October 03, 2004
Mediocrity For Mayor!
Is This The Best Portland Has To Offer?
Whatever dissatisfaction we've had with the Mayoral race came boiling over on Friday while fidgeting our way through the City Club of Portland debate between candidates Jim Francesconi and Tom Potter. More specifically, towards the end of the debate, as we sat between the City Club's director and an Oregonian reporter, we blurted out, "Both of these men exasperate me."
As we started writing this item, the KOIN debate between these candidates was well underway (and will be long over by the time we're finished here), and while we recognize there is only one more month of this, it's crystal clear that it will take all of the strength we can muster to continue watching a race between a man who consistently and knowingly misrepresents the other and a man who seems disturbingly incapable of making the most obvious and direct defenses of his actual positions.
We would very nearly (but not quite) give our right testicle to have Phil Busse and James Posey back in this race to try to force at least some vague semblance of thoughtful and useful conversation into the campaign.
On the one hand, we have Francesconi, whose major strategy decisions since announcing his candidacy were to attempt to flood the primary election with enough money to produce inevitability and bury the start of the general election in the mud of negative campaigning. Along the way, he's distorted Potter's past record and been at the very least disingenuous about what Potter has said during the campaign.
Just today, during the KOIN debate, Francesconi flatly stated that the GoPotterGo! PAC which appeared during the primary campaign, and which accepts contributions well above and beyond the limits Potter placed on his own campaign, was created by Potter. If in response Potter had not pointedly and correctly denied the charge that he created the PAC, Francesconi would have gotten away with an outright lie about his opponent. And don't try to tell us that Francesconi's apology once he was caught is evidence that he didn't damned well know what he was doing when he said it.
Francesconi is also obsessively enamored of accusing Potter of proposing the adoption of various expensive development plans that in reality Potter has simply offered as topics for discussion.
Potter opposes the originally-planned demolition of the structures at Centennial Mill in order for the community to determine if there are ways to pursue alternatives -- and Francesconi repeatedly states or implies that Potter inheretly supports spending $60 million to turn it into an arts complex.
Potter supports keeping a City takeover of PGE on the table at the very least to keep all options open in the face of a private bid by Texas Pacific Group that isn't going to benefit ratepayers -- and Francesconi repeatedly states or implies that Potter somehow inevitably would move to condemn the utiltiy.
Potter proffers the possibility that over the period of decades the City may need to bury its overhead utility lines -- and Francescnoi repeatedly states or implies that Potter fully intends to embark upon a project costing more than one billion dollars.
Beyond the politically-cynical motivation behind attempting to deceive voters about Potter's positions, what's revealed by Francesconi's tactic here helps to illustrate the difference between himself and Potter when it comes to what sorts of public involvement each candidate is comofrtable with. Potter's approach is fairly simple: Everyone needs to be free to pitch whatever ideas they have, and their relative benefits and costs will be weighed through discussion. On the other hand, Francesconi's immediate and inevitable response to nearly any and all new ideas is to shoot them down by declaring that they are too expensive.
Inevitably, some ideas -- pitched by Potter or by memebrs of the community -- will be too expensive to pursue, either inherently or at the present time. But of the first thing citizens hear when they pitch an idea is the sound of being dismissed out of hand, people are going to stop pitching ideas altogether, and we all lose out on what might have been incredible opportunities.
We would argue, quite speculatively we admit, that what this reveals is something of a paternalistic streak in Francesconi's positions. You can see this quite clearly in his opposition to Dignity Village and they ways in which he discusses it. To wit: In the midst of an apalling deficiency of housing and services for Portland's homeless, Francesconi is utterly unwilling to entertain anything but disdain for a project which exists because some of Portland's homeless decided to take some control over their own lives and provide themselves with housing and easier access to services. It's as if their very autonomy and self-direction somehow repels him. We won't argue, as some do, that Francesconi isn't a social liberal at heart, somewhere. But modern-day social liberalism is no stranger to bedding down with paternalism.
The reader may be concerned that this is becoming purely an anti-Francesconi tirade, but fear not. Our attention turns now to his opponent in this race who, while preferable to us in the end, doesn't instill in us a great deal of confidence with the way in which he's conducted his own campaign.
If the candidacy of Francesconi is defined by deception and the instincts of the political animal, Potter's in many ways is defined by both contradiction and a kind of muddled sense of leadership.
