Randy Leonard's campaign contributors from 2008

In some ways, being the commissioner in charge of the Bureau of Development Services makes Randy Leonard the commissioner in charge of development in Portland. Interestingly, a search of records filed with Oregon's Secretary of State seems to indicate that almost 70% of Leonard's campaign contributors (2008) were in the business of development, of one kind or another.

I performed a search here: http://tiny.cc/y4IRS (it was a super long URL, this is the "tiny" conversion). These are the contributors, below. I've tried to organize them.

Builders/ developers: (38 entities, $33,147)
1. http://atlasinv.com/ - $1000
2. http://www.deeringmanagementgroup.com/ - $1,000
3. Arthur DeMuro – Venerable properties http://www.venerableproperties.com/ - $500
4. http://www.prairieviewhomes.net/ - $250
5. Oregonians for Affordable Housing = PAC committee of Oregon Home Builders Association: http://www.homebuildersportland.org/documents/OFAHContributionForm.pdf - $1,000
6. Tom Skaar – Pacific Western Homes - $200
7. Kane Road Investments – Roger and Joyce Neu - $500
8. Springwater Development LLC – Jeff Jurgenson $250 : http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=60334&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - supposedly a developer: http://www.manta.com/company/mm8j3dq
9. P.M.P. LLC : $500 http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=93669&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE Peter Perrin, developer : http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314365.shtml
10. Bay City LLC – (Parking mogle Gregory Goodman) http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=98700&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE = Gregory Goodman + Mark Goodman (Gregory is owner of City Center Parking/Upark/PMC) - $500
11. Don Morissette – Home Builder $ 250 : http://www.dmrealty.com/ ; complaint from home owner = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgpSMieBMhs
12. Ronald H. Beltz – VP of Common Wealth Partners. – Board Member of Portland Business Alliance; CWP is a developer: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Beltz_Ron_5521854.aspx - $1000
13. Bill Naito Company http://www.billnaito.com/ - $1,000
14. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades - $650
15. Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors PAC - $250
16. Fish Construction NW, Inc.( http://www.fishconstructionnw.com/) - $500
17. Sun Crest Construction ( http://www.suncrest-const.com/aboutus.htm )- $300
18. Schumacher Custom Homes Inc. ( http://www.schumachercustomhomes.com/index.htm )- $1000
19. Metropolitan Land Group – (http://www.metlandgroup.com/) - $500
20. First American Title Insurance of Oregon - $250
21. Albert Solheim – Developer/ AWS Real Estate - $1000
22. Fountain Village Development – John Beardsley Building Development - $1000
23. Ted K. Gilbert (commercial real estate broker) - $1000
24. Shortstop LLC (Henry Merritt Paulson) - $500
25. Robert A. Sacks – Real estate developer - $2,500
26. Mark C. Edlen – Real Estate developer - $2,500
27. Bradley J. Malsin – Real Estate developer – BEAM Development - $1,250
28. Elizabeth Malsin (relative of Bradley Malsin, address given is of BEAM Development) - $1250
29. NW Cedar Management - $1000
30. Barry Schlesinger – owner BPM Development LLC (commercial real estate and parking) - $2,000
31. Wayne Rembold – owner Rembold Companies, real estate development) - $1,500
32. Martin T. Kehoe – “individual”. Contribution by President MK Development (real estate) - $2,500
33. Daniel Petrusich – “individual” contribution by President of Melvin Mark Development Co. - $500
34. Harsch Investment Corp. (http://www.harsch.com/) – real estate development - $1000
35. Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. - $1000
36. The Zidell Companies ( http://www.zidell.com/) (Macadam tram connections? = http://www.zidell.com/images/inside/press/Zidell%20release.%207.8.pdf) - $500
37. Shorenstein Realty Services - $500
38. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters - $247

Consultants: (4 entities, $1750)
1. http://www.westernadvocates.com/ - $250
2. NW Grassroots and Communications (http://www.nwgrassroots.com/index.php) – lobbying, PR firm - $500
3. Dave Barrows and Associates (lobbyists) - $500
4. Dan P. Lavey (individual contribution, Partner at Gallatin Group = lobbyists) - $500

Hotels: (3 entities, $3,000)
1. Portland Hotel LLC – Westin - $1000
2. Aspen Imperial LLC – Hotel Lucia - $1000
3. Hotel DeLuxe - $1000

PACs / Unions (8 entities, $15,050)
1. Portland Metro Firefighters - $2000
2. Natural Gas Political Action Committee – (contact name: Gary Bauer) $250
3. Qwest Oregon Employees’ Political Action Committee - $500
4. Laborers Local 483 (“public sector union”) - $5,000
5. Local 48 Electricians PAC - $5,000
6. Teachers Voice in Politics - $1500
7. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 Political Fund - $300
8. Alliance PAC – “to Support Candidates and Measures That Advocate for Private Industry and Business Principles” https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=13402 - $500

