It’s been a wild 24 hours.
Months of fireworks on the streets during protests for racial justice and against police brutality led to fireworks at City Hall on Wednesday as members of City Council considered a proposal to cut $18 million from the Portland Police Bureau budget. A planned vote was delayed because Mayor Ted Wheeler and commissioners Amanda Fritz and Dan Ryan said they needed more time to digest it. And then around 1:00 pm on Thursday, Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty – who spearheaded the budget proposal and pushed hard for a vote Wednesday — issued a scathing rebuke of Mayor Wheeler’s “failed” leadership and endorsed his challenger Sarah Iannarone just days before a very tight election.
Hardesty has worked for months to craft the cuts based on her Rethink Portland initiative and she formed a united front with fellow Commissioner Chloe Eudaly in support of them. But on a five-member council, this progressive duo needed to become a trio to enact the changes. With the election on Tuesday, they wanted a vote before the next meeting. With Wheeler and Fritz voting as a block against significant police reform, it all came down to untested Commissioner Dan Ryan who’s only been in office since September 10th after winning a special election in August to replace the late Nick Fish.
Hardesty and Eudaly worked more like activists than politicians in the past week, urging people to contact the three other commissioners. Cutting $18 million from the police budget after $15 million in cuts back in June is a big deal and tension around the vote was high. 165 people testified and the majority of them strongly supported the move.
“I don’t want to be rushed right now.”
— Dan Ryan, city commissioner
I’m sharing this on BikePortland because the police budget matters to everyone who uses Portland streets — especially people of color, vulnerable and marginalized road users like bicycle riders, and those who use streets to exercise their constitutional right to protest. Traffic stops are the most common way most people interact with police and we’ve watched for years as PPB officers have used traffic law-related justifications to forcibly — and too often violently — remove law-abiding citizens from streets and other public spaces.
While transportation-specific policing issues haven’t garnered much attention in Portland yet, the cuts and reforms being proposed by Hardesty and Eudaly (who happens to be in charge of the transportation bureau) will inevitably lead us there.
In a memo from Hardesty to her colleagues on October 19th detailing the proposal, she described her vision for, “A Portland where a reduced police force is focused solely on solving crime, where crime is addressed through a public health lens, and where we make reinvestments in community and police alternatives to provide support and de‐escalated responses to those in need of assistance.” The biggest line item in the cuts, over $7 million, would eliminate the 42 officer positions left empty by recent retirements. Other elements include an elimination of overtime and reduction of funding for military-grade munitions. Hardesty wants to use money saved in PPB cuts to support “our most vulnerable community members, creating alternatives to police, and setting aside funds in contingency to help mitigate any potential cuts.”
When it came time to take a stand and vote for the proposal, Commissioner Fritz said she was “exhausted” and needed more information, Wheeler said he wanted more analysis of the potential impacts of the cuts, and Ryan simply said he needed more time. “I don’t want to be rushed right now,” Ryan said. “And I also reflecting on what happened in the US Senate this week. I think most supporters would agree on the fact that they’ve made a rushed vote on a Supreme Court justice a week before the election, so why would I want to be a part of a government that does that?”
When it became clear there would be no vote yesterday, Hardesty did not hide her disappointment:
“I am disappointed that we didn’t do our job tonight. People have been taking into the street, every night for 156 days. It is shocking that my city council colleagues don’t know why people are taking to the street. I wish I could have actually fulfilled the public’s request and cut the full 35 million, but that would not have been a responsible move. Commissioner Eudaly and I worked very hard to make sure that the cuts that we were proposing would not impact the staffing levels of Portland Police Bureau, nor would it have an impact on the DOJ settlement agreement. This didn’t come out of nowhere. And each of you have had many opportunities to ask questions on my amendments, all of you have had an opportunity to push back.
I see it as a very cowardly move to be trying to put this vote off until after the election, because that’s exactly what it is.
I am a bit disgusted tonight with the lack of courage of this council… I am really disappointed in you colleagues. We had the opportunity to show the public that not only are we being responsible; but we’re actually listening to the people who night after night after night are telling us what they need. What it cowardly way to end, what has been a very brilliant afternoon of testimony.”
Hardesty’s proposal will be back at City Hall for a possible vote on Thursday November 5th at 2:00 pm.
— 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.
