The Tenth Voice #49
Orlando E. Delogu
August 19, 2009
Waynflete’s Next Round of Expansion–
An Alternative Strategy
Future Waynflete growth should not be allowed to snap up the
Williston Church annex property, nor the St. Louis Church property,
nor the three, five, seven, or eight strategically-placed, high-value
houses on the edge of the school’s present holdings in the West End
that have all been targeted for acquisition at one time or another.
These include 25, 27, and 33 Storer Street, the two Grayhurst Park
houses, 11 Fletcher Street, 299 Danforth Street, and 364 Spring
Street.
INSTEAD, (are you listening Waynflete, Planning Board, City
Council) let Waynflete do what Mercy Hospital has successfully done–
let them augment their future space needs (not in a crowded in-town
setting) but by building off-peninsula on the 35 acres of land Waynflete
already owns on the Fore River close to Westgate.
This land is presently under-utilized; it is easily accessible off
Congress Street; it is a bucolic setting, and presently accommodates
the school’s athletic fields. Waynflete already has the capacity (and
utilizes it daily) to move students back and forth between their in-town
campus and these ballfields.
Nothing but Waynflete’s present mindset (i.e., that their academic
programs must remain in-town - separated from their athletic facilities)
prevents the presently unused portion of this 35 acre tract from also
being used to meet future library, classroom, or other academic
needs. The present configurations of both public and private schools
in the area– Deering, Cheverus, North Yarmouth Academy, Catherine
McAuley all suggest that such a separation is not needed– these
successful schools all have academic facilities and athletic facilities in
close proximity to one another. Waynflete should be encouraged/
permitted to do likewise on their 35 acre Fore River parcel.
The present overlay zoning discussions between Waynflete,
neighborhood groups, and the Planning Board have been going on for
nearly a year. These discussions are designed to produce an overlay
zone that limits further Waynflete acquisition of high-value properties
in the densely settled West End neighborhood– a zone and limitations
similar to those placed on USM, Mercy Hospital and the Maine Medical
Center.
These discussions have revealed that some of the school’s future
academic needs can be met by more creatively utilizing land that is
already a part of their West End campus. Additional in-town land
could be made available by relocating one house they already own on
that campus (3 Storer Street), and by permitting them to acquire one
house that juts into the existing campus (11 Fletcher Street) which
would also be relocated.
This in-town capacity to meet a portion of the school’s future growth
needs, when coupled with a broadened, more imaginative use of the
presently-unused portions of Waynflete’s 35 acre Fore River parcel,
would allow all of Waynflete’s future growth needs to be met without
taking one additional house off the tax rolls of the city. As noted, two
existing in-town houses would simply be relocated.
In sum, this combined expansion strategy (in-town and on the 35
acre tract) is a fair and sensible alternative to any/all presently
proposed (and/or rumored) land acquisitions by the school in the West
End of the city. It fully meets Waynflete’s growth needs; it protects
the tax base and the housing policies of the city; it preserves the
existing fabric of the West End neighborhood– a win, win, win
strategy– what more could we ask for? That’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #47
Orlando E. Delogu
July 23, 2009
Get With the Team
Police and Firefighters are Essential– But
They’re Part of a Larger Team
There is an irony in the fact that the two unions (out of eight) that did
not go along with the City Manager’s one-year wage freeze in
exchange for a no-layoff pledge, were the firefighters’ union and the
smaller (of two) police unions. These union groups perform essential
public services– there are times when they put their lives at risk. I
appreciate and respect that service. At the same time, these two
groups pride themselves on their internal cohesiveness, their
comradery. They perpetuate the view that they’ve “got one another’s
back.” But both of these groups were willing to throw their youngest
colleagues out the door in order to hang on to wage gains which,
given the economic circumstances of the day, could not be met. So
much for, “we’ve got your back”.
Hiding behind collective bargaining agreements, and/or trying to make
City Manager Joe Gray the fall guy, is bunk. Joe Gray didn’t create
the economic circumstances facing the nation, Maine, the City of
Portland. Joe Gray didn’t stretch out the firefighters’ union collective
bargaining process to the point in time where its conclusion and this
year’s budgeting process overlapped.
And Joe Gray, rightfully, didn’t buy into the unspoken (but implied)
argument that police and firefighters often make– that their public
safety-related jobs are somehow more important than other public
sector jobs– and as such, should be protected, not bound by economic
realities facing the city. That argument too is bunk. The fact is
that all City employee jobs are important– public works personnel,
social service personnel, building safety, and health inspectors– all of
these employee groups (including police and firefighters) are part of an
integrated whole that enables this city to serve the needs of all
citizens. And, in fact, prior to this year’s budget crisis, all eight City
unions had bargained (in good faith) and had some level of wage
increase that they were looking forward to. And all eight unions faced
the same Joe Gray proposal– forego this year’s anticipated wage
increase in favor of a no-layoff pledge. That was all the City could
afford. Six unions, seeing the economics of the day clearly, and the
value of keeping a job in these tough economic times, accepted Gray’s
proposal. They protected their youngest, their most recently hired
colleagues. That’s comradery, that’s what “having your back” really
means.
The firefighters (and the smaller of two police unions) made their
choice– they took the wage increase money. Now they need to deal
with the layoffs. One way or another, the budget had to be balanced.
Joe Gray, and to its credit, the City Council, understood that. They
acted reasonably. Now it’s time for these two unions to act
reasonably. Having made a choice, they need to suck it up and deal
with the consequences of that choice. Whining on the steps of City
Hall and/or blaming someone else for the economic circumstances that
everyone in the nation
is facing serves no useful purpose– it doesn’t earn anyone’s respect.
Finally, it should be noted that there is some hope that federal
stimulus funds will allow some of those laid off personnel to be
rehired. If it happens, fine. I’m sure Joe Gray will welcome them
back. If not, that’s not Joe Gray’s fault either. In short, recessions
are often long and difficult to get out of. They force painful decisions
to be made. They hurt. So does arrogant and selfish behavior within
the family of City employees– that’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #46
Orlando E. Delogu
July 10, 2009
If We Build It…
Portland should build, repair, and improve its
infrastructure–NOW
The evidence presents itself over and over– spending on infrastructure
during a recessionary period not only puts people back to work (thus
enabling us to come out of recession sooner), but enables government
(federal, state, and local) to buy/build what it needs at a greatly
reduced price. Everyone associated with the current round of road
improvements being undertaken in Portland (largely with stimulus
funds) understands that not only is the price of asphalt much lower
than it was a year ago, but contractors are available and willing to
work at reduced rates– we’re getting more bang for our buck.
