To: Thomas Lannom
via email attachment to: thomas.lannom@portlandoregon.gov
From: J-P Voillequé, jvoilleque@gmail.com
January 26, 2012
Mr. Lannom -
I am writing to provide feedback on the report you intend to provide to the City Council on the Downtown Business District in February (PDF). As a condo resident within the current dimensions of the BID, I am extremely disappointed by the contents of that report.
As expected, the report on the focus groups held by Gallatin was severely truncated and over-simplified. This “community involvement” exercise was clearly a formality. Several residents of the Portland Plaza, Fountain Plaza, Old Town Lofts, the Harrison, and other condominiums within the current boundaries provided substantial and articulate critiques of the current fee formula, the service provided by Clean and Safe, and the need for change not just in the way that the fee is assessed but in the service model of the entire program. Many residents in our building stated that Clean and Safe had zero impact on the quality of life of the building. More than one resident reported having interactions with Clean and Safe that were negative. The most obvious example was calling the police to halt a graffiti remediation that was occurring after hours on a weekday, directly and noisily across from our building. While I understand that your job was to review the fee formula and proposed expansion, I do not think that the above was adequately “summarized” into point 2 under “Fee Formula Themes.”
It is apparent that some of the service model discussion was taken into account in points 3 and 4 of the “Expansion Themes:”
3. Many people said they already pay for police and cleaning services through their property taxes and home owner’s association (HOA) fees used for privately contracted services. They should not have to pay a “third time” through a District assessment.
4. Many people said the very name of the City Code – “Downtown Business District” – points to the true intent and beneficiaries of District services. Many said the Code language no longer reflects the true makeup of the District.
This is a misrepresentation of a key part of our complaint. It is not that we have our own cleaning and security. (Well, it is not only that.) Nor is it that the name of the program is not an accurate representation of the district itself. The point is that this is a program designed to support business – particularly small business – in the downtown core. The services, the processes, and the vast majority of Clean and Safe’s time are all devoted to the creation of an attractive and secure shopping environment. As residents, we understand that this provides value to us, and we appreciate it. On balance, it is my opinion that a majority of our residents would be willing to fund such a program. However, “having a nice neighborhood” does not square with the fee that we are paying, nor does Clean and Safe make any provision for residential services that do not happen to conform with the current model of supporting retail establishments, restaurants and hotels.
Mr. Lannom, I know you attended all of these focus groups. I know that you took your own notes. Having heard stories about two of the focus groups, and attending the third myself, I would not place Gallatin in charge of a vote on the cutest Teletubby, let alone a policy recommendation of this magnitude. Their findings ignore the complexity of the situation in favor of bullet points, and they actively misstate the feedback that was provided.
All of this is by way of reaching my actual point, which regards your first “housekeeping” suggestion:
Change the name of the Downtown Business District to the Clean and Safe District throughout the code and identify the district as an “enhanced services district” instead of a business district.
If I were a third party to the conversation, I would agree that this makes sense. As a resident, however, this carries the distinct aroma of whitewash. The Council can name it the “Fund for Homeless Ponies and Other Totally Awesome Stuff that is not at all Unfair to Condo Residents.” The objections above will remain 100% true. Again, I understand that this is outside the scope of the Council’s request to the Revenue Board, and you can take this paragraph as aiming at the broader policy and not your objectively excellent recommendation that the code be consistent, clear, and descriptive. I merely point out that the marketing value of “Clean and Safe District” is substantially diminished by the reality for homeowners.
Finally, regarding your proposed alterations to the fee formula, we are one of the highest-paying condominiums in the current district. As I’m sure you are tired of hearing, some condos (ours included) pay more than Macy’s and Nordstrom. I’ll grant that changing the fee formula to “square foot only” may be “regressive” as it applies to condos. I defy you to characterize any calculation that charges residents more than the biggest retailers in downtown for a program that caters to downtown retailers as “progressive.” In addition, our building has lived through a number of foreclosures in the past year. We have lost neighbors, friends, and Board members to the mortgage crisis. We have assessed our residents over $2,000,000.00 in the past three years for a new roof and curtain wall for the building. I think “ability to pay” is probably different now than it was then.
Humbly yours,
/s/ J-P Voillequé
Chair, Portland Plaza Unit Owners Association Board of Directors