[MarkDaMan]

SOUTH WATERFRONT SKIRMISHING
The barge-building firm plays a cagey game with the area's key players, including filing a Measure 37 claim to protect its interests on the riverfront
Sunday, December 17, 2006
By RANDY GRAGG
The Oregonian

It's hard to find a more striking contrast of old and new than where Southwest Gibbs Street meets the Willamette River.

On Thursday, the press got its first rides on a shiny new aerial tram departing from the end of Gibbs up and down Marquam Hill. Mere steps away, 75 proud workers of Zidell Marine Corp. are finishing the largest barge they've ever built -- 365 feet long, weighing 3,000 tons and with a capacity of 86,000 barrels of oil.

Rumors are flying that it's the last barge Zidell will build, boxed in as it is by condos rising to the south and Oregon Health & Science University's planned academic village to the north.

Au contraire, says company CEO Jay Zidell. He's got a 56,000-barrel barge under way, a contract signed for an 80,000-barrel barge after that and one, maybe two, on a waiting list -- as much as four years of barges in the pipeline.

That said, Zidell appears to be making the first tentative moves toward joining -- or maybe crashing -- the South Waterfront development game. Nov. 27, he dropped the seven lawsuits he filed against the city for what he considered unfair local-improvement-district assessments to build the tram. A few days later, his lawyer, Edward Trompke, filed a Measure 37 claim for $120 million.

The lawsuits, most insiders agree, were windmill jousts. The Measure 37 claim is a potential cluster bomb. If the claim is upheld, the city would either have to pay Zidell or waive regulations enacted since his family bought the land. That's a lot of regulations: According to the claim, the family has owned the land since 1955.

Zidell immediately suspended the claim, stopping the clock on the 180 days the city has to respond. Meanwhile, he hired the Sacramento firm EDAW to begin master-planning his 33 acres of South Waterfront. Even his development consultant, Bob Durgan -- who has long chafed South Waterfront wheeler-dealers with his pushing and shoving for bigger roads and a smaller greenway -- is showing off slides from recent brainstorming trips to Chicago, New York and San Francisco.

"Our family hopes to have a big say in the property's future," Zidell says. "The market will determine what we do."

In many ways, Zidell has little choice but to develop or sell. The company faces a $4.5 million cost to clean up its land, long used to build and scrap ships. The tram and streetcar assessments will cost him more than $2.7 million. Neither fits well into the expense column of a barge business spreadsheet. He's weeks from closing the sale of 35 North Portland riverfront acres to the University of Portland, land he bought only nine years ago as a potential new location for the barge business.

Zidell missed his best moment for the quick-money exit from South Waterfront when developer Homer Williams back in 2001 began connecting the deals for the new district. All the key players -- the city, OHSU and Williams -- wanted land to leverage. Zidell says no one made any offers. Williams says Zidell could have "easily walked away with $15 million."

That window slammed shut in 2004, when another important player, the Schnitzer family, donated 20 acres next door to Zidell to OHSU. That sandwiched him between the university and Williams, both ready for action.

"Jay was cooked," Williams says. "If the majority landowners want a local improvement district, then a local improvement district is what happens."

Insiders chortle at the twist. For most of the last century, the Zidell family blocked valuable river access for the Schnitzer land with a narrow finger of land running north. But the early 20th-century advantage turned into an early 21st-century liability. Zidell is responsible for the environmental cleanup of land that is almost certain to become a greenway and restored habitat, a wonderful amenity for OHSU.

Zidell says he doesn't know whether to feel "anger or envy" about all the deal-making. He filed the Measure 37 claim for leverage, "to protect our interests and our rights."

The city's master plan for the district earmarks 35 percent of Zidell's land for streets and parks. Zidell points out the city has bought the parks being built in Williams' development. On the other hand, Zidell can build huge towers by right that Williams and other landowners must earn with setbacks for the greenway and other amenities.

And so a very, very delicate game begins.

Zidell paid a 20-minute visit to Mayor Tom Potter last week, asking for one city point person to deal with. He says he hopes to plan his property together with OHSU.

"It's a terrific institution," he says. "We're very hopeful."

OHSU and the city are quick to curtsy back.

