase employement densities in all these centers.

The truth is that public investment often produces far more economic growth than similar investments by private industry. Of course, just like private industry, some public investments fail. But even those that are far less successful than hoped often still provide some economics benefit. There are a lot of private investments that just go under dragging down employees, suppliers and creditors with them.

In defense of Kari can you say that his arguments, or argument style, would not be satisfactory for a court to find a piece of legislation or official government action acceptable, notwithstanding a large list of possible legal infirmities?

The judiciary has not demanded that any interest group's desire to interfere in the lives of us all, or targeted interference in the lives of some other particular interest group, has to be any more rigorous than as presented here.

From an objective economist's perspective (as opposed to normative) Kari is acting fully within the bounds that the rules of battle (economic or political) considered acceptable. Not just for debate but, more importantly, any resulting legislation or official act stemming from the debate.

The only rebuttal is not the rightness or wrongness of anything about a speaker rather it is a presentation of superior reasoning in the eyes of the reader.

Thus my complaint pegs Kari for asserting that it might only be "the righties" who could possibly disagree. Which is not an argument but a conclusory assertion of his own belief, and obvious to all. It is like bait that if someone responds in kind they would attack the speaker in manner that, over at Jacks, would be immediate grounds for scolding or disallowance of further commenting. It is license for letting commenters dig their own holes, in the eyes of the reader. Debate about debate might sometimes be good fun but it ultimately results in a disgusting group display of solo acts. It is his site.

Dave does extrapolate a bit, communicating his own decision but not paying sufficient attention to arguing how he plans to advance the community as a whole. I would target the redirection of school funding to the supporters of the Oregon Investment Council, but I suppose the left and right poles are in agreement that arbitrary winner take all is quite OK.

"The truth is that public investment often produces far more economic growth than similar investments by private industry."

Sigh - I give up. If you really believe government has created more jobs than Intel, Nike et alia, I really think logic fails as a device. Take a drive down to Kruse Way and look at about 12 full 10-12 story office buildings w/o mass transit support.

Kari said:

"Stop telling the press that it's the business income tax - solely and exclusively"

I told the complete story to both the Tribune and the Oregonian , just as I described above. Unfortunately, it's the newspaper writers who decide which part of the story to print. If you're ever interviewed you'll find that out.

Ross, You really need to bone up on just about everything. If you think Wilsonville has done transportation right you don't live. There transit system is minuscule and used by very few. Just what we should expect from a suburban town their size. Yet far preferable and efficient than the rail boondoggles you think will lead us to utopia. Currently Wilsonville faces tremendous transportation problems as monies for road improvements were devoured by other Urban Renewal projects and maximum indebtedness has been reached. Their planner's vehicle "trip allotments" have be all given away to the Villebois village along with tens of millions in Urban Renewal subsidies. Wilsonville is broke and is considering a local option levy for basic services because they have followed the planning model you mistakenly embrace. You must be smoking something if you think the planned commuter rail will provide anything but the means to trigger even more massive government spending of property taxes through more Urban Renewal along the entire 14 mile line. "explicit anticipation"? Good grief. This is an amazing animal to watch, your planning world. The "employment densities in all these centers" you talk about are more of the monumental waste demonstrated by the Beaverton Round and many other "centers" which deliver nothing but high public cost, overcrowding of neighborhoods and transportation congestion and chaos. The planned commuter rail will NOT go to the new Villebois, be on the wrong side of the 217 freeway from Washington Square, be located where NO current bus service in justified, will run only during commute hours and ultimately cost 100s of millions in desperately needed tax dollars. You also left out that the cities and counties are planning a 14 mile multi-jurisdictional Urban Renewal district without voter approval.

correction If you think Wilsonville has done transportation right you don't live there. Their transit system,,,,

"If you really believe government has created more jobs"

That's not only not what I meant, it's not what I said. What I said was:

"public investment often produces far more economic growth than similar investments by private industry"

The purpose of public investment is to support us in our private endeavors, including our private business endeavors. Intel, Nike et al. would not be able to create any jobs at all without public investment.