Business (6 entities, $5,000)
1. Thant Co - The New Copper Penny Bar - $500
2. Aegean Corp: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=10950&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - Mike Fennel (VP Blazers) Larry Miller (Team President) $1000
3. Trail blazers - $1000
4. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet - $1,500
5. Benjamin Stutz – Owner Kelly’s Olympian and Motopizza - $500
6. Comcast Cable - $500

Classification Unknown (2 entity, $1000)
1. Joseph Angel – Pacific Star President $1000 http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=533827&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - unclassified business
2. Singer Family LLC - $2500 – unclassified business

OTHER (1 entity, $500)
1. Sandra K McDonough – individual contribution, Portland Business Alliance CEO - $500

Letter from MTNA Board to Commissioner Leonard - privatization and the future of Mt. Tabor's reservoirs

September 3, 2009
Via email

Dear Commissioner Leonard-

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association applauds the statements you made in Council Chambers on July 29th (during discussions surrounding Resolution #1071- LT2 Treatment plans) in which you asserted your plans to bring before voters an amendment to the City Charter. This Amendment as described by you would protect our water system and prevent future privatization, regionalization, any dissolution of our publicly held water rights in Bull Run, and the blending of river waters with our pristine Bull Run drinking water. We’d like to offer our strongest support to you and your staff as you pursue this effort; please do not hesitate to call on us should you find we can be of assistance in any way.

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association also noted another set of statements made by both Commissioner Fritz and yourself at that same hearing. You asserted that the decision to drop the pursuit of legislative relief from our LT2 compliance strategy applied narrowly and only to the source water treatment requirements of the LT2 Rule, and not to the open storage requirements of that Rule. As such, we assume the Water Bureau strategy for Open Reservoirs will remain three-pronged and include legislative, administrative and build-planning efforts. In this matter, we’d like to know what is underway or in the works for each of the strategic prongs (legislative relief, administrative/regulatory reform, and build planning). Our next regular community meeting is on September 16; as our entire neighborhood is eager for information, we hope to hear from you in time for us to present an update at that meeting.

Warm regards,

Stephanie Stewart
On behalf of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Board

Letter to City Council - Why the Variance tests are designed for failure

August 24, 2009
Via email

Dear Commissioners –

I am writing to share with you the latest information obtained by the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee regarding the year-long, high volume, finished drinking-water study Portland completed in May. This information, and the study’s report of findings yet to be published, should bolster our efforts seeking relief from LT2 and its unnecessary build requirements. It should also serve to caution us as the Water Bureau moves forward with any Variance testing options offered by the EPA.

This multi-year study, which Portland joined a year ago, is being managed by the Water Research Foundation (see the project abstract online at: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021 ). It was designed to examine the finished drinking water for the presence of infectious Cryptosporidium.

As we understand it, participants in this current WRF study were to be immediately notified if at any time during the data collection process infectious Crypto was found in a water sample. The City of Portland was never notified of any such presence, so we should be able to extrapolate that no infectious Crypto was found in our finished drinking water samples. While we won’t have the final report on this study for some months, we do have a preliminary final report from November 2008. After repeated document requests from a member of our neighborhood we finally have access to this report (just last week) which the Water Bureau has seemingly had since November 2008 (report is attached as PDF). I would like to highlight for you three items from this report:

1) The report discusses the fact that there are many types of Crypto in the natural environment, but that not all genotypes are infectious to humans. We know infectious Crypto genotypes to be from human and domesticated animal sources - not the wild animals present in the Bull Run Watershed.

The genus Cryptosporidium contains at least 16 recognized
species that infect a variety of vertebrates… However, most cases of human
cryptosporidiosis are attributed to C. Parvum and C. Hominis.

There are
currently two species of Cryptosporidium that cause the majority of human
infections, C. parvum and C. hominis. However, the source of contamination of
environmental waters is often livestock or feral animals that can shed species
of oocysts that are not infectious to humans and so represent minimal public
health risk.

2) The report affirms that appropriate testing protocols must gather more information than just the presence/absence of Crypto oocysts when analyzing water and assessing public health risks. Appropriate testing must confirm the genotype, whether the oocyst is even active (alive), as well as the overall condition (or health) of the oocyst. Counting oocysts without adjusting for these other factors will not produce accurate public health data.

The condition of the oocysts is also very important in determining the risk of infection. Oocysts are exposed to many conditions in the environment that can reduce their infectivity… The length of time post-shedding from the carriage animal, water temperature, and the amount of ultraviolet (UV) exposure from sunlight can reduce oocyst infectivity… In addition, surface
waters are exposed to natural UV irradiation in sunlight which may damage oocyst
DNA thereby inhibiting DNA replication and reducing infectivity.

