You might have missed it on Friday afternoon, but the extremely close race for president of Metro has officially been won by Tom Hughes.
Hughes, a former mayor of Hillsboro, won a close contest (less than 1,000 votes in over 400,000 cast) over Bob Stacey, the former director of the land-use non-profit 1000 Friends of Oregon.
Both men are Democrats, but Hughes was the more conservative candidate. While Bob Stacey was outspoken in his opposition to the Columbia River Crossing, Hughes supports the controversial project. Hughes also got into a bit of hot water earlier this month when we found out he spoke in support of a bike registration fee as a way to counter the perception that bikes don’t pay their fair share.
I’ve yet to meet Hughes, but look forward to doing so. While he’s clearly not in the same boat as Stacey (who used to work for Earl Blumenauer), or former Metro leader David Bragdon when it comes to transportation, he might be more of a unifying force for our region. He’s perceived as a job creator and someone with a lot of respect from the surburbs — both areas where Metro’s reputation could use help.
Here’s what he said about his victory on his campaign website:
“… despite our divisions, we are united by our common enemy–a bad economy–that keeps us unemployed, allows our infrastructure to crumble and prevents us from having a world-class education system for the economy of tomorrow. My campaign gathered support from a wide variety of Metro residents because, when it comes down it, we are all in this together.”
You can learn more about Hughes via Wikipedia or on his campaign website. We’d love to hear your thoughts on what Tom Hughes’ leadership might mean for active transportation in our region.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Now that he’s got the metro presidency, we’ll see what Tom Hughes actually does to get the economy rolling. If I understand correctly, he’s a guy that’s a strong believer in there being large reserves of land…land that’s presently farmland, woodland or otherwise open, previously undeveloped land… available to be developed as a means of competing for new business. That’s a strategy that’s susceptible to an insidious tendency towards sprawl and its many negative consequences.
I just don’t see it working… how will he not clash with everybody at the office?
well, I’m not sure, but politically, Hughes may be moving to the center. Just a guess, that this is partly how he got some of the votes he did. If you read one of the more recent Oregonian articles, you’ll see Bob Stacy quoted as saying he likes the guy.
The CRC’s fall in favor is probably occurring largely because of it being cost prohibitive in these bad economic times. Points made about the arduous realities of moving people back and forth everyday across the river and into city street infrastructure between job and home, may be finally getting through too. I’m trying to remember…Tom Hughes may have said something that suggests he has come to recognize this is not a good practice to encourage.
Also worth nothing that Hughes was endorsed by the Metro employees.
OMG. Tom hugues may have hinted he likes bikes while having a drink at a bar, and suddenly the cyclists are lining up like sheep and forgetting his record of actions.
Well, we lost Metro, but gained a better governor. Overall, I don’t see the CRC moving through, but I also don’t see them stopping the flow of money to the idiot CRC consultants.
Ha ha. Well said about the money to the CRC consultants. We’ve spent more to propose a bridge than it costs to earthquake retro fit the existing bridge. DOh.
I would fully debate your claim the CRC will die off. That is the most dangerous myth to spread. The BTA loves that myth. The truth is that The CRC has full support of the Senate and House in DC and Salem. Both Mayors are back on board now that it’s cut back to 10 lanes and the seniors in Haden island have been placated.
The people who can take out the loans are ready to put us in debt. (economic, heath, environment ) The non profit watch dogs are just watching, not doing much.
The elephant in the room is still not being addressed – what if the economy is not fixable in the short term? (or the deeper question – since a growth economy is by definition unsustainable, when do we “fix” that?)
At some point, there has to be a steady-state economy, and commensurate with that and the reduction in availability of fossil fuels, a reduction in the standard of living for many (perhaps most) Americans. The sooner we start having that discussion, the easier the ultimate transition will be. While there will always be a place for cars, trucks and planes, we need to move the bulk to trips to trains, buses, bicycles, and our own two feet.
I’ve been thinking about the steady state economy idea for a while. Much like our DOT’s measure all road parameters by autos economists, especially American economists, measure all success as a function of growth. “Inflation is good”, “GDP must rise for a happy populace” and “no job growth is job loss” all phrases that speak to a bigger problem: population growth.
We just keep growing and multiplying until an area can not longer sustain us.
All current economic assumptions, and everything that a free market economy brings, lie on the foundation of continual population growth. Even if everyone agrees to zero population growth and it works our economies and governments will experience changes none have ever experienced before.
If a ‘steady-state economy’ that you refer to is one that doesn’t require ever higher sales or production to thrive, yet is still able to satisfactorily provide for the people that live within its limits, that is definitely one that people should be thinking about. While such an economy might mean that some American’s standard of living might be reduced, it shouldn’t be automatically assumed that most American’s standard of living would be reduced.
