October 11, 2003
Swirl Of Conflicts And Confusion Over Leonard's Changes To ONI Continues
All sorts of things to address in the ongoing swirl of changes to the Officer of Neighborhood Involvement under Commissioner Leonard and the various reactions to them.
First there was a strange tidbit in the most recent Willamette Week:
Here come the 'hoods! Recent battles with City Commissioner Randy Leonard have spurred neighborhood activists to put their money where their mouths are. Neighborhood association leaders from around the city were scheduled Monday night to begin working out the details of a brawnier version of the neighborhoods' political action committee, which spent about $3,000 in the last local elections. Job one, some say, is to find an opponent to face Leonard in next year's City Council race.
This was followed up yesterday by The Oregonian:
Neighborhood activists' limitless frustration with Commissioner Randy Leonard has them casting about for a challenger to take him on next election. They're steaming over changes Leonard has made in the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, the Bureau of Development Services and his criticisms of the "Portland process." No campaign commitments yet from organizers, but potentials in the mix include Southeast Portland's Paul Leistner and Northeast Portland's Bonny McKnight.
What the paper calls a "budding movement" reportedly aims to place candidates it deems friendly not only in the Council seat currently held by Leonard, but in that being vacated by Commissioner Francesconi and into the Mayor's office as well, thereby securing a Council majority.
Meanwhile, that proposed ordinance through which Leonard would give neighborhoods increased liquor control authority apparently, according to yesterday's Portland Tribune, will come before City Council later this Fall:
The "time, place and manner" ordinance -- which was sent to neighborhood associations in draft form this week -- would give the city the ability to regulate the operating hours of licensed liquor establishments that have had three or more valid nuisance complaints lodged against them in a 30-day period. It would affect taverns, strip clubs, restaurants, liquor merchants and convenience stores.
Some neighborhood leaders said they're excited to see the ordinance enacted, because it will give the city more latitude and binding authority to take action against an establishment as necessary.
But other residents and business-owners wonder why the City doesn't simply make better use of the so-called "good neighbor agreements" which are often developed between businesses and neighborhood associations to address potential issues related to liquor-serving establishments. See the article for some good detail on how the ordinance would function, as currently constructed.
And over on the PDX Neighborhoods mailing list (archives are accessible only to subscribers), a recent thread of conversation suggests that some of the opposition to Leonard's "two-track" vision for ONI indeed appears to be based on erroneous presumptions and misinformation.
For example, one member of the Northwest District Association was under the mistaken impression that residents needing to access City services through the proposed "neighborhood service centers" would be adding to the workload of staffers or volunteers at neighborhood associations and coalitions.
David Lane, out-going head of ONI, explained that under Leonard's vision:
City staff would be located in neighborhoods to work with the coalition staff to solve problems. Coalition staff, who are already experts in many of issues you raise, and neighbors would have more resources with local perspective, information, contacts, et cetera to work with neighbors and coalitions to solve issues affecting their neighborhoods. City Staff will hear directly from citizens and citizens will be able to talk directly with city staff in their own neighborhoods.
Also important to recognize is that the proposal calls for using existing City staff already responsible for providing neighborhoods with City services, not hiring an entirely new class of City worker -- they'd simply be working in the neighborhoods themselves instead of downtown. Further, some of these neighborhood service centers will be housed in neighborhood coalition officers -- if the coalitions agree (and they'd be receiving rent if they did) --while others would be housed in alternative City-owned sites.
The mistaken concern about adding to the workload of association or coalition staffers and volunteers are also shared by the editor of one of our local neighborhood newspapers, who also argued, "If the city wants to help neighborhoods, it should do that by shifting personnel from ONI to the communities themselves. But commandeering the neighborhood system isn't the right approach." Strangely, this was argued after Lane had already explained that shifting personnel to the neighborhoods themselves (and thereby not "commandeering" anything) is precisely what Leonard envisions.
The more I follow what's going on at ONI these days, the more I'm convinced that much of the changes are simply misunderstood. As I've said before, I do in fact share the concerns of some neighborhood leaders over how Leonard made the decision to change the duties of the crime prevention specialists, so I don't want to come across as some sort of knee-jerk backer of everything Leonard does (Hell, try to remember that I didn't actually even vote for him).
But hopefully, these misapprehensions of Leonard's "two-track" vision for the Office of Neighborhood Involvement will begin to be corrected, and the plans communicated more clearly in the coming months, especially (here comes the reminder) during the upcoming neighborhood summit next month.