Let's take the contradiction for starters. On the one hand, Potter espouses community involvement almost to the point of idolotry. While this may in some sense be an overcompensation to the degree to which Portland residents appear to feel ignored and abused by City Hall, it would be nice if he would provide some real sense of what types of community involvement he's talking about. And this platform of involvement, especially since he's extended to the notion that he would help members of the City Council work more effectively together, doesn't appear to mesh all that well with his intention to take all City bureaus into his own portfolio for six months while the City budget is pieced together.
There's another hole in the over-emphasis on community involvement: Sometimes, a leader needs to be willing to put his own cards on the table -- and, further, sometimes needs to play his own hand in the face of community opposition. To take one example, Potter has said that while he wishes Multnomah County had engaged in a different process regarding same-sex marriage, had he been on the County Commission at the end of such a process, he would have made the same decision regardless of what the community had said during that process.
So it's not as if Potter is incapable of taking an actual position of leadership, but thus far in the Mayoral campaign, he has offered precious little evidence as to what, to him, is non-negotiable. Sometimes, communities are wrong (that is, after all, where the phrase "tyranny of the majority" comes from), and we don't know about the rest of Portland but as it stands today, we have little to no idea on what issues or what concerns he would stand up against community pressure.
All of these related issues come together to prompt a rather important question that needs to be answered: With some very fundamental and near-term decisions needing to be made by the City's government to help get things back into some sort of sustainable balance, does Potter really intend to having long-running community conversations about every single thing? Can we afford to have, say, a year-long discussion on the various concerns impacting economic growth, or does the incomiung Mayor need to shepherd the City Council into some critical decisions right away?
Potter may very well have an answer to that question, but with thirty days to go before the election -- and fewer days than that until people can begin to cast their ballots -- doesn't this seem to be a little close to the wire to be keeping the answer to himself?
Let's take a step back for a moment, and consider two exchanges that occured during today's KOIN debate which help illustrate each candidate's rather glaring deficiencies. We'll begin, as we did above, with Francesconi.
Potter asked Francesconi about his campaign promise to fill all potholes within 24 hours if called into the City's hotline. According to Potter, the recorded message when one calls the hotline indicates that there is a "backlog" of street repair needs. What he wanted to know from Francesconi is why people should believe that potholes will be filled within 24 hours when he is Mayhor if they are not being filled within 24 hours while he is the commissioner in charge of the Office of Transportation.
Francesconi's response was that the hotline doesn't say there's a backlog on filling potholes, but a backlog on street repair needs. We checked, and that indeed is what the hotline's recorded message says. Problem is, we're talking about the pothole hotline -- that appears to be the "street repair" being referred to by the message. If the "street repair needs" being referred to by the pothole hotline in fact refers just to potholes, then Francesconi response to Potter's question is nothing more than an evasion.
On the other hand, for the sake of argument, let's take Francesconi's intended meaning to be true -- that the "street repair needs" mentioned on the pothole hotline actually encompasses more than just potholes. Francesconi went on to state that while there may be some sort of street repair backlog, potholes called into the hotline currently are filled within 24 hours. Let's take that to be true as well. Anyone see the problem in this case? If the City already fills potholes within 24 hours, why did Francesconi make it a much-hyped campaign promise to fill potholes within 24 hours?
No matter how you slice Francesconi's response to Potter's question, the entire issue is a fake-out. Either "street repair" refers to potholes, despite what Francesconi said, and there is therefore a backlog on filling potholes, in which case he dodged the question. Or "street repair" doesn't refer only to potholes, and potholes currently are filled within 24 hours, in which case Francesconi's campaign promise is nothing but hot air and a deception.
At the other end of the two-person race, our other illustrative exchange more or less perfectly describes the problem with Potter.
In response to Potter's question about Francesconi's approach to public involvement, Francesconi focused on his stewardship of Portland Parks & Recreation, citing an audit of the bureau, the creation of the Parks Board and the Portland Parks Foundation, and the drafting of a strategic plan for the bureau. Whatever one thinks of each element of this list and their respective contributions to public involvement, at the very least it represents a specific set of examples Francesconi believes represents his approach to the matter.
On the other hand, Potter's response to his own question was little more than a litany of different ways of saying that public involvement is important. "Citizen engagement is the Portland way. ... What we need in this City is a more effective way of listening. I will listen, and I will act. ... We need a vision for the future that will tell us where we're going and how we're going to get there, based on citizen priorities."
That's all well and good, and we heartily concur. But does this mean audits, boards, and foundations? Public hearings and town halls? Citizen advisory committees? City Council sessions devoted entirely to "Communications to Council" on any topic? Adoption of the recommendations (pdf) of the Public Involvement Task Force? Neighborhood office hours?