Classic Wheeler- complain how hard it is to make substantial changes, but do nothing when the opportunity is at hand.
Unrelated question, but is there a substantial deficit in the current overall city budget in terms of general funding?
Also, if everyone in Oregon votes by mail anyway, hasn’t everyone who is going to vote at all already sent in their vote? I mean, here in NC we have polls open in every precinct on election day, but we also have absentee voting and early poll voting. But hasn’t Oregon long ago closed all its voting booths? So if it’s all by mail, haven’t most votes already been submitted? So what decernable difference will Hardesty’s last-minute endorsement of Iannarone make in the election?
In WA, about 55% of registered voters have had their ballots accepted already. Compare that to 77% of RV ballots accepted in 2916 total. Then add your own secret sauce for OR.
Also, why has no one mentioned all PDX bicyclists’ fav councilor Fritz?
The ballot drop off locations are widely used instead of the mail. The votes are still coming in.
Multnomah County has seen returns of about 60% at this point. More are probably in the mail or sitting in drop boxes. Polling has shown that the race for mayor is very close. A last second endorsement could still swing the race.
I’ll admit that my ballot is still sitting here on the table. I don’t get a vote in this particular election, but I’m sure there are plenty of people like me who will be rushing to get their ballot into the drop box at 7:59 on Tuesday.
I really respect Jo Ann, but the election is in only 5 days. I’m really worried about the Proud Boys and their friends getting more violent if Trump loses. Waiting to restructure the police until after the election may be smart.
No one is talking about restructuring the police five days before the election. And PPB are full of proud bois and other fascist/white supremacist groups. PPB has never protected us from the fascist in the past, why would this be different?
I’m more worried about them getting violent if Trump wins, shooting live ammo as a form of celebration.
Anyone listen to the Oath Keepers interview on NPR yesterday? Oath Keepers is an extreme right nationwide militia group, 80% of membership are police and military, active and retired. They vow “civil war” if Trump is defeated. Paranoia is on full display, such as shooting children because liberals may have strapped IEDs to their bodies!
I’m worried about the militias.
I’d say we have a bigger problem with antifa/BLM burning the city down.
Have you ever been in Portland? What part of the city has been burned down/is being burned down? You comment has no connection to reality.
Have some tried setting fire to buildings?
Do you actually believe that the petty acts of vandalism and intentional provocations that these fires represent come anywhere close to the threat that is posed by armed and organized interstate paramilitary groups? If they were trying to burn down buildings, they would have done it already.
No, I don’t. That being said, I’m not sure what to think will happen as a result of this election.
You are referring, I hope, to pretext stops where a traffic infraction is an excuse to top a vehicle because something looks “suspicious”, not the ordinary traffic enforcement activity conducted by the traffic division that keep things from being even more Mad Max than they are.
I’m referring to what happens in protests and other demonstrations (like Critical Mass in the old days and any large street demonstration) when PPB assumes that the only “traffic” that deserves space on the road are people in cars and they use force to move people off the road even though there’s often not enough space to leave the roadway and/or when people are on bikes or other vehicles they have a right to be in the roadway.
We agree on that point; if the police are clearing the streets of peaceful protestors without legal authority for doing so, it’s a big problem. The best response is obey officers and file a lawsuit. The worst is to try to physically resist or retaliate.
(Just for the record, I’ve been “cleared” numerous times; mostly during the Critical Mass era and the “Little Beirut” protests, but also this summer.)
JoAnn Hardesty, Chloe Eudaly, and Sarah Iannarone are on the right side of history. Fukc Ted Wheeler. And so very disappointed in Dan Ryan.
You’re disappointed that a brand new council member wants to make a fully informed decision on an incredibly important issue? We’re talking major structural reforms (which I generally support) that will take years to fully implement. In the grand scheme, what difference does one more week make?
Seriously, this. Look what happened when all those fresh-faced city council members in Minneapolis who publically committed to disbanding the police. Most have since backed away from their words, some, implausibly, claiming they didn’t understand what they were saying, or that they felt the statement was “symbolic”, or some other rubbish. I suspect many will not survive their next election. Making a rushed commitment to radical change in the heat of the moment is foolish for any politician who wants to keep their job. Ryan made a smart, if inexpedient, decision.
I want leaders who will take the time to learn about an issue before acting on it.
Chairman Mao thought he was on the right side of history, also.