A recent study by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that investment in early childhood development was by far the best investment for future economic growth. I'm sure that study's conclusion can be debated, but it points to the kinds of real analysis that is sorely lacking on the question of what level of taxation for public investment leads to the most productive economy. Instead we have ideological debates.

"If you think Wilsonville has done transportation right you don't live there."

I didn't say anything at all about Wilsonville's transportation. I said they had a transit system that could support denser development. My point was that there isn't a demand for the dense development in places like Wilsonville, despite lower taxes, that there is in Portland.

""""My point was that there isn't a demand for the dense development in places like Wilsonville, despite lower taxes, that there is in Portland.""""

What bullshat. There isn't a demand for it in Portland. It's your Smart Growth agenda which pushes the idea despite it's chronic failures and high cost.

What's happening in Wilsonville is exactly what is happening in Portland only on a smaller scale.

They borrowed massive amounts through Urban Renewal and now can't afford the street improvements in the first UR district, can't afford the parks or promised school site in the new UR district, have no money for Wilsonville road-I-5 needs and basic services are in need of a new levy to fund them.

The incremental and agenda serving way you look at our planning is astounding. Riddled with inaccuracies and wide gaps of major components your pitch could not be more disingenuous if it were intentionally so. Which is highly likely given this play of yours is repeated across the region by so many others like you. From the Wilsonville Spokesman "The east side district has reached its maximum level of indebtedness, with numerous street projects still unfunded. The west side district is experiencing cash flow problems as well. "We are essentially out of money," said Finance Director Gary Wallis.

From the Wilsonville Spokesman """The City Hall and "master planning process" is moving forward with Urban Renewal money. But a few major issues require immediate action. At the top of the list was a lack of money in the general fund for the library, police and parks."""

Think about the size of this problem and how much worse it is in Portland.

Is it OK because Ross and those who perpetrate it say it's a good investment? Poppycock.

For this 2005-2006 property tax year Wilsonville's Urban Renewal Tax Increment takes up $267 million in property value and diverts it's $4 million in property taxes away from basic services budgets and towards the debt created by Urban Renewal borrowing.

Consider the county wide use of Urban Renewal and the impact on basic services. For this one 2005-06 property tax year the Clackamas County Increment property value is $1.34 Billion with $25 million not going to basic services.

Portland alone now diverts some $65 million per year from 12,000 acres of taxpaying property and basic services and into paying off UR boondoggle debt.

And It's about to get much worse with SoWa and other districts taking larger amounts of property taxes than ever before.

There isn't a demand for it in Portland.

I guess Big Pink and all the rest of those downtown office towers must have been our imagination.

dmRusso:

I've known Boston for a long time. New York was a friend of mine. Let me tell you, Sir, Portland is not Boston or New York. Not by a long shot. There are plenty of businesses that enjoy better access to their client base in the surrounding communities than inside the City Limits.

Why don't you ask Washington Square or Bridgeport Village if they're worried about the cost of parking scaring customers away? Do a survey of Kruse Way tenants: when was the last time they had a "homeless teen" begging outside their lobby.

Call around to area McDonalds, Wendy's, Safeway's or Fred Meyers, and ask them how long it's been since they had a fight erupt inside their store? I'm confident most of the downtown locations will tell you in the past 30 days. In the burbs, not anywhere near as frequent.

"A recent study by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that investment in early childhood development was by far the best investment for future economic growth."

OK, then I assume you agree with me when I get fed up with local politicians throwing money at trolleys, convention centers, ballparks and PDC and then all of a sudden cry poverty when it comes to funding schools.

My main point is that local government has decided it is more important to build OHSU a tram (or $1M condos) instead of securing funding for our schools. Again, these guys do not have a clue about what is important.

OK, then I assume you agree with me when I get fed up with local politicians throwing money at trolleys, convention centers, ballparks and PDC and then all of a sudden cry poverty when it comes to funding schools.

Actually early childhood development is pre-school, but I agree education and schools are a higher priority than the three projects you listed.

I think that the various ballot measures have effectively taken away the ability of local citizens to make choices about how to allocate funds. The percentage of money going to various jurisdictions was determined by Measure 5 in 1990 and there is no way to change those allocations. Its the danger of locking tax decisions into the constitution.

Of course urban renewal is whole different level of financing. While the basic idea makes sense, that doesn't mean every urban renewal investment is wise. But the individual investments need to be evaluated, not the process for funding them. I think some of the poor choices for use of urban renewal can be traced to the constraints placed on local government to raise money in more appropriate ways.

-Alice,

If you make more than 15k a year, your words are pretty worthless with regard to who has and has not previledge. I am poor. I have been for sometime. I take the bus. I have for about 18 years. I got my collge degree while fighting cancer with honors, I might add. I am currently a grad student. My insights on what it is like to be poor, underpriveledged, a part of the structural violence that YOU are a large part of is undeniable.

Look up structural violence and read up on it. Get educated.

If you feel unsafe is downtown, don't go there. Downtown will thrive with or without you. Just as much nastiness goes on in the burbs, only Fox News doesn't report it unless they want to sell you the latest security system.

As to doing a survey on Kruse Way... I have a life to lead and a graduate degree to obtain. If you would like to fund it, then I'll be happy to do that.

Ross, """"""While the basic idea makes sense, that doesn't mean every urban renewal investment is wise. But the individual investments need to be evaluated, not the process for funding them.""""""""

Too bad so many of you and yours prefer no evaluation at all because the more egregious the boondoggle the more you want it left obscured and growing. Such as the 10s of millions in Urban Renewal for Interstate Max. Followed by the phony ridership numbers that are inflated by fairless square riders between downtown and the rose quarter. Inflated to distort the reality that the bus lines on N. Interstate carried more people. $300 million later the public must be further deceived by the agenda and agencies you support.

As was my earlier point, I don't remember anyone in your camp inquiring, questioning or calling for any Urban Renewal evaluation ever. None of you.

You should just spit it out that you favor the bulk of the spending, including the $1/2 billion for SoWa, and that you want nothing to upset that funding mechanism or the line of boondoggles past, present and coming soon.

Methinks the Kruse Way interchange re-do in 2001 cost $27 million in public funds... so, yes there was subsidy (most of it federal money, probably, which could have been spent anywhere). Were the users of that interchanged charged per use, it would seem fair. But it's so laundered and divorced from actual users that it's not a fair funding stream.

Betsy,

Keep thinking and you'll arrive at reality where the interchange was paid for by gas tax monies. AKA "user fees"

It wasn't a Kruse Way interchange re-do either.

It was an I-5/217 interchange re-do to help relieve the choke point caused by the inadequate intersection of those two freeways.
The cost of which was greatly inflated by the wasteful inclusion of a separate ped/bike clearspan tucked between the flyover span and the 217/Kruse span. I'm quite certain that added cost was never publicized.

Of course that doesn't stop Metro's David Bragdon from attributing the need for the entire improvement and it's cost to the adjacent Kruse Way development. That way Bradgon can justify the very real, massive and illegitimate subsidies he continues to advocate.

You'll never hear any Metro councilor raise a single concern about any spending whatsoever. On anything, by way of Urban Renewal or any other means.

Not a single issue of concern about the Tram or SoWa was raised by any Metro councilor.

While clearly the public had many, they had none.

I don't remember anyone in your camp inquiring, questioning or calling for any Urban Renewal evaluation ever.

There have been quite a few critiques of the Interstate Urban Renewal spending whether you remember them or not.

Methinks the Kruse Way interchange re-do in 2001 cost $27 million in public funds... so, yes there was subsidy

I think the idea that public investment is a "subsidy" can be taken too far. As I said above, the purpose of public investment is to facilitate private endeavor. I think the 217/I5 interchange was a poor choice for investment, but fixing the interchange is no more or less a subsidy than MAX or investments in education. And, in most cases, those investments bring much larger returns than a similar sized private investment.

Don't forget to send Sten an invoice, Kari.

Don't forget to send yours to Mr. Lister.

Torrid, Your 1 is incremental and irrelevant. 2 is entirely made up and you apparently have no understanding of Kruse way at all.

