Portland Parks & Recreation News - Page 11

PDXDENSITY · #**201** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Honestly, if our hands are tied over property taxes, i think this is ok... However, the taxes should also go to subsidizing inclusionary developments, not only parks!! Why is she so — focused on fallow land only? Probably because she doesn't actually care and wants to stifle development due to a preserve it in amber mindset.

Good idea to tax, bad idea to subjugate the funds entirely to one purpose. Abject stupidity and wrench throwing.

maccoinnich · #**202** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 6:29 PM**

By state law, Portland is allowed to charge a Parks SDC. That money can only be used for parks.

PDXDENSITY · #**203** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

By state law, Portland is allowed to charge a Parks SDC. That money can only be used for parks.

Holy —. How is it fair that the state gets to say how the city taxes itself. What a stupid reality we live in. And I'm tired of Fritz stifling development. She's annoying as hell. Seriously. I am pro-homeless services, but she's — over all other classes that are working and still struggling. And that isn't to say I think the homeless are lazy! Ahhhh... Someone wake me from this political nightmare of liberal soft headedness! AND IM A SOCIALIST.

maccoinnich · #**204** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 6:53 PM**

Serious question: would you prefer that the City charged no parks SDC, and therefore never built new parks in the city (including the ones mentioned above)?

PDXDENSITY · #**205** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Serious question: would you prefer that the City charged no parks SDC, and therefore never built new parks in the city (including the ones mentioned above)?

I'd prefer it were divided equally so that some funds go to inclusionary housing too. It seems like she's driving for a sharp increase. I get that she's focusing on one pool of money; that's the issue. she's trying to over-increase that pool to discourage development. IF some went to subsidize inclusionary housing, at least there would be an incentive not disincentive to build.

eric cantona · #**206** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I'd prefer it were divided equally so that some funds go to inclusionary housing too. It seems like she's driving for a sharp increase. I get that she's focusing on one pool of money; that's the issue. she's trying to over-increase that pool to discourage development. IF some went to subsidize inclusionary housing, at least there would be an incentive not disincentive to build.

you do realize that she is the commissioner in charge of parks, right? this is kind of her job.

I'm no Fritz apologist, but I hardly think she's trying to discourage development. in fact it seems her goal is to help encourage the kind of development that increases density and discourages larger single-family homes. getting extra money for parks is definitely a bonus as well as smart. as stated by me and others before it will be very important to have a very robust system of parks and open space as we densify.

given your unrelenting advocacy for density (understatement alert) this seems like it should be good news.

Encolpius · #**207** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Justin Wood, lobbyist for the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, said the sliding scale may not be legal.

He said Portland officials also erroneously assumed that larger homes generate more demand for parks. Wood argues that it's just the opposite -- someone living in a small Pearl District condo doesn't have a backyard where the kids can play or the dog can do its business.

"I would just prefer them to rerun the numbers," he said. "We don't think they calculated the numbers right."

Um, parks are a civic amenity; we don't charge each resident proportionally to how much she uses them. If we did, there would be gates around Waterfront Park and you'd have to buy a ticket to get in. Instead, we (ought to) tax most heavily those who own the most valuable property -- property whose value derives precisely from its proximity to such civic amenities. Moreover, the amount of land within the UGB is finite. The more of it you occupy with your lawn and three-car garage and the extra bedrooms you never use, the more densely the rest of us have to cram together; therefore the more desperately we need to have public parks and green space.

maccoinnich · #**208** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 11:43 PM**

This is going before City Council on Thursday. Text of the ordinance is here [PDF].

RED_PDXer · #**209** Posted **Apr 11, 2015, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Holy —. How is it fair that the state gets to say how the city taxes itself.

By law, the SDCs are not 'taxes', they are user fees/charges. If you call it a 'tax', you can do whatever you want. If you call it a 'fee', you need to support the charges with evidence that the fees are related to the anticipated impacts/use of a development. As such, there is a published methodology on how the fees were developed whenever they are created or altered. It's a nuance, but important to keep in mind as it has definitely been part of the discussion. Homebuilders are arguing that it doesn't matter how big or small a single-family home is in terms of impacts - I think the City can probably defend the sliding scale based on larger footprints reducing private greenspace and more occupants with more bedrooms. The reason for the nuance is that 'taxes' are perceived as bad, and 'fees' are perceived as appropriate by the American public (oversimplification, I know).

The City's SDC summary sheet provides a little more info on how the fees are calculated. In some cases the City will allow you to propose a lower fee based on your own methodology - may be worthwhile in some unique cases - or credit a developer's own public improvements - such as a large scale developer that builds the park facilities or streets themselves.

You can also look through the City's website and find those published methodology reports. Here's the transportation SDC methodology report. It's 226 pages!

maccoinnich · #**210** Posted **Apr 15, 2015, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Portland City Council explores higher parks fees for businesses

Portland's City Council will dive into a proposal Wednesday that could reset fees that businesses pay for building new structures.

The Council's ultimate decision on system development charges levied for Portland Parks and Recreation might double those fees for developers building offices, retail and manufacturing spaces. The city hopes to raise $552 million over 20 years.

