Portland City Council delays 'Made in Oregon' sign debate
From KGW:
The debate over the “Made in Oregon” sign in Old Town is heating up, but the city will delay any decision at least until next week. Portland City Council began hearing testimony Wednesday on whether or not the city would prevent the University of Oregon from changing the historic sign, since they now occupy the building. The story continues: The council left the matter on the table and decided to delay any possible action. Leonard says they have no specific plan to pay for it yet, but he says the city would not use money from the general fund. Discuss.
|
April 01, 2009
Posted in in the news. |
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
1:39 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
Isn't what we're really talking about here content-based zoning to limit unpopular speech?
1:51 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
I'm still hoping that the University of Oregon will be shamed into doing the right thing.
Then again, their marketing people have rarely demonstrated any evidence of possessing any shame.
1:55 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
I'd love to see a sensible compromise too, but we both agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution protects speech that others consider bad taste, right?
3:42 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
This sign thing is nonsense at the most embarrasing level. U of O owns the damn sign therefore can do whatever they'd like. The sign in it's current incarnation has only been up 12 years. Before that it said something else. What's the heartburn? Why, oh why do we get riled up over this?
4:02 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
"U of O owns the damn sign therefore can do whatever they'd like."
That's not true, actually. Ramsey Signs owns it. UO just leases the building, and agrees to pay maintenance on the sign. If they don't get their (legal) way, they'd be fully within their rights to just turn it off and save the electricity.
Which is an interesting side question--how much does it cost to keep it lit and maintained year round?
Apr 1, '09
If you are unhappy with Dave Frohnmeyer, feel free to give him a call on his direct line-[Editor--deleted]. I'm sure he would love to hear from you!
Apr 1, '09
This "leadership" has the feel of the US House. Lots of bluster, lots of running it up the flag pole, no ability or will to effect policy.
Is it recall time yet?
6:41 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
ah government in action or is it inaction...regardless I love it.
Apr 1, '09
Problem with the headline: not sign debate, rather sign debacle.
I know, Randy, why don't you work out a deal with Merritt Paulson? You know, the city can lend him money at no interest to buy the sign--hell, buy the BUILDING that the sign's on. Or pay for it with another urban renewal district.
11:01 p.m.
Apr 1, '09
U of O owns the damn sign therefore can do whatever they'd like.
As TJ notes, they don't own the sign. But that's more or less irrelevant. Portland has never had a policy that says, "if you own a building or a sign, you can do whatever you like with it."
There are long, long legal battles over signs in this city. If I remember right, one of 'em went pretty far in the federal courts even.
Of course, as Charlie notes, the enforcement can't be content-based. Rather, we have to limit signs based on size, shape, lighting, etc.
As I've said many times before, I don't care what the sign says now, how long it's said it, what it said before, or whether some people consider it historic or not.
My concern is content-based. I'm hoping that UO sees the public outcry about their shameless and absurd move, and decides that the damage to their brand costs more than whatever advantage they pick up.
Apr 2, '09
I think I remember reading about unique circumstances that permit the Made in Oregon (with Rudolf the deer) sign to occupy it's strategic location. Despite them, maybe it's time to look around at some of the neighboring buildings, relax the rules a little, and find a place on one of them for U of O to build it's own sign. This will allow the U to have it's name prominently displayed, thereby avoiding the anonymity in a town away from their hometown they apparently fear will overcome them if their name is not mounted on the white stag...um-m-m...Made in Oregon sign. Have one put up for PSU while they're at it.
Apr 2, '09
To suggest this "controversy" is worth $500,000 of tax dollars (to purchase the sign) just shows how detached the City Council is from reality. If they were more in touch with their constituents, they would use the $500,000 to assist the new underclass resulting from 11% unemployment.
8:11 a.m.
Apr 2, '09
I'd suggest that U of O isn't the only one who's had their brand damaged during this debate. All the more reason for a sensible compromise to put this thing behind us.
9:22 a.m.
Apr 2, '09
Ouch, Charlie! :)
Joel, the city hasn't agreed to lend Paulson any money, interest rate or not. They've agreed to take out loans for public investment in publicly owned property--which is more than I can say about most development projects funded by TIF. And even better, the city is taking out loans for public investment, THAT PAULSON IS COVERING PERSONALLY. Again, when did Homer Williams or Bob Gerding ever cover URD money with their own checkbooks? Let's stay factual,folks.
Apr 2, '09
Denier:
To suggest this "controversy" is worth $500,000 of tax dollars (to purchase the sign) just shows how detached the City Council is from reality.
Bob T:
No - the double stadium deal showed that.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Apr 2, '09
Torrid Joe:
Joel, the city hasn't agreed to lend Paulson any money, interest rate or not.
Bob T:
Again, one renovated and one brand new stadium are being provided for him so he can get a huge paycheck as a multiple team owner. He's getting a privileged deal, even with the rent he pays. Let me know when you conclude that city-built supermarket buildings provided for Safeway, Albertsons etc wouldn't be the same thing.
Now let this be the final word, or Kari will scold us again.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Apr 2, '09
I get to agree with Bob Tiernan for once.
11:22 a.m.
Apr 2, '09
"Again, one renovated and one brand new stadium are being provided for him so he can get a huge paycheck as a multiple team owner. He's getting a privileged deal, even with the rent he pays."
Actually they're being provided for us, and Paulson will pay to use them. And he's not getting even CLOSE to a "privileged deal;" you apparently have no familiarity at all with stadium deals in this country. Paulson's actually getting one of the worst deals I've ever seen. And your supermarket analogy continues to make no sense, since cities don't own supermarkets, or sell things out of them when the private renter isn't using it.
1:09 p.m.
Apr 2, '09
I failed to add above that my feelings about what the existing sign guidelines say have nothing to do with my deep appreciation for PSU's contribution to our region. I love PSU. I've taken classes there and lived just two blocks away on the park blocks when I first moved to Portland.
I'd feel the same way about the dynamics here if the roles of the two schools were reversed. I'm also under no illusions that U of O's proposed designs are very lovable; what they're proposing isn't to my taste.
I do believe, however, that prohibitions against content-based zoning give U of O the right to move forward with this, no matter how annoying that may be to others in the community. U of O's doing great things for Old Town, but I do happen to think this sign is ill-considered. But that's beside the point.
4:15 p.m.
Apr 2, '09
I do believe, however, that prohibitions against content-based zoning give U of O the right to move forward with this, no matter how annoying that may be to others in the community.
I agree. Trying to get around that restriction via the backdoor would seem to have been a primary reason for the move to get the historic landmarks commission to take jurisdiction. Not that that route would allow regulation of content per se, but it would in theory have the same effect by regulating the aesthetics which is part and parcel of historic preservation.
Whatever happened to that scheme? I remember it being mentioned in a previous post but don't recall ever reading what became of it.
Apr 2, '09
I believe I could round up offers of up to $750,000 if they make the sign purple and gold and read "Go Huskies!"
Apr 2, '09
Greg D.:
huck you.
Apr 2, '09
I'll limit my comments to the sign.
Since Randy has such an obsession with preserving his ego and buying the sign, I think the buildings owner (Naitos?)should do one of two things once it is condemned and it becomes property of CoP: 1) Tell CoP to remove their property from said building 2) Raise rent 16% above average liek CoP is doing with water rates.
Randy is a fool for walking into this hornet's nest.
Apr 2, '09
"Paulson's actually getting one of the worst deals I've ever seen."
TorridTroll - Once again work is distracting you from logic. He is getting screwed by MSL, however Cop Is offering to build him two new stadia (for $85M) with the hope he will pay from his profits. Give me an aexample of a better deal.
You really should stick to work instead of blogging away and do the taxpayers some service for the income we pay you.
8:55 p.m.
Apr 2, '09
Charlie and Kevin both make excellent points. I too look forward to a solid compromise.
Apr 3, '09
Torrid Joe:
Actually [the stadiums are] being provided for us
Bob T:
Oh sure!
He'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Was it really too hard to say no to this?
Actually, I do. And I oppose all deals that do not require that the team owner, or other private party, builds and owns the stadium.
Get real.
The analogy makes sense. All of these are examples where a business owner has the local government use taxpayer dollars to pay for the structure in which the business will be conducted. I happen to dislike that a great deal. I don't mind and can't stop a Paulson asking for that costs me nothing -- what I oppose is government granting the wish. The local McMennamin brothers have set a better example. Maybe someone will tell me that it's not a perfect record (I don't know), but they come across as guys who, if they decide to by a major league sports team, will pay for their own stadium using their own plus investors' money they raise. That doesn't describe Paulson at all.
As for the Made in Oregon sign, I'd prefer to see the Made in Oregon stores sell only things made in Oregon, not China and Pakistan.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Apr 3, '09
"Leonard says they have no specific plan to pay for it yet, but he says the city would not use money from the general fund."
Oh snap, I get it! Paulson is going to pay for the sign from beer sales.
10:44 a.m.
Apr 3, '09
Way to go Steve! You win the ignorant ad hominem hater award today, signifying you have no actual argument! Your facts are wrong, your analysis is resultingly off base, and you appear to have just needed something to satisfy your anger about whatever it is that drives you to spout the nonsnse you do. Because logic and information are not your friends here. Cities are paying hundreds of millions for stadia they won't even own, and are on to hook to pay back. Paulson is getting to rent to stadiums, and is covering every single dollar of taxpayer money spent to do it out of his own pocket, beyond a potential max of $2.5mil in overruns. For comparison, the other 2011 expansion team city is paying $250mil US with no such guarantees--and I don't even think they'll own it afterwards (although I'm not 100% on that part, have to check.)
Apr 3, '09
Leonard is only pounding his chest and pressuring U of O to trying to shame them. He has no legal standing, as discussed with the mis-use of condemnation and the clear free speech issues on many postings and news articles.
The only regulations enforcable on the sign are historic, amounting to the font style and general layout, which would also make sign code moot.
This is just soo embarassing for the City and PSU. They are the ones who should be ashamed by their shallow and pointless behavior, driven by damaged egos from a feeling of helplessness and inferiority.
I will add, as some others have, I love PSU as a fixture in this city. They have a beautiful campus and are a great asset.
A sign change across town will not hurt them. Their reaction to it already has though.
Apr 3, '09
"Paulson is getting to rent to stadiums, and is covering every single dollar of taxpayer money spent to do it out of his own pocket,"
Way to go TorridTroll, you are wrong and its on taxpayer time.
Paulson has signed nothing, he kept the $5M from the MLS fee he didn't have to apy since our great visionary leaders didn't think about that. Now that we have $25M hole that needs to be fille, he could be noble and step in and pay it.
Again, CoP borrows the money, builds the stadia and hopes and prays Paulson sticks around for 30 years to pay it back.
What if we told Nike or Intel we'll borrow $85M and build you a big factory in an industrial park just for them. Phil or Mr Intel, you can take 30 years to pay us back out of your profits, please. Would you go for that?
They'll hire a heckuva of a lot more people than Paulson, so I'd find it more convincing to go that way.
Really you should be reading books instead of blogging at work if you must waste taxpayer time.
Apr 3, '09
"the other 2011 expansion team city is paying $250mil US with no such guarantees--and I don't even think they'll own it afterwards (although I'm not 100% on that part, have to check.)"
And the point of this is to show there is someone slower than the Protland City Council?
Apr 4, '09
"Leonard says they have no specific plan to pay for it yet, but he says the city would not use money from the general fund."
Hmm why I am I not surprised by that. Do they ever have a plan?
Mark Bunster-er Torridjoe-don't CoP fire dept analysts have more important things to do with their time than blog at work? Kinda plays into the hands of the people who would just slash and burn govt services.
11:06 p.m.
Apr 4, '09
The sign has a monopoly on OUR dowtown skyline. Condemnation is a legitimate tool to protect the commons. An interesting public-private partnership similar to what the Hollywood sign has could work. A non-profit, Sign Trust, would solicit charitable donations and manage the sign. The City would lend it's good faith and credit to underwrite the venture. To cover the legal fees of condemnation, a specific business liscence fee would be assed to the Sign Trust to cover those costs. Corporate apologists are the ones with egg on their face not PSU and the City.
Apr 5, '09