My Response to Mayor Hales

Hales, Charlie <Charlie.Hales@portlandoregon.gov>	9:27 PM (18 hours ago)
to Nick, Amanda, Steve, Dan, me

Shea - I hardly know where to start, since both this email and the blog post you attached are so full of errors.  At the risk of sounding snarky, I'd advise that if you want to be a journalist, you actually do have to do the work of finding out what the facts are.  And maybe not ask elected officials to be your fact-checkers.

Here are a few:

1. East Portland lacks infrastructure because for decades, when the area was unincorporated Multnomah County, County government issued building permits for houses, etc. without requiring the construction of streets, sidewalks, and sewers.  Dumb idea, but not the City's idea.

Mayor Hales, I do realize that developers built willy-nilly all through Mid-County once they started coming in after World War II. I see this everywhere I go east of 205. Some streets have lovely sidewalks, drains, medians, etc. Others are dirt. Many streets curve strangely, and some (most in some areas) dead-end. It's also clear that Multnomah County in the 1950s and going forward did nothing to impose any coherent zoning on Mid-County, leaving property owners to do as they pleased (some wanted sidewalks, others dirt; some developments have small sewer systems, others just septic). 

However, given Portland city leaders have had 30 years to improve things east of 82nd, why haven't they done so? Why can't Commissioners require new developers to, say, fund a infrastructure account that can make up for deficits, or require payment into said fund at time of sale or transfer of property? Why couldn't the City at the time press the County, and the State, to provide mechanisms at the city level for improving the area? Why just leave things as they are? I mean, Seattle didn't incorporate north of N 85th Street until the 1920s, and some parts (like Lake City) until 1945 or so. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a dirt street in any Seattle 'hood. 

2.  It wasn't Portland's idea to annex Mid-County, nor Gresham's. Both cities were ORDERED to annex the area by the state Environmental Quality Commission, since IT WAS THE LARGEST UNSEWERED URBAN AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WITH 65,000 HOUSES ON CESSPOOLS.

I am WELL aware, per Jewel Lansing's thorough history of Portland city government, that Salem rdered Portland and Gresham to annex. I'm assuming, from your cesspools remark, that there was some sort of Superfund-like disaster in the making? Also, why wasn't Salem willing, or Portland willing to fight for, funding to improve the area or funding mechanisms to do so? I mean, King County (which forced most suburban areas to incorporate over the last 30 years) subsidized (and still does, in some cases) services and improvements. I can't bring myself to believe that Commissioners are tiptoeing around Multnomah County powers that be (or quaking before the Metro Council), instead of insisting that those who impose unfunded mandates like annexing Mid-County cough up funds to pay for needs. 

Furthermore, I'm aware that most houses east of 82nd do, in fact, still poop in "cesspools" (or septic tanks, rather). I'm also aware, from experience, that the City charges folks around 40K to hook up to the sewer, and requires these fees in some cases, like when sewer mainline pipes are laid in. As far as I know, those lines are not along most residential streets out here yet. Given y'all (meaning City leaders) have had 30 years to do something about this, why are you blaming actors and agents from 1985 for current woes? Oh, wait - first the Pearl needed building, then, oh yes, an underage gay sex scandal at City Hall, then a 3-way catfight during our last election, followed by constant reassembling of a streets improvement package that is now seemingly DOA.

Again, Mayor Hales, why are you referring to the historical fact of the annexation to mean that the City's hands are tied in the present day? Seems a bit of passing the buck and learned helplessness, to me. But I suppose other priorities to create the "sustainable city" beckoned. 

3.  East Portland produces far less city tax revenue that it consumes.  That's why the David Douglas School District is up against it for passing bond measures, since DDSD does not contain all the high-value/low-services real estate of downtown Portland.  (Yes, downtown subsidizes East Portland, as dissonant as that sounds with populist rhetoric).

So, David Douglas should merge (and yes, it should merge) with Portland Schools. I'm not sure why you're referring to DDSD and Mid-County as one and the same, however. Did you forget Parkrose Schools, and Centennial?

As far as I know, and your own stats indicate, Mid-County, as of 2010, had 164K residents - 28% of city population. From what I recall (and I make no claims, either here or in my original assertion, to complete accuracy, but rather to "ballpark", having first read these numbers in a Willamette Week article about the budget mess of 2-3 years ago), said 28% of residents paid 21% of Portland's annual budget, and received around 8% of the budget back. Overall service levels and funding, of course, include County (under Measure A consolidation requirements) funding, state and federal monies. Thus its likely that, on paper, East Portland residents consume more than they fund. 

Of course, any consideration of what areas of the city consume versus pay more must take East Portland's large industrial tax base (Airport Way), large commercial tax base (Cascade Commons, Gateway, all the arterials) into consideration. As you yourself note regarding your claim that downtown property values subsidize East Portland needs. 

The point, however, is that said property values all over the City are a symptom of increasing gentrification and haphazard infill that drives "have-nots" out. I'm not saying this has already happened, but it will happen much more often if said high value/low services real estate continues its spread. Sure, a rising tide of property values lift many boats (but not all). Rising property values mean more dollars (as you note), but also higher rents, and less inclination on the part of property owners to fund improvements and ensure amenities or standards. My home, for instance, has a current value of $245K, assessed. I'm pretty sure the 7-bedroom home I share with others would probably go for triple that on the market, and in the meantime, my landlord gets income from mortgages that assume said probable market value. For 3/4M dollars, any prospective buyer sure is getting a pig in a poke. 

So, while downtown may "fund" part of East Portland's budget share (when talking strictly within city monies raised within city), the effects of this shift from sustainable living to gentrified craziness (which is what I refer to originally) basically cause East Portland resident needs to increase (due to higher cost of living), while benefiting a select class (property owners and corporate business). I'm also unclear why you're valuing East Portland's contribution to the budget on a strictly residential basis, while including all of downtown as your counterweight. Apples/oranges?

Its clear to me (and maybe this was the City's reasoning behind fighting it) that de-annexation would likely hurt Portland far worse than how a new Mid-County city would fare. 

4.  Over the past twenty years, East Portland has received a disproportionately large amount of capital investment for community centers and parks and more recently, streets, compared to the rest of the city.

OK then, where are sidewalks the entire length of outer Division? Why aren't all homes on the sewer system? Why are parks few and far between, and usually adjuncted to schools? Why are there large gaping empty lots on major arterials, and dozens of townhomes crammed into teeny tiny lots, without adequate access/road improvements to them? Its nice that East Portland has been blessed with good community centers (such as the one by Floyd Light Middle School, and the David Douglas High resources). Parks...ehhh...not so much. I suppose the City did close off its part of Rocky Butte, and was required by the EPA to cap the Powell and Kelly Butte reservoirs. I dont think those count as parks improvements, though. 

As far as streets investments and improvements, I'm going to respond by looking out my front window at SE 127th Avenue's dirt expanse, and compare it with the oodles of money the City spent sparkling up SW Moody Ave, for instance. Nice lime green squiggles,  BTW.

I do see y'all are spending $275K on a East Portland "fact finding" function...I'm hoping said findings wont be more promotional pats on the back verbiage, but I'm doubtful. I suppose the $175K y'all are spending to define "infill" also helps Mid-County. 
These are actual facts.  They are inconvenient truths for some who like to feast on public disgruntlement.  Hope you will be the courageous journalist who researches and reveals them.

I'm not sure that your points are indeed actual facts, or points of view that have some basis in selected facts that make your case. I'm going to go with the latter, since I too, as a blogger with professional grounding in urban fieldwork, also use facts to bolster my conclusions. However, I do in fact change my conclusions, and opinions, upon receipt of new evidence, on an ongoing basis. You seem, in your email, to be stuck in the Portland of 30 years ago, and place your current-day facts on the past. 

I'm also not "feasting on public disgruntlement" here (nice turn of phrase, BTW). I don't appreciate you insinuating that my motives rest in stirring the pot, as it were. Yes, I am somewhat of a populist (a small "l" libertarian, actually). However, I'm not just smearing stink around like monkeys at the zoo for the heck of it, and I'm a bit taken aback that a public official like yourself would indicate I might be. I am not, however, surprised at your assumptions - and believe you me, I've heard far worse from Clark County officials (I published a blog on local government workings up there for some time). 

I'm not looking to cause a populist uprising, or create mayhem. I'm looking to pinpointing issues as I see them from Felony Heights, and muse about ways in which the City's responses (or lack thereof) are helping, or hurting. I'm interested in shining a light on problems that seem avoided by City leaders, and above all I'm interested in bearing witness to how the structural violence imposed by said problems impact peoples' everyday lives in the Rose City, particularly within an area that, from many appearances, has been ill-used since 1985's annexation. If everything was hunky dory east of 205, why would enough signatures be gathered to force a de-annexation vote, and why would the State rule said petition ballot issue invalid? Why not let folks have their say, if, as you insist, things are just fine (and yes, this year budget wise, they are)?

Finally, wont you be the "courageous mayor" who sends his replies to a lone blogger's findings via a private email, rather than responding publicly, and online in the light of day? Let the sun shine in, Mayor Hales! Its "fragrance free"!