Stuart Emmons, Karrie Jacobs, and Portland Tow Trucks' Legalized Theft

Stuart Emmons has long been one of my favorite local architects. He often gets involved in forwarding the cause of design in city politics, op-ed articles, and his involvement with the local visual arts community. He's a real crusader, at least rhetorically speaking, for making design a greater priority in city projects, with more architects sitting on commissions and task forces throughout the City. Where was the building community's presence in Mayor Potter's recent city-wide visioning project, for example? Practically non-existent.

  Stuart's firm, Emmons Architects, also does some great design work, including master planning for South Waterfront and Waterfront Park/Naito Parkway as well as here and there some fine buildings. The firm's latest work is modest in scale but impressive: new offices for Guardian Management. The key here seems to be simplicity and transparency. Nothing flashy save for maybe some of the preserved columns. Oh, and I love the background wall display in the second picture - it appears to be a collection of Monopoly houses. So, is Guardian the wheelbarrow, the dog, or what?

Many of Emmons' potentially best work has gone unbuilt. One was a boldly colorful modern design for a PDC project at MLK Boulevard and Fremont that lost out to a traditionally styled building by LRS Architects; it was selected with input from neighbors but (no disrespect to the firm) I'm yet to hear a single person call it anything but some variation of 'ugly'. (Incidentally, though, an excellent chef named Stu Stein runs the ground-floor restaurant there, Terroir. I once ate the most delicious wild boar dish by him at a cooking competition - he didn't win, but his dish was absolutely my favorite. He was at the Peerless Hotel in Ashland then. But I digress...) I've also heard Emmons has been close on a couple condo jobs.

And then there's the disastrous Fire Station 1 design competition held by the city. Emmons, partnering with the quietly very solid Hennebery Eddy Architects, was one of three finalists along with Allied Works and Thomas Hacker, the latter of whom won the competition. It was  some very good company regardless. In the end, we all lost, when the city pulled the plug on the project - quite mistakenly, in my opinion. Ankeny Plaza had the chance to be a really special place, and now I'm not so sure that'll be the case. And then there's the invigoration of Old Town the station would have brought, especially with a cool fire bureau museum - which would have been the best possible version of an authentic 9/11 tribute, too.

Speaking of Fire Stations, though, Emmons has previously designed and seen built a couple of attractive-looking fire stations, including station #27. Top design writer Karrie Jacobs, formerly of Dwell and now writing a column for Metropolis and blog for House and Garden (she also spoke here last fall), opined about Emmons' Fire 27 building recently:

The city's criteria is all about improving response times, better accommodating female firefighters, and  upgrading earthquake resistance.  Emmons' designs tackle all that practical stuff, and do so with an unusual amount of architectural sophistication.  Fire 27, for example, is an homage to Oregon's metal farm buildings, a nod to the firehouse's semi-rural setting.

Which brings me to the lunch meeting I had with Stuart last week. I was running late for our rendez-vous at the Side Door Cafe. I pulled my car into a lot there that said 'Parking for Burns Bros Only'. I meant to run in and tell Stuart I was here but had to move my car. But somehow I let myself get distracted and just sort of forgot. When I came out 45 minutes later, my car was gone. It'd been towed by Retriever Towing, which has contracts with countless private parking lots around town.

From the get-go, I decided to admit I had screwed up and just pay the fine to get my car back. But I was thinking it'd be something like $25 or $50. It sucks but it's my fault, right? Boy was I being naive. The fee to get my car back was just a few bucks under $200. I was livid. But of course Retriever Towing, whose lot is underneath the I-405 overpass between the Pearl District and Northwest's 'Slabtown' and consists of a cheap trailer surrounded by chain-link fencing, is used to angry people.

A half-second after I climbed the wood-planked stairs into the trailer office to say, "I'm here to pay the ransom note on my car," they quickly informed me that these were 'city approved rates'. They had a big poster with City of Portland certifications and stipulations for what tow-truck fees should be. So I'm not sure who to be angry at. The blame naturally starts with myself, but the fee to get my car back seems so outrageously high that it's actually a far-worse offense than parking in somebody else's lot for three quarters of an hour. (And that lot was more than half empty.)

Retriever Towing is clearly the pack of vermin in this story, stalking the city's lots looking for fresh meat. But ultimately they're just responding to a business opportunity that's apparently been explicitly signed off on by the city. So is it Burns Brothers I should be angry with, or the city itself? If so, I'd like to see towing fee regulation changed so people aren't so taken advantage of. I'm not the only one who's parked illegally before. What about the next person?

For those of you thinking there's a lesson I should be learning about not driving my first place to that meeting with Stuart last week, I'm way ahead of you. Believe me, I've already berated myself countless times for not biking, walking or busing to lunch. After a big hero sandwich, I needed to work off some calories anyway. Instead, I get robbed, and more or less by my own city. Thanks Portland!