Another positive example is the new Ocean Avenue elementary
school. The state, foolishly, was prepared to suspend all new school
construction for a year. Portland asked to be allowed to go forward
with the Ocean Avenue school– and we were permitted to do so. The
bids came in $4 million dollars under budget. The project is moving
forward. What further evidence do we need that now is the time to
build?
We - Portland - should stop waiting for federal and/or state stimulus
monies to trickle down to us. Federal monies are moving out too
slowly, prolonging the recession. And the state simply doesn’t get it.
It doesn’t understand the first thing about Keynesian economics or anti-
recession policy. At a time when a bold state bonding program to
build, repair, and improve roads, bridges, university facilities, electric
transmission systems, water treatment facilities, sewer systems, etc. is
called for, the legislative session put together a timid bond package that
does almost nothing to help us out of recession, and fails to take
advantage of the savings that building now would create. In fact, the
state’s failure to use either its spending or bonding powers at this
critical point in time has resulted in countless highway projects being
cut back– we’re paving less roadway, stopping projects, laying people
off– all at the very time we should be expanding these (and countless
other) infrastructure-type projects. It’s madness– is anybody in
charge?
So we are back to Portland– this, after all, is the only government we
have any control over. We need to do for ourselves what others are
either doing badly, or not doing at all. The key to stimulating our own
economy and creating local jobs lies in screwing up our courage and
utilizing the City’s bonding power to expand the City’s infrastructure
building program. Instead of continuing to postpone the airport
expansion, that project should be fast-tracked (as was the Ocean
Avenue school). Local building materials will be purchased – people
will be put to work. Accelerating our environmental and legal
commitment to storm water handling projects will do the same thing.
So will moving forward with the range of elementary school
improvement projects that have been on the table for years. In all of
these cases, the cost of building today will be much less than if we
wait three or five years for the economy to improve.
To be sure, bonding involves some current costs, but these costs are
affordable, and much less than the larger pool of revenues that will be
made available to build the infrastructure that we need. And
(repeating the obvious) building this infrastructure now will create
immediate jobs, buy us what we need at a reduced price, and improve
the flow of local tax revenues by ending the recession sooner. The
evidence of these facts is staring us in the face.
Cautious voices in City Hall tell us we cannot afford to bond. This is
the same overly-cautious, wooly-headed thinking one hears at the state
level of government– it’s just plain wrong. The truth of the matter is –
if we want to save ourselves, to climb out of this recession, Portland
cannot afford not to borrow. We need to take advantage of the
circumstances we are in to build the infrastructure we need– we need
to do it NOW– that’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #39
Orlando E. Delogu
April 6, 2009
A Tale of Two Budgets
The Gods have smiled on the Portland School
Committee.
As noted in the last issue of the West End News, the Committee,
barely three months ago, was looking at the loss of $1.8 million
in FY 2009 funds (because of declining state revenues), and an
even larger projected loss of state aid monies for FY 2010.
Then came the Obama stimulus package. Maine’s share of
stimulus education funds allowed the FY 2009 cut ($1.8 million)
to be restored, and state aid for FY 2010 was projected to
equal FY 2009's.
With this level of stimulus funding in hand, the budget-cutting
exercises of early January were no longer needed– one could
hope for a “zero tax rate increase” school budget. But alas,
NO. At this point the School Committee, seeing unmet needs
where only weeks earlier they were debating sharp cuts, felt it
was appropriate to increase expenditures by calling upon
taxpayers to raise an additional $1.6 million to fund the
spending/ budget priorities they put on the table. But the gods
(still smiling) intervened once again.
Less than a week after the School Committee’s (really its
finance committee’s) budget seemed set, they were informed
that a final parsing out of Maine stimulus funds earmarked for
education resulted in Portland receiving an additional $2.64
million dollars in state aid monies. Buoyed by this latest
windfall, the Committee added another $150,000 to the
expenditure side of its proposed budget (raising FY 2010
expenditures approximately $1.85 million dollars, or 2%, over
FY 2009 expenditures), and dedicated the balance of these
increased state aid monies to reducing the amount of money
that would be needed to be raised by Portland taxpayers by
nearly $2.5 million dollars. This would allow a 1.3% reduction (a
cut of $880,000 dollars) in FY 2010's school related property
tax bite over FY 2009's. Commendable, but one might ask, is it
enough?
On the city’s side of the budget, “these are the worst of
times.” No stimulus funds immediately available; reduced state
revenue sharing monies; reduced excise (primarily auto
registration) taxes, reduced revenues from fees, licenses etc.
And at the same time, there is continuing pressure to spend
more, to improve and/or expand the range of local
governmental goods and services the city provides. The city
manager (Joe Gray) deserves a great deal of credit for paring
initial departmental budget requests down from over $11 million
dollars to less than $1 million dollars. An important part of this
expenditure reduction grows out of an across-the-board city
employee wage freeze for FY 2010. The quid pro quo would be
no staff reductions.
Given the economic times we are all in, some of the city’s union
groups have readily agreed to this proposal– other union
groups have balked; discussions are in progress. One can only
hope that Joe Gray hangs in there– and that the city council
fully supports him. This is a fair offer, particularly in light of the
fact that the consumer price index (CPI) has not risen during the
past year, and is not expected to rise over the next
year/eighteen months.
But even the relatively small projected city spending increase
(approx. $963,000 dollars), when coupled with the sharp
revenue declines facing the city, results in a city budget tax rate
increase of 2.9% (.25 cents per $1,000 of valuation). Grim as
this seems, the combined city/school/enterprise account
budgets presents a more favorable picture, as a result of the
stimulus monies made available to Portland’s schools. The
combined budgets result in a tax levy increase from FY 2009 to
FY 2010 of a more modest 1.3% or $1.7 million dollars. The tax
impact of this latter figure is further softened by a small (1.1%)
increase in the city’s assessed valuations from FY 2009 to FY
2010. The bottom line then, as these combined budgets
now stand, is that a tax rate increase of only .2% ($. 04
cents per $1,000 of valuation) would be required. Not bad
for the times we are in.
It seems a shame, however, to get so close to the goal of a
“zero tax rate increase”, but then miss the goal. The
psychological benefit, (if not the $.04 cents of economic benefit)
of passing a “no tax rate increase” budget would be enormous.
The pride/benefit of being able to say– we held the line. In
these tough economic times, the whole city family (elected
leaders and city employees at every level) came together and
did not increase the property tax burden at all– not even by a
penny. In sports parlance, it’s the difference between winning a
tough game, and losing it– even if you lost by only by a small
margin, its still a loss.
And the goal is very achievable– the school committee’s
proposed FY 2010 expenditure increases (though modest in
one sense) are much higher than the expenditure increases
proposed in the city’s FY 2010 budget. They have not clamped
down as hard on wage freezes as the city has, and some of the
proposed school expenditures were only added at the last
minute as stimulus funds rolled in. If a few of the latter were
deferred for a year, the savings could be committed to further
reducing the amount needed to be raised by taxation– a “zero
tax rate increase” would be achieved. We can do this; we
should do this– THAT’S MY VIEW.
The Tenth Voice #38
Orlando E. Delogu
March 25, 2009
Higher Taxes Coming?
It’s Budget Season Again… but this time there is a big
difference– we are in the midst of a major recession. You would
think this would register with agency heads, city managers,
school administrators, elected officials– but you would be
wrong. Though not all of this years budget data is in hand (the
City Manager’s proposed budget will not be released until April
6th) the early signs are not good.
In a year when unemployment is high, foreclosures are up, and
house values have declined sharply– a year in which the CPI
[consumer price index] did not rise between January 2008 and
January 2009, and thus budgets/taxes do not have to increase
just to keep up with inflation– a year in which federal stimulus
monies have largely offset the loss of state aid and tax sharing
revenues, the citizens of Portland have every right to look for a
City and School budget that holds the line– in short, an overall
FY 2010 budget that calls for a “zero tax rate increase”. Based
on what we know now, that’s not what we’re likely to get.
The first shoe to drop came in the form of a request for a 3.8
percent budget increase from Portland library officials. Joe
Gray, to his credit, made it clear he will not acquiesce to this
request. And why should he– aside from the economics of the
day (noted above), the library has reneged on its promise
(made during last year’s budget process) to reexamine its
fundraising efforts, its costs, its capacity to maintain a six-
branch system. Until they complete this task and come up with
a plan that more fully meets their funding needs, the City should
not give the library a penny more than it was given last year–
some would argue the case is strong for giving them less. We’ll
see shortly if Mr. Gray’s budget pencil is as sharp as his initial
reaction to the library’s requested increase– one hopes.
A more telling indication of where this year’s overall (City and
School) budgetary and tax rate levels will end up has been
presented to us by the Portland School Committee’s finance
committee. It’s not the whole pie, but it’s a big piece of the pie–
and at this point, the proposed school budget for FY 2010 has
not been approved by the full School Committee.
But if history is a guide, this proposed budget (or something
very close to it) will be approved by the full Committee. The
proposed school budget calls for a $1.6 million dollar increase
(2.4%) in local tax revenues. This increase is proposed in spite
of the fact that overall enrollment continues to trend down– in
spite of the fact that all of the FY 2009 state aid monies cut by
the Governor earlier this year ($1.8 million) have been restored
by the release of stimulus funds– in spite of the fact that
projected state aid cuts for FY 2010 have been rescinded
(again drawing on stimulus funds). In sum, given the times we
are in, and the windfall of stimulus monies received, the
proposed school budget seems insensitive to the taxpayers of
Portland.
Let’s be clear here. In the last 90 days, the School Committee
received (from federal stimulus funds) literally millions of
unanticipated dollars. Instead of implementing the array of
spending cuts that the Superintendent had put on the table to
balance the FY 2009 budget (with more cuts to come in
fashioning the FY 2010 budget) the Committee scrapped the
cuts, spent and/or has budgeted most of the stimulus dollars,
and is asking taxpayers to pony up an additional $1.6 million
dollars. This in a year in which the budgetary/ the tax rate line
should have been held.
In closing, it is worth repeating– the City budget is not yet on the
table. Whether Mr. Gray will put a budget on the table that calls
for a “zero tax rate increase” remains to be seen. Whether the
City Council will have the courage to hold down its own budget,
and scale down the school budget to achieve a “zero tax rate
increase” goal also remains to be seen. One thing is clear–
several communities around us (Falmouth and Kennebunkport)
have done just that. Others will, no doubt, follow. It can be
done; it will take both judgment and courage on the part of our
elected officials. But given the economic times we are in, given
the level of property taxation already being borne by Portland
taxpayers, they have a right to expect that their elected leaders
will find the courage to do what common sense and fairness
dictate– that’s my view.
The 10th Voice #37
Orlando E. Delogu
March 18, 2009
In the Hole
Potholes are Dangerous and Pothole Repairs are
Costly– These Dangers and Costs Can be Reduced
Let me acknowledge at the outset that I am not an engineer–
but I know what I see; I know how to ask questions; and I know
common sense (or its absence) when I see it.
That said, the pothole problem - particularly in heavily traveled
areas on the Portland peninsula - is exacerbated by the City’s
shortsighted approach to two self-evident and long-standing
problems.
The first is the City’s policy of not removing abandoned railroad
and trolley tracks from heavily traveled city streets– instead,
they simply blacktop over these tracks (it’s cheaper) and let it
go at that.
But the tracks are on a solid bed, and are steel. There is little
or no give in either. The surrounding and overlying roadbed
tends to settle over time, particularly the thin layer actually
covering the steel track. A winter or two of plowing, salting,
freezing and warming soon produces small and then larger
areas of pavement cracking over (and alongside) this un-
removed track. The development of potholes inevitably follows–
their number and size is determined by the severity of the winter
and the volume of traffic the particular street/intersection is
exposed to.
Two hard winters in a row have produced any number of
peninsula areas where this natural process is painfully evident–
and the potholes are painfully large. Many of these settings
are dangerous to bicyclists, motorcyclists, and vehicles that
must slow down in an effort to dodge the worst of these
hazardous conditions. Nighttime travel produces even greater
risks.
