Thanks to all of you who shared your opinions about the Metro District 5 race. We received enough productive input both on here and on our Facebook page that I think it makes sense to do a few more of these.
So here we go…
Who do you plan to vote for (or have already voted for!) in the race for Portland City Council Position 4? Chloe Eudaly (VoteChloe.com) or Mingus Mapps (MingusMapps.com)? And why?
Please share your decision in the comments. Keep in mind I will moderate this thread even more closely than usual and will only tolerate productive and respectful comments.
Thank you for helping BikePortland create a more informed community.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and email@example.com
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.
If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at firstname.lastname@example.org, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.
I’m voting for Mingus Mapps. I know him as a dad raising two black boys in Portland. I know him as a neighbor. I like that he takes an analytical view of problems, to gather information and decide on a solution. Eudaly is more of a social media politician. I don’t think people need to have all the answers right away. Those often don’t work out very well. Many of Eudaly’s housing policies were great for developers! Oh yeah and the security lighting bonuses have flooded my street with night time light. I also hate the idea of losing the Neighborhood Associations. I think place and geography are important to our bonds with the places we live and people and business have a special connection to their place and the vision for it.
I also don’t think we need Eudaly for bike and ped advocacy. I think she has looked down at many bike improvements in favor of SOVs saying that they are bourgeois. Portland is a bike town, we don’t need Eudaly for that in my opinion.
I am enthusiastically voting for Mapps.
This comment really bothers me, “I think place and geography are important to our bonds with the places we live and people and business have a special connection to their place and the vision for it”
BECAUSE we have and continue to gentrify the city and actively push-out low income people.
This statement is only meaningful for wealthy individuals who have bought the privilege to remain in a place; those who aren’t removed from their neighborhoods because of foreclosures or yearly rent increases …
And as far as biking goes … I cycle EVERYWHERE … it is my favorite thing in the world … but so is justice and biking is not an option for everyone.
I agree with you. I had a real hard time voting for Eudaly because of your exact same reasons – we don’t even own a rental home, but we do own an ADU on our property. She really needs to not hurt people who are trying to increase density and are not slumlords.
All that being said, I can’t vote for someone who the cops support.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Works for me!
TBF, I agree with her on a lot of issues, she is just going about the rental issue in a horrible way and not listening and/or understanding the issue, imo.
These conversations are depressing. Just reinforcing how even in our “liberal” city instead of helping Eudaly fight big business and come up with REAL solutions (not building more) that protect renters and homeowners … Landlords want to take protections away from renters to make sure their investments income comes in. Its not easy to do the right thing in a system set up to benefit those at the top. You often have to lose things (likely wealth and comfort). And honestly, social media and thread like this CONFIRM that things won’t change for the better. I don’t know why I’m even debating online, but Landlords if you care so much why not fight to make sure our society is more equal and help fight to keep big companies out of the rental market???
I know why … because ya’ll benefit when your home price goes up … which again brings me to me point … people aren’t willing to give a little to live in a just society … EVEN those who walk around with their heads held high as if they have a superior ethical code … like they are better than the other side but are unwilling to make the choices they are asking of others (to let go of some wealth so others can succeed).
And not too mention the people that rent make this city awesome so have fun taking their rights away.
I don’t want to take away rights from renters at all. You completely missed the point. It’s that what was passed wasn’t that well thought out in my opinion. I want renters to have more rights, just don’t necessarily agree with what was done.
I hope you can try to see it from more than just your viewpoint.
Eudaly’s policies hurt renters and good landlords. Instead we end up having higher rents from properties owned by slum lords.
You seem more interested in hurting landlords than helping renters. Sounds a lot like those people wearing “I love Trump because he makes liberals cry” types.
Eudaly is incredibly spiteful, one sided and incompetent. She divides people on purpose so that people like you would vote for her regardless of if she is any good.
So I am guessing you are not voting for Biden since Sheriff donated to him? Your logic is incredibly flawed. The only reason PPB probably donated a small amount is because they want someone wwho they can negotiate in good faith.
Of course they do not want Eudaly – she is a spiteful person who has zero interest in compromise and reform, just hurting the other side.
I would ask you reconsider – Eudaly is no different than Trump in character. Of course a lot of people would rather see her go.
You cannot have reform discussions with people like Eudaly – she is not honest and has no interest in making things better, just making things divisive. Same modus operandi as Trump.
Oh you. That’s adorable you can equate a relationship between 2 local political groups and a relationship between a national political figure and a local political figure. A real student of political strategy.
I don’t really like Biden or the Dem’s, but I don’t really see a candidate pushing as far left of an agenda as I want that has a chance.
Edit: I don’t think the PPA can have a real discussion. The problem isn’t with Eudaly, the problem is with the PPA. You can disagree with that all you want, but unless you are coming at me with some facts like Mark Kruger getting fired for setting up a Nazi shrine, or police actually being held accountable for the violence they are dealing in a very disproportionate way, you aren’t going to change my mind.
Jonathan, how come we’re not allowed to personally insult one another in the comments, but we can wield petty ad hominem attacks against these candidates for public office? Just wondering.
Thanks. I’m aware of Jamie’s comments and he’s been placed on moderation and hasn’t commented since (the one above is 5 days old). Also, to answer your question… It’s because I think directing insults at public officials in the abstract is different than doing it to fellow commenters. If Commissioner Eudaly was in this thread I would moderate the Jamie Myers comments differently as well. In my opinion, elected officials should take more criticism than regular folks because they have more power. Also, I don’t think Jamie’s comments above rise to the level that require me to moderate/edit them. Thanks again.
Ok, fair enough. I agree that those running for public office are sort of voluntarily running the gauntlet. When the discussion devolves into unsubstantiated insults, though, it diminishes the potential for actual learning or understanding. I suppose I’d be better off just ignoring the ugliness and putting my attention somewhere else.
> Biking is not an option for everyone
This is a weird meme. Biking actually *is* an option for nearly everyone. Certainly moreso than driving (cars are expensive) and transit (annual passes are expensive and not everyone lives near a useful transit stop). You get on a bike and go. And it would be an infinitely safer, more attractive option with protected infrastructure.
I guess you’ve never met anyone with rheumatoid arthritis? Some people can be fine one day, and then have a flare up that makes using their knees or wrists incredibly painful. These people NEED a car to have a productive life. Please try to be more accepting of people you do not know.
I am also a landlord for a small single family home. I also have not raised the rent of current tenants for the same reasons you state. I have had nightmare tenant situations way before Chloe fought for and passed protections for renters. There is and always has been risk to being a landlord but not nearly the risk inherent in being a renter in a city that protects business and property over people and community. I’ve never met a politician that I agree with on policy 100%. I appreciate that Chloe does not pander to the masses and actually fights for the rights of citizens that are marginalized by the influx of wealth and development in the city. When so-called “liberals” only think of how policy affects their status and pocketbook it hurts progress for everyone one else. Wake up to the equity disparity and your own stake in it, please!
But biking is important to me. I have lived here since 98 and it is a top issue for me. I mean schools aren’t really that important to people without kids this a lower priority for them so education doesn’t get close to adequately funded. I support politicians who support biking and bike infrastructure. Also, Portland’s neighborhood associations were a national model for civic engagement for decades. For renters, homeowners and business owners to participate in how place is developed. There were always nimbys and people who wanted to be inclusive. I do not buy that they are exclusionary. It is making the perfect the enemy of the good to change them. There needs to be some hyper local accountability built in to our system and neighborhood associations are that to me. Honestly where were you all when they were allowing all the SROs to be demolished so we have a beautiful Timbers stadium quarter and west end? People needed to take notice then. Most portlanders today probably don’t even know that those places existed.
People like you are the best landlords. But because of Eudaly, they are either selling them, or raising rents because of the added liability. She hates landlords so much that her vindictive policies actually hurts renters in the end.
I was going to buy a rental property or build an ADU – instead I am saving some money to buy in a different state. Two of my friends actually also were going to and ended up buying in Tennessee because it is NOT worth the risk here.
She especially screwed over the best landlords – the small mom and pop ones. So in the end, more and more slumlord corporate landlords buy such properties and it is worse for everyone.
Eudaly is a disaster. Incompetent, tax evader, didn’t pay her workers, and also caused everything she touched to be worse.
“BECAUSE we have and continue to gentrify the city and actively push-out low income people.” Eudaly’s staff are some of the biggest forces behind overzealous gentrification. The Hail Snail (see youtube) fiasco is a perfect example: Her reports at PBOT literally *broke their own rules* to try and force a tiny business to pay for a bunch of public works (MAX stop changes, moving PGE power poles, removing and rebuilding sidewalks, etc.) knowing full well they couldn’t afford it and it would force a distressed sale of the property to another mega developer. This was after they were told during diligence that none of this would be required. Their response to the film was even worse. They tried to force them to take it down with some shady tactics. So, a lot of lip service to equity and opportunity but actual policies that unfairly push out small businesses to make way for developers (much more profitable in terms of taxes and permit fees, which is how they maintain their budget).
100% Team Chloe- keep not taking monies from the police and the PBA, Chloe!
“City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty has endorsed incumbent Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who faces a stiff challenge from academic Mingus Mapps in November.” “After consulting my Rise Together team and deep consideration of the issues Portland is facing, I am proud to endorse Commissioner Eudaly for a second term. Chloe has been a passionate and effective advocate for renters and affordable housing,” Hardesty continued. “She passed a first-of-its-kind tenant relocation ordinance and sped up our public transit through the creation of the Rose Lanes. As we look to the future, Portland will need more advocates for those on the margins. For these reasons, I am looking forward to continuing to work together.”
Paying a tenant $4500 to move is insane!!
I was considering renting my small Portland house when we move, but I guess I’ll just sell it to some California transplants instead. This is how we get affordable housing, right?
Then don’t make them move?
A small landlord doesn’t have the cash reserves to evict a bad tenant. Simply not renewing a lease isn’t possible now. So no more small landlords, and now renters have to deal with big entities with deep enough pockets for legal retribution…and higher rents
We decided to sell instead of renting any more. We moved out of Portland and decided to rent the house in case we wanted to move back. We were in a situation where we are renting the house we are living in now and paying mortgage on the Portland house. It’s not that we were some big company with hundreds of units yet we were lumped in with them. I guess you are considered rich if you carry a mortgage. I’d never rent a house out in Portland. It sucks
I just can’t help but feel like people are blaming renters and thus trying to take away renter’s protections; which are still very little because we LOVE property ownership despite having stolen it from many and restricting it from many and never making amends for either. Blaming the people at the bottom does seem to be the American way. Also, you are simultaneously a renter, I bet you wouldn’t like to have your rent raised yearly by $50-100, even though you are already rent burdened at 60% of your income meaning no savings for you. Someone needs to stand up and stop the bottom extraction machine or the whole things gonna collapse.
Sure – but if you own a place like an ADU on your own property and the renter is problematic, it is really difficult to remediate the problem – whether that is eviction or anything else. So while I 100% support and want to protect renters, I don’t know if what was shoved through was the right thing.
This actively works against the intent of the RIP. We have kids in the house, and the idea of having bad renters that we can’t evict on our property means I will never build an ADU, even though we have a good spot for one. I imagine many families feel the same way.
You really need to know that the small landlords are not raking in cash. I own a rental that I used to live in. It doesn’t quite pay for itself. I really should sell it, but don’t want to displace the tenants.
Mortgages are expensive. Repairs and taxes are expensive. No one is blaming the renters. That 60% you are talking about applies to renters and homeowners alike. Everyone is making a monthly payment, whether to a landlord or a bank. I’m not sure you really know who you are angry at.
100% this. Being an owner of a single ADU isn’t like I am making millions here or that I am just some greedy person – I want to increase urban density and help people live in a great place for a reasonable price. This narrative that these small landlords are in it for the money and just focused on money is ridiculous.
Are you blaming renters for financializing the housing market which is the REAL issue? I’m confused, sounds like your saying renters are causing the disappearance of the “small landlord” which by the way is a joke because you can own like 10 houses and still be a mom and pop landlord. The REAL issue is the value of property and also we need to return it to its rightful owners.
Maddy and Mike are blaming the new rental rules (not renters) for making renting unattractive for small landlords.
I haven’t heard many people complain about the limits on raising rents (which I personally think are quite reasonable), but many seem to have a problem with the restrictions on “no-cause” evictions for tenants after their lease has expired.
