Nick Fish has postponed a planned parks bond measure scheduled for this November. Instead, Fish does still plan to move ahead with a housing levy instead, possibly next year or the year after. And it’s “entirely likely,” he says, that there’ll be money for mental health in the mix.
I flagged this issue last December, asking whether we should really be considering our greenery when there’s, you know, other priorities.
“Ok, you were right all along,” the commissioner wrote me, in an email this afternoon.
Here’s the letter announcing the change.
April 14, 2010
To all Portland Parks & Recreation Employees,
We are writing to report on our decision regarding moving forward with a bond measure for Parks. Unfortunately, we’ve determined that now is not the right time to refer a Parks Bond Measure to the voters on the November 2010 ballot.
We have worked hard to test the feasibility of putting this bond measure on the ballot in November. Over the past three months, we spoke to 90 community groups, neighborhood associations, and businesses to share information about Portland Parks & Recreation’s multi-million dollar major maintenance backlog. We were pleased to hear just how many people support Portland’s park system. However, the economic climate makes it too difficult to successfully move forward with a bond measure at this time.
Outreach to Portlanders confirmed that they value Portland’s park system and understand that important safety updates are needed – especially for older buildings such as those at Mt. Tabor Yard. They want to ensure that parks remain solid, affordable anchors for neighborhoods and they want natural areas preserved. They also understand that some areas of Portland are still waiting for their first park, trail, or community center.
This has never been about “if,” but “when” we ask voters for the necessary funding to care for the park system. With strong support from the community, we will look for the right time to ask for their vote.
Thank you for your commitment to Portland’s park system.
Sincerely,
Comm. Nick Fish Zari Santner, Director
“the economic climate makes it too difficult to successfully move forward with a bond measure at this time.”
Isn’t the whole point that you can put it forward to be voted on to find out? If it doesn’t pass, there’s nothing stopping them from trying again. What a shame.
Nothing stopping? How about the massive amounts of money these campaigns spend to get measures out there in the public eye? If it doesn’t pass, the likelihood that they’ll be able to raise the cash (again) for the next round will be minimal.
This is horseshit! Goddamn it Davis! Why can’t you get off your soap box and see that things are actually connected and that life doesn’t revolve around you. Do you actually think that ignoring and underfunding our parks (like you mentioned in December) like we have done for so long, will actually be beneficial to our fair city in the coming decades as it bursts at its seams? Should we really pave over everything so that our children today can grow up to never know what nature is? And that by not knowing that connection to Earth, they too will end up homeless and broken, having had part of their soul stolen from them? Will your affordable housing numbers account for them?
Let me tell you something… they won’t. You can’t quick fix homelessness. Yes, we need to address it. But address it with a firm foundation. The headline grabbing (campaign winning) insta-fix never lasts.
@Saypdx – You lost him at “get off your soap box.”
Matt, Those of us who have worked——–successfully I might add———on park levies and bond measures have heard “it’s not the right time.” “The economy is a deal breaker” “There are more important priorities.” for the past 30 years. There is never a “good”time and there are always other “priorities.”
As you know, I adamantly disagree with your ongoing argument that parks are a “frill” that we simply cannot afford until we deal with our other “priorities.” There is a reason City Council designated parks as an “infrastructure” bureau. The rationale, as you know, was that parks, trails, and natural areas——–“greenery” as you so derisively put it—-are an essential urban service.
It is particularly galling that you fail to note that park advocates have, since the founding of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994, also been strong housing advocates. It was park advocates like myself and others in the “greenery” coalition that worked hand in glove with the then Community Development Network, the region’s housing umbrella organization, to get affordable housing on Metro’s regional growth management agenda. It was also a coalition of park and housing interests that succeeded getting City Council to establish the 30% set aside for affordable housing in Urban Renewal Areas.
Why do you persist in your parks vs housing rhetoric? It is nonsense. Those who are in need of affordable housing need parks even more than the more affluent in our society, who have access to more recreational opportunities. A livable city needs parks and affordable housing. They go hand in hand.
Mike Houck,
Urban Greenspaces Institute
Matt, Those of us who have worked——–successfully I might
add———on park levies and bond measures have heard “it’s not the
right time.” “The economy is a deal breaker” “There are more important
priorities.” for the past 30 years. There is never a “good”time and
there are always other “priorities.”
As you know, I adamantly disagree with your ongoing argument that parks
are a “frill” that we simply cannot afford until we deal with our other
“priorities.” There is a reason City Council designated parks as an
“infrastructure” bureau. The rationale, as you know, was that parks,
trails, and natural areas——–“greenery” as you so derisively put
it—-are an essential urban service.
It is particularly galling that you fail to note that park advocates
have, since the founding of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994,
also been strong housing advocates. It was park advocates like myself
and others in the “greenery” coalition that worked hand in glove with
the then Community Development Network, the region’s housing umbrella
organization, to get affordable housing on Metro’s regional growth
management agenda. It was also a coalition of park and housing
interests that succeeded getting City Council to establish the 30% set
aside for affordable housing in Urban Renewal Areas.
Why do you persist in your parks vs housing rhetoric? It is nonsense.
Those who are in need of affordable housing need parks even more than
the more affluent in our society, who have access to more recreational
opportunities. A livable city needs parks and affordable housing. They
go hand in hand.
Mike Houck,
Urban Greenspaces Institute
—