June 13, 2004
On Systemic Breakdowns And The Need For Leadership
Report From The 'Why Portland?' Citizen Salon
Readers may recall that we've mentioned in the past our dislike of those instances in which we need to navigate large social scenes. So it wasn't without some discomfort Saturday evening that we headed off to one of the City Club of Portland's citizen salon fundraising dinners -- specifically one whose binding theme was the question, "Why Portland?"
After the requisite calm-down cigarette or two, and the necessary telephone call to determine the whereabouts of the house we were looking for, we walked into precisely the sort of environment for which we've long since lost the ability to smoothly handle.
But we're going to jump ahead to the pair of most critical observations we want to make about the evening's conversations, and come back to random bits and pieces later.
Readers might recall that we have, on occassion -- most recently back in January -- mentioned the one-time rumors that Thomas Lauderdale of Pink Martini fame might be interested in running for Mayor. Saturday evening, we had our first opportunity to hear Lauderdale talk at length about this City (he was the previously-unnamed "surprise Portland literati" for this gathering).
He needs to stop the tease and make the run.
Much of the full-group conversation over dinner -- or, mainly, afterwards, but before moving five houses down for dessert -- was about the lack of real leadership in today's Portland (the legacies of Neil Goldschmidt lurked everywhere in this conversation). Not just leadership in of itself, but leadership of the sort which recognizes -- in an eerily-relevant resonance with what we wrote here earlier today about the Rose Festival -- that Portland is not a single city but multiple cities co-inhabiting the same physical urban sphere.
In a cultural or artistic context, Lauderdale argued that a real and vibrant life cannot exist without the underground (arguing, in fact, that one of the failures of the Pearl District is that it prices out the underground). Oregonian architecture columnist Randy Gragg (one of the pre-announced "special guests") made a related comment earlier in the evening when he said that nothing attracts artists to a city like a healthy number of dive bars.
Lauderdale's obvious strength in discussing the nature of Portland as a place is his clearly passionate understanding that what makes a city great is not (merely) money and status -- which in a sense, we would argue as we're sure would many of our readers, are the twin axes around which so much of what passes for "vision" in Portland today revolve.
It's difficult to properly convey all of what Lauderdale argued since we never bothered to take out one of our newly-arrived honest-to-goodness reporter's notebook (unlike the gentleman seated to our right who was there from Portland Monthly, but we'll have more about him later). All we can say is that this particular Mayoral race missed out on a golden opportunity to have a conversation about our City that would have been at a level far beyond anything we witnessed during the recently-passed primary campaign.
Intertwined with the questions of leadership and its absence was the other commonly-held theme of the dinner conversation: A nearly ubiquitous and in truth systemic breakdown in the foudnational structures we need to move forward. The breakdown of individual systems that were mentioned were never explicitly tied together in conversation, but they came together that way as we thought about them all.
Outside of the breakdown in the systems of leadership, conversants mentioned, for example, the defensive posture of supporters of such social structures as safety nets and public schools in the Oregon after Measure 5. More than one person argued that after Measure 5, the agenda has repeatedly been set by the Bill Sizemores and Don McIntyres of the state, while the other side of all of those issues has allowed itself to become entirely reactive, rarely if ever putting forth its own comprehensive agenda for getting back what was lost.
It was also argued that Portland's system of neighborhood associations has become more than a little dysfunctional, lapsing into a spectrum reaching from reactionary NIMBYism to a self-selected group that feels somehow wronged and is looking for payback. As one person pointed out: They know what they are against (e.g. burying the reservoirs) but what, exactly, are they for? In a sense the combination of arguments and observations adds up to the premise that the absence of leadership and vision at the top is mirrored in an absence of leadership and vision at the bottom.
So these seem to be the twin themes that evolved over the course of the evening's conversation: A lack of authentic leadership and vision, and an almost universal and systemic breakdown in the structures required for civil society to properly function.
The missing piece we haven't mentioned about this conversation is that none of this was spoken of by people who would rather be living somewhere else. Lauderdale himself (when referencing the "new album" which, as it turned out, had been playing the entire time in the background) argued in favor of real criticism even when things are being done right. This was not fear and loathing, but in reality the true definition of cynicsm in action: Frustrated optimism.
For what it's worth, those who expressed a preference in our current Mayoral race tended towards Tom Potter over Jim Francesconi, although there was obvious tension over the lack of excitement and specificity out of the Potter campaign.