"We're having productive discussions," says Mark Williams, development director for OHSU, who has also hired a master-planning consultant, Perkins + Will, for the land north of Zidell's.

"We don't feel like there's gun to our head," according to Portland Planning Director Gil Kelley. "Zidell understands they are receiving benefits from the city and other developers working down there."

Up to now, Zidell and Durgan have been checkers players among chess masters like Homer Williams. Measure 37 isn't a checkmate, but it sure puts some powerful new pieces on the board.

The public interest, of course, is connecting OHSU and the rest of South Waterfront to the city with unbroken streets and a seamless greenway. And, so, as much as Zidell hopes to benefit from joining the South Waterfront game, that game might benefit from him, too. Keep in mind, this is a guy who keeps his father's antique glass and ceramics collection in his office, who feels "strong loyalty" to his workers, who earnestly talks about leaving "a family legacy."

And, lest we forget, in 2003, when Homer Williams was routinely saying a ski lift would be just fine for the tram, Zidell wrote the first $50,000 check to sponsor a design competition for it -- an ante Williams and OHSU had to follow to stay in the tram's political game.

It will be fun to watch not just the urban, but the personal drama unfold. Zidell has a choice: be remembered as the barge builder who kept everybody aiming high or the ruffian who dropped anchor on everybody's game.

Randy Gragg: 503-221-8575; randygragg@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1166149525165510.xml?oregonian?yalcrg&coll=7

[westsider]

Personally I think this is great news. If the claim is approved it will make it more likely that we will see some taller, denser, buildings the other developers can't do without big waivers. It would only make sense for Zidell to maximize the profit potential of developing their land, of course it could result in something subpar but I doubt it.

[Dougall5505]

i would rather see parks or OHSU office buildings on this land because who wants to hear the traffic on the ross island bridge all night

[PacificNW]

I have been waiting for M37 claims in dt Portland. I would think someone like Goodman could use it to build taller than the height limit in order for him to make more dollars.

[mcbaby]

drama drama drama..

[bvpcvm]

i would rather see parks or OHSU office buildings on this land because who wants to hear the traffic on the ross island bridge all night

given riverscape, it appears that's not an issue for some people... tho i don't pretend to understand how that's possible.

[westsider]

given riverscape, it appears that's not an issue for some people... tho i don't pretend to understand how that's possible.

Inside the buildings at riverscape you really can't hear the noise.

[MarkDaMan]

M37 is bad public policy, hopefully an eyesore of a really tall tower on Zidell property will be the perfect symbol of M37's stupidity...I can see the commercials now. Once there was coastal forest, now there is this 32,000 acre sub development...once the Lair Hill community could see Mount Hood, now they see this 1000 foot tower...

[MarkDaMan]

Measure 37 hammers Portland
Some of city’s richest make land-use claims, which now total $250 million
By Nick Budnick
The Portland Tribune 14.9 hours ago

The city of Portland is facing $250 million worth of legal claims filed just before a key Measure 37 deadline.

“It’s our worst fears, it really is,” said Chris Dearth, who heads the city’s Measure 37 program. “It affects all parts of the city. … Many, many neighborhoods will be seriously affected by this.”

Measure 37, approved by voters in 2004, allowed landowners to file claims for compensation for decreased property value caused by regulations. The influx was prompted by a Dec. 4 deadline to claim past damages.

The claims undermine the city planning process and could “change the face of the city,” Dearth said.

It’s not just the dollar figure and the potential impact to Portland neighborhoods that make the claims filed under the state’s property rights law noteworthy. In contrast to the Measure 37 poster child, then-92-year-old Dorothy English, the new claims are being filed by some very prominent figures – such as companies owned by Jay Zidell, Tom Moyer and Mark Hemstreet – using some of the city’s most well-heeled law firms.

“It’s a whole new ball game,” Dearth said. “It’s not the mom and pop, Dorothy English-style claim anymore.”

The biggest claim, filed by Zidell for his South Waterfront properties, is for about $120 million. He has put his claim on hold while he negotiates with the city over his development plans.

Another claim, for about $4.4 million, involves property near Sellwood that had been targeted for a Wal-Mart.

