January 16, 2003
Antiwar Resolution on Its Way to Council
Many of the remarks in this story on the antiwar resolution being presented by Commissioner Sten to the Portland City Council don't make its prospects look particularly good:
"Once you start, you open the door to dealing with a multitude of issues, and you're taking lots of time on areas where we don't have a direct impact," [Mayor Vera] Katz said.
Saltzman would oppose the resolution but will be away on personal business and cannot attend the hearing. He does not think the issue can be linked to local economic concerns and said he isn't necessarily opposed to unilateral U.S. military action.
When the issue arose at the council in October, Commissioner Jim Francesconi wrote President Bush to urge all diplomatic means before sending U.S. troops unilaterally into Iraq. Francesconi wouldn't say how he might vote, but said the council should stay focused on issues such as public safety, roads and the economy.
And then there's Commissioner Leonard, who says that he is troubled by the President's actions, concerned about a resolution when he doesn't have all the facts, but is willing to listen:
"I've got no problem with a hearing," Leonard said. "It's a public forum. He's an elected official. It's a little bit presumptuous to say we shouldn't talk about that."
All of the above, taken as a whole, is a rather confusing muddle. It's not impossible that the City Council will pass the resolution, but even if it does, it will be tight. What's more, the above does little to reassure me that we will be able to get a civil liberties resolution before the Council. If next week's session on the matter does not go well -- for example, if Sten doesn't get the votes needed, or the crowd in attendance misbehaves as some did during the JTTF hearing -- I don't particularly see the Council being willing to take up another controversial resolution. Let alone would I imagine Sten bothering to sponsor another controversial resolution.
Comments (4)
myrln on 16 Jan 2003
But if they're concerned about a resolution they feel would have no practical effect, then the civil liberties matter should appeal to them since it WOULD have a practical effect. No???
The One True b!X on 16 Jan 2003
Well, that much is true. But if the experience of taking up this resolution is one that grates on their nerves, they aren't likely to put themselves through it a second time by taking up a second controversial resolution.
The One True b!X on 16 Jan 2003
Although one possibility, perhaps, is convincing Leonard that if he believes these sorts of issues deserve a public hearing, he should sponsor the civil liberties resolution -- regardless of whether or not he will ultimately vote for it.
myrln on 16 Jan 2003
Okay...any door might lead to where you wanna get. Try him.