“I just went on a vacation through Albania, Croatia, Montenegra, and Greece,” says Portland Patrol, Inc. boss John Hren. He wasn’t here “in October,” he says, because of the trip.
“In relationship to the rest of the world we’re doing a great job…” on graffiti, he says.
In addition to drawing a full police bureau pension, I’m wondering how much of the money from the PBA’s contract with the city through the business improvement district goes to pay Hren’s salary. Specifically, how much of it goes towards paying for him to research the impact of graffiti in cities across Europe, for a month? And could that money, perhaps, be better spent on recruiting and employing new police officers to target these livability problems, instead? I’d ask him, but Hren won’t talk to the media, or anybody, about the inner workings of his private business. And city council has been flaccid on taking steps towards transparency for its private police.
Note to the PBA: I am happy to research and write a 100-page report on graffiti problems in cities across the United States, in exchange for mere expenses. Give it some thought.
Matt did absolutely no fact checking on this posting; he called no one to see if what he thought was true. He has again intentionally posted inaccurate and wrongful information. The Alliance has a contract with Portland Patrol, Inc. for their services of providing security for the Clean & Safe program. PPI has other contracts around the city including the Central Eastside Industrial Council and Portland Public Schools. We do not pay John Hren a salary. How he decides to use his vacation time is up to his company. We operate a very cost efficient organization and for Matt to claim that we pay for frivolous trips to Europe is insulting to the people that work here.
That’s what Matt does, Megan. You need to learn to ignore him like everyone else.
Megan, what in Matt’s post is “inaccurate and wrongful”?
As his editor, it’s my understanding that the city funnels money to the PBA to pay for upkeep of the BID–which is how he portrays it in this post. Some of those funds go to PPI. Matt is wondering, tongue in cheek, how much of that money ends up in Hren’s paycheck. It’s a legit question, since we’re talking about public funds at the beginning of the equation.
Sure, PPI gets funding from elsewhere. Meanwhile, Matt didn’t imply that Hren is on the PBA’s payroll, or that the PBA paid for Hren’s trip.
Again, what’s inaccurate?
“Specifically, how much of it goes towards paying for him to research the impact of graffiti in cities across Europe, for a month? And could that money, perhaps, be better spent on recruiting and employing new police officers to target these livability problems, instead?”
Amy, if you truly think that these questions are simply a matter of idle curiosity and that Matt isn’t suggesting something, you have the reading skillz of a brain-damaged sloth.
If your investigative wonderboy can’t be bothered to actually investigate things, then he’s an instigator, not a reporter. Many, many people have said this same thing with different words over the past year; perhaps you really are just too stupid to know what separates Matt from a real journalist.
Yes, Matt is suggesting that the city’s money would be better spent paying for actual cops, instead of funneled through the PBA to PPI to pay for private security and Hren.
Matt has asked. He’s been stonewalled, as Hren insists his company is private, and he doesn’t need to answer the public’s questions. Documents we’ve found to date don’t lay out the details of PPI’s inner workings.
That has nothing to do with a private individual’s personal vacation time. Perhaps y’all should get Matt an English tutor and he could slowly work his way up to writing a coherent paragraph.
The problem, Amy, is that these are not city funds. 20 years ago, property owners came together and formed the business improvement district and those funds are raised by a self-imposed fee. The city collects the fee on behalf of the Portland Downtown Services, Inc. (aka Downtown Business Improvement District). The BID budget is audited every year and filed with the city so Matt can go look up the contract amounts. These funds are not part of the general fund and cannot be used by the city; it is a special purpose fee for the cleaning and security of downtown. If downtown property owners were unhappy with Hren’s work or the contract amount, they would voice it as they are very budget conscious. Matt has a clear agenda: he doesn’t like the BID’s security program and will make things up, drawn flimsy conclusions from off-hand comments and make not-so-nice insuations about our security officers.
So Megan, how much does he make?
Is this why graffiti is so much better and more interesting in those countries? Quick, get them some retired cops with tasers, Segways, and nothing better to do!
“…he’s an instigator, not a reporter”: Perfectly stated.
“The problem, Amy, is that these are not city funds”: Hmm. Amy, what say you?
Once the BID was approved, it became a tax that the city’s collecting and then dispersing. It’s not optional for businesses to contribute; The city is using it’s authority to collect it. So I’d consider that city funds–sure, not general fund dollars that could be used elsewhere, but still city funds that could be used to “improve” the business district in other ways.
Further proof that this is public money: “The BID budget is audited every year and filed with the city,” as Megan explains. Why would the city care about the BID budget if the money was entirely private?
Amy, do you honestly need that question answered for you? This is embarrassing, to be frank.
No, I don’t need rhetorical questions answered. But thanks for offering, Cat.
Rhetorical questions that makes it clear that you really don’t have any clue what you’re talking about, Amy. Anyway, you’re welcome.
I thought this article was sloppily written. First off, John Hren mentions he went on vacation several places with his own income from his private business, and Matt Davis spins it to make it look like Hren’s travels were on the city’s dime to research graffiti.
And to answer the rhetorical question of why PPI officers carry guns….that question is answered in the first paragraph in the article: Criminals look at anyone in a law-enforcement uniform as a cop. PPI has a right to protect themselves just as “regular” cops do.
Nice try to try to mix up some sort of scandal with little to go with…