PORTLAND
.
.
School Board drops Newman Plan
OBSERVER
Volume 8 No. 3 Thursday, January 12. 1978
. ..X
a ar. v i o i t u
IKMII
H O ard
VOVBO
IO
adopt the recommendations of Superiif
tendent Robert Blanchard for furthering
school desegregation, following a presen
tation by the Community Coalition for
Schdol Integration.
Herb Cawthorne, Chairman of the
Coalition’s research committee, asked the
Board to: strictly enforce Jefferson High
School attendance boundaries and limit
students attending Benson High School
to those who are genuinely qualified (a
disproportionate number of white stu
dents from the Jefferson area attend
Benson and Monroe); strongly support
the Jefferson magnet programs and
broaden and improve them; and provide a
first rate faculty and curriculum at
Jefferson for the general academic pro
gram.
Dr. Blanchard responded that the long
tradition of allowing students to enroll at
Benson and Monroe High Schools without
regard to residence could not be legally
set aside but recommended that if admis
sion of minorities special programs fall
below fifteen percent, that fifteen per
cent of the vacancies be reserved until
September and that If admission of
minorities is about thirty percent, spaces
will be reserved until September for
white students. In July the Board had
10c per copy
Alice Corbett, Dan Mosee, Chairman Don Clark, Mel Gordon
and Dennis Buchanan.
passed a policy designating between
fifteen and thirty percent minority as the
optimal ratio.
ed Jefferson to Wibien and Lincoln,
withdrew his proposal He explained that
all of the district's desogregation efforts -
Dr. Blanchard said to enforce atten early childhood education, absence of
dance regulations would require too middle schools, administrative transfer
program, increased minority attendance
great an expenditure. He recommended
that students whose parents move to a at Benson - are inter related and are
new area be required to change schools ii responsible for the «imall decline of Black
students at Jefferson.
their attendance affects racial balance at
either school. He said the Board has
He warned that there is a continuing
generously funded the magnet programs threat that Jefferson might become “ra
and has taken additional steps to encour
cially isolated” again and that the Board
age students to enroll. He recommended
“m ust con sid er co n stitu tion al con
that the performing arts programs ex straints."
pand to include instrumental and choral
The Coalition, which was organized last
music.
summer in response to community out
He also said the district has worked rage over the Newman Plan, will con
diligently to improve the academic pro tinue the task it set for itself - to analyze
the school idstrict's past and current
gram at Jefferson.
desegregation efforts and the effects on
Jonathan Newman, who had proposed academic achievement and social adjust
the plan to bus students from King and ment on school children and to make
Boise who would otherwise have attend
recommendations to the School Board.
Urban renewal designation shifts tax burden
by Representative W ally Priestley,
School Board Mem ber
There is a “secret property tax” that
the taxpayers are paying that shows
neither on your tax bill nor on your rent
payment.
Here's how it works.
Get your friends and neighbors togeth
er and have your neighborhood declared
an ‘urban renewal area.’ Any fair minded
citizen would think it necessary for the
neighborhood to need a little extra help
to qualify. Not so! Your neighborhood
better be the most valuable property in
town - Portland's downtown core area.
Analysis
T H E D O W N T O W N U R B A N R E N E W A L A R E A - E ve ry Portlander is .levin« M to
110 this year to benefit some of Portland's most valuable ,»ro,>erty. W ithout a veto of
the ,iee;ile, Portland’s C ity Council made the C ity’s central business section an “Urban
Renewal A rea“ . This raised Portland are ;iro;ierty taxes 31c ¡ter thousand dollars of
value. The 12.3 million raised, an amount that will increase quickly in later years, can
only be used to benefit this area.
What happens is this. The City Council
pencils out an area for this beneficial
consideration. Larger campaign dona
tions (legal of course), business relation
ships and friendships can play a part in
the decision making. Better still, funnel
your contributions through a committtee
or perhaps organize a downtown “neigh
borhood association.”
Once your area has been chosen as an
Urban Renewal District, don’t think the
taxes on your property will go down.
That's not the purpose of this plan. This
scheme does two things: 1) Raises every
one’s tax rate; and, 2) Directs the
increased taxes into your neighborhood.
For the purposes of calculating the tax
rate, the Assessor's Office “freezes" the
value of your property and all other
property in the “urban renewal area."
Only the “frozen" value of the property in
the urban renewal neighborhood is in
cluded in calculating the tax rates,
therefore the tax rates of all taxpayers
are made higher than otherwise. Also,
the money raised on the value of your
neighborhood above the “frozen" value
goes to the Portland Development Com
mission to use in your urban renewal
neighborhood.
