November 12, 2003
(Updated) Some Additional (And Late) Responses Regarding Leonard, Clear Channel, And Community Murals
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Today, I finally received a couple pieces of crucial comment on the news that Commissioner Leonard was calling off negotiations with Clear Channel. Alas, they obviously did not come in time for me to round out what had been, before other local media got to it, a story I broke.
First up is the response from Rose Griego, Co-Chair of Metro Murals, which I reproduce here in full, despite my being irked at the first sentence:
I trust you have read Hank Stern's story in today's Oregonian.� As I commented in that article,�Metro Murals is pleased that Commissioner Leonard has�dropped the�Clear Channel proposed settlement.�After�reviewing what little information his office provided us, it�appeared evident that he did not have�the welfare of community murals in mind when negotiating with the billboard companies.�While he did offer the community a few enticing tidbits, the agreement as�a whole would have effectively removed Clear Channel from regulation under the sign code�for the next 20 years, while leaving community murals in it and subject to the�continued discouraging regulation. This did nothing to solve the core issue, which is, community murals as art, is appreciatively different from commercial signage and can and should be regulated as such.
We wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Katz that a definitive solution, that will pass constitutional muster, is what is required at this point.�We would like to finally lay the issue to rest and go�on with�what we all want to see, which is more murals in the City of Portland.��Metro Murals remains committed to seeing that community murals be removed from the sign code and be allowed to flourish without the threat of oppressive regulation and we will continue to work with Mayor Katz�in finding this solution.
Also today came response from Scott Farris, Communications Director for Mayor Vera Katz, which is also reproduced in full:
The Mayor has consistently argued that any significant change in City policy toward signs ought to be done in a public process and not through a stipulated agreement in a lawsuit.
The Mayor was concerned that the stipulated agreement that was being negotiated had some dramatic unintended consequences that would dramatically alter the face of Portland.
She believes it is the desire of the majority of Portland residents to not have billboards become too dominating a presence in our city.
Since this issue arose primarily because of challenges to the policies involving public murals, Mayor Katz believes that addressing the mural issue ought to be the primary focus of this discussion.
She has put together a working group and hopes to have for public review soon, perhaps as early as next week, a proposal on how murals should best be addressed in City policy.
Meanwhile, and despite my continued self-absorbed annoyance that these responses came too late in the game for me to provide full and proper coverage to begin with, I'll hold back any grudges in order to pass along the news that Metro Murals has announced (pdf) a silent auction and community fundraiser to be held at the Mark Woolley Gallery.
This event is intended "to raise awareness ... for their continued work in changing the sign code," as well as to support projects such as the creation of a comprehensive murals database, the restoration of murals in the Portland metropolitan area, and the creation of an educational curriculum for local schools and community groups.
The Mark Woolley Gallery is located at 120 NW 9th Avenue, Suite 210, and events get underway at 7:00 PM on Saturday, November 22.
Update
See the comments to this item for further counter-response from Commissioner Leonard, in which (among other things) he argues that main point of contention with Metro Murals has been that group's insistence that community murals be treated differently than commerical signs. As Leonard points out, this is precisely what the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled to be disallowed by the speech protections afforded by the Oregon Constitution.
Without (yet) understanding how Metro Murals specifically believes it's possible to overcome that edict from the court, it's difficult to properly locate everyone's respective perspectives on the reality spectrum. I'll post more follow-up if and when Metro Murals sheds some light on this particular point for me.
Click through to the comments for the full set of Leonard's comments, however. They're worth the read and continue illuminating this entire controversy.
Update
Below is the response to the Clear Channel/murals matter from Commissioner Erik Sten:
The Mayor made it a very top priority to derail Commissioner Leonard's proposal. I think he made a smart choice putting it aside, particularly if she can come up with a fix for the murals. That is not easy to do and she is yet to show her strategy, but I'm optimistic.
I have had mixed feelings about the City's approach to signs. I did not support the ban on wall signs, which won on a 4-1 vote a few years ago. I also haven't supported regulating A-board signs on the sidewalk. I did vote to ban the video signs. I'd like to find an end to the war with Clear Channel, but that may not be possible, and there is a decent argument that the status quo -- if we can find a way to allow murals -- beats what Clear Channel will agree to do.
In closing, Sten says, "This current event is heavy on both politics and substance."
Update
Once again, see the comments to this item. Just posted is a rather comprehensive note from Ty Kovatch, Commissioner Leonard's Chief of Staff. In it, Kovatch argues that the remarks here by Metro Murals do not at all reflect what that group had been communicating to Commissioner Leonard's office. Also, he points out that without some sort of agreement allowing for reformulation of the City's sign code, existing murals may very well now have to be painted over -- otherwise, the City could be considered impermissibly to be engaging in "uneven enforcement" under the code.
Comments (3)
Randy Leonard on 12 Nov 2003
B!x-
I am very frustrated to read the comments by Metro Mural in your latest piece. My office has attempted to include every suggestion we could from Metro Murals we legally could into our proposal that includes eliminating any fees for murals of any size Vs fees as high as $5,000 for commercial wall signs.
The ONLY piece we did not agree on was a request of theirs you recount in your piece that was that we challenge again in the courts that murals should be treated differently than commercial signs. The courts in Oregon have ruled consistently for the past 20 years that cities are not allowed, under Oregon's free speech constitutional provision, to make such distinctions.
This gets to the whole issue of people who bitch that they are not listened to...a charge I am growing increasingly exasperated with given the amount of time I spend at community meetings formulating positions I take that are molded by citizens who participate at those meetings.
There is a difference to not being listened to and not being agreed with.
Randy Leonard
Dave Lister on 13 Nov 2003
"There is a difference to not being listened to and not being agreed with".
I think the commissioner makes an excellent point. Sometimes the elements that make the most noise think they should get their way simply because they have been the most heard.
Hang in there, Randy!
Ty Kovatch on 13 Nov 2003
This is Commissioner Leonard's Chief of Staff Ty Kovatch responding to the comments attributed to Metro Murals in this column....
Rose---
I was surprised to see your comments on Bix's Communique today, because at our meeting on October 14, your representation to me and Aaron Johnson of your support of the proposal was not only strongly favorable, but you also said that when the time came, you would help to mobilize people from the public art community in support of the changes that would ultimately allow murals to be free in places that were less than 300 sf and below 12 feet above grade.....for larger murals we would include a sliding scale for fees based on the amount of volunteer labor that went into the project....this would have been a huge benefit to the mural community.
Notwithstanding that this is the end of our work toward a solution to the costly litigation the City has been involved in for years, we are again faced with the prospect of having to paint over murals all over the city, because not painting over those that are unpermitted is considered by the courts to be "uneven enforcement" which is unconstitutional when applied to the free speech provision of our state constitution.
So in the context of the larger challenges the sign code presents, we are still looking for ways to solve the mural issue, and the path we were on was the more clear path.
I hope you appreciate that in the 5+ years the existing code has been oppressing community art, Commissioner Leonard is the only Commissioner that has taken the issue on, and the Mayor and several other Commissioners voted to approve this sign code with the full knowledge that it would serve to the detriment of community art. The Mayor has rabidly defended the existing condition I might add. Commissioner Leonard took this issue on to solve specifically the way the sign code treats murals, and your organization has done nothing but publicly criticize him, along with misrepresenting your position to our office. I hope that in the future we can count on you to be more forthright in your communication with us.
Thank you,
Ty Kovatch
Chief of Staff
Office of Commissioner Randy Leonard