(I put “no-cause” in quotes because any rational landlord wants to keep good tenants as long as possible; there has to be some underlying reason that would make it worth going through the headaches and expense of rolling the dice on a new tenant.)
But fear not … in the end, landlords will win (landlords run the country) and Portland will be come the next San Francisco and so on … until wealthy people push others out of the next “cool” spot. Same old story.
Landlords shouldn’t complain though. They own more than one insanely expensive properties. I am so confused AND someone else is paying THEIR mortgage?!? I will never understand it. A second home is an investment and investments don’t have rights but people should.
Personally, I’ll be glad to be pushed out of my neighborhood (again) as it becomes more homogenized, more boring, and filled with more and more expensive SUVs (love me a $100,000 SUV) and less bikes. I love wealthy neighborhoods because thank god the trash cans are always brought in on time and the yards are always mowed.
Well, you are in luck – San Francisco rent has been plummeting – https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-rent-dropping-pandemic-people-leaving-silicon-valley-2020-10.
If business insider isn’t a great resource, just do your own googling.
Hahaha so someone working in retail can buy a home there now? Or rent an apartment for 30% off their income? I’ll do you one better … I’ll hop on Zillow and research for myself. See you on the streets!
I didn’t make any of those claims. Just that the rental market is taking big losses. It isn’t sustainable. I was also talking about rent, not purchasing a home. The cost of homes has gone up. You just keep making up your own weird narratives instead of listening, so, yes, please do your own research.
Trying to get some of the usual suspects on this site to express even the tiniest shred of empathy for people who are housing insecure is a hopeless task. Cycling new urbanism is the vanguard party of predatory rent-seeking.
That’s not at all reflective of what people are saying. What I’m seeing is a series of people who are quitting the business because new regulations make it too risky for individuals who specifically want to be good landlords. Moving forward, those properties will either be managed by a large company that is better able to manage the risk, or will be removed from the rental pool altogether, neither of which necessarily serves the interest of tenants.
Being a landlord is work, and it is not unreasonable for people to be paid for the work they do. Absolutely no one should be expected to personally subsidize someone else’s housing either financially or with their labor.
I am a “usual suspect” on this site? Puh-lease. We have never communicated on here before and you know nothing of me. I care a lot for people who are housing insecure and try to be as active as I can be about it. I have directly provided temporary housing to people in need.
What experience do you have in providing housing to people?
I fully support the caps on rent increases.
I’m really excited to vote for Mapps.
I voted for Chloe just to get rid of Novick. Heck, I even donated to her. Mapps isn’t a contrary vote or a compromise. As a bonus, he is a bike commuter!
The joke about this conversation – from both the Chloe and landlord’s perspective, is that the relocation policy was written in a half-assed way that applies to almost no one. Almost no one has ever actually qualified for relocation. I’m astounded that no one has even bothered to ask for the actual data on this policy.
Im excited to vote for Chloe! Rose lanes and renter protections, she has consistently been on the side of those with less power. I see Mingus as someone who has the financial backing of ppl and institutions that already wield disproportionate power in this city
I am looking for civility and intelligence. That’s not Chloe.
100% this. She is not a politician – for better or worse (often worse).
Willamette Week 09/18/2019.
You should read that and then decide about tact and nuance.
I mean, tbf, I prefer Eudaly’s approach to Fritz’s. Fritz is a backstabber and I am sure she did make Eudaly’s life hell. While not a smart political move to show your emotions like that, I prefer her being upfront rather than Fritz’s moves.
Chloe. She has grown in her capacity as commissioner and has a clear position on transportation that supports sustainable, active transport. I don’t think Mingus will follow through on bus and bike infrastructure.
Chloe is too thin skinned and divisive. Mapps is willing to listen and is the calm voice we need.
Ah yes the most commonly trotted out argument against strong women. Taken right out of Ted Wheeler’s playbook. Fffs.
What other women has “thin skinned and divisive” been leveled against? As the most commonly trotted critique of women, there must be dozens of examples. Bonus points if you can find one that Wheeler described this way.
Addressing the substance of the remark, do you think Eudaly is not thin skinned or divisive? Or are you using unfounded claims of sexism to slur someone making a criticism of a politician you like that hits a bit too close to home?
If you want to critique Jon’s critique, instead of “sexist!”, try “boring — everyone already knows that (and that’s why she’s going to lose)!”
I don’t think she’s either of those things. I think those are cheap complaints with little substance. Let’s talk about her ideas or policy, not her personality.
As for “thin skinned and divisive” allow me to present this Ted Wheeler campaign mailer to you: https://twitter.com/alex_zee/status/1316506918567911425/photo/1
I have to give you credit for the Wheeler mailer, but in a political environment that requires you to build alliances to get things done, personality matters. How many other votes was Eudaly able to get in support for her NA reforms (which, based on her stated goals, were generally regarded as good policy)? None, because she took the most divisive approach possible.
Trump is thin skinned and divisive also. Sometimes the Truth is just the Truth.
Trump is thin-skinned and divisive. Is that sexist or simply accurate?
As someone that voted for Hillary Clinton every time I could (2008 primary, 2016 primary, and 2016 general) I would say that I support strong women in politics. Chloe does not seem to take criticism well and sadly criticism is part of the job.
I like Mapps, I like his thoughtfulness, I like that he’s not a social media politician.
Hardesty gave an interview where she talked about how her transition from activist to commissioner. I was impressed at how introspective she was in the interview, and how intentional she was in her approach to the new role.
That’s exactly how I feel. Chloe may have more progressive policies, but she also seems to have no understanding of how markets function, which means that some of her proposals around rent control are simply destined to fail and are a waste of time and energy. Mingus seems like someone who can reach compromise. Better half a loaf than no bread because you’ve alienated the people you need to convince.
She has no understanding of how markets function? Really? Despite running a small business for so long? Doubt it. Sounds more like she interprets the situation differently than you do, than she’s actually lacking in understanding.
Yes, despite running a small business for so long, she clearly doesn’t understand that rent control reduces the incentive to build new housing. This is not a question of interpretation, this is a fact that can be empirically proven. New York City has rent control, has it helped them provide affordable housing for everyone who wants/needs it? No, it’s just meant that now people inherit rent-controlled apartments.
