As the blueprint for a new riverfront neighborhood called
North Macadam goes to City Council this week, two prominent
critics have surfaced.
One is the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
which says the development's proximity to the Willamette
River could hurt fish.
The other is the League of Women Voters, which has
another concern: It says the public isn't getting enough
in return for its $150 million investment.
The critics are not expected to stymie the project--nor
do they want to. Planning for the 150-acre parcel that
stretches south of the Marquam Bridge has been in the
works for almost 10 years.
Mayor Vera Katz has called North Macadam a "once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity" to turn a derelict, contaminated old shipbuilding
site into a $1 billion investment in riverfront housing,
offices and shops.
But ODFW and the League of Women Voters believe improvements
are needed in the city's framework plan for the North
Macadam District.
As an adviser to the Division of State Lands and the
Army Corps of Engineers, which must approve riverbank
development, ODFW has carried on a running battle with
the developers, Schnitzer Investment Corp. and the Zidell
companies, which own the parcel's 50 choicest acres.
In April, Greg Robart, an ODFW biologist, weighed in
with a letter that said the project "encroaches too
closely on the Willamette River" and that a "wider,
more natural buffer is necessary to protect fish and
wildlife."
Robart said that North Macadam might contribute to
the extinction of steelhead salmon. He is calling for
the buffer to expand from the 50 feet now envisioned
to 150 feet.
Schnitzer attorney Gail Achterman, who was former Gov.
Neil Goldschmidt's environmental adviser, fired back
that ODFW is going too far to protect the fish. But
in a letter written to the mayor last week, ODFW stood
its ground and maintained that a 150-foot buffer is
required to protect steelhead, which were recently declared
an endangered species.
City Commissioner Erik Sten, who is responsible for
the city's fish-protection programs, says he'd like
to see a more fish-friendly plan from developers. But
Sten isn't sure a 150-foot buffer is needed. "I'm talking
to experts constantly, and they don't agree about the
distance," he says.
Moreover, Sten worries that a 150-foot buffer could
make the North Macadam deal unprofitable, disuading
developers from cleaning up the toxic site. "Still,"
he says, "I'll be pushing for more for the fish."
Schnitzer Investment did not return WW's call.
Katz spokeswoman Amy Schwartz said the mayor appreciated
ODFW's concerns and would discuss them with the council.
For the League of Women Voters, the North Macadam debate
is déjà vu all over again.
The League was a prominent critic of the River District
plan, another city effort to turn unused urban property
into a bustling new neighborhood. In that 1997 battle,
the League argued that the city was giving developer
Homer Williams too much of a subsidy for what the public
got in return (high-density housing, some of which is
affordable to low-income people). Essentially, the League
said it liked the River District, but much of the development
would have happened even without generous subsidies.
This time those same arguments are being made by the
League and its new board member, former city auditor
Barbara Clark.
The central question posed by Clark and the League
is this: Can the city get more for its $150 million
investment? The city says the spending on streets, transit,
housing, jobs and parks will spur $911 million in building
by the private sector. That will eventually lead to
more property-tax revenue for cops, parks and schools.
But the city's own economic consultant says the private
sector would spend $320 billion in North Macadam without
any public investment.
"To my mind this is a relatively good deal, but not
absolutely a good deal," says Clark. "If the Council
has backbone in these negotiations, I think the private
sector could make better contributions and not suffer
for it."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published August 11,
1999