Our own other conversational asides over the course of the evening were smaller in scale.
When we first arrived upon the scene, we lurked in the front room where there was only one other person (near as we can recall, he described himself as a lobbyist, and we believe we said he did work with school-related groups). We talked at length about develoments such as South Waterfront, density, and the urban growth boundary, not that we have much knowledge on the latter subject. Much of the conversation is the sort of thing we will try to file away in the back of our mind, because something in it will strike us as useful along the way.
We had a conversation with a doctor which took some advantage of the cards that had been handed out to each person as they arrived, which suggested conversation-sparking questions such as, "What is your favorite quirky thing about Portland?" That was what we got. We didn't make use of it, although ths doctor in question did throw his out: "What's one thing you would change about Portland?" His suggestion was to turn SW Broadway into something of a pedestrian boulevard, off-limits to traffic. It's one of those ideas that's inherently audacious and beautiful and also would never be attempted (even putting aside for the moment whether or not its legitimately feasible).
For our part, we said that we wanted to see the return of the Great Light Way -- the series of lighted arches which once crisscrossed intersections along SW Third Avenue from Yamhill to Glisan.
At dinner we had a rather involved conversation with the gentleman from Portland Monthly, mainly about us and this site, and our opinion on various subjects we've covered here, and some discussion as to whether or not we've ever considered writing in other formats.
In the end, we're not entirely certain what these fundraising salons will accomplish, in part because we're not yet certain whether or not they will mainly be people who talk to each other all the time simply talking to each other some more. There was certainly some of that at this event. But the substance of the conversation shouldn't be dismissed -- the question needs to be how to expand this cconversation beyond its usual confines.
Then again, that would probably be why there were media invites to these things. These, of course, are fundraisers, not large-form public discussions And what we haven't done justice to the entire range of what came up Saturday evening, hopefully we've given enough of a sense -- or at least provided an opening for the conversation to continue here.
Comments (23)
Clackablog on 13 Jun 2004
As a former Neigborhood Association hobbyist, I'd have to take exception to your comment "..It was also argued that Portland's system of neighborhood associations has become more than a little dysfunctional, lapsing into a spectrum reaching from reactionary NIMBYism to a self-selected group that feels somehow wronged and is looking for payback. As one person pointed out: They know what they are against (e.g. burying the reservoirs) but what, exactly, are they for? In a sense the combination of arguments and observations adds up to the premise that the absence of leadership and vision at the top is mirrored in an absence of leadership and vision at the bottom..."
When I worked to improve the King Neighborhood, we knew *exactly* what we wanted, and 'a halthy number of dive bars' did not lead the list. What we wanted, most of all, and never got, was simple: Real Community Policing and sane development policy.
PPB's much vaunted Community Policing system is a very bad joke, unless you refer to their unofficial motto ('Stop, or I reload!'). We could never get a representative to appear more than six times in three years after having been promised monthly visits; perhaps our asking what was being done about neighborhood crack houses and drug deals irritated the brass?
As to PDC, the giant sucking sound of urban renewal dollars cannot be concealed by their feeble attempts to renew MLK. MLK and Fremont is still a disaster area (fortunately Guy Bini and Fred Stewart never got their sex club approved there), the 'private club' across the street with the black sheet metal doors and the 'NO TRESPASSING' stencil-painted upon still attracts a most interesting crowd, and the old hardware store still has drooping paper falling from the inside of the windows in a hopeless attempt to conceal the fact ain't nuthin' goin' on there. The old theatre across from the Adidas store is still vacant and in deshabille, and the gas station across from the Bank of America should just rename themselves to a 'Buy 'n Fly' {/obligatory SNOW CRASH reference}.
Yeah, Portland is several coexistant communities, and City Hall seems very happy to let the poverty pimps reign supreme over our own little slice of Compton, or South Central.
Amanda on 13 Jun 2004
Most Neighborhood Associations know exactly what they want, and work to achieve it. However the issues generally focus at the local, neighborhood level - as you'd expect. And many people don't know or care what's happening in another neighborhood. Neighborhood goals and successes don't rise onto the general regional radar screen, but cumulatively, they make our city the great place it is.
For example, our neighborhood worked for several years to get a crosswalk at Jackson Middle School. We had to attend multiple meetings, get it into the Transportation System Plan, and lobby for funding. It wasn't headline news (surprise surprise) when funding was finally approved, but it may save children's lives. I could give you dozens of other examples of practical improvements our Neighborhood Association has achieved, through local leadership and joint efforts - three new parks, reduced crime rates, community partnerships, school improvement projects, etc., etc., etc. None of them make headline news, though.
Perhaps the folks at the City Club dinners aren't aware of them, or they discount the benefits of a new park here, a drug-house clearance there, a new friendship somewhere else. Lack of publicity or recognition isn't the same thing as lack of leadership, goals, or accomplishments.
The One True b!X on 13 Jun 2004
One of the pieces that got lost as I wrote this up at 12:30 in the morning was a short exchange over parking garages in NW Portland. It was pointed out that the controversy perhaps hsould not have been defined as "neighborhood opposes parking garages," but as "neighborhood opposes parking garages in residential area, proposes alternative locations."
I can't argue one way or the other on the merits of the alternatives, but the argument from the person who brought this up was that the alternatives were dismissed because the developer in question (or property-owner, I really don't know the issues here) wanted a specific site and convinced City Council to give him what he wanted, rather than move for a solution that a wider spectrum of involved parties would accept.
As I said, I don't know the ins and outs of that issue, but the example was raised as a counter to the idea of neighborhood associations only being against things without offering solutions.
The One True b!X on 13 Jun 2004
One other observation made last night related to the question of leadership was the assertion that Portland is resting on the laurels of past success. So enamored are we when it comes to many of the planning achievements of the past (the transit mall, Pioneer Courthouse Square, etc.) that we trap ourselves in believing that we will forever be a great and livable city because of thigns we did 20 or 30 years ago.
Related to this was the argument that we so mythologize our system of neighborhood involvement that we may be incapable to properly critiquing it in the present.
M on 13 Jun 2004
"We talked at length about develoments such as South Waterfront, density, and the urban growth boundary, not that we have much knowledge on the latter subject."
Is the first "we" here an "I we" or a "we we?" I'm confused.
Or are we?
The One True b!X on 13 Jun 2004
Yes.
doretta on 15 Jun 2004
A sample of what the Kenton Neighborhood Association has done in the past year:
1. Worked with HAP to improve the design of a low income housing project.
2. Supported a neighbor in getting a zoning variance.
3. Worked with ODOT on future freeway access alternatives.
4. Helped a neighbor get a dangerous abandoned auto removed.
5. Supported New Seasons' work to build a market nearby.
6. Worked with Parks and Rec on replacing the play equipment at a neighborhood park.
7. Worked with the city and TriMet to put planters in Paul Bunyan Plaza near the Kenton MAX station.
8. Sponsored a multicultural neighborhood festival in a local park.
These, and other projects, represent thousands of hours of volunteer time spent by Kenton neighbors to improve the livability of the neighborhood.
Let's face it, the media are drawn to the stories of the big things that people are against. A nicer public space or a better-designed low income housing project doesn't sell papers--or even attract bloggers. Yet if Robert Putnam's thesis is true, neighbors' participation in those things is a better indicator of the health of a city than how many trams it has.
Anne Dufay on 15 Jun 2004
Re the person who said, regarding the neighborhood associations -- "what, exactly, are they FOR?" (empahsis mine)
He/she sounds just like my teenager - looking at the paint bucket and brush my husband just handed him...
"Oh, the handle's broken, oh I can't get the lid off, oh, it's all watery on top"...
Note to the adolescent, the perpetually incurious, or the just plain lazy - if you can't figure out what something is for -- try using it.
Some things give better results, like elbow grease or volunteer organizations, the more they are used...
The One True b!X on 15 Jun 2004
You do realize that the question being asked by the person in question wasn't "what is the purpose of neighborhood associations?" but "what are they in favor of?" -- as in, as stated, it's clear what they are in opposition to ("against"), but what are they in favor of ("for")?
