NO RETROFIT MANDATE HAS PASSED!
Full retrofits outweigh most building values. The risk of any mandate passing will put most of us underwater and complicate financing and sales.
A mandate will take your in-code building and put it out-of-code for the duration of the time until the building is retrofitted or demolished.
NEW COMMITTEE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST / RECRUITING
We take no pleasure in reporting the staggering conflicts of interest of the proposed committee and the recruiting tactics that City Staff used while denying that they recruited. We have documented proof.
While we expect our city officials and public servants to be fair and transparent, our city continues to disappoint.
Building owner attorney(s) discussed in a meeting held yesterday afternoon, the conflicts of interest of some committee members, their financial gain by passing the retrofit mandate agenda and what recourse building owners have.
COMMITTEE UPDATE
The new committee remains:
Stacked with engineers and contractors.
Filled with past city employees, city contractors, a board member, many retrofit proponents and other city affiliates.
Owners are underrepresented:
16% building owner representation.
8% church representation.
The City refuses to:
Disclose the names of who chose the committee.
Disclose which committee members that were recruited.
The conflicts of interest by companies who've made money from city contracts, past employees, past and current board or advisory members is astounding.
THE JUDGE'S ORDER TO THE CITY
U.S. District Court
District of Oregon
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 4/3/2019 at 4:14 PM PDT and filed on 4/3/2019.
Case Name: Masonry Building Owners of Oregon et al v. Wheeler et al:
Link: Judge Acosta Order
Docket Text:
MINUTES of Proceedings for Telephone Status Conference before Judge Acosta: Hearing held on 4/3/2019. The court finds the City's letter and notices to URM building owners violates the court's temporary injunction (ECF No. [34]). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the City shall prepare and send a correction letter, the content of which shall be consistent with the court's directive stated at the hearing, to all recipients of the March 21, 2019 letter, or other similar letters or communications to URM building owners. Counsel for the parties shall confer on the appropriate language for the correction letter, and submit it to the court for Judge Acosta's approval prior to its distribution. It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall confer on the language of any future communications with URM building owners concerning the ordinance that is the subject of the Temporary Injunction (ECF No. [34]) or this action. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall confer on the need for and language of a script to be given to City employees receiving phone calls regarding the status of the Ordinance or compliance with said Ordinance. Additionally, the language of the correction letter shall serve as the basis for the approved script and shall be posted in the banner on the City's website concerning URM buildings.The court will hold the City in contempt for any future violations of the court's Temporary Injunction.Christopher J.K. Swift and Aaron K. Stuckey present as counsel for plaintiffs. Karen Locha Moynahan and Tony N. Garcia present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta presiding. (Attachments: # (1) Plaintiffs' Exhibits, (2) Defendants' Exhibit) (gw)
LETTERS SENT BY ATTORNEYS
To City Attorneys:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/7d9a271d5390786208a9dc0e5/files/d24a0f76-8baf-4375-9ec0-cb09f838b930/LT_Vannier_and_Moynahan_3_27_19.01.pdf
To Judge Acosta:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/7d9a271d5390786208a9dc0e5/files/a7dfc089-5aec-445d-9160-894eb9dc5633/LT_Judge_Acosta_from_MBOO_4_2_19.01.pdf
The Proposed Mandate:
On June 13th, City Council voted to delay the vote and form two committees to further study the feasibility of the mandate through funding. These committees will be formed in early fall 2018. We’ll publish the link on our home page when the city posts it’s application link.
The two committees are divided into for profit and non profit buildings. The city lacks the clear view of nonprofits as many non profits do not own their buildings, but rather, rely on for profit building owners.
Save Portland Buildings supports one committee. No one group has a seat at the table unless there is one table. This is one of many divisive decisions made by the Mayor’s office that will undoubtedly leave one group behind.
What is the difference between for profit and nonprofit?
When considering the feasibility, financing, insurance and retrofit costs - NOTHING.
When considering the ability to finance up front costs - NOTHING.
When considering a tax-abatement that defunds schools - NOTHING.
When considering a tax-abatement that defunds social programs - NOTHING.
The Mandate History
In 2016, the City of Portland published a list of what they determined were URM’s (unreinforced masonry buildings) by using google maps, past permits, and “drive by” inspections by PSU students. By the City’s own admission, the resulting list is highly inaccurate.
Three committees over nearly 4 years were formed by ex-commissioner, Steve Novick and composed of city staff, engineers, architects, developers, large building owner organizations, Portland Public Schools and one church representative.
Missing from this process were small individual and “Mom and Pop” building owners, owner-operator businesses, small business tenants, residential tenants, churches, artist studio tenants, music venues,condo owners and owners and tenants of color. The disenfranchised have had NO voice.
Why?
Building owners and observers have been trying to answer that question. In a city full of small main street buildings that identify the diverse neighborhood centers, we continually scratch our heads trying to figure out why just these buildings and why now?
Why with 93% of the buildings being 1-3 story, small in stature and low-occupancy, would the city focus on these buildings when the City of Portland owns dozens of buildings, including these:
30+ Apartment Buildings
Keller Auditorium
The Firehouse Theater
The Children’s Museum
Interstate Cultural Center
Pittock Mansion
Union Station
Picnic Shelters
Mt. Scott Community Center
Dishman Community Center
Multnomah Arts Center
With cranes on every corner and a construction boom, the timing of this mandate threat on main streets is interesting. Why not the over 100,000 homes that PBEM identified as needing retrofits? Why not the high rises built along the river and in the liquefaction zones? Why not the gas lines, fuel tanks, bridges and over passes? Why not the “other risky buildings” deleted form the final report to:
Purposely PUSH an agenda for a YES vote for just URMs? Why?
What about schools?
We fully support prioritizing Schools and Critical Buildings. Today, only 4% of Portland Public Schools are fully retrofitted.
On Nov. 8, 2017, a Portland Public Schools representative warned the City that mandating private buildings will work against goals to retrofit schools by making it more difficult and costly.
The State of Oregon voted against $337 million in retrofits for the State Capitol in order to prioritize Oregon's Schools.
In contrast, the City of Portland is proposing a tax abatement (SB-311) for private building owners. That abatement would take revenue from Portland Schools and the State School Fund at a time when school funds are depleted. We believe public funds should be prioritized to update and fund the schools.
Ken Rust, Chief Financial Officer, Portland, Oregon email 11/9/17:
"If SB 311 is enacted, public schools would experience property tax revenue loss."
PORTLAND MUST DO BETTER!