April 07, 2004
Candidates Fair, Part II: Commissioner No. 1
Continuing our coverage of last Wednesday's candidates fair, sponsored by Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc. and Neighbors North/Northwest, we turn to the candidates for the Commissioner No. 1 position being vacated by Commissioner Jim Francesconi.
Running for this position are Sam Adams, Woody Broadnax, Nick Fish, Aquiles U. Montas, Jason Newell, Brian H. Smith, and Jerry Watson. All except Woody Broadnax were present.
The order in which the candidates took the podium again was determined by drawing numbers (written on small white balls) out of a hat of the Uncle Sam variety. Questions from the audience were randomly drawn by each candidate as they rose for their turn.
Jerry Watson
Jerry Watson began by listing unemployment, education, hunger, housing, and economic development as primary issues. He said we're "putting too much money in the hands of the rich" and "not enough in the hands of the community."
He also reminded the audience to register to vote, giving the deadline for doing so. "I would like to eliminate some of that apathy," he added.
Watson's first randomly-selected question asked about the choice between cutting budgets or raising taxes. Calling himself a "refugee of the dot-com bust," Watson responded to this question by saying: "I know how to do a spreadsheet, unlike the other members of the City Council."
His second question was on street improvements. "If people can't drive through their neighborhoods without destroying their cars," Watson said, "why are they paying taxes?" He added: "I don't have the answer, but I look forward to working with you."
Sam Adams
Sam Adams said that he came from a "family of modest means." And he said that "it's ingrained in me, the notion of public involvement." Saying that he has "learned what was going on outside the City bundle (or perhaps it was "bubble," but it soudned to us like "bundle"), he added: "There's so much talent in this City ... and it's underutilized."
"In my version of regulatory reform," he continued, "we did it with the full support of businesses and of neighborhood folks." He claimed that he has "been willing to speak out against" projects that took the City in the wrong direction, saying he was the first candidate to weigh in against the burial of the Mt. Tabor reservoirs, and the first major candidate to oppose the garage plan for Northwest Portland.
Adams said that "we need to have a plan" both for neighborhoods and local businesses, and called for bureau managers to meet with neighborhoods for their input every year (he has previously called for this in the context of doing so before putting together their budget requests). He also called for registration of paid lobbyists.
The first question for Adams was on "undergrounding" public utilities. He said the City should do "anything we can" to assist the undergrounding of utilities, but pointed out that "nothing's for free" and "the money has to come from somewhere."
His second question asked if he would support an expansion of laws providing for smoke-free workplaces. "I would push for a statewide smoke-free law," Adams said. "All Oregonians should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment."
Jason Newell
Jason Newell said he wanted to "distinguish himself from the gentleman sitting behind me." Newell explained that his "focus became local government" after his sister-in-law was killed while working in Lebanon.
Trying indeed to distinguish himself, Newell said: "The first thing I didn't do was make phone calls to raise $10,000 checks. ... The first thing I did was visit neighborhood associations." He pointed to jobs, neighborhoods, and fiscal responsibility as his central concerns. "The biggest thing for me is to create jobs," and called for more money to be put to work in the City's neighborhoods.
Newell's first random question was on addressing homelessness, which he said was what he worked on when he interned at City Hall. He called homelessness a "complex problem," said that the "social structure is crucial," and that "intermediate housing" is the most important need.
The second question was on whether or not to re-evaluate the OHSU tram project. "I think we should re-evaluate it," Newell said, adding that it's "not a priority right now," and that we "need to tighten our belt."
Brian H. Smith
Brian Smith introduced himself as an "active volunteer," and said that "there needs to be people who will speak for people" on the City Council.
(For what it's worth, we were a primary organizer for the Portland Bill of Rights Defense Committee, with which Smith often says he was involved. As such, since he keeps mentioning it, we feel compelled to mention that while Smith attended some meetings of that group, it's a bit of a stretch to assert that he was actively involved in what it was doing. We expect we might catch some flack from him for pointing this out, but since we happen to have this sort of direct knowledge about a candidate, we will we should pass it along.)
