Portland Commissioner Chloe Eudaly is in trouble.
As Willamette Week reported today, she’s well behind challenger Mingus Mapps in both polling and fundraising and there’s a very real possibility she won’t earn a second term on council.
This reality has set off alarm bells within Portland’s transportation reform circles. As the commissioner-in-charge of the transportation bureau, Eudaly has led several very popular initiatives. Most notably her office created the Rose Lane Project which has the stated goal of reducing commute times for people of color. Eudaly’s vision of streets as places for much more than just car and truck users is also evident in the Safe Streets Initiative, a major undertaking to make public right-of-way more accessible and safer for vulnerable road users and small business customers.
Portland has a strong transportation activism legacy; but the issue’s political heft has waned significantly in recent years. As other issues like housing affordability, homelessness, and police brutality have come to the forefront, transportation has been bumped off the list of hot topics in political debates and discussions.
A cadre of transportation reform activists hope to change this dynamic with an online event Thursday to support Eudaly. The event will be hosted by Vivian Satterfield, María Hernandez, Aaron Brown, and Steve Bozzone — all of whom are regulars in local transportation activism and social justice circles.
While Eudaly’s track record is well-known after four years in office, Mapps is a bit more of a wild card. He doesn’t have a detailed transportation platform, but it’s mentioned on the environment page of his campaign website as a priority. What he has said — he wants a better and “completely fareless” bus service, he opposes the I-5 Rose Quarter project, and that, “we need to convert some of our existing roads to pedestrian and bicycle friendly plazas” — is mostly in alignment with Eudaly.
When it comes to safety, Mapps says we’re “moving backward” on Vision Zero goals. He also dismissed the Rose Lane Project as a “great first step” but said it’s, “an idea that’s not new.”
Advertisement
Back in April, Mapps seized on Eudaly’s hesitation to launch an open streets program. “I believe now is exactly the time for the City to reinvent government and reimagine infrastructure,” he said. Eudaly launched the “Slow Streets” program a day later.
During a debate on September 25th hosted by the Democratic Party of Oregon Black Caucus, Eudaly and Mapps were asked, “Do you support replacing traffic cops and other police with non-police civil servants?”
Mapps’ campaign has been dogged by his acceptance of a $15,000 donation from the Portland Police Association and his willingness to build relationships with police bureau leadership instead of call for them to be radically reformed or defunded.
His response to the traffic cop question focused on his concern about how to handle drunk drivers (the same concern he brought up at a candidate forum back in May). “I don’t know how that solves drunk driving, for example, and it seems like there’s some situations there where you might actually want a cop,” Mapps responded.
To make traffic laws less reliant on police, Mapps said he’d take greater advantage of automated speed and traffic signal cameras. “I think that’s a common sense reform that actually kind of fits the moment.”
Eudaly said she supports using more civil servants for traffic enforcement and that her office has already explored the issue. “What we have discovered is that virtually all of the power to do that lies at the state level and there are even some constitutional issues,” she replied.
Eudaly also said, “Obviously we still need people who are able to be able to pull over and apprehend people who are endangering others.”
As for using automated cameras, Eudaly said she’s a “big fan”. “It’s an upfront, bias-free way to capture, and most importantly really discourage, bad driving behavior,” she said. “It’s safer because people are not being pursued by police… and the less interaction we can have between community members and armed police officers, the better.”
On Thursday night transportation advocates hope to make more big fans for Commissioner Eudaly. Learn more about the event on our calendar.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.
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.
Eudaly has done the very minimum for East Portland residents. Approximately $26 million remains to be dedicated to completely fund the East Portland In Motion plan. A plan that was to be funded and finished by 2017. Not sure that 4 more years would solve the active transportation issues continuing to plague East Portland.
I don’t believe most Portland residents are aware how little real power the transportation commissioner and the PBOT director have in controlling a bureaucratic agency like PBOT. It’s really up to the division and section leadership to get anything done, and only if they can get their underlings to do what they are assigned to do, on time, and on budget.
Chloe has barely kept par with some of the very basic new transportation trends we are seeing in cities across the country. The best thing you’ve got to say for her is Rose lanes? That’s not new or creative, they’ve existed in cities for decades. Maybe Portland has fallen behind because our current transportation commissioner hasn’t put forward anything really ground breaking in the past 4 years? And what does that say about the transportation activists that have influence with her?
Mingus has never presented himself as an enemy to transportation activists, it’s really weird that they keep treating him like an enemy, especially considering how much more effective his leadership could be in actually getting work done rather than trying to split up and divide the city into cliques. Have you tried meeting with the guy to tell him about your new ideas that he could implement? Chloe hasn’t really been that receptive to the vast majority of Portlanders, but it must feel nice being some of the lucky few.
You took my, “ugh, why?! Don’t mislead and confuse the voters” and made it an articulate statement. Thank you.
I’m pretty sure PBOT runs on self-actualization. Like they believe if they call their car projects “green”, they suddenly will be. I’ve never seen a government agency celebrate such small improvements with so much vigor.
I’m rather confused here. So in two years she’s successfully implemented something that other places have had but that we couldn’t manage to do “for decades.” How’s that “barely kept par”? By your own measurement, she took us from “20 over par” to “par” in 2 years. That’s a fantastic record, and tells me maybe she ought to have 4 more years to see what else she can achieve.
Every new candidate comes in with big, shallow assertions about they’d do. Rarely do they have any real plan to execute. It’s easy to look like a hero as a new candidate. Chloe is actually getting the work (on transportation, doubly on renter issues) done. I’ll take my chances on her track record.
Portland used to be celebrated for doing new and creative things, not patting ourselves on the back for painting some lanes red and claiming victory. We were the first city to reintroduce the street car, and other cities followed suit. We haven’t done anything like that in years. We used to do things that other cities would follow and copy, not the other way around.
Fight over the definition of “par” as much as you want. Portland is not on par with its own reputation and history though. Chloe is divisive, plays favorites, and can easily be replaced with a much better transportation advocate who would do more- like Sarah who will obviously take PBOT away from Chloe if she wins.
New comers are great when you have bad incumbents – you shouldn’t create creepy blanket statements against all “new comers” if everyone thought like you, we wouldn’t have AOC when she defeated Crowley
I agree we’ve fallen behind, badly, and that we should be a leader. My point is that we went from falling behind to at least catching up, in a very short time. That’s significant for me.
I have no idea what part of that was creepy, or what the balanket staement is. Please don’t asbribe to me “how I think.” AOC came to office with not only great intentions, but also concrete plans. As extremely likeable as I find Mapps, he dopesn’t seem to have much in the way of detailed intentions or plans. So in this particular circumstance, I’ll stick with the incumbent doing I know, imperfect as she may be, beause she’s done laudable work on two important issues.
But we haven’t caught up. The Rose Lanes aren’t even rolled out yet. Chloe fought the “ehanced greenways” for a month while other cities rolled them out.
Should we really say that Chloe was fighting EG? Maybe she had to kick butts in her bureau for 2 weeks to make something happen so she could give us something that was really rolling out that day. As opposed to happy talk or a future plan. Plans and proposals, we’re good at that.
Don’t get me wrong, I would have settled for more than we got…
I mean she actively spoke out against the “enhanced greenways” so yeah, I think we can say she was fighting them
Chloe, April 17:
“I’ve traveled around the city over the weekend: Woodlawn, Arbor Lodge, University Park, St Johns, Boise, Eliot, Old Town, West End, Burnside from the river past 23rd Ave, West Hills, Central East Side, and Kerns. I’ve also been by several city parks. Nowhere did I see “sidewalks and street shoulders… bursting at the seams.” Not even close. Please tell me where this is happening in Portland—a not terribly dense city dominated by single family homes, not residential high rises.
Besides encouraging people to stay home and flatten the curve, working to stave off a mass wave of evictions, foreclosures, bankruptcies and business closures, getting critical information out to the public, and preparing my bureaus for massive budget cuts, I’ve been focused on the most serious public health and safety threat on our streets—people living on them. We considered closing streets in Old Town for camping—it proved problematic for a variety of reasons—emergency vehicle access, as well as access for housed residents and businesses. Instead we are identifying city owned property for safe sleep sites.
Resources are stretched thin. People are freaked out. Like I said, it’s not the time for hastily planned street closures (closing streets in parks is not remotely comparable to closing residential streets) with no public engagement.
I am a fan of streets for people, reclaiming public space, and creating a more equitable transportation system. The fact that I have other more urgent priorities right now doesn’t change that. As we get a clearer picture of what this crisis could look like over the next few weeks it’s possible we’ll revisit the issue. But for now, I’m focused on the most vulnerable people in our community…
I’m really disappointed in this article. You’ve all seen the flack I take over a “lack of public engagement” when we spend months doing outreach to hundreds of people. How do you think this would go over? I know advocates are gonna advocate but for god’s sake, a little credit, a little understanding, and some sense of priorities would be great right now.”
–Refreshing candor and a clear statement of priorities from someone doing responsible local government. It sucks that people in states, cities and towns have to do so much heavy lifting when our national leaders are spreading disease and lying their asses off.
I don’t see anything negative about enhanced greenways.
“Flatten the curve”
Really . . .
This is the first time that I’ve ever read a BP article and felt like I was smelling something a little fishy. As though there might be a backstory worth pursuing, like: did the Eudaly campaign ask for this? Supply talking points? Glossing over ODOT’s RQ I-5 expansion proposal, which Commissioner Eudaly hazily supported until June 30th of this year, seems like a glaring omission, particularly given Jonathan’s generally-excellent reporting on the subject.
There may be real consequences to that support, too, because ODOT appears to feel that they’re deep enough into the project to push forward. It will go down in the books that Portland’s mayor and transportation commissioner supported ODOT’s corrupt, racist, and ecologically-insane project right up until the absolute last second when the political tides changed after 30 days of racial justice upheaval and the disengagement of Albina Vision Trust. Eudaly from day one could have brought the same righteous energy to PBOT that she applied to housing issues and simply said: “No way will a bureau that I lead be a partner in the expansion of a polluted freeway through a historically-Black neighborhood in an era of climate catastrophe. Even with ODOT’s laughable lipstick-on-a-pig strategy. In fact, I’ll throw my body in front of the bulldozers if they move forward”. Whatever horse-trading was going on in the background, their mutual support of this project was grotesque. Not even being publicly shamed by the likes of Janette Sadik-Khan was enough to shake their buttressing of an utterly corrupt process driven by our troglodytic state transportation agency.
I’m planning on voting for Eudaly’s re-election, by the way. Not only can I not vote for someone willing to accept money from the police union (despite Mapps’ opposition to the freeway expansion), it seems very possible that Iannarone is going to show Wheeler the door to the mayor’s office and take PBOT under her wing. And that IMO is likely to be viewed “within Portland’s transportation reform circles” as considerably more impactful than whether Eudaly loses this race or not. Plus, I believe that she deserves the opportunity to work with a mayor more closely aligned with her stated values and I support dismantling (or deeply reforming) the current Neighborhood Association system.
