(Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Two days before Christmas Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler played City Council Santa by handing out new bureau assignments. The recipient of the Portland Bureau of Transportation was Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty.
“When we look at these issues through a public health lens, we see that traffic enforcement does not improve outcomes.”
— Jo Ann Hardesty
The move puts the 63-year-old former state representative, NAACP president, and Portland’s first Black woman city council member in charge of Portland’s streets — and the 900-plus employee agency that manages and maintains them. In addition to our streets, PBOT also manages a bike and e-scooter share system, regulation of ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft, our Vision Zero plan, and more.
While Hardesty doesn’t come to the job with transportation policy experience, many of her values and leadership experiences line up well with the direction PBOT is headed. Hardesty also takes over from her biggest ally on council, outgoing Commissioner Chloe Eudaly. Like Eudaly, Hardesty is likely to firmly adopt the idea of “transportation justice” which aims to right past wrongs of city policies that have left too many Portlanders – especially people of color and people with disabilities — behind. Hardesty has also been council’s most ardent supporter of police reform and has made her concerns about police traffic enforcement known on several occasions since coming to City Hall in 2018.
Advertisement
(Photo: Biketown/City of Portland)
Following the announcement of bureau assignments last week, PBOT shared a statement on Twitter that said, “[Hardesty’s] dedication to building a more equitable Portland and bringing new voices to city government will help us to accelerate our own commitments to transportation justice and to ensure that our transportation system serves the needs of all our fellow Portlanders.”
Another issue where Hardesty aligns with existing PBOT policy is on transit. PBOT’s Enhanced Transit Corridors plan launched in 2018 and laid the groundwork for the Rose Lane Project, one of Eudaly’s signature accomplishments. In an interview with BikePortland last year, Hardesty said, “I want public transit to be free. Period… If we’re ever going to impact the climate, we need to get people out of automobiles.”
Now Hardesty finds herself in a position to push TriMet in that direction at a time when the transit agency is looking for a new general manager. Hardesty could support demands from the Getting There Together Coalition for a more transparent hiring process.
Advertisement
Hardesty will also find agreement at PBOT and within local transportation activism circles with her desire move away from using armed police officers to enforce traffic laws. This is an issue Eudaly already started working on and something Hardesty could make significant progress on as PBOT Commissioner. As part of her Rethink Portland initiative launched in October, Hardesty hosted a panel about community safety that featured Dr. Jonathan Jay from the Boston University School of Public Health. When I asked Hardesty to explain how her proposal to eliminate $18 million from the Portland Police Bureau budget would impact traffic enforcement, she cited Dr. Jay’s work. “What we know from public health experts such as Dr. Jon Jay from Boston University is when we look at these issues through a public health lens, we see that traffic enforcement does not improve outcomes; technology and infrastructure upgrades do. I am more than happy to look at reinvestments that can be made to infrastructure to build systems that can truly keep Portlanders safe.”
Some of those infrastructure investments could come via Vision Zero. Interestingly, Hardesty voted against Vision Zero when it came to City Council in June 2019. She said PBOT focused too much on individual behaviors when the system itself isn’t a level playing field. “I continue to have the concern that we are over-criminalizing one segment of our community and using them as the reason why people are dying rather than the poor conditions of our roads,” Hardesty said before voting “no” on a two-year update of PBOT’s Vision Zero Plan. “The lack of lighting, the lack of sidewalks in many places. I think it all works together.”
Advertisement
The debate over enforcement is likely to grow louder during Hardesty’s tenure. Another place where Hardesty is likely to amplify an existing PBOT position is on the I-5 Rose Quarter project.
“We believe Hardesty understands who projects are built by and for, where they are built, when they are built, and why they are built are just as important as what projects the City is building.”
— Ashton Simpson, Oregon Walks
Many transportation reform activists in Portland support Eudaly’s opposition to ODOT’s plan to spend an estimated $800 million on more lanes and surface street changes through the Rose Quarter. Hardesty is likely to share that stance. She told No More Freeways in April 2018 that she strongly opposes the project and that, “expanding I-5 should be an absolute last resort to addressing crashes and congestions.” And Hardesty is likely to be very skeptical of ODOT’s second try to replace the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. In 2013 we covered an anti-Columbia River Crossing project event where she (as board president of Coalition for a Livable Future) said, “We the people get to decide what a livable community looks like, and that ain’t it.”
Hardesty’s past as a community organizer, politician and racial justice activist are being seen as a big plus by local transportation advocates.
Asked to comment on her future as PBOT commissioner last week, newly-named Oregon Walks Executive Director Ashton Simpson told us, “Transportation is not a side issue in America’s struggle for civil rights… Transportation is about economic mobility and we believe Hardesty understands who projects are built by and for, where they are built, when they are built, and why they are built are just as important as what projects the City is building.”
And Street Trust Board President Kimberlee Stafford said, “With traffic violence surging in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that has exacerbated inequality, our streets need to be safer for all people who use them. We know from Commissioner Hardesty’s decades of experience that she will help PBOT to embrace a more holistic view of community safety and push the intersections of race, class, and gender into the forefront of just policy making.”
New bureau assignments become effective January 1st, 2021.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Why not go a step further with traffic enforcement by designing roads that intrinsically make drivers driver slower and more carefully?
Matt D,
Did you read the article? Perhaps you missed the part where Hardesty said, “traffic enforcement does not improve outcomes; technology and infrastructure upgrades do.”
I can’t say I’m encouraged by her comments that will lead to positive outcomes on the streets. I really, really, hope I’m wrong, but her comment only makes me shake my head in dismay. How many years will it take?
Infrastructure upgrades are not going to solve our “high speed gunfight chase in the protected bike lane” problem.
https://bikeportland.org/2020/12/21/drivers-in-high-speed-car-chase-almost-hit-man-walking-across-rosa-parks-way-video-324222
1) I’ve never heard someone say investing in infrastructure would solve everything. Bad stuff will always happen.
2) Funny you use that story as an example… Because if we had physically protected bike lanes or a raised cycle track in that location there is a much lower chance the drivers would have swerved into that lane.
I agree with you about better infrastructure maybe helping here. The point I was trying to make is that gun-fighting and car chases are a problem for police, something Hardesty seems against. Unless she’s the one calling them that is.
More police wouldn’t have prevented the gun fight nor the car chase. Unless PPB just happened to be in the area they would have showed up 15 minutes after the call first came in.
It’s not hard to figure out. Look at cities with far more police. They still have speeding, they still have gun violence. The only real shot we have at preventing stuff like this is fixing the root problem
You are very likely right that more cops would not have stopped this event once it had started and before it resolved itself, but that’s a pretty limited view of what good law enforcement can do.
Gunfights in the street don’t just appear out of nowhere, and they can be prevented (and largely have been, which is why these sorts of things are rare). If there had been a response the last time one of these guys waved a gun around, this might never have happened. There are a dozen ways good policing could have helped, ranging from a hardass law-and-order response to a non-criminal diversion into a community program. And, of course, confiscation of the weapon itself would have prevented its use.
I’m curious though: what you think the root problem that makes people it is reasonable to drive around the streets shooting at one another, and what can the community do to convince them otherwise? And do you believe that cutting back on law enforcement is likely to make shooting incidents rarer?
Well, let’s see. We spent a ton og money on 20 is plenty, but deaths increased. We took away lanes from the busiest streets, deaths increased. So maybe screwing over motorists is not the best idea as it just causes more frustration, more side street speeding etc. Bicycles as great as they are, are not the solution to Portland’s traffic issues. By constantly screwing over motorists who often have no other option, we are actually making things worse and worse and there is a reason less progressive peopel keep getting elected.
Bicycles are cool. But They are an able bodied and a minoir solution to traffic issues. Poor people in 122nd are not going to take bicycle in the 9 months of rain and cold with their kids. This is stupid to even insist on.
We need more public transport, and get rid of the unused bicycle lanes Eudaly put in to screw over motorists which actually are causing more danger and air pollution. And this anti-motorists idea needs to go away. Unless you give people ways to live their life, people will drive and road diets, slowing down etc will only increase deaths, as we have seen.
And though drivers nowadays suck, most bicyclist break the laws way more.
I am tired of the radical politicians in Portland dividing us apart.
I got like three bingos on that one, wow.
I’m pretty sure that BP has a contingent of conservatives who just hate-read the site.
Or maybe liking bikes and cycling has absolutely nothing to do with someone’s political leanings?
It’s a real problem how some people assume cycling belongs to the left/liberal/progressive folks.
Roadies are super conservative generally! Roadies also don’t show up to support bike infrastructure because they are motorist 99% of the time.
The people I know in the real world who are passionate about bikes tend to value bikes/pedestrian access because of the negative effects that motorist have on health and safety. Conservatives don’t care about either of those things.
Please don’t try to make biking, or, worse, biking subcultures, into yet another partisan left-right issue. We have too many of those as it is.
I agree w your observations. I just want folks to remember that generalizing and making assumptions abt this type of thing is fraught w peril.
I think that is an unfair generalization. Instead of trying to create divisions and make biking partisan we need to look for common ground and embrace it. For example, many conservatives are highly supportive of wildlife and habitat conservation even though this may typically be thought of as a liberal agenda item. For example, hunters which are typically thought of as a conservative group contribute ~ $800 million/year to conservation programs through hunting licenses and fees. I think there are many conservatives who love biking and walking and may not always behave as you think on transportation issues.
After knowing a few hunters over the years, I doubt very much that they care that their fees are going to conservation programs. All they care about is the hunt. If you were to ask them to contribute to those conservation programs on their own, they would balk.
SolarE,
That is anecdotal and I personally know a number of hunters who are big time conservationists. You need to look no further than Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to see hunter based foundations doing great things for conservation. Closed minds on these type of issues is what keeps us from finding common ground. Same goes for cycling and transportation just like the conservation issues we are discussing.
Most “motorists” in this town are transplants from California/any other auto-centric place in America who never lived with any real public transit, bike, or infrastructure not totally dedicated to worshipping motorists desires. You live in Portland now, if you want to sit in your car for 6 hours a day go back to Los Angelos- or literally any other city in this huge country that is designed for motorists convenience. I’m so sorry that Portland is the one City in the country where it is slightly harder for you to drive because we actually provide alternative options. Learn how to assimilate to your new home or go back.
Also LOL at anyone citing decreasing public infrastructure and biking stats when Portland “the most gentrified city in America” is being overrun by transplants who have no idea how to do anything other than drive. It’s time we start training you, or adding more barriers to driving so you are forced to learn how not to drive everywhere – how our city is designed – or you can move somewhere more convenient for you. (Make it cheaper for the rest of us pls)
Before you try and pull some BS “I’m from here not California” cards, try actually remembering the history of how our city was built and developed – it was never centered around “motorists” except for maybe in 1950-1980. Portland has been built off of the backbone of mass transportation from its inception -from the old street car lines to the Oregon Electric Railway system that initially built out our suburbs. Assimilate or GTFO.
We are not bending to the will of motorists just because there’s suddenly more people moving here that drive. We are going to make people learn not to drive excessively.
Maybe we should build a wall…
Ha! Put it on the ballot. It will pass easily. Portlanders LOVE taxes, especially poorly thought out ones.
Think…the Clean Energy Fund, the Metro Homeless tax , the Metro Housing Levy, the huge library bond, the Arts Tax…..the list goes on………
So you are attaching more deaths to lowering speed limits and increases in bicycle infra? I see…well we could close all bars in Portland…that would cut down on drunk driving, ban all alcohol sales in the state…you know?
Look, I get it..you wanted a reaction. You got one. Yay…now how do we solve the death of children by car?
***Comment deleted by moderator. I don’t tolerate meanness to others, regardless of the content of their comments. – Jonathan ***
The interesting (and often frustrating) aspect of Portland’s form of government is that people run for office and get elected because they want to tackle specific issues, and then they get assigned bureaus that are largely outside of those issues. You never know how invested they will becomes in the bureaus. In Hardesty’s case, I am hopeful that she can marry the things she’s passionate about – police enforcement reform and improving equitable outcomes – with some changes to how PBOT approaches its policies and investments. As citizen advocates, we should be thinking about the levers that both advance our issues and that can excite a commissioner enough to bring about change.
Or just change our form of government to a strong city manager and let the professionals do their job with council oversight. The appointed city charter committee looks poised to do just that based on their own statements. I’m hopeful this parade of arbitrary bureau assignments will be over in a couple years.
Careful what you wish for. Eugene has a city manager form of government and it’s as screwed up as Portland.
Democracy reform doesn’t guarantee better outcomes, and anybody promising those with said reforms is…mistaken, at best. But without some reform, we are almost assuredly not getting those better outcomes.
I’ll say this about Portland’s form of government or the electoral college or plurality voting, the Senate, single-member districts, and on and on.
FYI: Marilyn Vos Savant on the argument FOR the electoral college:
https://parade.com/1095526/marilynvossavant/whats-the-argument-for-the-electoral-college/
I won’t chase this tangent too far, but I see that argument a lot in various flavors and have never found it to be a good one, no matter how creative the analogous construct it uses. They never deal with the basic problem of the EC: Some voters are arbitrarily given more electoral power for a given elected office than others voting for that same office. This is entirely unique to any other election that occurs in the US (or any “real” democracy, as far as I’m aware), and I’ve yet to see a compelling justification for it (in modern times. Back in the day when communication was done by horseback? Sure. Makes sense).
Everyone loves to complain about the electoral college, but without a practical way to change it, the issue is moot.
The only real possibility is the Interstate Compact, and that is moving about as fast as it can… which is to say, not very fast at all, given that for it to be adopted, several Republican controlled States would have to approve it.
Managers do run the bureaus with council oversight, it’s just that there’s one commissioner who is more deeply involved with a particular bureau than the others.
Why is this bad?
There’s a philosophy among the commissioners: you keep your hands off my bureaus and I’ll keep my hands off yours. That’s how we end up with disasters like cost overruns, incompetent managers, unnecessary projects….
Got it. Other governments don’t have these pesky artifacts of commissioner government.
You have to admit, Oregon has an amazing history of success (911 system, Health Insurance Exchange, IT system Unemployment Claims, etc.)
About 20 years ago, maybe 25, Portland tried an experiment. The intent was to hire a professional set of bureau directors who couldn’t be fired, that is, they would be part of the civil service rather than a mayor-appointed director. Ultimately the only bureau to get such a director was BES (sewers). The guy they hired was outstanding, so good that other employees were totally loyal to him and successive city councils tried very hard to dismiss him, get him to leave, etc, but were very careful to not even suggest firing him, otherwise he could sue the city big time for breach of contract. Basically what city council hates the most are competent bureau directors, people who know exactly what they are doing, who serve the public interest first and foremost – council feels threatened by such individuals because they make council look completely incompetent in public without even trying to. Eventually the city fired the guy and took a big hit financially.
Great comment! The lack of a stable civil service in Portland has definitely become a problem. Having long-serving directors served as a check on the constantly rotating Commissioners-in-charge, making sure there was some continuity. Now directors can (and often do) get fired and replaced on the whim of politicians. At one point a few years ago, a majority of bureaus did not have a director. It was ridiculous.
Do we really want appointed directors “checking” our elected officials? Speaking truth, certainly, but not obstructing new policy.
A number of reasons. First you have bureau leaders elected to commission office because of their politics, not because of their ability to run multi m/billion $ organizations. They typically lack the knowledge & experience to do this effectively and efficiently. Instead, the bureaus become the means with which they implement their politics. Then after elections when bureaus get new leaders, there is little continuity in bureau goals & strategies and the organizations get further muddled.
As Damiene noted, reforming this ludicrous form of city government doesn’t guarantee better outcomes; but this one certainly guarantees bad and inefficient ones. These are great reasons why Portland is the last city to use this form of government.
