Next Up at City Council, 7/11/07

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 7, 2007 - 12:25pm.

As Scott Moore predicted, the Portland City Council's hiatus last week from taking care of routine business results in an Agenda stuffed with contracts and other important but dull stuff this week. Plus, whoever sets the schedule has chosen to run everything on Wednesday morning, with no session Wednesday or Thursday afternoons (and of course, no evening hearing). It could be a long morning.

There are three Time Certain items, the first two scheduled for only fifteen minutes - a tribute to awesome Avel Gordly, and a grant for Portland Community Media. I'm not sure why the latter needs a Time Certain - a video presentation about this worthy organization, maybe? The last, *792 TIME CERTAIN: 10:00 AM - Authorize an Intergovernmental Agreement with The State of Oregon for the placement of the New City Archives on Portland State University campus, concludes a deal first on the agenda in March. Then, I commented:

"I'd like to see a report linked to an item like "declare support" for an Archives Center at PSU - what exactly is the City going to commit - Cheerleaders? Money? And how does "support" for this item rank in comparison with other city priorities... funding for play equipment in parks, for example? According to an article this past week in the Oregonian, "Moving the archives to campus would cost about $1 million more than expanding on the existing land, according to estimates. Building archives on a new site would cost more than $14 million." So how and where does that fit into the budget discussions that citizens have been attending - hundreds and thousands of hours of participation and debate? Where does this resolution fit in that process, now or in the future ... if at all?"

Well, now we have the Report (pdf) on line. Yay! Well, at least the Ordinance and Intergovernmental Agreement. It says,


"6. Under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement (Exhibit A), the City will pay PSU $9,871,436, which represents the full cost to the City for constructing and conveying the New City Archives to the City. This amount does not include the City’s responsibility for its own expenses related to Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment (FFE), its cost for moving to the New City Archives and its internal telecommunications, data and fiber optic lines (IRNE), nor does it include any change orders or additional technical requirements that the City may require.


7. The New City Archives project was approved as part of the FY 2007-08 Adopted Budget. The project will be funded primarily through bond proceeds, with a small amount of cash financing for expenses not eligible for bond financing such as communications equipment and art. The FY 2007-08 Adopted Budget includes the General Fund’s share of annual debt service. Other City funds’ shares of annual debt service will start in FY 08-09 and be allocated through the General Fund overhead model."

So that explains where it fit into the Budget deliberations ... except I don't remember hearing much attention to this $9.8m (plus) line item. Let's see.... where in the Vision does spending ten million on moving the Archives fit? Is that really the top priority for ten million dollars right now, compared with, let's say, safe crosswalks on 82nd Avenue? Where people are, y'know, dying. What if voters were allowed to choose between financing bonds for a new Archive Center, and debt-service on bonds for neighborhood street improvements, which do you think they would go for?

Links to most of the administrative items are now available on the Agenda. I'm working this weekend, plus still trying to catch up after ten days away from home, so I'll leave it to readers to check and comment if any are particularly pertinent. Ones that interest me:


840 Adopt the recommendations in the Marquam Hill Traffic Calming Plan (Resolution)

This Traffic Calming Plan was supposed to be the payback to the Homestead Neighborhood in return for giving OHSU pretty much carte blanche in the Marquam Hill Plan. I haven't followed it since, so I don't know how much it's further watered down, or how many of the improvements will be funded.


*841 Amend contract with Portland Streetcar, Inc. to provide additional professional services for project management and finance planning services related to the Portland Streetcar Loop Project (Ordinance; amend Contract No. 37251)


*842 Amend contract with Portland Streetcar, Inc, to provide professional services for design and civil engineering related to the Portland Streetcar Loop Project (Ordinance; amend Contract No. 37279)

= More money for Streetcar design. As emergency ordinances.


*846 Authorize a contract and provide for payment for the renovation of PattonSquarePark (Ordinance)

Good to see money being directed to a park outside of downtown - Patton Square Park is adjacent to the Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center in North Portland.

It's unfortunate that the very last item on the Agenda wasn't designated a Time Certain. 850 Remove an absent member and approve the appointment of a replacement to the Citizen Review Committee of the Independent Police Review Division (Resolution) is likely to be of interest to citizens concerned about oversight of the Police Bureau, yet if anyone wants to hear the discussion and/or testify, they'll have to sit through the rest of the agenda for an indeterminate length of time. I'm not sure why this item is considered less worthy of a Time Certain than approving the grant for Portland Community Media. Or why not give both items Time Certain designation?