Our choice is slow motion, piecemeal reform if politically expedient or TBD?
Go Chloe!!!
Yeah, GO HOME! PBOT BLOWS! Trashed RV’s parked all over town with no consequence, but “Chloe” still tickets taxpayers. Her own parking staff do not agree to her coddling of the single biggest problem in The City of Garbage. Oh, thanks for making a mess out of SE Lincoln St. BTW, she does not pedal either.
Since there are no other cites experiencing a crisis of homelessness in this country, maybe you’d like it better in one of those.
That’s the thing, we’re absorbing the “problem persons” from every other town and city in the western United States. PBOT rolls out the red carpet for them.
This narrative is often used by people who want to justify their xenophobic loathing but it’s just not true.
Point in time numbers show a decrease in total number of houseless people since 2011.
https://katu.com/news/local/myth-more-and-more-homeless-every-year
What has changed is that a higher percentage of people, who lost their housing in Portland, now end up on the street.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/multnomah-county-sees-20-more-people-sleeping-outside-in-latest-homeless-count.html
If profit is the problem, why don’t we see more cooperatives and alternative models for “unrigging” rental housing that seek to take the “rent seeking” out of renting? By eliminating the problematic profit, I’d expect them to flourish.
By far the most common model for the provision of abundant urban housing to working class residents is the social/municipal housing model. This type of housing is explicitly illegal in Oregon (and effectively illegal on a Federal level).
That being said, I’ll bite on the coop red herring:
A cooperative model is not a recognized form of ownership under Oregon law. On the other hand the fascistic corporate model and the individualist “mom and pop” slumlord model are not only legally recognized but are enormously subsidized by tax law, corporate law, and associated banking/accounting regulations.
Co-ops offer total control by residents to manage their property as they see fit, and so is one of the most democratic forms of ownership.
Co-op ownership of property is recognized by Oregon law, I’m not sure why it would be different for residential property. But even if it’s not “recognized”, a co-op can easily be achieved by creating a corporation to own the property, and having the residents own the corporation.
This model might be particularly attractive if municipal owned property is illegal, and might be better because your housing is controlled by you and your neighbors, not a more distant city government.
Creating mechanisms that encourage the formation of tenant/community-owned housing co-ops is the intent of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Ordinance championed by Comm Eudaly and The Cully Housing Action Group.
“But even if it’s not “recognized”, a co-op can easily be achieved…”
By red herring, I meant that the deck is stakced against cooperation in the USA. IMO, it takes a lot of work to create a co-op that follows the spirit and letter of the Rochdale/ICA principles in such a throughly capitalist nation.
*Cully Housing Action Team (a program associated with Living Cully)
Setting up the co-op is the easy part; the harder part is finding people who are willing to do the work of being a landlord, even if the payoff is lower rent and more control. If you are looking to empower tenants, co-ops would provide much greater control than a municipally owned property, with rules imposed by a distant political bureaucracy.
But my main point is that there are alternatives to the traditional landlord-owned rental model that are available today and could be used if things are as bad as you say. They don’t rely on zoning, or special permission, and could be set up anywhere in the city.
The capitalist nature of our country, and our respect for private ownership, actually makes this model easier, not harder to set up and maintain. The real problem is that most tenants probably don’t want to bother with self governance, because that takes work that is not required in the more conventional rental arrangement.
Haven’t decided who I’m voting for yet, but Lincoln is a joy to bike on compared with many of our greenways. Riding up from SE 7th to Tabor is really nice, I do it a few times a week. How is it a mess?
It’s weird to have a story on this race that doesn’t mention Mapps’ complaints about not enough free car parking, nor his absolute devotion to anti-infill NIMBY neighborhood associations. Both of these accelerate car-dependent, bike-unfriendly cities.
” car-dependent, bike-unfriendly cities.”
As well as investor friendly, rentier focused, wealth extractive housing systems.
“investor friendly, rentier focused, wealth extractive housing systems”
Sadly, I think Eudaly’s skepticism of YIMBY rigged-market housing has faded quite a bit since 2016.
It’s time we stopped pretending that wealthy people, who make up the vast majority of folks who live in inner Portland neighborhoods, will magically give up driving as soon as they buy their $800k craftsman within spitting distance of a wine bar. Yeah, nobody will want to drive to the coast or the mountains or the forests, nor will they need to schlep their kids to school, doctor, etc. Especially now that any exposure to public transit threatens to transmit a deadly airborne disease.
The echo chamber here is pretty intense, but most of Portland drives. Even if they prefer riding a bike, cars are here to stay.
Most of Portland drives because there is almost no separated infrastructure for other modes. Perhaps you might make the same argument if there were no sidewalks. Most of Portland drives and does not walk because etc etc. One of the primary reasons most people drive is a result of the ideology that prizes free private property storage instead of making streets safe. There is a difference between arguing that “cars are here to stay” and “cars should be the only option.” The latter argument precludes any change in street design. Streets reflect mode share. If 100% of the street’s space is for cars, then everyone drives.
Portland’s sidewalk network is pretty complete. Lack of sidewalks is not why people do not walk everywhere. People choose driving over other modes because it is fast, easy, cheap, protected from the elements, private, on-demand, point-to-point, and able to carry/store a small amount of cargo.
Making streets better for cycling might help around the margins, and will make riding bikes more pleasant for you and me, but it will not transform the way people get around Portland.
PS Mode share was lower (but not dramatically so) when SE 26th was the only bike lane in the city, and we were pretty close to 100% of the street’s space being for cars. I don’t see much evidence for the “more infrastructure results in more riders” argument, at least not in any significant way.
I guess I would have to fundamentally disagree. The number of miles of protected bike lanes is one of the biggest predictors of mode share. Amsterdam has over 300 miles and 25% mode share. Berlin has less than 200 mi and a 13% mode share. Portland has 7 miles and around 6% and falling. There are other variables. Speed cameras in NY are incredibly effective at reducing speeding. Police in NY tend to be a big impediment to safety for people on bikes. But separated infrastructure is one of the key indicators of increasing mode share. Amsterdam looked very close to what Portland looked like in 1970 with a very similar mode share. Build PBLs and you can indeed transform the way people get around Portland.
There are plenty of significant differences between Berlin, Amsterdam, and Portland so I’m not sure it is valid to conclude that, based on experience there, building more bike facilities will have a meaningful impact on ridership here. If anything, in recent years, the correlation in Portland has been negative.
Just to be clear, I *want* more and better bike infrastructure (and regularly advocate for such) but I see no evidence that it will lead directly to a bigger mode split.
Ok, I understand and appreciate your criticism. Please if you would, go look at research in almost every other city that has built PBLs. NYC, Montreal, Bogata, Vancouver BC. If you need research on PBLs and their correlation with an increase in modal share, read away. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of papers. I’m not aware of any meta-analyses yet, but the evidence is robust.
http://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/statistics/statistics-category/?cat=protected-bike-lane-statistics
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/
We’ve probably both observed that bike traffic on Naito increased dramatically once Better Naito was installed. Likewise on Williams. But how many new riders did those facilities attract? And how many non-bike trips, most importantly car trips, did those riders displace?
We’ve built a lot of bike infrastructure in recent years, but our mode share is falling. How do you account for that? Sure, maybe we just need more infrastructure to see gains, or maybe the infrastructure just isn’t good enough, or maybe our declines would have been sharper without that investment, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to make the case that better facilities means more riders when our experience is showing something different.
I think there are other factors determining ridership that are far more important than infrastructure, and that we’re in a downward part of what I hope is a cyclical (no pun intended) swing in bike popularity.
I’d prefer to not get preachy, so I won’t try to persuade you further. Simply look at the mode share vs miles of protected bike lanes in each city and take a look at the research if you have doubts.
NYC has built “a lot of infrastructure” (ie ~30 miles of PBLs per year). As a result ridership has increased steadily. Portland has decidedly not (~1 mile/year). Williams is a great example of failed design. A huge number of people must pass through it simply based on geography despite its prioritization of cars (Williams is 4 lanes of cars with no dedicated bike space at Failing, for example). Naito is less than a mile, and largely disconnected from other PBLs. I don’t expect new ridership from such meagre efforts.
If PBOT built 10 miles of protected bike lanes next year connecting the inner neighborhoods, I would be incredibly surprised if it did not have an effect on modal share.
Ok, one point to HK, Better Naito seems to have channeled bikes from nearby alternative routes like the waterfront MUP and perhaps 2nd Avenue, as opposed to stimulating new ridership.
Game to Eawrist. Connectivity, connectivity, connectivity. To move the needle, bike infrastructure has to cross the whole landscape or else reliably connect two major nodes, such as the NE Portland hotel district and the Columbia Gorge. If you ran the West end of that out to Beaverton or Hillsboro it would be stunning.
The gaps where the current “network” fails are the places we need to focus our resources of design, engineering and construction. One of my favorites: the grade crossings in the inner SE that stall bike and pedestrian routes. (Your choices may vary, I talk about places that I know well).
I’m pro Better Naito but it needs to run from St Johns to Oregon City. And yes, a bike network needs to reach through East Portland as well. You wouldn’t publish an encyclopedia for T through Z.
I’m a little surprise to see bike Portland endorsing Eudaly. She didn’t do anything until she realized she didn’t win outright in the primary. She fought opening up our streets to people. Really, she has been on the opposite side of… well everything. Here is a reminder right here on BikePortland this year: https://bikeportland.org/2020/03/30/pbot-commish-now-is-not-the-time-to-make-street-changes-313070. She was assigned transportation, and she obviously didn’t want it. On the other hand, Mingus, who has real skin in the game. We need people on our city council that really understand the pain that POC have to live with. Someone who I have actually seen bike. Now feel free to respond saying how wrong I am. But I am not alone in feeling like this.
I didn’t read this article as an endorsement of eudaly.
This isn’t a bikeportland endorsement; it’s an endorsement from myself and other community transportation advocates. Her advocacy against ODOT on the freeway fight, her support of the Rose Lanes, her oversight of the renewal of the gas tax all stand out to me as notable accomplishments for her two years with PBOT. She’s also been a huge champion for tenant advocacy and demanding accountability from the Portland Police Union.
Chloe:
Voted no on Joann Hardesty’s 2016 and 2018 police reform proposals, LTEs no on body cams. she voted no on all police reforms until just this summer.
Did not withdraw her support from the I5 Rose Quarter project until just this summer, months after Mingus had made a stance against it. You failed to convince Chloe to withdraw her support of the project for four whole years until she had an opponent that was against the project.
Chloe’s transportation allies are pathetic and ineffective, we can barely squeeze the basics out of her and she was way more in ODOTs pocket before she was in ours until Mingus came along.
Sounds like you’re making stuff up so you don’t lose a friend on city council. Are you lying to voters on the phones too?
Do you have any concern with how inequitable the gas tax is? My neighborhood (St. Johns) is undeserved by both PBOT, ODOT, and TriMet. Our public transit is terrible and our roads are unsafe. Most people can’t access the rest of the city in anything but a car. So “transportation advocates” want folks in my neighborhood to pay more for the privilege of being undeserved meanwhile yuppies in NW get brand new infrastructure and the choice on whether or not they want to drive.
Seems like more class-ism from the advocate set.
I live in st johns, too. (hello neighbor!) The gas tax is providing crucial funding for road maintenance and safer streets, like sidewalks. The gas tax is investing hardly *anything* in northwest portland – a significant amount of funding is going into East Portland. I kinda get the impression you’re more interested in ad hominems than actually debating the merits in good faith?
“The gas tax is investing hardly *anything* in northwest portland..”
But it will do so when many ambitious projects are built.
“…a significant amount of funding is going into East Portland.”
Most of this funding comes from state, federal government, metro and other local sources, not the gas tax.
That being said, I think there is a good argument for telling inner NW Portland, inner SE Portland, and inner NE Portland to faff off and investing every last penny of gas tax revenue in outer E, N, and SW PDX (until these regions are brought up to a basic level of transportation equity).
PS: I’m voting for Comm Eudaly and have donated several times. Howeover, I’m not at all a fan of people who support real-estate speculation acting as her surrogates.
Do you have any examples of the gas tax creating safer streets or sidewalks in St. Johns?
You didn’t really answer the question though. The gas tax falls most heavily on low-income Portlanders who live on the peninsula or in east county. Wouldn’t it just be easier for us to create special tax districts? We have to pay the tax because we have no other option, at least with a special taxing district we wouldn’t be building bike lanes downtown with our money.
Or we could have progressive taxation that selectively targets the rich and upper middle-class, instead of a gas tax that disproportionately and obscenely targets the few remaining working class people in PDX.
I also remember how Aaron tripped over their feet in supporting Novick’s cowardly move to drop a progressive income-tax “Street Fee” due to faint opposition from the Portland Business Alliance.
And I also remember how Aaron landed a job working as the lead lobbyist that helped get this regressive tax passed.
Most of the local street funding comes from property taxes, not the gas tax. St. Johns residents drive a lot more on ODOT facilities, so it’s only fair that they would pay more in gas tax.
??? No property taxes whatsoever go to streets. Literally none. Transportation is funded solely through gas tax, parking meters, and state/federal grants that are also funded through gas tax.
Property taxes fund the general fund, which is a chunk of PBOT’s budget. About 25% comes from gas tax, and a big chunk is also parking.
But my point stands. They drive more, and they damage the roads more, so they should pay more in tax.
Totally. Nothing makes more sense that making people who live in neighborhoods that have been chronically underfunded and underserved by the government pay for the privilege of being ignored.
Who cares that there is no alternative to driving for most people out here? Who cares that it disproportionately hurts what little working-class Portland has left?
The transition from racist and classist white-flight suburbs to racist, classist, and exclusionary urban cores is almost over.
IMO, your most excellent sarcasm is completely wasted on this individual.
Citation needed.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/441782
It’s about 25% of the funding. That is not much.
How do you calculate that?
I’d be happier if the gas tax was around $5 per gallon.
You know, it’s really ironic that gas is first heavily subsidized by the federal government and the taxed at a local level. The energy companies take our money going both ways.
We really shouldn’t be fighting over gas taxes, we should be fighting first over oil subsidies.
But I agree, make the “cheap” energy cost what it rightly should.
Punishing the poor and working class. It’s the Portland Way™
What makes it even worse is that the people punishing the poor pretend sympathy and compassion.
Do you provide an independently voiced, point by point comparison of the two candidates?
Lance. Please read more carefully. This post is not an endorsement of Eudaly.
I SUPPORT CHLOE. Mingus Maps has exploited neighborhood associations on fear of protesters and ‘racial’ divide. Chloe has stood like a firm rooted tree in transportation. She didn’t get elected to fix transport, but somehow she listened, took charge and stood up to the Freeway at Harriet Tubman LIKE A BOSS! She got elected to fix housing and IMHO we got a lot closer because of her and her STAFF! Her staff is absolutely amazing. We need to keep her entire team together.
Let’s not pretend that Black culture has the upper hand on climate change or transport justice. We have Lew Frederick who won’t stand against freeway widening. And now we have Kamala Harris in the vice presidential debate telling everybody that her investment plan for Climate Change is to build more roads and brides. The democrats are ready to toss cyclists under the bus at every turn.
I’m sticking with Chloe. She’s not going to screw us over like Lew Frederick and Mingus Maps surely will. He’s willing to take money from the corrupt police union and then exploit his skin color for bleeding heart guilt ridden neighborhood associations support. He’s not the Black savior he makes himself out to be.
Just remember who got tossed in the presidential debate: Pocahontas (Warren) for being ‘native. And now we have a Black woman who is ‘Indian’ but not native american and is speaking about climate change and building roads. This is not the answer and neither is Mingus Maps.
Whole lotta yikes in this one
Big oof
And lets not forget the High Speed Rail we were promised by Obama. $10b pissed away. Can we just hire the Chinese and let them do it for us? 🙂 we don’t have the engineering chops for the real deal.
You need to read more about Obama’s HSR proposal and the outcomes. You are either uninformed or misinformed on this.
– Much of it was blocked by Republican governors and was never spent
– A good chunk was successfully spent on various passenger rail projects around the country, including Amtrak between Seattle and Portland.
– A big chunk went to the California HSR project, which has been executed very poorly.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with our local election.
The “double down”.
Well how racist can the PPA be if they are giving money to a black man?
Very.
This is kind of the result of not running your Bureau very well. She has to run on the “Not Mapps” ticket which is not where an incumbent wants to be.
Isn’t “not the incumbent” typically the challenger’s ticket? Ruh roh.
One interesting potential twist is that I’d imagine Sarah Innarone would take on PBOT if she wins her election since she’s running (in part) on her urban planning background – even if Chloe also wins. Just my speculation tho
Is that the part where she promotes Portland tourism? Or the part where she owned a shuttered cafe? Or the “Mother (unpaid)” part?
Oh wait, maybe you’re talking about the PhD that she lied about finishing… repeatedly, going back all the way to her failed 2016 campaign.
Like her best friend Charlie Hales, I expect her to accomplish a whole lot of nothing while pouring money into the same old boondoggles. Iannarone is the Arts Tax personified.
Jonathan might think that building relationships with police is a bad thing; I happen to think it is a good thing. The tendency amongst Portland politicians seems to be to disassociate themselves from their police depts (Chloe, Ted, Joanne, etc.), but that is not a good longterm strategy for community security.
Steve. What makes you think that? Please stop making false assumptions about my beliefs to suit your own opinions. Thanks.
“Mapps’ campaign has been dogged by his acceptance of a $15,000 donation from the Portland Police Association and his willingness to build relationships with police bureau leadership instead of call for them to be radically reformed or defunded.”
Dogged by his willingness to build relationships? How else is that to be interpreted? ‘Dogged’ is certainly a negative connotation applied by the article.
Jeff,
That sentence is a mere statement of fact. “Dogged” means “having or showing tenacity and grim persistence,” which is what Mapps critics have shown regarding this donation from the PPA. Some people also criticize the way he speaks about the police. Those are facts. I think you are applying the negative connotation because you see me/this site through a particular lens.
To make sure my criticism was justified, I looked up the definition of ‘dogged by’. What you are quoting is the definiton of the two-syllable word ‘dogged’. That said, ‘dogged by’ has a close definition. It describes a situation where someone or something is continually bothered by some specific claim. In this case, Mapps has, in fact, been ‘dogged by’ several accusations, and your wording was accurate and not pejorative. I apologize for my claim, and am now better educated in English grammar.
Jonathan, didn’t you say you were considering cutting all ties with the PPB even where you had longstanding positive relationships? That’s not exactly saying “building relationships with police is a bad thing”, but it’s pretty close.
Yes I was considering that. I have not done that however. And just because I personally have a stance on something doesn’t mean I can’t respect someone for having a different stance on it.
I was responding to your complaint that Steve Scarich was making “false assumptions” about your beliefs when you wrote almost exactly what was quoted. Based on that, I believe his assumption was quite reasonable, and certainly not “false”.
How did this get down voted. Are subscribers still allowed the down vote button while the unwashed masses may only upvote?
The paragraph beginning ‘Mapps’ campaign has been dogged by..’ is clearly your indictment of his campaign. The very use of the words ‘dogged by’ is, by definition, pejorative. You, perhaps, are not aware of your own beliefs, but it comes out in your wording.
OK Steve. You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it. We can disagree and move on.
Yeah but you’ve promoted a pro-Chloe phonebank on your website in two different places now, here, and in an event. Unless you’re also giving the Mapps campaign a similar promotion, it speaks pretty loudly as to which side of the debate this editor lands on. I think your readers would like you to be a little more forthcoming, that’s all.
Commissioner Eudaly is a sitting elected official who’s in charge of the bureau I cover more closely than anything else on this site. I have never had reason to mention Mapps prior to this election. Of course I will sometimes share information about Eudaly-related events.
What is this “pro-Chloe phonebank” you’re referring to?
I have zero problem being forthcoming. ask me anything! But please don’t type things that make it seem like I’m being nefarious or trying to hide my opinions or promote one candidate over the other. I go out of my way to be fair and I think 99.9% of regular readers of this site would agree with that.
Also, I have zero obligation or interest in giving everyone “similar promotion”. This isn’t a nonprofit 501c3. It’s a private business that I own.
As for this race, I’m thinking about it a lot. I’m not a huge fan of Eudaly. And not a huge fan of Mapps. I like a lot of stuff she’s done and I like some things about Mapps. I have some time to make a decision and plan on using it. Thanks for your comment.
The event this article is about, is a phone bank for supporting commissioner Chloe Eudaly, it’s a Zoom event. The entire thing you are reporting on, is four people that do some form of transportation advocacy, putting on a promotional event to bring volunteers out to phonebank for Chloe. That’s what I’m referring to. That’s what this whole thing is about. Four random transportation advocates – not all of them, not even a big group of them, are promoting Chloe. What even is this question? How do you not know that you are literally reporting on it and sharing the event image.
Congrats on not being a non-profit, readers like to know the opinions of the publications they are reading, business, non-profit, or government entity does not make a slight bit of difference.
Ok thanks for clarifying a bit more.
And FWIW these aren’t “random transportation advocates”. They are very well-known and connected and are opinion leaders who influence thousands of people in Portland.
And yes I’m well aware that I’m publishing a story about an obviously pro-Eudaly event. Like I said, she’s PBOT commissioner. It’s news. Thanks again.
it’s also offensive to dogs.
Mingus took 15k from the police union. That’s not “building relationships” – that’s accepting a bribe to govern with their interests in mind and not those of the city as a whole clamoring for police accountability and reform
It’s pretty messed up to say that a black man can be bought and sold with $15k in printing from the police and that because of that he will now do everything they want. The dude has raised over $500k from small donors, but he’s beholden to the police? He’s a black dude who has actually had negative experiences with the police, white boys from the suburbs should maybe keep their voices out of this one.
It’s kind of funny that some people still feel compelled to tell us how a minority man was thinking.
He has raised a lot less than $500k from small donors – that’s including the OAE money, which is likely 60-75% of his total haul.
Aaron, you seem to have a difficult time with subtext, let me say it in a more direct way so you can understand.
It’s really racist to go around and suggest to voters that a black man is a slave to the police and will do everything they tell him because they did 15k worth of printing for him. You coming back by trying to minimize his grassroots fundraising work only seeks to further dismiss the real hard work of a black man who you believe is enslaved to the police for some god awful reason. The dismissal is further offensive given the fact that Chloe is on the same program and has not been able to convince a fraction of the amount of small donors to contribute to her.
For such a progressive group of white people, you all really know how to get down and dirty when you’re running against a black man. No shame whatsoever, how exactly are you a respected member of this community? If Mapps wins this race, how can you be a good transportation advocate after you’ve gone around the whole city calling one of our new commissioners a slave to the police?
I didn’t call him “a slave to the police.” I said he received $15,000 from the Portland Police Union, just like I said that Mary Nolan received $11,000 from the Portland Police Union. I seriously doubt the judgement and moral clarity of anyone who actively wants their support or accepts their funding, considering the entity exists solely to buy off politicians from enacting meaningful mechanisms for accountability. Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty endorsed Eudaly for the same reason.
Aaron, your implication is basically the same as calling him a slave. Don’t try and weasel out of it. You implied from the very beginning that because the police endorsed him, he will do what they want to. A. that’s just bad logic, B. it cheapens Mingus, its disrespectful.
There’s a reason why Joann Unendorsed Chloe over the summer. Joann can flip flop over who she wants to be on council with her or not, but it doesn’t undo what she said about Chloe and her performance this summer:
“I also want to address what happened towards the end of the vote today: While my colleague can take a principled ‘no’ stance on passing this budget, I as a Black woman cannot,” Hardesty said in a statement. “I have spent countless hours moving my colleagues to support what I’ve proposed. Last year I proposed only half of what was brought to the table this year, and did not receive one single vote in support, including hers. This included my proposal to defund the Gun Violence Reduction Team and reallocate those funds to save 50-plus parks jobs and support community centers, which was also a demand from the community. My cannabis amendment for this year’s budget, which she also did not support, would have cut an additional 23 positions in the bureau. That’s why we are only seeing 84 positions rather than 107 positions cut. We keep hearing the need to be bold, yet that boldness did not manifest in this moment, nor did it manifest last year.” -Joann Hardesty
Joann is willing to flip flop and attack other members of the black community for her own personal gain, its really shitty that white people get to use her as a shield now for when they want to do it too.
And the same people, claiming to be “progressive” by promoting a wealthy, connected white amateur– Sarah Iannarone– and attacking anyone who dares to vote for Teressa Raiford, an activist with actual credibility and experience in BLM. A very particular and painful flavor of Portland racism.
You’re crying over $15k? Let’s take a look at NMFPDX books. Also, I think your time would be better spent talking about Ted’s donations.
Mingus is not a pro-fossil fuel, cars only dinosaur as some commenters seem to present. He has a sting alternative transportation focus. Go to one of his many online town hall meetings and ask your questions. Besides, there is no garuntee he will headup PBOT. With so many new councillors on the council whoever wins the mayoral race. wheeler or innarone will likely shuffle the bureaus in 2021. Ryan or Cruz could just as easily take over PBOT. A reason I support Mingus is that he wants to reform the council government system, remove oversight of city operations from the hands of amateur politicians and have professionals run the bureau not neophytes like Eudaly. In the long run we will be better off with councilors staying at the pilicy level and expert professionals running operations.
It seems as if he’s trying to be everything to everyone. Lots of free car parking and no new neighbors are huge ways we’ve screwed up cities. They’re not on their face against walking and biking, but that’s the effect. Folks like Mapps need to understand that.
And the main reason you support him is an idea Portland voters have turned down again and again and again. What’s your thought on how Mapps actually gets it done?
I will discount the misogyny behind much of the criticism of Eudaly and applaud quite a bit of her work, but with that said, some of her new policies at PBOT are only making neighborhood safety more diffiicult. If safety and livability weren’t already my issues this cycle, the gunshots I’ve personally heard over the last week and a half give me at least 60 more.
Purity tests aren’t getting things done. Mapps for commissioner.
Wheeler isn’t getting things done, but see the previous paragraph: I want a do over for mayor.
Chloe is toast. She has done very little for active transportation in Portland, and she has made sure that every neighborhood association is working overtime to defeat her. She has the worst political instincts I’ve ever seen, and she divides people wherever she goes.
You’re wasting your time by having a “rally” to support her. I’m voting for Mingus and I urge every Portlander to do the same. Mingus will bring Portlanders together, to achieve important goals like improving cycling infrastructure.
She lost my vote when she stopped partnering with ppb on crosswalk enforcement. I know we need police reform but we will never have vision zero with this type of leadership. Drivers act recklessly when they think they can get a way with it. We need bold transportation leadership.
And the most appalling thing is how people are driving lately, with zero regard for the law. This is what happens when city leadership slams the door shut on (what others have mentioned here:) building relationships.
I’m absolutely terrified to think of how Sarah Iannarone will mismanage law enforcement. Instead of promoting reform and unity she declares “I am ANTIFA”, good god. What a mess.
I didn’t vote for either of them in the primary. Why would I vote for them now?
Because this is an election, not choosing your prom date?