Even religious entities are getting into the act, including City Bible Church, the Apostolic Faith Mission and the Holy Rosary Church. Claims also have been filed by two cemeteries, including one for about $24 million filed by River View Cemetery Association of Portland, a tax-exempt nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.

The names of whose who’ve filed claims protesting the effect of various regulations include claimants and lawyers who have benefited from government regulations and largesse in the past. Those include the Ball Janik law firm – which has been paid about $630,000 to assist the Portland city attorney’s office over the past three years – as well as developers Joe Angel and Kelly Bruun.

Angel was part of neighborhood group that used the city’s planning codes to unsuccessfully fight the siting of a Holocaust Memorial in Washington Park. He also was appointed by the city to sit on its Central Eastside Urban Renewal Advisory Committee, helping direct the city’s redevelopment plans and spending in that area.

Bruun, meanwhile, had been a leader in a push to get the city to build speed bumps in his West Hills neighborhood. Now he wants $3.7 million from the city in exchange for his development rights lost because of an environmental overlay zone affecting his hillside property on Southwest Humphrey Boulevard.

His neighbor, former Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Noelle, says he thinks the environmental overlay zone was adopted shortly after a landslide on the same hillside that blocked U.S. Highway 26. Noelle said he is not opposed to Bruun’s claim, but “I don’t have a clue as to whether that hillside is stable or not.”

Moyer Theaters Inc., owned by Portland philanthropist Tom Moyer, has filed a claim with the city for $6.5 million concerning several regulations affecting development rights on the firm’s property at Southeast Powell Boulevard and 108th Avenue.

Previous to the last-minute flood of claims, only about $16 million worth of claims had been filed with the city. Of those, the city has rejected 10 and granted two. Also, the city successfully negotiated with six landowners to work through their problems, and is in the process of doing so with six others, Dearth said.

In the month before the deadline was when he started receiving calls from some of the city’s most well-known law firms, including Lane Powell and O’Donnell & Clark.

“I had some suspicion that there were some claims lurking out there, but I had no idea it was this big,” said Dearth, adding that just because claims have been filed does not mean the regulations being challenged will be waived. “The commissioners have given us the go-ahead to look at these very carefully.”

nickbudnick@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116649078192709100

[Urbanpdx]

given riverscape, it appears that's not an issue for some people... tho i don't pretend to understand how that's possible.

Riverscape is not doing very well. They are trying to rent the vacant units there.

[MarkDaMan]

^nothing is doing overly well right now. I do think Riverscape is a bit overpriced though.

[PDX City-State]

Riverscape is not doing very well. They are trying to rent the vacant units there.

It's an eyesore. Ralston should have kept building McMansions.

[westsider]

M37 is bad public policy, hopefully an eyesore of a really tall tower on Zidell property will be the perfect symbol of M37's stupidity...I can see the commercials now. Once there was coastal forest, now there is this 32,000 acre sub development...once the Lair Hill community could see Mount Hood, now they see this 1000 foot tower...


I seriously doubt you will see a 1000 ft building in Portland in the next 50 years, big pink barely cracked 500 ft and it overwhelmed the office space market. Anyway, whats the problem with Zidell building taller than their neighbors? 400-500 ft down there would be far from unreasonable, there is only so much vacant land around downtown and its stupid to not make good use of it. In 25 years the skyline will look much different and I hope it's not just a sea of midrise buildings.

[pdxstreetcar]

I'm not clear what Zidell is restricted from building under the existing land use/zoning rules. I would think the noise and visual obstruction of the Ross Island Bridge would be more of a restriction on what could be built on his land than land use rules. Afterall it was noise from I-5 than doomed residential on the Schnitzer land hence the donation to OHSU/OGI for sealed window medical classroom buildings.

[MitchE]

I'm not clear what Zidell is restricted from building under the existing land use/zoning rules.

I don't think it's about any restrictions on building as it is on his bottom line. I think he wants leverage to get out of paying the local-improvement-district assessments. He was always against them and filed several lawsuits which went nowhere.

