Sure, public money for parking! Why not?
The Portland city hall folks think all the taxpayers are an easy touch.
Until you,the taxpayer, start paying attention and stop the relentless use of YOUR money for private enterprises this kind of nonense will continue.

isn't this making Portland more car friendly? Isn't that what all the anti-transit people want?

Can't please anybody.

I'm not anti-transit, just anti-toy. Buses are good. Light rail to the 'burbs is good. Bikes are good, but you have to be a little crazy.

And parking is not bad per se. I just don't want to pay for some another rich guy's retirement out of hard-earned property tax dollars. Maybe we should do some "urban renewal" on our crumbling infrastructure instead.

Fair enough, Jack.

Living on the edge just by posting here,
TJ

"Maybe we should do some "urban renewal" on our crumbling infrastructure instead."

I agree. Sam Adams talked last night about raising taxes in various ways to repair that crumbling infrastructure. Seems like some of the money is already there, and being foolishly spent on questionable projects like this parking garage.

"The PDC would own the garage and the spots would be open to the public"

that mitigates the issue, but i think there is a public consensus at this point that the pearl needs no further development subsidies. looks like this deal will be near 10 years old by the time they finish building. thats getting pretty silly.

and we can hope that in the future, the PDC will structure the deal with a sunset clause.... but ... not holding my breath.

I have driven downtown quite often in the last 12 years (I work there) and what amazes me is the parking garages that sit nearly empty all the time. The one by Old Town Chinatown max stop rarely has more than 2 floors with cars...and even the smart park right across from Pioneer Place is only 3/4 full...same with the one further down 4th by Koin. I also noticed last week during a trip to the Pearl that the big garage right off of the Broadway Bridge was nearly empty as well. While this is a good sign that maybe people are using more transit, it's disgusting that these codgers are fleecing the city.

I believe the actual cost is said to be $15 million, but they've only identified the source for $8.5M of it. But that means the real cost is somewhere north of $15M. Since the urban renewal TIF money must stay in the district, why not a Jack B contest to come up with better ways to spend $15M+ in the River district/Pearl district? How about a waterfront park? Maybe a new union hall? Something better than a parking garage one would think?

Since the urban renewal TIF money must stay in the district,

That would be a big part of the problem right there -- but I'm not sure it's entirely true. Nearly 20 cents of every dollar I pay to the city in property taxes goes to "urban renewal" -- and I don't live in any urban renewal district.

"Our plan is to develop a truly great building, a legacy piece," Winkler said.

ah. another masturbatory monument to someone's..."legacy".

whose legacy, i wonder, would public funds be creating? and, who needs a parking garage to ensure it?

i am bone tired of wealthy egomaniacs trying to weasel public funds for "legacies", "monuments" and "icons".

Chris Smith is scratching his head wondering why we need this parking structure next to a mostly empty Smart Park.

we need to first get rid of the city's "unproductive" and utterly useless mayor Potter. The road repairs funding priorities will quickly follow.

Now that's funny. None of the other four members of the Council would do anything differently. They're all part of the priorities problem.

I think our mayor is doing a wondeful job: he makes all his progressive bobo and greedy rich friends happy...

as to the rest of people on th eastside: get rich and move to pearl and south waterfront....

you have the chance, this is a free country....

Deal? What deal?

Find the word "stakeholder" in this opinion (9 Or 418, Willis v. Hoover) involving a public policy objection to gambling on an election. The reasoning does seem portable to a wager on what the City Council might do in the future, graft or no graft for X Y or Z. A party can back out before the "event" and demand their money back (or their promise).

But after the event:

"But when the money has been once paid over to the winner, unless where made recoverable by statute, the parties being clearly in pari delicto, no action can be maintained to recover it back."

As far as I am concerned no stakeholder can compel a city council (present or future, or the voters in a charter/initiative election) to not enact a clean slate ordinance (or package of ordinances) to reassert an Oregon Constitution-backed demand for uniformity of taxation, notwithstanding any of the myriad of special taxing districts or supposed dedication of future revenue to cover past graft.

I have driven downtown quite often in the last 12 years (I work there) and what amazes me is the parking garages that sit nearly empty all the time.

Really? Interesting...because the ones at the south end of downtown, where I work, are usually full by 9am. And they cost $175/mo to boot. And there is a garage in the basement of my building that fills up too, but its owned by the building.

Now, as for the city giving public dollars to build a parking garage...doesnt he city actually own several parking garages downtown?

"I have driven downtown quite often in the last 12 years (I work there) and what amazes me is the parking garages that sit nearly empty all the time."

"Really? Interesting...because the ones at the south end of downtown, where I work, are usually full by 9am."

Um...I was under the impression that that's what that streetcar was for. Are you saying that nobody in the Pearl uses it and it's just there for decoration?

Maybe Winkler could fund a moving sidewalk (covered of course) to transport those busy tenants the two blocks to the Smart Park Garage. He could call it the Scrap Metal Speedway.

One name comes to mind that will most likley profit from this, Goodman.