This year $84 million in property value
in Portland's downtown core area was
above the “frozen” value and not included
for tax rate calculation purposes. This
raised the Portland tax rate about 31c per
thousand dollars of value on all properties
$6 to $10* per year for every home
owner and renter in the city. Everyone
living in tax code areas taxed by Multno
ma County, the Port of Portland, Port
land Community College, Portland Public
School District No. 1, or the Metropolitan
Service District paid higher taxes be
cause of Portland's downtown core area
urban renewal district. Property owners
outside of the City of Portland, the
Portland Public School District, the Port
land Community college district, and the
Metropolitan Service District had smaller
tax rate increases.
This 31c from within Portland and the
money paid in the above taxing districts
raised $2.3 million for the “needy” prop
erty owners of Portland's downtown core
area for neighborhood improvement,
improvement.
Meanwhile, last year the people said
'No' to the Portland school district’s
request for more money - and the school
board shortened the school year by five
days. What was the savings for not
having school those five days? You
guessed it, just about $2.4 million, the
amount taxpayers paid in an urban
renewal subisdy. An additional $4.5 mil
lion was also cut from other Portland
school expenditures, making a total
school budget cut in 1977-1978 due to levy
failure of $6.9 million.
The School Board, having specifically
endorsed this taxing scheme at the
request of Mayor Goldschmidt, joins the
Mayor in what amounts to giving up five
days of school to subsidize downtown
property.
Urban renewal financing using this
method has other strange and unintended
effects - at least not known or intended
by most voters. Let’s say the Portland
tax levy which will collect 54c per
thousand dollars of value for city parks
that is now being promoted is put on the
ballot in May and passed. Without so
much as a wink or a thank you this will
cause an additional $45,360 to flow into
the Portland Development Commission's
special fund to increase public expendi
tures in Portland’s “depressed” core area,
whether they need it or not.
Although 31c per thousand dollars of
property value, or from $6 to $10 per year
in taxes on a $30,000 home, seems like a
small amount of money, the taxpayers
have consistently turned down tax levies
that would have cost less. If the “urban
renewal district" were not used to finance
downtown improvements at the expense
of other taxpayers, would some of these
important levies have succeeded?
This “tax shifting scheme” has been
used twice in Portland, both to benefit
the downtown core area - the “South
Auditorium" area (now discontinued) and
now the “North Auditorium” area, the
remainder of Portland's downtown core.
This area is officially given the mis
leading title, “Downtown Waterfront Ur
ban Renewal Area."
Is it not fair to ask why, if one favors
this tax shifting for its social benefits.
PDC and the City Council have not used
this system to benefit other urban re
newal neighborhoods like Emanuel and
Eliot? Of course to do so would cause core
area property owners to benefit others
besides themselves. Policy makers seem
to be saying that is not socially beneficial.
* These values assume the owned or
rented property is between $18,000 and
$30,000 in value and located in Code Area
01 (substantially the same as the City of
Portland).
N E X T : An economics lesson on urban
renewal financing.
The Floouey Theatre Grow;. - Claude and Henry Melson,
seated, Ben Hardy, Skip
Bracken, and Butch Haynes.
Flooney Theatre Group presents
Langston Hughes program
Flooney’s Theatre Company, recently
formed by Ben Hardy, will make its debut
in February with a production featuring
the works of Langston Hughes.
Hardy, who established the theater
group to provide an outlet for Black and
integrated theatrical material and pro
vide sn opportunity for Black actors, is
well-known in the Portland area.
A
native of Virginia, he arrived in Oregon in
1967 and has attended the University of
Oregon and Portland State University.
He currently heads the disabled Veterans
outreach program for the Oregon State
Employment Service.
Among Hardy's theater experiences
are performances in “The Dutchman";
“Reluctant Dragon"; “Latonia," a play by
Gerald White; and productions at Slab-
town Theater and with the Portland
Shakesperean Company.
Hardy has lectured at PSU on the
poetry of Langston Hughes for the past
three years. He has been assistant editor
of “The Review" magazine and conducted
a program of Black poetry on KBOO
radio.
Included in Flooney Theatre Company
are Nathaniel “Butch" Haynes and Henry
Melson. Both men have appeared in
“Latonia," “Death of Bessie Smith,” “One
Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest," an
“Property." Haynes is a student in Radi
and TV Broadcasting at Portland Con
munity College. Melson is a PSU studec
and housepainter.
