Sparking a "commons" revolution

Like you, I'm often asked whether I’ve read such-and-such column or article. And, of course, books are frequently recommended.

But magazines come up less frequently. When one is recommended to me, it is usually “Yes!” and, less frequently, “The Sun."

Both are ad-free, which speaks to their editorial independence and to why they have a progressive following.

I don’t subscribe to “Yes!” but I’m certainly aware of it. When it gets mentioned in conversation, I feel slightly guilty and out of the loop. To make amends I visit its web site and vow to buy a news stand copy.

(Actually, after today's visit, I was inspired to subscribe.)

This morning, just before I set out to do our “Usual Suspects” one-hour-a-month neighborhood clean-up, I visited the “Yes!” site. The first thing to catch my eye was a great list, “51 ways to spark a commons revolution.”

I’ve been trying to spark a “commons revolution” ever since I moved to my neighborhood nearly 25 years ago.

My major spark, among lesser ones, has been to start a community newspaper. The first was with an ink-and-paper publication that was (and is) called “The Southwest Community Connection.”

After I sold it, I started the on-line Hillsdale News.

Curiously, starting a community newspaper wasn’t on the 51 “sparks” list although #33 urged writing letters to the editor and posting on local web sites.

It’s worth noting that your community needs an editor before you can write a “letter to the editor.”

So add #52 to the list. “Start a community newspaper — on line and/or off.”

As I headed out the door for the clean up, I was heartened to know that I was also setting off a couple of other "sparks" in the revolution. Namely:

#12. “Treat commons spaces as if you own them (which, actually, you do). Keep an eye on the place. Tidy things up. Report problems or repair things yourself. Initiate improvement campaigns”

and

#35. "Pick up litter that is not yours."

You can see entire Yes! list of 51 ways to spark a revolution in your community HERE.

It's worth the visit, a first stop on the way to getting to Yes!

Democracy and Newspapers — revisited

Considerable discussion has been prompted by a recent City Club forum on whether the impending death of newspapers threatens the survival of democracy.

After an initial post on the topic here on the Red Electric, I threw another log on the fire in my current Southwest Community Connection column, HERE. Its most trenchant points are these:

1. Even when newspapers were thriving, American democracy had (and has) serious problems — poor voter turn-out, lobbyist manipulation, trivializing TV ads, vulnerable voting machines, money calling the shots. The list goes on and on....

2. The Internet's "micro-journalism" will invigorate democracy at the neighborhood level. Look for less "big city" government and demands for more local autonomy. Portland is ripe for this kind of localism and reform.

3. With more people practicing on-line journalism, there's a greater need for accredited journalism education in the schools or on-line. I don't mention it in the column, but we might even grant a registered certificate to those who have been through an on-line journalism course. Also, we'll need a large pack of on-line media watchdogs to keep an eye on on-line media.

Newspapers may be dying, but journalism is flourishing! That can only help democracy.

The Curious Case of the Trespassing House

On the morning of October 8, the land under the Hillsdale house of Dave and Katei Hendrickson gave way. The collapsing hillside sent the house sliding down into the home of Dr. Yuan Chou and his wife, Siuke Tong.

Both houses were destroyed and others above Terwilliger Boulevard and beneath Burlingame Place were damaged.

Now we learn that what happened that morning wasn’t — appearances to the contrary — a "landslide."

What happened is that the Hendrickson house “trespassed” onto the property of Chou-Tong property.

Moreover, the Chou-Tong house was the victim of a “flying object,” namely the Hendricksons' house.

And the resulting destruction was a “private nuisance” and is subject to a claim called “strict liability.”

You guessed it. The whole sad landslide (or is it "landslide"?) story has created a litigation landslide.

Chou and Tong are suing the Hendricksons, their own insurance company and the insurance company’s agent for a total of $1.7 million.

And yes, you guessed again, the insurance company, Farmers, maintains that the Chou-Tong policy doesn’t cover landslides, which, insists Farmers, is what precisely happened on the morning of Oct. 8.

Oh, and Farmers also insures — and is defending — the Hendericksons. Flying house? Trespassing? Private nuisance?

Tell it to the judge!

You can read Shasta Kearns Moore’s mind-boggling account of the legal back-and-forth here on the Southwest Community Connection’s web site.