We must finally admit the truth that we almost pine for those bygone days when more than twenty people were engaged in the Mayoral primary campaign. As we said early on in this item, this general election campaign could do with a good, healthy dose of Busse and Posey. At the very least, we can't help but ponder the contribution to the conversation that Earl Blumenauer could have given us -- and could still have given us had he ever lived up to his stated intention of releasing a "vision for Portland" document as a follow-up to the series of community meetings he held while pondering a possible Mayoral run.
In the final analysis, the choice set out before Portland voters is something rather spectacularly less than stellar. Faced with what arguably is one of the most important elections of Portland's recent history -- two open Council seats being just one vote shy of a complete takeover -- we find ourselves distressingly underwhelmed. While this is not yet our official endorsement post for this race, it will be no surprise to regular readers who we do not want to be the next Mayor.
But it would have been nice, in such a crucial election for the City's future direction, to have been given the gift of a deep and engaging pair of candidates who could have energized Portlanders with a real discussion of the City's promise and possibility.
Instead, we are left to reduce the race to an accidental bastardization of the name of Busse's primary campaign (a twist that in no way whatsoever is meant to slander that effort, which we endorsed) and declare the inevitable winner: Mediocrity for Mayor!
Comments (18)
Randy Leonard on 03 Oct 2004
Excellent analysis.
Dave Lister on 04 Oct 2004
As far as candidates for mayor this time around are concerned, I think the process was confounded by the Blumenauer factor. He was, after all, the heir apparent, and had he chosen to run, no one could have beaten him. His decision not to run altered a lot of thinking out there, including Adams run for council, instead of Congress, and the decisions of several to hop into the mayor's race.
As far as having really competent CEO types step up and run, there are two problems. Most successful people can't leave their own endeavors for four or more years. Secondly, it doesn't pay enough. The mayor and commissioners are the board of directors of close to a two billion dollar a year corporation. Compare their salaries to those normally dealing with managing those kinds of numbers and you'll see the compensation is paltry.
hilsy on 04 Oct 2004
B!x,
Once again I've thoroughly enjoyed your insightful writing. Your voice (at least in the capcity of this website, for I hope you will stick around Portland) will be missed.
allehseya on 04 Oct 2004
Re: Potter’s approach to what he refers to as ‘citizen engagement’:
I’m hoping that it will be an adoption of the recommendations of the Public Involvement Task Force -- which would inevitably include the: audits, boards, and foundations; public hearings and town halls; citizen advisory committees; neighborhood office hours (all of which you mentioned) – which would then all lead towards the golden era City Council meetings (on any topic) – with the passionate debates that Randy Leonard (rightfully) longs to revive.
LC on 04 Oct 2004
Portland remains in the middle of a longterm identity crisis and neither of these would-be mayors can offer our schitzophrenic electorate any help at this stage. It's gonna have to get a lot worse before it ever gets better.
I think it is time this city looks itself in the mirror and votes honestly for the kind of leader it wants. That's why I plan to write in Neil Goldschmidt.
Who's with me?
allehseya on 04 Oct 2004
Re: LC’s comment #5
While I agree that Portland suffers from a more than slight identity crisis, I seem to recall the candidates agreeing on one thing: that the Arts and Culture industry represented the largest active audience that they have had on the campaign trail.
In light of this, perhaps the kind of 'leader wanted' is one that is known for the message “Expose Yourself to Art” (former Mayor, Bud Clark).
(BTW: could this be why Francesconi and Potter have both stated that they would bring back the Bud Ball?)
I am part of the arts audience following the campaigns and while I stated the above (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek –-- and while Clark and Goldschmidt are both before my time in Portland -- I’ve had enough of the corporate-America-machine-politicians that Goldschmidt represents. His effectiveness while in office rests on a model for economic growth that is dated in any event (as far as my research has revealed thus far).
I prefer just about anything to the epitome of a bribe-me-Corporate-Mayor that only takes real accountability when they are up against the wall – as they jump off it due to the inherent cowardly fear of facing the consequences from their much-concealed scandalous actions.
Give us a mayor that is aware of the potential of the Arts and Culture industry in modern day urban revitalization and maybe think we’ll begin to see that the fractured identity of Portland will suddenly integrate into a whole.
LC on 04 Oct 2004
Allehseya,
Ah yes. Arts and culture as an industry.
How is it fostered by city government?
Why by creating the optimal environment for incubating and nesting the young hip haute culture crowd on the backs of homeowners.
It's a great plan: we're so cool, maybe other people will pay us to export our culture to them. Four dollar coffee took over the world, next it could be Vietnamese fine dining.