In regard to planning. As we all know, we live in the planning capital of the world. With an extra regional layer, Metro, and every county and municipallity having fully engaded planners at work we shoud all feel confident there is "planning"
happening. Planning for what, may be another question. "no planning or zoning funds exist"

http://portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33784 Issue date: Fri, Feb 3, 2006 The Tribune PDX Update

DEVELOPMENT Planning tax pondered A Metro study committee has recommended the creation of a regional construction excise fee to finance the planning and zoning needed to make lands brought into the urban growth boundary suitable for development. According to a report issued Thursday, nothing can be built yet on approximately 6,000 acres of land brought into the UGB in 2002 and 2005 because no planning or zoning funds exist. The report says approximately $5.6 million is needed to complete the work. The Expansion Area Planning Fund Committee proposes that a tax of 0.1 percent be applied against all building permits in Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties, exempting permit values of below $100,001. The recommendation will be considered by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee on Wednesday. — Tribune staff

If that link from the Business Journal is accurate, the Sunset Corridor and Clark County with no local business tax and lower densities have much higher vacancy rates than Lloyd Center and Downtown Portland. I am not sure that has any relevance to this discussion, but it certainly would indicate that its not a shortage of suburban office space that is forcing businesses to locate in Portland.

As we all know, we live in the planning capital of the world."

I know some people on all sides of the planning debates in Portland like to think this is true. But I don't think you will find many cities over 5,000 anywhere in country that don't have planning staff. Comprehensive plans were not invented in Portland.

"With an extra regional layer, Metro, and every county and municipallity having fully engaded planners"

Every metropolitan area in the country has an MPO (metropolitan planning organization). The difference is Portland's is run by people directly elected by the voters. Elsewhere they are run by people who are appointed by politicians the same way the Port of Portland and TriMet's boards are.

Torrid the part you made up was the opening line. 2) To paint Kruse Way as some major success story built on Portland businesses just LOVING the development so much that they couldn't wait to leave.

Who painted Kruse way success built on that?

The story you posted laid out the accurate reasons for the success.

The more important aspects are the development DID NOT take any Urban Renewal or any other subsidy to come about and it's design is mixed use, very green, and compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods.

In fact SoWa could be well on it's way to duplicating Kruse Way success with a fraction of the public cost's if it weren't for the planning and planners who advocated the current highest cost worst outcome plan.

It ain't fluff to point out the PDC's SoWa budget has nearly $1/2 Billion in public costs resulting in the diverting of basic services funds for decades.

Ross, You missed my last point. We have all these layers of planners but "no planning or zoning funds exist". What are they all doing then? If they are not planning? Just like money for roads here again we have them calling for a new tax for something they show little interest in doing. Planning and zoning to enable development of prior UGB expansions. Their neglect, and lack of planning, has rendered the UGB dysfunctional as a tool to better accommodate growth. What they have done is knowingly perpetrated non-expansion expansions.

Essentially, planning to fail by failing to plan.

Kari,

Excellent analysis. I thought the same thing myself when I read Lister's comments. As a candidate for Commish #2 myself, I agree with Lister that the Water Bureau fiasco and some other high profile boondoggles have a serious part to play in Portland's budget woes, but I see little in the way of detailed analysis. The anti-tax mantra and the automatic echo chamber it gets in Portland's right-wing press always tend to drown out reasoned, economic debate. As other commentors have correctly noted, many of the problems Lister fingers as being due to Portland's unfavorable business climate are macroeconomic factors affecting all cities in the U.S.

"The more important aspects are the development DID NOT take any Urban Renewal or any other subsidy to come about"

But that isn't true is it? Kruse Way took advantage of massive government investment in the Interstate Highways as well as Highway 217. And I believe there were also enormous local infrastructure investments to make it happen. What you seem to object to is the explicit recognition in North Macadam that there will be similar public investments and that there is actually a plan for funding them.

Ross you sure are part of the propaganda machine. """Kruse Way took advantage of massive government investment in the Interstate Highways as well as Highway 217""""

Choosing location is not subsidizing and there is no comparison.

""""And I believe there were also enormous local infrastructure investments to make it happen.""""""

You fabricate is what you should say.

""""" What you seem to object to is the explicit recognition in North Macadam that there will be similar public investments and that there is actually a plan for funding them."""""

Are you insane? Or just dishonest?

SoWa developers are getting $1/2 billion in free streets, sidewalks, sewers, water, and much more.

Kruse Way developers paid for their own.

