This smacks of desperation. Cutting out the community without really cutting them out. All for a stadium that not many people really want, just to hold games of a sport that not many people really care about anymore. Can't they just build it in Gresham? No one would mind, or notice.

I see that avatar and expect your comment to just be, "Aww, HELL no!"

Can we assume that it has been decided to build the stadium? It seems that if it wasn't to be built, it could just be announced that it was not to be built. I don't live in Portland, but it seems to me to just be another reason to oust Adams. And, hopefully, our mayor will get his walking papers this September.

Am I the only one left who thinks that recalling Sam because you disagree with one or more of his policy decisions is a gross abuse of the recall process? That's what elections are for, getting rid of people whose policies you disagree with...

Stu,

The reasons to recall Adams and his policy decisions are two sides to the same coin.

He is a sociopathic power-hungry liar and manipulater. This very fact was the driving force behind his campaign lies AND his latest policy decisions (which, simply put, are an abandonment of campaign promises to be green, in order to satisfy business interests and shore up his political support.)

Stu is Timbers Army. It's safe to say that none of them want to recall Sam Adams for trying to saddle taxpayers with hundreds of million of dollars in facilities costs for Merritt Paulson.

This process, especially the one Sarah mentions above goes completely against clear and stated city policies for public outreach and involvement.

I'm filing a formal complaint, which, as per policy will cause the damn thing to be slowed down - as it should be.

Anyone with me?

I'll send details on the Policy, how to file a formal complaint and what the city must do once one has been filed.

I am effin' sick of Adams and Leonard playing fast and lose with fair, ethical public processes.

ujfoyt said:
"I don't live in Portland, but it seems to me to just be another reason to oust Adams. And, hopefully, our mayor will get his walking papers this September."

Anyone else see the irony in that? Since you admittedly don't live in Portland Adams isn't your mayor. He's our mayor...so we'll worry about it and why don't you worry about whatever you worry about in your town...like what's happening at the VFW this weekend or whatever you do outside of Portland.

No wonder you're so concerned about our city...must be really boring outside of it.

I drink your lack of interest in shitty sports. I drink them up!

Bend over and shut up, Portland. Here comes your "public outreach."

ExCityEmployee, I'm with you.

It is unbelievably brazen to schedule the vote a mere two hours after unveiling the plan. They obviously do not want the neighborhood to have any informed input. Absolutely sickening. I can't believe this is happening in my city!

Everyone needs to understand what Adams and Leonard are trying to do. It doesn't matter if you support gay rights, are a soccer fan, or are politically progressive. I am all three of those things, and I am still APPALLED at the total lack of respect Adams and Leonard have for the people of Portland. And all this for the Paulson family? This is so hard to stomach. I want my caring, progressive, community-oriented city back. We need more people like Nick Fish and Amanda Fritz on the council.

BlackedOut, aren't you from Texas?

Ok, here goes. Here is the City's handbook for public outreach and involvement. This is specific to bureaus, however as noted in City Charter, this project does significantly impact neighborhoods and is thus under the code law. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/i…

As noted in the handbook, section 3 page, 2:
"It’s the law. Recognizing the high importance of citizen involvement, the City of Portland has expressed its commitment to specific types of involvement whenever planning or other actions affect neighborhood livability. Situations when notification or inclusion is required are now defined by City Code. Other City policies, including the Comprehensive
Plan’s Citizen Involvement Section, the Citywide Citizen Involvement Policy, and the Office of Neighborhood Involvement Guidelines, similarly
incorporate this commitment. The following is from Portland City Code 3.96.070 (ONI):
(1) City agencies shall notify all neighborhood associations affected by planning efforts or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood(s).
(2) City agencies shall include affected neighborhood associations and district coalition/neighborhood office boards in planning efforts which affect neighborhood livability. (3) Notice of pending policy decisions affecting neighborhood livability shall be given to the neighborhood association(s) affected at least thirty
(30) days prior to final action on the decision by a City agency. If said 30 day period may injure or harm the public health, safety, welfare, or result in a significant burden to the City, this notice provision shall not apply.
We have written this handbook because we recognize that, while citizen involvement is important, it is not always easy. Nor is every attempt at citizen involvement effective. The responsibility we have as City staff is to make the most of the involvement/outreach opportunities we undertake. This
handbook is intended to help City staff meet that responsibility."

