Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District

larryhuss.serendipityThumb Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District
There is an old joke that claims that Christopher Columbus was the first liberal Democrat.

1. When he left to discover America, he didn’t know where he was going.
2. When he got there he didn’t know where he was.
3. And it was all done on government money.

There is no place where Democrats are more liberal or the joke more true than Portland, Oregon. Portland’s ruling liberal elites dash from one “socially responsible” project to the next, throwing millions of dollars of tax money at every perceived “need” and never bothering to find out if the need is real, the money was beneficial, or the project was complete. What the hell, it’s not their money and there is plenty more where that came from.

The most recent example is the vaunted tax abatement program that is the centerpiece of Portland’s urban renewal plans in the Pearl District and now the foundering South Macadam Project. A recent audit of the program was summarized as follows:


“The City’s current tax abatement programs have evolving goals, incomplete reporting and monitoring, and poor verification of either the overall social goals or the specific project benefits that the pro-grams were designed to provide.”


The tax abatement program was the carrot for developers to undertake the construction of high-end condominiums, upscale dining and chi-chi boutiques in the Pearl District. Now, in the South Macadam development equivalent tax breaks are being used to develop new offices for the medical community and high-end condos for the very rich. In essence, developers and subsequent purchasers pay no property taxes on the improvements for a significant period of time — usually ten years. According to the audit, that amount is currently $8.5 million dollars annually.

That is $8.5 million dollars annually out of taxpayers’ pockets for what purpose?

Well, that depends on when you ask the question. Originally, these abatements were “incentives for new housing construction”; however, since the city required retail uses on the first one or two floors in many of these projects, it resulted in the tax subsidized construction of restaurants, boutiques, supermarkets, brew pubs and acres of underground parking.

Later the purpose was changed to provide “affordable housing.” Have you ever been to the Pearl District? Have you ever looked at the prices for even six hundred square foot lofts? Does anyone in their right mind think that people earning at or below the poverty level can afford those exorbitant prices?

Of course not.

The Pearl District has become the playground for the very wealthy. It is inhabited primarily but “trustistas” (trust fund recipients who have migrated from California and the East Coast), two-income families, and highly paid public officials and employees. The jobs it has created are among the lowest paying positions in Oregon — waiters, cooks, house cleaners, laundry workers, beauticians and low paid salespersons at high priced shops. Most of those people, while they work in the Pearl, cannot afford to live in the Pearl.

The audit noted in this regard:


“We found that the City has done too little to ensure that property owners with tax abatements follow through to deliver the benefits they promised. For example, one apartment building developer in the Pearl District was required to make some units affordable, and to submit financial statements to prove that the abatement was needed for the project to succeed. However, we found no verification that
project units met the affordability requirement, and the developer had not submitted the required financial statements to the City.

“In another example, a condominium developer was required to sell units at a specific, affordable price as a condition of qualifying for the tax abatement. The condominiums were already built at the time the application was submitted and approved. Therefore, the abatement did not provide an incentive for new housing development. Six units were granted tax abatements, but we found that five of the units exceeded the initial sales price, did not meet the standard for having an affordable price, and should not have been approved.”


One of the criteria for obtaining the tax abatements is a demonstration that the project would not succeed without the abatements. As noted above, at least in these two instances, the projects were already completed before the applications were submitted and neither included proof of the “demonstrated need.” In fact, quite the opposite is true. If you have already built the project, it suggests that the developer believed the project to be successful without the abatements. The tax abatements then became just “gravy” for the developer.

And it is right here that the tough questions should have been asked by the auditors, the press who gave it minimal coverage, and the law enforcement officials at the county and state level. But, apparently, all of these groups have been allied with Portland’s liberal ruling class for so long that they either have forgotten those critical questions or don’t want to hear the answers. (It is the same reason that nobody asked the critical questions of Neil Goldschmidt even though many knew of his repeated molestation of a fourteen year old girl over at least a three year period.)

Be that as it may, here are the questions that should be asked and answered:

1. Who are the developers who benefited from these tax breaks?
2. Are any of these developers, their officers, or employees related to city or county officials or members of their immediate families?
3. Who are the agents that these developers used to obtain approval of the tax abatements? (In particular, which of these developers used Neil Goldschmidt or members of his firm as their agent?)
4. What campaign contributions were made by these developers to city or county elected officials or to initiatives undertaken by city or county officials?
5. Have any of the city officials who approved any of these tax breaks gained subsequent employment (either direct or as a consultant) by these developers?
6. Did any of these city officials receive preferential treatment from any of these developers in the purchase or financing of their own homes or places of business?

But these questions and their follow-up questions will never be asked. When you wonder why the lavish spending of Portland’s liberal ruling class is seldom challenged, it may well be because many of Portland’s wealthy class are the primary beneficiaries of such lavish spending.

But, what the hell, it’s not their money and there is plenty more where that came from.

tt twitter big4 Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District tt digg big4 Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District tt facebook big4 Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District tt reddit big4 Waste and Fraud in Portland’s Pearl District

Posted by at 08:45 | Posted in Measure 37 | 22 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Crawdude

    The same report comes out each year and fall on deaf ears at city hall.

    The Pearl is true liberalism at its worse. The liberal elitist, living off the hard work of the rest of us.

  • John Fairplay

    The very premise of providing incentives to build low-income housing in high income areas is flawed. The existence of low-income housing – were it actually built – would devalue the high-income housing in the area, cutting the profits of the developers. They’d be crazy to actually build any low-income housing that wasn’t a stand-alone project in an area where property prices and development costs justify it. Ask Peter Keating about the difficulty of designing affordable housing.

    In addition, the idea that there is something desirable about having low-income individuals living close by needs some scrutiny.

  • dean

    First, a significant percentage of Pearl District Housing is made available to median and below income households at affordable rates. I can’t verify this but did hear from a high level source that the Pearl has more affordable housing units than any neighborhood in Portland. Second, these rates would be unavailable without the tax abatements. Third, the shaky position of South Waterfront is due to the national downturn in housing, not due to local issues. Fourth, I don’t know the circumstances but I can imagine a develoepr could apply for a tax abatement after the fact of construction if he or she is exchanging below market rates on the units already built for the subsidy. Fifth, the jobs the Pearl project has created include a whole lot of high paid union construction.

    I could go on. Bottom line is Larry’s is arguing with success. Would he prefer a hollowed out city like Detroit or Buffalo?

    • Crawdude

      Incorrect Dean, the recent audit showed that while they claimed that ” Affordable Housing” was in the various complexes, the fact was that none of the units were ever sold to those who qualified.

      The city can claim affordble housing because the tenents claim they qualify but can’t produce the proof as required. Instead of stopping this, the city turns a blind eye.

      They claim and the reason you can’t prove it is because there is no proof.

      This years audut showed 8.5 million stolen by tenants and not regulated by inept goverment officials. Lat year a PDC audit showed that 14.6% of the low income claimants were lying.

      Nothing was done then and nothing will be done now. Smoke a mirrors, take away the Urban Renewal money and the rest of the cities tax money that props the Pearl up and it crumbles. It is artificially inflated, one reason why no one can sell their condos. down there anymore.

      • dean

        CD…its hard to sell any residential real estate anywhere these days. THe Pearl is no exception, though Portland as a whole has held up way better than most of teh country.

        Absence of proof does not mean absence of subsidized housing. It may only mean absence of a paper trail. I’m not jumping to conclusions on this either way.

  • Bob Clark

    I wish there was a support group for the few Portlanders who feel threatened by Portland cityhall’s escalating debt obligations, as highlighted by Jack Bog’s Blog, and its penchant for devising new tax schemes cloaked in social justice such as its newly proposed plastic bag tax. I can’t believe I am the only one feeling harassed by PDX cityhall. If it were up to me, I would shutdown cityhall and leave city government to a police and fire chief, a water bureau chief, and a court of grievances.

  • Tim Lyman

    Larry –

    Four of the Five principals of Shiels Obletz Johnsen (aka Sockeye Developement), one of the largest developers in the City of Portland, are former employees of the City of Portland.

    Shiels Obletz Johnsen has made an enourmous fortune off of Portland’s biggest boondoggles – light rail, the streetcar and urban redevelopment – and routinely receives tax and financing breaks truly private developers could never even dream of. Portland establishes a redevelopment zone, uses eminent domain to condemn the property and steal it from the current owners at below market rates, and SOJ builds nice, new, high end mixed use projects and rakes in the cash.

  • rw

    I suggest all the reasonable people of Portland cash out and leave. The best things that could happen to Portland is for it to go bellyup just like Detroit, another liberal utopian paradise.