3) But perhaps most interestingly, this report specifically calls attention to the chief criticism of EPA’s LT2-Variance testing protocols – these test methods set forward by the EPA (and agreed to by the Water Bureau) wrongly ignore an analysis of the many factors (genotyping, condition, etc.) that appropriately define the public health risk of detected Crypto oocysts.

However, since many oocysts in surface waters belong to
species other than C. hominis and C. parvum, the public health benefits of the
risk assessment framework underlying the LT2 ESWTR, based solely on
FITC-positive oocysts with no specification or genotyping may be questioned.

The current methods of Cryptosporidium detection in untreated surface
water (Method 1622 and 1623; US EPA, 2005) use an antibody based detection
method to identify oocysts. This method only provides presence/absence detection
of oocysts…The detection of non-infectious oocysts or oocysts belonging to a
species that is not infectious for humans could cause unwarranted concern for a
contaminant that may not be a significant public health risk.

We should proceed with caution into any Variance testing options offered by the EPA that do not allow us to genotype or assess the condition of an oocyst if detected in a test sample – at present, all testing options offered by EPA to date DO NOT allow for genotyping or conditional analysis. The Water Bureau is poised to begin the Variance tests in just two weeks, using the very EPA method -- Method 1623 -- criticized in the WRF study (quote above). Crypto is common in the environment, but infectious Crypto is limited and infectious Crypto is what all of our public health agencies should care about. Any test that does not allow us to genotype or assess the condition of an oocyst is a test designed to produce failure through false positives.

Regards,
S. Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Co-Chair

Letter to Commissioners - Why we oppose a Filtration plant

July 26, 2009
Sent via email

Dear Commissioners-

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee strongly urges a postponement on this week’s LT2 Resolution vote.

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee strongly objects to the latest LT2 Resolution (#1071 – Leonard’s Treatment Technology Resolution) and its declaration that it will no longer pursue legislative relief.

Legislation is always difficult, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. Legislation is also unpredictable. Years ago we were told legislative relief was impossible because the Republicans were in power, and that this is an environmental issue and Republicans don’t care about environmental issues. Now we’re being told legislative relief is impossible because the Democrats are in power, and that this is a Consumer protection issue and that the Democrats fear Republicans will exploit our legislation on behalf of polluters. Clearly, every argument is about the framing. The outcome can’t be seen so clearly this early in the process. If we carefully get in front of the framing on this we have as much chance at success as anything else ever does. The stellar results Portland received in the year-long, high-volume study we just completed will further bolster the case (American Water Works Research Foundation, completed May 2009, results = 0 harmful Crypto anywhere in our water system). Our Bull Run system has science on its side, and we should not back away from doing what is right.

The people of Portland own Bull Run water and we want Water Bureau given the clear directive to pursue legislative relief. On April 11 (which was Easter and Passover weekend) 175 citizens turned out to passionately communicate to the City Council and our Federal Legislative Delegations that the people of Portland want to protect our pure, Bull Run water from LT2 build projects. The Resolution before you this week is a betrayal of the citizenry, and it marginalizes every effort we’ve made to communicate our wishes to you. ...

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee respectfully requests longer, more responsible budget projections regarding the Filtration plant. We cannot find where the Water Bureau has provided the City Council or the citizenry a budget that clearly draws for us the entire picture, marking the date their Filtration plant will be completely paid for, while spelling out exactly what each year’s rate increases will look like from here to there. We cannot settle for 5 years worth of projections when it appears this project won’t be paid for in 5 years. At this point the citizens have no idea what the payoff date is on this plant, or what we will be asked to bear. We respectfully assert that pursuing this information is an integral part of your fiduciary responsibilities. A Filtration plant threatens to break the backs of ratepayers while offering them permanently degraded water. We cannot close our eyes, and hope for the best. As a Councilor, you are in a tight spot today choosing between satisfying your obligation to meet Federal Rules and satisfying your obligation to protect the citizens that hired you - that is a lousy set of options. But you must press on and get more creative until you find a good option for the People of Portland.

The Bull Run Treatment Panel Report seems outmoded. Water Bureau is at least in part basing its Filtration recommendation on the work done by this panel which met more than seven years ago in a very different political climate. That Panel worked from a number of assumptions that have proven themselves inaccurate, including an assumption that demand in Portland would steadily rise over time. In addition, this Panel’s discussions occurred under Bureau Administration that was actively pursuing regionalization of our water system and our water rights through the creation of the Bull Run Regionalized Drinking Water Agency - a concept the people of Portland have since flatly refused. A two-year delay from the EPA would allow Water Bureau the time to convene a panel working from a base of updated assumptions, so that the people of Portland get a modern decision based on their modern needs and desires.