He apparently was on the right side of history. His brand of dictatorship is still in power today, and it’s actually beaten coronavirus. Their economy is booming and their influence in the world is surpassing America’s.
Solid points! We should absolutely adopt some Authoritarianism! Plus, their track record on Human Rights would be hard to achieve in a Democratic Republic.
Wasn’t it Harry Truman who said that the most efficient form of government was a dictatorship?
Dan Ryan is an empty suit with the moral fortitude of a wet sack of hot dogs.
The the memo Hardesty sent on Oct 19: “…Hardesty wants to use money saved in PPB cuts to support “our most vulnerable community members, creating alternatives to police, and setting aside funds in contingency to help mitigate any potential cuts.”
What does it mean to use the money to support the most vulnerable community members? What are the alternatives to the police? I got a post from the police chief on FB saying in part “The PPB welcomes ongoing, thoughtful, evidence-based reforms and would like to be a part of these discussions. Once appropriate structures are in place, we completely agree that there are situations where police response may not be the best way to serve the community. …I support thoroughly researched, data-driven proposals to improve public safety. This is a conversation worth having, but not a conversation worth rushing. I hope we take the time needed to ensure that any decisions result in the public safety outcomes we all seek.”
I realize that trust in PPB is at an all-time low, but what is the replacement model? I would like to see something in place to before we stat dismantling the PPB. I suspect it will take long time to create a community response division- it will need a budget and official positions to be filled, etc. I realize things are bad out there now for many people, but there is a real potential things could get worse without adequate means to respond to emergencies. I support waiting until a replacement structure is fully developed and adopted
“The PPB welcomes ongoing, thoughtful, evidence-based reforms and would like to be a part of these discussions…I support thoroughly researched, data-driven proposals to improve public safety.”
The PPB has its problems, but that is an incredibly encouraging response from the PPB.
I agree, and I hope our leaders will “call their bluff” by providing some thoughtful, evidence-based reforms to improve public safety.
I’d much rather see positive proposals for change than cuts for the sake of cutting.
Haha they are talking out of their necks to try and fool moderates into thinking that they are trying to act in good faith.
I bet the “evidence” they want to listen to is from the National Police Association and the “evidence” will point toward paying officers more, wasting more money on training, and more time off.
You forgot the “more and bigger guns/toys”
Here’s a link to the memo Hardesty wrote. I found it on OPB’s website:
I have not yet been able to track down the text of the actual amendment they were discussing, where I assume we will find specific details on funding re-allocations.
I flatter myself in being good at finding such documents on the city website, but I completely failed to find it this time. The budget proposal I found had no radical budget adjustments for the police, just 50 layoffs at BDS (development services.) My guess is that it is still being reviewed by the city budget office before they release it to the public, but really I have no idea.
I have been appalled by videos that have been posted of police being overly aggressive and using excessive force in response to protests. Officers need to be held accountable. We need to change laws that shield officers from prosecutions when they commit crimes and renegotiate police union contract provisions that prevent officers from being punished when they step out of line. But I don’t agree with Hardesty’s proposed solutions.
I strongly support the idea of creating a group of unarmed city employees that can serve many of the functions of the police. I could even imagine that the majority of officers that are currently walking around with lethal weapons could be replaced with unarmed people who are backed up by a smaller force of armed officers. But I think we have way too few people enforcing traffic laws and providing security on public transit. I see people flagrantly violating traffic laws with impunity on a daily basis, and I hardly see any officers on the street who could do anything about it. I do not support any proposal that would slash $18 Million from the police budget without first hiring and training a group of people that are ready to take on the responsibility of enforcing laws on day one.
I voted for Mayor Wheeler because I think that Iannarone’s positions on homelessness and police funding are unrealistic and unworkable. I think she has a lot of great ideas on transportation and land use that I would like to support. I have been greatly disappointed with Wheeler’s leadership in many ways. But I don’t think Iannarone or Hardesty’s policies on these issues are going to move us in the right direction.
Also, what does Hardesty think will happen if we completely eliminate overtime for police officers? Is there going to be zero police presence at nightly protests? What happens when 700 proud boys flood into downtown on a weekend, as they do from time to time? Do we just let them break skulls because we want to make a symbolic gesture by cutting the police budget?
The PPB has never, ever, not once, protected us from the proud bois.
Nope, nope, and…nope.
A question was asked if the cuts can be made without layoffs. Hardesty could not answer, nor could staff. That’s the hold up. PPB is seriously understaffed.
As an example. Last weekend, a young person who “lived to drift” was fatally shot at SE 48th and Division. (I don’t know the circumstances but heard at least 5 shots fired) Police were delayed in responding. Every night since, people on foot, bikes, in homes, and in cars are threatened by noise and vehicles of the vicitms friends “paying respect” by drifting and stunting at the site. No police response is available.
Yes! Reform is needed, but there is still a basic service level needed to deal with situations occurring and those being investigated.
PPB is engaged in a work slowdown to make people like you not support cutting their budget.
PPB isn’t going to respond to your problem regardless of staffing levels because they don’t care about you or your neighborhood.
That’s not been my experience at all.
“Conservative middle-aged white guy has positive experience with police, more at 11”
Well, you got the “conservative” part very incorrect. If you had said “analytical non-extremist” you’d be much more accurate. Not that I feel a need to justify myself to you but I’ve only voted for a conservative 3 times in my life. Just wanted to point out the error in your assumptions about stereotyping anyone with a different experience than yours.
But again my experience has been, in many circumstances, positive. Have helped get some stolen cars back to their owners…including one just a month ago.
“Voting conservative” doesn’t mean you are or aren’t conservative. The US has two conservative parties. You probably vote for the slightly less conservative Democrats. You are a “Ted Wheeler liberal”, all the policies of the republicans but with feel good platitudes.
Literally anyone could help get stolen cars back to their owners, we don’t need to pay someone $130k a year and arm them with a gun to do so. Getting kudos for the most basic parts of their job does not make them useful or efficient.
When my car was stolen, the later recovered, no one “returned it to me”. Someone called and told me where it was. I doubt the caller had a gun.
Where they might have needed a gun is if they had seen someone driving it and wanted to stop them.
But to your larger point, everyone (including the police) thinks that chunks of their job could be offloaded to someone else. What we need is a coherent plan for making that happen without creating new gaps in the system. That’s going to take a lot of careful planning, new funding, and a well-considered implementation strategy.
That’s what we should be demanding, not a competition to see who can champion the most draconian cuts without any plan for what to do instead.
Excellent point! Programs often need several years of being in place before they get efficient processes and appropriate staffing. Saying “we are going to move all mental health encounters to XYZ Company” sounds great but might not be able to supply what is required to do a good job.
It’s ironic that you are trying to tell me what my identity is, despite my telling you it isn’t. And again, you don’t know my voting record.
All I can say as a former policy analyst is that sometimes conservative policies work best and sometimes liberal ones do.
If you think that is a conservative viewpoint, then I truly have no additional desire to have any more conversation with you, as you are close-minded.
Also, gun ownership is a right. It doesn’t have to be justified 🙂 Even the cops in the Progressives beloved Denmark have guns.
I think ol JM removed my posting ability for this thread but gun ownership is only a “right” in crazy conservative land.
You mean the land covered by the US Constitution, right?
Well it is a right in Portland. I don’t own a gun but it is within one’s rights.
Don’t think most would agree that Portland is “crazy conservative land”
Just curious , what is your evidence to support that statement? Is it possible that it is low staffing and increased recent property destruction and its associated disturbances that is limiting PPD’s response?
Here is some information on PPD staffing levels
The conflict over Hardesty and Eudaly’s proposal seems more procedural than substantive. In essence, all 3 councilors who weren’t in the weeds on developing the proposal are asking for more information and more time. I’m curious how long they had, in advance of their Zoom meeting, to review the substance of the proposal? That might shed some light on how much this is politicking before the election (which could change the makeup of the council) and how much this is a legitimate desire to be thoughtful and deliberate about a serious structural reform.
How would these cuts impact traffic enforcement? Would that be completely eliminated?
Hardesty is a hypocrite. Does her protection get cut?
REPLY FROM CHIEF LOVELL:
A budget amendment presented to the City Council proposes to cut an additional $18 million from the Portland Police Bureau’s budget. I believe these cuts will be detrimental to the safety of our community members and visitors to the City of Portland and dramatically impact the livability of our neighborhoods. The PPB welcomes ongoing, thoughtful, evidence-based reforms and would like to be a part of these discussions. Once appropriate structures are in place, we completely agree that there are situations where police response may not be the best way to serve the community. I look forward to participating in the ongoing conversation about the best ways to provide public safety.
