Metro, Open Spaces, and Ballot Measures (updated)

In today's Oregonian, Laura Oppenheimer reports that Metro is expected to put a $227.4 million bond measure on the November ballot to buy 5,300 acres of open space across the Portland area. The space would be set aside for habitat protection and other uses in advance of many of these parcels being built upon to serve a rapidly growing protection.

Not to toot my own horn, but the issue reminds me of my own article in this month's Metropolis magazine about Tanner Springs Park in the Pearl District, designed by noted German landscape designer Herbert Dreiseitl (with an assist from Portland's Greenworks). Although it does so more symbolically, Tanner Springs Park is a small 200-by-200-foot block-sized park that restores the terrain of marsh and tall grass that existed there before Portland was settled. Additionally, it represents a new era of decentralized habitat protection.

Gone is the time when habitat protection consisted of setting aside one or just a few large parcels of land and calling it a day. Instead, wildlife advocates seem to agree, it's better to introduce a decentralized "green infrastructure" into the urban fabric. That can mean green roofs or small pocket-sized parks in Portland's urban core, or it can mean places like Willamette Narrows, Wapato Lake, Damascus Buttes and the Tualatin River Greenway in the city's surrounding environs.

In Oppenheimer's article, a local activist in suburban Aloha says he thinks Metro is mistaken to put the greenspaces vote before the voters. There are just too many other bond measures asking for voters' approval, he argues: renewals of a Portland levy for children's services, a Multnomah County library levy, and so on. The activist, Eric Squires, suggests Metro should instead tax the construction industry.

I think the best way to pay for these crucial greenspaces is indeed to have every citizen pay equally, and not to single out the construction industry unfairly.

That said, I'd have to agree with Squires that the voters very well may reject this $227 million measure. Or even if they do approve it, that could hurt the chances of other worthy funding measures passing. Maybe it's my own bias, but I think the voting public has time and time again proven either too cheap or too ignorant to fund valid programs. It's a shame that Metro is willing to offer voters the chance to destroy a desperately needed network of open spaces.

If there's an Achilles heel to Oregon's political culture, I think it's way too many ballot measures. I wish our elected officials had the courage to raise much-needed revenue without giving voters a chance to harm the future. I know that sounds almost socialist in tone, and I don't necessarily mean it that way. But when investments like these even come close to peril, it frustrates me that this is anything but a no-brainer. Don't we elect these people to make this kind of tough decision?

After all, we need these natural areas not just for wildlife habitat, but for ourselves.

Post-blog post addendum: After writing this post, Metro Councilor Brian Newman wrote to explain the following:

"Metro Council must refer general obligation bond measures to the voters. We do not have the authority to approve it without a public vote. Furthermore, any other mechaanism would also require a vote since our agency has a spending cap that can only be exceeded with a vote of the public."

After which time I told him, "I may have been wrong on this. If Metro is obligated to put something like this before the voters, obviosly that changes things. My larger point, though, still stands: There are certain worthy public works endeavors, be it infrastructure, open spaces or otherwise, that necessitate tax increases. But often when put to a popular vote, the voters reject measures simply because they don't like the notion of the tax. What I was trying to express, above all, was how important the provision of these open spaces is, and how I don't trust a majority of the electorate to sufficiently appreciate that to agree to a tax hike."

To which Councilor Newman replied, "I agree that many politicians evade tough votes. This is not the case with this measure and I appreciate the opportunity to explain the situation. Let's hope the public supports what we are trying to accomplish with the bond measure and we are successful in November. I am cautiously optimistic."

One question: Am I the only one who was led to believe by today's Oregonian story that there was the possibility of doing this without a bond measure? I guess it would benefit us all, myself included, to understand how and why funding for certain programs and projects must be approved by the voters and why other things needn't. I'm no genius, but if I, someone who makes his living learning about and communicating this info, is confused by it all, how must most others feel? This post was originally about Metro and open spaces, but it's eventually become much more about the practicalities and rules of government funding.

Comments

[adron]

The twisted thing is, most people already pay in excess of 45% of their income. Where does it end?

When they've siphoned off all of it and ALL of the businesses, jobs, and productive classes have left out of being squandered for a political agenda?

I love Portland architecture, design, and a lot of the principles there are here. But if the taxes go up beyond what they are, besides all of the thousands of other leaving the city, I'll be leaving to.

Then the city will basically have homeless people to pay taxes to build greenspace for the homeless people. hmmm... irony is, that won't work at all. Because they don't pay taxes.

Why is it every single thing around here is always "find some funds" which is equal to "tax the middle class and maybe the rich".

Of course the rich just leave, or they lay off a bunch of people.

hmpf.

[Mike]

45%? methinks adron needs a new CPA.

