Our society depends upon the rule of law. We need legal advocates to now step forward to enjoin this potentially scandalous decision. We may also need and want an injunction that freezes all parties in place until this situation is resolved to the public's satisfaction.
I understand why many people feel disappointed. After a unanimous 12–0 City Council vote rejecting the proposal, it was reasonable to believe the project was effectively over. When the City later entered into a mediation agreement, it understandably felt to some like the rules had changed.
At the same time, once PGE appealed to LUBA, the City had to decide whether to continue litigating or attempt to negotiate a resolution. Governments settle land-use disputes every day because litigation carries costs, risks, and uncertainty. Choosing mediation does not necessarily mean the City concluded PGE was right.
The agreement also did not approve the project. PGE must still submit a revised application that will go through public hearings, and any approval can be appealed to the City Council, then to LUBA, and potentially into the courts. Public accountability has not been eliminated—it has simply moved to the next stage of the legal process.
I’m also skeptical that the City Administrator acted alone. Given that the position serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, it would be unusual for an agreement of this magnitude to be signed without the Mayor’s knowledge and approval.
I’m looking forward to the public hearings, especially to see whether PGE provides a more detailed explanation of why it cannot rely more extensively on the existing BPA transmission corridor through Forest Park.
One final observation: Calling the City Administrator a “carpetbagger” strikes me as unnecessary. The agreement should be judged on its merits, not on how long he has lived in Portland. The term also carries historical baggage, making it a questionable choice of words.
Scott, your comments are interesting to me. How can you be certain that you are correct? Has there, in fact, been a transmission of this information to the Oregonian or any other public source? Why would the two city councilman or the mayor not have responded in kind thereby removing any stigma from the City Administrator's seemingly unilaterial decision?
That’s a fair question. I’m not certain, and I don’t think anyone outside City Hall can be. My point is that I don’t find it credible that a City Administrator would enter into a mediation agreement of this magnitude without consulting the City Attorney and the Mayor. That simply doesn’t pass the common-sense test.
It also doesn’t address the fact that, once PGE appealed to LUBA, the City was legally obligated to work through the appeal process. Mediation is a normal part of resolving litigation. Whether the agreement was the right decision is a fair subject for debate, but assuming the City Administrator acted unilaterally seems less plausible than concluding the executive branch made a deliberate decision about how to proceed.
I’m looking forward to the public hearings, and I hope many of these questions are answered.
My response to this is parallel to my response to the U.S. Congress these days. If one person is able to override decisions, even unanimous decisions, then let’s send Congress home and send the Portland City commissioners home. If they have no power to represent us, we shouldn’t be paying them to do so. At least in the old days there were fewer City councillors.
Now, we’re paying 12 salaries, only to have someone else make the decision.😡
Another massive question city officials have yet to answer is the topic of public safety and how the idea of running more transmission lines through the park is a smart idea given the fire danger (related article link below). Without transparency or the involvement of the community and environmental/public safety experts as part of the process at this critical stage, it appears that public interests have been discounted and de-prioritized by city officials in favor of PGE's bottom line.
For anyone who has ever wasted the time to speak at a city council or county commission meeting, like I have multiple times, the most telling statement in this article is, "this agreement threatens to turn public review into a formality".
Our society depends upon the rule of law. We need legal advocates to now step forward to enjoin this potentially scandalous decision. We may also need and want an injunction that freezes all parties in place until this situation is resolved to the public's satisfaction.
This is so Trumpian.
What do you mean?
I understand why many people feel disappointed. After a unanimous 12–0 City Council vote rejecting the proposal, it was reasonable to believe the project was effectively over. When the City later entered into a mediation agreement, it understandably felt to some like the rules had changed.
At the same time, once PGE appealed to LUBA, the City had to decide whether to continue litigating or attempt to negotiate a resolution. Governments settle land-use disputes every day because litigation carries costs, risks, and uncertainty. Choosing mediation does not necessarily mean the City concluded PGE was right.
The agreement also did not approve the project. PGE must still submit a revised application that will go through public hearings, and any approval can be appealed to the City Council, then to LUBA, and potentially into the courts. Public accountability has not been eliminated—it has simply moved to the next stage of the legal process.
I’m also skeptical that the City Administrator acted alone. Given that the position serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, it would be unusual for an agreement of this magnitude to be signed without the Mayor’s knowledge and approval.
I’m looking forward to the public hearings, especially to see whether PGE provides a more detailed explanation of why it cannot rely more extensively on the existing BPA transmission corridor through Forest Park.
One final observation: Calling the City Administrator a “carpetbagger” strikes me as unnecessary. The agreement should be judged on its merits, not on how long he has lived in Portland. The term also carries historical baggage, making it a questionable choice of words.
Scott, your comments are interesting to me. How can you be certain that you are correct? Has there, in fact, been a transmission of this information to the Oregonian or any other public source? Why would the two city councilman or the mayor not have responded in kind thereby removing any stigma from the City Administrator's seemingly unilaterial decision?
I hope you are correct.
That’s a fair question. I’m not certain, and I don’t think anyone outside City Hall can be. My point is that I don’t find it credible that a City Administrator would enter into a mediation agreement of this magnitude without consulting the City Attorney and the Mayor. That simply doesn’t pass the common-sense test.
It also doesn’t address the fact that, once PGE appealed to LUBA, the City was legally obligated to work through the appeal process. Mediation is a normal part of resolving litigation. Whether the agreement was the right decision is a fair subject for debate, but assuming the City Administrator acted unilaterally seems less plausible than concluding the executive branch made a deliberate decision about how to proceed.
I’m looking forward to the public hearings, and I hope many of these questions are answered.
My response to this is parallel to my response to the U.S. Congress these days. If one person is able to override decisions, even unanimous decisions, then let’s send Congress home and send the Portland City commissioners home. If they have no power to represent us, we shouldn’t be paying them to do so. At least in the old days there were fewer City councillors.
Now, we’re paying 12 salaries, only to have someone else make the decision.😡
Another massive question city officials have yet to answer is the topic of public safety and how the idea of running more transmission lines through the park is a smart idea given the fire danger (related article link below). Without transparency or the involvement of the community and environmental/public safety experts as part of the process at this critical stage, it appears that public interests have been discounted and de-prioritized by city officials in favor of PGE's bottom line.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/portland-wildfire-local-expert-analyzed-220931125.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKIGyxxg4vQpYDgjOST4poSqm_Hrtul5fV6lBgVjmQrM_R2qL3T0If3P5J-UyVZUsXLzOqW9ASWZQ8Zy1UxAWsJ4-f4LkQWCerSNQl7nrjzeePEyAB9UFpYGRgfGdJ4X_35BNFo43dkmx1GnyM_P2YjouwGB3B0ySo5KTKb9dPMe
For anyone who has ever wasted the time to speak at a city council or county commission meeting, like I have multiple times, the most telling statement in this article is, "this agreement threatens to turn public review into a formality".
Wise up folks. It already is.