Bernie Foster, the Publisher of The Skanner — Portland’s award-winning and self-described, “African American newspaper that keeps you up to date with everything going on in the black community” — has weighed in on the North Williams Avenue project.
In his editorial, Foster urges his readers to speak up on this and other transportation projects; but he also, in my opinion, unfairly criticizes PBOT and BikePortland in a way that hinders community relations.
Foster gave credit to a group of citizen activists (“a tight-knit cadre of moms and grandmothers”) who urged PBOT to slow down the project and consider the opinions of more Black residents. He said “concerns over the racial impact” of the project effectively, “slowed down the steamroller on PBOT’s already-written blueprint for North Williams.*”
It’s important to note that PBOT has not made any final decisions on the project. They have presented a list of potential options, all of which have been vetted by both a citizen-led Stakeholder Advisory Committee and a public open house. Could they have broadened the outreach process to include a larger — and more diverse — sampling of residents? Of course. In fact, adding new members to the SAC is on the next meeting agenda. However, I feel it’s unfair and inaccurate to say that PBOT has “steamrolled” anything on this project.
While I disagree with the “streamroller” comment, I was glad to read that Foster congratulated PBOT staff for hitting pause on the project to listen to “the injustices of past generations,” that have been brought up by concerned residents:
“Between them this newly-emerging community of stakeholders have widened the issues on the table and slowed down the process so that, in fact, all those impacted by it can be heard – and that’s the way it’s supposed to work.”
It also turns out that Mr. Foster has read the comments on BikePortland.
“Unfortunately, elements of Portland’s bike community immediately erupted in a flood of criticism against the Black community in general and the women attending the planning meetings in particular.
Hundreds of posts on the city’s popular bicycling blog reflect the emotionally-charged debate about bikes vs. Blacks on North Williams, some viciously – and personally — attacking the women for daring to challenge the bike plan.”
It’s unfortunate that Foster didn’t share with his readers that many comments that have expressed support for the racial and gentrification concerns brought up during this process. I’m afraid his editorial will be read by people who haven’t read my coverage and the comments who will come to the conclusion that BikePortland is leading this “flood of criticism” at Black residents and is taking a side in the “bikes vs. Blacks” conversation.
As I hope many of you know, that could not be further from the truth.
As Lee Moore said at the meeting this week, talking about race and diversity is “messy.” I think people from all perspectives deserve a place where they can share their thoughts. While some people have left comments that disagree strongly with some Williams residents, I am not aware of any “vicious” or “personal attacks” in the comments.
In my opinion, Foster’s editorial paints an false picture of the dialogue that has taken place on this site. And by doing so, he is actually hampering race relations and furthering the divisiveness he himself speaks against.
Foster also feels that North Williams corridor has a people problem more than a transportation problem. I’d say it has a people problem and a transportation problem. The street is broken and it does not provide adequate or safe access for all modes. We must tackle both problems or neither of them will be solved.
One key message in Foster’s editorial is important; he urges his readers to get involved with transportation projects and gives them the sage advice of “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” I couldn’t agree more.
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.
You wouldn’t call phrases like “angry females with historical hangups” degrading and insulting and personal?
Thanks for pointing that comment out Esther. I’m taking a look at it now and will consider deleting it.
Please keep in mind that I weigh all comments for context and I do not have a hard/fast rule for what stays and what goes. If that comment mentioned a specific person’s name it would have been deleted immediately… But I feel it is important for people — even those who aren’t as tactful as I/we would like — to express themselves. I try to let a wide range of opinion be expressed and it’s a constant battle to moderate that in a way that doesn’t offend someone.
Again, my concern with Foster’s editorial is that by only mentioning what he thinks are offensive comments, he paints an incomplete picture of the discussion on this site.
Thanks.
UPDATE: I have deleted that comment. Thanks again for pointing it out.
It’s been my experience that females, more so than males by a wide margin, cling to the past and never let males forget mistakes any chance they get. I grew up with a lot of female relatives — duplicitous asian ones, if that explains it. The meeting reminded me of past family situations. Race doesn’t matter. I love my mom but she’s nuts.
I would warn against retroactively editing the past…
Or, how about: “hey look, thats sad; but that isn’t why we’re here, so unless you have an opinion about whether or not we should build this, kindly shut up.” ?
I’m not going to participate in a forum where the moderator deletes comments. I can see deleting ones full of curse words, foul language, threats and unconstructive belligerence but I take issue with removing comments just because some of the readers may not like what others have to say.
+1 I completely agree with this.
The thing that bothers me about the whole process is that street design and safety issues are not race issues and trying to insert race into the process is by definition racist. The process should be entirely blind to race. We are people. We are Oregonians.
Amen.
i disagree. this neighborhood has been targeted by a massive influx of subsidized development. a fancy new bike facility is a realtor and developer wet dream.
and the safety issue is overblown. cyclists can wait, take the lane, or — quelle horreur — ride rodney. heck, even ne 7th is a fine road with low traffic and gentle elevation gains. in fact, one wonders why ne 7th not considered for improvement…
given the history of this neighborhood i am just not willing to support a more radical treatment (especially since i’m not at all happy with the cully or psu cycle tracks).
This is not true. Massive influx of subsidized development? There’s very little, if any, subsidized development in this corridor. The only subsidies are for affordable housing, which has attempted to keep the community intact. All the “gentrification” happening is the result of a free, market-driven process. Unless the City intends to prevent wealthy people from moving into cheap homes and investing in their properties, then this trend will continue.
While government of the last century tended to direct megaprojects in the path of least resistance, I don’t believe that had any impact on gentrification of this neighborhood. Quite the opposite. Consider the Mt. Hood freeway proposal that was defeated. That area was similarly harmed by ODOT’s property acquisition process (lots of homes were acquired in advance), but because the project never got built, it gentrified even quicker than NoPo. While the community was irreparably damaged, construction of I-5, the hospital, the coliseum, or sports arena didn’t cause gentrification.
Sigh…
Ever heard of the PDC, Joe? And as for the glorious and noble job creating rich, I suggest you take another quick look at the smoking crater of our economy.
+1
A down to earth solution to what is really a non-issue! Portland’s bicycle community may actually start leaving it’s sense of entitlement at the door. Plenty of fine cycling to be had without the overblown and irrational fears of ‘safety’.
“targeted” because of economic development (corporate welfare) supported no doubt by leaders in the black community.
vague false equivalency = fail
Probably because NE 7th does not connect over I-84? It’s also significantly more sloped than Williams, even though it’s better than (say) NE 18th.
Sorry, Greg, but the privilege of assuming that any question of city infrastructure can be “race blind” is a symptom of your own white privilege. Infrastructure has historically functioned as a tool for enforcing class and race hierarchies in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The language of race-blindness is only a way of enforcing our new caste system. On problems with colorblindness, see Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness. To pick at random one of the many works that address the relationships between race and urban infrastructure, see the chapter Urban infrastructure: social environmental, and health risks to African Americans in the book Handbook of Black American health: the mosaic of conditions, issues. Educate yourself! Willful ignorance in the service of perpetuating class and race privilege gets tiresome.
This is ridiculous. Bicyclists are not the ones injecting race into this debate. Safer streets benefit everyone, regardless of skin color.
I don’t think it is necessarily ridiculous to acquire a sensitivity to the past when projects led by the same agencies (the City) and with perhaps well-meant intentions went awry or led to very unfortunate outcomes, or failed to take account of the people who lived in the affected neighborhoods. Others have said it very well in comments here: if you’ve had bad experiences with the City in this part of town, you’re not automatically going to put all that aside and sing Kumbaya just because bikes may seem to us less threatening than a freeway. I know I wouldn’t.
jonathan says: “could they have broadened the outreach process to include a larger — and more diverse — sampling of residents? of course.”
not so fast. i do not think we should yield this point so offhandedly. here is the SAC roster:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53905&a=340674
leopold hutchins, who is about to be appointed chair of the SAC (by whom?) has been on since day one. jerrell waddell, day one. the neighborhood associations, the businesses, individual neighbors, from day one. michelle poyourow and ellen vanderslice knocking on doors, meeting separately with business owners and church groups, etc.
also, and this is a point that is often missed, they have tried to make a point –again, from day one — to characterize this as a traffic safety project, not as a bike infrastructure project. yes, there have been missteps in the rollout, where the emphasis has been on bikes, but as anyone who has been to these meetings can confirm, this is one of those rare cases in which PBoT did not come to the table with plans already in their pocket. they came to listen. anyone who feels left out is someone who did not bother to show up.
one again, i call on donna maxey to state specifically who at PBoT answered her request to participate in the discussion with “arrogance and rudeness.” whom did she ask what when, and what did they say.
i actually do understand that the white power structure has historically framed the public policy agenda, and continues to do so, without any regard for the day to day realities of anyone outside that structure. i do. and i understand that there have been needs in boise eliot, etc. that have not been met for fifty or a hundred years. where was the pushback when a bunch of white investors started developing williams north of fremont? the bike lane is a very late symptom of something that has been going on there for a long time.
are,
Thanks for that.
I’m not yielding that point. My “of course” comment was simply to share that anyone holding a public process can always do more and try to hear more voices.
But again, what you and I might feel was an adequate and diverse stakeholder outreach process, others might disagree. And they have a right to disagree and to share that feeling with PBOT, which they have done in this case.
Thanks.
Jonathan, you might consider submitting this article or a letter similar in content as a Letter to the Editor of the Skanner. Certainly pointing out what you have here is simply doing it to the echo chamber and not reaching the people you are concerned will jump to conclusions about Bike Portland’s role in all of this.
N Williams is a street I take only a few times a year, but because I follow this blog daily, I was extra observant on our ride up to NE Alberta St last night. I’m used to crowded conditions riding with groups, but the “squish” feeling was just insane on N Williams. I was really uncomfortable and scared for myself and my riding partner. We’re fast, but that doesn’t help. With the possibility of getting doored, sideswiped, or entangled with another bike I was really, really happy when we cut right onto easy breezy Going Ave. When N Williams is crowded, it’s hell. It NEEDS improvement so badly.
I ride Williams almost every day, and haven’t ever felt unsafe. I feel like the constant stream of comments rallying for change on Williams in the name of safety are overblown. Seriously, I rode Williams yesterday and paid particular attention and thought that the bike traffic on the Hawthorne bridge when I used to commute across the river was much worse.
yeah…the hawthorne bridge is a far bigger mess than williams.
what makes williams safe for the experienced bike commuter is his or her willingness to assert the travel lane, disregarding the existing lane striping, at least through the commercial district.
There is a reason the bike lane was installed on N Williams – to separate bikes from cars. When cars and bikes come together, no one wins, but bike riders definitely lose.
TriMet buses often have to cross into the bike lane and stop for a few moments to unload passengers. Instead of waiting behind the bus, I have seen impatient bikers veer all the way into the left lane of N Williams into the path of fast-moving cars, or worse, ride up onto the sidewalk, directly into the path of the bus passengers who are getting off.
I do believe N Williams can work for the majority of people who use it. I favor the left-side bike track to minimize conflicts between buses and bikes, though it means sacrificing a significant amount of street parking, and improving crosswalks at strategic points along N Williams, especially at the restaurants and commercial areas near N Failing and other intersections with high foot, wheelchair and bike traffic.
Until these improvements are implemented, however, bike commuters on N Williams need to display patience and understanding as they interact with other modes of transportation. Now more than ever, bikers need to focus on fostering positive relationships and public image. Yelling and making obscene gestures at bus drivers and pedestrians does a disservice to bikers’ rights everywhere. You never know, a 4-year-old just might be watching you from the bus window…
Have you ridden on the new Hawthorne St. bike lane? Thats what you guys need – an extra-wide bike lane.
While I don’t live in NE, I think that bike lanes should be appropriately-sized, no matter where they are. And yes, the comm. needs to be appropriately engaged when making changes to their street layout.
Hawthorne doesn’t have extra-wide bike lanes (in fact, westbound at the intersection with the ramp for the Katz Esplanade is substandard in width despite the fact that it gets more traffic and pedestrians can more easily squeeze). The only especially unique feature I can think of is that westbound Hawthorne has two bicycle lanes going up the steep part (though it gets enough traffic both bicycle lanes ought to go all the way across in both directions, with “KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS” signs).
Like it or not, you and BikePortland.org have become the most recognized voice of Portland’s bike community. Thanks to this blog, your readiness to emote on bike matters in the mainstream media, and your numerous radio spots, you will be both hero and target depending on how people feel about bike issues.
Because of this, any strong opinion posted in the comments are also, for most outside observers, the opinion of BikePortland. You have come a long way in six years and now you have to factor that into your reporting, opinion writing, public appearances, and site content. Fair or not, it is what it is.
I have to agree with Brad here, Jonathan. You went on Think Out Load and represented yourself as the Editor of BikePortland.org, and you spoke very much in favor of these changes to Williams. So, I can understand why the Skanner may look at you as a target.
I think you have done a great job with this site, but it may be time to realize that the “I’m just a blogger” no longer applies to you and this site. When you are invited on radio shows, the local news wants to interview you, or when your website is cited in bigger publications, it means that Bike Portland is part of the mainstream.
Mindful Cyclist,
I didn’t “go on Think Out Loud” representing myself as anything. They asked me to be on the show and they introduced me as Publisher/editor of this site.
Where is it written that I can’t both publish a website and speak freely about an issue.
i’m not hiding the fact that I have an opinion when I speak on a show like that. The whole idea of the show was for me to represent my opinion! They didn’t come on and ask for my news analysis (which I would have been happy to give them).
I’m not sure what your last point is. I absolutely don’t consider myself as “just a blogger”. I recognize the responsibility of leadership and I know full well what that means and how it should inform my actions.
I’m a publisher, I’m an activist, I’m a blogger, I’m a dad, I’m etc etc etc…
thanks.
Jonathan,
Sorry if you took my post to be critical. It was not meant to be as I was mostly agreeing with Brad.
I think we are splitting hairs here when it comes to the “Think Out Loud” show. You state you were introduced as the publisher as opposed to introducing yourself. There is a difference, I agree, but the end result is still the same. You are the publisher of the website and you were very much in favor of these improvements.
And, you are aware that you carry a lot of weight about issues related to transportation in the area. In the past, I always had a sense you did not. So, if you are aware of it now, then I take my back my “just a blogger” comment.
Brad makes a fair point – to a point. I think there’s only so much message control Jonathan wants to or can or should exercise over his readership. If folks who feel strongly about an issue are unable to distinguish Jonathan’s almost always very thoughtfully worded positions from some of the comments, then I think the burden falls on the offended reader. But it’s not going to work perfectly.
Brad,
you are not telling me anything I’m not already aware of… but I think it shows very little media literacy if people think that comments on a site are somehow representative of the publisher’s views of a site.
The comments here represent the people who left them and they represent, “comments on bikeportland”… IMO, it’s a mistake to take a few comments and then use a broad brush to paint the entire site with the opinions expressed in them.
and I’m happy to be the target and I willingly put myself out in the public because I welcome debate and I welcome people trying to persuade me to see other viewpoint and challenge the ones I have.. .. So I’m not really clear on the point of your comment.
thanks.
“It’s unfortunate that Foster didn’t share with his readers that many comments that have expressed support for the racial and gentrification concerns brought up during this process.” J. Maus
If I can speak to that as someone that considers himself a minority (white male, but openly gay). I will tend to notice comments that are mean, degrading, or totally ignorant more than I will one that is supportive. I am not talking BikePortland in particular. I am talking about Oregon live, the newpaper from my hometown, etc.
I guess I have the expectation that it is 2011 and people should not be like that. But, there are throwbacks out there that will continue to believe that I must have AIDS and that I want to be a woman or that I am a pedophile. Sure, we get the “to each his own” and “it’s none of my business” comments, but the former tend to sting a bit more. Wouldn’t you agree?
There were comments on this site discussing this issue that were mean, degrading and based on ignorance. Looking at them, I can understand why an African-American would look at the comments and have the more negative ones jump out.
In all fairness, however, you do a good job of moderating the comments on this site.
The mean people posting on oregonlive probably aren’t even from from Portland or even the NW part of the state, or even Oregon.
So Bike Portland’s comments section is taken out of context by an editorial in The Scanner.
Would this be the equivalent of Bike Portland calling out the comments section of the Oregonian website?
Seems you’re hoisted on your own petard on this one.
please provide an example where I’ve pulled Oregonlive comments out? When I’ve referred to them in the past it was to show the negative impacts of poor reporting.
Perhaps what Meh’s referring to is that you’ve claimed in the past that the vitriolic comments on the Oregonian’s website have been due to the way the Oregonian wrote their articles. For instance:
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/17/the-oregonian-strikes-again-and-its-not-just-about-the-numbers-53106
“Not surprisingly, the article has spurred hundreds of comments, many of them by angry Portlanders who don’t like the idea of any spending that benefits bicycling and who feel Adams’ priorities are not in the right place.
Seem like a déjà vu? Unfortunately, it’s not out of character for him or for The Oregonian to frame a bike news story in a way that makes readers take sides.”
So maybe what he’s saying is that something about the way you presented your opinion could have spurred all of the incredibly insensitive commentary?
Yes cyclist has it. Tone is everything as well as audience.
You pander to your audience, The Scanner Panders to theirs as does the Oregonian.
Claiming the Oregonian has bad reporting because they have an editorial view point just seems hypocritical. You’ve been called out on your editorial viewpoint and audience being of a singular focus and not being sensitive to others, the same thing you claim of the Oregonian.
But if we all had the same viewpoint we wouldnt’ need Bike Portland, The Scanner and The Oregonian.
That being said, you can’t expect to live without criticism when you write about situations from that one singular viewpoint.
I’m surprised The Oregonian can even hear us, given that they’re all the way in New York City.
For the record (and as someone who reads BikePortland more often than The Skanner but is a fan of both) I’m glad Jonathan has tackled this head-on, including his allowing a few of what I’d describe as moderately offensive comments to be posted. I’m a little scared to see the comments he must have nuked in the last week.
Seems to me that Jonathan has a pretty sophisticated sense of balance among the multiple roles he mentions above. I appreciate his transparency about his own opinions, though I occasionally disagree with them. (I’ve known a lot of journalists, and it’s the ones *without* opinions that you have to be scared of … all they care about is their own success. Jonathan is very much not in this group.)
I don’t know Bernie’s work well enough to react to Jonathan’s hard-nosed accusation above. But I do think it’s an interesting downside of this new media environment: two niche publishers can be widely respected by their own audiences but largely unaware of the nuances of each others’ publications.
It also seems to me, based on these two pieces, that Bernie may have taken less time to respect Jonathan’s work than Jonathan has taken to respect Bernie’s.
I would say that a small fraction of the comments have been disrespectful. Those that were have been on both sides the debate. I recall just as many comments implying or calling posters racist, ignorant or elitist if they didn’t agree that race and gentrification should be an integral part of the Williams discussion. I don’t think anybody gets to claim the moral high ground.
I have a much different view of nature of the comments than Mr. Foster, but I am also not a publisher trying to sell newspapers. Overall, I think folks have done a pretty good job of listening and presenting their views in a non-adversarial way, and that includes the post by Donna Maxey. Whatever ends up happening with the Williams project, I find that most people can agree to disagree without acrimony if they feel like they’ve been heard and treated with respect by the other side in a debate.
Also, anyone who would characterize the Williams projects as “bikes v. Blacks” seems to me to be more interested in stoking controversey than furthering productive discussion on a community issue
It’s people v. people, and that comment itself reads to me to be denigrating to black cyclists – but then again I’m not one so my opinion doesn’t matter.
Bernie, by birthright I can’t walk a mile in a black man’s shoes, but if you haven’t already done so maybe you’d do well to mount a bicycle and ride down N Williams for yourself. What harm could it do?
I totally agree. That reeks of sensationalism like Faux News.
Why is a bike lane considered gentrification? Is the goal here to keep the area black? If improving bike safety is too white then leave it alone. Good God this is getting to be a bit too much.
“Is the goal here to keep the area black?” – Heck NO! That would be racist. And I think we should keep it straight, apparently it’s Blacks v. bikes, not the other way around.
Cyclists are just another group people feel free to hate.
Sounds like BikePortland needs people like me just to avoid looking like the lunatic fringe.
Foster wants it both ways. If you speak your mind about the issues honestly and forthrightly, your criticism is “vicious.” But if you dance around the race issue and try to make it about the street, you’re “insensitive” or “afraid” to discuss the real issue.
I’d like to think that guys like Foster — people who are legitimately interested in moving forward in life and in building a better community together — would eventually realize that playing the race card simply marginalizes the player and makes the situation worse for everyone. Or maybe Foster is like some other people in the Black community (and every “community,” including the “bike community”) in that he is so bitter that he is simply working from spite and is unable to engage constructively.
Either way, many Black folks in Portland clearly feel a lingering sense of injustice. And that ‘s something that needs to be addressed by everyone in Portland. So does the safety of Williams. I’m still not sure both conversations belong in the same meeting.
The Skanner editorial has a total of 3 comments. Does anyone read his stuff?
Jonathan, I hope you send your response to the Skanner, as written above, to the newspaper to be published. Your comments deserve to reach that community too.
He won’t send a response to them. They might Delete his comments.
Don’t worry, kids. Soon all the black people will be gone and you can enjoy your yuppie wonderland guilt-free. Just wait it out.