When you take actions that reduce the supply of new housing while demand is constant or increasing, is that going to be good or bad for the majority of renters? Seems pretty clear, but she maintains her focus on rent control regardless.
Running a small business doesn’t mean that you understand high-level economic issues. The rental market is highly complex, with many factors. And do we even know if her bookstore was successful? It shut down when she was elected, but she even noted at the time that it had closed before:
“The truth is it’s taken an extraordinary amount of work, along with support from friends and community members to keep it open off and on for the last several years. And I realized that it really cannot stand on its own two feet without me and well, it can’t have me anymore.”
Rent control is bad policy. I don’t trust anyone who proposes it.
The rental market isn’t highly complex its just Wall Street and therefore you can build a billion more (overly priced) units and prices will not drop nor stabilize. JUST look around. They will continue to climb and for the majority of renters who are already RENT BURDENED how long do you think they should wait? Because before I was renting from a friend, my rent went up $50 a year with plenty of empty units. The rental market is owned by big business and now it doesn’t matter what we do. The only way to stop it is through policy which unfortunately even “liberals” won’t get behind cuz they love their money. I just wish people would call it what it is, greed.
I get where your coming from squareman but personally I am going to vote and work to protect people that need protection. I think housing is a human right not owning a second home.
The notion that “housing is a right” is problematic on a number of levels. Whose obligation is it to provide you with housing? Why should you have to pay rent to exercise your rights? Who is violating the rights of my friend Alfonse, currently living in a broken down car?
This is exactly what I think. Eudaly has essentially told me that as a small landlord, I do not count. I am lumped in with corporate rental agencies who raise the rent every year the max amount possible. I cannot afford her policies. I had a tenant that was very problematic, though technically not breaking the lease. I could not ask this person to leave, unless I was will to pay her 3-5,000 for moving expenses. No way can I afford that. I bought the house as an investment BTW, not a “second home” as some suggest. I try my best to keep rents reasonable (I don’t raise it every year) and give folks a nice house to live in. I’m so tired of being vilified. Eudaly does not get my vote.
She could barely keep her bookstore open and relied on multiple crowdfunding campaigns to survive. If anything, her business record is a strike against her.
Mingus has quite a set of intellectual chops. On paper he seems like a home town version of Obama, except he (Mingus) went to a better university for his graduate degree. That is the kind of brainpower we need to solve our pandemic and post-pandemic problems.
I’d like to add to this – if he proves adept and capable hopefully there may be a higher office for him. I’m hoping he becomes the kind of mayor we need.
Here’s my back-of-the-napkin formula for choosing a political candidate. I rank it in terms of weight (roughly):
1) Government experience, namely building coalitions.
Dealing with any political entity, especially in the United States, requires dealing with large groups of very different people, with different aims, objectives, etc. Getting anything done requires support across the board. I used to think compromising led to less than ideal projects getting approved, but I think sound first steps are better and iterable in the long run.
Additionally, people that build coalitions can often see things from other perspectives, and understand a reality that oftentimes is grey. I have my goals, but I really want to see win-wins here, and we can adjust as necessary.
2) Management experience (preferably large-scale)
Being able to manage a huge bureaucracy and effect meaningful stage means being able to navigate said bureaucracy. Someone that has a proven track record in implementing organizational efficiencies, especially win-wins, means a lot to me.
So I do happen to like people that have had management experience in either a large public entity, quasi-public, or private entity. Corporate management experience can be a plus for this reason: trying to achieve goals in a large organization is quite an accomplishment.
3) A solid understanding of economics (managing budgets, etc.) or securing funding
Managing a city budget is a huge task and at the end of the day, the most noble of intentions takes money to implement. PBOT employees may enjoy bikes, but (I’m going out on a limb here) they probably also enjoy a (hopefully decent) salary, along with medical (and dental?) benefits too. And building bike streets, while far cheaper than building automotive capacity, still require money for concrete, signage, etc. A vision is just a vision, until you can reliably fund it, and somebody that knows how to secure funding, or at least budget properly, is really important in that regard.
Similarly it’s important to have somebody that understand efficient taxation, not to give rich people a leg up, but rather to ensure that the people in need get the benefit of said taxation, and those that will assume a lot of the burden don’t feel that it is unfair to them. The goal should be a win-win, and I think there’s plenty of arguments of how a fairer, more equitable society also makes sound economic sense as well (I can provide a NYT link on this too).
For example, I’m more likely to vote for Elizabeth Warren than Bernie Sanders because she has economic experience teaching bankruptcy law. Her wealth taxation plan to fund M4A has a tad more gravitas given some understanding of economics and taxationn.
Obviously I love a good vision. Who doesn’t? But it’s the icing on the cake for me. Not having any of the other three to me is lacking some critical fundamentals. Most likely these people who campaign on this proposition alone will disappoint (I really, really regret support Bill de Blasio back in NY).
These ideas are somewhat fungible, but it gives a rough sketch as to what I’m looking for. It really does depend on the position to some extent, and sometimes a candidate’s personality and temperament can really change the calculus here (as well as the job performance of the incumbent). Also, in situations like a commissioner race, it’s easier to take a chance on a political neophyte if the other commissioners have a breadth of experience (and have done a good job).
It is not lost on me that a lot of what I am looking for tends to skew white/male. Given our historical inequities this is the sad reality. However, policy decisions can often affect decisions for years to come, so I have to be practical in choosing candidates that I think will best represent the city. This is why I in general in favor giving minorties and women opportunities that would make them great candidates for political office (like greater opportunities for higher education in niche subjects, and even in the corporate world, seeing more minorities/women in management roles).
I’d love to see more resumes like that of Mapps (where he achieved higher-level education in government, has some experience in government) that make it easier to have a greater diversity in government, while not compromising on my above principles. I should note I’ve been a fan of some of Eudaly’s policies for transportation (like bike parking indoors), as well as giving more power to renters (if anything it seems like it needs to be adjusted, not repealed).
Please don’t see this as an endorsement of either candidate (it really isn’t meant to be–you weigh the facts and make your own opinion). I simply wanted to give some idea of the thought process, as rough and imperfect as I depicted it, while choosing a candidate for higher office.
While I always consider intelligence a strong argument in favor, I think we can all remember how the Steve Novick experiment went, and that guy’s almost certainly the most intelligent person to serve on the city council in recent memory (graduated from Harvard Law School at age 21).
[unimportant side note: I don’t know many people who consider Cornell better than Harvard; are you an alumnus too?]
Nope – and I don’t have a PhD. I got my masters in public/environmental policy analysis from Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs a long time ago. I think at that time IU was tied in the rankings with the JFK School at Harvard.
IU in Indiana Pennsylvania?
Not IUP — guessing the OP is talking about the O’Neill School at IU in Bloomington.
I listened to their debate on KBOO the other night. I was concerned about Chloe’s strident position on talking to the Police Union. Mingus espoused a position that he would listen to and work with the Police Union. Chloe seemed to reject the possibility of any communication. Personally, I believe the Police Bureau is in obvious and urgent need of reform, and I see the Police Union as significant obstacle to meaningful change. Whomever is elected will need to represent the police and the activists, and be able to listen to both and craft reforms to protect black Portlanders and develop anti-racist policies. The Police Union is not anti-racist, but I also don’t think it wants to be racist. They are focused on protecting their members and the jobs of their members. We need a leader who can bring them along, to show them how the police can be a part of becoming an anti-racist City, how defunding the Police can be a benefit to officers serving us. Chloe talks about the Police with such disdain, but we need the police. And we need the police to not be racist.
I believe the police would wholeheartedly support taking some of their duties, such as attending to those in a mental health crisis, and assigning them to others. The key is to frame the issue in a non-divisive way, as a win for everyone (which it really is). But as she demonstrated with her “reform” of the neighborhood system, Eudaly is perfectly capable of taking a win-win and making it a lose-lose.
I actually agree with many of Eudaly’s positions. Her biggest problem is that she’s an utterly incompetent leader and a poor manager.
How do you think we fix the problem of only 18% of the police force living in Portland? I don’t think we can even begin the discussion of Police accountability until the majority of police are part of the community they Police.
I used to think this too, but changed my mind after I heard a cop discuss an interaction he had while shopping with his family when he encountered someone he had previously arrested. I now understand why the police (and prosecutors) don’t always want to live in the community where they work.
I only know one Portland cop personally. Lives in Washington. Has right wing tattoos, and openly admits to not responding to calls. Nothing is worse than a sample size of one, but this person has really impacted my belief that Police should live in the community they police, or do not feel the same responsibility to the community.
Eudaly is very much a populist. Populists quite often govern from emotional reasoning and rely upon emotional reactions from people to keep support.
Mapps comes across as a level-headed intellectual, who lives in an analytical world.
This vote was easy.
I like how Mapps said he would study an issue to get to the correct answer. He doesn’t have to have all the answers right away, which is what people in a social media world want.
Our leaders need to be compassionate, we should focus on that. Intelligent people can be manipulative, cruel or plain psychopaths.
Or some of them can be like Obama. Intelligent and decent people.
There is no “reform” of the police union. The PPA reflects its members. The police will never accept any level of accountability. The police don’t want to be “shown” anything. The whole organization is full of right-wing rot from the top to bottom. PPB management is just as toxic and awful as the rank and file.
Anyone who thinks you can work with the PPA to create change is lying to you or naive themselves.
Hey everyone, look at the number of likes on these comments. Which perspective is more popular? The “ACAB perspective” or the “Hey everyone let’s actually come together as a community and solve our problems perspective?
What do you think the community wants? Hardline knee-jerk opinions that divide us further, or people capable of bridging the gaps and bringing everyone to the table for a solution?
***Portion of comment deleted by moderator*** Most people want dialogue, not to burn down the dang Historical Society. We want dialogue and change. Grow up.
***Portion of comment deleted by moderator*** Most people want dialogue, not to burn down the dang Historical Society. We want dialogue and change. Grow up.
Nice work, Jonathan.
Thanks. Glad you approve of my moderation.
Our job (as non-members) isn’t to reform the PPA, but to negotiate with it. The contract, including all its oversight provisions (or lack thereof), has to be approved by city council. Eudaly, Fritz, Hardesty, and Wheeler voted unanimously in July to extend the current contract for a year without modification.
I’m thankful to see so many people commenting who are voting for Chloe this time after the roasting I got last election for supporting her. As I said then, I’m voting for her because she gets me and in some ways is me. She’s been thoughtful and willing to consider my car-free position despite her needing to have a personal vehicle to move her son around. I’m all-in for anyone I can disagree with on personal vehicles, have an online discussion with, and come to a place where we *do* agree.
The “thin-skinned and divisive” comment doesn’t ring true to me. She was a bridge builder and connector of people and supports long before she ran for office; I’ve seen no evidence that her personality has changed.
She initially opposed any efforts to create local access streets during the pandemic, and the eventual solution was/is woefully inadequate. She may “consider” car-free positions, but she is no advocate for us. Actions speak louder than words.
While I understand the appeal of voting for someone who looks like / is like you, I don’t feel like it’s a very good rationale for selecting an elected official.
I don’t really vote for people based on how they are or are not like me. I want reasoned, capable people willing to be passionate but still effective in their decision making. I don’t think Eudaly was much of a leader at PBot and find her often disdainful of bike policy. I find her personality difficult and ineffective for her position.
I’m voting for Mapps. I admire Eudaly’s enthusiasm, passion, and dedication to disadvantaged populations. However, I feel that her approaches are simplistic and alienating to wide swaths of our community. Though my politics are pretty progressive, I favor elected reps who have a more nuanced approach to complex problems. ALSO, and this is my particular bias, I think that public service in the political realm should not be a career. Serve your constituents for a time, then go back to being a productive member of society. The longer one is in politics, it seems that the more they are beholden to powerful interest groups to sustain their careers (with a few exceptions I’m sure).
Thanks for your service, Chloe – now get back to work! Mingus, show us what you’ve got!
As a low-income tenant, I’m voting for Eudaly due to her powerful and effective efforts to reduce rental price-gouging, protect tenants from dehumanizing eviction and harassment, and develop new non-market housing alternatives. If you want to stop greedy real-estate speculators, predatory slumlords, and pro-market sycophants from evaporating the last few remaining working class tenants in this city, please vote for Comm Eudaly.
Chloe Eudaly received a strong endorsement from Portland Tenants United:
If the laws become too tilted towards the tenants then you will see apartments turned into condos and sold off. I wasn’t a greedy real estate mogul yet I was treated as one. Guess what, I sold the house and that equals one less rental in the market. Nice work chloe!!!
So what kind of landlord were you? Did you rent below market value? Did you allow pets? Did you make sure to check on the home regularly? Did you not increase rents? Because if you were just another landlord charging insane (market-rate) rent and extracting more and more from tenants I’m not sure it was a loss. And if you truly were a good landlord/person and cared for your tenants and recognized you are providing a home maybe you wouldn’t look at one bad situation and take it out on all renters and would likely have stayed to provide the service you so care about…
Didn’t raise the rent!! Had simple rules like keep the house and yard clean( which he failed at miserably, so much so that the neighbors complained) took down the smoke alarms and was belligerent to any confrontation about those issues. After all that we had to shell out cash for him to move. You may think we are rich assholes but if two hard working nurses is considered rich in Portland than good riddance.
A unicorn does not a policy make.
We are selling our ‘second home’ rental house too, and we will not be able to make as much money because the tenants will either still be in the house, and/or we will have to pay relocation fees. I view Eudaly’s tenant’s rights as passing the buck from city housing costs to city property owner’s (subsidy), which is not a fair distribution of housing cost. People won’t even vote to significantly raise the gas tax (or mileage of road use/registration fees…whatever) to pay for transportation infrastructure. There is a reason why there is city legislation that a home owner’s property tax can’t increase more than 3% per year, which doesn’t include bonds passed in the measures we vote on. As a private home owner renting a second home, it is no longer worth the risk for us to rent. The real problem is infrastructure money, and planning, and home owner’s are indirectly being financially burdened with a price that will end up eliminating all rentals of second homes in Portland. I’d like to know the whole story why Frank Gerry didn’t get to build his affordable housing project here in Portland.
Chloe initially resisted the slow streets plan to create more accessible space during covid. What was implemented were a bunch of temporary drive-around barriers on greenways saying “local traffic only” on streets that basically always have local traffic only. It was lackluster for a city like Portland. Taking over street parking by restaurants was initiated primarily by the restaurants and later tacitly supported. But what changes has she implemented in the last 6 months that are truly ground breaking that make others look to Portland as a leader in bike infrastructure and transit?
That is not an accurate assessment of what happened. The Slow/Healthy Strees program was in development pre-COVID. I’m glad we have didn’t rush the effort and tried to get things right for BIPOC communities and small businesses.
Mingus because he wants to reform the very organization he is running to be a part of and doesn’t think it is a cute moniker on his platform that Portland is known as “little Beirut”.
Landlord/homeowner/wealthier individual – Mapps
Renter/Lower income – Eudaly
Mapps will fight to make sure that the status quo remains and everyone who is doing well stays that way despite our unjust and bias systems. This is what it always comes down to. “Liberal” people love the idea of basic human rights and treating other humans with respect (i.e. housing as a human right) until it comes out of their pockets. Why nothing will ever really change (or why change is SO slow) …
Well, if that’s how the chips are going to fall, I’m predicting a loss for Chloe here. There are more voting homeowners than renters in this city.
Yeah, I think people are greedy. Well most people. I just wish people were more honest about their greed, especially “liberals” who claim to care about other people but actually care more about their wealth.
Of course people are greedy, it’s literally our nature. The point is, we need a regulatory framework that makes it profitable to produce affordable housing. It sounds like you favor rent control, which will never lead to the amount of new construction we need. Why build new housing if it can’t be sold/rented for enough to cover the cost of construction?
NOPE, we just slaughtered all the populations that weren’t. I’m literally getting a PhD in conservation and evolutionary genetics … Humans aren’t greedy by nature we are separated by others by cooperation. LET’S BE BETTER!!!! Don’t wait for Mingus or Eudaley just be better to people. See you on the streets!
Where do you play into the solution? What part of your paycheck should go to house people? You can’t just shake your fist at everyone else and not define your own necessary sacrifice and responsibility to your fellow citizens.
If representative government represents the majority, how is that unjust? That is literally democracy. Slow change should be seen as a feature, not a bug, we don’t want our society whipsawing around based on whatever the fringe mentality du jour is.
Our city government and by extension the city is failing to function. I think someone like Mapps will be a better manager and will be more effective on council. I think they both want the same things.
Apart from Eudaly’s important work on behalf of renters during her tenure, I just can’t imagine voting for someone who takes money from (and wants to “build bridges with”) a police union that has spent the last four months defending their right to teargas and brutalize the people of this city. Mapps has a fancy degree but exactly zero policy ideas beyond cozying up with cops and wealthy homeowners.
I’ll be casting a vote for Chloe Eudaly in 2020, as I did in 2016. Her support of transit priority lanes, tenant protections, open/slow streets, Biketown for All accessibility, Better Naito and defunding the PPB are among the many reasons we need a commissioner like Chloe Eudaly in City Hall.
Chloe hands down.
I voted for Mapps in the primary because I wanted to give him a shot in the general. I was hoping he would more fully flesh out his policy ideas if given more time, but I feel he never laid a really bold vision on anything nor how he bring any specific progress about. My wife and I just cast our ballots for Eudaly because she has accomplished the biggest policy item she promised in the last election advocating for renters and those seeking more affordable housing. She has proven to be an effective transportation commissioner too. I wish she had not bungled her efforts too reform the neighborhood association system, because it is in need of reform. However I don’t think that it was a major setback and it could be revisited later.
I echo your thoughts, Adam. And I do give Eudaly credit for recognizing the inequitable nature of the Neighborhood Association system, although her attempt at reform was not accurately calibrated to the entitlement backlash. I’m voting for Chloe.
I don’t buy the line that the NAs are in need of reform. They are open to anyone living or operating a business or organization in an area. I just don’t.
“Why, if those low-income renters want to, they can come to our meetings on a Monday night in the church basement”. And when they do, they hear people complaining about a new apartment proposal, if they stay past the litany of introductions, like “I’m Fred, and I’ve lived here for 40 years”, “I’m Joan, and my grandparents built the house I live in.”… They may be “open”, but a lot of people come once and never return because of the toxic attitudes and exclusion they see on display. Not all NAs, but enough of them.
I understand it can be hard to be part of a civic group where people hold different opinions than you do, but that’s part of being a member of a varied community in a democratic society.