Council reduced the Police Bureau’s budget by $26 million this spring. An additional cut of $18 million would require significant layoffs and affect the Police Bureau’s ability to respond to 911 calls. These layoffs would directly impact the most junior members of the organization, who have been successfully recruited as the most diverse hires in the history of the organization, as well as numerous professional non-sworn staff.
The Bureau would have to eliminate programs that provide necessary services which have been developed through years of collaboration with professional partners and input from the community. These include the:
* Behavioral Health Unit and Service Coordination Team works proactively with people with mental illness and multiple or high risk contacts with police. They also provide a gateway to services that help people find housing, get sober, seek work and get out of the criminal justice system.
* Community Engagement Unit builds relationships with the community, particularly people of color, to establish trust and build mutual understanding with the goal of reducing violence and police enforcement action.
* Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit disrupts and dismantles high-level drug trafficking organizations. It also follows up on opioid deaths and investigates illegal drugs affecting neighborhood livability.
* Air Support Unit supports police services by air which helps patrol officers apprehend suspects in a safe and effective manner.
* Traffic Division investigates traffic fatalities and attempts to reduce crashes through traffic law enforcement.
* Emergency Management Unit plans for city-wide responses to emergencies, including natural disasters.
* Neighborhood Response Teams assist neighbors with community livability matters and reduce the need for continued police response to issues that can be addressed in other ways.
* Criminal Intelligence Unit provides investigative support for cases involving threats to commit acts of mass and/or targeted violence, violent extremism, domestic and international terrorism, organized crime, and special investigative projects. Additionally, CIU conducts investigative threat assessments for major events, dignitary visits, and investigates threats to businesses, community groups, critical infrastructure, and individuals — including stalking behaviors — for members of the public, public officials and other high-profile people.
* K9 Unit uses highly trained canines to provide support to safely apprehend wanted suspects, which lowers risk to the community and to officers.
In addition, the proposed budget reductions also will reduce training and diversity initiatives, increase response times, slow investigations, and challenge the Police Bureau’s ability to meet our community’s expectations and needs.
The Department of Justice, in the 2012 Settlement Agreement with the City, said the Police Bureau was a “lean organization.” We have fewer officers now and a population which has grown dramatically. The DOJ agreement also said, “The City shall be responsible for providing necessary support and resources to enable the Portland Police Bureau to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. The improvements outlined in this Agreement will require the dedication of additional funds and personnel.”
I support thoroughly researched, data-driven proposals to improve public safety. This is a conversation worth having, but not a conversation worth rushing. I hope we take the time needed to ensure that any decisions result in the public safety outcomes we all seek.
The same Chief Lovell who beat up a 14 year girl because she hurt his feelings? That Chief Lovell?
Instead of cutting their budget how about increasing it for more training? I have to believe there is a need for police but they are undertrained for certain interactions with the public . Weed out the bad apples and train the hell out of the good ones
The issue is that the police have repeatedly shown that they’re incapable of weeding out the bad apples. To be clear, I do think that postponing the vote was the right call; there’s no reason the cuts have to happen right now and giving people more time to digest an issue is always a good thing. But the police weeding out bad apples on their own isn’t something that’s going to happen.
One proposal that may have merit is to discontinue immunity from personal lawsuit. I know in NY a lot of NYPD officers have racked up hundreds of millions of dollars a year in lawsuits paid for by the taxpayer. If those people who behave violently with disregard for other’s rights (who happen to have a uniform on) were liable for those behaviors, they might consider not treating others so poorly.
I don’t think cops are “immune”, but rather “indemnified” by their employer, a protection which could probably be negotiated away (especially if those negotiations were led by an experienced grad student serving as mayor). If that happened, cops would, of course, buy insurance to protect themselves (and probably already do), and the costs would almost certainly be paid by their employer (because these things almost always are), at which point it would probably be more efficient for the employer to self-insure the entire police force and indemnify them, and we’d be back to where we are today.
I see zero possibility that anyone would work as a police officer (or as any kind of first responder) without some protection against being sued. Would you?
