I kid you not, but during peak woke, the Office of Neighborhood engagement sent out a tweet telling Portlanders to avoid cultural appropriation in their choice of Halloween costumes.
I applaud Olivia Clark for supporting and helping fund the Pearl Sunday Farmers' Market. I hope that as they City Council see efforts like Reignite the Pearl, they're begin to realize that neighborhoods are natural way in which people self-organize and that neighborhood associations should be partners not something to be managed.
As someone not familiar with Portland’s neighborhood associations, I would ask a basic question: given the new form of government, where City Council members are elected by geographic districts, why should neighborhood associations maintain their historical special status within City Hall?
They could continue to exist as independent nonprofits and advocate for their neighborhoods like any other civic organization. What is less obvious to me is why they should receive privileged access or status simply because they are the officially recognized neighborhood association.
One could argue that district council members are not particularly accessible to the average citizen—send an email and good luck getting a response—but that seems like a different problem, and one the new form of government should address directly.
I’d encourage comments on the question, and perhaps I’ll attend the next Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting and see for myself how the system works in practice.
Thank you for this excellent article which gives information I have been wanting. As a member of District 4 and the NWDA, I have continuing concerns. What guarantees that Neighborhood Associations retain funding, timely access to information, and a direct avenue to elected officials when they oppose an administration proposal? The concern is structural. What written protections preserve Neighborhood Associations’ independent voice when their position conflicts with the City Administrator’s priorities? Until those protections are identified, assurances of a better working relationship do not resolve the concern.
This seems like a good conversation to have. I have been on the DNA for some time and Chaired a Committee for awhile during the Pandemic. I interacted closely with the Pearl NA. I found it a great model for neighborhood involvement and care, far better than the DNA but mostly due to its recent deliberate creation from industrial transition zone to a vibrant neighborhood with City help. Downtown was in the process of becoming a 24 hour neighborhood were people live, shop, recreate and work. The Pearl got most of the way there first. Downtown was a place where people worked during the week, stayed late for drinks or dinner with friends, had lunch with clients and met for a dinner and a movie or a play or a concert. Before the Pandemic and WFH, the role of the DNA was primarily an additional step in design review for people who lived Downtown. I worked for US Bank and worked in Big Pink. After US Bank headquarters moved, I lived Downtown. Since the Pandemic, the number of folks with a stake Downtown has consistently shrunken. Businesses shrink their footprints as workers works from home and clients resist the drive and search for parking. Shrinking rents force buildings into foreclosure, sale and receivership because they can no longer meet debt service payments. Different visitors start to predominate the streets, no longer constrained by the activity of workers and shoppers. The revenue from visitors and property taxes shrinks, shrinking the services the City can afford to offer and forcing the City to look for new sources of revenue.
In the meantime, the City has become more unionized and the Pandemic made "essential workers (which can include most jobs that folks who have been raised her feel are beneath them)". If the City wants to budget for a full time employee, all in, it is between $200k and $250k/year. The market set a new minimum wage, close to a living wage. Great. But at the same time, legitimate AI anxiety has created an environment where people who have jobs are highly protective of them. Volunteerism is looked at a a dangerous threat to public service jobs.
We are in a place where most of the central city is unsafe due to drug addiction, untreated psychosis, petty crime and more serious violent crime related to that while the budget to pay city workers to address those problems, especially the police, is shrinking. We are hiring private security or forming enhanced service districts to fill the gap, placing additional cost burdens property owners, businesses and residents. Success is achieved when one neighborhood or locality manages to "move" the worst of the liveability problem into the next neighborhood of vicinity within.
It actually seems like a very good time for a temporary and different model of Neighborhood Association, which pairs a Task Force of people representing the range of stakeholders in the neighborhood with City bureaus to organize volunteer action around initiative that compliment City initiatives designed to solve neighborhood problems. Building Community and government cooperation. Break down NIMBYism with targeted solutions.
I had hoped to get more feedback on my earlier comment. I know it was on the fly and full of typos, but times have changed. Instead of moving problems around with the limited resources available, how about looking for a temporary NA model that looks to solve the problems within its borders by coordinating volunteer effort with an understaffed City government? It is worth a spirited dialog. Right now, the NAs are far better than saying "no" and demanding more than they are acknowledging reality and solving problems. We do not have the staff right now to give people what they desire from the City and we don't have the revenue to hire more. If we try, we chase those being asked to pay more for less away, and we are even further behind. We need those willing to give time and effort for free to be embraced by the City and help turn this Doom Loop around. We don't gain anything with the old traditional model but further inhibition of new development and business activity downtiwn and throughout the central city.
I kid you not, but during peak woke, the Office of Neighborhood engagement sent out a tweet telling Portlanders to avoid cultural appropriation in their choice of Halloween costumes.
