RECAP: Brewhaha Political Slam [Oct. 30, 2007]

So here’s the Weekly’s first attempt at live-blogging. New Media! Wow! Ain’t it super?! Please excuse my scatterbrained manner.

Estimated: 60-80 in attendance at the start. Many people turned away for lack of space (don't worry, we're searching for a larger venue for our next Brewhaha!). UPDATE: The official numbers were 97 people attended (or at least signed-in) with approximately 20 people turned away at the door.
Yummy appetizers in the back.
Water available. Brews in people's hands.
Beautiful.

View the long summary after the jump.

Format: panelists given two flags “Did not answer.” and “How much Brewhaha did you have?” Audience given green and red flags for the straw poll. [But halfway through the first half, the panelists were too timid to use them. UPDATE: Kitty Piercy was seen using the flags in the debate over Measure 20-134] After the speakers are given a 4 minute platform to present their case, the moderater will ask questions both from a list and from audience members.

The big question of the night (for EW) has been: Will Davis’ have wi-fi? A phone call earlier revealed that “No," they did not. Sitting here in the restaurant has revealed that not only do they have wi-fi, they have their own fast service. Try it sometime.

And one last note in regards to the style of this blog post: Only direct quotes have quotation marks. The rest is paraphrased.

*****

Showdown over Measure 49, the ballot measure that will try to “fix” Measure 37

Ashley Miller (Yes on M49): AM

Matthew Green-Hite (No on M49): MGH

Initial straw poll on M49 counted at least 30 for YES; about 2-3 for NO. The rest, we would assume, haven’t decided.

OPENING REMARKS

AM: M49 fixes loopholes in M37. Miller referenced a 300 home subdivision on Mount Pisgah that would be greenlighted under M37. She displayed a map of M37 claims in the Willamette Valley. Said that M49 would “limit large subdivisions … [and keep them from] where they don’t belong.”

MGH: “If M49 did everything Ashley claimed it would, I’d be all for it.” But “it stops all subdivisions.” Referenced Willamette Week article that criticizes M49, even though the paper supported the measure. MGH was at public meetings; he wants more transparency. Claimed there hasn’t been a public hearing on the ballot measure at all. The legislature named the ballot measure, which is unfair, he says. “The financial formula will never work …”

On topic of health/safety concerns:
AM: Under M49, 70-house subdivision wouldn’t be allowed unless there was enough water, infrastructure.
MGH: Has same health/safety provisions as M37. “Lot of blockages [in M49]…most of it has to do with timber restrictions.”

Because we have restricted land use, property values have risen due to Oregon's natural beauty. Respond to that.
MGH: “M49 does not allow you to establish loss of property value.” Does not answer question.
AM: “You will be compensated by allowing 1-3 on a fast track, 4-10 houses if you can prove you’ve lost value.” With M37 one didn’t have to prove the projected value of your land. “There’s an appraisal process that we’re putting into place that wasn’t addressed with M37.” Sort of responded to question.

On the question of the gov’t taking your property:
AM: No, gov’t isn’t going to take your property.
MGH: If someone rezones your land…who knows...[fearful pause]..."

Given its flaws, isn’t M49 better than the status quo?
MGH: No, it’s not. The “fast track” can go on forever. They can force you in 90 days to accept 1-3 lots or lose your rights forever to ever apply for anything under M49.
AM: Within 90 days you do have to check a box on a form whether you want to go the fast track of 1-3 houses or another box that will go through the appraisal process. Miller claims that we “have to do this now,” which is pass M49.

Explain how M37 can trump our beach laws, etc.
AM: Under M37, you can trump the zoning laws that are in place to protect our environment and public lands. “We zoned our beaches to keep it from looking like California…”
MGH: “This is first time I’ve heard about the public beach.” “I’m against any subdivision over 10.” “It's not possible to get 4-10 lots with M49.” Forty percent of current M37 claimants want to build less than 10 homes, MGH claims.

How will tax breaks factor in?
AM: There will be an appraisal process that takes these tax breaks into account.
MGH: “I voted against M37, but here I am now.” “M37 increases revenues incredibly for counties.” “Back taxes have to be paid.”

Is there any likelihood that M37 will eventually be repealed by the Courts?
AM: “Very unlikely.” “It would be great to repeal it, but at the same time” some of the measure makes sense on a small scale. “I don’t know how M49 would affect a future repeal.”
MGH: “I don’t believe it will be repealed. However, M49 does increase legal costs.” “M49 does not allow recuperation of legal costs for homeowners who sue, even if they win.”

Under M49, claims will still be able to build within fragile watersheds, is that right?
AM: The fast track [with a limit of 3 houses] is available to anyone living in watersheds, but only the fast track.
MGH: M49 allows 3 houses to be built, no matter what.

If M49 does not pass, what will happen?
AM: We’ll see development up and down. Our beaches will be different…we would see a lot of development.

If M49 does pass, what will it look like?
MGH: It will look pretty much like it does now, because it will not allow development. [Crowd claps.]

Final straw poll: Roughly the same for YES [about 40-50] and the NO votes doubled to 4.

[Analysis: The main point of difference between the two speakers was a disagreement on how many homes should be allowed on the "fast track," which wouldn't require homeowners to prove any loss of value. MGH wants the cap to be at 10 homes. AM (and proponents of M49) have placed the cap at 3, which apparently isn't good enough for accountants like MGH, who claims there is demand to build over 300,000 new homes in the Portland metro area alone, but M49 would limit that to 100,000 new homes in that area.]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[End of first debate.]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Downtown Development Showdown: Measure 20-134

Mayor Kitty Piercy (Yes on M20-134): KP

City Councilor Bonnie Bettman (No on M20-134): BB

Initial straw vote: 21 people saying YES and 21 people saying NO. Um, looks familiar...

OPENING REMARKS

KP: “I want a beautiful, liveable city.” “The goal is to get people living, working and playing downtown.” “We need a vibrant mixed use neighborhood.” “Like you call a plumber to fix your plumbing, we called a developer to fix our downtown.” “Both developers have good reputations.” We wanted to do something uniquely Eugene and get two different developers. Closing remark: “It’s good.” [applause]

BB: The question is whether we should spend $40 million and increase the urban renewal spending. “At a local level, people overlook a lot, because they want to believe that … we are immune from the kind of shenanigans that happen across the nation.” “It’s a false choice of do we develop downtown or do we not develop downtown.” “M20-134 would raise the deficit." "25 businesses will experience financial pain, if they survive.” “10 million of the 40 million goes to beaucracy.” “This measure gives the profits to the [developers/corporations] and not the people.”

KWG and Beam have found a way, in principle, to collaborate. Does the passage of M20-134 mean the KWG/Beam project will go forward, and if so will it include the committee recommendations?
KP: The passage guarantees the funding. It doesn not guarantee that everything recommended by the committee will take place. It is a “financial tool.”
BB: “There is no signed agreement between KWG and Beam. There’s no guarantee there. KWG may cut loose of Beam.”

Where does the money come from to fund M20-134?
BB: "It’s called maximum indebtedness."
KP: "This is an investment that we would recoup [over 20 years]."

Unsure what the question was...SORRY!
KP: “The recommendation is a small grocery store, a McMenamins-style movie theater, a park, ice cream shop …”
BB: (Quotes Al Pacino film And Justice for All, where he’s led out of the courtroom screaming “You forgot to make your case!”) “What we need downtown is housing. This project is primarily retail.”

How will YES or NO improve the “street kid” problem?
KP: “When we have a lot of people living downtown, the kids will be part of the mix.”
BB: Cited The Horsehead’s case of trying to improve their storefront, but have been in limbo for 2 years, as the City's been plotting this kind of mega-project for some time. “The City considered condemning these buildings to give to Connor-Wooley.”

What will happen to the current businesses?
KP: There are recommendations for what to do. Basically: having more people living downtown will increase our patronage of businesses downtown, but KP didn’t address the ones that would be affected.
BB: There are 25 businesses in the footprint of the demolition. “To displace these businesses takes away their synergy…disperses their customer base.” “A huge financial loss and big business risk.” Relocating these businesses is going to cost millions, and it hasn’t been factored in, and it’s going to cost the taxpayers. “The City hasn’t [come up with a relocation plan].”

Isn't 20-134 a bail-out for Connor-Wooley?
KP: I don’t care about Connor-Wooley. They are part owners and we have to work with them. “They own the property, we gotta deal with them.”
BB: “We can deal with them…by voting no. They have been holding out knowing there was a huge pot of money in urban renewal.” BB believes C-W are holding out—depressing downtown—to cash in.

Why do the school board members endorse this measure when you claim it will hurt the schools (directed to BB)?
BB: There is some back-scratching going on. There are a lot of reasons why they’d step aside and let the City move forward.

To KP: If ballot measure fails, will you give up on downtown?
KP: I don’t think it’s our last chance. I think it’s a good chance. This is a great opportunity that we should take advantage of. I don’t think Just Say No campaigns have been proactive enough.

Will there be further input on the project?
KP: We have the citizens advisory committee. "Where they said a big cinema, we said ‘A small one.’” “No one is trying to scratch someone’s back.”
BB: There will not be another community vote. The only reason you’re having the opportunity to vote on THIS is because a local merchant pushed forward a referendum. If this is not defeated, the City will take this as a green light on the project.

If the community has sufficient demand for these retail shops, why subsidize them?
KP: “The best combination [in the past] was a balance of local and national.”
BB: “It is OK to subsidize housing. But to subsidize retail is to disadvantage local merchants.” “The objection is to use public tax dollars and give it to national chain stores.”

How can you call it "green building" when most of the buildings will be torn down?
KP: Existing buildings aren’t very green. There are certain buildings that have history that we’ll try to restore. We have to do a better job of building our buildings.

Every year we lose tons of UO grads who don’t want to live here. How do we change that?
BB: “Eugene is a provincial town. We’re behind the curve. Urban renewal is outdated. Demolishing downtown hasn’t been the key to a healthy downtown.”
KP: “There’s nothing wrong with paying attention to what the youth want in a downtown. They don’t want to lose what’s interesting about downtown.”

If it passes, what will Eugene look like?
BB: City cutting services to the library…a downtown which, for years, will be a disaster zone during construction. We will be sad and grieving over the loss of our character…”
KP: “Yes or no, we need to keep working on our downtown. If it goes down, it’s not the end of the world." KP claims the mega-project is a “transit-oriented project with minimal public parking.”

Final Straw poll: 32 YES and 32 NO. Fuck!

[Analysis: KP sounded like she was in a mayoral debate, chirping out catch-phrases about a downtown that was "sustainable" and "vibrant." BB sounded like she didn't want to see anything except more housing available in the downtown core. KP believes we need a mix of national and local merchants on top of the added downtown residential units, or else downtown residents will still have to drive out to the mall to go shopping. BB believes that the best option is returning to the Beam proposal that would only affect the Center Court and Aster Hole, providing a mix of residential and retail. KP thinks splitting the project between two developers and forging a compromise is in keeping with the Eugene spirit. BB doesn't think there are any guarantees that the developers will listen to the advisory committee at all, and this worries her.]

For more pics from the event and more info on these issues, see the Lane County Bus Project's blog on these issues.