So what is your suggested plan to bring accountability to the PPB? The Portland police chiefs come and go constantly, and so do the mayors. Neither seem to have any control of the PPB. The union leaders don’t leave, and appear to be running the show.
The city wants change. You seem to have a lot of knowledge of the workings of the PPB. How do we achieve responsible change?
I wrote a rather long response, then deleted it, then tried again, and deleted that. The truth is that many aspects of the problems with policing are deeply rooted in our society (the availability of guns, the glamorization of violence, our pathetic mental health system, the broken war on drugs, lack of housing for those on the street, etc.), and without addressing those problems, there’s only so much we can do to fix police.
I think some of the strategies discussed here might help; (CAHOOTS, independent oversight, etc.). I would get rid of no-knock warrants. I am quite confident that any meaningful reform is going to be expensive — a big part of the problem is that we’ve been unwilling to pay for the things we need (housing, mental health, rehabilitative prisons, etc.), so imagining we can take a chunk of the police budget and magically solve all our problems (while still maintaining adequate levels of public safety) is a dangerous fantasy. Many people, even those who decry these problems, will resist paying more taxes, which is part of the reason we are where we are.
I don’t have any clear answers about what we should do. There are some areas where the police agree with reformers and, on a practical level, those are probably things we should try first. However, demonizing the police, oversimplifying the problem, and pretending change will save money isn’t going to get us onto the road to reform.
There are no good apples. They are all bad. You can’t train racism and hatred for the community you police out of these conservative racists.
Don’t quote me, but I remember reading that black females make up 3% of law enforcement in the U.S. What are your thoughts on that demographic?
It sounds like they are bad apples. Chief Outlaw is a Black women and she celebrated police brutality, protected white supremacists, gave them a parade and she has continued her run at corrupt brutality in Philadelphia were she has had several high-profile incidents.
I am so deeply disappointed that Commissioner Hardesty responded to her colleagues wanting to be cautious and informed when dealing with our City’s security by publicly shaming them and saying she was disgusted and calling them cowards. Who want to work with her after that? It is so unproductive and unprofessional. What happened to civility and discourse? I hear the same rhetoric from Innarone- divisive, inflammatory and mean-spirited. I was very hopeful that Hardesty could provide leadership on the issue of Police reform, but this does not look like leadership to me. This is posturing and bullying instead of collaborating and educating.
I agree, and think that this is the problem with so many progressive activists. I generally support their ideas and would like to see them implemented, but too often activists are completely incapable of civilly working or even discussing with anyone who doesn’t agree with 100% of what they say. It’s the same “my way or the highway” (pardon the use of this expression on a bike blog! 🙂 ) attitude we’ve seen from the White House these past four years. We won’t make any progress unless we can work with others, and they are just serving to drive the majority of the population away from the causes that they are trying to champion.
Inarone, Eudaly and Hardesty are unfortunately like “Trump on the left”
We need collaboration and pragmatic solutions, not rigid adherence to extreme beliefs held by a small minority of the population.
I agree with you! Their rhetorical approach and posturing on issues is totally Trumpian! I want leaders in the mold of AOC or Obama- smart, thoughtful, opinionated, willing to listen, practical…
Maybe Hardesty is trying to position herself in a Biden administration?
I think it is a great move to delay until after the election. You can bet that if this had passed, Trump would have commented on it 1000 times before next Tuesday as proof that Democrats are turning over the country to rioters. Action this week could conceivably sway some voters in swing states. Terrible stuff has been happening for years, a one-week delay is unfortunate, but even a miniscule risk of it benefitting Trump is not worth it.
You are in fact correct. The stories of street protests and defunding police in Portland and Minneapolis are regularly featured in North Carolina newspapers. We have lots of undecided voters, and a third of our early voters have been those unaffiliated with either major party.
I was disappointed to see this headline and even more disappointed to read the article and the comments. Is this what “bikeportland” has become? I hardly see the direct correlation to “biking”. I’ll likely keep checking this website for CYCLING information and will stop reading and/or getting upset about purely political posts.
I wouldn’t be surprised if at least half the posters on this site engage in some of the destruction we’ve seen the last few months. Nothing says justice like burning and looting.
I think leadership understands that if they vote to reduce the PPB budget now, there will be an outbreak of the blue flu come election day.
Which will give the bad cops the opportunity to report to the III% sh**head units they drill with in their free time.