Isaac Laquedem

A small change in the City's slogan

Apropos of the tram project, the Knower of All Things suggests changing the slogan on the side of City vehicles to read "The City That Works for Homer."

SW Alder Street: an accident waiting to happen

SW Alder Street has three lanes as it approaches Third Avenue on its way to the Morrison Bridge.  Until a few days ago, the left lane allowed no turns, the center lane was marked and signed to allow drivers to go straight or turn right, and the right lane was marked and signed to allow right turns only.  The reason was that on the far side of Third Avenue, the right lane disappeared and its space was taken by parking spaces, reducing Alder Street to two lanes.

Last week the City removed the parking spaces on the right-hand side of Alder Street east of Third Avenue to make a full-block lane between Third and Second.  It removed the sign that indicated the right lane as right-turn-only and the center lane as straight-or-right, but it left in place the pavement marking in the center lane that permits going straight or turning right.  (The right arrow is less solid than the straight arrow and it may be that someone made a half-hearted attempt to remove the right arrow before giving up.)

The result is that drivers in the right-hand lane think they can legally go straight, and drivers in the center lane think they can legally turn right.  Because the lane is marked to allow right turns, legally they probably can turn right, passing in front of, or maybe through, cars in the right lane that are going straight.  I've seen a few near-collisions already this week.

Whatever faults the City of Portland may have with the tram project, here is one spot where it should be able to get its signals straight.

Dr. Seuss evaluates the tram

Would you read it on the Hill?
Would you read it at the Grill?
Would you read it on a blog?
Then check these verses from Jack Bog.

The Schoolhouse Supplies Spelling Bee approaches

A year ago I attended the annual Celebrity Spelling Bee sponsored by Schoolhouse Supplies, a nonprofit that gathers and distributes school supplies to teachers in the Portland Public Schools.  Margie Boule nearly won the title, but was aced out in the final round by Nicole Vogel (the word was "isosceles"), who defeated a game field of local notables that included Mayor Potter and Jonathan Nicholas.  Ms. Boule is competing this year.  I enjoyed it so much last year that I'm bringing some friends this year.  You might like it too (tickets are available online), and it's an easy and enjoyable way to help the schools. 

FOLLOW-UP:  The executive director of Schoolhouse Supplies, who took with good humor my message to him about a spelling error on the Schoolhouse Supplies website, politely pointed out that I had made a few mistakes of fact.  He corrected the spelling error, and I've edited the above post to correct the factual errors.

The Laquedem Method to Build a Baseball Stadium

I have attended only one major league baseball game (and that was nearly 30 years ago) and I've never watched one on television.  I oppose efforts to get the City of Portland to fund a major league baseball stadium.  However, I recognize that the City includes some fans of the sport who are pushing to get funding for a stadium.  My modest thought of the day is how -- if the fans get their way -- to go about designing and building a stadium.

Those who have followed the sagas of the Performing Arts Center, the Multnomah Stadium remodeling, and the Ftpht ("Fill-to-Pill-Hill Tram") can envision what will happen if the City decides to build a baseball stadium.  First, the City will hold an international design competition to select an architect, stating that construction costs are strictly limited to (say) $120 million.

Dozens of entries will be submitted.  A City panel will select one.  The architect will assure the City that his or her design can be built for only (say) $95 million.  (The architect will have never actually designed a baseball stadium.  Ignorance breeds confidence.)

The City will then put it out for bid.  A contractor will promise to build the thing for (say) $102 million, subject to certain adjustment contained in the fine print in paragraphs 37b and most of 38.

A year later the contractor will have cleared the site and poured the foundations.  Some intricacies in the design will pop up -- the contractor won't know how to build some of the architect's zanier ideas in a 1g environment -- and the contractor will say, with a long face, that the cost is now $120 million.  The City will pungle up the money, saying "It's a signature project, and we've come this far."  By the time the project is finished the cost will be $190 million, and the roof will leak.

Isaac's plan: instead of holding a design competition to choose the best salesperson from the ranks of the inexperienced, let's reverse the process.  Choose the best three or four new baseball parks in the major leagues (Safeco Field and Camden Yards among them, perhaps) and send the evaluation team to those cities to look at the parks and talk to the fans and the teams.  Which is the best?  What things should have been done differently?  Build another copy of that park, modified to suit the specific site and to deal with the problems identified by the owners.  Hire the same architect and the same contractor.  Have them build a second copy of the same building. 