While a PDC URA Advisory Committee is not a bureau, this is a similar issue that caused huge problems within PDC and Council for the Burnside Bridgehead in the Central Eastside back in 2004 or 2005. The complaint from the neighborhood, neighborhood coalitions and business associations was the the City (PDC) did not give adequate time and do enough engagement for citizen input and review for the URAC. Council agreed, and the project had to go back 10 steps and slow down before decisions could be voted on.

I urge anyone who cares to contact the Auditor's Office, ONI and City Councilmen (and woman) immediately.

PDC and the City are in clear violation of the law here.

Oh, and look. This ram-rod process also violates PDC's own adopted public involvement process for projects and URACs. http://www.pdc.us/public-participation/def…

As taken from Pages 7 and 8 of PDC's adopted Public Participation Handbook:
"III. When to do Public Participation
With the fundamentals of public participation clarified, the next important consideration is
timing—understanding when public participation will be most effective.
In some instances, public participation is prescribed by law or is a requirement of the grant or
funding source. Some examples:
o When adopting or amending an Urban Renewal Plan, Oregon law prescribes certain
public notices and hearings prior to adoption.
o The PDC Board of Commissioners can only adopt resolutions in an open public meeting.
o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires recipients of
federal funds (Community Development Block Grants) to follow a detailed citizen
participation plan that includes public hearings, public comments and publication of the
“Consolidated plan and grant application.”
According to the PDC Public Participation Policy, the requirement for public participation is
triggered by the three types of projects or activities described below:
1. Major Policy Decision: When PDC is developing a major policy or implementation plan
that will be adopted by the PDC Board of Commissioners and/or the Portland City Council.
Examples:
• Urban Renewal Area Plans (or amendments)
• City Economic Development Strategy
• Annual PDC Budget
2. Project Planning: When PDC is creating a development study or plan for a specific site or
area to implement an adopted Urban Renewal Plan or strategy; or when PDC is the lead
agency in a similar activity outside of an Urban Renewal Area.
Examples:
• Freemont/MLK Vision Study
• Killingsworth Block
• Kennedy School
• Fire Station #1 Relocation
• Burnside Bridgehead Project
• Alberta Streetscape Project
• South Waterfront Greenway Implementation Strategy
PDC Public Participation Manual Page 8 of 82
3. Strategies and Programs: When PDC is developing an implementation strategy or program
to guide future efforts and investment by the Commission to meet Urban Renewal Plan or
City goals.
Examples:
• Gateway Regional Center URA Housing Implementation Strategy
• Lents Town Center URA Economic Development Strategy
• Lents Town Center Residential Street Improvement Program"

Um, the Lents Baseball Stadium clearly meets at least one of the three criteria. And using the handy checklists PDC provides, clearly shows that PDC must do specific public outreach and involvement activities in order to be within their own policy.

PDC is not doing this.

I urge Friends of Lents, Council and the Lents neighborhood association as well as concerned citizens to cry foul; loudly. This sets a very bad and dangerous precedent and I guarantee will result in some ugly lawsuits against the City.

PDC website. Lents URAC. June 18th Meeting Agenda.

Understandtheroles:

Three city council members are on record saying "We support what the URAC supports."

So the public should just ignore the URAC and go straight to those commissioners even though they say they're listening to you, not us?

Riiiight.

Prediction for Thursday: the meeting will be so packed with people that they won't get finished in time, and they'll have to delay the decision. There'll be coordinated protest speeches from the anti-stadium people. There would be pro-stadium speeches from the Beavers fans as well, except that they don't have any fans...