[MarkDaMan]

I seriously doubt you will see a 1000 ft building in Portland in the next 50 years, big pink barely cracked 500 ft and it overwhelmed the office space market. Anyway, whats the problem with Zidell building taller than their neighbors? 400-500 ft down there would be far from unreasonable, there is only so much vacant land around downtown and its stupid to not make good use of it. In 25 years the skyline will look much different and I hope it's not just a sea of midrise buildings.

and I doubt you will see a 32,000 acre sub-development on the buttes of the coast, but these things are now allowable because of M37. I'm all for more height in SoWa and Portland. I too don't want to see a sea of mid-rises, but if our street level interaction works, we are way ahead of most cities that might have a couple icons, but only 5 blocks to walk through.

I think it is important to have community discussions before the CITY approves a height increase for the district. If the city allows a 500 footer in SoWa, they can bargain concessions, like a 1/4 mile greenway extension, or some other district/neighborhood amenity for the increase in height. With a M37 claim, there is no give and take, just take and be damned to those who are impacted.

[Urbanpdx]

But it is Zidel's property, not "CITY" property. Unless he causes harm to others why not stay out of his business?

[cab]

If we're going to go down this road then I don't see why citizens harmed by the environmental Damage Zindell has done to the land around him and to the river can't take him to court for lowering property values or causing health issues. If condo owners next door can prove his loud, dirty barge business is lowering the value of their property then they should play the game too. Or if he builds a larger tower on that property, those behind the tower take him to court for blocking views and lowering their property values. Let the liberatarian greed games begin.

[MarkDaMan]

Unless he causes harm to others

That is the hard part to define. In most cases M37 does commit harm to neighbors of M37 users. The billboard in Tigard that went up outside someones living room created harm to the neighbor who's value was reduced when the billboard blocked afternoon sun to her front yard and she wasn't compensated for the drop in her property value, even though the billboard wasn't allowed when she bought the property years earlier. Similiarly a 1000 foot condo tower with 2000 parking spaces would overwhelm SoWa's traffic pattern. If concessions were made, say, additional funding for the MAX to Milw/OC line that will run through SoWa, than the height concession could be appropriate.

M37 though is not a community bill, it is an individual grab bill. As a civilized society, we can balance our own rights with the betterment of the community. If everyone was about me, me, me, we'd have a freeway instead of Division, a superhighway on the coast, a measly recycling program, trashy freeway shoulders...the impact of individual property rights without regard to the surrounding community and environment, whether it be a coal power plant in a protected national monument, or a strip mine on the flanks of Hood, is absolutely not what made this a great and beautiful nation.

[Urbanpdx]

Zidell is responsible for polution that spills to other properties, and rightly so. However, there is no such thing as the "right to a view." If someone owns property, he has the moral right to control it--even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes of passersby.

We have the right to acquire property, and once owned, to use it without interference from others. I don't think an owner should be able to interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise, but there is no moral basis for demanding that an owner alter his property to make the view more pleasing to an onlooker or make changes that suit the govenment class. My life (and property) belong to me not to others.

The Declaration of Independence, althogh many of you will say "is not a legal document" states that it is only "to secure these rights," that "governments are instituted among men." A legitimate government agency would not try to "protect" the view--it would do all that it could to protect Zidel from interference by tourists, neighbors and others whiners who claim a view that they are unwilling or unable to pay for.

The real question is weather your property is yours or the government's to control. If it is the latter than you do not own it.

[cab]

All well and good, but if a property owner can demand a payment for lost value from the government, why can't a property owner demand a payment for lost value from another property owner? The Barge business lowers the value of the condo's next door, with sound, smell and sight pollution. His property is directly affecting the value of another. If you want to play this game then allow everyone to play the game. Why should government be the only ones responsible for lost value?

[65MAX]

The real question is weather your property is yours or the government's to control. If it is the latter than you do not own it.

No, the real question is whether you know the difference between "weather" and "whether", or whether you can understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangeable.

I'm looking forward to the day when all of these libertarians finally get so fed up with Portland's progressiveness that they just leave. Houston would love to have them.

[Snowden352]

I'm no lawyer (or even a regular commentator on this forum), but as far as I understand it-- a person has no legal rights to complain of the conditions of a neighboring property if the conditions exist prior to the move-in. It's sort of like moving in next to a cattle ranch and then demanding the cows be removed because they stink. I do think, however, if the property owner changes the conditions of the property after you own the propety, for instance the owner changes his one floor ranch house into a sewage treatment facility one has the right to complain, prevent or receive compensation for the nuissance.

