Memo to Hillsdale: Missoula makes it happen

I’m back from six days in Montana. Most of the time was in Missoula, which displayed real civic accomplishments that are still striking, particularly since some are identical to visionary ideas we have in Hillsdale.

Of course Missoula is a municipality and can do what it wants. Here we are beholden to the Portland City Council and several other disparate urban and regional entities. We have virtually no say over what happens to our tax dollars, which are thrown into the urban stew.

Missoula’s own council is more than twice the size of ours and far more representative.

The City is divided into six wards with each ward having two representatives. City Council members reside in the ward they represent. Missoula's neighborhood system is as active as our own, and far better organized. (More on this in a later post)

Of course Portland and Missoula are widely different in size. Missoula's population in 2000 was is 56,000. It's probably 70,000 now. Comparisons between the two cities are, accordingly, immediately suspect.

Still, the photos show the ways that Missoula has built many of our Hillsdale visions.

We’ve talked about summer concerts at the Wilson High School stadium. While I was in Missoula, the city put on its eighth International Choral Festival with groups from nine different countries and states like Michigan, Colorado, California and Utah. Every three years for the past 22, the community has put on the festival. The grand finale concert is held on the gridiron of Grizzly Stadium at the University of Montana. Note the inflatable band shell in the photo. The performers are from South Korea.

Missoula is saying loud and clear: It can be done, folks, right there on the American holy of holies: football turf.

Down by the Clark Fork River is a landmark tower, part of the old train station. We could use such a tower next to the Casa Colima restaurant.

And across the river in a park is an outdoor theater (Let’s put ours in the underused Hillsdale Park) and a covered place for a Farmers Market. With one of those, we’d have shade in the summer and shelter in the winter.

All of these civic improvements result from a will that made a way. We can do it too.

Tomorrow: A combination peace institute, fair-trade store and private lending library.

Funds approved to fix "crosswalk from hell"

There’s good news tonight, but first a little terrifying background.

I often pray for pedestrians trying to cross Capitol Highway at Bertha Court where Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway splits off for the Raleigh Hills hinterland.

These innocents are literally a step away from becoming road kill.

If they are crossing north from the Bertha/Capitol corner, the crosswalk gets them to a small island in the middle of the busy thoroughfare. From there, they are on their own as unimpeded accelerating traffic zips onto Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway. They call it a “slip lane,” but it is really more like a freeway on-ramp.

Even though the police recently conducted a well publicized enforcement at the striped but unsignaled crossing, drivers in full acceleration rarely cede the right-of-way to pedestrians.

Led by Don Baack, pedestrian advocate extraordinaire, the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association has lobbied the city for years to fix the blatant problem.

“Do it for kids!” Don has implored the council. Children often must cross the busy street on their way to school. Recently he and others have exclaimed, “Do it for the seniors!” noting that the new Watershed Senior Housing Project will bring elderly pedestrians to the treacherous crossing.

And now the good news: This afternoon, Don and others could declare victory when the city council put $85,000 in the budget to tame the traffic and upgrade the crossing.

Don sent out a celebratory note on his e-mail list (which has a mere 1000 names!) to thank all who wrote, called, testified and jumped up and down to rivet the commissioners' attention on the Capitol/Bertha/B-H Highway danger.

But of course, a lion’s share of thanks should go to Don, and not just now, but (City Hall gods willing) each time a pedestrian makes it safely from one side of Capitol Highway to the other.

Portland elections results: Change is dead; Long live change!

In results nearly identical proportionately, a paltry 65,000-weak Portland electorate has decided that, no, it doesn't want a so-called "strong mayor" form of government and that, yes, it does want a new charter review commission to propose changes in the form of Portland's dated commissioner government.

In both cases the vote was a thumping three to one. Together the votes make for a double mandate of sorts. The message: Get back to the drawing boards and give us an acceptable, efficient and representative form of government.

My own hope is that any new proposal will get scrap of the present commission fiefdoms and give voters the chance to create a government that gives neighborhoods a formal, elected place at the city council table.

I'd like to think that the proposal offered in this election failed because neighborhoods were left out of the political equation, NOT because the present commission form is acceptable. The passage of the charter commission measure is proof that the 20 percent of registered voters who actually cast ballots are still dissatisfied with what we have.

For the reform job to be done right, a new charter revision commission must have solid neighborhood representation on it. The commission that came up with the "strong mayor" proposal was a masterpiece of Portland diversity with one glaring exception — neighborhoods, which were virtually excluded from the process.

Finally, a confession. In an earlier post I urged readers to consider not voting at all on the "strong mayor" revision. But when faced with voting yes, no, or not at all, I voted yes. I did so with no enthusiasm. My feeling was that a yes vote would at least get the ball moving. Better that than standing still with what we have.

Maybe, just maybe, Tuesday's results will have the same effect. Let's hope so.

On drawing blanks at City Hall

Testifying before the Portland City Council, as I did this morning, can be like being a stranger in a strange land.

You are given three minutes to speak your truth—such as it is.

I use the rapid, mildly-in-your-face approach.

Looking down on you from their slightly elevated platform, the mayor and four commissioners listen intently.

A red digital clock counts the seconds on a panel in front of you. 00:00—00:01….2:58—2:59—3:00—bleeeeeeeep.

You finish. The council members stare at you. You stare at them. You hope that you have inspired thought, conviction, an epiphany.

OK, a grunt? A flicker of life?

Anything.

They stare back. Silence.

Your utterances are mere noises.

You leave the hearing table and meld back into the audience.

Next speaker?

On one occasion, I actually drew a question from the five. Vera Katz was mayor then, and I recall the question was hers. I can’t remember what she asked because it didn’t make any difference.

Today I drew blanks.

I was clearly out in la-la land. I was proposing something really, really wild—not selling the naming rights to our parks facilities to Nike or Intel or the Fortune 500.

I mean REALLY!

In fact, this time the commissioners actually seemed to look through me as I spoke.

“Bad policy…bad precedent…bad procedure,” I intoned into their vacuity.

I suggested that the proposed parks naming and sponsorship policies might one day lead to these very city council chambers'—RIGHT HERE! THIS ROOM!—being named after some corporate giant (Jockey Underwear? Exxon/Mobil?)—all in exchange for cash to replace the carpet or repair the roof.

No one blinked.

I returned to my place in the back of the room.

The resultant discussion was largely between the real, and realistic, park staff and the elected commissioners. All are paid. All are worth something to each other. They understand each other. They talk.

One commissioner wanted the parks director to explain how the process could involve the public more. He wondered how the city council would get involved in deciding whether a particular name designation was a good idea. It's not good to name some bucolic park glade after a rapacious CEO with a prison term in his future.

The commissioners and the staff were way beyond policy and into pesky details, like members of some exclusive club. Long ago, it became clear, they became committed to brokering the names of park facilities to corporations and to a recognition-hungry, donor elite—all for maintenance cash.

Somewhere in the last 10 years, while I wasn’t watching, a civic norm—a given—was established. Just the way it’s now given that states can raise cash by promoting gambling—and gambling addiction. Just as it is given that the Portland Trolleys are programmed to audibly announce to riders that the next public stop on the public street is “sponsored by” a travel agent, a bookstore, condominium complex or museum.

Sponsored “trolley stops”? State-sponsored gambling? Park glades named for moguls?

For me, the strange became a little stranger today.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Alert: Naming proposal goes before City Council Wednesday

A while back I alerted readers to Portland Parks and Recreation’s plans to sell or grant naming rights to our public facilities to corporate sponsors or donors.

The “Nike Exercise Room” or the “Victoria’s Secret Swimming Pool” at the Southwest Community Center are two conceivable results.

Of course the same sell-off-the-Commons thinking has left us with “PGE Park.”

So here’s an action alert: This Wednesday, April 11, at 10:30 a.m., the parks bureau’s sponsorship and naming proposals go before the City Council in City Hall.

I’ll be there to testify. I hope you will too.

Here is what I intend to say—more or, as is likely, less…

Mr. Mayor and commissioners:

These proposals should be rejected because they are bad policy and bad precedent. If for some unimaginable reason you don’t find them so, you should reject them because they are couched in fuzzy language and establish inconsistent naming processes devoid of direct public representation.

Bad Policy

The policy underlying these proposals violates the public trust vested in government to safeguard the Commons. The Commons, lest we need to be reminded, consists of those places owned in common—hence the name. The Commons is such places such as public schools, rivers, streets, libraries, and—in the case before the Council—public parks, recreational facilities and community centers.

This nation was birthed in battle waged in and on the Commons—most notably the Lexington Green in 1775.

The Commons, as even these proposals demonstrate in their twisted way, has great value—monetary, historic and symbolic. In fact, the word “commonwealth” reflects that value.

We bestow on the commons names that we likewise value. Once, for instance, we had “a Civic Stadium” and a “Civic Auditorium.” They called us to a valued civic life, to civility, to civilization.

And what, may we ask, does a “PGE Park” connote? It shows that we are so devoid of financial creativity and fiscal resolve that we are willing to sell off the good names of The Commons.

And that is exactly what these proposals before you aim to do as well.

When we citizens vote for bond measures to improve the parks and construct community centers, we have no intention of providing, in the jargon of the “naming rights industry,” “opportunities” for corporations to impose their names on our common, civic treasure. Instead, we expect our elected leaders to anticipate and institute legitimate, uncompromising and engaging ways of maintaining public facilities. That is the job we elect you to do.

Bad Precedent

I fear that unless you act against these proposals today, the PGE Park naming and parks corporate namings and renamings will be established as precedents for more of the same.

If you don’t stop this practice once and for wall, what next?

Would the City Council allow Pioneer Courthouse Square to be named after a certain Seattle-based coffee giant? Would you permit a park glade to be named after a grass seed or fertilizer purveyor? Could the name of these very council chambers go on the block to a sneaker company or an undergarment manufacturer—all so that the floors are swept and the walls painted?

Bad process

Those presenting these proposals maintain that they have built in protections to prevent “inappropriate” naming and renaming.

But the guidelines before you are fuzzy and subjective, and the processes are inconsistent and exclude the most important stakeholders of all—Commons users and owners.

A few examples:

There is no consistency between the way sponsorship names are vetted and the way donors’ names are reviewed.

Large “sponsorship opportunities” (note the uncritical acceptance of the language of the trade) are approved by an unspecified “Senior Management Team.” After that, based on recommendations by the “Sponsorship Coordinator,” the “Marketing and Business Development Manager” decides what companies get to sponsor which “opportunities.” There is no provision what-so-ever for representation, or even say, in the process from the public.

Names for donors—corporate or otherwise—go through a committee. But that five-member committee has no member from outside the city bureaus and commissions, save a member of the Oregon Historical Society. Oh, “relevant” neighborhood associations (whatever “relevant” means in this context) can comment. An obvious question is: Why aren’t representatives of parks users on the committee? Indeed why shouldn’t they represent a majority of its membership?

The proposals are full of “in-the-eye-of-the-beholder” statements and general fuzziness:

The donation proposal says that “on occasion” the significance of a donation may “warrant acknowledging a gift by naming.” On WHAT occasion? The proposal doesn’t say.

The same proposal says, “Historical or commonly used place names will be preserved WHENEVER POSSIBLE.” What does that mean? Why doesn’t it simply say the names will be preserved PERIOD? When might it not be possible to preserve these honored names? Presumably when enough money is put on the table.

The same proposal says that the naming of a new park or facility will “engender a strong positive image.” Positive image to whom? Who is to decide? What if it engenders no image at all? What about the difference between “image” and reality? They often are not the same.

The proposal says that the new name “shall not result in UNDUE commercialization….” Many argue, as I am, that all commercialization is “undue” when it comes to the Public Commons.

On and on it goes.

For all these reasons, these proposals should clearly be rejected out of hand.

Charter commission's composition pre-determined revisions

One big reason the recommendations of the 25-member Mayor’s Charter Review Commission ignored the interests of neighborhoods may be that only two members were identified with neighborhoods.

Here are the two, as they were listed the official résumés accompanying the press announcement of commission members:

Jillian Detweiler. Employed by TriMet, she has served as an assistant to former City Commissioner Charlie Hales, and is a past board member of the Southeast Uplift and Brooklyn Neighborhood Association.

Robin Plance. A maintenance supervisor, he has served with the Gresham Optimist Club; St. Johns Neighborhood Association Board and Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group.

And that’s it.

The other 23 commissioners were seemingly appointed for their trade or labor affiliations, ethic group, non-profit work etc.

All well and good, but when it came time to offer some form of representation for neighborhoods in a new charter, the overwhelming majority had little reason to speak up. And they didn’t.

This is why jury selection is so important in determining verdicts.

It should have come as no surprise that the verdict of the charter commission would exclude neighborhood (and neighborhood coalition) representation and power from a new city council.

Media Literacy group wants The Commons protected from commercialism

In a post two weeks ago, I wrote about the Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation's proposal to sell naming rights to our public parks facilities in exchange for corporate money.

Are you really willing to accept the The Pepsi Community Center in Gabriel Park?

Now the board of the Northwest Media Literacy Center has taken a position against PPR's proposal and sent a letter of opposition to the City Council. I’m on the board and helped draft the proposal.

Unless you really intend for your tax dollars to provide billboard and other logo and slogan space for the likes of Nike, Pepsi and The Gap, I urge you to write the council (Mayor Potter and Commissioners Sten, Salzman, Leonard and Adams) as well as Parks Director Zari Santner to oppose the measure. The public comment period ends Friday, Feb 23.

Here’s what the NMLC board resolution says:

The Board of the Northwest Media Literacy Center (NMLC) urges the Portland City Council to reject a Portland Parks and Recreation proposal to legitimize and allow corporate sponsorships and commercialism in our parks and public facilities. The proposed policy would result in the selling of naming rights to public-owned park property and would allow commercial messages in our parks and recreation facilities.

• The NMLC board believes that parks facilities are part of the public Commons, which should be a “safe haven” from intrusive and rampant commercialization.
• We further believe it is the responsibility of the Portland City Council and the City’s bureaus to safeguard the entire Commons from commercial display, including sponsorship announcements, corporate naming, trademarks, logos and other commercial messages.
• NMLC is committed to teaching people—including public servants—to critically assess media messages in order to understand their impact on our communities, our society and our planet.