I’d direct your attention to Kennebec Street for several blocks,
Hanover Street (as it enters Kennebec), Portland Street (in front
of the Public Works Dept. Headquarters), Elm Street
(approaching Marginal Way), Commercial Street (under the
Casco Bay Bridge), and Deering Avenue (in front of King Middle
School), the intersection of Spring and State Street, and clearly
the worst of all– the intersection of High Street and Forest
Avenue (near Marginal Way). Steel rails (and the potholes they
create) can easily be seen in all of these locations. I’m certain
there are other settings, not enumerated above, where the
same conditions and risks exist.
In short, this is not a little problem. Temporary winter patching,
and longer-term spring fixes may help for a few days or months,
but they do not really fix the problem. We need to take the
abandoned steel track out of the ground – that will cost more
than simply paving over the problem, but it will significantly
reduce the pothole problem; it will reduce dangerous driving
conditions. In the long run it will be cheaper than the endless
costs of pothole repair, and it will avoid the hidden costs of tire
damage, wheel alignment, etc. that Portland drivers now bear.
A second setting (of somewhat lesser importance, but
nonetheless real) which seems to produce and exacerbate
pothole problems, arises out of the manner in which manhole
covers are installed.
These covers are not made of steel; but they are an equally
unyielding cast iron. These covers and their seats rest on
several layers of brick, which in turn rest on cast cement (or
brick in older manholes) structures that lead to the underlying
infrastructure facilities (water, sewer, electrical systems). These
covers and their supporting structures hold up well to even
heavy traffic. But the immediately surrounding roadbed does
not fare as well– it settles under the weight of heavy traffic, and
water seeps into the seams between the manhole cover and
road.
Again, the processes of plowing, salting, freezing, and warming
produces pavement cracking that inexorably leads to pothole
formation.
There is nothing (like abandoned steel track) that can be
removed here. What is needed here is a re-thinking, a
redesign, of the structural integrity of the roadbed area that
surrounds the manhole. For three or four feet around each
manhole, a harder material - perhaps one of the modern
cements being used today - could provide a smoother, less
jarring transition from ordinary roadbed to the rock-solid
manhole cover and structure. And the seaming between this
material - the manhole cover and the roadbed - must be made
as watertight as possible. This will be more costly initially; but
as noted above, the number of dangerous potholes will be
reduced; the costs of endless pothole repair will be reduced;
and the hidden costs of vehicle repair borne by the public will
be reduced.
In sum, both of the steps suggested here are do-able; neither
involves rocket science. More importantly, the creation of less
dangerous winter driving conditions, and the long-run cost
savings, more than justifies the initially higher costs of the two
approaches being suggested– that’s my view.
The 10th Voice #36
Orlando E. Delogu
March 4, 2009
Taking Large-scale Development
Proposals to The City Council
First, and Then to The Planning
Board, Makes a Lot of Sense
The approach suggested in the title to this piece should be
used infrequently. It should also be limited to large-scale
development proposals that pose policy questions that only the
Council can ultimately resolve, and/or that would require
existing ordinances to be amended, or contract zoning
approved, which actions again, can only be undertaken by the
Council.
The critical feature of initial Council/developer review that must
be understood is that no binding commitment can be sought by
the developer, or be given by the Council, at this stage of the
development review process. It’s an opportunity for the
developer to lay out in broad brush what is envisioned– what
problems he/she sees, and how they would be overcome– what
policy issues are implicated– what ordinances/regulations may
need to be amended. It gives the Council the opportunity to
raise problems it sees, and concerns it has, with the proposed
development. If there are existing policies and/or ordinances
that a majority of the Council are reluctant, almost certainly
unwilling, to alter, it lets that fact be known at an early stage– a
stage well before the developer has expended what may well be
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars preparing detailed
plans for the planning board– plans which may never ultimately
be approved.
Seen in this light, the approach suggested is not an end-run
around the planning board. If, and when, the developer
chooses to move forward (beyond this initial Council/developer
review of the proposal) the project would be subject to full
planning board review. The board will have before it, and
examine, all of the development details, and apply all of city’s
regulations and ordinances to the proposed project. But
because of the initial Council/developer exchange of views, the
board (beyond the issues which its expertise would cause it to
focus upon) will be able to usefully focus on those matters that
concerned the Council. It will be in a position to suggest useful
modifications to the developer’s initial thinking. And it will be
better able to fashion language that amends or reconciles
policy conflicts, amends (as necessary) existing regulations or
ordinances, and fashions useful conditions to any ultimate
approval that both
the board and Council would fashion.
And nothing in the initial Council/developer review of the
proposal would preclude the planning board from denying
development approval, if denial is in fact called for. The board
would be subject only to the usual requirements that the basis
for its denial must be fully articulated, and must be borne out by
the hearing record fashioned in the course of dealing
with the developer’s application for approval.
That said, the real benefit of the suggested approach is that it
has the potential of saving both the developer and the City time
and money. Large-scale projects that are seen by the Council
as unacceptable can be so labeled– and everyone can move
on. On the other hand,
if the Council is open to a particular large-scale project, even
one that may require policy or ordinance changes, all of the
parties– developer, planning board, and Council can usefully
focus on those issues which the initial Council/developer review
saw as critical, issues that must be satisfactorily resolved as a
condition of development approval. Focusing the planning
board review process will also save the city and the developer
time and money.
In short, there is no reason to fear the approach being
suggested. We want large, imaginative development proposals
to be put on the table; they create jobs and tax base which the
city sorely needs. At the same time, the front-end costs of
preparing an application for planning board review, particularly
of a large-scale project, are so formidable today that one is
justifiably reluctant to go forward without some indication that
the project will be favorably received by the Council that must
ultimately approve the development. The costs and reluctance
are even greater if the project is seemingly barred by existing
policies, ordinances, or regulations that must be amended if the
Council is prepared to approve the development proposal. The
process suggested here minimizes these cost and reluctance
barriers– if used wisely, both developer and city interests will be
well served– that’s my view.
Orlando E. Delogu
August 19, 2009
Waynflete’s Next Round of Expansion–
An Alternative Strategy
Future Waynflete growth should not be allowed to snap up the
Williston Church annex property, nor the St. Louis Church property,
nor the three, five, seven, or eight strategically-placed, high-value
houses on the edge of the school’s present holdings in the West End
that have all been targeted for acquisition at one time or another.