This is an election where, like most, we can choose between more than 2 people.
You give me the jock and the cheerleader on my ballot and I’m voting for the nerd for prom king and queen.
I think it’s a valid point here. Unlike the presidential election where one candidate is clearly batshit insane and needs to be voted directly against, here we have two candidates, neither of whom would do a terrible job and neither of whom would cause direct harm if elected. In the current presidential race, voting third-party or not voting would be completely negligent and damaging. Here, voting third party or not voting would be making a statement that neither candidate is a good fit.
You can safely vote third party for President in Oregon with no concerns about contributing to Trumps continuation in power. Your presidential vote here truly does not matter.
If anything, your vote for council is more consequential than your presidential vote.
I mean, the national popular vote does kind of matter (in a moral victory sort of way).
And this is why we have Trump. In our current political world, and the one that is happening in 1 month, you get to choose between the 2 candidates. Any other choice is in fact a choice for the incumbent.
Blame the person who lost for not being more convincing.
Believe it or not I completely agree with you.
As a housing provider & real estate industry worker in Portland for over 20 years, I can confirm that Ms Eudaly’s policies have made affordable housing more scarce & more expensive. Making things harder & more expensive for housing providers has had “unintended” consequences. I think Mapps has a lot of potential, & I’ll vote for him. I know this blog & post is about transportation, but housing, transportation, & governance are entwined.
I was (and still am) impressed with the Rose Lane project that continues to expand out on the streets. No previous commissioners were able to get anything of that magnitude passed. Chloe also took on the NIMBY neighborhood associations with outsized power over city policy influenced by very few neighbors with lots of time on their hands. I’ve heard that she’s not the easiest to work with, but for me, these are outcomes I’m happy with.
That said, I’m really looking forward to a revamped city government in which commissioners are no longer responsible for their own bureaus that change at the whim of the mayor. We need stability and professional leadership at PBOT, rather than a commissioner who may, or may not be, a transportation policy wonk. We need PBOT to be proactive rather than needling every stitch of street policy past one politician. There’s none of that in PBOT now because they’re so used to this commissioner-in-charge form that is really quite limiting, regardless of who the PBOT commissioner is (which is not necessarily the candidates for this position on council). Regardless who wins this race, I’m pushing hardest for changes to the city charter to reform how the city does business because without it PBOT, PPB, PWB and all other bureaus will continue to stagnate.
I’m not sure what your beef with neighborhood associations is, but your willingness to make broad generalizations about a highly varied collection of groups, and your belief that they have some sort of special power, tells me you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Eudaly could have achieved nearly all her goals for restructuring the neighborhood association system and enjoyed broad support in the process had she not approached it in such a divisive and antagonistic manner. That alone should be enough to demonstrate her incompetence as a political leader.
As for the much vaunted Rose Lane Project, all we have so far are aspirational PBOT promises and one demonstration project that increased car throughput as much as anything. We’ve all heard plenty of similar high-minded promises from PBOT, and if you’re still believing them, experience has not been a good teacher.
She reminds me of a graduate student, freshly awarded their degree, who believes they know everything. Kinda like Iannarone.
She’s burned way too many bridges. She won because she wasn’t Novick. And her caustic nature prevented her from building a collation. She’s learning on the job and has gotten better but it’s too little, too late.
I’m supporting Mingus. Chloe has had her chance over 4 years and generally has not moved things forward. She abdicated her responsibility on Metro’s terrible transportation bond measure and that is one reason it’s a pile of generally terrible and wasteful projects for the City of Portland.
I was extremely turned off by her hypocrisy when Sam Adams decided to run this year. She targeted Novick because his leadership in the fight for the gas tax had made him the most vulnerable candidate. Fast forward to now when she was vulnerable due to trying to disband the neighborhood association model she acted like she was entitled to run unopposed and that it was wrong for any man to run against her. Most of her accomplishments in transportation came from the money that Novick fought for and then when it came up for the renewal vote she didn’t even seem to advocate for it at all. I voted for Sam in the primary, but I plan to vote for Mapps in the general.
We have a barely functioning city government and Eudaly is part of the problem.
Jonathan – will you be writing an election article on the Metro transportation measure? Especially in light of the Oregonian’s recommendation posted today? Also, Joe Cortright has a piece that is certainly worth a read.
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2020/10/editorial-endorsement-2020-amid-economic-turmoil-voters-should-reject-metros-payroll-tax-measure.html
https://cityobservatory.org/the-case-against-metros-5-billion-transportation-bond/
Do you think we have reached an era when the fundamental question when considering an expensive transportation investment package/project should be: Does the proposed investment package/project reduce greenhouse gases? And if the answer is “no”, then maybe the investment package/project is not worth supporting.
For me, the only question about this proposal is whether any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are worth the cost. I still haven’t formed an opinion on that question, and am looking for data to help me decide.
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2020/10/editorial-endorsements-2020-mingus-mapps-for-portland-city-council.html
Here’s a simple test for Eudaly she can clearly make happen if she wants – let’s see if the city’s bike lanes are clear of debris on Election Day.
bike lanes and multi-use paths…nope, won’t get cleared. Though it would be nice.
Hell, cleaning Foster from 92nd to 136th for the first time in 5 years would be enough for me.
Transportation safety advocates have often settled for the least worst candidate with a result in middling infrastructure reform. Neither Chloe nor Mingus has intimated they will build a network of protected bike lanes. I am withholding my vote as a result. Perhaps instead of endorsing a candidate that has a proven track record of mediocrity, advocates might better serve Portland by providing a threshold or list a candidate must accept to win votes.