The department is seeking the increases as Portland's population grows. The city is expected to add 99,000 people, or roughly 16 percent more, by the year 2035.

...continues at the Portland Business Journal.

maccoinnich · #**211** Posted **Apr 16, 2015, 4:49 AM**

The City Council had a hearing on this today, but didn't vote. Here is the Parks 20 Year Capital Plan with all the projects they're currently planning. Frustratingly it doesn't give any indication of which of the projects are planned for the next couple years, and which are 20 years out.

maccoinnich · #**212** Posted **Apr 16, 2015, 7:42 PM**

Oregon Live commenters don't like developers; don't like fees on developers.

Quote:

Portland's proposed fee increase on new development to help parks draws critics, supporters

Portland Commissioner Amanda Fritz's plan to charge developers more fees on new construction to raise money for parks projects won't go into effect in 2015.

Fritz introduced several amendments to her proposed parks system development charge overhaul on Wednesday, including a delayed timeline. The parks commissioner initially planned on the policy change starting in July, but she pushed back the proposed implementation of the fee changes to Jan. 2016.

It's unclear when the City Council will hold a second reading and potential vote on the fee overhaul.

...continues at the Oregonian.

maccoinnich · #**213** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Portland's Thomas Cully Park nets $500,000 grant, still millions short of development

Portland officials and nonprofit leaders celebrated securing a $500,000 federal grant for the Thomas Cully Park on Tuesday as a "huge boost" to developing the long-sought park in an under served neighborhood, but it appears organizers are still millions short of their overall fundraising goal.

Thus far, the nonprofit Verde and the "Let Us Build Cully Park" coalition raised $4.85 million to develop the first phase of what's envisioned to be a two stage development in Cully. But the project cost for the first phase of construction alone is an estimated $6.7 million, according to city council records from 2014.

Thomas Cully Park, a 25-acre city-owned property south of Northeast Columbia Boulevard and bordered by Northeast 72nd Avenue and surrounding neighborhoods, is a former brownfield site once home to a sand and gravel mine and construction landfill.

...continues at the Oregonian.

maccoinnich · #**214** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

A Funding Fight, Deferred

CITY COUNCIL'S no stranger to tense exchanges these days, so it's always nice to see one avoided.

On April 15, city commissioners were in the midst of a rather dull hearing over fees that developers pay for parks—and how city leaders seem poised to fundamentally alter and increase them—when Commissioner Steve Novick posed a question: Would Commissioner Amanda Fritz, overseer of Portland's parks system, support the same basic deal for roads and sidewalks?

Novick had his people crunch the numbers, he said, and by rejiggering the Portland Bureau of Transportation's charges for new development in the same way Fritz is proposing for parks, PBOT would be looking at a windfall: Developers would kick the city $14,000 for every person served by a new home, as opposed to roughly $2,800 a house. An unrealistic sum.

That money, from so-called "system development charges" could only be used for new infrastructure—not the crumbling streets we've heard so much about in the last year. But it would be money. For transportation.

"I want to ask the commissioner in charge if she'd support that increase," Novick said.

Mayor Charlie Hales laughed and told Fritz she didn't have to answer. Commissioner Nick Fish seemed on the verge of lightheartedly piling on. And Fritz stopped the line of inquiry cold.

"Colleagues," she said, "I'm going to interrupt this conversation."

...continues at the Portland Mercury.

maccoinnich · #**215** Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

New Khunamokwst Park, first for Northeast Portland's Cully neighborhood, ready to open

The first developed park in Northeast Portland's Cully neighborhood will open Friday morning.

The 2.4-acre Khunamokwst Park, at Northeast 52nd Avenue and Alberta Street, will serve about 1,500 families who don't have already have a park or natural area within a half-mile walk, according to Portland Parks & Recreation. Construction fences are scheduled to be removed around 8 a.m. Friday.

"Opening Khunamokwst Park brings us one step closer to bringing the kind of access to parks that our Cully neighbors deserve," Portland Parks Commissioner Amanda Fritz said in a news release. "Looking at this beautiful new park, it's easy to imagine generations of Portlanders having fun together here."

The Native American Community Advisory Council helped Portland Parks & Recreation name the park, according to a news release. Khunamokwst is a Chinook name meaning "together." (Listen to the pronunciation)

...continues at the Oregonian.

maccoinnich · #**216** Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

South Waterfront Greenway is open — Go check it out!

Portland Parks & Recreation officially opened the South Waterfront Greenway Central District project today.

They describe it as, “a city park and valuable transportation corridor with wildlife habitat along the river’s edge – all on land reclaimed from industrial use.”

That’s a pretty impressive mouthful — but I’d quibble with the “valuable transportation corridor” part since it really doesn’t connect to anything yet.

But still. It’s beautiful to look at and very nice to ride. And it’s Portland’s best example of a separated biking and walking path. I shared a sneak peek back in March with more photos and background on the project. All that’s left to do is for you to go out and ride it.

...continues at BikePortland.