I agree Randy, the irony is the greed of these developers, I couldn't believe the Oregonian misrepresentation of fair wages plastered on thier front page.

Most of these guys don't work year round but are laid off during the winter months, at least 3-5 months so the annual figure in the Oregonian table was bogus. Also most of them have to travel to jobsites, if they want to keep their family from being uprooted ever 9-18 months, as they follow the work.

In the Portland area that can mean as much as a 2 hour commute each way. There is no public transit when these guys have to be on the job, and many times they are asked to work 6x10 during the high construction season.

What we need is the profit capped on PDC projects using city money. It is absurd we are enabling Millions in profit for these condo builders in South Waterfront, by taxing the established neigbohoods and spending it on infrastructure to support this new development, and then are granting tax abatements and making those established neighborhoods suffer again as their basic services budgets are cut for the 7th strait year and police fire and parks are asked to do things like form a special TRAM rescue unit with biannual exercises, and Bigger sewer and water systems need to be upsized to accommodate high density development, and Showcase Parks are built requiring six figure maintenance budgets.

GO RANDY

I do not think the PDC is corrupt per se.

I do think the SW 3rd and Oak example illustrates PDC's "creative ways" in circumventing Oregon's prevailing wage statute and the City Council's clear policy of not using taxpayer dollars to subsidize upper income housing.

And I only make audio tapes when I think something is intrinsically humorous.

I find no humor in PDC's behavior.

Of course the PDC is corrupt. They were created for that very purpose: the politicians needed an "arms-length" relationship between themselves and their benefactors in order to maintain plausible deniability.

Hey Randy,

What makes you think the Bureau of Development Services has the brainpower and/or staffing to enforce the Boutique Fuels Ordinance? Just because they inspect buildings and enforce zoning requirements doesn't mean they know squat about bio-diesel or ethanol. Don't you see the potential for selective enforcement and "inspector incentivized" compliance (Ben Franklin said this fuel complies).

Where there is money, there will always be corruption.

I'm just curious, is it Jennifer, Mike Austin or Frank?

Give your real name and a question appropriate to the post and you will get a real answer.

Randy:

I'll give you two hints.

1. I don't work for the City.

2. I used to work for the County.

I will give you one hint.

Grow up.

Whatever you say, Frank.

Thank you for requesting the audit, Randy! Excellent! This deal is the perfect example of why PDC needs to be put on a short, and official, leash to the Council. These giveaways to private developers have got to come to a screaming halt.

While you are at it, I don't think anybody should be afraid to call what they've been up to corruption. It is plundering the public coffers for private benefit, regardless of what it gets called. Most important, you need to stop them from describing tax increment dollars as if they are free or belong to the developer. Every one of those dollars represents a dollar's worth of service those of us in the rest of the City are giving up so the developer can enjoy better service levels than we get for free.

Don't worry about the Oregonian. Their foam-at-the-mouth anti-union rants are nothing new. I think it is time for a "progressives don't read the Oregonian" organizing drive. I'm going to start by writing three of their advertisers telling them I don't read it and why. Shop union, read union!

Don't let up. You are doing the right thing.

I always thought the PDC was created to run like a business. You get a bunch of bankers together and let them have at it. Whats the problem? This is standard business practices. Is actually seeing how business workd the real issue? We seem a bit naive of the practices of private businesses. I really don't have an answer, but the 3rd and Oak building is going to really help an area that needs a kick start. Please lets not kill a good thing because its not perfect and we are uncomfortable seeing how the real world works.

Good Point David, there was also a weird deal like that in South Waterfront where the private developers bought two blocks of land for some amount and turned around 9 months later and sold back one of the blocks to the city for "affordable houseing" for a large profit I believe in the millions.

I was also watching streaming video of a City council meeing last fall when the supposed ban on Tax Abatements was and I think still is supposed to be on, though with both councilmen were elected I suspect will soon disappear, when a Transit Area Tax Abatement was granted for a Gateway Condo.

Bless Randy's heart he was a a real tiger, as it required so many condos at an affordable price, and it is for folks less than the median income, not more than it.

They were supposed to report back, and it should be about now, to confirm that those Gateway condos were indeed priced affordably and sold to real people who were going to occupy them not investors who were going to hold and sell.

Randy did you do that and what was the outcome, or when are you scheduled to follow up on that as you said in Council, you should post a report on your website.

Cab,

The problem is that you have no one in government, that has the background to protect the public interest in these deals. You have these business folks all making six figures on the one side, and look at what happened at South Waterfront, we find that there was a planner already on the developers payroll while he was still on the City's, and the former City Engineer, also on that same developers payroll, as a consultant in a consuting firm set up and half owned by the developer making all the key decisions.

No business person in the world would have committed the funds like the City on a questionable cost estimate (remember the $15.5 million vs the $55 I believe approaching $60 million now), Even the Art Museum is suing the AIA when they have thier 30% cost overrun, why isn't this the case on the TRAM.

I have seen some people try and help the City, but have very little influence in conterbalancing the more saavy business interests, the one or two who did run some interference to this were either left in frustration, were reorganized, or hired by the developers like Mr. Brown.

Cab- PDC is not a business. It is a publicly funded economic development agency that is supposed to cause developments to occur that otherwise may not.

For an example, the PDC high rise project in the Pearl that supply's housing to senior citizens with a median income between O% and 30% would never be built with exclusive funding in the private sector...there is just no money in it.

The Central City Concern high rise on the corner of the Park Blocks and W Burnside also needed PDC funds to be constructed...again, because it is not a money maker.

However, I think you do have a point. I think PDC does think of itself more the way you believe it should operate it than do what most taxpayers do.

Thus, the root of it's current problems.

John- I will look into the Gatway project to find the answer you asked. Thanks.

Thanks Randy,

There is something else I have wondered about.

As noted in the previous post even though there was Eric Sten's well reported "ban" on property tax abatements after the South Waterfront Alexian Fiasco, I was surprised to see this one come up under the label of Transit development.

1. Is there any accounting of the lost tax income to the City, County and School Districts from these Transit Abatements?

2. Are there any other type of abatements, I know there are the historical ones, maybe sustainable credits for green roofs I could see in Portland, is there any accounting of the totals of lost revenue on that?

I know like many other folks I was disappointed at the Sun Schools decision at the county. I think it helped a lot of kids, and allowed for positive interaction between different demographics of kids. Something we need more of.

You see a lot of rhetoric by folks on these blogs and you don't know what to believe.

I caught a distinct whif of focus-group-tested spin in that Oregonian's editorial when they continually used the term "premium wage" instead of "prevailing wage". "Premium wage" makes it sound like the program is designed to give public works employees a higher salary then the average worker gets when "prevailing wage" laws are designed (as I understand it) to make public projects be competitive (no less, no more) than privsate projects.

Was I the only one that noticed that?

Chris,

Your observation is right on target.

The other thing is that the process and qualifications to be come a journeyman electrician are as stringent as any four year college degree, perhaps even moreso because these tradespersons can't simply memorize and spit back answers like the traditional higher education regime, they have to make things actually work and function in the real world.

There is a four year training a classroom regime, with a one in four acceptance rate into the apprentice programs, and as Rodney Dangerfield puts it, there is very little respect for the "blue collar" workers.

BTW before anyone asks I am white collar not blue, but have had the good fortune to work with these folks off and on in my career before giving up construction and travel, I have a tremedous amount of respect and many relatives that work in construction. These guys earn their money. I would invite doubters to visit a construction site, and see them hanging off the high iron, or in a trench fixing a burst sewer line.

Interesting note on the different connotation between "premium wages" and "prevailing wages".

Certainly words have emotional meaning beyond the dictionary definition, hence the "value" of spin. "Premium wages" could be either a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

It is a revealing and almost certainly intentional choice of words, but it is not inaccurate.

The laws only affect those projects where wages could otherwise be lower than the "prevailing wage". They require the project to cost more than it otherwise would need to. Thus, the project must literally pay a premium (as in, per the dictionary, "A sum of money or bonus paid in addition to a regular price, salary, or other amount") for labor.

If I could offer the lowest bid for a job at, say, $15/hour average labor cost, but you must according to the prevailing wage law pay $18/hour, then you are paying a $3/hour premium. Again, maybe good, maybe bad -- but it is a premium.

The PDC is another work of politicians who think their job is to reinvent Portland according to some grand vision that only a city elite could understand. Now you're wrapped up in its minutia. Save the vision..we can't afford it.

Yours should be a boring job. Try fixing potholes and properly funding the jails, police and fire. Try protecting downtown businesses from criminals. Or are those things lacking in vision?

Mr. Randy Leonard: PDC is not a business. It is a publicly funded economic development agency that is supposed to cause developments to occur that otherwise may not.

But why?

Bob Tiernan

Jennifer W: Of course the PDC is corrupt. They were created for that very purpose: the politicians needed an "arms-length" relationship between themselves and their benefactors in order to maintain plausible deniability.

Exactly! The PDC is an example of the kind of unaccountable (to the public) and undemocratic agency (full of appointed bureaucrats) that Clint Bolick wrote about in his book, "Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism".

It shouldn't exist, period.

Bob Tiernan

<b<boikin:< b=""> Yours should be a boring job. Try fixing potholes and properly funding the jails, police and fire. Try protecting downtown businesses from criminals. Or are those things lacking in vision?

Excellent! But keep in mind that the above items don't come with ribbon-cutting ceremonies, complete with nonsesne like that over-sized scissors Sen Mark "Pork Barrel" Hatfield used when the Blue Line MAX opened.

Bob Tiernan

John Capardoe: Good Point David, there was also a weird deal like that in South Waterfront where the private developers bought two blocks of land for some amount and turned around 9 months later and sold back one of the blocks to the city for "affordable houseing" for a large profit I believe in the millions.

Well, what would you expect when the government gets to pick winners and losers, and with other people's money? These Fat Cats wouldn't be getting these profits of the government wasn't involved. Will you guys ever learn?

New Urbanism, SmartGrowth (so-called), etc is all about corporate welfare, plain and simple.

Bob Tiernan

Randy someone asked on third and oak how it could go from 1.7 million spent on the property to a negative 2.7 million on the appraisal given to BOLI the answer is by guarenteeing the dewveloper and his investors a 25% profit margin

How about a fix like the thing we are voting on to "fix" PFDR? Heck that will have the whole problem solved in about (according to the Oregonian), oh say 31 years of property tax increases. This PDC thing is too much pot calling the kettle black - PDC is a straw man to divert people with.

John,

PDC provided us with a memo on May 6, 2006 detailing the sales prices as of that date. At the time the sales prices for the 1 Bedroom units ranged between $99,000 and $124,000 and the 2 Bedroom units ranged between $157,000 and $184,000, representing a 6% average increase over the price estimates originally presented by the developers. According to the projects website (www.gatewaytowers.net), the 1 Bedroom units are now priced between $115,000 and $131,000 and the 2 Bedroom units are between $164,000 and $204,000, representing an average increase of 19% over the original proposal. Despite the increase in prices, the units still meet the requirements of PDCs TOD tax exemption program.

Aaron H Johnson Policy Advisor Office of Commissioner Randy Leonard 503-823-4686 For News & Updates, see Randy's website @ www.portlandonline.com/leonard