The real question is why Portland's permitting professionals will not be allowed to speak freely about the agreement they once opposed. Part of the secret deal cut with PGE apparently silences their voices, as the city administration is required to recommend approval.
In May 2025, they publicly documented serious concerns about PGE's proposal, including impacts to Forest Park and recommended denial of the permit.
Precisely. And this is just the beginning. PGE is eyeing another 10 acres of Forest Park for more development after this, and we have city officials too cowardly to stop it.
Humor makes it possible to speculate but it also penetrates one's brain in irritating fashion.
The mayor is hopefully quizzed unmercifully until all the facts are revealed. Raymond Lee's credibility is hopefully zero and he resigns in shame WITHOUT SEVERANCE
I guess I’m trying to figure out who are the decision makers here. It sure doesn’t seem to be the Mayor, as he cannot even offer a tie breaking vote for the city council. It doesn’t appear to be the city council, as their 12-0 vote has no leverage and has gone up in flames. It sure as hell isn’t the voters, as evidenced by the council ignoring both written and in person testimony given in the city council chambers. Is it Raymond Lee, a carpetbagger from small town Greeley, Colorado who left under suspicious circumstances yet was granted every salary and benefits requests by a groveling Mayor?
I wanted to flag a concern regarding the AI caricature used in your recent story: Envisioning city's secret deal with PGE - by Allan Classen.
The illustration doesn’t resemble our City Administrator in any meaningful way. Instead, it reads as a generic depiction of a Black man — which is concerning, especially given how representation and accuracy shape public perception of real individuals. I know AI tools are increasingly part of reporting, but in this case the output unintentionally flattened identity rather than portraying the actual person.
I wanted to raise this concern directly since accurate representation is important to us.
It’s worth noting that the original illustration was a satirical political cartoon, not an attempt at a realistic portrait. None of the figures, including the bureau staff or city council members, were intended to resemble those individuals in a meaningful way. Political cartoons have long relied on satire, symbolism, and caricature rather than photographic accuracy.
It’s interesting, however, that the only concern raised by the City’s communications office was about one figure, despite the fact that none of the characters were realistic depictions. If “accurate representation is important,” that principle would seem to apply consistently.
Notably, the city has not objected to the central thesis of the cartoon: that under this agreement, professional staff, including those who last year opposed the PGE project based on the science and the Forest Park Management Plan, will be muzzled and required to recommend approval regardless of their own findings. If that premise were false, you’d expect the city’s spokesperson to say so. Instead, the only objection raised was about an illustration’s likeness. That silence speaks for itself.
The cartoon sums it all up
The real question is why Portland's permitting professionals will not be allowed to speak freely about the agreement they once opposed. Part of the secret deal cut with PGE apparently silences their voices, as the city administration is required to recommend approval.
In May 2025, they publicly documented serious concerns about PGE's proposal, including impacts to Forest Park and recommended denial of the permit.
Has the science changed?
Or just the politics?
Precisely. And this is just the beginning. PGE is eyeing another 10 acres of Forest Park for more development after this, and we have city officials too cowardly to stop it.
Humor makes it possible to speculate but it also penetrates one's brain in irritating fashion.
The mayor is hopefully quizzed unmercifully until all the facts are revealed. Raymond Lee's credibility is hopefully zero and he resigns in shame WITHOUT SEVERANCE
Absolutely agree
I guess I’m trying to figure out who are the decision makers here. It sure doesn’t seem to be the Mayor, as he cannot even offer a tie breaking vote for the city council. It doesn’t appear to be the city council, as their 12-0 vote has no leverage and has gone up in flames. It sure as hell isn’t the voters, as evidenced by the council ignoring both written and in person testimony given in the city council chambers. Is it Raymond Lee, a carpetbagger from small town Greeley, Colorado who left under suspicious circumstances yet was granted every salary and benefits requests by a groveling Mayor?
I wanted to flag a concern regarding the AI caricature used in your recent story: Envisioning city's secret deal with PGE - by Allan Classen.
The illustration doesn’t resemble our City Administrator in any meaningful way. Instead, it reads as a generic depiction of a Black man — which is concerning, especially given how representation and accuracy shape public perception of real individuals. I know AI tools are increasingly part of reporting, but in this case the output unintentionally flattened identity rather than portraying the actual person.
I wanted to raise this concern directly since accurate representation is important to us.
Cody Bowman (he/him)
Press Officer, City of Portland
It’s worth noting that the original illustration was a satirical political cartoon, not an attempt at a realistic portrait. None of the figures, including the bureau staff or city council members, were intended to resemble those individuals in a meaningful way. Political cartoons have long relied on satire, symbolism, and caricature rather than photographic accuracy.
It’s interesting, however, that the only concern raised by the City’s communications office was about one figure, despite the fact that none of the characters were realistic depictions. If “accurate representation is important,” that principle would seem to apply consistently.
Notably, the city has not objected to the central thesis of the cartoon: that under this agreement, professional staff, including those who last year opposed the PGE project based on the science and the Forest Park Management Plan, will be muzzled and required to recommend approval regardless of their own findings. If that premise were false, you’d expect the city’s spokesperson to say so. Instead, the only objection raised was about an illustration’s likeness. That silence speaks for itself.