I applaud Olivia Clark for supporting and helping fund the Pearl Sunday Farmers' Market. I hope that as they City Council see efforts like Reignite the Pearl, they're begin to realize that neighborhoods are natural way in which people self-organize and that neighborhood associations should be partners not something to be managed.
As someone not familiar with Portland’s neighborhood associations, I would ask a basic question: given the new form of government, where City Council members are elected by geographic districts, why should neighborhood associations maintain their historical special status within City Hall?
They could continue to exist as independent nonprofits and advocate for their neighborhoods like any other civic organization. What is less obvious to me is why they should receive privileged access or status simply because they are the officially recognized neighborhood association.
One could argue that district council members are not particularly accessible to the average citizen—send an email and good luck getting a response—but that seems like a different problem, and one the new form of government should address directly.
I’d encourage comments on the question, and perhaps I’ll attend the next Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting and see for myself how the system works in practice.
Thank you for this excellent article which gives information I have been wanting. As a member of District 4 and the NWDA, I have continuing concerns. What guarantees that Neighborhood Associations retain funding, timely access to information, and a direct avenue to elected officials when they oppose an administration proposal? The concern is structural. What written protections preserve Neighborhood Associations’ independent voice when their position conflicts with the City Administrator’s priorities? Until those protections are identified, assurances of a better working relationship do not resolve the concern.
This seems like a good conversation to have. I have been on the DNA for some time and Chaired a Committee for awhile during the Pandemic. I interacted closely with the Pearl NA. I found it a great model for neighborhood involvement and care, far better than the DNA but mostly due to its recent deliberate creation from industrial transition zone to a vibrant neighborhood with City help. Downtown was in the process of becoming a 24 hour neighborhood were people live, shop, recreate and work. The Pearl got most of the way there first. Downtown was a place where people worked during the week, stayed late for drinks or dinner with friends, had lunch with clients and met for a dinner and a movie or a play or a concert. Before the Pandemic and WFH, the role of the DNA was primarily an additional step in design review for people who lived Downtown. I worked for US Bank and worked in Big Pink. After US Bank headquarters moved, I lived Downtown. Since the Pandemic, the number of folks with a stake Downtown has consistently shrunken. Businesses shrink their footprints as workers works from home and clients resist the drive and search for parking. Shrinking rents force buildings into foreclosure, sale and receivership because they can no longer meet debt service payments. Different visitors start to predominate the streets, no longer constrained by the activity of workers and shoppers. The revenue from visitors and property taxes shrinks, shrinking the services the City can afford to offer and forcing the City to look for new sources of revenue.
In the meantime, the City has become more unionized and the Pandemic made "essential workers (which can include most jobs that folks who have been raised her feel are beneath them)". If the City wants to budget for a full time employee, all in, it is between $200k and $250k/year. The market set a new minimum wage, close to a living wage. Great. But at the same time, legitimate AI anxiety has created an environment where people who have jobs are highly protective of them. Volunteerism is looked at a a dangerous threat to public service jobs.
We are in a place where most of the central city is unsafe due to drug addiction, untreated psychosis, petty crime and more serious violent crime related to that while the budget to pay city workers to address those problems, especially the police, is shrinking. We are hiring private security or forming enhanced service districts to fill the gap, placing additional cost burdens property owners, businesses and residents. Success is achieved when one neighborhood or locality manages to "move" the worst of the liveability problem into the next neighborhood of vicinity within.
It actually seems like a very good time for a temporary and different model of Neighborhood Association, which pairs a Task Force of people representing the range of stakeholders in the neighborhood with City bureaus to organize volunteer action around initiative that compliment City initiatives designed to solve neighborhood problems. Building Community and government cooperation. Break down NIMBYism with targeted solutions.
I'll stop here a look for reaction.
The woman who headed the Office of Neighborhood Association in the 1970s was Catherine (Mary) Peterson.
I had hoped to get more feedback on my earlier comment. I know it was on the fly and full of typos, but times have changed. Instead of moving problems around with the limited resources available, how about looking for a temporary NA model that looks to solve the problems within its borders by coordinating volunteer effort with an understaffed City government? It is worth a spirited dialog. Right now, the NAs are far better than saying "no" and demanding more than they are acknowledging reality and solving problems. We do not have the staff right now to give people what they desire from the City and we don't have the revenue to hire more. If we try, we chase those being asked to pay more for less away, and we are even further behind. We need those willing to give time and effort for free to be embraced by the City and help turn this Doom Loop around. We don't gain anything with the old traditional model but further inhibition of new development and business activity downtiwn and throughout the central city.
Come on folkd, weigh in.