Monday, February 13

Sam Adams is on Yelp

News The other day I noticed a curious tweet from our venerable mayor's Twitter account:Yes, Sam is tweet... More

Feb 13, 2012 01:20 pm by RUTH BROWN  | Comments 1
 

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 4
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 2
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · Rogue of the Week · Portland Development Commission
November 8th, 2006 WW Editorial Staff | Rogue of the Week
 

Portland Development Commission

2 Comments
     
Tags:
Here at Rogue Central, we've been keeping our eye on how this week's designee, the Portland Development Commission, has handled a piece of property at Southwest 3rd Avenue and Oak Street (see "Suite Deal, WW, June 14, 2006).

The basic issue: In 2002, PDC paid about $1.7 million to buy and fix up that long-decrepit property, then valued it at negative $2.7 million in order to give it to developer Trammell Crow this year. (The benefit: If the property is deemed worthless, the developer doesn't have to pay union wages, which are higher.)

In July, City Commissioner Randy Leonard got suspicious enough to demand an independent audit of the 3rd and Oak transactions, a move that infuriated Mayor Tom Potter but won council support. A preliminary draft of the audit, conducted for the city by ECONorthwest and Integra Realty Resources, shows the property is worth $1.86 million—or $4.56 million more than PDC's negative valuation.

But City Attorney Linda Meng wrote an email to Leonard last week explaining the final version of the audit was taking longer than anticipated because "PDC has provided some documents for review but has not yet provided all documents.... In particular, emails and other documents they consider confidential have not been provided."

So it came to this: A wholly owned agency of the city refusing to turn over records—not to some lowly reporter, but to an auditor hired by the city attorney under a council resolution.

Leonard, who has long criticized the PDC for not sharing information and resisting a council review of its budget, took the extraordinary step Monday of filing a resolution asking Meng to subpoena the withheld records. That's a move usually reserved for adversarial legal proceedings—not inter-office communication.

After Leonard filed his resolution, PDC finally offered to turn over its emails and documents, which agency spokesman John Jackley says should be exempt under public records law. Leonard says the offer comes with conditions he's unwilling to accept.

"Their secrecy makes my point about the need for more council oversight better than I ever could," Leonard says.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
11.15.2006 at 08:37 Reply
What possible catastrophe can cause a property to drop $4.4 million in value in 4 years? And if the cause of this unimaginable loss has to be remedied by Trammell Crow , who will determine if the property is safe to develop, and does that also mean that TC will receive tax credits rather than paying real estate taxes..this is not a rational circumstance...it borders on criminal

 

11.29.2006 at 06:26 Reply
Willamette Week has misrepresented this story from its original lead article to this Rogue of the Week article. First of all, there is NO appraisal at -$2.7 million. There is a memo provided as purely supplemental analysis and stated as being for "illustrative purposes only" that mentions this number. The appraisal is at -$1.9 million, but I guess a higher number makes your point look better. Secondly, there is a difference, which no one seems to mention, between a market value assuming a site can be developed with any potential use, and a residual value based on a specific development. A residual value is a project specific land value. It does not say that there are no potential developments that would yield a positive land value. You are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that one appraisal company says another report is flawed does not make their opinion, or the original opinion, the gospel truth. Finally, the idea that the first report was rigged to prevent developers from having to pay prevailing wages is so ridiculous it isn't worth commenting on.

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close