If we're going to build a stadium, let's benefit from someone else's mistakes.  Or let's stay out of the stadium business.

The Laquedem Plan to Interview Supreme Court Nominees

Seventy years ago the Senate often confirmed Supreme Court nominees without having them testify about their views.  Since then a process has developed in which the members of the Judiciary Committee ask the nominee about his or her views, and the nominee solemnly explains that he or she has no views.  The usual test is to ask the nominee what he or she thinks about the decision in Roe v. Wade, the Court's leading abortion case.  Successful nominees are those who convincingly say that they have never really thought about Roe v. Wade, and they can't express any views on abortion rights in case the matter should come before the court in the future.

We all know this is nonsense.  Virtually every lawyer who went to law school after 1973 has discussed Roe v. Wade with someone, whether in class or in student discussion sessions.  (Constitutional law is a required course in law school, and Roe v. Wade is part of the course.)  Yet we preserve the polite fiction.

I have a proposal to improve how the Senate interviews nominees.  Well in advance of the hearing, the Judiciary Committee should pick three or four Supreme Court decisions of the last twenty years in which the vote was 5 to 4.  Then it should collect the briefs of the lawyers, the tapes of the oral arguments, and the opinions of the justices.  The committee should then send the material to the nominee -- again, well in advance of the hearing -- and say that the committee will ask the nominee how he or she would rule on these cases, based solely on the arguments of the parties, and then to explain the nominee's reasons.  The nominee who demurs and says, "I can't express an opinion on an issue that might come before the court" will be told, "This issue has already been settled by the court."  The nominee who under the current system says "I can't express an opinion without hearing all the arguments of the parties" will be told, "We've given you all the arguments of the parties." 

My proposal is the functional equivalent of giving a prospective secretary a typing test.  We should put at least the same effort into pre-testing the justices of the Supreme Court.

The tram: no mas for NoMa

Two lively debates (here and here) are raging on Jack Bog's Blog about the tram that's being built to connect OHSU with the South Waterfront (or, if you're an old-timer, the North Macadam) area that's being turned from an industrial preserve to a developer's paradise.  The original construction budget of $15 million or so has gone into hibernation with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.  The current construction cost estimate is in the range of $45 million and climbing.  Some people, including this particular Isaac, have suggested that the City should scrap the project. 

Commissioner Leonard has commented that in his view the City of Portland should contribute what it promised and budgeted, and not a penny more -- if the tram is that important to OHSU and the NoMa/SoWa developers, then they should come up with the extra money to build it.  I heartily second Commissioner Leonard's view.

The arguments in favor of the City continuing with the tram are three:

1.  The City has already paid $X to design and build it so far, and all that money would be wasted if construction stopped.  In addition the City would owe the contractor a pile of money for damages.

2.  The City has already paid $X to design and build it so far, and not only would the money be wasted, but OHSU would have a large claim against the City for damages, because the City promised -- cross its heart and hope to go broke -- that it would finish the tram by a date certain.

3.  Homer Williams and his associates are civic-minded people who would be terribly disappointed if the City didn't finish the tram, and the City owes it to them to reward their work in NoMa with the tram.

I don't put much stock in the third argument.

Commissioner Adams posted links to some of the tram documents on his website, here.  Among them are the tram contracts with the contractor.  I read them.  My conclusion is that if the City terminates the tram contracts, it has to pay the contractor for the work done up to the time of termination, for any materials that the contractor has already bought, and for the cost of demobilization.  (I'm oversimplifying slightly, but this is the general idea.)  The City doesn't have to pay the contractor for lost profits, consequential damages, or any of those other things that send ordinary citizens out to buy more liability insurance.

The thing that makes termination expensive is the cost shifting.  If the City builds the tram then OHSU and the developers pay for most of the cost.  But if the City cancels the tram, then (I think) the City pays all of the cost.  OHSU and the developers aren't going to pay for half a dead horse.  So from the City's point of view, it's cheaper to finish the tram -- even if it's horrendously over budget -- than to cancel it, because other people pick up the cost overruns if the City finishes the project.