NAs provide a great way for people to learn about how the city works, to connect with their neighbors, and to engage in low-level civic activity that some people find very rewarding.
I have found that many “activists” don’t like NAs because they make it easier for people to engage, which is a problem if you are advocating for things not supported by the majority in your community.
Eudaly’s answer, to tear the system down and replace it with a collection of nonprofits that represent specific interests, and which can be better controlled through the use of funding and contracts, is fundamentally anti-democratic.
As someone that used to be an officer in my neighborhood association in Portland I found it to be a great way to participate in “grass roots” level government. Most of our work was about organizing graffiti removal, large item garbage collection days, meeting with the local police officer regarding crime in the area, publishing a newsletter, and in rare cases input on land use cases like when businesses are applying for liquor licenses or developers asking for minor variances to the code for a project. It was the only way for local residents to have a voice in what was happening in the place they lived when dealing with bigger money interests.
CHLOE! It’s always easier to be the new guy when you’re running against an incumbent, especially — it would seem — in Portland.
From the Portland Mercury’s endorsement of Chloe:
What does it mean to be a “divisive” politician in 2020? In the eyes of candidate Mingus Mapps and his supporters, it’s the textbook definition of City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly. Mapps has gained momentum in his run to replace Eudaly by underscoring her so-called divisive approach to city politics—whether it’s her interest in repairing the city’s inequitable community engagement process without prioritizing input from neighborhood groups, or her work to place Portland’s tenants on an equal footing with the city’s monied landlords and developers. Mapps has also called her decision to rein in the unparalleled power of the Portland Police Bureau’s (PPB) “gut-based” (over “evidence based”).”
“Women politicians have been called “divisive” and “emotional” (synonym for “gut-based”) far too long to not see the casual sexism embedded in these accusations. But this race isn’t just about dog whistle sexism. We believe the reasons Eudaly has been stuck with these labels are exactly why we need her in city government.”
I voted for Chloe today! She gets things done…Rose lanes, tenants’ rights and protections, car free greenways during the pandemic, trying to bring equity to neighborhood input besides neighborhood associations. Portland is a growing and changing city. Chloe responds to change with innovative ideas for all, not just the landowners.
I continue to support Chloe Eudaly in her role as Commissioner. Here’s why:
Eudaly serves as the Commissioner-in-Charge of the Portland Bureau of Transportation, the Office of Community & Civic Life, the Office of Community Technology, and oversees the City’s Arts Portfolio. During her time as Commissioner, she’s made significant and much-needed progress on transportation and renter’s rights issues. Some significant projects include: transit priority lanes (Rose Lanes), tenant protections, open/slow streets, Biketown for All accessibility, Better Naito and no-nonsense defunding of the Portland Police Bureau (PPB).
Mingus Mapps, while cool and level-headed, has very few policies regarding transportation (the very bureau he is tasked with overseeing). It seems that he is building his platform primarily around housing and housing reform. While undoubtedly very important issues, those are not ones that are directly under his oversight. The Housing Bureau is directly managed by the Mayor. Additionally, he has accepted donations from the Police Bureau which has led to significant criticism. Not a good start, IMO. Although Mapps’ values seems to be in the right place gauging by his website, his platform highlights a negotiations-based approach which he has stated will lead him to seek negotiation on topics that (IMO) require stronger boundaries rather than negotiations (i.e. police bureau reform and public safety). I am also concerned that his environmental stances are not strong or clear enough and that he does not seem to have any comments on transportation and transportation improvements other than affordable public transit -and that is the largest bureau he will be responsible for. While he may have skills, this is not the role for him. Mapps is unprepared for the biggest job he will be tasked with: overseeing the City’s Bureau of Transportation.
Under new Mayoral leadership, it is HER responsibility to coordinate efforts across bureaus to move the needle on housing and policing improvements -not Mapps’. Iannarone is an urbanism expert and will take initiative and guide on these issues, certainly, but Mingus’ expertise does not seem to lie in the areas he is responsible for overseeing. Due to his lack of expertise in transportation and minimal mention of transit issues, I fear that he will be unable to continue the progress Chloe Eudaly has made on transportation projects and more responsibility will fall unto the mayor to manage this bureau due to Mapps’ lack of experience, expertise, and proclivity for negotiations when they are not necessarily needed, specifically on transit related issues. Our local and regional transit goals are clear, best urban planning practices and environmental science are also clear on what the future of mobility must look like and how we get there.
Chloe Eudaly, while bold, outspoken and, perhaps, not the most graceful, has demonstrated a strong willingness to support progressive action that translates to quick and visible change to the built environment. She also has shown that she has strong boundaries and is not afraid to state and act on these when necessary, as she has demonstrated in her exemplary teamwork with Jo Ann Hardesty taking clear anti-racist stances and swiftly working to reduce the PPB budget during recent months.
During times like these when the PPB is in need of serious reform, there shouldn’t be much room for negotiation on the table. All commissioners and the mayor will need to work together to stand their ground with the PPB, the most contentious, corrupt, and deeply racist bureau in need of no-nonsense reform. Mingus has demonstrated he is not willing to set those boundaries and will, in fact, negotiate and accept the PPB’s endorsement and funding ($15,000 worth from the police bureau).
After reading several articles and following Chloe’s work and actions for the last couple of years, I’d say she’s done a solid job stepping into the role during such a turbulent time and under challenging leadership. Chloe has gotten a lot done within the bureaus she is tasked with overseeing, meaning she has done her job and has done it well. I support Chloe Eudaly continuing her role as City Commissioner for her specific bureaus, and I look forward to more transportation and mobility-related upgrades city-wide.
“Mingus Mapps, while cool and level-headed, has very few policies regarding transportation (the very bureau he is tasked with overseeing).”
That is not true. We have no idea what Bureau(s) Mapps will be assigned to lead by the Mayor. Nor what Bureaus Eudaly would have, either: Wheeler could take PBOT away from her tomorrow if he wanted to. Assigning Bureau leadership is pretty much the only power the Mayor has vs other commissioners, and that is the fundamental problem with Portland city government.
You are factually incorrect on a couple of matters: The Mayor reassigns bureaus each election under our current system. Commissioners are not elected to oversee any specific bureau. Mapps also did not take money from PPB. He took it from PPA and said he would not take it if it were to be offered again.