Comments

[Scott Hoornaert]

Heheh. That's nothing; once I got a $250 bill from them for getting towed from my own parking space! The reason was legitimate enough, but the charge wasn't. On the plus side, it was one of many events that slowly made me decide to get rid of my car altogether; life is much better for it!

[truth]

Actually the lesson you should have learned is not to park illegally on someone else's property. Simple as that.
Also, you may want to do some homework on your favorite chef, and see about his knack for plagiarism, as a writer your opinion may change. I'm sure portland food and drink dot com as some history...

[SKM]

I too had my car towed from my own lot - though it wasn't in a legit spot, it was during the tail end of the nasty snow storm a few years ago and I had not been able to get it into the right spot due to the snow. While going to pick it up, I saw more than one car literally left in the middle of the street that had not been towed. The lesson to me being that I should have left my car in the street.

I did some research at the time and seem to remember that the towing regulations were being reviewed. Whatever the case, I agree with Brian that it's a complete racket. truth has a point that you shouldn't park where you're not supposed to, but unless it's in front of a fire hydrant or could create some other kind of emergency issue, I think it's highway robbery for them to charge what they do.

[GJ]

I totally agree the fees are insane!! But, just slightly in the cities defense, they capped the fees at what they are, and think they are re-reviewing that. If the city hadn't put the cap that is there now you would have been paying up to twice as much! They are just deflecting blame it is all the towing company. But I do agree the city needs to lower the caps they have.

[ws]

"But ultimately they're just responding to a business opportunity that's apparently been explicitly signed off on by the city." Libby

It's only that note that keeps me from describing those that are part of this operation as flat out pirates. I wonder what material these companies were able to provide the city so as to justify those rates.

Of course, people can be really stupid...(sorry Brian)....and cheap, and they will often do anything to beat a dime required for parking, including parking on other's property without permission. So, something has to be in place to curtail that kind of behavior, but when the mechanism becomes more profit motivated rather than one applied in the interest of fairness and responsibility, it's time to take some action.

It might be interesting to get a breakdown and find out exactly where the money from such a tow fee is going. If it stinks, go see Randy Leonard. If these are really pirates doing nasty pirate stuff, he might just rip them a new...hole in their work jeans. Seems like the WilWk has had a good time going after this story in the past without exactly bringing about any significant change.

[gerry]

The tow pirates convinced the city that theirs was a valuable service. (keeping the right of way clear etc). If there's money to be made from violators then the city should be making it and putting the profits into public works.
We got rid of quite a few loansharking operations recently and should give towing predators the boot as well.

[Kitty]

Mine is a story like yours, but doubly worse, as the parking area was not clearly marked. Mind you, I am not apt to use that phrase often. Fruther, once informed that my car was towed, and paid over $350 for it, It would not start. (this was an old car, so the hood was easy to get open). I had the car towed, by another company to a shop wherein it was found that the distributor was disconnected. Obviously fraudulent if you know anything about engines. The city towing commissioner, Marcia Gaylord was incompetent. The whole thing was disheartening to say the least. How these vulgar business can continue to prey on unsuspecting citizens sends a chill up my spine. Property owners need to stand up for ours and their rights and stop allowing tow companies to "monitor" their lots. They must be getting kickbacks of some kind.

[ws]

"They must be getting kickbacks of some kind." Kitty

That's surely and interesting point. In fact, who might be paying who here? Is the private parking lot owner paying the tow outfit to patrol the lot, or is the tow outfit paying for the right to troll the lots and rake in the resulting cash? Really sounds as if it's likely to be the latter.

[Internet Ronin]

$50 you expected and would have paid without so much as a peep under the circumstances. Probably many others feel the same way, so a $50 charge would prove ineffective at stopping people illegally parking on someone else's private property. But $200 makes you angry enough to loudly complain to others about it. So, a $200 fee accomplishes its goal: you get the message not to be so casual about illegal use of others' property for your personal convenience, your readers get the message about just how expensive it can be should they contemplate doing the same thing. Perhaps $100 would have accomplished the same goals, perhaps not. (Let's not overlook the fact that tow truck drivers need to be paid a living wage, the time involved in hooking a vehicle up and then towing it to the yard, for which rent must be paid, and various other overhead expenses.) Is $200 outrageous? Of course, it is. That's the whole point of charging $200.

[ws]

Does the money represent a fair amount for the service rendered?

What good reason is there to be towing people's cars improperly parked in the first place? Take away the profiteering avenue and a significant percentage of this city's current number of tow truck drivers could likely be assigned real work, constructive work, instead of this kind of activity.

Why aren't cars simply booted and held until payment was received, rather than towed from the lot if a simple citation wasn't considered sufficient assurance that the citation would be payed? Yes, I've heard the explanation that not all cars can be booted, but it's likely that something more practical can be devised than hauling people's cars all over the city.

A lot of time, money and gasoline is being wasted by this kind of wasteful towing. I'd guess that easily %90 of the people erroneously parking on private property aren't doing so deliberately or out of an effort to cheat, but out of confusion or misunderstanding.

[Internet Ronin]

Does the money represent a fair amount for the service rendered?

In part it does. The other part constitutes a penalty for committing an illegal act.

What good reason is there to be towing people's cars improperly parked in the first place?

So that the space can be used by its lawful owners for the legitimate use intended.

Why aren't cars simply booted and held until payment was received, rather than towed from the lot...

See above. A parking lot full of booted cars effectively prevents the lawful owners using their private property for their intended purpose.

A lot of time, money and gasoline is being wasted by this kind of wasteful towing.

I imagine that the number of vehicles towed for this reason is an exceedingly tiny percentage of all vehicles parked within the City of Portland in a single day.

I'd guess that easily %90 of the people erroneously parking on private property aren't doing so deliberately or out of an effort to cheat...

And I'd wager you are wrong about the first assertion. As Brian's story illustrates, most think they won't get caught (and the vast majority probably are not). As to the second assertion, I agree wholeheartedly that most are not making an "effort to cheat." Most, like you, see no harm done, particularly when it is someone else's property rights being ignored.

Let's see if this clarifies the point: I imagine that there is no one using your living room, bedroom, kitchen, dining room or bathroom most of the day, but I can't imagine you standing idly by while the rest of us here pop in and out of your home at our convenience to use your facilities as no one else appears to be doing so at any given moment.

[ws]

As I read it, Brian was concerned he he would get caught. He didn't indicate that he thought it was alright to borrow some parking lot owner's parking space for nothing. I haven't implied that I think this is alright either.

Overwhelmed with the urgency of explaining his situation to his lunch partner, he simply forgot about having parked without yet paying. Sounds fairly innocent to me.

A car parked in a lot, booted for non-payment is going to be paid by the attendant citation and fine for exactly the legitimate use the space is intended; parking a car.

"A parking lot full of booted cars ..."ronin

As if that's going to happen. How many cars does a lot hold? 100? By way of the citation/fee, allot the car owner 24 hrs booted parking on the lot, then tow the car. Seems highly unlikely that the entire lot would fill up in 24 hrs, with cars needing to be booted.

Lots 15 cars or less, or something on that order could be excepted from the 24 hr allotment.

If part of the fee is for service rendered and part of it represents "...a penalty for committing an illegal act.", does a car owner get a breakdown on their receipt indicating how much of the total amount is represented by each? People ought to be able to know exactly how much of a penalty they're paying for these kinds of illegal acts.

I feel like parking lot owners should get a fair price for the use they make their property available for, and that's all.

[Jeff Joslin]

In 2000, soon after Gil Kelley, the newly appointed planning director arrived, I learned on a particular day that it was his birthday and that - being new in town - he hadn't any plans. I offered to take him to lunch, and we were to meet in the parking lot of zuppans at Burnside and 23rd. I went into the store to pick up a few items, threw them in my car and we went off to lunch across the street.

When we returned, my ancient and dusty Explorer loaded with Zuppans groceries had been towed. His tidier and empty German sedan with California plates was happily in its place. He took me over to the east side to bail out my rig to the tune of two hundred bucks. I'd intended to be generous with my lunch offer, but not quite that generous.

I wrote Zuppans and Retreiver, including the shopping receipt, but never heard back. Trips to Zuppans have been few and far between in the interceding 7 years.

[sean cruz]

Here's some important predatory patrol towing facts:

The Oregon Legislature took up the issue in the 2007 session, passing both SB 116 and SB 431 unanimously.

The new laws go into effect January 1, 2008.

You can find the bills on the legislative website at www.leg.state.or.us.

I've posted details on my blog:

BlogoliticalSean.blogspot.com

You can also google "Portland's #1 Patrol Towing Horror Story."

Patrol towing is illegal in many other states, including California and Washington.

A big part of the problem is that the patrol tow drivers are paid on a commission basis, so they drive around burning fuel for free unless they can find a reason to take someone's vehicle.

The property owners demand the "service" for free, and a guarantee from the tower to indemnify them from liability.

That leaves you with no one to talk to but people who know they need to extract their paycheck directly from your pockets.

And they have your vehicle to motivate you.

The towers pile all the charges they can think of on the vehicles they tow in order to turn a profit on what is otherwise a money-losing business model.

But the new laws will also empower the state and local governments to regulate the prices the towers will be allowed to charge.

Both the Senate and House Committee Chairs stated that they would look at these towing issues again through the interim and see if they need to take it up again in 2009.

And plenty of legislators are ready to enact a ban on patrol towing, which means that property owners would have to be present and sign the invoice, authorizing the tow.

The buck is going to stop right there.