I don't know what liability the City has to OHSU if the City cancels the tram.  If any reader has the document, or a link to it, I would be delighted to read the OHSU agreement.  I think it's unusual for the City to promise to pay penalties if it doesn't perform on time that I would be surprised if the consequences are as dire as advertised.  At any rate, it's time for the City to say "no mas" to the North Macadam tram.

The City isn't solving the Port's traffic problems

The transportation planners at the City of Portland seem to think that the main function of transportation systems is to move people from one place to another.  (And I have no complaints about that noble function, if one of the places is the Drones Club or the Mausoleum Club.)  The Port of Portland reminded me and many others, in a report dated November 25, 2005 that it sent out earlier this month, that a transportation system also must move things -- goods, supplies, inventories, and the like.  In this regard, the Port's report says, Portland's system is falling woefully short.  (The report itself, in an unbelievably long PDF, is linked to from the Port's information page, here.) 

The report contains some interesting nuggets.  One is that between 2000 and 2030, freight tonnage in the Portland area is expected to more than double (page 8).  Another is that all but one of the businesses interviewed by the Port's consultant have restricted operations after 3:00 p.m. because of traffic congestion, and to compensate have pushed their starting times into the early morning hours.

For example, Intel has moved its last shipment departure time from 5:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. for shipments through Portland International Airport because of congestion (page 25). 

My conclusion after reading the 60+ pages of the report is that there's a disconnect between the planning people at the City of Portland and the business development people at the Port of Portland.  They're too polite to argue in public about it, but it seems clear to me that the transportation planning at the City (and its de facto affiliate, TriMet) isn't meeting the needs of the people at the Port.  The Port's not expecting its customers at Intel to get on MAX with a handcart to take the microchips to the airport.

Al. C. Giusti and the New Italian Wine Company

Professor Bogdanski posted a copy of an old newsletter from St. Philip Neri, a Roman Catholic parish in southeast Portland.  He asked if any of the businesses that advertised in the newsletter are still around.  (A few are.) 

One of the advertisers was the New Italian Grocery, which brought to mind the New Italian Wine Company, later the Al. C. Giusti Wine Company, and its owner Alfonso C. "Al" Giusti (1917-1980).  (That's why the name has that period after the "Al".)  For many years Mr. Giusti was one of Portland's two leading wine merchants (the other was Bert Harris of Harris Wine Cellars, in Northwest Portland), and operated from a nondescript warehouse at 66 SE Morrison Street, almost underneath the Morrison Bridge's approach ramps.  He had a certain ancestral pride in Italian wines, which he loved to talk about, but he made room for French and German wines also.  One of his customers told him in 1967, "I want to drink some Bordeaux, but I know nothing about wine.  What should I buy?"  Mr. Giusti sold him two cases of the 1964 vintage from two fine chateaux, and then said (after the sale was complete) "It's not ready yet.  Don't drink it until 1973," and wrote on the wooden cases, "DON'T OPEN UNTIL 1973" -- delayed gratification at its finest.

Al Giusti was a regular contributor to civic causes.  After his death, his family started the Giusti golf tournament in his memory, and it continues to this day.  He was, unfortunately, a heavy smoker, and refused entreaties to quit by saying, "It hasn't hurt me yet."  After a lung was removed, he continued to smoke, saying defiantly, "There's no point in quitting now."  Alas, he was wrong. 

He and I were in a small dinner party two months before he died, when he knew that his time was short.  He didn't talk of himself or his condition, but talked about the future of his business and his city.  His family sold the business a few years after he died, but his memory deserves to live on.

Cell phone records for sale outrages the left and the right

Our Man in New Mexico has become more conservative since the day in 1979 when he and I (mostly he) polished off a fifth of Jim Beam's second-finest one evening as we talked politics into the night.  Certain things outrage him, and certain other things outrage my more liberal friends, but the two sets don't overlap much.

So I was surprised when, after a long absence from the keyboard, I found two e-mails, one from our M. in N.M. and another from MoveOn.Org (well to his left politically), both outraged about the same thing: the fact that you can buy someone else's cell phone records from any number of on-line sites, for about $160.  MoveOn.Org bought the records of General Wesley Clark.  The Chicago Sun-Times, the source for our M. in N.M.'s e-mail, was less ambitious and bought the records of one of its reporters.

The story demonstrates another reason to be chary of technology.  I went out and bought another hundred stamps.