Penkin brings wealth of neighborhood experience

Most of which he isn’t sharing

After chairing the Pearl District Neighborhood Association for seven years, Stan Penkin is stepping down to pursue higher office: a seat on the Portland City Council.

No neighborhood association president in the areas covered by the NW Examiner since the 1980s has served longer than Penkin. And his activism has gone far beyond neighborhood affairs. He co-founded Oregon artPAC, was president of the Oregon Children’s Theater, chairs Home Share Oregon and co-founded the Northwest Neighborhood Community Conservancy, a pioneering nonprofit providing security and humanitarian services throughout the Pearl District.

He was appointed the first chair of the city’s Arts Oversight Committee. He also founded and chaired the Portland Public Safety Action Coalition and served on the board of the Neighbors West/Northwest coalition, one of the few organizations he refused to chair.

While neighborhood activism has consumed more of his time than his other civic roles, it is the topic treated most briefly among the four planks of his campaign platform. Yet this is where grassroots record is best revealed, thanks to open meetings requirements and the consistent presence of a reporter at PDNA events.

Penkin’s first big test as PDNA president was the proposed Fremont Place Apartments, a 17-story building that was to block views of the Fremont Bridge. He organized several special public meetings to marshal political opposition, renting a Portland Center Stage auditorium to handle the large crowds.

The Portland City Council ultimately approved the project, putting PDNA on the spot to either appeal the decision to the state or accept defeat. A special board meeting was called in April 2018 to weigh the options, but instead Penkin kicked it off by announcing a breakthrough.

Penkin said he had just come from a meeting with Lincoln Property Co. representatives, who were willing to pay about $35,000 for PDNA’s public backing of the project.

“I think it’s a huge victory,” he told his board.

Many in the room didn’t see it that way.

“It feels like this came out of nowhere,” said PDNA board officer Bill Bagnall, explaining that he knew nothing of a meeting with attorneys or the possibility of a compromise.

The deal required PDNA to testify in favor of the project.

“I had to reread it to make sure that’s what it said,” Bagnall said. “I didn’t know that we would sell out and compromise.”

Penkin said secrecy was called for lest PDNA “tip its hand” by discussing negotiations in an open meeting.

Ed O’Rourke, a board member whose homeowners’ association wanted to continue the fight, wanted to know who had asked for the money, and Penkin said he did.

That crossed an ethical line for O’Rourke and many on his board, including several who nevertheless voted for the arrangement.

“The optics are terrible,” he said.

Making the deal in private was also unacceptable.

“In a vacuum with a few people, we’re cutting a side deal,” O’Rourke said. “It doesn’t give the community a chance to weigh in on how they really feel.”

“I don’t think we should call it a victory,” board member Dave Mitchell added. “It looks like a financial payoff.”

Board member Jan Valentine said the PDNA should return the money with or without extracting a concession.

“Did they bribe us?” Valentine wanted to know.

Board member Sarah Hoeber had the same concern.

“Let’s take the financial thing off the plate,” she said.

In the end, the board voted 9-5 with one abstention to approve the deal Penkin brought them.

Six years later, candidate Penkin reflected on the lessons of the Fremont Place settlement.

“It was an uncomfortable conversation,” he admitted, though insisting “it was totally out in the open.”

Even so, this was a special circumstance.

“A difficult conversation with a developer and a lawyer in the room—that’s not something you can talk about in public,” Penkin said.

“I’m not afraid of a tough conversation, never have been,” he assured.

But sensing when privacy is the better part of valor has marked his behavior at several tense junctures during his presidency.

As crime and disorder spread across the central city, Penkin broadened his reach, launching the independent Westside Public Safety Action Committee in 2019 (later renamed the Portland Public Safety Action Committee), a nonprofit not subject to open meetings requirements and to which reporters had access by invitation only. He said he preferred this arrangement to allow participants to “speak freely.”

Last year, Penkin ruled that PDNA board meetings would be held only every other month despite consistently full agendas. That pushed more decisions onto a more select number who are on the Executive Committee, whose meeting schedule is not on the PDNA website and had not been covered by a reporter for years.

As PDNA’s representative to Neighbors West/Northwest, he gave his board brief and anodyne reports on coalition action, sharing neither intense controversies nor positions he was taking. Three years ago, that caught up with him and he apologized to his neighborhood board, which had only learned about his volatile statements by reading them in the paper.

Since the Fremont Place Apartments matter, Penkin has not championed other issues that could draw NIMBY (not in my backyard) charges. He finally came out against continued operation of the River District Navigation Center on Northwest Naito Parkway after holding off livability complaints of neighbors for years. Otherwise, he has stepped back from challenging development projects.

Penkin’s high moments have been marked by large public forums bringing together local and even state officials to address topics such as crime, behavioral health and public safety. About 500 people attended a Livability Summit at the Armory to hear the mayor, the county chair, the deputy police chief and other city officials address neighborhood concerns. Penkin got them on stage by promising they would not have to field angry questions from the audience, a deal he kept by passing on only written questions and accepting noncommittal answers.

An online Behavioral Health Forum he moderated and helped organize last fall drew about 400 people, featuring panelists from the city, county, Metro and the state Legislature who had not come together at one time before. It built momentum for reconsideration of drug decriminalization and treatment resources in the state.

His campaign for a District 4 council seat puts homelessness and public safety as his top priority.

“We must ensure we have enforcement and accountability … no longer allowing open-air drug dealing and bringing greater resolve to providing treatment options for those who are addicted and mentally ill. We also must hold accountable those who break our windows, spread graffiti, break into our buildings and trash our streets.”

Supporting small business is his second priority. He supports “tax credits and reimbursements for such things as business losses due to a large storm or for broken windows.”

Before taking leadership roles in safety and livability issues, Penkin was known in Portland for supporting the arts. The City Council declared Stan Penkin Day in 2017 in recognition of his “commitment to the community and leadership with the arts.”

“Arts and culture speak to the heart, soul and spirit of a community,” he wrote. “While the arts, including culinary arts, are a major driver of economic development, including jobs, it also fosters community, creativity, innovation and pride.”

In the one area where he might have offered original insights—neighborhoods—he instead punted, issuing two commonly heard sentiments: “Known for decades across the country as the model for public engagement, support for neighborhoods has slowly eroded in the past few years. This is not good for our city and must be corrected.”

How would he reverse the decline in neighborhood support? By increased funding, and if so, through what administrative structure? Is the proposed system consolidating seven neighborhood coalitions into four workable? How does he view the recently adopted city ordinance reducing public notice and neighborhood involvement in development review? If he has views and strategies on such topics, he is not sharing them with voters.

Editor’s note:

In 2020, Stan Penkin introduced a motion that banned Allan Classen from attendance at Neighbors West/Northwest meetings for allegedly reporting comments made in a confidential session. He rescinded the motion two months later.