The Langston Hughes show. “An Even
ing with Langston Hughes.” will comme
morate the birthday of the poet
February 2nd - with the opening perfor
mance at the Portland Art Museum’:
Swan Auditorium. Subsequent perfor
mances will be held on February 2nd, 9tl
and 16th at Portland State Universit’
and on February 8th and 12th at the Ar
Museum.
The performance will feature a poetr
reading, music and skits based on Hugh
es’ writings. Henry and Claude Melsoi
will portray the Hughes character “Sim
pie.”
Pianist Gerald White will perform ar
original composition dedicated to Hughe:
and will accompany singer Floyd Cruse it
tunes popular in the '50s including “Chi
cago Blues," “St. James Infirmary.’
and That 01 Black Magic." The lecture
on Hughes and his contributions to the
"Harlem Renaissance” will be given by
Ed “Skip" Bracken. A portrait of Hughes
has been prepared for the event by Isaac
Shamsud-din.
H E W asks citizen testimony on sterilization regulations
by Bernard E. Kelly
For some time, the Department of
Health. Education, and Welfare haa been
funding sterilizations for persons eligible
for such operations. HEW is authorized
to fund sterilizations under its Medicare,
Medicaid, and family planning programs,
as well as sterilizations performed in
medical facilities operated by its Public
Health and Indian Health Services.
V Sterilization operations (tubal liga
tions, vasectomies, and, in some rases,
hysterectomies; may not be as rontrover
sial as they once were. But they do differ
from other family planning procedures in
one important respect...they are perms
nent. The person sterilized will never
reproduce again.
The irreversible nature of sterilization
as a family planning method raises the
question of federal responsibility to the
patient when the operation is federally
funded.
Should the decision to be
sterilized be left entirely up to the
patient? Or should the federal govern
ment issue that certain safeguards are
provided the patient, safeguards which
insure that the patient’s decision is based
on complete information and isn’t impul
sive?
HEW, in draft regulations published in
the Federal Register on December 13,
1977, has taken the position that the
federal government should take special
measures to protocl the patient content
plating sterilization. The most essential
aspect of the proposed regulations is the
strengthening of informed consent provi
sions for this surgical procedure. Before
a patient can be sterilized, he or she must
sign a consent form that specifies, in the
patient's primary language, the nature of
the operation and its irreversible conse
quences. The patient must be informed
that there are other birth control me
thods available and that failure to be
sterilized will not exclude him/ her from
any governmental benefits. The doctor
or social worker involved must certify in
writing that the patient has been given
the required information. Then, as an
added protection to the patient, there is a
mandatory waiting period of 30 days
between signing the consent form and the
operation.
Because of the extreme delicacy and
complexity of the questions and issues
involved in this matter, HEW is asking
for extensive response, comment, and de
bate from all interested segments of the
American population - medical, legal, and
social work professions, public officials,
civil rights organizations, family planning
organizations, women’s groups, religious
groups, organizations concerned with the
mentally retarded, welfare groups, and
all others concerned with this important
issue.
To encourage this open discussion,
public hearings on the new regulations
will be held nationwide, with the first in
Washington, D.C., on January 17, 1978.
Four hearings will be held in Region X.
The locations, dates, and the phone
number for scheduling appearances, are
as follows: Seattle, Washington - Feb
ruary 7, 1978 (442 0432); Boise. Idaho -
February 9, 1978 (384 1271; Anchorage,
Alaska February 9,1978 (277 7507); and
Portland. Oregon - February 15, 1978
(221 3395).
These hearings will be attended by
high ranking HEW officials. Testimony
from the hearings will be considered by
the Department in drafting final regula
tions.
HEW urges participation in this dis
cussion. Those who cannot attend the
hearings can send written comments to:
Dr. David Johnson, HEW, PHS, M/S 811,
1321 Second Avenue, Seattle 9810l'
Copies of the proposed regulations can be
obtained at the law address or by calling
Barney Hantunen, 206 442 0432.
Other important elements of the new
regulations to be considered are these:
(1) they would prohibit sterilizations for
persons under 21; (2) they would provide
special protections for persons in penal
institutions or found to be mentally
incompetent; and (3) they would prohibit
the federal funding of hysterectomies
where the sole purpose of the operation is
sterilization.
This issue, like so many with which
HEW is concerned, requires the open and
informed discussion of as large a number
as possible of the people who will be
affected. A constituency which knows
about, understands, and can support new
sterilization standards is essential to
their effective implementation for the
ultimate benefit of our citizens.