[Cab]

Where you going to go? Oegon is one of the lowest taxed states in the country. I hear South Dakota has low taxes.

[Justin]

By comparison, Sweden - the Best Country in the World to Live in, has about a 70% tax rate.

[adron]

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, take the 70%.

America isn't Sweden.

Why the hell do any of us need the money we earned anyway when we have greenspace to walk around in and look at. Besides, it's not like we should have any right to any of our money, or our labor, our services, or anything. The city should have the ultimate dictate to take whatever they need from us to buy land, protect us, and watch out for our well being.

...and Justin, if you want to be charged 70% of your income, and it's so great in Sweden, in all seriousness, why aren't you there? No one here is going to stop you from going there.

Feel free to respond to me... adronhall at gmail dot com...

we don't have to blabber on about this on this blog.

[nate]

Wow Adron... The old big C conservative standby, "if blah blah blah, why don't you leave no one's stopping you."

What a mindless argument; it doesn't doesn't do anything but exemplify your lack of independent thought.

And if I can count, and I think I can, I count hundreds of thousands of people moving to PDX. Many for the quality of life, a prime example of which is the greenspaces.

So what exactly is your point besides "[you'll be leaving to (Sic)."?

[MarkDaMan]

I'm not sure since when paying taxes, especially to fund a war, became unpatriotic. I'd rather pay money to build parks in my city, than taxes to fund devestation on other continents, however, had our parents and grandparents not paid their way, we would be today.
Even while America was becoming the great nation we are with the world's strongest economy, these were our tax rates.
67% 1917
77% 1918
73% through most of the 20's
63% 1932
79% 1936
81% 1940
94% 1944-1945
"Not until 1964 were the top rates lowered, down to 77%. In 1982, the top rate was lowered to 50% and by the late eighties the rate had been lowered to 28%" of course we know the top rate was raised to almost 40% under Clinton, only to be cut by Bush Jr.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1597

[Joe]

I have never posted on this site before, though I have visited it numerous times. Until now I had thought it a reasonable site; that is until now. I cannot believe that anyone would suggest such extreme measures for such a trivial issue (and yes, it is trivial). When schools go underfunded, police undermanned, and prisons overcrowded "open spaces" becomes a matter of contrivance. When concern about "open spaces" matters more to people who don't understand anything at all about being a Portlander. I grew up in this city, and have seen it slowly go to waste-the wastrels of a bunch of spoiled rich people who spend all their breath about how much they really care about people when all they care about is living in a GODDAMN PRETTY CITY!!!!!!! SO GO ON LIVING IN THE WEST END IN YOUR GODDAMN MILLION DOLLAR CONDOS AND LET THE REST OF THIS FUCKING TOWN ROT YOU BUNCH OF PATHETIC CHILDREN!!!!!

[Brian]

Wow, Joe, I'm sorry to have written something that made you completely flip out. If it's any consolation, I'm also in favor of more funding for the schools, police and prisons. But I think most people reading this will judge by the fury of your remarks that you're venting, to say the least. I'm not going to back down from the premise that open spaces for people and wildlife are a vital part of this region, part of the very fiber of Oregon's being. When you write in all caps with venomous language and multiple exclamation points, it's ironic that you're calling other people children.

[The Maven]

While I don't necessarily agree with Joe's point completely, or his fervor in it, I can give him a quiet 'amen.'

I know that these types of spaces are what make Oregon a great place, Portland in particular. But he's right... the other stuff is rotting away before our eyes. While the condos are getting occupied, schools are closing and the our police are overworked. The east side gets taxed twice as much as the west side, where those who tax us live.

Yes, we need to pay attention to our public spaces...but at what cost?

[Valarie]

It seems odd that someone who would react so violently to the acquisition of more open spaces has an email address of 'pastoralsenses.'

[MarkDaMan]

I'm sick and tired of this mindset that the citizens of this city can only conquer one problem at a time. I voted TWICE to increase my taxes at the local level to fund our schools and if I had the chance to again, would vote to continue paying the higher tax. I don't live on the "west side," I don't make a lot of money, and I take uber offense when someone tells me I'm acting like a child when I have sacrificed every month for the past three years in order to provide children a better education.

Portland can build great schools while at the same time ensuring our world class natural habitat remains world class. Funding for schools starts at the state level and the anger that Joe has shown should be directed at Karen Minnis and the rest of the Salem rascals that think education is nothing more than a political pawn.

To the best of my knowledge, Portlanders still send their money for our schools to Salem with the hopes that Salem will provide the services they are charging us for. I find it ironic that people claim Portlanders are letting our schools go to hell in a handbasket when Portlanders were the only population group in this state that voted to uphold the state legislatures attempt to minimially increase income taxes state wide.

