BOB SALLINGER had heard the same whispers I had when I called him for a response last Wednesday, January 8. The Port of Portland was about to announce its decision to pull back, for the foreseeable future, a controversial plan to build on West Hayden Island.
And Sallinger, the Audubon Society of Portland’s conservation director, was nervously ebullient. The plan’s demise would mark the second time in nearly two decades of his advocacy that the Port had backed down in the face of economic uncertainty and sustained community outcry.
“I’ve been through this before.”
He told me a quick story from 13 years ago, the last time the Port came close to winning the City of Portland’s permission for a new deepwater marine terminal.
“The last time they pulled it, they took me out for lunch and told me all the reasons. And then they decided not to [immediately pull it],” he said of the Port. “And then all hell broke loose when they finally did pull it.”
Not long after we spoke, confirmation arrived. Bill Wyatt, the Port’s executive director, announced he’d broken the news to Mayor Charlie Hales earlier that morning with a withering letter.
The Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission had recommended last summer that city commissioners approve the project—but with strict requirements for offsetting environmental damage. Wyatt decided those conditions were too costly and that it wasn’t worth trying to persuade Portland City Council to soften them.
“From our conversation,” he wrote to Hales, referencing a meeting last month, “I understand you believe the council is unwilling to take action on a modified proposal.”
The seeming finality of Wyatt’s decision shocked almost everyone I spoke with. Most had expected at least an attempt to keep negotiating, even if that attempt ultimately failed.
“I had expected further discussion,” Commissioner Steve Novick told me, confirming his interest in trying to “bridge the gap” over mitigation, potentially through property tax revenue from development.
“A couple of months ago, [city planners] said they didn’t think we’d get very much additional tax revenue. That left me somewhat at a loss for bright ideas,” Novick continued, adding he was “surprised” nonetheless that the Port had dropped out.
Wyatt’s language—paraphrasing Hales as putting the onus on “the council”—also stirred some interesting political questions. Was Hales counting himself part of “the council”? Or had he been reporting back to Wyatt on a council majority he couldn’t buck?
Hales’ spokesman, Dana Haynes, quickly told me the mayor “supports” the environmental fixes sought by the planning commission. Hales had already distanced himself from the proposal by tying it, last year, to the troubled Columbia River Crossing.
But Commissioner Amanda Fritz suggested things weren’t so simple.
Describing herself as the most intractable commissioner, she credited “quiet conversations with two of my colleagues” for shaping the council’s “consensus.”
She wouldn’t say which two colleagues, of course. Was it Hales and Novick? Or was it Novick and Commissioner Nick Fish, up for re-election this year?
Fish, during a hearing on the Port proposal last fall, was as blunt as Fritz with concerns over environmental damage and lackluster economic promises. (You’ll notice I’m not even mentioning Dan Saltzman, whose office never called me back, despite repeated requests.)
Maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe what matters is the result.
As Fish put it, “We never got to a viable deal.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: This column has been updated to include some additional clarification on Commissioner Steve Novick’s approach to negotiations with the Port.
I would just add that it was the advocacy of a lot of people that brought this bad project to an end. This project was strongly opposed by neighborhoods, tribes and conservation groups. I would particularly single out the residents of the manufactured home community who live next door to the proposed project and would have borne the brunt of its negative impacts. They fought every step of the way and they set some really important precedents along the way. This was the first project in Portland that was required to do a Health Impact Assessment to quantify the potential direct impacts on the local community. It was also the first time that the city insisted that meaningful mitigation be included to offset impacts to the local human community. Many, including Audubon, would argue that this proposed mitigation did not go anywhere far enough–for example it failed to address a tripling of air toxics that would have increased local air toxic levels to 55 times the state benchmarks. None the less it did set a new precedent for how we think about how major projects impact vulnerable communities that should be built upon in the future. I would also note the Yakama Nation which provided incredibly powerful testimony to remind Portland that what we do on our portion of the river has impacts throughout the entire system. City Council also deserves credit for standing strong in the face of huge pressure to externalize the negative impacts of this project. The end of the annexation process is a huge win for our communities and our environment and it demonstrates the power of grassroots activism in Portland.
The Mayor and the City Council should be lauded for the critical thinking of how to develop jobs without consuming golf courses, natural wilderness areas and other lands valuable to a healthy and vibrant community. Focusing on already developed areas polluted by previous users, developing jobs that can “grow up instead of out” and analyzing that, if most port related jobs are indirect, how far outside of the city can the actual port be while still attracting these indirect jobs? Thank you Charlie, Amanda, Nick and Steve for your critical thinking which caused powerful people to pull a bad proposal.
Yeah, who needs jobs around here anyway.
I’m sure that all the polution would have killed all the little birdies and fishies.
What’s to conserve? It’s a fucking flood plane. I say rebuild Portland State University, back out there, where it originally came from, and where it rightfully, belongs. Clear the Southwest, downtown area for the private sector to have space to be able to grow itself and create jobs that tax payers won’t have to subsidize.
Seriously, Wim Wiewel, der Führer of PSU has a doctoral degree in Urban Planning. He’s a mischievous, little, Dutch boy from Amsterdam where they have dykes like the PSU Safety Patrollers. He ought to be able to design an ecologically sustainable habitat for brainwashing students who can’t afford to get an education instead.