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee respectfully cautions against Filtration’s unintended consequences = a “blend center” and the possible loss of citizen ownership in our water resources. Some of the things that were said at the June 23 Council work session set off speculation that a Filtration plant paves the way to the demand-blend-center concept found in older Water Bureau planning documents – as discussed in these documents, a blend-center would allow water from the Willamette and Columbia Rivers to be mixed and blended with our Bull Run water. This proves to be a big negative in the eyes of those of us who love our drinking water (including the Brewers of Portland). On this point, a Filtration plant seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy - we don’t need a Filtration plant today but once we build it, we will. If a Filtration plant will allow the Water Bureau to source lower quality water, a Filtration plant will most certainly serve us up lower quality water than what we drink today.

At the June 23rd meeting, Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District reportedly alluded to the TVWD becoming an owner in Bull Run water -- this seems to be an escalation of TVWD’s current relationship with Bull Run water rights and it harkens back to a time when the City was considering forming the Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency. The “Regional Storage and Transmission Report” (a WB planning doc from 2000) reflects research and an outline of a process by which a particular Intergovernmental Agreement (without citizen input) would seemingly allow Portland to divide and transfer ownership in our Bull Run water to other government agencies. Given that dividing ownership also divides debt, there is much speculation that this particular Intergovernmental Agreement option is being resurrected as an option to help fund the massive expenditures posed by Filtration (yet another reason we urge you to seek clear, long -term cash flow data regarding a Filtration project). Once other agencies/water districts/wholesale customers own a share in the water system, how much control do we have over what they do with it? If we are dependent on other municipalities paying for a share of this burden, what happens if/when one of them falters? Have we seen any case history about public agencies regionalizing and the incidences of subsequent privatization? Dividing ownership out from underneath the citizens of Portland seems like a slippery slope to divesting the people of public ownership of our most valuable resource and it is quite possibly one of the steps that can lead to privatization. In several letters to citizens this week, Leonard asserts privatization of our water system won’t happen on his watch, but he won’t be around forever.

We the People of Portland are the lucky ones. We don’t drink pharmaceuticals like Prozac or ibuprofen. We don’t drink Teflon. We don’t drink hairspray, or toilet bowl cleaners, or any of the surprising myriad of chemicals which are found in trace amounts in EPA approved “clean” tap water all across America because we don’t drink recycled sewage. We also don’t drink fertilizers, or insecticides, or the crypto that comes from tea brewed with cow poop, because we don’t drink unprotected water run-off from urban and farm areas. Once we mix Willamette or Columbia River water with our drinking water, we too will drink the fertilizers my neighbor dumps on his lawn, and the pharmaceuticals he dumps in his body, and a whole host of other “trace” chemicals the 21st century adds to surface and sewer water but doesn’t filter out before drinking it, again. There they will be, mixed and blended with our pristine, organic-quality Bull Run water, thereby permanently adulterating its purity with Teflon and acetaminophen. The Water Bureau wants to raise our rates AND reduce the quality of product delivered to our taps.

Some people are concerned that a Filtration plant is necessary to securely meet water demands in our area… the assumption many folks are making is that Water Bureau MUST have a good reason for wanting Filtration, and maybe it has something to do with supply/demand. The data seems to assert that a new Filtration plant is NOT essential to meeting demand. Interestingly, demand in Portland actually has historically decreased every year, despite our population increases.

The Water Bureau has asserted the demand/supply argument regarding periods of high turbidity, like in the fall when the rains are particularly hard and fast. In the last 10 years, I can find 8 turbidity incidents that have compelled us to switch away from our Bull Run water. At those moments, we move to our well fields, developed as a secondary water supply suitable for cases of over demand, or emergency shutdowns. Last year we switched off Bull Run for a total of 8 days in November because of turbidity. And our well field did its job. The Water Bureau has recently asserted that we need the Filtration plant in case of a catastrophic fire in the Bull Run Watershed. After all, if the forest is leveled, the water there would be overwhelmed with debris. The Water Bureau suggests that a Filtration plant would allow us to keep pumping Bull Run water even in case of a fire. But the data from other municipalities around the country seems to contradict this assertion. Take the Denver watershed that suffered a catastrophic fire a few years ago. They have a Filtration plant, and still they had to shut down their water supply because the amount of debris overwhelmed the Filtration system. Unlike Denver, we have a totally separate backup system already in place. In the case of catastrophe, we will have a catastrophe and it isn’t likely that a Filtration plant will buy us any extra water.

Please do not accept this Resolution; it cannot be the best option.

Sincerely,
S. Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair