Sarah Iannarone made it official today: She wants to be mayor of Portland.
(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)
In a campaign video posted to Sarah2020.com that directly calls out current Mayor Ted Wheeler for his inability to make good on his “rhetoric of progressivism”, the 46-year-old Iannarone listed “climate change”, “housing affordability”, and “staggering inequality” as her top priorities.
Many BikePortlanders are familiar with Iannarone. She and her e-bike (her primary vehicle) have been a fixture at community events as both an activist and volunteer and she’s an outspoken advocate for safe streets. Among the many advocacy roles she fills, Iannarone is a member of the Portland Bureau of Transportation Bicycle Advisory Committee and the PBOT Bureau Budget Advisory Committee. She was formerly associate director of First Stop Portland, a Portland State University-based program that offered study tours to elected officials and other leaders.
In 2017 Iannarone wrote a guest article on BikePortland that remembered the leadership lessons of the late Portland Mayor Vera Katz. Her three takeaways from Katz’s career were: “Urbanism is a practice not a vision; Leadership requires chutzpah; Lead like a mother.”
In our in-depth interview during her 2016 mayoral campaign (where she finished third with 12% of the vote) we asked what she thought of city subsidies for parking garages. Iannarone said Portland needs to be more direct in, “… stating the intention that we’re going to stop subsidizing the automobile. Because it doesn’t meet any of our goals. It doesn’t meet our equity goals, it doesn’t meet our economic goals, it doesn’t mean our environmental goals.”
Advertisement
Here’s a blurb from her campaign website:
“Portland is changing and we need a city that works for the majority of us, yes, but more importantly, we need a city that can adapt quickly while ensuring safety for those most at risk. A city rigged to work for the most privileged is not resilient, sustainable, or prosperous.
I believe Portlanders have everything we need to make radical progress TODAY on emergencies like climate chaos, housing affordability, and staggering inequality. We can harness our resources, empower our people, and organize our communities into a formidable force for change, but we need leadership that believes in us.”
Despite her clear political intentions over the past four years, Iannarone hasn’t dialed back her rhetoric. She’s taken bold positions on social media on everything from the I-5 freeway (she vehemently opposes expansion of it and wants to remove from the central eastside completely) to the controversial downtown protests between right and left-wing agitators.
Iannarone is running under the auspices of Portland’s Open and Accountable Elections program. That means campaign contributions will be limited to $250 and in exchange she’ll receive a 6-to-1 match for the first $50 of each contribution. To qualify for the program Iannarone will have to raise at least $5,000 from 500 Portland residents.
Iannarone’s campaign also filed their Notice of Intent to participate in the City of Portland’s newly established Open and Accountable Elections program. “I want to be accountable to every community member from Portsmouth to Powellhurst-Gilbert, Montavilla to Multnomah Village,” said Iannarone. “Instead of letting our agenda be set by wealthy, entrenched corporate interests, we’ll be participating in the city’s innovative new campaign finance program to ensure we hear from everyday Portlanders across the city, not just those who can buy access to City Hall with big checks.” In exchange for limiting contributions to $250, the campaign will receive a 6-to-1 match for the first $50 of each contribution. To qualify, Iannarone must raise at least $5,000 from 500 Portlanders.
Read more about Iannarone’s big announcement in the Willamette Week.
In related news, well-known City Hall staffer and current director of Latino Network, Carmen Rubio, has announced her intention to run for Portland City Council.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
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.
Has she ever discussed public transit? Because I would LOVE to be less reliant on my car than I am today, but cannot because my neighborhood less than three miles from downtown is woefully underserved by TriMet. My ideal mayor is somebody who is prepared to make big investments into public transport, and who will work with TriMet to increase reliability, frequency, and connectivity around the region.
You’re on a bike blog, and three miles is an easy commute. Why don’t you ride?
If you want a signal of her values, count the number of shots of the bus or MAX in her announcement video.
She’s a frequent transit user and regularly discusses issues with it. For example, advocating for dedicated bus lanes and expanding transit service.
Yes
Absolutely, she not only supports but rides transit. I’ve chatted with her on the #16.
Sarah shows up. She isn’t in the halls of power, soliciting chits. She’s outside listening to and fighting with with the people who desperately need help from our City government. That’s a sea change from Ted Wheeler.
Some people will support her and some undoubtedly won’t, but her engagement in this race will ensure that issues of inequality and access are on the table in 2020. Good for her.
Oh this fills me with joy. And actual hope.
Good for her… I hope some more also jump into the race.
Do nothing Wheeler will be easy to defeat if he runs (I doubt it, if he does any polling).
This city has a lot of issues that need addressing, Wheeler has basically turned over the government in Portland to the developers who are popping up all the expensive Soviet era architectural boxes all over town….
He has completely punted on the homeless issue.
Her article about Katz was superb.. the last mayor with any vision we have had in Portland.
If she runs on that she has my vote.
Seriously, give her the job now. What have we got to lose? Wheeler has left his post. The city is being rampaged by developers and slipping into a death spiral with the homeless problem which seems to be getting worse everyday. What on earth has he done that would warrant awarding him a second term as mayor? I don’t think Portland can survive it.
She’s an ANTIFA supporter. That is enough for me to say no.
Sorry to hear she aligns herself with those thugs. The search for a mayor continues.
I am a community organizer who condemns violence. I have always focused on peaceful people power. However, at this critical time in history, when there are children in concentration camps at the border and our president is cavorting with dictators, I believe every one of us should be using whatever we privilege we have to stand against hate and oppression in all its forms. I aspire to be like Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson, who doesn’t believe that opposing fascism should be controversial. He stood beside his people in the streets when the right-wing agitators came to his town and showed them they were not welcome there. To quote Mayor Anderson, “I want to be peaceful, but I want people to be out on the streets saying [fascism is] not welcome in our city… Some people on Twitter have said to me: ‘What about free speech?’ Well, that comes with a responsibility not to espouse hate.”
Then explain this:
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/01/portland_activist_finds_himsel.html
Yes, in so far as she speaks out against far-right, out-of-state, violent groups like Patriot Prayer, believes in things like global warming and smarter transportation options. Doesn’t sound too bad to me. I wouldn’t write her off for supporting the less violent side of the antifa/Trump coin.
Because the area of Portland I live in (southwest) is extremely unfriendly to bikes, and there is no good way from my house to my work. Believe me, I wish they would improve it, but thus far I’ve seen nothing from PBOT indicating that this region is a priority to them.
Whoops, that was meant to be a reply to Jason above. First-time commenter so still figuring out site.
SW is also hard to serve by transit, because of the low density, the topography, and the convoluted street layout. Bus lines typically run on the major collectors only. Serving the minor streets would be very slow, and in many cases would require shorter busses.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. It’s also much easier to find the will with an e-bike, and sometimes you need to find a way to deal with one or two streets. The vast majority of drivers in SW give you plenty of space. But yes, many of these streets are very narrow with no sidewalks and need to have the speeds reduced significantly and be closed to cut-through traffic.
She should be careful, she might get what she’s asking for. I wouldn’t be surprised if Wheeler shows up at her door tomorrow, gives her the key to his office, and abdicates.
OK, how do I get money to her campaign?
sarah2020.com There’s a donate button at the bottom of the page!
Thank you – done.
I voted for her last time. She is amazing and I’d love to vote for her again (And volunteer for her campaign.) I sometimes imagine what would have happened in Portland and in the US if the last election would have turned out differently.
She could punt babies into the Willamette and I would still vote for her over wheeler.
Soooo, I like Sarah. I think her policy stances are great and that she honestly believes what she espouses. However, the intentional spread of misinformation that has been used to scare vulnerable people away from their sole form of transportation is a HARMFUL practice.
https://twitter.com/sarahforpdx/status/1127132241837023234?lang=en
It was later found that the ICE agents she’s referring to are simply fare inspectors. A vulnerable person saw their new blue uniforms and tweeted misinformation that stemmed from reasonable fear. What is not reasonable is someone with a platform, like Sarah, echoing these sentiments and adding fuel to a falsified fire. Sarah is not in a vulnerable position where she didn’t have time or resources to fact-check, nor did she take the time to clarify this after the truth surfaced. The tweet remains online and is still scaring vulnerable people away. This lack of accountability is what will sink her chances at this office.
Upon reading this again today, I want to clarify that I am offering this critique in hopes of strengthening her campaign. I find her behavior in this instance to be problematic, but I still believe she will likely be the candidate who most closely mirrors my own values, particularly around transportation issues. So though I do THINK that this type of knee-jerk rhetoric (without revision) will ultimately cost her the election, I HOPE that we will have a Mayor Iannarone in 2020.
I tried calling her on this via twitter, and she promptly blocked me instead of correcting her misinformation. That’s true leadership.
Yeah I was initially excited, but lots of red flags with her.
In response to your criticism of my Tweet re ICE on transit, I posted in quotes with this caveat, “(RTing w/o verification. If it’s false, please forgive me but better safe than sorry. Also we need to ban ICE from our public transit. @trimethelp can you please comment? )” https://twitter.com/sarahforpdx/status/1127132242747088896
It took several days for Trimet to respond and the original report came to me from multiple trusted sources. I spoke by phone with one person who reported it and the situation was clearly confusing and it was plausible it was ICE. I alerted local media to the situation who submitted PRRs for the video footage for the station as did the person with whom I spoke. As far as I know, that video has not been forthcoming. In other words, I was not just popping off and I did due diligence in that case.
I was clear in stating that this was an unconfirmed warning; to this day, I have had not seen proof that it was not ICE there at that time. Given the number of undocumented transit riders in Washington County and my commitment to Sanctuary City, I stand by my decision; otherwise, I would have removed the Tweet and offered an apology because I am known for admitting when I am wrong and learning from the situation.
I generally only block people when they are spewing anger or hate at me or others. If you feel I did this unfairly, please email me screencaps of our conversation and I’m happy to reconsider: sarah@sarah2020.com
I look forward to earning your vote in 2020,
Sarah
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/01/portland_activist_finds_himsel.html
“…I have had not seen proof that it was not ICE there at that time…” are you asking us to believe you were seeking to prove a negative?!? If you have had not seen proof that it was not ICE there at that time, have seen proof that it was ICE there at that time?!? I question whether you are better or worse than Wheeler!
I have been waiting for this announcement. Sarah has been preparing for this run since her last campaign. It was a pleasure working on her last campaign and I would encourage anyone who wants to help to contact her!
Portland voters have been duped twice by mild mannered, bureaucrats who run on progressive values, but fail to accomplish anything or respond meningfully when they are elected mayor. Hopefully, this or worse won’t happen a third time. Sarah has been deeply engaged in Portland mayoral politics and policy for a long time without becoming complacent. If anyone understands how to use the “weak mayor” system for the benefit of Portlanders, it’s her.
Third time is a charm?
Please – the current city government can be called nothing but progressive – even if it isn’t progressive enough for some of you. This woman is even to the left of that group. There’s no way a major city should be run by such a fringe candidate.
“Despite her clear political intentions over the past four years, Iannarone hasn’t dialed back her rhetoric.”
This is kind of a sad sentence. Not picking on you, Jonathan – if anything you’ve correctly absorbed one of the lessons of our time: that most people with mainstream political ambitions eventually tend to start methodically eliminating one-by-one every single thing they used to stand for, and replacing them with banal & meaningless platitudes guaranteed to do no harm to the status quo. Which is good because the rich donors they need on their side in order to get media access and climb past a certain level, are the beneficiaries and protectors of that status quo.
But of course the other lesson of our times is that if the hundreds of millions of not-rich among us actually wanted the above situation, then how could a Trump type figure ever get so far? No smoothing-of-the-rough-edges going on there. It proves that, to the extent that voting is still a thing, populism is still a viable strategy. Maybe the only strategy at this point. So why not fight populism, with populism? There are plenty of “ordinary” people concerned about climate change, for example, just aching for someone to actually represent them for once, and come up with some kind of plan.
Lefties, how about landing a punch occasionally? It’s a battle. Not the time to be anodyne. You can work a debate with a climate populism slant. For example I’ll call this character Climate Trump:
Whichever Media Talking Head: “Your rebuttal, Senator?”
Climate Trump: “Well I hope you like 120-degree heat then. Vote for him and that’s what you’re gonna get. Say goodbye to Grandma now, because she’s not gonna make it. Get ready to sell the family farm. Go visit Miami now before it goes underwater for good.” etc. etc.
Get the idea? That’s how it’s done. “Oh how gauche,” right? How coarse. If that’s how you think, you’re too polite, out of touch with most people, and terrible at populism.
Is she ready for the rowdie city hall meetings?
So she has attacked Ted Wheeler in all kinds of issues and hasn’t offered a single solid plan of what she would do differently. She also has a history is scaring minority communities by putting out misinformation: https://twitter.com/sarahforpdx/status/1127132241837023234?lang=en
She also seems ok with antifa violence but against right wing violence when we should be against both. This concerns me as she appears to be all about partisan politics and she may close the door on people who don’t agree with her or subscribe to her politics.
Heavens knows, we need someone better than Mayor Ted Wheeler. He seems entirely unable to run anything, let alone the City of Portland.
But I worry about challengers who are complete ideologues. When someone claims to be “progressive” or “conservative,” do they have ANY capability of thinking outside of the box they have locked themselves within? Perhaps the solution to many of our problems is not more fanaticism but more practicality? Do we really want to live in a world that only tolerates the most extreme ideas and people. Or would we be better off getting along with all, respecting a spectrum of ideas, and completely stopping the race-baiting?
Also, how about showing some respect for knowledge and science! When someone centers their political ambitions around “climate change,” you have to suspect that they probably know nothing about science, and worse have no respect for it. Our climate has always been changing for perfectly natural reasons and any arguments to the contrary need some ability to sort fact from fiction. A little education in the sciences obviously helps, as does a realization that science is very far from a political or religious exercise.
When a candidate runs on a very few slogans and key words such as “environmental goals” “resilient, sustainable, or prosperous,” you have to suspect that they have absolutely no concept of how to achieve them. Are windmills that kill vast numbers of birds and bats and destroy scenic vistas a reasonable source of renewable energy, especially when they need inefficient backup from fossil fuels?
Are any popular ‘solutions’ to perceived problems real ‘sustainable’ solutions if not solidly backed by science and engineering as opposed to politics? Of course not.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
BTW, repeating the old falsehood about windmills is a nice touch.. Do you think we are idiots on this site?
Dear dwk,
I think that you prove your point ***portion of comment deleted by moderator***! Windmills, or whatever you want to call them, have serious environmental problems that are typically denied by those who are on a political mission, not an environmental one.
Industrializing the last open spaces and scenic vistas in Oregon is criminal. And of course killing vast numbers of birds and bats is criminal too!
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Dr. Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (throwing academic titles around is often an argument to authority)
Given that you are using a logical fallacy (“argument from incredulity”) to dispute an immense body of work that has resulted in a transparent and peer-reviewed international consensus, I suggest you immediately read through the fifth IPCC assessment report and the recent 1.5 °C special report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Both reports have extensive citation lists with many peer-reviewed reviews. These would be a good start for you to educate yourself on this topic.
We all get a little rusty outside our area of narrow expertise so might I also suggest some refresher courses:
Portland State University
PH 571: Atmospheric Physics
PH 679: Advanced Atmospheric Physics
Soren Impey
Dear Soren:
You are correct to invoke Aristotle’s logical fallacies, even if you do not understand them correctly.
For instance, arguing from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) that the political UN IPCC is correct is a common logical fallacy. Merely because a group or individual has a reputation that it may or may not deserve does not say it is correct. On the other hand, it is not a logical fallacy to show that someone has the necessary background and education to understand a subject, especially when so many claim expertise that they do not have. This does not mean that those of us with PhDs in Physics are correct, only that we likely have something intelligent to say and probably have kept up on the literature.
You want to invoke argumentum ad ignorantiam, but do so incorrectly. The fact that we cannot pin down the cause of the global warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age does not mean that you can arbitrarily assign a reason (human emissions of carbon dioxide).
Perhaps the worst logical fallacy of them all in this context is argumentum ad populum or headcount fallacy. You want us to believe that science, like politics, is determined by a vote. That is COMPLETELY WRONG. Science is determined by logic and evidence only. When a book was published “One Hundred against Einstein,” he famously replied “Why 100? One man can prove me wrong!”
Here are several recently published papers that you should consider. Remember that it only takes one paper to prove all the previous papers on a subject wrong!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787?via%3Dihub
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
The last of these papers shows why human emissions are so inconsequential to the overall carbon cycle. I reviewed that paper for the author and found it very solid. You might also want to listen to the lectures of Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Murry Salby. They are excellent and available online.
No one at Portland State University has this level of expertise. All I have met are thoroughly political and do not even understand elementary physical concepts.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Thanks for weighing in Gordon.. You have mistaken this forum for one where you think you can spread your famous climate change denial spiel…
The host may not be familiar with your work or the reason you were let go by OSU, but it is a free country to spread disinformation in as the current WH occupant knows. I am sure you are a big fan.
Did you send this to the wrong site?
Dear dwk,
Yes, I am an astrophysicist, like the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen. He and I have talked and find we agree on many things, not to include carbon dioxide. I never got a chance to talk with the former President of the US National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone, before he passed away recently. But I am in full agreement with his comment about a climate catastrophe: “We don’t have that kind of evidence.” Cicerone was one of the most prominent warmers. We disagreed over the amount of warming to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. That answer depends on feedback from water vapor.
As to Oregon State University, I have only been on their campus in Corvallis one time. Where on earth did you get the notion that they had fired me?
For “disinformation,” perhaps you should look in the mirror. Accountability begins with using real verifiable facts and using your real name. It also helps to have a real education and respect for science.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
To those confused by selective editing by Fulks, here’s the complete interview with Cicerone (from seven years ago, so ignoring a huge amount of subsequent science and data).
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20120713_r4
He’s quite clear, while framing things in cautious science-speak:
Ralph Cicerone: Better than we did, a lot better. So right now, in the temperature records that we’re seeing around the world, nearly every spot on the world has warmed significantly in the last 30 years, averaging over summer and winter, and day and night. So this is different.
John Humphrys: But –
Ralph Cicerone: The entire planet is warming.
….
Ralph Cicerone: We will never have absolute proof, but to all reasonable tests – yes, we have the evidence.
The evidence he refers to not having (in 2012) is:
Q: I mean, you’re not saying “If we don’t do these things, we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket, we’re going to fry, in a few years”.
Ralph Cicerone: No. I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, and we don’t have that kind of evidence.
Dear Evan,
Yes, Dr. Ralph Cicerone was a prominent warmer, as I said. But the crucial point he made is the one that most responsible scientists make: There is no looming catastrophe. NONE.
I realize that it is tough for non-scientists to believe this, because they have been so bombarded with climate propaganda from journalists and politicians. The scientific dispute is the amount of warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. With a theoretical value of about one degree C, warmers say that water vapor will amplify that to 2 or 3 C, while skeptics see the feedbacks as negative with a net warming close to zero.
Writing in The New Criterion, MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen quotes a number of famous warmers including the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme. Hulme said: “To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.”
Perhaps most remarkable, Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and is especially known for his climate advocacy said: “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media….It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
And of course, “nonsense” is the operative word in so many discussions of climate.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
She is also a big defender of the Wolfpack mentality of the illegal campers along spring water trail https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2927370874068204&id=100003859608410
Thanks for posting this..
Unbelievable cyclists have to put up with this crap.
Hope they find the bike and throw the a-holes in jail but I doubt it.
i am sure the people that stole the bike were just “vulnerable” citizens….
“Wolfpack mentality of the illegal campers along spring water ”
The endemic bigotry of the cycling community rears it’s ugly face yet again.
And this bigotry persists even though the victim of the assault clearly stated that he did not believe the attackers were houseless:
https://katu.com/news/local/police-thieves-steal-bike-after-pushing-cyclist-off-on-springwater-corridor-trail
soren,
How on earth do you take one person’s comment (or even a few for that matter) and think that it’s an example of “endemic bigotry of the cycling community”?
These are individual people — just like you! — represented here. Just because someone rides a bike doesn’t make them a member of any “community” or club. Last I checked there’s not membership card needed to ride a bike or to comment on a local news blog.
Thank you for standing up to the all too common name-calling that seeks to preempt rational discussions.
I’m toooo lazy to read all these comments. I support both Theresa and Sarah I. They are both woke mayoral candidates. Teresa is on top of the policing game with Jo-An. Sarah has put her mofo heart and soul holding cycling safe space so we can have these conversations. We need to elevate the matters that matter and save the vitriol for the white supremecist who are rural Oregon ethics. We got bigger fish to fry my friends. #antifa