Growth in the metro area doesn’t have to happen in bad ways, but for growth to be good, it probably should take shape in ways that run counter to certain patterns of growth people have grown conditioned to accepting.
I think this was the best possible outcome for the region. While Tom was not my first choice (go Rex) I think he will serve as a better leader and facilitator than Bob. The fact Tom won without any negative ads while Bob seemingly only used slander speaks volumes of who they are as people.
Rex lost because of the CRC. He was closer in every other way to Bob Stacey’s positions, and it’s a shame that Rex’s supporters chose someone radically different than their first choice because they felt cheated in some way. My only hope is that most of Hughes’ pro-growth, pro-sprawl attitudes will be checked by the rest of Metro.
Maybe if Bob hadn’t called Rex a liar in front of city club and been really nasty than Rex’s supporters would have shifted their alliance to Bob. Just sayin
I wonder how many other people feel the same way about Bob Stacey’s campaign. I was on the fence. Ultimately, I didn’t feel that Stacey’s accusations were anywhere near the truth of the matter. That was enough not to vote for him.
Can you point to which topics were not the “truth of the matter?” The fact (FACT) that Hughes has spent the last two years lobbying on behalf of developers that want to expand the UGB? The fact (FACT) that those developers were large donors to his campaign, along with groups like Stimson Lumber?
I just don’t understand your logic.
I was also somewhat put off by the negative advertising put out by Stacey and the OLCV, which bombarded us in the weeks before the election. It seemed that Stacey was desperate to create a distinction between the two candidates that was less sharp that he wished it would be (remember that OLCV previously endorsed Hughes for Hillsboro Mayor). Politifact Oregon, which I know is probably not everyone’s favorite source, rated Stacey’s charges against Hughes as ‘false’. See here: http://bit.ly/dvTHSl.
It is true that Hughes received campaign money from developers, but I didn’t get the sense that that was a major theme of his campaign. And honestly, the Metro President isn’t designed as a position where the person in that chair can just jam sprawl down all our throats…we have layers upon layers of decision makers and processes (like the recent reserves process) that help to make those decisions. And I think that’s a great thing about Oregon, and about Metro.
I think Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes (and Rex Burkholder) are all very qualified to hold the position. They do bring different strengths of management, leadership, and support, but in all honesty none of them has the mark of evil that some commenters seem to try to make them any one of them out to be. Hopefully Hughes will be able to make some connections to outlying areas of Metro and help repair some frayed connections between Portland and communities like, say, Damascus. In any case, we can be grateful that all three leaders will continue to work in pursuit of a region that can provide sustainable, livable, and equitable growth and development.
Please share how Hughes is the best possible outcome for the region. Seems to me that he will impede any positive progress regarding bikes, transportation, sprawl and the like.
Good to have the ‘burbs heading up Metro for a change. I’m interested to see if Hughes can propose truly regional solutions to our problems instead of the usual Portland centric answers.
He’s done some very good things as Hillsboro mayor that brought good family wage jobs to Washington County. More SolarWorlds, Genentechs, and Intels will have a greater positive impact on the local economy than the “creative class” and small consultant stuff encouraged over the past decade.
Hughes was supported by the same corporate development lobbyists who backed Chris Dudley. That speaks volumes about the Hughes agenda. Bike fees and CRCs are not compatible with the values of our community, and Hughes better start learning that quick.
Hughes made a very interesting (and impromptu) comment at an event on CRC alternatives last night, expressing his doubt that the CRC can be built as proposed, and indicating openness toward other alternatives. So, while it’s good to be cautious, don’t lose hope yet about the CRC. See PortlandAfoot’s coverage of that event, hosted by Portland Monthly and the City Club, here: http://portlandafoot.org/2010/11/hughes-a-small-crc-is-better-than-no-crc/.
It’s true that Hughes had some of the same supporters as Dudley. But if you look at the numbers, it appears he also had a lot of the same supporters as Kitzhaber. Why do you think that is?
No, I spent a lot of time working on the Stacey campaign. But perhaps you were deriding the commenter above me.
I speak only for myself. The bike community did very little to help Bob Stacey as a whole. There were some individuals who helped.
32 News emails from the BTA to their 3,000 members in 2010. Approx 96,000 email messages. None mention the word “CRC” nor “election” other than one BTA board election note. The BTA could have easily sent email telling members that non profit status hinders the BTA, but urges people to find and volunteer for candidates in a make or break election for some huge freeway issues.
The BTA remains asleep at the wheel. They have the ability to say things within the laws of non profits. They elect to remain mostly silent, a few comments on a BTA blog nobody reads.
Gov. elect John will join the House and Senate in Salem: “The CRC is needed for jobs”
Look on the up side. The CRC will be so awesome for Bridge Pedal 2018. Interstate 5 can’t handle all those bikes in NE & North Portland, so the bikes will use the same neighborhood shortcuts as all the cars. Think of the funds the BTA can raise!
The BTA would have supported the Mt. Hood freeway if they could have added a bike lane. Thank goodness the BTA did not exist back then.
From the BTA:
“Both candidates have shown support for bicycling in the past. I call on the eventual winner – either Tom Hughes or Bob Stacey – to step up and continue to build a metropolitan area that embraces bicycling and healthy streets without creating disincentives to ride.”
Moving words, no way to deny it.
Words of a player. Trying to court two partners at the same time. Play both sides and sit on the fence. Those words prove the BTA is more spineless that I could describe. Full of Platitudes. “A claim that is trivially true, to the point of being uninteresting”
Stacey was endorsed by anti-mountainbike OregonWild, so I voted for Hughes. Yep, OregonWild was the group behind the Mt Hood Legacy Act, which closed 110+ miles to mountainbike usage: these are trails that had been ridden and maintained by bicyclists for over two decades. And why was a 501-c3 Non-Profit like OregonWild endorsing anyone? That’s against the rules.
Voting for Hughes out of spite for Oregon Wild is ridiculous!!! Hughes is not for bikes. He plans on urban sprawl and supports the CRC. If you are an avid Mt. biker i would have guessed these issues to be important to you.
I personally witnessed the way OregonWild representatives repeatedly lied and misrepresented information in their quest to CLOSE over 50% of the trails mountainbikers rode AND maintained for over two decades, so any elected official who aligns themselves with such a shifty group will never get my support. Losers hang with their own kind…….
WOW.
Did you vote for Hughes in the primary, too? Because OregonWild endorsed Burkholder in the primary.
So that one issue must be so important to you that you would vote against both of the guys in the race who ride bikes regularly and vote for the guy who has spent the last two years lobbying on behalf of developers.
Bob Stacey’s endorsement list is a who’s who of the anti-mountain bike crusade. You think there weren’t protest votes against those groups? It’s not too hard to believe that there were at least 500 of us. In this case, that would be enough to swing the election.
I still don’t see any evidence to support the alarmist rhetoric. You may be looking for the most anti-development candidate possible. I was not.
Ok, you voted for the enemy of your enemy, you just voted for Hughes, who ponders taxing bikes. Do you think that Hughes is more likely to support MTN bike trails?
Reduction of MTN bikes access is a bad thing, but don’t vote for freeway candidates to get even.
From the IRS:
“Lobbying The attempt to influence legislation for the purpose of proposing or advocating for or against the adoption of legislation. A 501(c)(3) can engage in some lobbying, as long as it is not a substantial part of the organization’s activities.”
http://www.stayexempt.org/ResourceLibrary/Glossary.aspx
It’s safe to say that the BTA has hog tied itself, using only a readerless BTA blog to mention issues. The BTA should be supporting more MTN bike trail access, not being silent on it.
Non profits can endorse candidates. The BTA is pretending they can’t. Why? So they can play both sides.
This is great for our region. Hughes was widely recognized around the area as one of the best mayors. He has the experience and credentials for bringing clean industry and jobs to our region. Stacey is just another one of those one dimensional oregon eco/green guys that is happy to send jobs overseas while throwing around words like “livability” and “sustainability”. To me having jobs in our region is at the core of livablity and Stacy has no record of bringing any during his very long career in politics.
Will President Hughes favor expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB) sooner and faster and spreading limited public infrastructure dollars to more car-dependent development on the edge? Probably… the first test will come next year when the Metro Council will vote on whether to expand the UGB. Hughes billed himself as favoring a “tight UGB,” but we will see. This is one of the important issues that was at stake in this election. No point in blaming each other. We need to do more to educate the public about the issues at stake.
I guess voting for what you thought were more mountain bike trails while instead getting 12 lanes of nightmare freeway was pretty smart. You sure showed us.
I think that the CRC is the biggest issue facing the viability of Portland as a livable city- that its completion would destroy the livability of many of the North and Northeast neighborhoods that would become the overflow valves for freeway traffic. I am pretty certain that me, and my income could be relocating out of Portland if this thing gets built. So for me being against the CRC is my litmus test for elected office. My only regret is that there was not a gubanitorial candidate with a real chance of winning who was against it.
I say this despite the fact that I would probably make a lot of money on the building of the CRC… so go figure.