Allan, these excellent questions are exactly the ones that I would put to them and they get to the very core of how our city is run. Thank you! You are a treasure.
Ornery Mitch Green strikes again! In an ideal world, Portland's leading newspaper would be posing these very questions to city council candidates and reporting any refusals to respond.
I might suggest a 10th question: Portland City Council is a nonpartisan elected body. Under what circumstances, if any, could an elected official’s affiliation with a state or national political party or organization conflict with their responsibility to represent all Portland residents equally, fairly, and without partisan bias?
Shame there are no questions on housing or transportation policy. These are the most important areas and I want to know more about their positions.
Land use and transportation policy in this city is poor, with almost every parcel outside of the central city core using more in services than it generates in taxes, with the city being almost entirely dependent on the revenue generated by downtown. With values falling downtown, the city budget crisis will continue to worsen.
I want to know if any of these candidates have thought of a way out.
The only question worth asking before we enter the lottery known as an election is: will you abandon the experiment known as rank-choice voting, redraw distrircts and end the insanity of three people purporting to "represent" the same over-large district?
Then: will you support giving the mayor a veto--a feature of every "checks and balances" government that works?
Then: Will we stop the charade of "nonpartisan" elections? If the charter means what it says, then disqualify anyone paying monthly dues for support from a political party.
Then: Will you work to repeal just one tax or fee during your time in office?
Then: Will you accept a term-limit of two terms on the council?
Then: Tell us what you will give back to every single endorser?
Then: Will you demand that every NGO doing business with the city or its agencies submit a full, real-time account of its finances?
I think The Armory has to take some responsibility here. One, Mitch was not being excluded, he was openly invited and CHOSE to not participate. Two, there are 12 total candidates running for D4, so based on their liability insurance, ANY of those candidates could have sued for being excluded? Make this make sense. They should have printed a placard with Mitch’s name on it, had a space and a chair for him and continued on. His no show would speak volumes about his character and candidacy.
Brilliant idea, Allan; I hope you / we receive answers to these germane questions that affect our daily lives.
Allan, these excellent questions are exactly the ones that I would put to them and they get to the very core of how our city is run. Thank you! You are a treasure.
Allen, perfection! I want YOU as the moderator. Thank you.
Ornery Mitch Green strikes again! In an ideal world, Portland's leading newspaper would be posing these very questions to city council candidates and reporting any refusals to respond.
I might suggest a 10th question: Portland City Council is a nonpartisan elected body. Under what circumstances, if any, could an elected official’s affiliation with a state or national political party or organization conflict with their responsibility to represent all Portland residents equally, fairly, and without partisan bias?
Excellent question and one I'll be raising this month.
Shame there are no questions on housing or transportation policy. These are the most important areas and I want to know more about their positions.
Land use and transportation policy in this city is poor, with almost every parcel outside of the central city core using more in services than it generates in taxes, with the city being almost entirely dependent on the revenue generated by downtown. With values falling downtown, the city budget crisis will continue to worsen.
I want to know if any of these candidates have thought of a way out.
The only question worth asking before we enter the lottery known as an election is: will you abandon the experiment known as rank-choice voting, redraw distrircts and end the insanity of three people purporting to "represent" the same over-large district?
Then: will you support giving the mayor a veto--a feature of every "checks and balances" government that works?
Then: Will we stop the charade of "nonpartisan" elections? If the charter means what it says, then disqualify anyone paying monthly dues for support from a political party.
Then: Will you work to repeal just one tax or fee during your time in office?
Then: Will you accept a term-limit of two terms on the council?
Then: Tell us what you will give back to every single endorser?
Then: Will you demand that every NGO doing business with the city or its agencies submit a full, real-time account of its finances?
Just for starters.
I think The Armory has to take some responsibility here. One, Mitch was not being excluded, he was openly invited and CHOSE to not participate. Two, there are 12 total candidates running for D4, so based on their liability insurance, ANY of those candidates could have sued for being excluded? Make this make sense. They should have printed a placard with Mitch’s name on it, had a space and a chair for him and continued on. His no show would speak volumes about his character and candidacy.