BUT I am totally biased because my wife and I started this local enterprise. But, still the place rocks! REALLY!
All Reviews »
As far as I can tell, your two comments on this thread are the only ones you have ever made Blogtown. Both comments contain some provocative statements about Brady. And YET! They leave out some compelling details...So...
What business lobby group are you referring to? And what was Brady's role in the group?
You cite a meeting about kicker reform? When was it and who was there?
In other words, if the Merc News Team or any other local reports were to take your bait on this, where should they actually start?
BTW - Merc News Team, I am truly curious about how much money is being raised and how it is being spent, especially in comparison to the last couple Mayoral races. At least with regard to the Brady campaign, we are already past the Voter Owned Election budget levels...
This will likely mean more cash in the Brady campaign coffers, which it looks like they may need since even though they have raised a lot of cash, they've spent a lot (at least according to WW last week, the Brady campaign had raised over $350K but only had $142K on hand):
$200K seems like a lot to have spent this early in the campaign but I'm no campaign finance expert so maybe that par for the course?
Half Pint rocks! (unless you're a vegan, then it's a real downer) I don't know how they continue to fill their shelves with vintage boot sweetness but there is always something new and wonderful to check out there.
The streetcar = $3.5 billion in new development claim was recently addressed by the a PolitiFact Check, verdict? Mostly False:
We are interviewing the Mayoral candidates on LaunchPad (including Max Brumm!). The podcast of Max's interview is already up and can be heard here:
Our interview with Charlie Hales posts this Friday, we covered a lot of ground including his position on the Office of Equity.
The Eileen Brady interview will air on 10/28, we did discuss her CRC position as well as her plans for small business development in the city.
Jefferson Smith is last up with a live interview on 11/4 - send your questions!
All are recorded live and unedited so it makes for some interesting listening to say the least. All the interviews will post to stitcher and on the LaunchPad site: http://www.launchpadradio.com/
What happens if any of the project's rosy assumptions are wrong? Any and all typical, expected city services which are paid for by the general fund (police, fire, parks, maintenance, etc.) could suffer.
One rosy assumption example? The current commercial vacancy rate in the Portland area is 17 percent; it is very much a renters market and will be for the known future. Despite this, the sustainability center financial plan assumes that space priced nearly twice as much as market rates will fill up..FOR 30 YEARS...this is a ridiculously optimistic assumption.
Any shortcoming in the project ability to fill space at this premium rate, any unexpected operating costs, any unexpected costs associated with BPS's occupy of 32,000 feet in the building, etc., will covered by payments from the City's General Fund.
BTW - the $1.5 million dollar grant mentioned in this post was already assumed in the financial plan issued on Friday. So it has no impact on the financing picture or the city's expected project expense.
"The risks associated with the project, and lingering questions about its finances and the likelihood that Portland's burdened operating budget might have to be tapped for millions of dollars if things go south, are too substantial for the council's usual kumbaya 5-0 fun."
This is a $61 - $65 million project. Why would any Commissioner and his/her staff be willing to take action on this project with the current gaping holes in project information and financial feasibility?
Please folks, contact the Council ASAP and ask them to take this off the agenda:
You have until 9:30am tomorrow. And be sure to cc: the Council clerk so your comments are in the record:
It's notable that the the$8.2 million on city bonds paid for by the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) rent doesn't recognize that this reflects an increased operating expense for that bureau which currently resides in a space upon which the city still owes $13 million:
"The director of BPS' sustainability division, Michael Armstrong, acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with their current office space."
Of course the chart above noted an important caveat on this particular financing piece, namely that the bonds will be paid for by BPS rent "or from the City's General Fund".
So, the full known cost (i.e. increased operating expense for BPS) is not included here, no plan for repaying the existing debt on BPS's current space is not included here, and the fall back for challenges with any financing problems will fall to the City' General Fund.
It is hard for me to overstate the need for folks to contact the City Council and tell them to dump this project. Here are the email addresses if you need them:
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |