Police ready to escort a bike ride in August 2006. (Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
In a not too surprising move, Portland City Council just voted 3-2 against a police budget cut proposal championed by Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty.
“We are hearing a consistent message: Police do not make us safe. What makes us safe is investing in community… When Chief Lovell called these potential cuts to the bureau devastating. I want to be clear, police violence is also devastating.” — Jo Ann Hardesty, Portland city commissioner
Hardesty went in with one guaranteed vote from Commissioner Chloe Eudaly. They needed one more vote. And they didn’t get it. Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Dan Ryan each made long speeches about how much they care about racial equity and police reform; but in the end they just couldn’t support Hardesty’s way of going about it. Ryan voted “no” after running on a strong police reform platform and after saying he feels Portland Police Bureau Chief Chuck Lovell should be given more time for reforms passed in June to take hold. Ryan also said he agreed that, “The time for police reform is now” but Hardesty’s particular reforms would be a, “threat to public safety”.
As I shared earlier today, Hardesty’s proposal looked to reduce PPB funding by $18 million and invest the money into a variety of community initiatives, public health programs, and alternative policing methods. Hardesty was understandably disappointed that council didn’t seize this opportunity. I thought her speech was worth sharing. Watch the video or read read her comments (edited for clarity and brevity) below:
“On May 28th people took to the streets in droves. And they took to the street because once again a Black man was killed at the hands of a police officer. Anyone who thinks that it was about Mr Floyd’s death, is living in a bubble. It was a cumulative impact of racial bias and policing identified by the City Auditor over and over and over again. Identified by other outside evaluations over and over and over again.
Hardesty at a rally in July 2020.
Something amazing happened in June. This city council listened to the people and collectively got behind a set of cuts to programs that we all can agree had racially-biased outcomes from the very beginning. Since that time, Portland Police has elected to not solve crimes. They’ve elected to tell community members that because their budget was cut by $15 million, they can’t respond. They can’t respond to domestic violence calls; they can’t respond to windows being broken up; they can’t respond to robberies. Their budget is over $200 million, yet because of a $15 million cut, they found themselves unable to solve crimes. Portland Police has one basic job, and that is to solve crime. And they’re not that good at it. Since the DOJ [Department of Justice] came to town in 2012, we have spent over $30 million additional dollars retraining Portland Police officers, having community listening sessions, sitting around tables and talking about what reform could look like. And here we are, $30-plus million dollars later — and guess what? We still have a police force that believes that it is not answerable to elected officials. It believes that they get to decide what resources they have, and they get to pick and choose where they use their resources.
It will never be a good use of public resources having 30 Portland Police officers protecting the Portland Police Association building…
What we’ve heard clearly from the tens of thousands of people that have taken to the street, from the 700 people who testified in June, the over 200 people who testified just last week — we are hearing a consistent message: police do not make us safe. What makes us safe is investing in community. To say that Portland Street Response will never replace police is someone who just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. There’s never been an intent for Portland Street response to replace police. The vision has always been that we could have a more compassionate empathetic community response to people who are houseless, rather than spending our resources arresting more than 50% of people who are houseless, as Portland Police has done over the last two years.
… I am disappointed that my colleagues cannot envision a life where police only solve crimes and don’t spend the bulk of their time harassing people who are houseless, or mentally ill, or without other resources. We had an opportunity to really invest in keeping people in their homes, keeping them fed. And while we know nobody actually wants to be a Portland Police Officer nowadays, to reimagine what we as a community want policing to look like.
… Anybody that thinks that my focus is only on the police, you really have not been paying attention. Our whole criminal justice system is dysfunctional, racially unjust, and provides consistently racially disparate outcomes. Over and over again since May we heard this community voice. They gave us a clear mandate that we rethink what community safety looks like. What does it look like when you’re poor? What does it look like when you’re not white? What does it look like when you have no or limited resources? That’s what you’ve been asked to to. But instead, we want to use the traditional governmental approach — let’s have more studies, let’s bring more people to the table, let’s not do something radically different, let’s not think differently until we have other things in place…
I did not come here to play polite. I did not come here to sing Kumbaya. I came here to make a difference in people’s lives, every single day. And when the community demands it, I stretch myself more. I don’t tell them, ‘This is not the time for that conversation. This is not the day for us to discuss this.’ I knew when we were passing resolutions that Black Lives wouldn’t matter long…
On election night Portlanders overwhelmingly voted for a new police accountability system. Over 80% of Portlanders continued to speak loud and clearly that policing the way we’re doing it does not work. And yes, the mayor was re-elected — barely. And yes, we have a new colleague coming in. And yes I’m thrilled that Commissioner-elect Rubio will be joining us in January. But it is disingenuous to say we should wait until they show up. Each of us was elected to lead in this moment, not next year, not next week, but in this moment.
I’ve heard some things today that truly disappointed me. But I want to be really clear: I have spent my time since May having those community conversations. I’ve had the privilege of working with [advertising agency] Wyden + Kennedy to develop a communication campaign around ReThink Portland. I have talked to hundreds of Portlanders, new organizers, and elders. People have been working on this stuff for 30-plus years, and the community is ready. Unfortunately, our leadership isn’t.
I wish I could say that I am surprised by the outcome of this amendment today, but I’m not.
Portland Police is already $4 million over their budget. I have no desire, and won’t ever vote, to give them another penny in this year’s budget. Because nothing that’s on the table today will make them live within their means.
It is disappointing that the status quo will reassert itself in this process. So we’ll continue to talk about Black lives but we won’t actually do anything to make Black lives better. We’ll keep talking about transformation, but let’s talk about it first and talk about who didn’t come to the table. These tables have been open and expansive, and all of you have been invited. And you’ve chosen not to come. Our role as elected leaders, is not to pretend that if we’re not singing Kumbaya, then somehow we’re spreading fear. I’m spreading a vision of what’s possible. I’m spreading a vision that our community has clearly told us, is what they want…
When Chief Lovell called these potential cuts to the bureau devastating. I want to be clear, police violence is also devastating. What I’ve seen over the last 160-plus days has been terrifying, something I never thought I would see in Portland. I want you to know that your vote against this amendment means that the status quo continues and Black people will continue to be over-policed, houseless people will continue to be over 50% of the arrests that Portland Police Bureau make, and Portlanders will continue to deal with the lasting devastation of an overly-aggressive police force who believes that they don’t have a boss.
BIPOC communities have been at the forefront of these demands for reinvestment, and we can keep talking about how we as a city are committed to centering BIPOC voices; but not actually do it when it counts.
We stepped up for our community. I look forward to continuing what we started in June. The people have spoken. They’re watching. And I’m pretty sure that they’re just as disappointed as I am with the lack of courage in this historic moment — where just for a second, Black lives mattered in Portland.”
Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, contact me via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a paying subscriber.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Just a question, what is the clearance rate for police in Portland? Nationally it’s about 35%, meaning 35% of reported crimes result in arrest, or a declaration that a deceased person was responsible for the crime.
I don’t know about you but if I was unable or unwilling to do my job 65% of the time I wouldn’t be holding that job very long. Add that to the rate of false accusations and convictions, and one wonders why we even have police.
Step one in reducing crime: address the underlying social and economic issues that lead to crime. Police can’t solve those issues no matter how much funding or training they have.
Sure, sure, but have you considered this: You can’t rely on capitalists to leverage equitable social solutions, either.
Since nobody’s qualified or willing to fix our society, I’d be pretty stoked in the meantime if a cop were on hand the next time I get harassed or my bike gets stolen.
New Age social engineering gave us these creeps and thugs; I’m not about to support handling of criminal behaviors by more of these decadent buffoons.
Jeff
3 years ago
She *still* doesn’t have her Street Response team up and running despite having promised it would be and city committing $4.5 million to it – yet we were supposed to magically believe taking more money from the PPB would go to an immediate alternative? Thankfully the majority of people in this city chose not to vote for that.
Yeah. It isn’t easy trying building something new that actually attempts to respond to the needs of the community. It is much easier to sit back year after year and throw more money at police and tell your constituents you have done something.
Hardesty’s comments are just an ideological diatribe which are of zero help in actually moving Portland forward with any collaborative, well-planned police reform. Her proposal on how to use the millions of dollars she wants diverted from public safety is downright absurd. How can one really think that handing out hot dogs and hand gel will improve public safety in Portland? I for one don’t buy it.
The Portland Police Budget has grown every year since 2010 at a rate faster than population. The last year it was cut, during the Great Session, crime rates actually fell. Violent crime is on a 20 year decline. It is not clear to me at all the police are the best ones to respond to many perhaps even most 911 calls. Police are certainly ill-equipped to address growing share 911 calls that demand the skills of social workers or public health experts. And yet year after year we expand the police budget. This fierce protection of the status quo that opposes even modest cuts to PPB is based mostly on irrational fears and institutional inertia not any clear-headed assessment of what is needed to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland. If we can’t get out of this fear-based cycle and forge a more smarter, more humane, and more democratic pathway to public safety in Portland where can we? The lack of vision and imagination to try something new is startling.
How often have you seen large bureaucratic governments sit down and given very limited resources, list the things they will do and the things they will no longer do, and then actually follow through with it?
Exactly, bureaucratic inertia. It is why the focus should be on redistributing decision making power on public safety funds out of the PPB not just reallocating resources from the PPB.
I would *love* to see a clear-headed assessment of what we need to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland. That might be a good place to start before making big budgeting changes.
As you say, it isn’t easy trying building something new that actually attempts to respond to the needs of the community. It is much easier to make punitive cuts to the police budget without a clear plan about how to tamp down the increase in violence and crime in Portland.
I’m totally on board with trying something new and bold, and if it works, I’ll wholeheartedly support cutting the police budget. But we don’t yet have a working alternative, or really even much of a plan, so cuts are premature.
There is no question that Hardesty is trying to seize the political moment but I don’t blame her one bit. It is what is absolutely needed to overcome the bureaucratic inertia and fear-driven status quo that resists the big and needed changes she is calling for. It maybe our only opportunity to launch an entire new, just and democratic trajectory for Portland. I am a bit surprised how much of that stick in the mud mentality in service of the self-perpetuating police bureaucracy is to be found here on Bikeportland.org.
I too would welcome a new democratic trajectory, but we can’t rebuild a complex system without a plan, and democracy requires public participation. That’s where we start. Budget decisions come later.
Hardesty has been working the problem and the solutions for 30 years. The alternatives to policing the homeless, mentally ill and substance addicted abound and have been demonstrated. This is about political will. Delay is a tactic to undermine real change.
The political will is there. The Street Response team was funded and was supposed to start up in February 2020. They’ve already budgeted more to expand it with the cuts in July, yet delayed the launch again until next February. Hardesty is in charge of the Street Response Team. The delay is on her end.
I’ve always been surprised how relatively conservative Oregonians in general, and Oregon Democrats in particular, are. (That NC Democrats are super conservative doesn’t surprise me one iota.)
Why is it a surprise? Violent crime and property crime are up all over the City. Our leaders are offering a lot of statements about not enforcing no camping rules, not checking registration/licensing, etc. The Streets and sidewalks are literally full of garbage in places. Sidewalks are blocked all over downtown and the CEID. Trash is strewn down every bridge embankment and buildings and bridges are covered in graffiti. Our City is less safe, it looks and feels horrible, and our sidewalks, bite paths and even bike lanes are impassable or dangerous. Even in this current condition, I think there may be more broad support for defunding the police IF there was some vision, not even a full plan, but a well-articulated vision that included the enforcement of some rules, the establishment for an expectation of civil behavior that would come alongside more services for mental health and addiction. From what I hear and experience, people are fed up with the trash, the lawlessness, the dangerous streets and impassable sidewalks and sketchy parks. It is very hard to hear only about less money for police with no conversation about establishing order. Basically, carrot AND stick.
In her defense, Hardesty claims in her speech to have done just that — sat down and done a clear-headed assessment of what the community needs. If you think she got it wrong (and want to fix that), then I guess the answer is to start getting involved in the listening sessions and testifying before the council.
I haven’t seen the actual amendment package, and until Wheeler produces a BMP one probably can’t even be created, but there’s an outline sketched in her letter and which Jonathan has described.
Thanks for the link. The letter outlined where Hardesty wanted to reallocate funds to, outlined protest-related crowd control tactics that she finds objectionable, and offers a list of questions to other bureaus. The letter says says Hardesty’s intent is that the police “focus on crime solving”, but without further analysis on that point (what are the other police duties, and who will do them if the police don’t?)
This letter contains no analysis of what impact Hardesty’s proposed cuts will have on public safety, and if/how the city would mitigate those impacts.
Finally, she lists 5 “major tenants [sic]” of her vision:
1. Reduce and limit the size and scope of the police
2. Reinvest dollars in ways that will directly support our most vulnerable community members
3. Create alternatives to police
4. De‐criminalize non‐violent offenses
5. Demilitarize officers
I agree with some of these absolutely (3, 5), some conditionally (1, 2), and completely oppose one (4). Decriminalizing burglary, car theft, bike theft, drunk driving, etc. is not something I think many Portlanders would be on board with, and this is not a goal that has received any meaningful public buy in as far as I can see.
If you are contending that this constitutes a plan for the future of public safety in Portland, I would have to totally disagree.
I’m probably not the right person to defend Hardesty’s plan; I’m just looking at this from the outside and trying to make sense of it. In this specific context wouldn’t normally consider drunk driving or burglary to be “non-violent offenses” but that would need clarification. In terms of vision, I think I agree with you. Bullets 3 and 5 sound good; and I could support 1, 2, and/or 4 depending on details.
The only point I’m making here is that Hardesty claims to have done the leg-work of involving the community and figuring out what is needed. “Police don’t make us safe; investing in community makes us safe” is her summary. I can see how that expands into the tenets she outlined. And I can see how she gets from those tenets to the proposed budget amendments. She’s genuinely tried to answer “what we need to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland.” To the extent any of us disagree with the results, the solution is to change the inputs. Be a part of the “community conversations” Hardesty is apparently having and sway her view on what the community needs.
RIP was a plan. We all knew what it would do, and while there was plenty of disagreement over what its ultimate impacts would be or whether it was a good idea, everyone was clear on what it was. There was plenty of time for review, discussion, amendments, testimony, and analysis.
Reforming our system of public safety is a much bigger and more important topic. Certainly it deserves more analysis and discussion than a letter from one city commissioner who claims to have a plan.
The incompetent PBOT boss is gone. Hardesty is next. A city that is as out of hand as this one needs the police. Who else will deal with the garbage that is now everywhere in this once nice place to live. BTW, the folks destroying public and private property are the cowards. The people have not spoken.
We can get some hint by looking at national polling related to the most recent election. I read 75% of voters said Black Lives Matters protests were an important factor in deciding how they voted. What’s interesting is whether the protests pushed voters to vote more D or R, and it looks like that was about evenly split. The violence attributed to those protests seems to be a big part of why they’ve become polarizing instead of unifying support behind the intended cause.
This…police are not here to pick up garbage. I’d like to see some police money going into better management of and services for, and designated space for encampments though, for everyones benefit.
Chris I
3 years ago
“It will never be a good use of public resources having 30 Portland Police officers protecting the Portland Police Association building…”
This is a fascinating chicken and egg discussion she just brought up. Were they guarding this building before people tried to burn it down? Do police association buildings in other cities where protesters aren’t burning things down require guarding?
Hardesty has been a good commissioner on policy but I do not understand her political maneuvering here at all. Wheeler and Ryan are not exactly perfect but the way to move them would be to show that their positions are electorally vulnerable.
Basically, she went all in on the idea 5 days before the election that Eudaly and Iannarone would win and they would run the council.
I saw she was calling Ryan’s duck “cowardly” last week… which of course it was. It was a move of self preservation by politician who wants to see if one of the key proponents of a measure he’s about to support is going to get slammed out of office. I think in the NFL they call that a “business decision.”
So it stands to reason that the other members of the council would not exactly be queuing up to align with her–she backed a losing challenge to the mayor and the last time she tried to propose this was in a desperate effort to get it through before the only other proponent lost her election by double digits. The stuff in this article is eloquently and passionately stated, but unfortunately the way you convince politicians that “the time is now” is to show them their political survival depends on it. The last two weeks have showed that is not exactly the case. And this was pretty foreseeable given that Eudaly got 30% of the vote in the first round as an incumbent, and Wheeler was at 49.5%.
Hardesty endorsed Ryan, and he said in his campaign literature that he supported cutting the police budget. My guess is that she expected Ryan to be a yes vote and wanted the vote to happen before Chloe lost instead of after because once she was a lame duck it would have seemed less legitimate. I think she was likely blindsided by Ryan’s flip flop.
Maybe Ryan does support cutting the police budget, but just not at this time, or or by this much, or without an alternate plan. Opposing this particular proposal at this moment doesn’t really tell us much about what he wants to see long-term.
Heck, even I want to cut the police budget; I just want to do it in a well thought out manner that doesn’t make things worse than they already are.
I’m not sure that having a bunch of rioters throwing things at Ryan’s house is going to make him any more likely to cut the police budget any time soon. I bet he really likes it when his fellow councilor incites the citizenry and they show up at his house. https://katu.com/news/local/unlawful-assembly-declared-in-north-portland-protest
This is straight up attempted intimidation by rioters. I never thought I would see the day when when a Portland councilor votes in a way that you disagree with that you go over to their house and break windows, throw incendiary devices, paint, and other things at their house. We are moving to mob rule in Portland.
Going and attacking people homes is beyond despicable.
Who are these cretins? Can you imagine being inside that house?
This has to end. People have to be charged and arrested for this.
Yes, intimidating a public official is such an affront to our democratic processes. I can’t help but notice how the actions of those on the extreme left in Portland remind me of Trump and his actions trying to suppress democracy. We need to stand up and decry extremism of ALL forms, both on the right and the left!
I would like the “down-vote” button restored so I can down-vote this comment. 😉
But seriously, flares are incendiary devices and they can easily burn down a building. What those protestors did at Dan Ryan’s house was truly despicable and should be condemned unreservedly by all Portlanders.
I don’t see how this could have been a surprise, Hardesty just tried and failed to beat Wheeler, and Eudaly is a lame duck. So if you are Ryan (knowing that Wheeler is going to be mad at Hardesty and also that the voters support him), how does it make any political sense to throw in with them? Much better to try to work with the members who actually won elections.
Again, maybe not the most personally principled stance. But from a political survival perspective the logic is obvious.
Abolish the Injustice System
3 years ago
Hardesty called a curfew, repeatedly gassed protesters, opposed a 50 million cop budget cut, endorsed Tevis, and opposes abolition. I have no confidence that Hardesty would be any improvement over her buddy, Tevis. I’m ashamed that I voted for Hardesty.
Your probably don’t remember this because you were zoned out in some “hygge” nook while we were repeatedly gassed by Tevis’ (and Hardesty’s) storm troopers.
Hardesty: “As the acting president while the Mayor was out of town last night, I was the one to call for a curfew this wknd.”
Matt
3 years ago
Hardesty should be recalled.
Mike
3 years ago
The defund the police movement will lead to more defeats for the Democratic Party. While protesting ran on and on the Trump followers might retain senate control, Trump is not far from getting re-elected. Be as radical as you want but you will continue to be under the reign of people like trump for years to come. Voices like hardesty might work for a select few here in Portland but the rest of the country doesn’t give a rats arse!!!
The fact that it is so close is downright scary. After 4 years of Trump almost half the country still believes he is a better choice than any democrat put up for election. Hell, even a Qanon follower was elected to the house. Point is the Democrats almost blew it again and maybe the country isn’t ready for “radical” ideas like defund the police, green new deal etc. it’s scary the crap out of me that trump has so much power.
I agree and disagree with some of your points. Yes it’s wild and sad that it was so close. But there’s a lot going on here, not just the competency of the Dems. That being said, obviously Dem party leadership has problems. So what? It’s a healthy debate of how far to the left they should go. I totally disagree however about your assessment of “radical” ideas. There’s a strong case that if the Dems had embraced the more left-wing leaders in the party they would have done even better. The ‘radical” ideas of battling climate change, reforming police and health care, etc.. poll off the charts.
And you think Trump still has power? That’s hilarious to me. He got a lot of votes in a totally broken system… Now that he’s a loser and not in the white house, most of his voters will forget about him and he’ll be relegated to some shady corners of the internet. It’s the foundation Trump built that worries me. But that too can be destroyed if and when his enablers who are still in office are voted out. That could come in 2 years.
What happened in this election is fantastic news for America and for Dems. And it’s the end of Trump as someone anyone cares about. His power came from his position and perceived popularity — with both of those gone, so goes his power. He’s an absolute clown and he can’t hide behind the bully pulpit any longer.
No, Jonathan, sadly Trump won’t be gone. Media outlets and politicans have made a fortune off him, and we will be hearing about him for years. The money from the outrage is too attractive.
Obviously trump won’t be gone. But he’ll be irrelevant. Media and politicians made money off him because he was President. He’s not anymore. And he’s wildly unpopular with a strong majority of Americans and the world.
The money in media now isn’t in Trump. Have you seen how quickly Fox has already pivoted away from him?
Trump and his few remaining friends will maybe start a new media outlet to continue to capitalize on hate and lies, but it will have diminishing returns because America has seen the light and is moving on without him.
I hope you’re right. Fox, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have made so much money making Americans hate each other. It’s hard to see them backing away from that.
Jonathan, what is your opinion on the recent attack on Commissioner Ryan’s home after the no vote on additional police cuts? Do you categorically condemn this type of activity against dutifully elected public officials?
Personally I would never take part in what those folks did to Commissioner Ryan’s home. I would also not promote or encourage it. That’s just not my style of activism.
Wow, Jonathan I’m shocked you won’t come out and condemn the intimidation and bullying of a democratically elected public official. This type of inaction by community leaders such as yourself makes me less optimistic we have any chance of meaningful improvement of our public safety system in Portland.
it’s pretty telling isn’t it? But not surprising. Wheeler and Brown won’t condemn large protest gatherings with a pandemic going on. But don’t you dare have turkey at granny’s house!
The election was a major ‘defeat’ for the Dems. If they cannot do better than squeak out a vote over someone as inept as Trump, lose seats in the House, and probably not even gain control of the Senate, then the Democratic Party truly has little credibility. Think what would have happened if, say, Trump had even remotely handled the pandemic rationally?
Sorry the election didn’t go your way Steve. It’s absurd to call it a big loss for the Dems. Biden is going to win easily and the Senate is still in play. I’m not sure what exactly happened with those House races… But I do know it’s not a fair fight when one side lies and cheats and the other side doesn’t (or at least not to the tragic scale that the Republicans do). Given all the shady tactics by Republicans around voting and all the horrible lies spread by Trump and his party who have absolutely zero morals or ethics and will do anything to retain power — it is absolute awesome and amazing that the Dems were able to still do so well.
It’s a victory for America, frankly, and maybe the world. The depressing thing is that it wasn’t more resounding. But I’ll take a weak winning hand over a losing one any day.
Honestly, I think he’s 100% correct. There was one of the most odious, polarizing and unlikeable individuals in history, and yet the Dems barely won when you look at the margins…and lost some seats in the HoR.
The Dem brand lost big here and they really need to figure out why their brand does not resonate with a large swath of Americans. It’s easy to blame things like racism, sexism, etc…but if you actually sit down with a run-of-the-mill conservative, those things seldom come up. That’s just a convenient way for the Left to explain away why their message is not landing with a lot of people. Paint them with a broad brush and dismiss them because of the story you (not you in particular JM) have created for them…yeah, of course they are going to reject that.
As for the cheating, both sides are ABSOLUTELY convinced the other side does it and their own does not. That to me displays a disconnect (and a dehumanizing one at that) which suggests an inability to accept that there may be good people with integrity (but different values) who happen to vote differently…such as conservative minorities. The Left would serve itself well if they actually listened to why some POC vote conservative. Because they would learn quite a bit about why “whites who vote against their own self-interests” also vote for Conservatives.
Republicans won several house seats and a senate seat formerly held by democrats, and seriously underperformed expectations. Democrats even lost some ground in Oregon.
Again, an incumbent election. Had the votes been counted Tuesday night it would not have seemed close.
I know it is heartbreaking to Trump fans…..
And without Trump on the ballot, Dems will probably win the 2 Georgia seats and control the Senate.
Horrible night isn’t it.
It is not wild optimism, it is called Facts, I realize they have been lost in the Trump era.
Biden is winning by 4 million votes and California has barely counted.
Biden is projected to win by 7 million votes.
A clear and resounding win.
Clinton won by 3 million in 2016.
Biden double that and more.
I think what he is saying is that more people are closer to moderate. But the Left is still defined by the Right via its most kookiest members.
Similarly, not every conservative is a Proud Boy. For whatever reason, Portland is a lightning rod for the extremists, but we need to be careful to not define everyone by their worst examples.
Not every conservative is a proud boy but 95% of conservatives voted for Trump.
Congrats on your movement.
mark smith
3 years ago
Yes, cut 18 million and let the anarchy/crime world run rampant on the trails. Then blame the cops for not solving crime. Who is creating the crime? The west hills?
Doubtful.
Fred
3 years ago
I’m coming late to this discussion and have not read the 72 posts already here. But after reading this morning’s PPB news about the weekend – with hundreds of cars involved in illegal street racing on Sunday night, a guy driving 118 mph in a Scion on Saturday, and a fatality in Cully on Friday night after a car hit a building – we really NEED the PPB traffic division!
We all joked in another forum about “What traffic division,” but they are clearly needed and it’s good that Ryan, Wheeler, and Fritz voted against the $18M cut. Yes, we all want improved policing, but these severe cuts are not the way to go about it. Every cyclist should thank the PPB traffic division for helping to keep the roads safer for everyone.
Pat Lowell
3 years ago
What a freaking hypocrite. She’ll call the cops when it benefits her – in this case bullying a Lyft driver.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Just a question, what is the clearance rate for police in Portland? Nationally it’s about 35%, meaning 35% of reported crimes result in arrest, or a declaration that a deceased person was responsible for the crime.
I don’t know about you but if I was unable or unwilling to do my job 65% of the time I wouldn’t be holding that job very long. Add that to the rate of false accusations and convictions, and one wonders why we even have police.
If every crime could be solved, there’d be far fewer criminals.
Step one in reducing crime: address the underlying social and economic issues that lead to crime. Police can’t solve those issues no matter how much funding or training they have.
Sure, sure, but have you considered this: You can’t rely on capitalists to leverage equitable social solutions, either.
Since nobody’s qualified or willing to fix our society, I’d be pretty stoked in the meantime if a cop were on hand the next time I get harassed or my bike gets stolen.
New Age social engineering gave us these creeps and thugs; I’m not about to support handling of criminal behaviors by more of these decadent buffoons.
She *still* doesn’t have her Street Response team up and running despite having promised it would be and city committing $4.5 million to it – yet we were supposed to magically believe taking more money from the PPB would go to an immediate alternative? Thankfully the majority of people in this city chose not to vote for that.
Agreed!
Yeah. It isn’t easy trying building something new that actually attempts to respond to the needs of the community. It is much easier to sit back year after year and throw more money at police and tell your constituents you have done something.
Was Portland’s police budget cut last summer? Someone here in North Carolina was asking about that, but I didn’t know the answer.
Yes, $15 million cut in June. Fortunately, the additional $18 million proposed cut was rejected today.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/11/majority-of-portland-city-council-rejects-proposed-18-million-cut-to-police.html
Hardesty’s comments are just an ideological diatribe which are of zero help in actually moving Portland forward with any collaborative, well-planned police reform. Her proposal on how to use the millions of dollars she wants diverted from public safety is downright absurd. How can one really think that handing out hot dogs and hand gel will improve public safety in Portland? I for one don’t buy it.
The Portland Police Budget has grown every year since 2010 at a rate faster than population. The last year it was cut, during the Great Session, crime rates actually fell. Violent crime is on a 20 year decline. It is not clear to me at all the police are the best ones to respond to many perhaps even most 911 calls. Police are certainly ill-equipped to address growing share 911 calls that demand the skills of social workers or public health experts. And yet year after year we expand the police budget. This fierce protection of the status quo that opposes even modest cuts to PPB is based mostly on irrational fears and institutional inertia not any clear-headed assessment of what is needed to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland. If we can’t get out of this fear-based cycle and forge a more smarter, more humane, and more democratic pathway to public safety in Portland where can we? The lack of vision and imagination to try something new is startling.
How often have you seen large bureaucratic governments sit down and given very limited resources, list the things they will do and the things they will no longer do, and then actually follow through with it?
Exactly, bureaucratic inertia. It is why the focus should be on redistributing decision making power on public safety funds out of the PPB not just reallocating resources from the PPB.
I would *love* to see a clear-headed assessment of what we need to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland. That might be a good place to start before making big budgeting changes.
As you say, it isn’t easy trying building something new that actually attempts to respond to the needs of the community. It is much easier to make punitive cuts to the police budget without a clear plan about how to tamp down the increase in violence and crime in Portland.
I’m totally on board with trying something new and bold, and if it works, I’ll wholeheartedly support cutting the police budget. But we don’t yet have a working alternative, or really even much of a plan, so cuts are premature.
There is no question that Hardesty is trying to seize the political moment but I don’t blame her one bit. It is what is absolutely needed to overcome the bureaucratic inertia and fear-driven status quo that resists the big and needed changes she is calling for. It maybe our only opportunity to launch an entire new, just and democratic trajectory for Portland. I am a bit surprised how much of that stick in the mud mentality in service of the self-perpetuating police bureaucracy is to be found here on Bikeportland.org.
I too would welcome a new democratic trajectory, but we can’t rebuild a complex system without a plan, and democracy requires public participation. That’s where we start. Budget decisions come later.
Hardesty has been working the problem and the solutions for 30 years. The alternatives to policing the homeless, mentally ill and substance addicted abound and have been demonstrated. This is about political will. Delay is a tactic to undermine real change.
The political will is there. The Street Response team was funded and was supposed to start up in February 2020. They’ve already budgeted more to expand it with the cuts in July, yet delayed the launch again until next February. Hardesty is in charge of the Street Response Team. The delay is on her end.
I’ve always been surprised how relatively conservative Oregonians in general, and Oregon Democrats in particular, are. (That NC Democrats are super conservative doesn’t surprise me one iota.)
Why is it a surprise? Violent crime and property crime are up all over the City. Our leaders are offering a lot of statements about not enforcing no camping rules, not checking registration/licensing, etc. The Streets and sidewalks are literally full of garbage in places. Sidewalks are blocked all over downtown and the CEID. Trash is strewn down every bridge embankment and buildings and bridges are covered in graffiti. Our City is less safe, it looks and feels horrible, and our sidewalks, bite paths and even bike lanes are impassable or dangerous. Even in this current condition, I think there may be more broad support for defunding the police IF there was some vision, not even a full plan, but a well-articulated vision that included the enforcement of some rules, the establishment for an expectation of civil behavior that would come alongside more services for mental health and addiction. From what I hear and experience, people are fed up with the trash, the lawlessness, the dangerous streets and impassable sidewalks and sketchy parks. It is very hard to hear only about less money for police with no conversation about establishing order. Basically, carrot AND stick.
In her defense, Hardesty claims in her speech to have done just that — sat down and done a clear-headed assessment of what the community needs. If you think she got it wrong (and want to fix that), then I guess the answer is to start getting involved in the listening sessions and testifying before the council.
Great! Has she released it?
I haven’t seen the actual amendment package, and until Wheeler produces a BMP one probably can’t even be created, but there’s an outline sketched in her letter and which Jonathan has described.
Thanks for the link. The letter outlined where Hardesty wanted to reallocate funds to, outlined protest-related crowd control tactics that she finds objectionable, and offers a list of questions to other bureaus. The letter says says Hardesty’s intent is that the police “focus on crime solving”, but without further analysis on that point (what are the other police duties, and who will do them if the police don’t?)
This letter contains no analysis of what impact Hardesty’s proposed cuts will have on public safety, and if/how the city would mitigate those impacts.
Finally, she lists 5 “major tenants [sic]” of her vision:
1. Reduce and limit the size and scope of the police
2. Reinvest dollars in ways that will directly support our most vulnerable community members
3. Create alternatives to police
4. De‐criminalize non‐violent offenses
5. Demilitarize officers
I agree with some of these absolutely (3, 5), some conditionally (1, 2), and completely oppose one (4). Decriminalizing burglary, car theft, bike theft, drunk driving, etc. is not something I think many Portlanders would be on board with, and this is not a goal that has received any meaningful public buy in as far as I can see.
If you are contending that this constitutes a plan for the future of public safety in Portland, I would have to totally disagree.
I’m probably not the right person to defend Hardesty’s plan; I’m just looking at this from the outside and trying to make sense of it. In this specific context wouldn’t normally consider drunk driving or burglary to be “non-violent offenses” but that would need clarification. In terms of vision, I think I agree with you. Bullets 3 and 5 sound good; and I could support 1, 2, and/or 4 depending on details.
The only point I’m making here is that Hardesty claims to have done the leg-work of involving the community and figuring out what is needed. “Police don’t make us safe; investing in community makes us safe” is her summary. I can see how that expands into the tenets she outlined. And I can see how she gets from those tenets to the proposed budget amendments. She’s genuinely tried to answer “what we need to address the problems, challenges, and opportunities we face in Portland.” To the extent any of us disagree with the results, the solution is to change the inputs. Be a part of the “community conversations” Hardesty is apparently having and sway her view on what the community needs.
Maybe we are thinking about different things.
RIP was a plan. We all knew what it would do, and while there was plenty of disagreement over what its ultimate impacts would be or whether it was a good idea, everyone was clear on what it was. There was plenty of time for review, discussion, amendments, testimony, and analysis.
Reforming our system of public safety is a much bigger and more important topic. Certainly it deserves more analysis and discussion than a letter from one city commissioner who claims to have a plan.
Actually both would make us “safer”.
Public Unions have a tendency to increase costs…pensions and all.
The incompetent PBOT boss is gone. Hardesty is next. A city that is as out of hand as this one needs the police. Who else will deal with the garbage that is now everywhere in this once nice place to live. BTW, the folks destroying public and private property are the cowards. The people have not spoken.
We can get some hint by looking at national polling related to the most recent election. I read 75% of voters said Black Lives Matters protests were an important factor in deciding how they voted. What’s interesting is whether the protests pushed voters to vote more D or R, and it looks like that was about evenly split. The violence attributed to those protests seems to be a big part of why they’ve become polarizing instead of unifying support behind the intended cause.
Are you seriously suggesting the police are the only way to deal with garbage? This is why we’re pissing away $200M on a police force.
This…police are not here to pick up garbage. I’d like to see some police money going into better management of and services for, and designated space for encampments though, for everyones benefit.
“It will never be a good use of public resources having 30 Portland Police officers protecting the Portland Police Association building…”
This is a fascinating chicken and egg discussion she just brought up. Were they guarding this building before people tried to burn it down? Do police association buildings in other cities where protesters aren’t burning things down require guarding?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/us/portland-protests/index.html
The irony of this all, is that the prolonged “protests” have actually sharply increased the amount of money the city is giving to police this year.
Thanks for posting Hardesty’s comments.
Hardesty has been a good commissioner on policy but I do not understand her political maneuvering here at all. Wheeler and Ryan are not exactly perfect but the way to move them would be to show that their positions are electorally vulnerable.
Basically, she went all in on the idea 5 days before the election that Eudaly and Iannarone would win and they would run the council.
I saw she was calling Ryan’s duck “cowardly” last week… which of course it was. It was a move of self preservation by politician who wants to see if one of the key proponents of a measure he’s about to support is going to get slammed out of office. I think in the NFL they call that a “business decision.”
So it stands to reason that the other members of the council would not exactly be queuing up to align with her–she backed a losing challenge to the mayor and the last time she tried to propose this was in a desperate effort to get it through before the only other proponent lost her election by double digits. The stuff in this article is eloquently and passionately stated, but unfortunately the way you convince politicians that “the time is now” is to show them their political survival depends on it. The last two weeks have showed that is not exactly the case. And this was pretty foreseeable given that Eudaly got 30% of the vote in the first round as an incumbent, and Wheeler was at 49.5%.
Hardesty endorsed Ryan, and he said in his campaign literature that he supported cutting the police budget. My guess is that she expected Ryan to be a yes vote and wanted the vote to happen before Chloe lost instead of after because once she was a lame duck it would have seemed less legitimate. I think she was likely blindsided by Ryan’s flip flop.
Maybe Ryan does support cutting the police budget, but just not at this time, or or by this much, or without an alternate plan. Opposing this particular proposal at this moment doesn’t really tell us much about what he wants to see long-term.
Heck, even I want to cut the police budget; I just want to do it in a well thought out manner that doesn’t make things worse than they already are.
I’m not sure that having a bunch of rioters throwing things at Ryan’s house is going to make him any more likely to cut the police budget any time soon. I bet he really likes it when his fellow councilor incites the citizenry and they show up at his house. https://katu.com/news/local/unlawful-assembly-declared-in-north-portland-protest
Molotov cocktails build consensus?
This is straight up attempted intimidation by rioters. I never thought I would see the day when when a Portland councilor votes in a way that you disagree with that you go over to their house and break windows, throw incendiary devices, paint, and other things at their house. We are moving to mob rule in Portland.
Going and attacking people homes is beyond despicable.
Who are these cretins? Can you imagine being inside that house?
This has to end. People have to be charged and arrested for this.
Yes, intimidating a public official is such an affront to our democratic processes. I can’t help but notice how the actions of those on the extreme left in Portland remind me of Trump and his actions trying to suppress democracy. We need to stand up and decry extremism of ALL forms, both on the right and the left!
And yet there are apologists for them. Property damage isn’t violence…and “BuT tHeY haVe InSuRanCe!”
Fact check: No incendiary devices were thrown at Dan Ryan’s house. The only incendiary devices were two road flares placed on the driveway.
“Oh, well at least they didn’t burn it down!”
I would like the “down-vote” button restored so I can down-vote this comment. 😉
But seriously, flares are incendiary devices and they can easily burn down a building. What those protestors did at Dan Ryan’s house was truly despicable and should be condemned unreservedly by all Portlanders.
I don’t see how this could have been a surprise, Hardesty just tried and failed to beat Wheeler, and Eudaly is a lame duck. So if you are Ryan (knowing that Wheeler is going to be mad at Hardesty and also that the voters support him), how does it make any political sense to throw in with them? Much better to try to work with the members who actually won elections.
Again, maybe not the most personally principled stance. But from a political survival perspective the logic is obvious.
Hardesty called a curfew, repeatedly gassed protesters, opposed a 50 million cop budget cut, endorsed Tevis, and opposes abolition. I have no confidence that Hardesty would be any improvement over her buddy, Tevis. I’m ashamed that I voted for Hardesty.
What? “Hardesty…repeatedly gassed protesters..”
Did you mis-type? What are you talking about? Wheeler is in charge of the Police Bureau, not Hardesty.
Your probably don’t remember this because you were zoned out in some “hygge” nook while we were repeatedly gassed by Tevis’ (and Hardesty’s) storm troopers.
Hardesty: “As the acting president while the Mayor was out of town last night, I was the one to call for a curfew this wknd.”
Hardesty should be recalled.
The defund the police movement will lead to more defeats for the Democratic Party. While protesting ran on and on the Trump followers might retain senate control, Trump is not far from getting re-elected. Be as radical as you want but you will continue to be under the reign of people like trump for years to come. Voices like hardesty might work for a select few here in Portland but the rest of the country doesn’t give a rats arse!!!
Mike,
Is everything OK? I’m worried about you. Trump lost. Democrats won. And the Senate is up in the air.
The fact that it is so close is downright scary. After 4 years of Trump almost half the country still believes he is a better choice than any democrat put up for election. Hell, even a Qanon follower was elected to the house. Point is the Democrats almost blew it again and maybe the country isn’t ready for “radical” ideas like defund the police, green new deal etc. it’s scary the crap out of me that trump has so much power.
I agree and disagree with some of your points. Yes it’s wild and sad that it was so close. But there’s a lot going on here, not just the competency of the Dems. That being said, obviously Dem party leadership has problems. So what? It’s a healthy debate of how far to the left they should go. I totally disagree however about your assessment of “radical” ideas. There’s a strong case that if the Dems had embraced the more left-wing leaders in the party they would have done even better. The ‘radical” ideas of battling climate change, reforming police and health care, etc.. poll off the charts.
And you think Trump still has power? That’s hilarious to me. He got a lot of votes in a totally broken system… Now that he’s a loser and not in the white house, most of his voters will forget about him and he’ll be relegated to some shady corners of the internet. It’s the foundation Trump built that worries me. But that too can be destroyed if and when his enablers who are still in office are voted out. That could come in 2 years.
What happened in this election is fantastic news for America and for Dems. And it’s the end of Trump as someone anyone cares about. His power came from his position and perceived popularity — with both of those gone, so goes his power. He’s an absolute clown and he can’t hide behind the bully pulpit any longer.
No, Jonathan, sadly Trump won’t be gone. Media outlets and politicans have made a fortune off him, and we will be hearing about him for years. The money from the outrage is too attractive.
Obviously trump won’t be gone. But he’ll be irrelevant. Media and politicians made money off him because he was President. He’s not anymore. And he’s wildly unpopular with a strong majority of Americans and the world.
The money in media now isn’t in Trump. Have you seen how quickly Fox has already pivoted away from him?
Trump and his few remaining friends will maybe start a new media outlet to continue to capitalize on hate and lies, but it will have diminishing returns because America has seen the light and is moving on without him.
I hope you’re right. Fox, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have made so much money making Americans hate each other. It’s hard to see them backing away from that.
TrumpTV. All Schmuck, All the Time.
It’ll be Yuge!!!
Putin will bankroll it!
It already exists… NewsMax
Jonathan, what is your opinion on the recent attack on Commissioner Ryan’s home after the no vote on additional police cuts? Do you categorically condemn this type of activity against dutifully elected public officials?
https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/06/dan-ryan-house-portland-protest/
Personally I would never take part in what those folks did to Commissioner Ryan’s home. I would also not promote or encourage it. That’s just not my style of activism.
Wow, Jonathan I’m shocked you won’t come out and condemn the intimidation and bullying of a democratically elected public official. This type of inaction by community leaders such as yourself makes me less optimistic we have any chance of meaningful improvement of our public safety system in Portland.
it’s pretty telling isn’t it? But not surprising. Wheeler and Brown won’t condemn large protest gatherings with a pandemic going on. But don’t you dare have turkey at granny’s house!
The election was a major ‘defeat’ for the Dems. If they cannot do better than squeak out a vote over someone as inept as Trump, lose seats in the House, and probably not even gain control of the Senate, then the Democratic Party truly has little credibility. Think what would have happened if, say, Trump had even remotely handled the pandemic rationally?
Sorry the election didn’t go your way Steve. It’s absurd to call it a big loss for the Dems. Biden is going to win easily and the Senate is still in play. I’m not sure what exactly happened with those House races… But I do know it’s not a fair fight when one side lies and cheats and the other side doesn’t (or at least not to the tragic scale that the Republicans do). Given all the shady tactics by Republicans around voting and all the horrible lies spread by Trump and his party who have absolutely zero morals or ethics and will do anything to retain power — it is absolute awesome and amazing that the Dems were able to still do so well.
It’s a victory for America, frankly, and maybe the world. The depressing thing is that it wasn’t more resounding. But I’ll take a weak winning hand over a losing one any day.
Honestly, I think he’s 100% correct. There was one of the most odious, polarizing and unlikeable individuals in history, and yet the Dems barely won when you look at the margins…and lost some seats in the HoR.
The Dem brand lost big here and they really need to figure out why their brand does not resonate with a large swath of Americans. It’s easy to blame things like racism, sexism, etc…but if you actually sit down with a run-of-the-mill conservative, those things seldom come up. That’s just a convenient way for the Left to explain away why their message is not landing with a lot of people. Paint them with a broad brush and dismiss them because of the story you (not you in particular JM) have created for them…yeah, of course they are going to reject that.
As for the cheating, both sides are ABSOLUTELY convinced the other side does it and their own does not. That to me displays a disconnect (and a dehumanizing one at that) which suggests an inability to accept that there may be good people with integrity (but different values) who happen to vote differently…such as conservative minorities. The Left would serve itself well if they actually listened to why some POC vote conservative. Because they would learn quite a bit about why “whites who vote against their own self-interests” also vote for Conservatives.
Oh I’m not here to defend the Dem brand. Yes that party has problems. America can’t be defined by two parties. Politics is messy!
It was the largest victory against an incumbent since FDR…
Nice try.
Biden won with same margin that Obama beat Romney.
Do people here actually read anything before they comment?
Also explain how the Dem brand “lost big”?
What are you talking about exactly?
Not one congress seat flipped.
Give us all the examples you have……
Republicans won several house seats and a senate seat formerly held by democrats, and seriously underperformed expectations. Democrats even lost some ground in Oregon.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-house.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/11/08/democrats-barely-clinging-to-their-supermajorities-in-the-oregon-legislature/?mc_cid=6bb01b467e&mc_eid=5815bf76a3
Again, an incumbent election. Had the votes been counted Tuesday night it would not have seemed close.
I know it is heartbreaking to Trump fans…..
And without Trump on the ballot, Dems will probably win the 2 Georgia seats and control the Senate.
Horrible night isn’t it.
You are wildly optimistic in comparison to nearly all other observers; I admire your confidence, and hope you are right.
It is not wild optimism, it is called Facts, I realize they have been lost in the Trump era.
Biden is winning by 4 million votes and California has barely counted.
Biden is projected to win by 7 million votes.
A clear and resounding win.
Clinton won by 3 million in 2016.
Biden double that and more.
hmmm? Left out my non-offensive reply? A bit too on point, I guess.
I think what he is saying is that more people are closer to moderate. But the Left is still defined by the Right via its most kookiest members.
Similarly, not every conservative is a Proud Boy. For whatever reason, Portland is a lightning rod for the extremists, but we need to be careful to not define everyone by their worst examples.
Not every conservative is a proud boy but 95% of conservatives voted for Trump.
Congrats on your movement.
Yes, cut 18 million and let the anarchy/crime world run rampant on the trails. Then blame the cops for not solving crime. Who is creating the crime? The west hills?
Doubtful.
I’m coming late to this discussion and have not read the 72 posts already here. But after reading this morning’s PPB news about the weekend – with hundreds of cars involved in illegal street racing on Sunday night, a guy driving 118 mph in a Scion on Saturday, and a fatality in Cully on Friday night after a car hit a building – we really NEED the PPB traffic division!
We all joked in another forum about “What traffic division,” but they are clearly needed and it’s good that Ryan, Wheeler, and Fritz voted against the $18M cut. Yes, we all want improved policing, but these severe cuts are not the way to go about it. Every cyclist should thank the PPB traffic division for helping to keep the roads safer for everyone.
What a freaking hypocrite. She’ll call the cops when it benefits her – in this case bullying a Lyft driver.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/11/portland-city-commissioner-jo-ann-hardesty-calls-911-refuses-to-get-out-of-lyft-car-after-driver-cancels-ride.html
Ironic. The police defunder advocate calls the police for a personal dispute.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/11/portland-city-commissioner-jo-ann-hardesty-calls-911-refuses-to-get-out-of-lyft-car-after-driver-cancels-ride.html