May 22, 2003
Amidst Concerns Over Elitism, Waterfront Park Plan Approved
With Commissioner Jim Francesconi calling it "a fantastic plan for the future," the Portland City Council yesterday approved the Waterfront Park Master Plan (an earlier public draft of which was discussed here previously).
There was almost no discussion of the plans for an all-weather surface in part of the park, save for Francesconi going out of his way to dispel the rumor that the park would include artificial grass -- a rumor I, at least, had never heard.
In addition, the Mayor seemed careful to specifically remind people that this plan is a long-term plan. After asking from what schools the children present in the upper-level seating had come, Katz said of the Master Plan, "We have some changes planned, and you'll all probably be an adult before we see them all." In general, the plan tended to be spoken of in terms of a 30-year span of time.
Most of the friction was generated when Commissioner Saltzman raised concerns over material contained on page 53 of the masterplan document, which outlines how a proposed management committee would determine what events are proper for the park.
Specifically, Saltzman questioned the following two items:
An event should be unique in character and quality, such that it attracts broad community and visitor attendance; generates national awareness of Portland and the Pacific Northwest; celebrates activities, resources, artists and products distinctive to the Pacific Northwest;
...
An event should celebrate the heritage, values, diversity and international relationships of the Pacific Northwest.
When taking these two elements in combination, Saltzman suggested that the proposed management committee could be considered to be elitist in its mission. David Yamashita responded that the proposal of a management committee was meant as a means for continuing the conversation about theuses of Waterfront Park.
While it was established that the intention was t "grandfather in" approval for events which have used Waterfront Park all along, Commissioner Leonard asked for an example of an event that would not meet the criteria outlined in the above portion of the master plan.
Harriet Cormack of the Citizens Advisory Committee suggested that "cookie cutter" events that amount to no more than "roadshows" which travel across the country and carry with them no particular Northwest flavor would be the sorts of events the proposed management committee would frown upon.
Saltzman countered, to no particular response, that there was "nothing wrong with cookie-cutter events if the people of Portland want to see them."
In the end, the Council approved Saltzman's amendment to remove "generates national awareness of Portland and the Pacific Northwest; celebrates activities, resources, artists and products distinctive to the Pacific Northwest;" from the first quoted paragraph above, but not his amendment to remove the second.
Francesconi tried to stake a claim in support of the public involvement process, asserting that Saltzman's efforts to change the plan was "disrespectful of citizens" -- while Saltzman countered that he assumes that when a plan comes to him for approval, he gets to have a say in the matter, and isn't merely expected to rubber stamp any previous process. Otherwise, he asked, what's the point in having a long and formal conversation before the City Council at all.
During the final vote and closing statements by members of Council, Francesconi became incredulous when speaking of Saltzman's charges of elitism, raising his voice as he asked, "Elitist? Are you kidding me?" Portland's parks, he argued, were for the people, and therefore not elitist.
Strangely, he then went on to explain that there are indeed times when they "have acted elitist -- but this is not one of them."
Ultimately, all sides of this issue had valid points to make.
Saltzman was right to at least raise concerns over just how this proposed management committee will operate, if only to ensure that smaller "non-marqee" events or events which don't automatically appeal to a broad audience don't get squeezed out of the park altogether.
Those presenting the plan were right to at least raise the issue of "cookie cutter" events which would make the park undistinctive and unremarkable if present too frequently. While it did indeed strike me that their view of the management committee's tasks might be somewhat elitist, I think it is more in the way of making improtant distinctions which lean towards local and regional events which characterize where we live. More importantly, the proposal for a management committee -- like the entire master plan -- remains open for debate as it progresses.
Francesconi was right, in some sense, to raise the question of how public involvement relates to Council action, although personally I think his view on that was far too simplistic (meaning: if we don't want the Council to be am automatic rubber stamp for, say, business concerns, then neither do we want them to be an automatic rubber stamp on public concerns).
And Leonard, despite far less involvement in the back-and-forth than the other members of the Council, seemed mainly concerned (as he said at the end) with the balance between the people of Portland and the economic vitality of the park. "We won't have a park for people," he said, "if we don't generate revenue to pay for the park."
All told, the Waterfront Park Master Plan was approved by all four Council members who were present (Commissioner Sten was not). Much of the plan was not discussed at all, and public concerns over the all-weather plaza were not addressed at all. But, as Mayor Katz explained at the end, "This is a plan, it's a concept, it will change."