That's why we need to choose leaders who will "invest" in light rail, subsidize high density developments, use the PDC to make deals, roll back property taxes on Pearl condos, etc.
Problem is that it's getting tougher to swing these sorts of things anymore. People question you. That's neither Potter nor Franseconi will do, they don't have the gravitas.
Embrace Neil for Mayor.
You know you want to.
hilsy on 04 Oct 2004
I'm not quite sure where you're going with the "write in Neil" thing LC. I'm assuming it is a mocking of a need for a strong "liberal" leader.
Explain further please.
And if it don't pass muster, I might give a history lesson or two about how Portland was vastly,vastly different in the early 1970s as compared to today. But humor me, please.
LC on 04 Oct 2004
hilsy,
I'm sure you'll tell me about the days when PDX was just an ugly little town with big city aspirations, realized only by the partnership between visionary political leaders and a thoughful business community that considered themselves responsible stewards of the latent potential of the soon-to-arrive PDX!
You don't need to bother. From the sounds of things, you didn't just drink that Kool-Aid, you helped mix it.
GA - Keith on 05 Oct 2004
"But it would have been nice, in such a crucial election for the City's future direction, to have been given the gift of a deep and engaging pair of candidates who could have energized Portlanders with a real discussion of the City's promise and possibility."
B!x, you got it absolutely right. My husband and I have resolved ourselves to the hope that whoever wins will be a one-term mayor; a transition to the kind of Mayor this city needs in order to fulfill its 'promise and possibility.'
Tafari on 05 Oct 2004
I tend to agree with new blogger Randy Leonard's assessment, Mr. Bix, it's a nice piece of analysis, especially the bit about "In the midst of an apalling deficiency of housing and services for Portland's homeless, Francesconi is utterly unwilling to entertain anything but disdain for a project which exists because some of Portland's homeless decided to take some control over their own lives and provide themselves with housing and easier access to services."
I personally could never trust a guy like Fransesconi who's disingenuous at the very least and can't really afford to join his camp as I lack his money and assets. He always ignored me on the streets when I said, "Hi, Mr. Francesconi" but now that it's election time he pats me on the back and smiles like a crocodile. I've seen his first hundred day plan and his problem seems to be more with Dignity Village than finding ways to eradicate homelessness.
And what's up with the few Francesconi lawn signs I've seen, where are the people under those bridges? I don't think they'll be out at Dignity Village if Mr. Francesconi wins.
Like Tom Potter, though, seems like the kind of guy who, though maybe a little light on specifics, would listen and find ways and means and roll up his sleeves and get the job done, kind of like the way he and his team helped mud cob houses out here at the Village.
hilsy on 05 Oct 2004
Okay LC, I'll bite, but you should really answer the question I posed before laying out ad hominem attacks.
Pre-1970s the Portland city government did not listen to citizen input from the neighborhoods. Frank Ivancie was the last bastion of that old attitude. And if you go not much farther back in history, the city government was just outright corrupt, in league with the local version of organized crime that ran gambling halls and brothels.
Oh, and downtown was empty after 5 pm. No active restaraunt scene (that is businesses with jobs) and a decaying ugly core (do you remember the old Broadway theater??).
But I guess we should just go back to those good ol' days???
And it wasn't just the old lech, NG, that was involved in changing Portland. There were folks like Connie McCready, Charles Jordan, Gretchen Kafoury, Mildred Schwab and others.
And I think that anybody who thinks Portland is anything other than a small provincial city just doesn't get it (big city aspirations; I'm sure some folks think that, but I certainly don't think so).
Portland ain't perfect, but it's doing okay, especially given the state of the economy.
LC on 05 Oct 2004
hilsy,
So "citizen input from the neighborhoods" was the catalyst for all the urban renewal money flowing into downtown projects over the last couple decades?
Nice spin.
I do remember the broken down (but usually operational) Broadway Theater. It was one of the few places a PSU student could catch a cheap movie. It smelled of urine but it served a purpose even while its days were numbered. I think I saw RoboCop there.
"Portland ain't perfect, but it's doing okay, especially given the state of the economy."
Have you considered that the "state of the economy" (which is pretty bad in our fair city) may be partly attributable to the "okay" Portland we've financed (and regulated) into paralysis?
p.s. - Go Neil, Go!
hilsy on 05 Oct 2004
LC,
Fair criticism to some of my sweeping comments. But I still think Portland is doing better today than it was 20+ years ago. Do you remember the recession of the early '80s? Now that was a doozy.