I also disagree that Eudaly has done a good job in her role. I’m ready for a change in this Commissioner’s seat and think Mapps will better meet my goals as a resident. I find her divisive and petty and entitled. I think there are better policies for addressing housing than what she has passed. But that’s a matter of opinion!
Eudaly because she showed bold leadership on Rose Lane Project. Now that traffic is down it may not seem it, but this was a big move and it’s continued expansion will serve us well when the pandemic ends.
The Rose Lane Project is all talk at this point (except for the short segment downtown that involved no real tradeoffs). Maybe it will materialize, but all the hard political choices lie in the future.
Eudaly hurt everythign she touched. Traffic/deaths are more, she wasted a ton of money on her publicity campaigns with no results, caused rents to go higher with her spiteful legislation.
Sure, if you want to be like a trump voter who only cares about hurting the other side, Eudaly is great. But these things come back to hurt us, and because of her, ton of people got rent increases. She is an incredibly spiteful and divisive and incompetent person, and she wants to consolidate power. She gave no bid contracts to her friends, she has zero respect for people who do not agree with her, fired people which caused a ton of severence pay, to replace them with her cronies that ended up getting much inflated salaries.
Under her watch, traffic sucked, more people died in traffic, less people are riding bicycles, and she created a very divisive environment.
No, thanks. We have enough incompetent, divisive and spiteful people in politics. We need people who can bridge both sides and take in to the overall picture, not just her base.
Mingus all the way.
“***Portion of comment deleted by moderator***”
The “moderator” of this forum is going around and editing out portions of people’s comments.
Take what you read here with caution and tread lightly, know that comments and their contents are being altered by the moderator. As always, be careful with what you read and trust on the internet. We are watching the breakdown of dialogue in our democracy as we speak.
Hi ReallyTho. I’m the moderator. I’m also the owner, publisher, editor, and so on. You are new here. Welcome! I do watch the comments carefully and I reserve the right to edit/delete as I find necessary. If you stick around awhile you’ll find out that I’m very fair and I only delete portions of comments that are mean and insensitive and that don’t further your argument. So in a way you should thank me for cleaning up your words.
Just so you know, you are welcome to disagree with other people, but I won’t tolerate name-calling or personal insults of any kind. I also don’t like labeling or stereotyping. If you have any questions about how I moderate, feel free to ask.
Do you have a standard criteria for that or is it just to it gut reaction. I had a portion of my comment deleted. There was nothing of the sort that you mentioned in gut, and no I do not thank you for your superior attitude and desire to filter the opinions of others.
Congratulations on owning your own forum, it takes more work than that to maintain it as a trustable place for discourse, and if people don’t know what to expect, don’t know what your standards are, why you feel about some things in some ways and not in others, how in the hell do you think we can trust you to edit and change our words and intent?
Good god this is awful.
It’s just a gut reaction mostly. But a gut informed by 480,596 comments in the past 15 or so years. I don’t have a set of commenting rules specifically because I know people would then interpret those rules literally. In my view, moderation is best done with discretion based on good intentions. I believe I have a lot of both those things.
You can call this a superior attitude but I’m just trying to explain how I operate things here. Again… this is my private business and I treat it as such. Imagine if this was a brick/mortar location. Would you expect to be able to come inside and behave however you’d like? Or leave trash on the ground? All I do is try to keep my place of business welcoming to all and free of trash.
And to be clear, you are not the trash in this analogy… But some of the words you use and the way you use them I consider to be trash.
Read through this thread and you’ll see a lot of contrary opinions and strong words directed at others. I’m not stifling anything. I’m just cleaning up bits of trash here and there in an effort to keep thing tidy so that my business can flourish. I hope you understand. Thanks for listening.
Jonathan and I disagree on many issues, but one area of agreement is that he does an excellent job with moderation. No one is 100%, but this forum comes closer than most to achieving dialog that remains civil despite sometimes sharp differences between commentors.
If you stick around, you’ll find that the edits Jonathan makes are clearly marked and generally quite reasonable to achieve the goals he has for keeping this forum from devolving into a puddle of primordial goo. He never changes the meaning of a comment, and takes pains to excise as little as possible, even when one could argue for just deleting the whole thing.
I am on moderation (god knows why) which means Jonathan has to manually approve every comment I write. With a single recent exception (a comment comparing Eudaly’s and Trump’s narcissism), he has published every comment I’ve made, even those critical of him or things he holds dear.
I’m both strongly anti-censorship and strongly pro-civility, and I think this forum is about the best mix of those two sometimes opposing values.
Thanks Hello, Kitty. I appreciate you sharing this. And BTW, you’re no longer on auto-moderation! (Don’t make me put you back on tho ;-). )
And just FYI, I think I had you on the moderation list, not because you wrote mean things but because you commented so much. There are several really wonderful commenters on the list because I feel the volume of their comments can often overwhelm a post and be intimidating to others. Sometimes it’s good to step back and let others step forward instead of dominating the space. Please keep that in mind going forward. Thanks for all your contributions here.
Eudaly: She’s pushed through several important policy changes over the loud objections of the minority that can afford to go to city meetings. The failure of the changes to the neighborhood system showed a problem with her process, but she was trying to do the right thing, and she’s learned from that sort of mistake in the past.
Mapps agrees with Eudaly and me about many things, but he seems more willing to give into NIMBY groups on housing and more likely to give into the police union at a time we need to be reducing its power.
Voting for Trump too?
In an incendiary email sent Sept. 10, City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly threatened to damage the reputation of Commissioner Amanda Fritz for opposing her changes to the way the city works with neighborhood associations.
“I have tolerated her interference in my bureaus and mobilizing NA’s against me for 2+ years,” Eudaly writes. “I am done. If she persists, and especially if she gains any traction, this will get uglier, because it will become a referendum on her gross mismanagement of the bureau and the city’s 45-year inequitable investments in civic engagement to the detriment of the very communities we now claim to want to serve and support.”
In the email, which Eudaly sent separately to Mayor Ted Wheeler and Commissioners Jo Ann Hardesty and Nick Fish, Eudaly implied her colleagues could face similar consequences if they opposed her proposal.
“I have barely begun to rally support,” Eudaly’s email to her colleagues continues. “You may have noticed I’m really good at rallying support.”
Willamette Week 09/18/2019
I expect her to start rallying support any day now.