From Save Ivy Island Director John Teply
Hello Everyone, The council voted yesterday to vacate our public lands so the Bolouri Development has won. Ivy Island, the trees and the Gateway lost. According to the Commissioners it was an issue of the Lombard Plan and Safety. Nice job to all of you who worked so hard to save Ivy Island, the trees, and our beautifully unique Gateway into our little town. If we would have had a level playing field this would have turned out differently. You all worked with such intelligence, great heart and passion. I am proud to have been part of the team. I am also happy for the new friendships I now have. The only thing that could possibly happen at this point to save Ivy Island is to find a pro-bono attorney to take it to court for us. We've been unable to find one these past weeks, so my guess is we won't find one in the coming few days. I have yet to talk to an attorney who is interested. Our side gave excellent testimony. Thank you to everyone who showed up, thank you to everyone who emailed or sent in their testimonies, thank you to everyone who spoke. We were told that this decision is based on the St Johns Lombard Plan and that our community asked for this, but we showed, with little room for doubt, that the site plan for the two developments are decidedly different. Especially in terms of our Gateway and the spirit of the two plans. We were told that it had the urgency of a safety issue. We used PBOT’s own studies to show otherwise. The PBOT Safety Audit of 2012 stated that there were other ways to make the intersection at N Charleston and Lombard safe, which were ignored. The solutions were simple and inexpensive, paint on asphalt and upgraded signage. Where was the St. Johns community response to this report? The obvious answer is that no one really thought it important enough, at that time, to put energy into making sure it was fixed. PBOT did not think it dangerous or urgent enough to implement these elementary and low cost recommendations. And PBOT’s hard data from “Vision Zero” showed that the danger was overstated when compared to other intersections in the community. The Vision Zero Crash Map (2004 to 2013) documented our most dangerous intersections, with the number of accidents in parentheses, in descending order are at; Philadelphia (38), Ida and Lombard (27), St Louis and Lombard (15), Baltimore at Ivanhoe (12, with one death), Oswego at Lombard (9), Buchannan (8), Richmond at Lombard (8), Charleston Corner (7), Chicago (7), Baltimore at Lombard (7), Leavitt at Lombard (6) and Tyler(6). The Charleston Corner at (7) accidents was not inordinately unsafe. According to the Crash Map, it is as safer than most of our intersections and fairly average as safety goes. That’s (7) accidents in 9 years! I think if we had legal advice, with the evidence we have, we could have won this. Still could if an attorney stepped up to the plate. One of the most puzzling and disappointing statements was from Commissioner Fritz. She said, “I agree the new building is not ideal. Unfortunately it was approved in Design Review before the street vacation came to Council, so we weren’t able to modify it.” What!?! The poor powerless Commissioners! That was exactly one of our arguments, that this was all backwards. Why did we have a building design for property the developer didn’t own? It should have been vacated first. I don’t buy the wringing of hands, the “I understand your pain,” and “There’s nothing I can do.” My greatest ire goes to many in the business community who stood on the sidelines and drank the kool-aid, who are just now waking up to what their inaction will bring and are now changing their minds. Who treated me more like chicken little and they too are now “getting” what’s coming. And it’s too, too late. I do not have nice words for them. With no attorney on the horizon, it’s time to start saying good-bye to Ivy Island. I’ll be out there on Saturday, usual time. Join me if you like. John Teply Director Save Ivy Island |
Letter to the Portland City Commissioners
Dear Commissioners,
I think my biggest disappointment with the City Hall Hearing of 2/10/16 concerning the vacation of the property known as “Ivy Island” and the “Lombard Slip Lane” in St Johns, is that the Save Ivy Island group gave some very compelling reasons for why NOT to vacate our public land, which were of no interest to any of the Commissioners. We had a petition of 1,100 signatures. The other side had only gathered 77.
Our main grievances were 1) There had been no community voice in the creating of the Bolouri Development, 2) This was inaccurately done under the auspices of the St Johns Lombard Plan, 3) This project destroyed the Gateway into the Business District of St Johns (contrary to what is required in the St Johns Lombard Plan), and 4) There is evidence in PBOT studies that there were other ways to make the intersection at N Charleston and Lombard safe, which was ignored, and that its danger was overstated when compared to other intersections in the community. Solutions to our concerns can be found in our testimony.
It was clear that of the many points we found important or inaccurate, not a single Commissioner cared.
We had all the principals in that room and anyone who needed to be asked a question, could have been asked a question and it would have been entered as official testimony. With all of the excellent testimony that put aspects of the development into question, there was not one question to Mr. Bolouri, PBOT, SJNA or SJ Main Street – rather their testimony was simply accepted. Those of us in the gallery just had to sit there quietly as things that we knew to be questionable were not addressed.
Some questions that weren’t asked: 1) To PBOT: Why did you offer this to Bolouri when so much of the design of the site plan obviously was not the Lombard Plan? 2) What assurances were given to Bolouri that this land would be his to use? It seemed early on that the principals believed they had the votes for the vacation process and that the Hearing was a mere technicality. 3) Why wasn’t the public actively engaged in the design process of this corner, as is recommended in the Lombard Plan? 4) In the meetings that SJ Neighborhood Association and SJ Main Street held, where they claimed to have had open discussion, why were there no questions put to these groups during the Hearing about that? Clearly there was testimony saying there was no real opportunity for dissention or constructive criticism at those meetings. 5) Our poor Gateway. Not a single Commissioner cared. Keep in mind that we presented a petition with 1,100 signatures on it, compared to the 77 people on the petition in support of the vacation.
For me personally, it was particularly galling that a member from SJ Main Street said now, as they did at the time, that our opinions of the project were coming at the “eleventh hour.” Inferring in some way that what Save Ivy Island did was less than worthy because we weren’t there at the beginning. If half way through their scheduled public meetings wasn’t the beginning of this process, at what point had it ended?
I have it on public record that on the eve of the third of the four meetings with Alan Jones and Farid Bolouri on 7/7/15, I was already questioning this project and its value to St Johns. This of course is one of the four meetings that the Pro-development position touts as one of their “public input meetings.” Was it already too late? This was also the time when organizations like SJ Main Street and the SJNA were saying that the vacation was a “done deal.” Did SJ Main Street have information, that the rest of the community didn’t have, that allowed them to say with certainty that this was the “11th hour”?
A good question then is “when” and “why” was this considered a “done deal”? Also, SJNA’s support never came from an open and fair discussion at a General Meeting, it came from a closed meeting only involving the Board. Their disgraceful behavior, and my treatment, is documented in public testimony that was submitted in writing.
“Done deal” is an expression that has haunted this project from its inception. Those of us who engaged City Hall with all the petitions, the letters to the Mayor and Commissioners, the phone calls, and the meetings, did it because we believed in our democratic process and that all voices mattered, even those without big money and without organizations and city departments behind them. We matter as individuals. Others were telling us that City Hall was just going to do what it wanted to do and we were just wasting our time and that for me and the 1,100 signers of the petition, our voices really didn’t matter.
John Teply
I think my biggest disappointment with the City Hall Hearing of 2/10/16 concerning the vacation of the property known as “Ivy Island” and the “Lombard Slip Lane” in St Johns, is that the Save Ivy Island group gave some very compelling reasons for why NOT to vacate our public land, which were of no interest to any of the Commissioners. We had a petition of 1,100 signatures. The other side had only gathered 77.
Our main grievances were 1) There had been no community voice in the creating of the Bolouri Development, 2) This was inaccurately done under the auspices of the St Johns Lombard Plan, 3) This project destroyed the Gateway into the Business District of St Johns (contrary to what is required in the St Johns Lombard Plan), and 4) There is evidence in PBOT studies that there were other ways to make the intersection at N Charleston and Lombard safe, which was ignored, and that its danger was overstated when compared to other intersections in the community. Solutions to our concerns can be found in our testimony.
It was clear that of the many points we found important or inaccurate, not a single Commissioner cared.
We had all the principals in that room and anyone who needed to be asked a question, could have been asked a question and it would have been entered as official testimony. With all of the excellent testimony that put aspects of the development into question, there was not one question to Mr. Bolouri, PBOT, SJNA or SJ Main Street – rather their testimony was simply accepted. Those of us in the gallery just had to sit there quietly as things that we knew to be questionable were not addressed.
Some questions that weren’t asked: 1) To PBOT: Why did you offer this to Bolouri when so much of the design of the site plan obviously was not the Lombard Plan? 2) What assurances were given to Bolouri that this land would be his to use? It seemed early on that the principals believed they had the votes for the vacation process and that the Hearing was a mere technicality. 3) Why wasn’t the public actively engaged in the design process of this corner, as is recommended in the Lombard Plan? 4) In the meetings that SJ Neighborhood Association and SJ Main Street held, where they claimed to have had open discussion, why were there no questions put to these groups during the Hearing about that? Clearly there was testimony saying there was no real opportunity for dissention or constructive criticism at those meetings. 5) Our poor Gateway. Not a single Commissioner cared. Keep in mind that we presented a petition with 1,100 signatures on it, compared to the 77 people on the petition in support of the vacation.
For me personally, it was particularly galling that a member from SJ Main Street said now, as they did at the time, that our opinions of the project were coming at the “eleventh hour.” Inferring in some way that what Save Ivy Island did was less than worthy because we weren’t there at the beginning. If half way through their scheduled public meetings wasn’t the beginning of this process, at what point had it ended?
I have it on public record that on the eve of the third of the four meetings with Alan Jones and Farid Bolouri on 7/7/15, I was already questioning this project and its value to St Johns. This of course is one of the four meetings that the Pro-development position touts as one of their “public input meetings.” Was it already too late? This was also the time when organizations like SJ Main Street and the SJNA were saying that the vacation was a “done deal.” Did SJ Main Street have information, that the rest of the community didn’t have, that allowed them to say with certainty that this was the “11th hour”?
A good question then is “when” and “why” was this considered a “done deal”? Also, SJNA’s support never came from an open and fair discussion at a General Meeting, it came from a closed meeting only involving the Board. Their disgraceful behavior, and my treatment, is documented in public testimony that was submitted in writing.
“Done deal” is an expression that has haunted this project from its inception. Those of us who engaged City Hall with all the petitions, the letters to the Mayor and Commissioners, the phone calls, and the meetings, did it because we believed in our democratic process and that all voices mattered, even those without big money and without organizations and city departments behind them. We matter as individuals. Others were telling us that City Hall was just going to do what it wanted to do and we were just wasting our time and that for me and the 1,100 signers of the petition, our voices really didn’t matter.
John Teply