And you have yet to answer my original question. Do you lack the guts (I sincerely doubt that) to just come out and say it rather couching your comments in this "Go Neil Go" crap.
hilsy on 05 Oct 2004
and for the "urban rewnewal dollars," I think B!x covered the beginnings of that in an earlier post that described the history of the interactions between the PDC and the Portland Planning Bureau.
And would do you truly desire Portland to be just the way it was?
allehseya on 05 Oct 2004
Re: L.C’s comment #7
Yes, L.C. ; Arts and Culture as an Industry.
A recently released study of the economic impact of the arts, "Arts & Economic Prosperity: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts Organizations and Their Audiences," makes an example of Wisconsin for other states to follow. In one state alone, the non-profit Arts Industry generates $289.8 million in economic activity every year, including $38 million in local and state tax revenues. The $289.8 million total includes $190.5 million in spending by arts organizations and $99.3 million in event-related spending by arts audiences (excluding ticket revenue).
Nationally, the study reveals that the Arts Industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year, including $24.4 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues, and provides 4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs, a 45 percent increase since 1992.
"Arts and Economic Prosperity" is the most comprehensive economic impact study of the nonprofit arts industry ever conducted, and is based on surveys of 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations and more than 40,000 attendees at arts events in 91 cities in 33 states, plus the District of Columbia.
These statistics should make it clear, L.C. -- that the arts industry stimulates economic development, downtown revitalization, tourism opportunities, and educational growth --- all of which enhance residents’ quality of life in communities large and small.
Public and private investments in the arts make good business and community sense, and will help the state provide benefits for everyone in Portland and across the state of Oregon.
Furthermore, L.C. --- While I understand (tolerate) the temptation to reduce the Arts and Culture industry to a “young hip haute culture crowd”, according to the National Endowment for the Arts, the (generally speaking) median age demographic for patrons of the arts (the people paying for it) is 45. While across the individual disciplines – the highest average age range varies between 40 – 60 years of age.
The NEA defines ‘young adults’ as falling between the age range of 18-34.
L.C. – please note: “In terms of the age distribution of arts attendees between 1992 to present, the share of attendance by young adults ages 18-34 declined in many of the art categories (listed by the NEA), including music, dance, and visual arts (museum attendance). In 1992, for example, people ages 18-24 were a mere 13 percent of the adult population and are now at 8.8 percent.” (NEA, Research Division, Demographic Characteristics of Arts Attendance Report, 2004)
Now, I don’t know how many of those patrons are homeowners, but rest assured, L.C. --- people between the age of 40 – 60 are more than capable of making up their minds as to what they choose to spend their money on and they tend to have higher incomes than ‘young adults’.
So -- I think it’s safe to say that the patrons of the arts – have the money -- and are willing to pay for the arts and culture programming that they love so much.
How is the Arts and Culture industry fostered by city government? Through the development of Public / Private Partnerships where the private sector – not only the public sector – invests in an industry that not only has a proven track record and will provide a return – but can draw upon a city populated with artists that are already actively interested in city reform.
Don’t make me pull out specific models that have worked to economically revitalize other cities, L.C. (although I’ll be happy to e-mail the research if interested) – this comment is already too long --- suufice it say that the Arts-centric PPP is one way where the artists and those in the Arts and Culture Industry here in Portland can get involved in addressing citywide issues while becoming a self sustaining community that doesn’t solely rely on public funding (grants, fellowships, etc.) – which I’m sure, L.C. – would destroy your notion of the hip, struggling artist mooching off the ‘back of a homeowner’.
p.s. 'Expose Yourself to Art."
allehseya on 05 Oct 2004
and L.C. ? ... you neednt worry that your tax dollars are going to the arts in Oregon -- the current percentage rate is so low that it would be an ineffective argument -- and rest assured -- the new percentage rates dedicated to the arts and the cultural trust (proposed by all of the candidates) is'nt that much better.
LC on 07 Oct 2004
hilsy:
You never asked a question (other than explain yourself). I might as well ask you the same, but I'll give it a shot.
Neil is what you really want. He'll give you what you need. Amazing justifications for worthless projects, you'll ignore the skeletons in the closet, as long as he makes you feel good about being an urban planning elitist.
Only Uncle Neil can give you what you need. He has the answers, don't question, just vote.
Allehseya:
"Public-private partnerships" is a euphemism for socialism.
It's okay to admit you're one, lots of people think that way. But socialists need strong leaders, which brings us back to Goldschmidt.
Portland will prosper again with Neil.