 Welcome, I'm Ann Schenck from the League of Women Voters and we're here today with Wells Lyons and Mayor Michael Brennan to have a conversation about the issue that's on everybody's mind in Portland, partly about discussing how to protect public parks and urban spaces in Portland and how and the level of citizen involvement in that process. We'll do the approach, two different approaches. The first is that there's an elected representatives of city council who actually enact ordinance and park commissions that make decisions about how those lands are taken care of. The citizen's initiative, which will be on the ballot this spring, gathers signatures from the city and through that process then puts it on the ballot and if it wins during the election then that becomes part of city law. So what we'd like to do first is to start with an introductory statement from each of these representatives to talk about this from their perspective. And so we'll start this afternoon with Wells Lyons. Thank you Ann. I'm Wells Lyons and I'm a volunteer with Protect Portland Parks and we're here today because Portland's parks are under attack. A few years ago the city council closed the parks department. They cut 26 positions in the parks department and just recently the mayor and the city council have tried to sell in a no bid process one of our parks in the heart of the downtown. Unfortunately this process resulted in a sale or attempted sale that was a fraction of the fair market value. Now they're claiming the problem is solved with this ordinance that they've just passed but in fact what the ordinance has done is offered only weak protection. Protect Portland Parks formed in response to these threats to our parks and what we are intending to do is to pass a law on June 10th by voting yes that will add protections to 60 of our city parks and open spaces. What this law does will give the voters a right in deciding whether or not their parks are sold. Okay. May I write it? Well I really didn't think I'd get an opportunity to disagree with Wells so quickly but it's absolutely untrue that Portland Parks are under attack and Portland are open spaces under attack. In fact the city council has made a concerted effort over the last several years to add to our public spaces and we're very focused on protecting and enhancing our parks in the city because we know the value that they have to the city. With this initiative that people will be voting on on June 10th is simply whether or not people support the congress square proposal or whether they don't. It's really not an issue about whether or not your protecting parts are not protecting parts. Briefly what the city council did at the end of April at the meeting was to pass an ordinance that had a protected list that is actually more robust than what is in the petition drive. It says that in any time in the future that anything that's on that protected list if it were to be sold or another use for it would take a seven to two vote and it would also be an advisory opinion from the parks commission. Very straightforward, very clear, very easy to understand. So I really don't think that there's any evidence that anybody can point to that parks in Portland are under attack and really what this boils down to is a disagreement with some people in the city as to whether or not the congress square initiative goes forward. Is there anything unique about congress square as opposed to the other parks either from your perspective or yours? I think the only thing that's unique about congress square is that it's the park that the city council just recently tried to privatize to Rockbridge through a no-bid process and with a result that ended up in a much less than a fair market value for what the property is actually valued at. One of the things that is unique about congress square is that it used to be a Dunkin Donuts, it used to be lums, it used to have a number of other commercial uses other than what it currently is configured at this point. So I think that the opportunity that we have at this point is to revitalize the downtown, bring people to the downtown, to take almost everybody, there may be some few accessions, but almost everybody agrees that that's a failed space at this point. This is an opportunity for us to bring people to the downtown, to revitalize the space that is usable and transform that intersection at congress street and high street. That's a unique opportunity for the city of Portland and I hope we don't pass that up. Great. One of the other questions that I myself need a little clarification about is how are the city-owned parks and public lands managed now? You want to go first? Well, there are a couple of different ways. We do have a parks commission, we do have a parks department that was rolled in as Wells pointed out to public services and we do have a land bank commission. But the land bank commission was really set up as a way to take land that is really for passive use. For example, the city just recently purchased almost 12 acres of canko woods and that went into the land bank. That's not really considered so much a park and it is set up as a way to protect it against, quote, development. One of the things that's unfortunate and the issue that's been put for in the petition is it really misuses the land bank and the land bank was never set up for the purpose that's been identified in the petition and the chair of the land bank has reaffirmed that position and said this is not really what the land bank was set up for. So there are several different ways that the city manages parks and manages open space and we think that the route that the city council shows is a more prudent way to continue to manage those spaces and those parks. And so to clarify, a commission is an appointed body that makes decisions at the higher level, the big picture level, but a parks department rolled back into public services is actually the administrative body of the city that actually manages those lands. Well, you are addressing how those lands are managed and you want to add something? Absolutely. I think that by adding these lands, the 35 parks to the land bank, which is essentially a safety deposit box against development for our parks and open spaces, and by adding a category of urban open spaces to the land bank, what we're doing is making it much safer through our citizens initiative to protect against these parks from being sold in the future. Now the mayors talked about