BY PAUL NICHOLSON
A Matter of Principle
Why I’m voting no on 20-134
T
he controversy swirling around the Eugene
development department’s downtown
urban renewal district scheme has cen-
tered on two issues: 1) the appropriateness of
spending tens of millions on an approach that
differs little from the strategy that has dam-
aged downtown Eugene so profoundly during
the 40 years of the downtown urban renewal dis-
trict’s existence; and 2) a public process that ig-
nores all of the big issues but is, nevertheless, tooth-
less with respect to the small issues. The ethical and
aesthetic issues, however, are still larger.
Don’t be so distracted by the hard sell that you don’t notice who really benefits
and what’s in it for us, the ordinary citizens: higher rents, higher taxes, more bland
chain box stores, more empty parking structures and less of what makes Eugene
interesting, unique and authentic.
Urban renewal diverts money from every ordinary public service. Have we
reached the point where providing downtown shopping is a higher public purpose
than education, street maintenance, affordable housing and social services? For
example, nothing in this process guarantees that the housing we subsidize will be
affordable housing. Should Eugene taxpayers promote above-market housing to
attract the richer, more desirable new residents that developers prefer to the cur-
rent citizenry?
What kind of partnership is it when the public is required to “invest” $40 mil-
lion or more in the project and does not share in profits, but must guarantee the
developers a 13 percent return?. Clearly, our city manager form of government has
given us a bureaucracy that is unaccountable. We paid 46 percent of project costs
of the very disappointing Broadway Plaza. Did we get our money’s worth?
Apparently the lesson the development bureaucracy learned is to do it again at
four times the scale.
Should we poke our local merchants in the eye with a sharp stick by privileging
corporate box stores? Study after study has shown that national chains produce
fewer and poorer jobs than the jobs they destroy by undermining local businesses.
Are we going to have two classes of citizenship for businesses — with our local
merchants, who have been here for years paying taxes, the only passengers going
economy class?
Are there bigger issues than shopping? Shame on us if we endorse the city’s
plan to misuse CDBG Brownfield grants. Brownfield grants are meant to remedy
“real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be compli-
cated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance or pollu-
tant.” Redirecting this money to subsidize downtown shopping is an absurd abuse
of this program that ought to be dedicated to addressing the real pollution prob-
lems in the Trainsong neighborhood.
O
ur downtown bureaucrats have destroyed the historic center of Eugene.
Now, after squandering $100 million obliterating most of our architec-
tural heritage, the city should not spend another $50 million or more to
tear down the few remaining historic buildings and to replace our 1960s architec-
ture with equally undistinguished multi-use architecture. West Eugene historic
neighborhoods will be their next target.
The developers figure that 1) after five years, we will always have forgotten the
last fiasco, and 2) if they throw enough dust in the air we will believe that we will
get something new and interesting for free. You can put lipstick on that pig, but it
is still a pig.
In truth, we will not get the downtown paradise that we are being promised but
just another boring cookie cutter commercial development, half- full of second tier
box stores, paid for with our taxes. We can have a plan, we can do it better and we
can do it in a more principled and ethical manner.
Paul Nicholson is a Eugene business owner and former city councilor.
4 NOVEMBER 1, 2007
TO THE EDITOR
TWO-FOR-ONE DEAL
As the city considers subsidizing develop-
ment downtown, it might be wise to consider
those who are already subsidizing the quality
of life in this city: the underpaid employees of
the nonprofit organizations that look after the
emotionally ill, the developmentally delayed,
the abused or neglected children, the homeless
and others struggling on the fringes of our
economy. These nonprofits have benefited
over the years from a ready source of well-ed-
ucated and committed young college gradu-
ates who could afford to work for low wages
and wished to stay in a city they loved.
The high rents and increased burden of col-
lege loan payments are shrinking this pool of
talent, and often workers move on quickly,
which means the agencies experience high
turnover instead of experienced employees.
Additionally, as more and more retirees settle
here, the need for lower paid hospital and
nursing home staff will increase.
It would be to our city’s advantage to pro-
vide low-income housing downtown for this
largely younger workforce. They are the peo-
ple who will patronize the kind of businesses
we say we want downtown. We could have a
two-for-one deal: higher quality caregiving
and patrons for restaurants and nightlife.
August Sabini
Eugene
IT WON’T HURT SCHOOLS
By using a statewide figure to make a
point about the relationship between educa-
tion and urban renewal, your cover story on
Measure 20-134 may have given your readers
a mistaken impression. I am writing to correct
that.
You state that the urban renewal district
will divert $28 million from school funding
statewide. However, the local number is far
smaller: $17,000 this year under the district
now in effect. While that number may grow as
investment in the urban renewal district
grows, we must also take into account that the
urban renewal district will employ more peo-
ple, generating new income taxes that are the
principal source of education funding today.
In fact, the urban renewal district may ac-
tually help generate more funding for schools
in cases like Eugene where voters have ap-
proved local property tax levies. That’s be-
cause taxes generated in urban renewal dis-
tricts don’t apply toward the constitutionally
imposed limit on property tax funding for edu-
cation.
I’m a passionate advocate for schools, vol-
unteering countless hours along with my col-
leagues to our educational mission, and yet I
can’t tell voters that all tax dollars should flow
to schools. We also need a vibrant downtown,
quality health care, affordable housing, good
streets, mass transit and parks — all necessary
for a livable community.
We are so fortunate to have a community
that values its schools, but that doesn’t need to
come at the expense of other important values.
Schools are part of the fabric of a community.
Right now our community fabric is torn in the
center. What better way to fix it than to use
taxes generated by investment in the district it-
self — investment that likely would not have
happened if the district didn’t exist?
Individually, members of the Eugene
School District board have endorsed Measure
20-134, because we think it’s the right thing
for our community. Mayor Kitty Piercy was a
devoted educator herself. She has also en-
dorsed Measure 20-134. I trust your readers to
understand that if Measure 20-134 hurt
schools, none of us would support it. Yet we
do.
Beth Gerot
Vice Chair, Eugene School Board
DEAL-KILLERS
A 13 percent profit guarantee? Portland de-
velopers are demanding that the city of
Eugene pay exorbitant prices for downtown
property and then resell it to them for pennies
on the dollar to guarantee their standard 13
percent profit. Absurd. Every businessperson
reading this should march down to City Hall
and demand a 13 percent profit for fiscal 2007.
If they refuse to sign you up for the giveaway,
then refuse to give them their play money.
Another Measure 20-134 deal-killer is that
$10 million of the $40 million will be spent on
administrative expenses: salaries, benefits,