Gary Marschke on 15 Jun 2004
My experience with Neighborhood Associations is that they clearly reflect the dysfunctionality and disconnect that exists everywhere else - no more, no less. What most also have in common is a strong desire to be able to safely walk their streets, greet their neighbor's children by name as they cavort throughout the neighborhood, and to enjoy an environment laden with a spirit of cooperation and community. Some have chosen an adversarial path motivated mostly by NIMBY but most openly embrace an exchange of ideas and compromise. Lack of diversity is an issue but active participation is not always convenient for those who would benefit most. Not really a question of "fault" but more a reflection of reality and the need for more active outreach. Like any good institution, Neighborhood Associations need to evolve along with those they reflect and represent. Now "over 30", it's clearly time for tweaking but hardly time for retirement. Some still say "life begins at 30" and I believe that for Neighborhood Associations the best is still ahead.
doretta on 16 Jun 2004
There is a certain amount of semantic foolery involved in the question above. If you are "against" covering the reservoirs you are "for" uncovered reservoirs.
Neighborhoods that don't want big retail corporations moving into their neighborhoods are "for" smaller local businesses.
There is a big list of things that essentially all neighborhood associations are for:
1. preserving the character of historic neighborhoods
2. vibrant commercial districts that coexist well with the residential areas around them
3. safe streets
4. adequate housing
5. citizen involvement in city decision-making
6. good jobs
7. usable parks
8. good schools
9. neighborliness
10. functional transportation systems
11. ...
Like many people involved with their local neighborhood associations, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how neighborhood associations can be more effective. I'd love to hear some serious critiques of what neighborhood associations could be doing that they aren't or what other structures might be better at promoting and facilitating civic involvement and healthy neighborhoods.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
Continuing to play devil's advocate on behalf of those who expressed the "what are they for" opinion, I would think there's still a problem with the above. Often, what one sees are NAs reacting to some sort of threat to the neighborhood, but rarely acting in the first instance to create benefit to the neighborhood.
Rightly or wrongly, I suspect there is an impression that while NAs are good at, for example, opposing a Starbucks, you don't tend to see NAs running around actively trying to recruit whatever sorts of businesses they would approve of having in the neighborhood. It's precisely that impression, I would imagine, that gives rise to the belief that NAs are little more at this point than strongholds of NIMBYism who want nothing to change and so only ever engage in reaction, ignoring action.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
Point being: This is either an accurate description of the current state of NAs, or an accurate description of a commonly-held and often-heard perception of NAs. Whichever is the case, there appears to be an issue regarding the place of NAs in today's Portland that is being somewhat glossed over and undiscussed.
Anne on 16 Jun 2004
The One True b!X on June 15, 2004 06:56 PM:
You do realize that the question being asked by the person in question wasn't "what is the purpose of neighborhood associations?" but "what are they in favor of?" -- as in, as stated, it's clear what they are in opposition to ("against"), but what are they in favor of ("for")?
Of course. My point is that there is no big secret here. If the question reflects any real desire to know, rather than just a lazy parroting of something they heard someone say, then one way to find out would be to get involved. Then he/she too would learn the secret handshake, be taken to the inner sanctum, and swear in blood never to reveal the deepest aims of the Neighborhood Associations…
Pretty silly, I know. But honestly - I find it hard to take the question at face value. Oh sure, it’s a little tricky because of the hugely human variability bound up in the “they” (what are “they” for?). 95 NA’s, hundreds of wiggly individuals in each, wildly differing problems and possibilities -- but still --
Others on this thread have pretty clearly listed what NA’s are “for.” You can read the same things in NA bylaws, mission statements, flyers, action plans, registration forms and newsletters. You can see it on their web-sites, hear it when their reps speak at City Council, see it in their Rose Festival Float. You can participate in “what we are for” and really take it into your brain-pan, by attending night meetings, organizing a neighborhood cleanup, manning a booth at a street fair, helping to install a new playground or taking on a newsletter distribution route. Or, if you are really interested, by spending years learning the minutia of city code and zoning laws …
So like I said, I have a hard time keeping a straight face when contemplating the “question.” Now, if a person were to ask, “how can NA’s better reach those admirable goals they so clearly have, and what do I need to learn to better inform my questions and opinions on this subject?” well, that would be something to talk about!
