I don't know that such a massive project would be possible, but why should that stop the city from exploring its feasibility? Mostly, I take issue with the argument that "the government has no place building this network."

$3000 a month for an apartment? Holy cats. You tell me, Amanda. How many RN's have to team up and live together to swing that?
Dave Lister

Scott, the City has been exploring the feasibility of a fiber-optic network for close to two years now. See Mike Rogoway on OregonLive. How much staff time and consultant money will be dedicated to further consideration?

And where does the need for this project/service place in the list of priorities for spending City money and devoting staff/citizens' time and energy? There are lots of great ideas for projects that might be good to do. Many of them use tax money to even consider. I believe the Council members should discuss where to direct resources, weighing and balancing costs/benefits, earlier in the "feasibility study" process.

Dave, most nurses I know have no desire to move our families out of the neighborhoods we love, to live closer to OHSU. The young, single new nurses and students couldn't afford rents like that, and many nurses whose children are grown are nearing eligibility for retirement and won't be working at OHSU much longer.

Re. the school board discussion, I too was happy to hear Ruth start to rediscover her voice on the issue, and also to hear Trudy Sargent talk about equity, Dilafruz Williams talk about the segregation that still plagues our city, Sonja Henning ask the question (still unanswered) that I've been asking for months, and, most of all, student representative Antoinette Myers talk about the transfer policy from a student's perspective.

Unfortunately, they're "just talking around the surface," as Director Henning put it.

There's been quite a bit more discussion, including by Ruth Adkins, over at my blog.

Thanks for posting your comments and the link, Steve. Good to see the start of this discussion, which I too hope will go deeper, quickly.

There's a fundamental divide in the discussion on Interstate/Cesar Chavez that deserves better (not more, better) attention than it has gotten.

On one side are the people who think that bad process is the fundamental problem and that if we only had good process things would be fine.

On the other are people who think that however bad the process has been, it's really inconsequential in the larger scheme of things becaue it's just masking a much more fundamental problem that will be there no matter what you do to the process. They believe that extending the process further will only make things worse.

On another note, Amanda, I don't think it furthers the constructive debate to reinforce the community mythology that it doesn't matter what people say because no one is listening to the community. I think you've noted before on other subjects that failing to agree is not the same thing as not listening. My experience of this debate is that the mayor and all the commissioners, no matter which side of the vote they are leaning toward, are listening quite carefully. They are just drawing different conclusions from what they hear.

At this point, I don't see any good solution to the colossal mess, so I agree that more process might not help. A new process following the code, a Do-Over waiving the fees for the proponents, maybe. But a straight up-or-down vote on renaming Interstate isn't going to end this particular issue, or help promote work (growth and understanding) on the larger picture.

My experience of this debate is that the mayor and all the commissioners, no matter which side of the vote they are leaning toward, are listening quite carefully. They are just drawing different conclusions from what they hear.

Thank you for providing that perspective. I hadn't gathered that, but I've followed this saga mostly from written and oral information rather than having participated. Since the Council set up the process with the proponents understanding being "have the public meetings, then we'll approve the name change", it's easy to understand why some people think they never had a chance of being heard. And when the Mayor walked out with the other Commissioners reportedly not entirely understanding why (again, from what I've read and heard), it is hard for observers to understand why the Councilmen are drawing different conclusions from what they've heard. I hope there will be long speeches at the vote, explaining what they believe they heard and why they draw the conclusions they do.

Since the Council set up the process with the proponents understanding being "have the public meetings, then we'll approve the name change", it's easy to understand why some people think they never had a chance of being heard.

Too often outreach plans are little more than "here's the plan" and then you have a chance to "provide input." Tri-Met's gutting of the #14 line after the "public hearing process" is one example, I'm hoping the Streetcar Plan process isn't another. We don't just provide "input" to what the government does --or we shouldn't-- it's our government. We're more than just sounding boards, or rubber stamps. We don't just get a place at the table...we own it.

Still, we elect our leaders to make decisions, not take polls. Having spent many a Friday in Eugene years ago as a student, emptying the parking lot of shoppers with our "Boycott Safeway" protests --and selling homemade sandwiches outside the UofO's Erb Memorial Union-- boycotting the EMU for refusing to stop using "scab" lettuce...I'd rather see Chavez honored for something that unites us, not divides us. But I've only watched this process from afar, and, honestly, I'm not sure how this process could've been better...or worse.

We're just not as good as we wish we were, or want to be, and part of the genius of Chavez was uniting people in a common cause for treating people decently, even as we may have disagreed about other things. We sure could use some of that genius now.

As I have been out and about in North Portland the last 18 months or so, I was distressed to hear so many people jumping on the anti-illegal immigrant bandwagon (people who I would not think would hold those kinds of opinions, let alone utter them in public).

The "process" (a word I use casually, because the only process I have seen is the Mayor signing off on the idea long before it had come over the horizon for many people and then showcasing "neighborhood" meetings where those opposed were tarred with the racist label) succeeded mainly in hardening peoples feelings towards any and all Mexican, Hispanic or South American people regardless of their immigration status.

I think honoring Chavez is a great idea. But when the Committee adopted the "my way or else" attitude, they lost me.

At this time of increasing xenophobia and suspicion of those who don't look like us, what a wonderful opportunity was wasted to provide (a) education about the Chavez legacy (which was basically a labor movement) and (b) a thoughtful community consideration of how best to honor him. I would estimate that over 50% of those who commented on the name change conflated Chavez with either the Venzualen dictator or with the immigrant amnesty movement.

Instead, those who fear foreigners and immigrants had their pre-conceptions validated by the tactics of the Committee.

And now I hear that they have threatened Leonard and Adams to try and get a unanimous vote.

Now, when people in North Portland look at the new street signs, they will think only about how "those people" bullied their way into this instead of thinking about the man who was to be honored.

Sad.

Well stated, Frank. Thank you.

Randy2, I suspect there are many viewpoints represented on "the Committee", and that it is no more accurate to characterize the desires/actions of "the Committee" with sweeping labels than it is to describe neighborhood responses as homogeneous.

Renee Mitchell wrote what seems to me to be a thoughtful and balanced column on the renaming, published in today's Oregonian.

I believe the Council had two options for how they could have handled this better: they could either have required the advocates for the change to use the Code-prescribed process, or voted to waive the Code and adopt the name change immediately, as is their right as elected officials. In telling the Committee to go out to the neighborhoods to try to get buy-in via a couple of public meetings, they set up the Committtee to fail, and to take the heat instead of themselves. Of course the Committee stuck to their proposal - that's what the Council asked them to do, while at the same time essentially telling the community it was a done deal no matter what was said at the public meetings. Then because there are some racist people in Portland, and because people when challenged with racism (either on the receiving end, or in true or false accusations of it) often become defensive, a bad process got rapidly and probably irreparably worse.

Sad. I agree with you on that, Randy2.

Interesting analysis and commentary on whether waiving the Code process to rename Interstate is legal, on Isaac Laquedem and Jack Bog's blog.

Amanda:

"Randy2, I suspect there are many viewpoints represented on "the Committee", and that it is no more accurate to characterize the desires/actions of "the Committee" with sweeping labels than it is to describe neighborhood responses as homogeneous."

***If there were Committee viewpoints other than "up or down" on the re-naming, they certainly didn't get airtime.

***"Homogeneous" was not a word I used, nor was it the intent of my anecdotes. I have no idea if the persons who I described overhearing represent the feelings 5%, 20% or 80% of the neighborhood or not. That being said, however, after 17 years in North Portland, I cannot remember hearing so many comments which were (directly or indirectly) targeted at Spanish-speaking and/or Spanish-named people as I have since the re-naming issue erupted.

***While I have worked here for 17 years, I have only lived here for 4. The kinds of reactions and comments I described were what I might have heard in the suburbs I used to reside in. It seems as though the diverse and inclusive nature of NP has suffered as a result of the process.

***Finally,

"....Of course the Committee stuck to their proposal - that's what the Council asked them to do, while at the same time essentially telling the community it was a done deal no matter what was said at the public meetings."

*** It's the "of course" that saddens me. Once the Committee realized they had been suckered by the Mayor, in the interest of uniting and not dividing, it would have been an easy (and well-received) move to accept the compromise to examine 5 streets (including Interstate) and participate there. If Interstate was the best choice, then it would have risen to the top of the 5. Instead, they contact community leaders and urge them away from participation to force an up or down vote on "THEIR" choice.

***And now, we face possible lawsuits or a referendum, all of which will keep this wound seeping.

***The only excuse I recall hearing from the Committee spokesperson for not compromising and forcing an up or down was something along the lines of "it is OUR hero and only WE can decide how best to honor him."

Sad.

Randy2

Just confirming Randy2's observation re. expressions of racism. I've lived in Overlook since 2000. I've heard more open hostility towards minorities expressed in the several weeks since this issue got hot than in my seven previous years here.

And now the opponents whine about it when their white nativism and overt intercommunal hostility is called out.

I was on the fence about the renaming until things got ugly. Now I'm firmly in favor of it, process or not. When a twelve-year-old black Hispanic girl gets heckled by an angry white mob, things have gone too far.

Thank you both for your insights, Randy2 and Steve. Your further explanations make good points, Randy2. In all the furor, I'm glad to hear voices of compassion and reason on both sides. If others pay attention carefully, there are still sensible, sensitive things being said by thoughtful people on either side, on the fence, and outside. I'm heartened that the discussion here on my blog, while still hearing from people with strong feelings, hasn't degenerated into name-calling and arguing.

I find Steve's last sentence particularly compelling.

I am a little curious about Steve's assertion that a 12 year old girl was heckled by an "angry white mob".

Steve, if you are reading this, could you be a little more specific?

In my opinion, all the charges of racism flying around are either a problem of perception (why do these people not like my idea of changing the name of the street they live on? it must be racism!) or a cynical ploy to make opposition to their plan seem like something it isn't (they don't like my idea? I'll call them racists and then I'll get my way!)

This issue might still be around when you join the council Amanda, as the case now looks to be tied up in litigation if the vote goes as expected Thursday.

Examples of racism I've heard re. the Chavez issue:

"We don't want them here. Why don't they go somewhere else."

"Rosa Parks was a criminal. What she did was illegal, so we shouldn't be renaming streets for her."

"Can you believe what they're trying to do to our neighborhood?"

etc.

Much of this was heard at the school my children attend, within earshot of children, some of them black or Hispanic.

And it's always without a hint of self-consciousness. It's like the veil that hides lurking racism has been shredded, and everybody feels emboldened to express it.

The incident I'm talking about with the 12-year-old happened at one of the Ockley Green meetings when the daughter of a friend spoke. The audience was very hostile and disrespectful.

Long-time residents of my neighborhood are being made to feel like unwanted outsiders. There's a clear mob mentality to it all.

The biggest irony is that this all started with whites shouting down the proposal, and now they're whining about being called racists and complaining that the renaming committee is shouting them down.

Latinos I've spoken with are scared. There's a clear sense of hostility directed at all things Hispanic in my neighborhood.

Everybody wants to deny racism is a factor, and I'm sure this blog comment will set me up for hostility. But I'm just relating what I've observed.

It's ugly, and it makes me ashamed to be a white resident of Overlook.

Steve Rawley:

"Everybody wants to deny racism is a factor, and I'm sure this blog comment will set me up for hostility. But I'm just relating what I've observed."

***Of course racism is a factor in some of the responses (as well as the Committee's attitude that only Hispanics can decide the appropriate way to honor Chavez).

***What I see as a bigger factor is the sense of unfairness or lack of due process for the change. If the city has an established "process" for street-renaming, why was it not followed? Hmmm, might it be the Mayor was pandering to an interest group? Or perhaps he was responding to overt threats (although since he's already declared he's not going to seek re-election, probably not) of the type aimed at Leonard and Adams.

***I still see this as a lost opportunity for community education simply so one political group can flex some muscle.

Randy2

Everybody wants to deny racism is a factor, and I'm sure this blog comment will set me up for hostility.

Not on this blog. I'm glad commenters have stayed within the civility guidelines.

I still see this as a lost opportunity for community education simply so one political group can flex some muscle

Flexing muscle, or asking for something other political groups have been given? I agree it's a lost opportunity. It may have created a new one, if the Council can move from where we are now (too much anger on both sides, but still with some folks on both sides trying hard to understand the other's points) to addressing the underlying issues. Those include who has access to power in Portland, and who has real power, as well as racism.

There seem to be people who still care about the name, one way or the other, outside of the factors of power/influence/racism/fairness. I don't believe the Council can end the debate on the name change by either of the options on the table at City Council tomorrow afternoon. If the Councilmen have a straight up-or-down vote and the change passes, the matter will go to the courts and/or ballot. If they vote for the pick-one-of-five process, the debate on the name, ignoring unspoken underlying issues, is expanded to all areas of the city with no greater expectation of positive outcomes.

I'd like to see No votes on both proposals. Then the City should waive all fees for a citizen-led process to propose a street renaming in compliance with the Code-designated process, developed in the wake of a previous contentious renaming. Hire facilitators experienced in multicultural and diversity issues to help. And have the Councilmen commit to having one of them at every meeting, to help people remember to stay civil, and to help lead to a successful outcome.

I attended both meetings at Ockley Green. I think I have also read every mainstream media and blog posting on the Ockley Green meetings as well.

I do not RECALL a 12 year old speaking,but I think I would have remembered a 12 year old being subject to cruel behavior.

I think somebody in the blogosphere like S. Renee Mitchell @the Boregonian, Portland Mercury Blogtown, or the St. John's Sentinel, all of whom reported extensively on these meetings would have picked up on this "heckling by an angry white mob" incident. Especially S. Renee Mitchell. Google her columns and read her mea culpa on her reporting of these meetings.

We can agree to disagree on the merits of re-naming. My opinion, as someone who lives on Interstate 1 block from Rosa Parks way, is that 2 name changes in 1 year is too much. I don't care who you are wanting to re-name it for.

I might be White, but my wife isn't. So I get angry when these racism accusations get thrown around so loosely.

The 1% of people who oppose this for racist reasons can go to hell, and are not helping the 99% of people who are tired of being pushed around by City Hall.

The Latino community leaders who are comparing this controversy with Martin Luther King's fight against institutionalized racism in the deep south aren't helping their case either. Maybe the street name will be changed, but the resentment from the people who live on this street, (towards City Hall, not the Latino population), will not.

I'm proud to live in Arbor Lodge. We're not going down without a fight.

Amy J. Ruiz writes a very thoughtful, helpful Hall Monitor on the topic in this week's Mercury.

You may not recall her speaking, but she did. You might not have felt the response to her was hostile, but in her eyes (and in the eyes of her mother), it was. And it was frightening.

There was an awful lot of anger at those meetings, all crammed into that little auditorium. When you're on the side of the majority, it's easy to dismiss it. When you're on the receiving end of it, it's all too real.

Maybe the heckling was only audible to the speaker or those sitting around her mother. Maybe Renee Mitchell phoned it in. Maybe the Mercury news editor has a distinct bias against the rename.

You seem to be accusing me of making this up. If you don't want to believe it, that's your choice. But please be aware that many people of color I've spoken with have felt a heightened sense of hostility from whites in the neighborhood since this whole can of worms was opened up.

That's not me accusing you of racism. That's me relating my experience and the experiences of my friends.

If this is just "people who are tired of being pushed around by City Hall," many of them that my friends and I have encountered need to learn how to channel that frustration more appropriately.

Steve - The column Amanda linked to just above your comment is the one in which I say I'm for the rename, so no "distinct bias against the rename" here. (I still have huge issues with how it's come about, though, and think the council would be smart to vote against it on Thursday, so it can be voted for in a more positive environment, soon.)

But I, too, don't recall a 12 year old being heckled, and I'm possibly one of the only people outside the committee to have attended every last meeting on this issue. Which Ockley meeting was it? I do recall one teenager girl speaking at one of the meetings, and she was as nervous as any teen would be in speaking to a crowd, but the crowd reaction to her was muted at best—she was across the aisle from me. (I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I am trying to nail this down. It's possible I missed it, too, though I have picked up on plenty hostile moments.)

p.s. - well done maintaining a civil conversation here, Amanda!

-------------
Amy J. Ruiz
News Editor
Portland Mercury

Steve- I guess it's all perception.In the interest of civility, I am dropping this matter from my mind as far as Amanda's blog goes. My anger is with city hall, and I am sorry if I am unable to express it in a manner that doesn't potentially offend someone in a public forum such as this.

I will say that my dissatisfaction expressed at the Arbor lodge and Ockley Green meetings was limited to the "thumbs up/thumbs down" options that we were asked to use by the mediators.

I just heard SW 4th will be re-named Cesar Chavez instead. City Hall
will change their address.

Group hug everybody, OK?

My anger is with city hall, and I am sorry if I am unable to express it in a manner that doesn't potentially offend someone in a public forum such as this.

I think that is a good way of expressing your depth of feeling on the subject, Geoff, without potentially offending anyone :) And I agree that City Hall owns the responsibility for this mess.

More on the renaming in a new post coming later. To close this thread of comments, perhaps, I note again my appreciation to everyone who has posted thoughtfully on this issue. I suspect some readers may still have been offended sometimes by views expressed, due to the intensity with which disagreements on the sensitive topics involved are held. But I have certainly learned by being able to read and consider other viewpoints without having to make an effort to disregard rudeness at the same time.