If the open spaces are not bought before development moves in, we wont be able to get half the land for twice the price. We can have great parks, great schools, safe streets, and fully funded prisons all at the same time if we had some leadership in Salem. Park are our responsibility, our state economy should be Salems.

[Richard]

Excellent points, Mark. I also earn just a modest living and am happy to pay taxes both to support schools and to preserve natural areas. A community is a complicated entity that needs to function in many different but interrelated ways in order to remain healthy. I would add that those of us of modest means should be especially concerned about supporting our collective endeavors--such as schools, parks and public transportation--because we're not in a financial position to go it alone. We can't, for instance, buy ourselves personal alternatives to public education by sending our children to private schools or alternatives to local natural areas by having second homes in the mountains or on the coast.

No, I don't agree with every local and state government spending priority, and I'm sure there's some waste and inefficiency in those systems, but all in all, I feel like I get a lot of value from the money I pay in local and state taxes. And I'd be willing to pay more to get more.

To get back to the point of the original post, I hope the Metro bond measure to acquire open spaces passes. Sounds like a bargain to me.

[Peter Bray]

With the passage of Measure 37, it seems increasingly important that the bond measure does pass.

[Joe]

I apologize for offending anyone. Yes, for the record I was offending; however I am pleased to see my over-the-top reaction has compelled a discussion on these issues. Once again, thank you and I'm sorry for "yelling".

[Jim Labbe]

Oregon editor Gabrielle Glaser had a great piece in the Oregonian January 1 entitled 'A wish for the new year: Let's help our kids celebrate the Northwest's natural wonders' . It speaks eloquently to the importance and value of access to nature as part of a complete community, especially for children.

Her message is not a new one. The notion that nature provides essential therapeutic and health benefits, combined with a strong belief in distributing those benefits to all social classes, inspired the late-nineteenth century urban parks movement in the United States. That movement had particular resonance in Portland. When John Charles Olmsted wrote in the 1903 Report to the Portland Park Board that parks foster “healthfulness, morality, intelligence, and business prosperity” he spoke to the hopes of an audience eager to enhance the social health and vibrancy of Portland’s growing urban landscape. Since Olmsted, generations of Portlanders have carried forward the vision of an interconnected system of parks and greenspaces (and during much more trying times then the present). The same holistic vision inspired months of deliberation, advocacy and input leading up to the Metro Council’s referral of a second greenspaces bond measure to the November 2006 ballot, just yesterday afternoon. Keeping nature nearby as our region grows is not a mere frill or amenity, it’s a smart strategy to safeguard public health and sustain our unique sense of place and stewardship in this region.

I hope the majority of citizens will be inspired to by the vision behind the 2006 regional greenspaces bond measure and actively get involved in the campaign.

Jim Labbe
www.urbanfauna.org

[Roy Truelsen]

I have never posted to this site before, so I will keep my comments brief and see if it posts.

I worked for the Metro Open Spaces Program in 1996 and 1997. I was hired to purchase properties for parks and open spaces.

While the Metro Open Spaces Program sounded great on paper, it was poorly managed and failed in many respects. Land acquisition agents were told to acquire property, any property, at all costs. It did not matter that no access was available to the open space purchased or the fact that the open space was already protected from development. The more money that was spent on good and bad properties, the better the program looked.

The 1995 Metro Open Spaces Bond measure was intended strictly for the acquisition of properties and NOT Management and Maintenance of park lands. Metro violated this policy at every opportunity, buying LARGE EXPENSIVE HOMES ON SKYLINE BLVD and then allowing Park Employees to live in them. They also purchased property along the Canby River near the boat launch and the $2.1 million home that was on the property. Who lives there? Park maintenance and management employees, of course.

The abuse of public trust and the misappropriation of Open Spaces Bond monies was rampant throughout Metro.

Please people, don't let Metro grab your money again and spend it on properties that do little to benefit the community but do allot to support other programs at Metro.

Demand to know where the last $195 million was spent, look at the expensive homes that were purchased with "open spaces" bond monies, check to see which land developer were paid $3.3 million for undevelopable property on Canema Bluffs (the developer had made a recent campaign contribution the the top Metro Council member), learn how Metro Open Spaces bond monies were spent to save the City of Portland from being sued over property that was "P-Zoned" and devalued by the City of Portland, learn how Metro intentionally "land-locked" four property owners on Mt. Talbert by purchasing the access to their properties.

Metro and the Open Spaces is a great idea but the way Metro manipulates the public, you never can believe anything they tell you.

Save your money. Vote against giving more money to Metro to waste. Donate the money to your local neighborhood, town, city or county groups. Local agencies are far more capable and honest than Metro. Trust me, I know.

Roy Truelsen
[email protected]