The plan for funding them is to borrow, not fund. The debt will be paid with property taxes, for decades, which would otherwise go to basic services including schools.

For decades nearly all of the property taxers from the 120 acres of the SoWa developers and increasing portions of the property taxes from the adjacent 280 acres of existing taxpaying real estate.

I swear the lengths you'll go to distort and mislead the public is amazing. Sort of the way ya'll think Bush does.

correction: For decades nearly all of the property TAXES from the 120 acres

The plan for funding them is to borrow, not fund. The debt will be paid with property taxes, for decades, which would otherwise go to basic services including schools.

I guess we aren't "funding" our state highways since we are borrowing the money and paying off the bonds with taxes that otherwise would have gone to pay for roads? That logical circle will go on forever. I agree there ought to be a healthy scepticism of tax increment financing and bonding based on future tax revenues. But the argument that use of expected tax revenue to pay off bonds is not funding something doesn't hold water.

Choosing location is not subsidizing and there is no comparison.

You mean if the city built the streets so that developers can take advantage of them it is entirely different than talking to the developers and then building the streets to support the development? I don't agree.

You fabricate is what you should say.

Do I? There look to be an awful lot of public street improvements around Kruse Way - not even including the freeway interchange. I don't care enough to actually look into the specfic history of Kruse Way, but suburbs support new development with infrastructure in much the same way the city of Portland does.

There is no circle. You're just disingenuous and apparently disoriented.

Gas taxes pay for our state highways.

Urban Renewal is an entirely different animal and as dishonesty as you.

No, Kruse way did not have their streets put in for them. The bulk of Kruse way, Kruse Woods was NOT subsidized as SoWa is.

Enough of your Metro Bullshat. I-5 wasn't put if for Kruse way. I-5 wasn't put in for SoWa either. Or should I add in I-5 as a subsidy for SoWa? That would be ridiculous. Once more, for your blind eyes and deaf ears SoWa is getting a $1/2 BILLION in free and direct infrastructure for the private development. Kruse way did not. No, they didn't get their streets paid for.

Neither did the new Argyle Square in North Wilsonville. Nothing. The examples are all over the place. By stark contrast Urban Renewal developments require massive public subsidies. I'm sorry but I'll have call you a liar on your claim that you "agree there ought to be a healthy skepticism of tax increment financing and bonding based on future tax revenues"

Your cabal has defended and promoted the use of UR as it has grown to devour huge sums. What good is skepticism without scrutiny. If any of that were to happen much of the high density agenda would not be happening. Free market, reasonable and affordable development that pays for itself would replace it.
You and your cabal just won't admit they couldn't care less how much anything costs but roads or sprawl. Then you pile up every disassociated imaginary cost to inflate the numbers.

""""But the argument that use of expected tax revenue to pay off bonds is not funding something doesn't hold water.""""

Oh bullshat again. You're treating UR as if it is presented as any other bonded spending and tax revenue. The whole lying pitch about Urban Renewal is that it is paid for with only the property tax revenues generated by the new development, and that nothing at all could be possibly be developed without the public investment. It's lying to advance an agenda. Like so many other districts and UR projects SoWa is a pack of lies resulting is massive public spending with no more than theoretical benefits in return.

""""You mean if the city built the streets so that developers can take advantage of them it is entirely different than talking to the developers and then building the streets to support the development? I don't agree.""""""

What the heck are you dreaming about?

Most developers put in ALL of the streets, sidewalks, sewers, water et al for their entire devlopement plus pays SDC's. With residential every single subdvision in the last two decades has. Most every commercial developement too.

This sickening game of never really comparing your pet TODs' and Urban Renewal to the real world is getting old. And it's unethical.

Of course you """"don't care enough to actually look into the specific history of Kruse Way, but suburbs support new development with infrastructure in much the same way the city of Portland does."""

If you did you'd discover what a load of bull you are echoing.

The only places in any suburb is just like Portland. Metro designated "centers", TOD's, Civic centers and mixed use Urban Renewal to promote high density at all costs. All of which are being perpetrated under the identical, shameless pack of lies as Portland. Rarely is the public informed of the impact on basic services or the totality of the expense.

<hr/>