Raising the issue of the reservoirs, he said: "This is public money they're just going to flush down the toilet," and suggested they simply put tanks inside the existing reservoirs. He said he wanted to bring "new and innovative ideas to City Council" and plans on "speaking up."
Smith's first question was on selling the naming rights to public facilities. "I'm very much against that," he said. He added, in a line that received one of the best audience responses of the night: "I'd much rather go to Tom Potter Park."
Question two asked for a position on the same-sex marriage issue. "The Oregon Constitution," Smith said, "says you can't discriminate." He added on the subject of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners: "I do think they should have called Lonnie Roberts," but that "they made the right decision because that's what the Constitution says."
Nick Fish
Nick Fish opened with one of his favorite lines, about it being the "best kept secret in Portland" that there's an election going on, and said "part of it is the fault of the media."
(We trust that perhaps we are exempt from this. In fact, we hear that Fish told Mayoral candidate Phil Busse that Busse received the "most important endorsement" of the race when we endorsed him. No, we don't take that seriously -- but like we weren't going to mention it in passing here?)
Fish called this "an incredible important election" because it will decide "three of five members" of the City Council." To illustrate this importance, he raised the hypothetical possibility of Lars Larson running an entire slate of candidates in order to "take over."
Fish's first random question asked what was wrong with City elections. "The principles problem with our City elections," he said, "is that they are too expensive," which causes candidates to spend "too much time raising money." Fish called for three actions: Reclaiming the public airwaves, experimenting with public financing, and requiring instant transparency in contributions.
His second question asked about confidence in managing public utilities, such as the Water Bureau. "I'm going to try to stay on the good side of the next Mayor," Fish said, "because I'd just as soon not run the Water Bureau."
Aquiles U. Montas
Aquiles Montas said he came from the Dominican Republic in 1978, and has been a restaurant owner since 1998. "I'm sick and tired of the changes that have happened in the past few years," he said. He accused leaders of trying to make Portland "the new York City of the Pacific Northwest."
Montas called for focusing on needs such as fixing streets, lighting, and neighborhoods. He also said: "You don't help [people] by giving something, they have to earn it."
His first question asked about the role for neighborhood associations. "That's one of my to-dos," he said, adding that "together we can do it." Either there was no time for a second question, or we managed not to capture it and Montas' response.
Coming soon: Our final report from last Wednesday's candidates fair, focusing on the Mayoral portion.
Comments (2)
Brian Smith on 08 Apr 2004
Also mentioned being involved with many social/labor direct actions, working on PUD initiative, and freegeek. I actually talked with William before I ever mentioned PBORDC in my campaign. I attended meetings from beginning and after you left. Gathering support for the presentation to City Council was my main objective in that project, besides the legal talk on that table was over my head after a bit. Not trying to take credit for the project by any means, but I definately supported the PBORDC. Complete respect to You, William, Kaelin, and others involved. Without everybody it would not have gotten to a vote. Had I been on City Council, they would have had my support which is the point. I hope that clarifies the topic, and no flack here.
Brian Smith
Roger Bixby on 08 Apr 2004
What does Jerry Watson mean by his comment that we're "putting too much money in the hands of the rich". Define 'rich.' At what income level does Mr. Watson consider a person 'rich'? Does he assume the rich are getting tax breaks because they are rich? I really don't know. I would like a straight answer from him because his comments sound like nothing more than an endorsement of wealth distribution based on class envy.
I'd like to point out to Mr. Watson that the 'rich' are part of the community, too. They're generally the ones investing their time and money in the community through entrepeneurship and charity work. I know several people who I would consider 'well off' if not 'rich' and I know they spend a considerable amount of their free time volunteering and doing fund raising for charities and hospitals. If that kind of work doesn't meet Mr. Watson's definition of giving to the community, then perhaps Mr. Watson could take the time to enlighten the rest of us.