Major Tom Lies To You Again
In his interview on Charter revision published in today’s Theo (although the link goes to the non-expiring blog version), Major Tom gets it wrong again. Whether by intent or ignorance is an issue I’ll drop for the moment. But the issue is the sale of City property no longer needed for public use. And he’s snowing you on this one, too.
This issue is a little convoluted, because there are actually a couple of related and intertwined issues that nonetheless have some distinct features of their own. But let’s begin by just presenting what it is that Major Tom says on it all.
I have heard, I have seen Jewel Lansing’s statement, Chris Smith’s statement, the Voters’ Pamphlet opposition statement written by Mark Wiener (a political strategist working for the anti-change campaign) that said that basically the mayor can sell the parks without the approval of the City Council. We’ve sent out information. The city attorney has written clarification on the issue. Article One, powers, rights and liabilities in Section 1-105: The city of Portland may not divest itself of title it has in - and it has many, many areas, wharves and all property, and streets and in any park - except as set forth in this chapter. A couple of paragraphs down in the same chapter, it says no dedication by the city of any park, playground or public place shall be terminated unless the council finds that such dedicated area is no longer needed. That’s very specific.
The distinction on that one isn’t it that the council as a whole is required to declare something as surplus property but once that is declared … ?
Well, actually it doesn’t use surplus. It’s public use. That public use criteria is no in the current charter. It’s surplus property. You don’t have to demonstrate that it’s no longer public use. That’s a bar as opposed to saying surplus. What the hell does that mean? What it’s saying under the new proposed charter is that it’s no longer of public use or for a different public use that you then can have it sold? But the council is the one that determines that. And it actually has a bar now about public that before was considered surplus. It no longer has surplus in there. But once the public use is met …
Isn’t it the mayor’s protocol to determine who to sell it to?
Are you talking about once the council has approved it?
Yes, once the council has approved the idea that it would be for sale.
Correct. And the city attorney in her report, in fact I’ll show you what she said because it’s pretty clear what we thought about that. She said: “I believe there would be room for the council to act legislatively to set requirements for the determination of when property is not needed for public use. Once that determination is made, the mayor would have the authority to determine the method and terms of the sale.” But there’s another section in here, too. “I believe it would be a reasonable interpretation of the charter to say that the council could set criteria or standards for what property could be sold, including requiring that the council determine whether property is surplus. The general rule is that municipal powers that are not otherwise delegated rest with the legislative body. So they can make a number of determinations about the park, but then the mayor gets to determine the method and the terms. But the mayor does not determine whether to sell or not. If you go back and look at the statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet, you go back and look at what Jewel Lansing wrote, it’s very clear that what they said in there was erroneous. So their polling indicated this would really go over big with voters if the mayor could dispose of property as he or she pleased. That’s not the case. Those are the kind of things, when I talked about the powers of the council, the powers over the parks really remain the same. It requires four votes for the council to sell park property today. It would require three votes in the future, but it’s still on a majority rule. So there are new powers given to the City Council. One of them very specifically spelled out is to provide oversight to the bureaus of the city. And so they can have hearings on any bureau. The power of the council is actually strengthened.
Let’s get to the parks issues first, since the current Charter indeed says a couple of specific things about parks:
No dedication by the City of any park, playground or public place shall be terminated unless the Council finds that such dedicated area is no longer needed for the dedication purpose, or that another public use has a greater need for such property, or that another location would further the public use. When such dedication is terminated, the property may be leased, sold or exchanged.
Major Tom is right, of course, that this is very specific. Council, under the current Charter, can terminate a park’s existence as a park if it “finds that such dedicated area is no longer needed for the dedication purpose, or that another public use has a greater need for such property, or that another location would further the public use”. If it does find this to be the case, the property can be sold.
On the matter of actually selling City property — be it park property whose dedication has been terminated or any other property — the current Charter says this:
The City may sell, dispose of or exchange any buildings, structures or property, real or personal, which it owns or may acquire not needed for public use, by negotiation, bid, auction or any other method the Council finds appropriate. Favorable vote of at least four-fifths of all members of the Council shall be necessary for any ordinance authorizing such sale, disposal or exchange.
In other words, right now the two steps required to sell a piece of City property (be it park property whose dedication has been terminated or any other property) are: First a simple majority (three votes) needs to declare the property no longer needed for public use; and second a super majority (four votes) needs to actually authorize such a sale.
Under the Curiously-Strong Mayor proposal, however, the only power given to Council is the power to declare property no longer needed for public use (or, in the case of park property, to terminate its dedication if it “finds that such dedicated area is no longer needed for the dedication purpose, or that another public use has a greater need for such property, or that another location would further the public use”).
Once the Council made such a determination, the actual power to both authorize and conduct the sale of such property rests entirely with the Mayor.
Currently, there are two hurdles to selling off a piece of City property: A three-fifths majority voting that the property isn’t needed, and a four-fifths majority voting to sell it. That last bit is important because the premise is that the bar to actually sell City property should be set high.
Under the proposal favored by Major Tom, that bar would drop from requiring the approval of four people to requiring the approval of only one: the mayor.
That’s what the proposed Charter revision says. Plainly.
Now, Major Tom is right in one thing: Anyone suggesting that, under Curiously-Strong Mayor, the mayor could unilaterally divest the City of park land is wrong. Under the proposal, the Council would still have the power to determine what land the City needs and what land it doesn’t necessarily need.
But that still leaves the critical distinction that’s the real issue here, and the one that Major Tom doesn’t address: Under the current system, two processes must happen in public, before Council — and the more significant of the two decisions (the actual sale of property) needs four people to make it hapen.
Under the proposed changes, only one of those processes (the declaring of a piece of property to be, in essence, surplus) happens in public. The other becomes the private domain of the mayor, because he or she alone gets to make the more significant of the two decisions.
Period.
Major Tom quotes from an opinion (pdf) by the City Attorney, in order to convince you that he knows what he’s talking about. But the opinion from which he quotes is almost entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here’s what he quotes from that opinion:
I believe there would be room for the council to act legislatively to set requirements for the determination of when property is not needed for public use. Once that determination is made, the mayor would have the authority to determine the method and terms of the sale.
…
I believe it would be a reasonable interpretation of the charter to say that the council could set criteria or standards for what property could be sold, including requiring that the council determine whether property is surplus.
This is almost entirely irrelevant, because the issue is not, and has never been, who determines what property is surplus/not needed for public use. The current Charter, and the proposal, both give that particular initial — and far more minor — power to Council.
Major Tom is using an opinion by the City Attorney on a particular element of the property sale question that isn’t even at issue in the debate.
The issue isn’t determining what property (park or otherwise) is no longer needed for public use. The issue is who gets to make the far more important decision of when to sell property, who to sell it to, under what terms, and for how much.
Right now, the Council must manage a four-fifths vote “for any ordinance authorizing such sale, disposal or exchange”. Under the Curiously-Strong Mayor proposal, that power rests solely with the mayor.
And it’s an enormous power because there’s a greater chance of making sure that the City isn’t getting taken — or that there isn’t outright corruption — if four Council members have to agree in a public vote than there is if a single mayor can make a deal behind closed doors.
That’s the point.
But because Team Potter doesn’t want you to notice that, Major Tom goes on in this interview to outright lie about it. Right after quoting an entirely-irrelevant statement from the City Attorney — immediately after, in fact, because he wants you to believe that this is what the City Attorney meant — he says something that, in fact, the City Attorney’s opinion does not say.
The lie is in bold.
“So they can make a number of determinations about the park, but then the mayor gets to determine the method and the terms,” he says. “But the mayor does not determine whether to sell or not.”
(In the above, “park” is interchangeable with a more general “property” for the purposes of what’s at issue here.)
Remember what the current Charter says about the actual sale?
The City may sell, dispose of or exchange any buildings, structures or property, real or personal, which it owns or may acquire not needed for public use, by negotiation, bid, auction or any other method the Council finds appropriate. Favorable vote of at least four-fifths of all members of the Council shall be necessary for any ordinance authorizing such sale, disposal or exchange. The City may sell property on contract for such term as the Council finds appropriate, notwithstanding any term limit elsewhere prescribed in the Charter.
And what does Major Tom’s preferred way of doing things say?
The City may sell, dispose of or exchange any buildings, structures or property, real or personal, which it owns or may acquire not needed for public use, by negotiation, bid, auction or any other method the Mayor finds appropriate. The City may sell property on contract for such term as the Mayor finds appropriate, notwithstanding any term limit elsewhere prescribed in the Charter.
Now let’s see, once more, just what it is that Major Tom says in his interview, and says very precisely in a way that’s meant to suggest that he’s just re-phrasing the City Attorney, even though the City Attorney said no such thing.
“So they can make a number of determinations about the park, but then the mayor gets to determine the method and the terms,” he says. “But the mayor does not determine whether to sell or not.”
That’s simply a lie, whether Major Tom is telling it with full intent or just out of a profound ignorance and a total lack of interest in either knowing for himself, or communicating to others, the truth.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I too was disappointed but not surprised that the Oregonian’s reporters would repeat what they know not to be totally true and present it as FACTS. For example, they continue to confuse and convince people that the Tram project was entirely a “city project,” rather than the truth that the city just contributed $8.5 million to the $57 project; that OHSU and private developers assumed the lionshare of the debt.
Reporters Frank Ryan and Anna Griffin both have first-hand knowledge and proof that Tom Potter is a crafty, skilled liar who has used and tricked people his entire career. But to serve their Editorial masters, Frank and Griffin act more as cheerleaders for Potter, than unbiased journalists.
The Oregonian should remember the reasons why their Editorial Board repeated their endorsement of Jim Francesconi 3 times: THAT TOM POTTER HAS NO MORAL OR ETHICAL INTEGRITY AND HE IS A FIRST-CLASS LIAR AND IS NEVER TO BE TRUSTED.