November 03, 2003

Two Perspectives On City Hall And Neighborhood Involvement

In addition to letters, op-eds, and commentaries published in The Oregonian, the paper also publishes additional opinions pieces online and provides pointers to them in the print edition. Today's paper points to two responses to an editorial it ran early last month about the status of the City's system of neighborhood associations.

The first commentary, credited to Linda Nettekoven of the Hosford-Abernathy Neighborhood but signed by six others from four other neighborhoods, claims (erroneously, in my opinion) that the original editorial "suggests that Portland's neighborhood system has become more of a relic ready for mothballing than a dynamic contributor to city life."

Nettekoven provides three examples of successful neighborhood efforts, and corrects the editorial on a matter related to funding of neighborhoods by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, and criticizes the City for some processes which led to a sense of neighborhood betrayal.

We agree that the Neighborhood System needs "new citizens, new ideas, new energy." But for the system to really thrive it needs more, not fewer, resources, especially to reach out to under-represented groups in our increasingly diverse community. And it needs an honest appraisal of its accomplishments as well as it challenges. As the Neighborhood System approaches its 30th anniversary, citizens and public officials should be engaged in a cooperative process of reflection and renewal.

Meanwhile, in the second commentary, Charles Heying, associate professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University (who is active in the fight over the Mt. Tabor reservoirs), challenges the editorial for "prais[ing] Commissioners Randy Leonard and Dan Saltzman for not being afraid to stir things up in their effort to revitalize the neighborhood system."

They have reversed the course of listening to citizens and have articulated a "my way or the highway" concept of governance. Their words and actions reflect the elitist ideas of 19th century political theorist Edmund Burke. Burke argued that the mass of people were incapable of governing themselves and could not think or act without guidance and direction. ...

...

... Both have said, "you elected me to make the decisions" and both have dismissed the concerns of neighborhood activists. In doing this, they are moving Portland away from its historical leadership role as a model of civic engagement.

Certainly, at least as it pertains to Commissioner Saltzman and the Open Reservoir Replacement Project, I would tend to agree that there's been a certain amount of aloofness and arrogance involved. However, I don't think the attitude of Commissioner Leonard has been quite as dismissive as Heying asserts.

Even with the controversy over the changes to crime prevention specialist positions, and the potentially ugly compromise Leonard is attempting regarding the City's sign code (to give two examples), I continue to believe that his pilot project to distribute access to City services out into the neighborhoods will utlimately have a beneficial effect upon the relationship between City Hall and neighorhood residents -- up to an including bringing more people and more interests into the neighborhood association system.

Interestingly, Heying charges that "what [Leonard and Saltzman] are stirring up may be a toxic brew of discontent that will continue to poison the relationship between city hall and its neighborhoods." But it would seem to me that an incomplete characterization of the attitudes and actions of City Council members itself contributes to that very toxicity.

Posted at 03:06 PM | PermalinkComments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Livability, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »