October 07, 2003
(Updated) 'Oregonian' Weighs In On Neighborhood Involvement As Chief's Forum Questions Commissioner Leonard
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
There are a couple of items in today's Oregonian centering around the role of the relationship between the City and its neighborhoods.
First up, Commissioner Leonard received further questioning of his plans for ONI's crime prevention specialists:
The Chief's Forum, a group of community representatives who meet regularly with the police chief, pressed Leonard to explain how and why he devised the idea to expand the 10 specialists' jobs to include cracking down on problem liquor establishments.
For what it's worth, I feel complled to note that this move to give neighborhoods some liquor control authority was first reported right here back in June.
Addressing his intentions for the crime prevention specialists, Leonard reportedly repeated his rationale:
Leonard, whose bureaus include the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, said the proposed changes came both from the office's strategic plan and "hundreds of conversations" with Portlanders who want better and more accessible city services in their neighborhoods. He said those Portlanders may be too busy with family and work to attend neighborhood meetings but also deserve a voice.
According to the article, Forum members seemed to accept the general idea of distributing City services out into the neighborhoods themselves, but challenged some of how this was going to be accomplished, expressing specific concern with the potential for losing the community ties current crime prevention specialists have developed if the current specialists aren't hired into the redefined positions.
Meanwhile, the paper's editorial staff weighs in on the cultural divide between the City and its neighborhoods:
In private, some city officials treat the neighborhood associations with something veering between condescension and contempt. They don't want to risk provoking the most entrenched associations or tangling with the toughest of its citizen adversaries. So they simply smile and stay silent.
But that doesn't mean they necessarily respect the neighborhood associations' views, admire the way they function or are eager to hear their advice. These officials just don't want trouble. The easiest option is to lie low, let these neighborhood groups molder on as a museum piece, venerated in the abstract, often ignored in reality.
The paper comes down in favor of the general idea behind Leonard's "two-track" vision for ONI (as have I, although I do share some of the concerns over how the crime prevention specialist positions are being reformulated), but doesn't do much to explain or flesh out the growing tensions between City Hall and the 90+ neighborhood associations we have here. However, now that the paper has brought these tensions into their editorials, maybe it will see fit to start examining what's been learned so far in the course of efforts such as the Citywide Public Involvement Task Force, for example.
If they want some help, they'll find a lot about this on this search results page of past Communique items on public involvement.
And for everyone concerned about this relationship, don't forget the 4th annual Neighborhood Summit, coming up on November 15.
Update
Jack Bogdanski gets into this today, fairly describing the dynamics between City Hall and Portland's neighborhoods.