  • typical

    Typical. Rather than try and bring liberals and democrats together, Lary is playing the same old political game of W, trash the liberals, blame them for everything, spread political hatred, create an even bigger divide.

    There are so many things the Conservatives have done that seem just as crazy, stupid, and against common sense that I could create a matching list. I’d rather spend my time trying to work with conservatives for real solutions, rather than doing what Larry does, which is really nothing other than cry and complain.

    Larry represents politics as usual, ala George Bush. Not worth my time.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Um, if you took the time to comment on it, then havnt you just demonstrated it is worth your time?

    • Anonymous

      “trash the liberals, blame them for everything”

      Blame where blame is due. Modern liberalism is a philosophy whose sheer stupidity is exceeded only by it’s arrogance.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Have you ever noticed that it is real hard to find an affordable housing project that wasn’t on some level involved in either corruption or subsidization at its inception or squalor and crime at its demise?

    Do you think maybe the cure for this is real simple?

    Step One – Explain to people that building a house is a job. It is directly or indirectly the job of 20% or so of the work force in the US.

    Step Two – Explain that a job is generally distinct from charitable work, and it is a little unreasonable to expect someone to suddenly start doing this job, building houses or providing materials for them, on a charitable basis.

    Step Three – Invite those who still don’t get it to come with you and hang drywall, pour cement, frame a house. Tell them they can have the nickname Jimmy Carter, or Hoss, or Red if it would make them feel better, or more butch.

    Step Four – Ask them if it feels like work? If it does, ask them if it is the sort of work they feel like doing for free, or reduced rate, just so some guy who works at the 7-11 doesn’t have to pay as much rent or as high a mortgage payment.

    Step Five – If the answer is yes, put him and others who answered yes to work building houses and work the crap out of them. Affordable housing issue solved. If the answer is no, then tell him to stop going on about why builders should build affordable housing.

    • dean

      Rupert, I don’t know anyone who is asking builders to build affordable housing by donating their time, except in the case of non-profits like Habitat for Humanity (thank you Jimmy Carter). The Portland tax subsidies provided for builders is to compensate them for offering a below market price. So your steps 1-5 seem a bit misdirected. Your argument is with Portland’s government, but since you don’t live or pay taxes there why bother?

      By the way, there have been organized self-help home building projects around since the depression years. They are mostly in rural areas, but a few are in urban areas, and they tend to have long waiting lists. They don’t save a lot of money in part because of the much longer time frame needed to get a house built that way, and the time cost of money. But they do give people a sense of pride and ownership beyond their monthly payment.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Again you have shown you don’t have a lot of experience in the building industry. Sure, if you compensate a builder with tax incentives to make up for lost money, you aren’t asking him to donate his time, assuming there is parity there.

        “Your argument is with Portland’s government, but since you don’t live or pay taxes there why bother?

        LTR

        I was speaking generally about subsidized or affordable housing at government direction, not specifically about the Pearl district. That was clear from my post, but since you don’t read before commenting you obviously missed it.

        At any rate, I am coming at this problem from a more educated perspective than you. I have been a landlord in NYC. A contractor in NYC. A contractor in Oregon. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that quite often the powers that be will insist on a building affordable housing on a piece of land. Obviously that is asking the builder to donate his time, since it should be the builder, not a permitting board that determines what would net him the greatest amount of money from a particular project. If you take that equation out, you are effectively asking him to donate his time by denying him the full profit he could realize on his own. This is quite common, and I myself have been the subject of it many times, both in this state, the last time being for a development in Corvallis, and NY. Corvallis was particularly outrageous because they had seized land for non payment of taxes. They then decided to auction it off. They insisted the land be used for affordable housing. I asked them if they would take less for the land. Considering that they effectively got it for nothing and were trying to maximize their profit through the auction process it seemed a little outrageous to then try and minimize the profit of others. Nope, they wouldn’t consider it. I asked if instead of charging permit fees on a square foot valuation process, they would instead charge permit fees based upon a single unit, if all subsequent units were built exactly the same. No, they wouldn’t consider it. I pointed out what they were doing, maximizing their revenue while seeking to limit mine and didn’t they feel a little ashamed at that. You know for the first time in my life I think I actually saw a building department look pretty sheepish.