(Going back up the thread: Smiley - I'm not Timbers army. I've been to three games in my life. I'm just someone who can look beyond knee-jerk reactions at the actual facts before coming to an opinion. Like the fact that this decision will, despite Paulson's posturing and people like you commenting to the contrary, have no effect on the Timbers at all - they're still going to MLS at PGE. And in this case, that means I'm hoping the URA don't support the stadium, and the Beavers move out of Portland; but it's their money so it's their decision)

The Lent URA Advisory Committee should have the opportunity to weigh in on the use of URA funding within their purview. However, there is a real problem with some of the budget scenarios that they can choose from.

When the Council accepted the task force report on March 11 they did so with the addition of an amendment that removed $15 million from a new URA area as a funding source.

Well, as of Monday, $15 million from the new Central City URA is back on the table.

So if the Lents URA Advisory Committee adopts a scenario that uses Central City URA funding, they are no longer only playing with their money. They are also determining the use of another URA's funding.

The same issue arises with the 30 percent set aside for affordable housing. If the Lents adopts a budget scenario that does not include their continued support for the full 30 percent set aside, some other URA will need to make up the difference.

I doubt any member of the Lents URA Advisory Committee would want decisions made by another URA affecting their funding, yet these options are being put forward to them by the City as legitimate.

The bottom-line on all of this is that the Lents URA Advisory Committee is being placed in a very tough position.

A bad deal was negotiated and now these volunteers are being put in the hot seat to make the final decision - or maybe "finaler" decision, since I have my doubts about this being over on Thursday.

ExCityEmployee and Portland Lover, I think you can add these issues to your list of potential legal concerns.

Stu - look at your comment history. You're in the top handfull for most Merritt Paulson shill posts.

Just because I don't think he's the devil incarnate doesn't make me Timbers Army. It makes me someone who can look beyond prejudice about a sport, or about his father, or about him himself, and judge whether or not I think the deal is a good idea...

If I was a Paulson shill, I'd be advocating for the baseball stadium as well, since he owns them - or was that yet another fact that passed you by on your way to a kneejerk?

Now you start with the straw man arguments Stu. That's been a hallmark of the soccer fanatics.

And a disregard for facts - even facts as simple to check as "what's in my comment history" - has been a hallmark of the anti-Paulson bigots...

When a URAC makes a recommendation for a budget decision, project yeah or nay, or other decision that will significantly impact a budget and neighborhood, and they are basing this decision on a plan presented to them by Council, PDC or other stakeholder/proponent - then the URAC is making a decision that should require that the public also have fair access and enough time to review that same document. The public should have the opportunity to voice their opinions about said document to the URAC BEFORE the URAC makes their recommendations.

A couple of hours to review a released document before it goes to a URAC for recommendations is not fair public process and goes against both stated City and PDC policies for public outreach and involvement.

This process, as run by PDC and the City is a sham.

I call BS.

It's interesting that members of the URAC keep downplaying the importance of the vote while every single city official has said that they would wait to see how the URAC votes.

As it stands now - the stadium is being railroaded through, and the quality of life impact it will have on the neighborhood is being swept under the rug.

The URAC should delay their vote and give the community time to review the funding scenarios. Additionally - separately from the funding aspect, the community needs to make an informed decision on the impact to Lents park and the surrounding residential areas.

Anyone that thinks the currently proposed solutions to parking and traffic issues will work is delusional or malicious.

Right now - the process feels as if the community is being asked "what color should the stadium be", when the real question should be "do you want a stadium in Lents park at all".

The Foster-Powell Neighborhood Association decided to strongly oppose the stadium in Lents. The parks board came out strongly opposed to it. Amanda Fritz came out in opposition to it. It's time to write Dan Saltzman if you haven't already and tell him how irresponsible it would be to take all the urban renewal funds, halt all the current programs for 5-6 years, and push a lot of renewal milestones out by a decade or more, to build what will be in effect, a private for-profit facility, and at the expense of public park-land.

I'll be there on Thursday, making sure my voice is heard in whatever way possible.