Thus, any changes from Zidell's property that might negatively impact the life of neighbors do require compensation or something. I really don't know for sure, but I'm reasonably positive. For whatever that is worth.

[PacificNW]

I tend to agree with Snowden353. It amazes me when new residents relocate next to a speedway, or airport, and complain about the noise...screw them..

[westsider]

All well and good, but if a property owner can demand a payment for lost value from the government, why can't a property owner demand a payment for lost value from another property owner? The Barge business lowers the value of the condo's next door, with sound, smell and sight pollution. His property is directly affecting the value of another. If you want to play this game then allow everyone to play the game. Why should government be the only ones responsible for lost value?


The difference is that a property owner might want compensation from the government becauce the government tried to limit what he could with his property. A neighbor can't tell you what you can do on your propery. We have good laws in place regulating certain aspects of usage but those pertain mainly to comercial operations, anyone should be able to use their property any way they see fit unless it directly causes harm to others. (Toxic runoff, continuous industrial noise, damage to other's property, ect.). In the case of Zidell, any neighbors who would have reason to complain willingly moved next to a longstanding marine operation. With the logic being used Zidell could sue the condo developers for blocking THEIR views and creating lots of traffic. If Zidell decided to turn their properety into a landfill than it would only be right for the neighbors to get upset, everything else is a preexisting condition and they will just have to live with it.

[bvpcvm]

No, the real question is whether you know the difference between "weather" and "whether", or whether you can understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangeable.

"here here!"

[har har]

[pdxstreetcar]

And Fairness for None: The Impact of Measure 37 on Oregonians and Oregon’s Landscape tells the story of Measure 37’s impacts on those most at risk: Oregonians whose livelihood is threatened by the prospect of inappropriate Measure 37 development nearby.

To view the video on You Tube, click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGVaVS6U91A)

[MarkDaMan]

this might have an interesting impact on M37 claims...

Study: Land-use laws have no impact on property values
Portland Business Journal - 11:03 AM PDT Tuesday, June 5, 2007

A study of land values in Oregon by Oregon State University economists finds no evidence that the state's land-use regulations have caused a generalized reduction in property values.

The study, published this week by economists William Jaeger and Andrew Plantinga, examines the ways in which land-use regulations and Oregon's land-use planning system may affect property values.

Jaeger and Plantinga examined the levels and trends of land values in parts of Oregon over the past 40 years, beginning before Oregon's land-use planning system was in place. They compared land value patterns for restricted and developable lands, and compared patterns in Oregon with patterns for similar areas in Washington state, where land-use planning has only recently been enforced.

The researchers found that:

* Land values (adjusted for inflation) have generally risen since the introduction of Oregon's land-use planning system in 1973, both for rural lands zoned for farm and forest use and for developable lands inside and outside of urban growth boundaries.
* Since 1973, when Oregon's land-use planning system was adopted, the rate of change in land values in Oregon has been about the same as for similar lands in Washington.
* Lands with the most stringent development limits (such as those with exclusive farm or forest use zoning) have increased in value at about the same rate as lands without such restrictions.
* In the Lane County sample, the value of lands outside the Eugene urban growth boundary grew slightly faster than properties inside the urban growth boundary.
* There is no evidence of slower rates of increase overall for the Oregon lands studied compared with lands in the Washington counties studied.

To view the complete report online, go to:

extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/sr/sr1077.pdf

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/06/04/daily17.html?t=printable

[zilfondel]

Ironically, one of the main talking points of the anti-UGB squad (Jim Karlock, American Dream coalition, etc) is that the UGB raises land values too much - making it unaffordable for people to afford homes!

Can't win either way, huh? I have a feeling they're both incorrect and the UGB has much less effect on land value than does increasing population and wealth in the state.

[pdxman]

Does anyone know the latest on Zidells m37 claim? Is he planning to relocate anytime soon?

[MarkDaMan]

it's still on voluntary hold and nope, he isn't planning on moving anytime soon.

[PacificNW]

I am curious...are any of you guys going to actively campaign (for or against) M37 revisions placed before the voters this November election?

