Tabled, reconsidered

The Council this morning voted to table the proposed Code amendment allowing Council-initiated street renamings now and in the future. They also unanimously voted to reverse last week's vote calling for naming 4th Avenue for César Chávez, apparently after leaders of the Chávez committee held a press conference this morning, indicating solidarity with Chinatown residents on NW 4th.

Did you know that the official name for the historic district north of Burnside is "New Chinatown/Japantown"?

I concur with the outcome of this morning's Council votes, i.e., that neither Interstate nor 4th are renamed, and the Code was not amended with the horrible new top-down process for this and future street renamings.

Council chambers were packed this morning, and more than a dozen people signed up to testify on the Code process issue. It's unfortunate nobody on the Council called for consideration of this issue to be pulled to the beginning of the morning's items. Too much of citizens' time has already been wasted by the mistakes in this process. While the Bureau of Environmental Services' watershed planning report is important, I question the value of requiring elderly residents of Chinatown to wait patiently through it. Even I barely listened, intent on writing up notes for the testimony I thought I'd be giving.

Instead, the second to last item was consideration of the Agenda item on Code amendments for renaming, on which testimony had been invited. The motion to table was introduced immediately. A motion to table is not debatable. That motion saved time and angst for citizens who eventually got what they wanted - nobody seemed to be in favor of renaming 4th, even though we didn't get to say what we came for. Could that not have been done at 10 a.m., instead of closer to 11:30?

OK, on to Lessons Learned.

César Chávez said:

"From the depth of need and despair, people can work together, can organize themselves to solve their own problems and fill their own needs with strength and dignity."

Approving a change in the name of either Interstate or 4th would not have accomplished that, at this point. The well-meaning attempt by the Councilmen to propose what they saw as a compromise would not have empowered the advocates for the name change to fill their own needs with strength and dignity. It would not have helped heal the rifts in the community (and between sections of the community) that have been incited and exposed in this process.

Portland's streets belong to all the people. They don't belong to the five elected to the Council at any given time, to use at will. They don't belong to any one advocacy group. While technically the ground beneath them belongs to the adjacent property owners, the public has Constitutional rights to assemble there, travel along them, buy homes and businesses adjacent to them if we choose and can afford to. We have Code rules saying what can happen in streets, as well as how they are named and renamed.

In a city where "progress" and "renewal" often means tearing down old buildings and cutting ancient trees, our streets and street names provide needed connections to our sense of place and history - even when the name is just a number. The advocates for the name change wanted to establish a new connection, and provide/restore a value to a part of our history not much honored to this point. That goal is worthy and still valid. I look forward to seeing how the committee members choose to resolve their despair, and keep working towards their goal of honoring the great Mexican American hero - in a participatory public process that unites people and communities, with mutual respect.

A comment on Blogtown noted that neighbors in North Portland understand the Chávez committee's frustration - that's what's made this process so difficult, in part. People experiencing powerlessness in other parts of the city relate, too. By one minority community group joining with another in the press conference this morning, perhaps more connections are being made. Both relationship connections in different advocacy organizations talking with each other, and mental connections in terms of, "Hey, maybe we have more in common than we thought. And maybe the issue goes beyond racial and cultural discrimination, and involves historical patterns of power that all of us need to work together to break through."

I believe this saga, flawed and contentious as it has been, has educated many Portlanders. Many of us know much more about César Chávez than we did six months ago. We've seen overt racism more clearly voiced, and now it's out in the open, we can work on addressing it. We know that the rules in the Code are there for a purpose, and that the Code does indeed place some limitations on what the five people elected to seats on the Council are allowed to do.

But wow, what a painful way to learn those lessons. Let's draw a deep breath, and be thankful that tomorrow, we can think of other things to celebrate and be grateful for.

James Mayer in the Oregonian

James Mayer in the Oregonian today reports Sam Adams said he plans to introduce a new street naming policy next week. Don't, Sam. Let it settle for a while.

City Hall blog has posted

City Hall blog has posted the text of many testifiers' statements in the hearing on renaming 4th, last week. I think reading them all will make you thankful we live in Portland, again. We are a city with thoughtful neighbors who care, and can express themselves eloquently.

Perhaps the whole sorry saga

Perhaps the whole sorry saga will remind Councilors (and Councilor wanna-bes) that squeaky wheels -- whether they are special interest pressure groups or developers with the next best thing for the City -- may be deserving of attention, but not at the expense of the City's citizens as a whole. Rather than initiating a new process to find an appropriate street to name after Chavez in January, why not back up a bit and come up with a process for honoring worthy citizens which is inclusive for all. Lord knows Chavez will not be the last person to be honored and I'd hate to see us go through another painful process like this. Take the citizen-financed elections concept for instance; if the Chavez Committee had been required to submit a petition with say, 50% of the affected residents/business owners signing on, it would have taken longer, but would have required much more neighbor-to-neighbor conversations to get to that point. Persuasion is much better than power-plays. Finally, while Cesar Chavez made it through this process without losing honor and dignity, I cannot say the same for our Mayor. I now find myself thinking about him in a similar way as I think about Bush -- can we make it to the end of his term without any more klutzy or incompetent or damaging acts? Randy2

Rather than initiating a new

Rather than initiating a new process to find an appropriate street to name after Chavez in January, why not back up a bit and come up with a process for honoring worthy citizens which is inclusive for all. There is already such a process, in the Code at 17.93. Note that it doesn't require a majority of adjacent property owners to sign on, although that is one option. See my post here. Some Council wannabes don't have to be reminded the Code exists for a reason - some have been using it (and sometimes prompting amendments to it) for years. There is plenty of blame that could be apportioned all around, in this saga. Mayor Potter didn't explain his No vote on renaming 4th well, but he understood that by suggesting a new street to name for Chavez, the four Commissioners who did were in effect saying to the committee, "We don't agree with your choice, so we'll make a selection of a different street for you." Those of us who suggested parks or other alternatives to name for Chavez similarly kept the focus on the name, rather than the process of empowering a community group to make a change that other neighbors would support. The intent wasn't racist, in my opinion, in fact the underlying message was, "Sorry, you can't have that, let us give you something else because we really care about you and your cause". Whereas in fact, another thing we've learned in this process is that the more respectful action was what the Council finally did on Thursday - vote No on renaming Interstate, and leave it to the advocates to decide what they want to do next.

I'm glad to see the

I'm glad to see the Oregonian's editorial board finally come around to the concept that due process can be helpful. It's a funny editorial, though, considering just a week ago, the Editorial Board was hailing the 4th Avenue idea as brilliant. Now, with no mention of their previous positions on the issue, they say: "All of this illustrates the importance of adopting useful processes that seek to give participants a fair chance of affecting the outcome of a debate. But it also shows that once you have a process -- and the city has a clear, detailed one on street-name changes -- you ought to follow it. This discussion went seriously off the rails almost as soon as Potter and the council, for different reasons, abandoned the city's own process." And that paragraph comes after their opening sentence, "Heaven forbid that Portland's City Council should become so hidebound as to fall back on bureaucracy and procedure in every difficult policy decision. " Umm... why wouldn't the Code be the first place to start, in every difficult policy decision?

"...fall back on bureaucracy

"...fall back on bureaucracy and procedure in every difficult policy decision." Umm... why wouldn't the Code be the first place to start, in every difficult policy decision? Of course. Thats why government can be slow, cumbersome and, yes, bureaucratic. It's rooted in consent of the governed rather than rooted in efficiency, which usually makes attempted end runs around "process" seem bold and dynamic, but too often you end up with a mess with unintended consequences.