»

> Is that really the top

Submitted by da29vid on July 7, 2007 - 12:22pm.
> Is that really the top priority for ten million dollars right > now, compared with, let's say, safe crosswalks on 82nd Avenue? Or even better, reducing tax rates and giving the money back to the people who worked so hard to earn it in the first place, so they can buy health insurance, save for retirement, and purchase other crucial things we know the middle class is all running out of.
»

How would a person buy a

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 7, 2007 - 12:32pm.
How would a person buy a safe crosswalk by themselves? Having health insurance and retirement savings doesn't help someone if they're killed outright trying to cross their neighborhood arterial street. Taxes allow us to purchase together things we can't afford as individuals. As I alluded to in my post, government should prioritize and make sure that the basics are funded first. Community safety is fundamental to people being able to work hard and buy the things they need. If you can't get to work because you can't cross the street to reach the bus stop, you can't earn that money in the first place.
»

I proposed relocating and

Submitted by Randy Leonard on July 7, 2007 - 4:53pm.
I proposed relocating and building a new archives building in the last budget. The council did have a public hearing on the proposal that included a presentation of the architectural renderings of the proposed new archive facility at PSU. The archives will be constructed as part of PSU’s newest building that is set to begin construction before next fall along SW Broadway. Both the new Light Rail extension and the Portland Street Car will run directly adjacent to the new facility. The current archive building is located in an industrial part of Portland almost at the western terminus of North Columbia Blvd., near Rivergate. It houses all of the official documents ever produced by the City of Portland since its inception in 1851…including the first written minutes of the first city council meeting in 1851. The archives house a treasure of photographs that pictorially document Portland’s changing face from the 19th century through today. The current location is virtually inaccessible to the average Portlander. The current archives’ building was originally used as a facility to cremate the remains of animals. It was scheduled to be expanded in the next 5 years at a cost of $15 million dollars to accommodate the continuing flow of documents that the city must store and preserve. Given that we are partnering with PSU to add a floor to a building that they were going to build anyway, we are going to save over 30% of what we originally planned to spend to expand and upgrade the existing facility…and then we still would have had an archives building that most people would never have the opportunity to visit. In my view, this will be a facility that will open Portland’s history up to our citizens in a world class way. The new facility will be accessible by anyone that desires to visit via Light Rail, the Street Car, bicycle or simply by foot. It include a public research area with computers and work space available to research whatever one may want to find more about Portland’s history. To me, the archives contain the soul of Portland. With this new facility students, retirees and the disabled will find spending a day at the archives as easy to access as does anyone else.
»

Thank you for the additional

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 7, 2007 - 11:52pm.
Thank you for the additional information, Randy. It is clearly a great project, but that fact still doesn't address why investing in the new archives facility is a higher priority than safety improvements on 82nd. There are numerous expenditures that can be well justified when considered by themselves, and to me, this is one of them. But where is the cost/benefit analysis in comparison with other worthy projects? As with my comment to da29vid, the new archives won't be easily accessible by people in East Portland if they're killed trying to cross the street to catch the bus to get to them. Why was the old archives building scheduled for $15m upgrades, when there is so much backlog of maintenance in parks facilities that far more people use and enjoy? How was that prioritizing decision made? On another topic, are you back in the US, and if so, how was your trip to Italy?
»

> Having health insurance

Submitted by da29vid on July 8, 2007 - 9:21am.
> Having health insurance and retirement savings > doesn't help someone if they're killed outright > trying to cross their neighborhood arterial street. And having a nice pretty crosswalk does someone no good when they are dead from lack of health insurance. 18,000 Americans die every year because they are unable to afford health insurance -- about 200 of them are Oregonians. Are you really going to argue that your crosswalk is more important than their health insurance? That's a moral argument I truly would like to hear. There isn't enough money, Amanda, for all your liberal fantasies to come true. A $10 million city of Portland archive is a waste of money as long as people a going hungry and without adequate health care. Have you ever lacked health insurance, Amanda? Do you have any idea how frightening it is???
»

You have identified the

Submitted by Randy Leonard on July 8, 2007 - 10:36am.
You have identified the angst of making decisions in the budget making process, Amanda. It isn't just projects east of 82nd that compete for that money, it is also the myriad requirements of residents all over Portland that includes housing, mental health care and the ability of our residents to get a good education. Notwithstanding those needs, our archives provides a look inside the history of our city that transcends any one generation. In fact, my support of this project is very much tied to the education of our community in what Portland is and where it came from. Portland State officials have told me that given our partnership with them, they are inclined to offer a Bachelor's degree in Archives/Public History. According to PSU, the treasure trove of archives available through our partnership with them on this project will inspire students to understand the connection that archives can provide communities in understanding who we are as a people. Our trip to Italy was, just as you said, fabulous. I was particularly impressed with Assisi. We visited the tomb of St. Francis and St. Clare and the Temple of Minerva that began its existence in the 1st century BC as a Roman Temple that provided a place of worship to various Roman Gods. Today, it is a magnificent Catholic Church that radiates its venerable history. That said, it is really good to be back.
»

The current location is

Submitted by FrankDufay on July 8, 2007 - 12:02pm.
The current location is virtually inaccessible to the average Portlander. You can certainly drive up to it, and park right out in front. I did a lot of research on my MPA there. The current archives’ building was originally used as a facility to cremate the remains of animals. It was scheduled to be expanded in the next 5 years at a cost of $15 million dollars. And because of its location in Chimney Park, expansion was certainly easier than the inevitable expansion that will be required at PSU some time in the future. Since my personal work history at the City goes back a few years --28-- it was 26 years ago I supervised the Archive vaults then under City Hall. There were multiple levels of vaults, now "gone" or at least inaccessible since the City Hall remodel. I remember when the incinerator at Chinmney Park was remodeled to become the new archives. There were a lot of special requirements, and I wonder what will happen to that building now. (The City paid to dismantle the chimney a few years ago, so Chimney Park is missing it's Chimney.) All that said, I like the idea of having the records more accessible downtown, and partnering with PSU where, like Randy, I also got my bachelor's degree in History. But also knowing the records used to be downtown in City Hall --many files were once stored under Civic Auditorium, as well as out in Linnton-- I can't wonder how much a permanent location this can be (reading the report, if the City get's less space than planned for, it is to pay a pro-rated share less...which is fine, but the City's need for space will only continue to grow.) At any rate, I hope the City keeps the Stan Parr Archives & Records Center name. He worked hard to professionalize the archives function and get a comprehensive facility built. He was a friend, colleague, and, sadly, an early victim of the AIDs epidemic.
»

Welcome back, Randy, and

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 8, 2007 - 12:26pm.
Welcome back, Randy, and thank you for your further thoughts. Frank, thanks for the history lesson. I too have visited the Stan Parr archives in their current location. It was perhaps the first time I'd ventured to that part of our city, some 15 or more years ago, and it was good for me to find out there is a part of Portland very different from those accessible on my regular bus routes. "Have you ever lacked health insurance, Amanda? Do you have any idea how frightening it is???" Yes and yes. You know very little about me or my history, da29vid. Many of your assumptions and inferences about me and my life's story are incorrect. Are you really going to argue that your crosswalk is more important than their health insurance? That's a moral argument I truly would like to hear. I doubt it. But anyway, the City is not responsible for providing health insurance. It is responsible for street improvements. And the small amount each citizen would save from lower property taxes if the City decided to reduce rates and do even fewer street improvements, would not be enough to purchase health insurance. Lack of health insurance, which of course I am acutely aware of working in mental health nursing for the past 25 years, is a national (not even state) problem that requires a national solution.
»

> the City is not

Submitted by da29vid on July 10, 2007 - 2:27pm.
> the City is not responsible for > providing health insurance. Of course not -- it is each of our responsibility to provide that for ourselves. And many more people could if so much of their money were not going to high taxes to provide fancy archives and pretty crosswalks. > And the small amount each citizen would save from > lower property taxes if the City decided to reduce > rates and do even fewer street improvements, would not > be enough to purchase health insurance. With that kind of (false) logic there would be no point in trying to save money anywhere at all. If taxes were one-third to one-half lower that would certainly free up a lot of money (~$1000) for people to buy health insurance, save for their retirement, save to buy a house -- all those things you have and appear to take for granted. > Lack of health insurance, which of course > I am acutely aware of > working in mental health > nursing for the past 25 years, is a national > (not even state) problem that requires a > national solution. Like all questions of economics, it is a market problem that requires a market solution -- if we are not to suffer even higher taxation and the economic and innovative stagnation that comes with it (witness Europe).
»