        Thank you for the history lesson on self help building projects. I have no idea of the relevance, but I guess, yet again, it showed off your ability to Google a subject. I don’t know the purpose of it, but if it boosts your self esteem or provides you with some entertainment to prattle on, then good for you.

        • dean

          Rupert, I spent years working in the development industry as a planner/designer of projects for developers, and still do some consulting in that area. I also started my own development company to build the type of self help projects that I described, and did not bother to google the subject because at the time I researched it, in the early 1980s, there was no google.

          The original post and the chain of responses were about the Pearl District. OK, you did not mention Pearl District in your post, but forgive me for assuming that is what you were referring to.

          Your Corvallis illustration is interesting. You say they got the property “for nothing,” but if they seized it for lack of tax payment then they in fact got it for back taxes. That is not nothing. As the owner, they had the right to put any conditions on it they wanted when they auctioned it. You as a developer needed to factor those and any other conditions into your bid price (height limits, parking requirements, design standards, fire safety, etc,). I frankly don’t understand where you even get off offering them “less money.” Assuming you and every other other bidder were bidding on the same conditions of sale, why would they knock the price down for you? Were youthe only one subject tot he affordable housing requirement? And why wouldn’t they maximize their gain through auction within the context of the conditions they imposed?

          Maybe the building department “looked sheepish.” Maybe they were just exasperated by your bizzare interpretation of things and you took that as sheepish.

          Question…did another builder buy that property at auction and build the project?

  • Anonymous

    dean,
    You’ve reached a new level of ignorance and misinformation on this topic as you once again pretend to know what you don’t.

    Your mischaracterization of the Pearl and South Waterfront is pure balderdash.
    The misuse of public funds without any accountability has run amoke in the CoP. Your spin in one of many obscuring components to this problem. You can’t even grasp that these and other tax subsidies are not creating or providing what was agreed or promised.
    Hundreds of millions in tax dollars are being diverted without any performance controls and you reduce it to some elementary sermon on self help home building. What a jerk you are.

    South Waterfront is a scandelous explosion of everything wrong with Urban Renewal, public/private schemes and horrible planning.
    You reduce it to a “national downturn in housing, not due to local issues”.
    That is proof positive you are a deliberate, misinforming propagandist. Of the worst ilk. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, don’t know any of the scandals riddled through SoWa and are lying through your political agenda teeth.
    The same as you do on issue after issue.

    • dean

      Yes. What we need here is for you to reach lower into your bag of cowardly anonymous insults, because if I keep going lower then you have to come up with lower descriptors of my lowness. You keep repeating the same old insults, and they lose their effect after a while. Get to work. Research. Take a contemporary insult linguistics course. Use Yiddish if you have to. “All ferschtinkinum” is a good one. Come one. We are counting on you here. Just flopping around in the bottom of your insult boat is pathetic. Try harder putz.

      • Chris McMullen

        Uhhh, Marxist, like you’re not an anonymous coward?

        • dean

          I could be. If I can be a Marxist then I can be anything you want me to be Chris.

    • Anonymous

      Dean blogs here because he’s paid to. No sane person would waste as much time as he does on a blog. If he was just some wingnut blogging all over the place, you’d see his posts on other blogs. You don’t becuase spamming Oregon Catalyst is his job/assignment.

  • Anonymous

    dean,
    Speaking of reaching lower, that was my point with you and your misinformation.
    You may find my recognizing and calling attention to your unethical distribution of false information insulting but that’s just more of your problem.
    I have worked and researched much which enables me to know for certain your lack of integrity and propagandizing ways.
    I find it amazing, but not surprising that you would add South Waterfront to your pretense of understanding. Planning clones like you are forever defending the indefensible monumental failures such as SoWa.
    What makes someone like you utilize blatant lying as an acceptable means to defend and advance an agenda?
    And if anyone is flopping around it is you with your juvenile reaction to being caught repeatedly lying.

    • dean

      I’m going to have to give you a d minus on that. Liar, misinformation, false, propagandizing, planing clone…you’ve used all these before. Come on now. Reach down into that filthy bag of yours. You can do better…or lower as the case may be. I know you have it in you, whoever you happen to be.

      Try *Dreykop.* That digs a lot deeper. I would feel real bad if you called my a *dreykop.* Liar etc….I can just brush off. Been called that already. *Paskudnyak!* Now there is in insult. No one wants to be a paskudnyak. Not even me. Ouch on that one.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)