... or, Lining Up the Votes

The proposal by Commissioner Sam Adams to charge residents and businesses in Portland monthly fees to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements is on the Portland City Council's Agenda tomorrow.

A phrase one hears frequently in Portland politics is "we have three votes". I often read in the newspapers of members of the Council stating before public hearings that they support or oppose ordinances and resolutions. People have asked me how I would vote if I had one, on Sam's proposal tomorrow.

If I am elected, I will not make decisions on how I will vote, until I have heard citizens' views. Before public hearings, I will share what I have learned in the process to date, and request feedback on my initial processing of the information. Open decision-making and transparency should be more than noble concepts.

Sam Adams has done outstanding work with public outreach on this project, but I still have concerns about the proposal being presented to Council tomorrow.

I believe there is no point in holding a public hearing, if it doesn't matter what the public says or writes in testimony. I will be clear in sharing with citizens what I know and believe on topics before the hearing, as I outlined here, but I will remain willing to consider new viewpoints and facts. I said,

"When I am a City Commissioner, three of the tabs on the front page of my web site will be "Next Up at City Council", "Coming Down the Pike", and "What was Done, What comes Next".

Next Up at City Council will have links to the Agenda, like the current series. There will be many more easy-to-find links to background documents and staff contact information (because I'll be able to find out that information, from the inside), and a quick "Give me your opinion on this" option because I'll want to know what you think. And, each Monday after I've heard the briefings from staff on the Agenda items, I'll post summaries on the lines of "This is what I've heard on this. This is what I'm thinking. These are the questions I'd like to know more about at the public hearing. Please comment/participate if you care."

So, I will let you know what I am considering. But if lobbyists try to "line up three votes" before the public testimony, they will not be sure that mine will be one of them. That was how I operated while serving on the Planning Commission, despite pressure from developers and business interests to pledge support for their proposals before the open meetings. There, I earned a reputation for keeping an open mind, even on topics I know well. One of my favorite memories from the Planning Commission was when Rick Michaelson, a developer who served throughout my seven years, supported a plan I had proposed. After a long discussion of the issues, Rick said, "I'm going to support Amanda's motion - presuming Amanda still supports Amanda's motion." I cherish that memory because the comment was made with respect, having learned over the course of several years that I am always willing to reconsider positions in response to new information, ideas, and opinions.

For the hearing tomorrow, here are some of the questions I would want answered, if I was a member of the Council:

* Transportation maintenance and basic improvements are a core responsibility of the City. Why haven't they been funded from the annual budget of nearly $3 billion?

* Mayor Bud Clark recognized the need to address the backlog of transportation needs last century, and earmarked money from utility franchise fees to pay for them. What was that money spent on, instead?

* What is the justification for spending (for example) $6.3 million in existing funds over the next two years, for planning the engineering of changing Burnside and Couch into one-way streets (as if Broadway-Weidler is a spectacularly successful model to copy), then asking Portlanders to pay extra for basic services like sidewalks and crosswalks in outer neighborhoods?

* Given that the proposal has changed from a multi-faceted funding strategy to one where the residents of million dollar mansions pay the same monthly fee as renters of humble homes who struggle to make ends meet, is it fair?

I am running with the intent of advocating for funding basic infrastructure and core services in every neighborhood, using the existing budget. Sam's proposal meets the goal of providing necessary improvements, but by adding fees. If I had a vote tomorrow, I would be posting something like this summary, on my Commissioner's web site, and urging you to contact me either by writing, phoning, or in person at the hearing tomorrow, to help weigh the choice as to whether, on balance, I should vote to support the plan.