OK, here's the final section on the Survey proposing Vision Statements for Portland in 2030. The proposals for Social Portland:

• Portland is a city of diverse, distinct but connected neighborhoods.

Again, all very nice. I'm going to focus on three of these:

• Because we are actively engaged in the governance of our city, we have confidence that our leaders’ decisions advance the common good.

No. "Active engagement" is not the only thing it takes to have confidence our leaders' decisions advance the common good. I think most people would agree I'm pretty actively engaged and have been for the last 16 years. I have far less confidence that elected officials' decisions advance the common good than I had before I engaged. Because I engaged in the Charter reform process, I saw the decision made to send the proposals to the ballot in the primary of an odd year, which didn't advance the common good for either those wanting change or those opposing it. Because I served for seven years on the Planning Commission, my confidence in fair open process was shattered when the City Council made deals with OHSU and North Macadam developers that ignored citizen concerns about cost and urban form.

Having confidence in leaders' decisions requires far more than citizen engagement. It requires open, transparent decision-making by those elected leaders. It requires election to office with all candidates using Public Campaign Financing, to reduce the influence of affluence on the electoral process. It requires having people with diverse backgrounds and philosophies on the Council, so the perspective of people whose lives have been lived in bodies other than those of white males are heard and have votes when public testimony has ended. And it requires electing people whose primary objective is seeking to advance the long term common good, rather than personal power or a lucrative political career. We currently have some of the above virtues reflected in our elected leaders, and have had in past Council members I've known. We have a ways to go in things like open public process and freedom from the influence of affluence (I like that phrase! :). The Vision shouldn't imply that in the future, as long as citizens are engaged everything will be fine and dandy.

This Vision Statement would be better without the qualifier in the first phrase. Just make it, "Actively engaged citizens have confidence that our leaders’ decisions advance the common good." It would be good if someone like me, writing a blog like this in 2030, could say, "Because I engaged in City issues, I have far more confidence in city decisions than before I participated." Or even, "Don't all citizens of Portland, whether they engage and participate or not, have confidence City decisions are made to advance the common good?"

• We meet our basic needs for equitable education, employment, health care, safety, and housing.

Here is the only place I see in the proposed Vision Statements that talks about providing basic needs. Sadly, only a select few. Here's where promising to provide core services like sidewalks, crosswalks, and parks in all neighborborhoods should be explicitly stated. Here's where something about every tax dollar being used wisely and frugally should be affirmed. I believe those are Portlanders' values. They should be in Portland's Vision.

• Portland is a city of diverse, distinct but connected neighborhoods.

That's it, on neighborhoods? OK, to summarize, neighborhoods "exist" in relation to downtown. And they are diverse, distinct, and connected. Gated communities fronting along a highway can be diverse, distinct, and connected. Oh, I forgot, the neighborhood business districts are the "hubs", right? Not community centers, schools, or parks. C'mon, Vision writers, the proposed Vision Statements don't even describe Portland's neighborhoods are today, let alone what we want them to be in 2030. Think about Sellwood, Irvington, the NW district, Multnomah, Woodland Park, St John's. Can't we find more expressive, attractive language than that neighborhoods are "diverse, distinct, and connected"?