Anne on 16 Jun 2004
12) The One True b!X on June 16, 2004 08:40 AM:
…(snip) Rightly or wrongly, I suspect there is an impression that while NAs are good at, for example, opposing a Starbucks, you don't tend to see NAs running around actively trying to recruit whatever sorts of businesses they would approve of having in the neighborhood. ….(snip)
Actually, this is ONE of the important things those reviled NA land-use geeks do. When a NA advocates for a mixed use building, with retail on the bottom where the developer had wanted to build only residential, the NA is trying to recruit, via creating an optimum environment, businesses -- of a certain kind :-)
When Linnton NA folks beat on every developer and politician’s door in town, looking to interest someone in developing the now moribund mill site into an exciting riverside mixed-use development, they are doing the most effective thing they can to recruit businesses. When HAND, my NA, works closely with both the Hawthorne Business Association and the Division-Vision Coalition to guide and fund the development of our rapidly gentrifying area, they are proactively involved in the development of the businesses there. HAND is going even further, studying the possibility of “conserving” some of the commercial properties on Division to preserve opportunities for small local businesses facing the pressure of rising rents. These are just a few examples. Probably the most comprehensive efforts are in the NA/district plans, again, land-use policies and goals used to guide development in desired directions, this is the NA’s most powerful and effective tool to influence the types of businesses that choose to locate in the area.
Sadly, these efforts have not been well communicated, because media is not interested in such a “process” process. They only get interested when things fall apart.
Starbucks, in fact, is a good example of the efforts and limitations NA’s exert and experience in this arena. The NA in question, HAND, had been working pro-actively to encourage local businesses for this site. The property owner did something else, despite his assurances to HAND to the contrary. HAND nevertheless took no position, for or against, the Starbucks. But, when some individual hot-heads took it upon themselves to violently respond, HAND was blamed for the violence. Go figure. Even worse, those who should know that HAND took no position against Starbucks continue to repeat the falsehood that the NA opposed Starbucks. This is a part of the NA's problem -- and whether it's just sloppy, or downright malicious, doesn't matter - it results in an endless loop of false rumor or gossip, very difficult to counter. And so, "everybody knows"...
And of course, not every NA has the same interest in business development. Some don’t have a business district, some are happy with them as they are, some have other issues that take precedence. And, land-use stuff is one of the toughest for volunteers, because, to be effective, you have to become well-educated on the minutia and magnitude of city code, on your own time and dollar, and for many that means after a full day at work. I mean, gaak - have you taken a gander at that tome? Not a task for the faint of heart.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
I was hoping someone was going to bring up Division Vision so I didn't have to, heh.
doretta on 16 Jun 2004
b!X,
OK, tell me what on my list of things the Kenton Neighborhood Association has done in the last year supports the "against" assertion? In my experience of NAs Kenton is somewhere in the struggling middle so I think it makes a good example.
Here is the NA stuff I'm doing in the next week:
1. Tonight I'll be at an ODOT open house for public input on freeway access alternatives in my neighborhood. The purpose is to help ODOT get the feedback that will help them pick the best alternative.
2. Tomorrow I have a followup meeting on that subject with ODOT and a committee of other neighbors.
3. Later this week I'll be talking with the Police Bureau about how to manage volunteers to have the Kenton Community Policing Office open to the public.
4. Next Monday I'll be attending the Chief's Forum as the North Portland neighborhoods' representative.
5. Next Wednesday I'll be testifying before the City Council in favor of a New Seasons market project.
I average 10-15 hours a week on neighborhood-related activities. I do it because I love my neighborhood and want to do my part to make it better. In my experience that's what motivates 95% of the people involved in neighborhood associations.
So if the issue is "what one sees" I might suggest that's an issue you can do something about.
As I said, I welcome a discussion of what neighborhood associations could be doing that they aren't or what structural changes could do to improve things. Some of us *have* been discussing that and we'd love it to become a wider discussion.
Let me echo the original challenge: What are the critics of neighborhood associations for? Let's have some of those people who think the current system is dysfunctional give us some details of what they'd have us do instead.
I'd particularly like to see a comprehensive proposal from Randy Leonard--one that includes facilitating citizen involvement and increasing social capital as well as delivering city services.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
OK, tell me what on my list of things the Kenton Neighborhood Association has done in the last year supports the "against" assertion?
Hey, I'm just trying to do my best to pass along what was raised at the City Club dinner, not taking a position myself. If we really want to get into this, I need my City Club readers and others who were also present at the dinner to show up and get involved in this discussion, too.
As you said: "Let's have some of those people who think the current system is dysfunctional give us some details of what they'd have us do instead."
Unfortunately, I haven't seen them show up to make the case, so I've had to do my best to cobble one together for them. Once we get into specifics of "is this positive action or not?" I can't really speak for them.
QueenLeslie on 16 Jun 2004
I was one of those at the dinner, and one of the things that is not being reflected here is that the question arose after a discussion of the history of NAs--specifically, the work they did in conjunction with the City the 1970s and 1980s--to resurrect what were essentially failing neighborhoods. I think the NAs deserve great credit for helping improve our schools, for restoring livability, for encouraging thriving business districts and for making many of our neighborhoods more safe and viable financially.
What arose out of this history discussion was a realization of how different our problems are today: high cost of housing (which drives families and low-income Portlanders out of the city), a struggling school system and the loss of jobs to the suburbs. I think the question: "What are neighborhood associations for?" came more in this light, as in: "How are they tacking our current problems in a constructive way?"
I can only point to my experience with an my former NA leader, who when asked how neighbors might constructively get involved in the siting of a local bar, said: "Don't worry about getting involved. Just be thankful that the bar isn't a row house."
I know it's not fair to point to ask NAs to solve the school funding crisis or worry about low-income housing. That isn't their job. But maybe it's incumbent upon the City to use the NAs to help solve these larger problems--to knit them into a larger whole and use the collective energy to guide the City in tackling these bigger, cross-neighborhood issues.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
You're right that I didn't adequately explain the context of the NA discussion as being related to their history. And, in fact, that's also related to the conversation about leadership, in which it was argued that Portland may be resting on the laurels of past leadership (and vision) rather than forging current leadership (and vision).
That reliance on mythologizing (a word used by one of those present) our past as a substitute for seizing upon our present was a common theme to discussions both of City leadership and of enighborhood associations.
doretta on 16 Jun 2004
b!X,
I get that.
Since they aren't here defending their position, I'm hoping to convince you to ask them some follow-up questions next time and include those answers in your report.
If you agree that neighborhood association leadership is an important issue, you might also give some thought to how you cover that so people have an accurate picture of what NAs do.
Even great reporters can't think of everything. I figure that as an independent journalist you don't have an editor to push back so your loyal readers should do that for you.
The One True b!X on 16 Jun 2004
If you agree that neighborhood association leadership is an important issue, you might also give some thought to how you cover that so people have an accurate picture of what NAs do.
Working on that, in fact. And if it pans out, it will also be the introduction of a new feature here that I intend to make use of semi-regularly.
I figure that as an independent journalist you don't have an editor to push back so your loyal readers should do that for you.
Indeed.
Anne Dufay on 16 Jun 2004
QueenLeslie writes>>I think the question: "What are neighborhood associations for?" came more in this light, as in: "How are they tacking our current problems in a constructive way?"
I can only point to my experience with an my former NA leader, who when asked how neighbors might constructively get involved in the siting of a local bar, said: "Don't worry about getting involved. Just be thankful that the bar isn't a row house."
Hee hee -- I can just picture a bar owner or 20 around town asking themselves, "where IS this fine neighborhood where I can move my establishment and leave behind those pesky NA doo-gooders in my area - with their "Good Neighbor Agreements" and their requests for early hours and all the time I spend in mediation with them...
QueenLeslie - yes, there are a few NA's that are not as strong as others. I'm sorry you got one.
That's the downside of our participatory system, it's open to anyone. What comes out of it depends entirely on who shows up.
Power to the people :-)
In other words, I don't agree it's up to the city to make the NA system more effective. Aside from not starving us, (their current strategy to keep us down) and funding outreach more realistically, I think the red meat of it is up to us.
Though it would help if they would listen to our opinions without rolling their eyes or looking at their watches or ducking out of Council to answer the cell phone call from the developer in the audience who wants to coach them in finessing their motion...
And, as for that "mythology" bit, I agree it's overrated. Including the mythology that we have to do something "big" to claim "vision."
What the hell is weak or lackluster with aspiring to bring our roads up to something less than third world standards? And maybe, just maybe, if we tried providing real benefit to our current, taxpaying residents instead of years of ignoring their needs in favor of building more and more for the folks we hope will come next -- maybe then our current, taxpaying residents will see some value in continuing to invest their tax dollars in this city -- and we would have some real ammunition against the tax-revolt cretins sabotaging our schools and our social services and our city.
Maybe real leadership is not about being glittery and new – tearing down some old ethnic neighborhood for highrises (oops, parking garages), planning a new freeway through (oops, tram above) another, but maybe today it’s about dealing, finally, with what we can no longer duck.