"Like all questions of

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 10, 2007 - 2:50pm.
"Like all questions of economics, it is a market problem that requires a market solution -- if we are not to suffer even higher taxation" The saddest part of the health care funding travesty is that we pay far more per capita than any other nation, and in some areas, get less. It wouldn't take higher taxes to give everyone health care, rather designing a smarter system. The Washington Post reported "annual U.S. medical spending was $5,635 per person in 2003. The next highest among the seven countries surveyed was $3,003 in Canada; the Netherlands spent the least, $1,886 per person." For instance, we (taxpayers) give free health care to all residents over 65, regardless of their ability to pay. "Whereas forty years ago the elderly represented one of the poorest segments of our society, today those over 65 constitute the single wealthiest segment of our society, followed only by those between 55 and 65. Because Medicare is not means tested, however, retirees are entitled to publicly financed health care paid for, in part, by workers, many of whom cannot afford health care for themselves and their families." That's from John Kitzhaber's comments from January of 2006, outlining the problems and solutions as he sees them. Please read the rest, then tell me if you still think it's a market problem. And if it can be solved by each household paying $1,000 less in city taxes per year.
»

Amanda, the problem with

Submitted by da29vid on July 10, 2007 - 10:21pm.
Amanda, the problem with your argument is that baby boomers don't want to give up anything in order to cover the uninsured. They certainly will never settle for single-payer health care. Baby boomers insist that any and all medical expeneses be spent in order to insure their health and their lives and the health and lives of their parents. It is well-to-do baby boomers who are responsible for the majority of the heavy medical spending in the US -- the narcissists who think the world revolves around them, and have thought so since the mid-60s. So don't pretend that you are willing to sacrifice for the uninsured -- the facts over the last two decades have soundly demonstrated that you are NOT willing to make such sacrifices. The [Expletive deleted - AF] nature of our society, its drastic bifurcation into the upper-middle-class (Amanda) and the poor, it largely a manifestation of the way that baby boomers have voted over the last 40 years. You insist that everything go to yourselves, even if the younger generations have to go into debt for it. You have demonstrated very, very little care or compassion for the underbelly of society.
»

It is well-to-do baby

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 10, 2007 - 11:21pm.
It is well-to-do baby boomers who are responsible for the majority of the heavy medical spending in the US -- the narcissists who think the world revolves around them, and have thought so since the mid-60s. An interesting assertion. Please cite some evidence to back it up. John Kitzhaber, born in 1947, qualifies as a baby boomer. Did you even read his proposals? it largely a manifestation of the way that baby boomers have voted over the last 40 years. That's funny. The common definition of baby boomers is those born from 1946 - 1964, so "in the mid-60s" some of them had just been born. The voting age wasn't reduced from 21 until 1971, so the first batch of those born in the 40s attained voting age in 1967. Even if you assume all baby boomers voted as a block, at 100% participation, every year from then on, that wouldn't be enough of a percentage of voters that all problems for 40 years can be blamed on us/them. I personally didn't become a citizen until 1992, so I'm not accepting any responsibility or credit for decisions of this country before then. Besides, how does apportioning blame or pointing fingers help find solutions, anyway? I do wonder who and what messed things up, between the WWII survivors recovering from worldwide conflict, and children and young adults today who seem so much more aware of problems and potential solutions. I mentioned that to a young woman this past weekend, how my generation seems to have failed on so many levels. She suggested that perhaps the one area we haven't failed is in knowing what to teach our children. She said she had classes on recycling/trash, and conflict resolution, in grade school, as an example. Perhaps our parents' generations didn't need those classes, and ours did but we didn't know what we didn't know. I think in some ways, my generation's problems have arisen from the very strategies you advocate so repeatedly, da29vid - working hard, paying fewer taxes, trying to be self-sufficient. Many in the older generation, and now many young people, understand we're all in this world together. You have demonstrated very, very little care or compassion for the underbelly of society Yeah, twenty-six years in nursing, mostly helping people with mental illnesses and very low incomes, shows very little care or compassion. And in the bigger picture, the baby boomers' efforts on world hunger, the Peace Corps, devoting time to volunteering, working on health care for all.... not a single good person born 1947 - 1964, huh?
»
Home » Blogs » Amanda Fritz's blog