[65MAX]

Fix it or nix it!!

:tup:

[GreenCity]

I am curious...are any of you guys going to actively campaign (for or against) M37 revisions placed before the voters this November election?

I've started meeting with some people and laying out some concepts about it. Nothing concrete at this point, but we are securing some small funding already.

[PacificNW]

Cool...may I ask what position your group is taking? If it is pro revision maybe you can post a site where a person can send a contribution...

[MarkDaMan]

just an FYI: (story reposted in M37 thread)

Oregon, prepare for a land-use fight, again
Measure 37 - A party-line vote by lawmakers sends a plan to change the law back to the people
Monday, June 11, 2007
LAURA OPPENHEIMER
The Oregonian

If you think 2007 is just the buildup for next year's presidential election, think again.

Oregonians will vote this November -- for the third time in seven years -- on one of the state's most politically divisive issues: property rights.

The Legislature is sending voters a plan to scale back Measure 37, the three-year-old law that opened the door to rural development. Judging from last week's scrappy finish to negotiations in Salem, the campaign will start quickly.

"It's going to be quite a fight," predicts Ray Wilkeson of the Oregon Forest Industries Council, "just like land-use issues always are in Oregon."

Democrats and environmentalists are promoting the rewrite, which would limit many rural landowners to three homes and make it nearly impossible to build more than 10. Republicans have teamed up with property rights advocates to fight the ballot referral, saying it's an insult to voters who passed Measure 37.

Sound like a scene from the movie "Groundhog Day"? It's just the latest chapter in the battle over Oregon's land-use laws, which are meant to separate city and country.

Courts tossed out a 2000 ballot measure that required governments to pay landowners who have lost the right to develop. In 2004, 61 percent of voters supported the next incarnation: Measure 37. Now, governments must let people use their land however they could have when they bought it -- or pay for lost value.

More than 7,500 applications have been filed, mostly in the countryside surrounding growth hot spots, such as the Portland suburbs, Hood River and Medford. Only a smattering of small developments are under way, but larger projects are a possibility.

Campaigns are sure to put different spins on how much development will materialize and how it would be affected by the Measure 37 rewrite.

Most people haven't followed the details, says public opinion researcher Mike Riley. He polled likely voters this spring on a possible replacement for Measure 37. But he never released the data: Results were inconclusive because so many Oregonians appear to be confused by the issue, Riley says.

Each campaign needs a populist message that connects with everyday Oregonians while cutting through complicated details, Riley says.

"Not much has happened under Measure 37 that they could point to and say 'It's been great' or 'It's been a disaster,' " he says.

Not that people haven't tried. Legislators got an earful of superlatives from hundreds of Oregonians who testified this spring.

Measure 37 claimants pleaded with them to make the law work smoothly, saying they wanted to build homes for relatives or retirement income. But some of their neighbors called for reform, predicting development would snuff out farming or ruin their rural lifestyle.

Legislators came close to a bipartisan compromise. Then talks disintegrated, with each side blaming the other. In the end, Democrats -- who control both houses of the Legislature -- sent their rewrite to voters in a party-line decision. An election date still has to be set, but Nov. 6 is almost a sure thing, says Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, who led the negotiations.

Adversaries have been strategizing for weeks.

Eric Stachon of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a group that promotes land-use planning, says a coalition is in place to campaign for the rewrite. He expects farmers, environmentalists and some politicians to be involved. The message, Stachon says, is simple: "This implements the will of the voters."

The Oregon Farm Bureau, which remained neutral during the last campaign, supports the rewrite, says Don Schellenberg, the bureau's lobbyist.

It's unclear whether timber companies, which provided most of the money to pass Measure 37, will campaign against the ballot referral. Wilkeson, of the forest owners' group, says members opposed the rewrite in "a close call" -- but mostly they want to prevent additional regulations.

David Hunnicutt of Oregonians in Action, the group that wrote Measure 37, says he's not giving away campaign secrets. As he sees it, the pressure is on the other side to prove their rewrite is a good idea.

"Once we remind voters that legislators think they're stupid and are trying to take away their vote," he says, "I think they'll be upset."

Laura Oppenheimer: 503-294-7669; loppenheimer@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118153054482280.xml&coll=7