These include 25, 27, and 33 Storer Street, the two Grayhurst Park
houses, 11 Fletcher Street, 299 Danforth Street, and 364 Spring
Street.
INSTEAD, (are you listening Waynflete, Planning Board, City
Council) let Waynflete do what Mercy Hospital has successfully done–
let them augment their future space needs (not in a crowded in-town
setting) but by building off-peninsula on the 35 acres of land Waynflete
already owns on the Fore River close to Westgate.
This land is presently under-utilized; it is easily accessible off
Congress Street; it is a bucolic setting, and presently accommodates
the school’s athletic fields. Waynflete already has the capacity (and
utilizes it daily) to move students back and forth between their in-town
campus and these ballfields.
Nothing but Waynflete’s present mindset (i.e., that their academic
programs must remain in-town - separated from their athletic facilities)
prevents the presently unused portion of this 35 acre tract from also
being used to meet future library, classroom, or other academic
needs. The present configurations of both public and private schools
in the area– Deering, Cheverus, North Yarmouth Academy, Catherine
McAuley all suggest that such a separation is not needed– these
successful schools all have academic facilities and athletic facilities in
close proximity to one another. Waynflete should be encouraged/
permitted to do likewise on their 35 acre Fore River parcel.
The present overlay zoning discussions between Waynflete,
neighborhood groups, and the Planning Board have been going on for
nearly a year. These discussions are designed to produce an overlay
zone that limits further Waynflete acquisition of high-value properties
in the densely settled West End neighborhood– a zone and limitations
similar to those placed on USM, Mercy Hospital and the Maine Medical
Center.
These discussions have revealed that some of the school’s future
academic needs can be met by more creatively utilizing land that is
already a part of their West End campus. Additional in-town land
could be made available by relocating one house they already own on
that campus (3 Storer Street), and by permitting them to acquire one
house that juts into the existing campus (11 Fletcher Street) which
would also be relocated.
This in-town capacity to meet a portion of the school’s future growth
needs, when coupled with a broadened, more imaginative use of the
presently-unused portions of Waynflete’s 35 acre Fore River parcel,
would allow all of Waynflete’s future growth needs to be met without
taking one additional house off the tax rolls of the city. As noted, two
existing in-town houses would simply be relocated.
In sum, this combined expansion strategy (in-town and on the 35
acre tract) is a fair and sensible alternative to any/all presently
proposed (and/or rumored) land acquisitions by the school in the West
End of the city. It fully meets Waynflete’s growth needs; it protects
the tax base and the housing policies of the city; it preserves the
existing fabric of the West End neighborhood– a win, win, win
strategy– what more could we ask for? That’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #47
Orlando E. Delogu
July 23, 2009
Get With the Team
Police and Firefighters are Essential– But
They’re Part of a Larger Team
There is an irony in the fact that the two unions (out of eight) that did
not go along with the City Manager’s one-year wage freeze in
exchange for a no-layoff pledge, were the firefighters’ union and the
smaller (of two) police unions. These union groups perform essential
public services– there are times when they put their lives at risk. I
appreciate and respect that service. At the same time, these two
groups pride themselves on their internal cohesiveness, their
comradery. They perpetuate the view that they’ve “got one another’s
back.” But both of these groups were willing to throw their youngest
colleagues out the door in order to hang on to wage gains which,
given the economic circumstances of the day, could not be met. So
much for, “we’ve got your back”.
Hiding behind collective bargaining agreements, and/or trying to make
City Manager Joe Gray the fall guy, is bunk. Joe Gray didn’t create
the economic circumstances facing the nation, Maine, the City of
Portland. Joe Gray didn’t stretch out the firefighters’ union collective
bargaining process to the point in time where its conclusion and this
year’s budgeting process overlapped.
And Joe Gray, rightfully, didn’t buy into the unspoken (but implied)
argument that police and firefighters often make– that their public
safety-related jobs are somehow more important than other public
sector jobs– and as such, should be protected, not bound by economic
realities facing the city. That argument too is bunk. The fact is
that all City employee jobs are important– public works personnel,
social service personnel, building safety, and health inspectors– all of
these employee groups (including police and firefighters) are part of an
integrated whole that enables this city to serve the needs of all
citizens. And, in fact, prior to this year’s budget crisis, all eight City
unions had bargained (in good faith) and had some level of wage
increase that they were looking forward to. And all eight unions faced
the same Joe Gray proposal– forego this year’s anticipated wage
increase in favor of a no-layoff pledge. That was all the City could
afford. Six unions, seeing the economics of the day clearly, and the
value of keeping a job in these tough economic times, accepted Gray’s
proposal. They protected their youngest, their most recently hired
colleagues. That’s comradery, that’s what “having your back” really
means.
The firefighters (and the smaller of two police unions) made their
choice– they took the wage increase money. Now they need to deal
with the layoffs. One way or another, the budget had to be balanced.
Joe Gray, and to its credit, the City Council, understood that. They
acted reasonably. Now it’s time for these two unions to act
reasonably. Having made a choice, they need to suck it up and deal
with the consequences of that choice. Whining on the steps of City
Hall and/or blaming someone else for the economic circumstances that
everyone in the nation
is facing serves no useful purpose– it doesn’t earn anyone’s respect.
Finally, it should be noted that there is some hope that federal
stimulus funds will allow some of those laid off personnel to be
rehired. If it happens, fine. I’m sure Joe Gray will welcome them
back. If not, that’s not Joe Gray’s fault either. In short, recessions
are often long and difficult to get out of. They force painful decisions
to be made. They hurt. So does arrogant and selfish behavior within
the family of City employees– that’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #46
Orlando E. Delogu
July 10, 2009
If We Build It…
Portland should build, repair, and improve its
infrastructure–NOW
The evidence presents itself over and over– spending on infrastructure
during a recessionary period not only puts people back to work (thus
enabling us to come out of recession sooner), but enables government
(federal, state, and local) to buy/build what it needs at a greatly
reduced price. Everyone associated with the current round of road
improvements being undertaken in Portland (largely with stimulus
funds) understands that not only is the price of asphalt much lower
than it was a year ago, but contractors are available and willing to
work at reduced rates– we’re getting more bang for our buck.
