Wanted: a two-stroke rebellion

The following should send a shudder through the growing realm of scooterdom. At least two-stroke scooterdom.

I set out this morning on my scoot, a Chinese-built TN’G (for “twist – the accelerator —and go"). With its Italian pretensions, it’s called a “Milano.”

Needing gas, I told the 17-year-old attendant that about $2.25 worth of premium would fill’er up.

I really do try to say that and not sound smug but never quite pull it off.

As you will see, smugness can quickly turn to hubris on the road.

I set out down Barbur, down Naito, across the Morrison Bridge. I was set to rendezvous with my web master, Todd, at Down Capitol Highway, I scooted. Down Barbur, down NaitoPeete’s Coffee on Weidler, not far from Lloyd Center.

Six or so blocks from Peete’s, the scoot died without so much as a sputter or a cough. I coasted into a conveniently open parking place and tried kick starting the dead beast. Nothing. Not even a gasp.

No time to tinker with the thing, I fed the parking meter and set out with 10 minutes left to make it to Peete’s. I arrived 5 minutes late and sweaty. It was hot.

Meeting over, I returned to the parking place, tinkered, retinkered and gave up. I was about 10 blocks from Scooter Street, which sells TN’Gs. At times like this, topography becomes important. I detected a slight grade down from where I was to the distant garage. I coasted three blocks and pushed seven.

Bare-chested in the heat of his garage, Kevin, the mechanic and co-owner, idly puffed on his cigarette as I explained what had happened, starting with my filling the tank and ending with the scoot’s sudden shutdown.

He tried starting it. Nothing.

“I’ve seen four of these recently,” he said, the smoke from his cigarette spiraling upward. “I think it’s the ethanol. It mixes with the oil and attracts water in the tank and that gets into the engine. It can also rust the tank.” (Technical note: two-stroke engines require an oil-gas mixture.)

Thanks to City Commissioner Randy Leonard, Portland now requires 10 percent ethanol in gas sold in the city. It’s labeled as “E10” on the pumps.

“I can drain the fuel line and clean the fuel filter and nozzles, but I can’t get to the scooter for a few days. I’m backed up,” Kevin said, adding that he expected I could have the scoot back to me by September 9.

Scootermania has hit the city in this last summer of George Bush’s oily reign thanks to larceny at the pump. And now, of course, we are helping America’s farmers and agricultural cartels by driving up grain prices by requiring ethanol in the gas.

Meanwhile, the politics of ethanol has created a quiet little crisis in the two-stroke community — those of us who use the raspy little motors to power scooters, boats or chainsaws.

“So,” I said peering into an uncertain two-stroke future and asking the obvious, “after you fix this, what’s to prevent my being back here after my next E10 fill-up?”

Kevin vaguely suggested putting the gas in a special container and letting the ethanol settle out. That would presumably leave me to “cream” the unadulterated gas off the top.

Right, like curds and whey.

Why hadn’t I heard anything about all of this before? Why is there no outrage?

“No body cares about scooters,” offered Kevin, taking a final drag on his cigarette. “But just wait until the BMWs start breaking down.”

“A lot of good that does me now,” I said. “Aren’t the scooter dealers organized?”

“We hate each other,” he said. “There’s constant bad-mouthing.”

“Well,” I said sounding a bit Clark Kent-ish, “I’m a journalist and I’m going to look into this.”

“You should,” he said. “I’ll call you on the 9th or sooner if I can.”

And with that I set out hiking to my next appointment.

Back home after a long bus ride, I’ve learned more — most it from the Web. Surprisingly, I find no outrage. No lobbying. No one has taken up pitchforks — yet. If the revolt happens it will be an odd-ball, two-stroke coalition of loggers, boaters, water skiers and scooter owners.

Best to start with my own, so I clicked to the Oregon Scooter Club site, signed on and posed the obvious question: “Has anyone out there with a two-stroke engine had problems with the ethanol in the gas?”

I don’t know whether the response will be tumultuous or a feeble sputtering or both.

I do know that this has the feeling of being the beginning of something.

On reaching consensus

First, thanks to Commissioner Randy Leonard for responding to my post about the Interstate Avenue renaming issue and about the mayor’s self-described “irrelevancy.”

I’ve written a response in which I urge Leonard and his colleagues (including the mayor) to look at the larger issue behind renaming the street. To do so might get the City Council (and other interested parties) back to a point where they could find consensus.

His response to that is that all parties, sadly, seem deadlocked.

Which takes me back to consensus, where I left off yesterday….

In the piles of books donated for our Dec. 9 Hillsdale Book Sale, I came across a well used workbook put out by Pace e Bene Franciscan Non-violence Center. I shared a couple of César Chavez quotations in yesterday’s post. I hope Commissioner Leonard and the other members of the council are familiar with them. Indeed, I hope everyone becomes familiar with them. I confess I wasn’t until I browsed through the workbook.

The workbook also has a concise section on “The Consensus Process” which I also recommend to the council and to anyone else involved in group decision making.

As a Quaker, I well versed in reaching consensus (or, as Friends say, a “sense of the Meeting”) because that is the way Quakers conduct all their business. I also have used the techniques of consensus in chairing various neighborhood committees, and I have made “believers” of friends and neighbors who have been part of the process.

Consensus is a powerful tool.

I find it interesting, and frankly ironic, that an institution within the hierarchical Catholic Church would advocate consensus. But then the Franciscans have always marched to their own drummer. Dare I say, “Thank God!”?)

But there’s more. How to explain that one of the best books written about Quaker consensus-making is “Beyond Majority Rule” by Michael J. Sheeran, a Jesuit scholar? Actually, Sheeran traces the connection between the Catholic Church and consensus to the notion of “Communal Discernment” among early Christians. For more, read this excellent book.

Now, back to the Franciscan workbook on non-violence and its brief section on consensus. City Council members (and others) make note!

The workbook neglects to talk about who should be at the table in the first place. The answer is all (and I do mean ALL) stakeholders. In the case of the street renaming proposal, the gathering should include commercial property owners on Interstate Avenue, leaders of the Hispanic community, City Council members and any others who have a serious, legitimate interest.

The goal is to find agreement, if possible. But there are other important benefits. To quote from the workbook, “Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and trust. It is also a process which invests everyone in the outcome and in the responsibility to carry it out.”

The workbook presents four brief sections that apply to the naming controversy.

“Voting (as opposed to consensus decision-making) is a win or lose model in which people are more concerned with the numbers it takes to win than with the issue itself. Voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs.”

“With consensus …no ideas are lost; each member’s input is valued as part of the solution.”

“(Consensus) means that the final decision doesn’t violate someone’s fundamental moral values, for if it did, they would be obliged to block consensus….”

“…when (consensus) works, collective intelligence does come up with better solutions than could individuals.”

I’d add one more Quakerly aspect. Periods of silent reflection (whether for minutes or days) bring wisdom and dignity to the process. Time is NOT, and must not be, of the essence. (And time may be needed in the present stalemate as it is described by Leonard.)

In my experience, all of the above are true. If the City Council members would employ the techniques of consensus, I believe they (and the entire city) would benefit from these truths.

City Council healing requires return to basics

There were no winners at Thursday’s City Council deliberations that led to the Mayor Tom Potter’s walking out.

The clip of the proceedings that is on-line gives a different impression of the mayor than the one portrayed in print. He isn’t angry. He’s being matter of fact: He has been marginalized and feels “irrelevant.”

What he apparently doesn’t realized is his own role in his marginalization.

Should he have been made to feel this way? Should he have put himself in this position?

Clearly not.

Should he have walked out?

Probably not, but when he did so, he did it with no apparent rancor. He was simply acknowledging a fact.

Anyone who knows anything about group dynamics, knows that you must work at being inclusive, and you must remain open to change. The problem with raw majority rule (and that is what we were witnessing at the council) is that it doesn’t require inclusion. All it requires is a majority.

And the problem with stake-planting like the mayor's, is that you lose your flexibility and place in the discussion.

Commissioners Randy Leonard, Erik Sten and Sam Adams were shaping a majority solution that Potter had rejected out of hand. Hence the mayor became a non-person at the table.

Consensus has no non-persons. You have to address the minority’s concerns. You have to respect their views, even if it is going to take more time and force you to be flexible too.

Everyone has to work together.

Majority rule, which produces winners (and often arrogance) and losers (and often resentment), should be the last resort. (Sadly, partisan government hinges on majority rule. Fortunately, city government is non-partisan and offers the opportunity of consensus and inclusion — Thursday’s session notwithstanding.)

Thursday's meltdown is evidence the council has a lot more work to do on the street naming issue. It is time for the five members to go back to fundamentals by asking what is important.

You don’t honor a Cesar Chavez or a Rachel Carson, a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mahatma Gandhi, a Dag Hammarskjold or a Rosa Parks by naming streets, schools, parks or fountains after them.

You honor them by honoring what they believed in and struggled for.

That's worth repeating: You honor them by honoring what they believed in and struggled for.

It is far, far more important to keep their ideals before our eyes than their names.

Name the familiar places of our Commons after the values they espoused.

If you could ask these leaders whether they would prefer a street or park be named for them or for their cause (Justice, Stewardship, Equality, Fairness, Respect, Peace, to name a few), who could doubt what their answer would be?

Honor them by honoring that answer.

City-sanctioned Graffiti

So Commissioner Randy Leonard is on a graffiti eradication toot. Hurray for him!

Strangely, I’ve had a few of my students come to the defense of graffiti. Eradication is censorship etc. After all, this is art, free expression. Besides, those blank spaces are just going to waste.

Private property? Not if can be used to communicate "art" to the public.

Ok, I ask, how about your forehead? Blank space. In full public view. What say I spray-paint over your brow “Bonehead”? All in the spirit of free expression, of course.

End of argument.

Now then, I’d like Commissioner Leonard to consider two other forms of graffiti, both sanctioned by our city officials, including Commissioner Leonard.

The first are overhead wires on well-traveled by-ways. They are certainly as blighting and intrusive as graffiti. Obviously city officials agree, which is why they insist that the Pearl District, South Waterfront and the Lloyd District have underground utilities as part of their municipal tax deferred financing.

Officials should require the same burying of wires and transformers whenever new commercial construction is built on well-traveled transit lines.

You know, places like the new Watershed complex in Hillsdale.

The second city-sanctioned graffiti are the “sponsored” stop announcements on the Portland streetcars. Yes, auditory graffiti. Intrusive, offensive, embarrassing, deceitful and absurd.

Intrusive because they can’t be avoided.

Offensive because in order to use public transit, well, we can’t avoid them.

Embarrassing because out-of-town visitors and tourists, drawn to the trolleys, must find the voice-activated commercials tacky. Unworthy of the City of Roses.

Absurd and deceitful because the actual messages claim that public, taxpayer-built and maintained intersections are “sponsored by” this or that business or institution.

Come on.

I rode the trolley today and concluded that, frankly, some of these “sponsors” should be ashamed of themselves. I’m thinking in particular of the Portland Art Museum, the “Portland State Vikings” (who, pray tell, are they? The student body? The administration? The football team?) and the Portland State Bookstore.

There’s no way these institutions “sponsor” the stop intersections, and they know it.

So Commissioner Leonard, AKA duct-tap Randy, should look up at the wires and listen up to the trolley plugs. There is plenty of graffiti that he and his colleagues could clean up with a simple roll-call vote.