NW Examiner Endorses Chris Smith

"The strongest answers came from Chris Smith" ... "Smith gave the consummate response" ... "Smith was picked over an appealing field of candidates"

Examiner endorses three for council

Political analysis

By Allan Classen

The Northwest Examiner is endorsing three City Council candidates in the Portland primary election: Mayoral hopeful Sam Adams, Chris Smith and Jim Middaugh.

The endorsements are based on responses to an Examiner questionnaire and a reading of their public track record.

The strongest answers came from Chris Smith, perhaps not surprising in that he’s been closely involved with the issues raised in the six-question survey as a member of the Northwest District Association for over a decade.

As a commissioner, Sam Adams has made several notable stands for the people of this district—from insisting on painted crosswalks to stopping a spot-zoned parking structure—and he’s not afraid to spearhead necessary infrastructure maintenance, even if it means proposing new taxes during his campaign.

Jim Middaugh was more guarded than the other two, but his priorities seem close to those of his former boss, Commissioner Erik Sten, and on the right side of most issues.

The selections have merit only to the degree that one accepts the assumptions on which they are based. Five of the questionnaire topics dealt with local issues related to the Pearl, Northwest, Goose Hollow and Linnton neighborhoods. The other—dumpsters on sidewalks—is a citywide concern, but the problem is concentrated in parts of Northwest Portland.

The questions were:

1. Do you support amending the 2003 Northwest District Plan to disallow six commercial parking structure sites in what were previously residential zones?

2. Should the Con-way property (20 acres centered on Northwest 21st and Raleigh) be rezoned for height and density levels similar to the Pearl District, or should substantially lower limits established by the 2003 Northwest District Plan be maintained?

3. Should urban renewal areas be created along West Burnside and in the Con-way area to (among other things) finance the extension of streetcar lines?

4. Should the Linnton waterfront be removed from the industrial sanctuary to permit diverse types of development as recommended in the plan approved by the community in 2000?

5. Do you support converting the old Sauvie Island Bridge into a bike/pedestrian crossing of the I-405 freeway?

6. Should laws requiring businesses to keep dumpsters off public sidewalks be enforced?

The answers were not evaluated simply as “right” or “wrong” but as a means to understand each candidate’s priorities, knowledge, quality of thinking and political courage. Although the topics were local, a candidate would probably bring the same principles to issues in other parts of the city. For this reason, the endorsements should be taken broadly and not considered as merely tapping the candidates who would best advocate for this part of the city.

Three of the questions had to do with supporting community plans adopted through exhaustive, open processes over business interests making last-minute or after-the-fact maneuvers to get what they want.

Smith gave the consummate response to this balancing test in his answer to the question about Con-way.

“I believe that increased height and density may make sense only if there are corresponding benefits to the neighborhood (for example dedication of land for a park), and the transportation impacts are understood and planned for without an increase in auto use. If Con-way can present a set of amenities that the neighborhood agrees is a net benefit, great. If not, or if transit and other forms of alternative transportation can't serve the site effectively, the existing zoning should stand.”

The question about streetcar and urban renewal extension into the Northwest District should have triggered concerns about the fairness of targeting resources toward areas that are far from underprivileged and the legitimacy of routing streetcars where the money is rather than toward a balanced, citywide transportation system.

All but one candidate was ambivalent or somewhat critical about establishing urban renewal districts or extending streetcar lines in this direction under current assumptions. The exception was Adams, the driving force behind running the streetcar up West Burnside, a plan probably dependent on urban renewal funding.

The Sauvie Island Bridge move measures respect for citizen involvement and consensus among various sectors of the local community, while inviting resentment from uninformed voters in the rest of the city. The difference in cost between an already-approved basic new bridge and reusing an iconic old one would be made up primarily by a federal grant and would not affect city resources for sidewalks or street repair in other sections of the city, as some have claimed. The question pits a candidate’s willingness to accept political risk to invest in a visionary project against fanning populist division based on misinformation.

The dumpster question probes respect for livability regulations that may cause excessive pain to some businesses. Ignoring a valid law because an interest group complains indicates an unbecoming bias or lack of political courage. Making accommodation for parties that are exceptionally hard hit, however, seems an acceptable nod to fairness.

Two candidates refused to take stands on issues that might come before them as commissioners. They may have a point, though most candidates had no such qualms.

Why Chris Smith?

Smith was picked over an appealing field of candidates with above-average responses to the questionnaire. Everyone in this race other than Mike Fahey (who was not contacted for failure to provide an email address to Multnomah County) ran a publicly financed campaign. The correlation between voter-owned elections and “people’s positions” in issues may be solidifying with this election cycle.

Smith has always been open to compromise. He chairs the Portland Streetcar Inc. Citizen Advisory Committee and is a believer in expanding the system, but he has reservations about using the current urban renewal funding mechanism to add more Northwest Portland lines. Although a staunch opponent of tearing down houses for commercial parking structures, he could go along with a garage on what’s currently a surface parking lot west of Metropolitan Learning Center.

He may be a policy wonk, but a policy wonk who can thoroughly analyze complex subjects and consistently reach insightful or at least defensible positions would be an asset to the council.

Why Jim Middaugh?

For council seat No. 2, Jim Middaugh used public financing and aligned himself favorably on most of the questions. Like several others, he refused to take positions on some land-use issues that could come before the council on the grounds that, if elected, he might have to abstain from participating in decision-making.

Middaugh revealed where his heart is on the parking structure debate, however, by noting, “I was very struck by the vote last time and by then-mayor Vera Katz's comments about campaign contributions and the vote.”

(In 2003, Katz made perhaps the most impassioned speech in recent council history, castigating garage developer Richard Singer for the most extreme political grab she had witnessed in her time on the council.)

His conventionally funded opponent Nick Fish, the best-known candidate in this race, gave little confidence that he’s willing to make any tough stands for the community interest against business/development pressures. He emphasized economic development while offering mere sympathy to communities harmed in the process. That reinforces an impression he left from his last run for council.

Why Sam Adams?

Endorsing Adams over Dozono was made easier by the latter’s willingness to disregard land-use plans developed through community consensus. He would favor educating violators—despite evidence that it has been ineffectual—rather than enforcing the dumpster ordinance. Dozono also demagogued the Sauvie Island Bridge issue, taking the side of bitter outer eastside residents rather than explaining the facts of this case.

Adams has proven that he will champion the cause of neighborhoods versus the business lobby when it matters (he probably swayed the vote against a proposed Singer garage last year), though he sometimes goes too far in pursuing projects that could use more deliberation. Most westside activists don’t want to hang him for it, but he overrode a consensus plan for the Burnside couplet by adding a streetcar line, a feature that may require a gerrymandered urban renewal district to fund it.

Still, he faces issues that other politicians evade, he builds public consensus like no one we’ve seen on this council in years and he’s everything that Potter is not. That sounds good for a change.

[Emphasis added. Reproduced with Permission.]