Another positive example is the new Ocean Avenue elementary
school. The state, foolishly, was prepared to suspend all new school
construction for a year. Portland asked to be allowed to go forward
with the Ocean Avenue school– and we were permitted to do so. The
bids came in $4 million dollars under budget. The project is moving
forward. What further evidence do we need that now is the time to
build?
We - Portland - should stop waiting for federal and/or state stimulus
monies to trickle down to us. Federal monies are moving out too
slowly, prolonging the recession. And the state simply doesn’t get it.
It doesn’t understand the first thing about Keynesian economics or anti-
recession policy. At a time when a bold state bonding program to
build, repair, and improve roads, bridges, university facilities, electric
transmission systems, water treatment facilities, sewer systems, etc. is
called for, the legislative session put together a timid bond package that
does almost nothing to help us out of recession, and fails to take
advantage of the savings that building now would create. In fact, the
state’s failure to use either its spending or bonding powers at this
critical point in time has resulted in countless highway projects being
cut back– we’re paving less roadway, stopping projects, laying people
off– all at the very time we should be expanding these (and countless
other) infrastructure-type projects. It’s madness– is anybody in
charge?
So we are back to Portland– this, after all, is the only government we
have any control over. We need to do for ourselves what others are
either doing badly, or not doing at all. The key to stimulating our own
economy and creating local jobs lies in screwing up our courage and
utilizing the City’s bonding power to expand the City’s infrastructure
building program. Instead of continuing to postpone the airport
expansion, that project should be fast-tracked (as was the Ocean
Avenue school). Local building materials will be purchased – people
will be put to work. Accelerating our environmental and legal
commitment to storm water handling projects will do the same thing.
So will moving forward with the range of elementary school
improvement projects that have been on the table for years. In all of
these cases, the cost of building today will be much less than if we
wait three or five years for the economy to improve.
To be sure, bonding involves some current costs, but these costs are
affordable, and much less than the larger pool of revenues that will be
made available to build the infrastructure that we need. And
(repeating the obvious) building this infrastructure now will create
immediate jobs, buy us what we need at a reduced price, and improve
the flow of local tax revenues by ending the recession sooner. The
evidence of these facts is staring us in the face.
Cautious voices in City Hall tell us we cannot afford to bond. This is
the same overly-cautious, wooly-headed thinking one hears at the state
level of government– it’s just plain wrong. The truth of the matter is –
if we want to save ourselves, to climb out of this recession, Portland
cannot afford not to borrow. We need to take advantage of the
circumstances we are in to build the infrastructure we need– we need
to do it NOW– that’s my view.
The Tenth Voice #39
Orlando E. Delogu
April 6, 2009
A Tale of Two Budgets
The Gods have smiled on the Portland School
Committee.
As noted in the last issue of the West End News, the Committee,
barely three months ago, was looking at the loss of $1.8 million
in FY 2009 funds (because of declining state revenues), and an
even larger projected loss of state aid monies for FY 2010.
Then came the Obama stimulus package. Maine’s share of
stimulus education funds allowed the FY 2009 cut ($1.8 million)
to be restored, and state aid for FY 2010 was projected to
equal FY 2009's.
With this level of stimulus funding in hand, the budget-cutting
exercises of early January were no longer needed– one could
hope for a “zero tax rate increase” school budget. But alas,
NO. At this point the School Committee, seeing unmet needs
where only weeks earlier they were debating sharp cuts, felt it
was appropriate to increase expenditures by calling upon
taxpayers to raise an additional $1.6 million to fund the
spending/ budget priorities they put on the table. But the gods
(still smiling) intervened once again.
Less than a week after the School Committee’s (really its
finance committee’s) budget seemed set, they were informed
that a final parsing out of Maine stimulus funds earmarked for
education resulted in Portland receiving an additional $2.64
million dollars in state aid monies. Buoyed by this latest
windfall, the Committee added another $150,000 to the
expenditure side of its proposed budget (raising FY 2010
expenditures approximately $1.85 million dollars, or 2%, over
FY 2009 expenditures), and dedicated the balance of these
increased state aid monies to reducing the amount of money
that would be needed to be raised by Portland taxpayers by
nearly $2.5 million dollars. This would allow a 1.3% reduction (a
cut of $880,000 dollars) in FY 2010's school related property
tax bite over FY 2009's. Commendable, but one might ask, is it
enough?
On the city’s side of the budget, “these are the worst of
times.” No stimulus funds immediately available; reduced state
revenue sharing monies; reduced excise (primarily auto
registration) taxes, reduced revenues from fees, licenses etc.
And at the same time, there is continuing pressure to spend
more, to improve and/or expand the range of local
governmental goods and services the city provides. The city
manager (Joe Gray) deserves a great deal of credit for paring
initial departmental budget requests down from over $11 million
dollars to less than $1 million dollars. An important part of this
expenditure reduction grows out of an across-the-board city
employee wage freeze for FY 2010. The quid pro quo would be
no staff reductions.
Given the economic times we are all in, some of the city’s union
groups have readily agreed to this proposal– other union
groups have balked; discussions are in progress. One can only
hope that Joe Gray hangs in there– and that the city council
fully supports him. This is a fair offer, particularly in light of the
fact that the consumer price index (CPI) has not risen during the
past year, and is not expected to rise over the next
year/eighteen months.
But even the relatively small projected city spending increase
(approx. $963,000 dollars), when coupled with the sharp
revenue declines facing the city, results in a city budget tax rate
increase of 2.9% (.25 cents per $1,000 of valuation). Grim as
this seems, the combined city/school/enterprise account
budgets presents a more favorable picture, as a result of the
stimulus monies made available to Portland’s schools. The
combined budgets result in a tax levy increase from FY 2009 to
FY 2010 of a more modest 1.3% or $1.7 million dollars. The tax
impact of this latter figure is further softened by a small (1.1%)
increase in the city’s assessed valuations from FY 2009 to FY
2010. The bottom line then, as these combined budgets
now stand, is that a tax rate increase of only .2% ($. 04
cents per $1,000 of valuation) would be required. Not bad
for the times we are in.
It seems a shame, however, to get so close to the goal of a
“zero tax rate increase”, but then miss the goal. The
psychological benefit, (if not the $.04 cents of economic benefit)
of passing a “no tax rate increase” budget would be enormous.
The pride/benefit of being able to say– we held the line. In
these tough economic times, the whole city family (elected
leaders and city employees at every level) came together and
did not increase the property tax burden at all– not even by a
penny. In sports parlance, it’s the difference between winning a
tough game, and losing it– even if you lost by only by a small
margin, its still a loss.
And the goal is very achievable– the school committee’s
proposed FY 2010 expenditure increases (though modest in
one sense) are much higher than the expenditure increases
proposed in the city’s FY 2010 budget. They have not clamped
down as hard on wage freezes as the city has, and some of the
proposed school expenditures were only added at the last
minute as stimulus funds rolled in. If a few of the latter were
deferred for a year, the savings could be committed to further
reducing the amount needed to be raised by taxation– a “zero
tax rate increase” would be achieved. We can do this; we
should do this– THAT’S MY VIEW.
The Tenth Voice #38
Orlando E. Delogu
March 25, 2009
Higher Taxes Coming?
It’s Budget Season Again… but this time there is a big
difference– we are in the midst of a major recession. You would
think this would register with agency heads, city managers,
school administrators, elected officials– but you would be
wrong. Though not all of this years budget data is in hand (the
City Manager’s proposed budget will not be released until April
6th) the early signs are not good.
In a year when unemployment is high, foreclosures are up, and
house values have declined sharply– a year in which the CPI
[consumer price index] did not rise between January 2008 and
January 2009, and thus budgets/taxes do not have to increase
just to keep up with inflation– a year in which federal stimulus
monies have largely offset the loss of state aid and tax sharing
revenues, the citizens of Portland have every right to look for a
City and School budget that holds the line– in short, an overall
FY 2010 budget that calls for a “zero tax rate increase”. Based
on what we know now, that’s not what we’re likely to get.
The first shoe to drop came in the form of a request for a 3.8
percent budget increase from Portland library officials. Joe
Gray, to his credit, made it clear he will not acquiesce to this
request. And why should he– aside from the economics of the
day (noted above), the library has reneged on its promise
(made during last year’s budget process) to reexamine its
fundraising efforts, its costs, its capacity to maintain a six-
branch system. Until they complete this task and come up with
a plan that more fully meets their funding needs, the City should
not give the library a penny more than it was given last year–
some would argue the case is strong for giving them less. We’ll
see shortly if Mr. Gray’s budget pencil is as sharp as his initial
reaction to the library’s requested increase– one hopes.
A more telling indication of where this year’s overall (City and
School) budgetary and tax rate levels will end up has been
presented to us by the Portland School Committee’s finance
committee. It’s not the whole pie, but it’s a big piece of the pie–
and at this point, the proposed school budget for FY 2010 has
not been approved by the full School Committee.
But if history is a guide, this proposed budget (or something
very close to it) will be approved by the full Committee. The
proposed school budget calls for a $1.6 million dollar increase
(2.4%) in local tax revenues. This increase is proposed in spite
of the fact that overall enrollment continues to trend down– in
spite of the fact that all of the FY 2009 state aid monies cut by
the Governor earlier this year ($1.8 million) have been restored
by the release of stimulus funds– in spite of the fact that
projected state aid cuts for FY 2010 have been rescinded
(again drawing on stimulus funds). In sum, given the times we
are in, and the windfall of stimulus monies received, the
proposed school budget seems insensitive to the taxpayers of
Portland.
Let’s be clear here. In the last 90 days, the School Committee
received (from federal stimulus funds) literally millions of
unanticipated dollars. Instead of implementing the array of
spending cuts that the Superintendent had put on the table to
balance the FY 2009 budget (with more cuts to come in
fashioning the FY 2010 budget) the Committee scrapped the
cuts, spent and/or has budgeted most of the stimulus dollars,
and is asking taxpayers to pony up an additional $1.6 million
dollars. This in a year in which the budgetary/ the tax rate line
should have been held.
In closing, it is worth repeating– the City budget is not yet on the
table. Whether Mr. Gray will put a budget on the table that calls
for a “zero tax rate increase” remains to be seen. Whether the
City Council will have the courage to hold down its own budget,
and scale down the school budget to achieve a “zero tax rate
increase” goal also remains to be seen. One thing is clear–
several communities around us (Falmouth and Kennebunkport)
have done just that. Others will, no doubt, follow. It can be
done; it will take both judgment and courage on the part of our
elected officials. But given the economic times we are in, given
the level of property taxation already being borne by Portland
taxpayers, they have a right to expect that their elected leaders
will find the courage to do what common sense and fairness
dictate– that’s my view.
The 10th Voice #37
Orlando E. Delogu
March 18, 2009
In the Hole
Potholes are Dangerous and Pothole Repairs are
Costly– These Dangers and Costs Can be Reduced
Let me acknowledge at the outset that I am not an engineer–
but I know what I see; I know how to ask questions; and I know
common sense (or its absence) when I see it.
That said, the pothole problem - particularly in heavily traveled
areas on the Portland peninsula - is exacerbated by the City’s
shortsighted approach to two self-evident and long-standing
problems.
The first is the City’s policy of not removing abandoned railroad
and trolley tracks from heavily traveled city streets– instead,
they simply blacktop over these tracks (it’s cheaper) and let it
go at that.
But the tracks are on a solid bed, and are steel. There is little
or no give in either. The surrounding and overlying roadbed
tends to settle over time, particularly the thin layer actually
covering the steel track. A winter or two of plowing, salting,
freezing and warming soon produces small and then larger
areas of pavement cracking over (and alongside) this un-
removed track. The development of potholes inevitably follows–
their number and size is determined by the severity of the winter
and the volume of traffic the particular street/intersection is
exposed to.
Two hard winters in a row have produced any number of
peninsula areas where this natural process is painfully evident–
and the potholes are painfully large. Many of these settings
are dangerous to bicyclists, motorcyclists, and vehicles that
must slow down in an effort to dodge the worst of these
hazardous conditions. Nighttime travel produces even greater
risks.
I’d direct your attention to Kennebec Street for several blocks,
Hanover Street (as it enters Kennebec), Portland Street (in front
of the Public Works Dept. Headquarters), Elm Street
(approaching Marginal Way), Commercial Street (under the
Casco Bay Bridge), and Deering Avenue (in front of King Middle
School), the intersection of Spring and State Street, and clearly
the worst of all– the intersection of High Street and Forest
Avenue (near Marginal Way). Steel rails (and the potholes they
create) can easily be seen in all of these locations. I’m certain
there are other settings, not enumerated above, where the
same conditions and risks exist.
In short, this is not a little problem. Temporary winter patching,
and longer-term spring fixes may help for a few days or months,
but they do not really fix the problem. We need to take the
abandoned steel track out of the ground – that will cost more
than simply paving over the problem, but it will significantly
reduce the pothole problem; it will reduce dangerous driving
conditions. In the long run it will be cheaper than the endless
costs of pothole repair, and it will avoid the hidden costs of tire
damage, wheel alignment, etc. that Portland drivers now bear.
A second setting (of somewhat lesser importance, but
nonetheless real) which seems to produce and exacerbate
pothole problems, arises out of the manner in which manhole
covers are installed.
These covers are not made of steel; but they are an equally
unyielding cast iron. These covers and their seats rest on
several layers of brick, which in turn rest on cast cement (or
brick in older manholes) structures that lead to the underlying
infrastructure facilities (water, sewer, electrical systems). These
covers and their supporting structures hold up well to even
heavy traffic. But the immediately surrounding roadbed does
not fare as well– it settles under the weight of heavy traffic, and
water seeps into the seams between the manhole cover and
road.
Again, the processes of plowing, salting, freezing, and warming
produces pavement cracking that inexorably leads to pothole
formation.
There is nothing (like abandoned steel track) that can be
removed here. What is needed here is a re-thinking, a
redesign, of the structural integrity of the roadbed area that
surrounds the manhole. For three or four feet around each
manhole, a harder material - perhaps one of the modern
cements being used today - could provide a smoother, less
jarring transition from ordinary roadbed to the rock-solid
manhole cover and structure. And the seaming between this
material - the manhole cover and the roadbed - must be made
as watertight as possible. This will be more costly initially; but
as noted above, the number of dangerous potholes will be
reduced; the costs of endless pothole repair will be reduced;
and the hidden costs of vehicle repair borne by the public will
be reduced.
In sum, both of the steps suggested here are do-able; neither
involves rocket science. More importantly, the creation of less
dangerous winter driving conditions, and the long-run cost
savings, more than justifies the initially higher costs of the two
approaches being suggested– that’s my view.
The 10th Voice #36
Orlando E. Delogu
March 4, 2009
Taking Large-scale Development
Proposals to The City Council
First, and Then to The Planning
Board, Makes a Lot of Sense
The approach suggested in the title to this piece should be
used infrequently. It should also be limited to large-scale
development proposals that pose policy questions that only the
Council can ultimately resolve, and/or that would require
existing ordinances to be amended, or contract zoning
approved, which actions again, can only be undertaken by the
Council.
The critical feature of initial Council/developer review that must
be understood is that no binding commitment can be sought by
the developer, or be given by the Council, at this stage of the
development review process. It’s an opportunity for the
developer to lay out in broad brush what is envisioned– what
problems he/she sees, and how they would be overcome– what
policy issues are implicated– what ordinances/regulations may
need to be amended. It gives the Council the opportunity to
raise problems it sees, and concerns it has, with the proposed
development. If there are existing policies and/or ordinances
that a majority of the Council are reluctant, almost certainly
unwilling, to alter, it lets that fact be known at an early stage– a
stage well before the developer has expended what may well be
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars preparing detailed
plans for the planning board– plans which may never ultimately
be approved.
Seen in this light, the approach suggested is not an end-run
around the planning board. If, and when, the developer
chooses to move forward (beyond this initial Council/developer
review of the proposal) the project would be subject to full
planning board review. The board will have before it, and
examine, all of the development details, and apply all of city’s
regulations and ordinances to the proposed project. But
because of the initial Council/developer exchange of views, the
board (beyond the issues which its expertise would cause it to
focus upon) will be able to usefully focus on those matters that
concerned the Council. It will be in a position to suggest useful
modifications to the developer’s initial thinking. And it will be
better able to fashion language that amends or reconciles
policy conflicts, amends (as necessary) existing regulations or
ordinances, and fashions useful conditions to any ultimate
approval that both
the board and Council would fashion.
And nothing in the initial Council/developer review of the
proposal would preclude the planning board from denying
development approval, if denial is in fact called for. The board
would be subject only to the usual requirements that the basis
for its denial must be fully articulated, and must be borne out by
the hearing record fashioned in the course of dealing
with the developer’s application for approval.
That said, the real benefit of the suggested approach is that it
has the potential of saving both the developer and the City time
and money. Large-scale projects that are seen by the Council
as unacceptable can be so labeled– and everyone can move
on. On the other hand,
if the Council is open to a particular large-scale project, even
one that may require policy or ordinance changes, all of the
parties– developer, planning board, and Council can usefully
focus on those issues which the initial Council/developer review
saw as critical, issues that must be satisfactorily resolved as a
condition of development approval. Focusing the planning
board review process will also save the city and the developer
time and money.
In short, there is no reason to fear the approach being
suggested. We want large, imaginative development proposals
to be put on the table; they create jobs and tax base which the
city sorely needs. At the same time, the front-end costs of
preparing an application for planning board review, particularly
of a large-scale project, are so formidable today that one is
justifiably reluctant to go forward without some indication that
the project will be favorably received by the Council that must
ultimately approve the development. The costs and reluctance
are even greater if the project is seemingly barred by existing
policies, ordinances, or regulations that must be amended if the
Council is prepared to approve the development proposal. The
process suggested here minimizes these cost and reluctance
barriers– if used wisely, both developer and city interests will be
well served– that’s my view.
| “If it’s not here today, we’ll have it tomorrow.” The “GREAT JUNQUE” Shoppe 570 Brighton Avenue, Portland 615-6295 c 772-9156 h Collectibles, Furniture, Antiques, “Stuff” 11-5 Tuesday by Chance Wed-Sat |
| Fresh Approach “The West End’s Meat Market” M-F 8-7 Sat. 9-7 Sun. 9-5155 Brackett Street 774-7250 WHOLESALE MEATS 774-7250 www. freshapproachmarket.com |
| FREE WIFI at COYNE’S LAUNDROMAT 88 DANFORTH STREET (AT HIGH & DANFORTH) OPEN 7DAYS 8AM to 8PM WASH & FOLD ‘Home of the 2 minute laundry- 1 minute dropoff-1 minute pickup!’ 871-5744 |