Glad to see Eric Zimmerman stepping up to keep our neighborhood associations functioning as they should, rather than allowing Civic Life bureaucrats to succeed in yet another effort to silence an important voice for neighborhoods throughout the city.
I’ve never understood the hostility of some at City Hall- elected as well as staff-toward neighborhood associations (remember Eudaly’s efforts to write them out of code?), instead of taking advantage of the many volunteers who know and love their neighborhoods- and are ready, willing, and able to put time and energy into making this a better, more livable city!
Why does it appear that all of the city administration, mayor's office, all the way down, etc...are against the ordinary citizens of Portland and making our city a safer and more livable city?? Who there stands up for us? The city truly thinks they are right and we are wrong. If only they could pull their heads out of the sand, look around and listen.
Neighborhood associations don't match class theory social divisions and thus draw citizens away from radical leftist organizations. It's a debate worth having, but when radicals get real power inside government institutions, they tend to use their leverage rather than powers of persuasion.
Eudaly was no leftist, just one of those people who took the "class" out of class politics and substituted "identity," making her useful to the real estate interests that really stood behind the effort to de-fang neighborhood associations. Ted Wheeler chose to put her in that position.
From Paul Leistner's paper on the founding of ONI:
"Portland was a very different city in the1960s. The city at that time had a lot of older housing in need of repair, especially in Portland’s older inner neighborhoods. Abbott (1983) writes that professional planners at the time took for granted that these inner neighborhoods were in decline and should be cleared and redeveloped rather than preserved and revitalized...
Portland planning underwent startling changes from 1966 to 1972. Abbott credits
the changes to “the emergence of active and often angry neighborhood organizations” that “made local residents the actors rather than the objects in neighborhood decisions.”
It would be wonderful to see an ONI divorced from Civic Life, placed firmly in City Hall and governed by code (maybe Leistner would be willing to come back.)
Civic Life also made some unilateral decisions during the charter reform transition that dealt another blow to neighborhoods. They did so without any outreach or informing either the Independent Districting Commission or the Government Transition Advisory Committee. The next charter review must evaluate both the circumstances and results of their actions.
Am I to understand that bureaucrats within City Hall took advantage of the previous City Council's naivete in order to insert their ideological agenda into the future relationship between the Neighborhood Associations and the City? If so, certainly their must be a paper trail identifying who the culprits are?
This sorry episode reinforces my fear that there is a bureaucratic political bias in both the Portland City and Multnomah County Governments that are serving themselves and their own agenda, not the taxpayers.
So the Bureau of Civic Life doesn’t want civic engagement. The irony. It sounds like this was an extension of the Charter Commission’s “new form of government.” They just needed to make a few more tweaks to suppress the voters just a little bit more.
It should be obvious to all that the charter reform was too ambitious for the city. Adding so many new seats to the council, restructuring bureaus, adding a city administrator, changing the role of the mayor then adding ranked choice voting was more than Portland could manage. And the timeline was too short. The previous council made a mistake in approving this aggressive agenda when the ongoing homeless issue, crumbling infrastructure, and funding problems called for phasing in reform.
And, by placing a long term bureaucrat in charge of the transition who was nearing retirement meant that no significant decisions would be implemented until after the charter was in effect.
Portland with its band of well meaning but shiny object-obsessed citizenry is now spending more on politicians, is running less effectively, and can’t find funding solutions without adding taxes to buy its way out of the mess.
I can only write from the perspective of my local neighborhood association...but there's way too much worry-worry going on (as well as dense, bureaucratic procedural slop) on this topic.
My own NA is made up of Very Nice People who have zero clout with anyone who holds a smidgen of power, and who will ruthlessly rule anyone out of order who dares to ask potentially embarrassing questions. I speak here from experience.
Portland loves its "listening" sessions, and its commissions loaded with pre-selected reliables, and its "conversations" with "facilitators" guarding against the slightest whiff of protest--or even aggressive questions. It's play-acting and it stinks.
Glad to see Eric Zimmerman stepping up to keep our neighborhood associations functioning as they should, rather than allowing Civic Life bureaucrats to succeed in yet another effort to silence an important voice for neighborhoods throughout the city.