the ordinance that the city council just passed with an advisory opinion of the parks commission on whether or not the city council should sell or develop a property. Unfortunately, the city council asked the parks commission whether or not they should sell Congress Square and the parks commission unanimously said, no, we don't support this proposal. The city council then steamrolled that advisory opinion. So we don't think that's strong protection. The other issue that we take with the so-called protection that the city council passed just weeks before our referendum is that it can be changed at any time, any time at all. It can be changed at the next city council meeting. And what our referendum does is it adds 25 or 35 new parks to the land bank. It adds protections to the 25 properties that are already there, requires the recommendation of the land bank commission and then it requires a supermajority vote of the city council to sell a park. A very important piece of this is that it also requires the referendum on whether or not the parks are sold to go to the people. And we think this is critical. These referendums aren't anything that are unusual. I mean, we vote, we're voting May 13th on the school budget via referendum. And we think that when the city is about to sell off a public asset, they should have a say in that. The people should have a vote in whether or not the parks get sold. Okay, I wanted to. And if I could just point out and I know Wells knows this, but many of the properties that he's talking about that are going in the land bank have protections that are far beyond the land bank or what the city council has done. For example, the Eastern Promise and state statute. The Western Promise also in state statutes. They're also covenant in deeds to protect those properties. So again, to make the assertion or to somehow try to argue that these properties can be sold at the whim of the city council is just not true. There are all kinds of other deed restrictions and other kinds of protections for those properties. And that's why this petition drive and what's being proposed in there in terms of land bank ordinance simply aren't necessary. And again, I have to go back to the fact that this is really a debate about whether or not Congress square and that initiative goes forward. And I think overwhelmingly when people in the city understand the benefits of what's being proposed that they're going to see that this is a clear winner in a win-win situation for the city of Portland. The if I may respond to that, I think the only winner here if the sale of Congress square does proceed is going to be Rock Ridge Capital. A parking lot that's just a couple of blocks down from Congress square park was valued at over $2 million when it sold a couple of weeks after the proposed sale of Congress square park. And frankly, the half million dollars that the city got for the deal is just embarrassing. I mean, this was a deal that was made by politicians, not businessmen. It was not through the real estate market. And it was a no bid process. And we don't think that's how our parks should be sold. They should be decided by the people in the event that that happens. But this is about adding protections to 60 of our parks. And absolutely, some of our parks do have stronger protections. And that's fantastic. We want to add to those protections, especially for the parks that don't. But again, as I pointed out, the ordinance that was passed by the city actually adds more protections to more parks. But secondly, I just have to go back and, you know, well, we can disagree about this. But we clearly understood the importance of getting maximum value for that property. And we had city staff that went at that issue backwards in front. And to say that we didn't get maximum value for that, or this is somehow windfall to Rockbridge, just isn't true. It was based on a 2008 evaluation at the bottom of the housing bill. This may not be where you wanted to go, but is there any clarification at all about what their intention is with that space? There's an event center that's planned. And that event center would bring three to four hundred people on a regular basis to the downtown of Portland. And one of the long term goals of the city of Portland has been to revitalize the downtown and to bring more people to the downtown. That clearly fits that objective. And that's why the city council acted in the way that it did. We have struggled in the city of Portland, along with other cities and main across the country to anchor our downtown, to make sure that our downtown is a place that is vital and that people want to come to. And again, this is a unique opportunity for us to bring people into the downtown where there are businesses, where we have arts, and to revitalize that section of Portland. So we're very excited about that possibility. The city council seems to think that this event center, which is really a one-story windowless bunker, is going to be the golden ticket for economic development in our downtown. But that's incredibly short-sighted. And it's based off of the theory of economic development for cities. It's probably 30 years old. The event centers are somehow going to bring in jobs and visitors and things like that. What we should be doing is looking at our context in the global economy, where we have young professionals who can really work anywhere, who base where they're going to live and work and raise families and pay taxes off of more than anything the quality of life of a city. We should look at attracting retirees to Portland. It's been held up as one of the best cities to retire to. And something that retirees care so much about is open spaces and quality of life. And if you look at the property taxes that parks provide, it's actually fantastic. Boston did a study of this back in 2006, where they found that the property values of Boston residents were increased by $720 million because of well-maintained, healthy parks. That added $8 million in municipal tax revenues. So to suggest that by selling off our parks that we think are failed spaces is somehow going to increase economic development, that's very, very short-sighted. That's eating the goose that lays the golden egg, when we should be investing in our parks, strengthening them and improving them. Unfortunately, the idea that this is a failed space, you know, it's the city council that's failed this space, Mayor. It really is. This, the Friends of Congress Square and Protect Portland Parks has done more in the last two months to improve this space than the city council has done in the last 20 years. And we've done that through some very simple things, bringing in seating for one, removing the planters with the spikes on them that keep people out, bringing in a food truck. And if you go down there today, you'll see 30 or 40 or 50 people having lunch enjoying that space. It's not a failed space anymore, it's a space that's being saved. And it's important to the downtown. A lot of people in the most densely populated part of Portland don't have other access to outdoor space. So this is just one space, but our initiative goes so much farther by adding that to some of those other parts. Right, and you know, again, I think it's important to point out that there was a group that was put together in 2008, Congress Square redesign committee that spent three years looking at what to do with Congress Square. And by the time they got to the end of the discussion, it was simply, we're going to do an RFP to look at what to do there. So I think it hasn't been necessarily lack of attention by the city. I think the fact that I'll go back to use the word, it is by consensus a failed space. This is an opportunity not only for us to utilize that space, but to take almost 4,800, almost 5,000 square feet in the front of that park and enhance that in a way that really will provide more public access and more utilization by the public. So that's why I say it's a win-win situation. We can either, and I would invite anybody that to go look at Congress Square now and say, is this what we want to continue to have? Because if people vote for the petition, that is basically an endorsement of the status quo. And we've had the status quo for several years, and I think people in the city of Portland are willing to move forward at this point. I would invite the voters in the city of Portland to come down to Congress Square as well and to see the events that are planned there, the free Wi-Fi that's being provided, the tables and chairs that are now there, and the landscaping, and it's an enjoyable space. It's a good place to have lunch. It's just too bad that it took the actions of volunteers to improve this space when the city had done nothing but fail that space for so many years. Who's responsible for what those changes that are being made this spring? That's exclusively the Friends of Congress Square Park. There's some programming that's being provided by Space Gallery as well, and these are the things that are going to make that a space that people want to enjoy. And virtually everything that Wells is talking about they're doing now will be possible with the plaza that will be developed as a result of the Congress Square initiative. But I think the other point that Wells is leaving out is that this is also an opportunity as for transform that intersection in Portland and make it a gateway to the city in ways now that we don't have. And so again, I think it's a three-part win-win for the city to bring people to the downtown, to have a space that is usable by the public and accessible to the public and to transform that intersection. Well, I don't want to backtrack too far, but I wanted to make it really clear what is the difference between the Land Bank Commission and the Parks Commission, and then talk a little bit more about what properties are covered by each and how that would change. Do you want to go ahead? Well, the Land Bank Commission was set up by the City Council, and it has Cheryl Lehman, who's a City Councilor, is one co-chair and Tom Jewel, who's a volunteer, is another co-chair. There are people on it, served by appointment by the City Council. And it was set up with the intent of looking at the land or property in the city that we would want to quote, put into a Land Bank because it wasn't to be developed. But typically what has gone into the Land Bank have been properties that aren't intended to be developed, but also have a very passive use to it. It was not intended for parks and for other open space in the city of Portland. And so that's why it's not a very good choice in the referendum to have the Land Bank be the holder of the public parks and other spaces within the city. So it would be those two things, and I would like to know a little more about the Parks Commission. Sure, sure. And the Parks Commission is set up for the purpose, and again members are appointed by the City Council to oversee the parks in Portland and to recommend to the City Council and to appropriate people how we can best maintain, how we can enhance, and how we can maximize use of parks and open spaces within the city. And we just signed a letter with the main Land Trust Commission to work with us to inventory all our open space in the city of Portland and to look at ways that we can protect other properties into the future, but also look at other uses that we could have that would achieve goals that we have within the city. Well, we think that putting the parks under the protection of the Lands Bank Commission makes all the sense in the world because we're trying to do exactly what the Land Bank Commission is also trying to do, which is to preserve open undeveloped spaces. This referendum simply adds a category of urban open spaces to the mission of the Lands Bank Commission. As far as the importance of the Parks Commission, unfortunately the City Council doesn't particularly take a whole lot of interest in the Parks Commission or the parks generally, I would argue. And I'd say this because under the ordinance that was passed by the City Council, they're claiming it's a strong protection when in fact it can be changed at any time. And it only requires the advice of the Parks Commission. Well, the Parks Commission gave their opinion on the sale of Congress Square Park. They unanimously opposed it. Every single member of the Parks Commission opposed this measure and the City Council said, thanks for your advice and threw it in the trash. We think that the decisions about whether or not to privatize our public spaces, which are so important to our quality of life, our neighborhoods, and our economy, that is something that should go to the Lands Bank and then it should be up to the voters to decide whether or not their properties get sold. I mean, it's not your park to sell, Mayor. If you want to sell two-thirds of your front lawn, you can, but you can't just sell our parks. And it's your park. And it's my park, too. To mention quickly, that the chair of the Land Bank said they were not consulted in the development of this petition drive and they don't think it's an appropriate use of the Land Bank for what has been identified in the petition drive. So, and, you know, I think that's a great soundbite, Wells, to say it's not my park and I can't sell it. As I pointed out earlier, that particular piece of property has gone through any number of different uses over the year. When we initially looked at it, I've lived in Portland for a number of different years. I actually lived in the Parkside neighborhood. That is a failed space. We as a city need to do something differently with that space. And to continue to cling to the status quo, I don't think serves the City of Portland best. But we're not talking about the status quo. What we're talking about, Mayor, is what has happened in that park in the last couple of months and what we can do to make sure that our public spaces aren't sold in the future. This citizens initiative on June 10th is going to add protections to 60 of our parks and open spaces. And it adds protections that are much, much, much stronger than those suggested by the City Council. You're talking, and theoretically, you're talking about all the properties, the parks plus those that are in the land bank now. Absolutely. That's how you get to the number of 65, 70. But the ordinance that got passed by the City is a more robust list. We actually have more on the list that we've put on a priority list. And I have to say, you know, I appreciate some of the comments that made by Wells. But I've never really seen where good public policy has been drafted through a referendum process. It is always drafted by a few people that sit down and say, here's what we think best represents our idea. And that's what happened in this case. There was very little public process. There was very little public input. And it was a very small group of people that sat down and said, now it's going to take an eight to one vote by the City Council. And if they don't get an eight to one vote, it's going to have to go to six votes in the City Council. I'm glad the Mayor brought that up because it wasn't a small group of people who decided that this should be on the ballot. It was 4,200 Portland voters who broke records in signing our petition to get this to a vote. The people want to decide. We tapped into something really, really big here. After the City Council initially denied us our rights, denied us our petition and, you know, the slower court agreed with us and just recently the main supreme judicial court agreed with us that we had a right to collect those signatures. That you have a right to have them on about it. But those court rulings had nothing to do with the merits of the proposal of Congress Square. And again, I have to go back to the fact that when people vote on this issue on June 10th, it really is simply about whether or not they believe going forward with the proposal on Congress Square makes sense or whether or not they accept the status quo. Absolutely not. We have about four minutes left. So I wanted to make sure that we did cover the question about how ordinances are amended through City Council and how they would be through your measure. So, Mayor Brennan. Well, if this petition referendum were to pass, the City Council, nobody can change it for five years. That's somewhat unusual in the state legislature when there's a referendum that is passed. The legislature treats it like statue and it can change it immediately. And it has done that in the past because some of the referendums have been written in a way that they've been unable to implement. And the case of an ordinance that has been passed by the City Council, it stays in place until the City Council chooses to do something differently. Great. And I know this is a big piece of your referendum. So you want to go ahead about how the amendment process? Absolutely. What the vote on June 10th is going to do is to provide protections for five years. I think that if we're serious about protecting our parks, what we should do is not take the word of the City Council that just voted to sell one of our parks and then realize there's public outcry. We better make it look like we're doing something and pass something that we can change whenever we feel like it, whenever public opinion shifts or attention is diverted. But instead to put it to the voters and say, if we think we should protect our parks in a way that's serious, in a way that is meaningful, and in a way that's going to preserve these open spaces for future generations, then yes, we need to take it out of the hands of the City Council because sometimes politics determines policy. And we think that this is something that the people should decide on. All right. And I just have to point ahead again, and I'm sorry, Wells, to keep going back to that. But that threat just doesn't exist. And the second thing is, as I pointed out earlier, many of the parks that we're talking about already have extensive deed restrictions, legal restrictions, and as I already pointed out in the Eastern Prom and the Western Prom, it's a state legislature that passed statute. So this idea that the City Council randomly can sell off parks or open space, it's just not true. It's just what they tried to do. And nobody on the City Council is more protective of open space and public space than I am. And I believe that that sentiment is shared by other City Councils. Congress Square is a completely unique circumstance. And as I pointed out, the history of Congress Square has been a dunk in donuts. It has been a lungs restaurant. To equate that with the Eastern Prom in terms of protection, it is really kind of a non sequitur of my mind. We are coming very close to the end. You have one quick sentence for our close. Great. Thank you so much, Anne. I'd urge the voters of Portland to vote yes on June 10th in support of strengthening our protections for all 60 of our parks and open spaces. And thank you for watching. And thank you for watching. The importance of this issue cannot be overestimated. We know how important this conversation is and helping to give you a better idea of the kinds of things that are happening and the different impacts of these different proposals. We hope that you'll take this to heart and that you will vote on June 10th. And we appreciate your being with us today. Thank you.