I’ve never understood the hostility of some at City Hall- elected as well as staff-toward neighborhood associations (remember Eudaly’s efforts to write them out of code?), instead of taking advantage of the many volunteers who know and love their neighborhoods- and are ready, willing, and able to put time and energy into making this a better, more livable city!
Why does it appear that all of the city administration, mayor's office, all the way down, etc...are against the ordinary citizens of Portland and making our city a safer and more livable city?? Who there stands up for us? The city truly thinks they are right and we are wrong. If only they could pull their heads out of the sand, look around and listen.
This is why people need to start paying attention and voting wisely!
Neighborhood associations don't match class theory social divisions and thus draw citizens away from radical leftist organizations. It's a debate worth having, but when radicals get real power inside government institutions, they tend to use their leverage rather than powers of persuasion.
Well articulated.....thanks.
Not unlike Lenin in 1917.
Eudaly was no leftist, just one of those people who took the "class" out of class politics and substituted "identity," making her useful to the real estate interests that really stood behind the effort to de-fang neighborhood associations. Ted Wheeler chose to put her in that position.
From Paul Leistner's paper on the founding of ONI:
"Portland was a very different city in the1960s. The city at that time had a lot of older housing in need of repair, especially in Portland’s older inner neighborhoods. Abbott (1983) writes that professional planners at the time took for granted that these inner neighborhoods were in decline and should be cleared and redeveloped rather than preserved and revitalized...
Portland planning underwent startling changes from 1966 to 1972. Abbott credits
the changes to “the emergence of active and often angry neighborhood organizations” that “made local residents the actors rather than the objects in neighborhood decisions.”
It would be wonderful to see an ONI divorced from Civic Life, placed firmly in City Hall and governed by code (maybe Leistner would be willing to come back.)
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
Civic Life also made some unilateral decisions during the charter reform transition that dealt another blow to neighborhoods. They did so without any outreach or informing either the Independent Districting Commission or the Government Transition Advisory Committee. The next charter review must evaluate both the circumstances and results of their actions.
How does the public attend the District 4 Board Meeting?
Thanks for asking. We have updated the story with those details.
Am I to understand that bureaucrats within City Hall took advantage of the previous City Council's naivete in order to insert their ideological agenda into the future relationship between the Neighborhood Associations and the City? If so, certainly their must be a paper trail identifying who the culprits are?
This sorry episode reinforces my fear that there is a bureaucratic political bias in both the Portland City and Multnomah County Governments that are serving themselves and their own agenda, not the taxpayers.
Thank you Zimmerman!
So the Bureau of Civic Life doesn’t want civic engagement. The irony. It sounds like this was an extension of the Charter Commission’s “new form of government.” They just needed to make a few more tweaks to suppress the voters just a little bit more.
It should be obvious to all that the charter reform was too ambitious for the city. Adding so many new seats to the council, restructuring bureaus, adding a city administrator, changing the role of the mayor then adding ranked choice voting was more than Portland could manage. And the timeline was too short. The previous council made a mistake in approving this aggressive agenda when the ongoing homeless issue, crumbling infrastructure, and funding problems called for phasing in reform.
And, by placing a long term bureaucrat in charge of the transition who was nearing retirement meant that no significant decisions would be implemented until after the charter was in effect.
Portland with its band of well meaning but shiny object-obsessed citizenry is now spending more on politicians, is running less effectively, and can’t find funding solutions without adding taxes to buy its way out of the mess.
I can only write from the perspective of my local neighborhood association...but there's way too much worry-worry going on (as well as dense, bureaucratic procedural slop) on this topic.
My own NA is made up of Very Nice People who have zero clout with anyone who holds a smidgen of power, and who will ruthlessly rule anyone out of order who dares to ask potentially embarrassing questions. I speak here from experience.
Portland loves its "listening" sessions, and its commissions loaded with pre-selected reliables, and its "conversations" with "facilitators" guarding against the slightest whiff of protest--or even aggressive questions. It's play-acting and it stinks.