Isn’t that the point of self-government? It sounds to me like you prefer an authoritarian government where decisions are made on our behalf by “experts”. Alexander Hamilton argued people were incapable of self-government. But his contemporaries ignored him. So we had this 200+ year experiment in self-government that everyone seems to think was a failure.
Sadly as it comes to the end of the first generation of transformative bikeway system implementation success it looks like that only ‘semi authoritarian’ (independently wealthy / political family power) strong mayor may be able to take the risks with imposing a more balanced transportation system: NYC (Bloomberg), Chicago (Daley Jr), etc.
Before the great recession I would have said the opposite…and voted for a “strong city manager / weak mayor” system (as I worked/ volunteered for some). But recently (era of social media?) I have seen fewer city managers let the professionals do their job effectively when it comes to balancing a transportation system with effective bikeway implementation. [COVID19 emergency pop-up projects may be a short term hiatus on this trend.]
Hardesty got rid off most traffic police because apparently they are racist. She directly contributed to the deaths in Portland.
She was opposed to Wapoto jail becoming a shelter, against putting boulders by highways even though they prevented many deaths of homeless people wondering in to the highways.
Hardesy is great for social justice reform amplification, but she is an incompetent commissioner overall.
It’s the cut our nose off to spite our face method of governing. I have yet heard any of our “leaders” mention better training for our officers. Seems like that could be a fairly easy way to start reforming instead of slashing budgets and programs without any real critical thought as to the consequences.
Well that needs a citation or three.
Would you like to live in a place built as a jail, that will always look like a jail, feel like a jail, and remain awkwardly located for anybody who doesn’t own and operate a motor vehicle? If my parents got me a winter coat and it turned out to be a strait jacket it would be a little hard to act grateful..’shut up kid, we cut the buckles off’
Wapato should be used for secure storage, or maybe communications infrastructure /hindsight.
Considering that it’s now successfully open, I’d guess the answer to all your questions is “yes”, people are willing to live in a remodeled prison that has had all the prison-like features removed over sleeping in a cold, wet, moldy tent. Wait till you find out that people regularly pay hundreds of dollars a night to stay at a former prison in Troutdale!
It turns out a significant population isn’t bothered enough by the fact that Wapato was intended to be a jail to pass up warm and dry accommodations. The transportation issue is the dumbest issue of them all. As if we can’t just modify our bus service.
Wapato has and always will be a bad trade for Portland/multco. They need to cut their losses, bulldoze it and sell the land.
If there’s one principle that should guide Commissioner Hardesty’s tenure, it’s that the cheapest, fastest, and most effective way—by far—to both restore communities AND make streets safer—is to make them car-free.
Pedestrianize main streets, quick-build public plazas everywhere, and watch the magic happen.
Car-free public places will need near-universal support of adjoining businesses. The ones who have survived the pandemic so far are back on their heels, financially strapped and perhaps unwilling to change. It’s going to be a heavy lift. One strategy might be redevelopment of areas (a block, or multiple blocks?) that are practically empty with public seating, delivery zones, and Rose Lanes. There’s already a program to finance storefront improvements which could be bolstered. Restaurant fronts especially will need some design and construction support since that business is unrecognizable from just 12 months ago.
Good luck to Commissioner Hardesty!
There’s no universal law that says all businesses need to agree to a street change before PBOT implements it. If someone with the power to implement a car-free street—AKA the head of PBOT—wants to do so, that’s totally within their power.
Of course, most politicians (and really, people) lack vision, and are scared as hell of pissing off people (even if it’s just the vocal minority, which it almost always is), so they choose “incrementalism” and basically don’t accomplish any meaningful change.
The solution, as the great Janette Sadik Khan showed during her tenure as DOT commissioner of NYC, is to make everything a temporary[1] pilot. You pedestrianize the street overnight, then measure the results over the next few months. Do people like it? Does business increase? Is the side-street traffic catastrophic, or not that bad? And if anything isn’t working, how can it be fixed on-the-fly?
That’s the power of quick-build pilots, and how JSK built over 60 pedestrian plazas in NYC (including Times Square!) when previously none existed.
Read more: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/janette-sadik-khan-streets-transportation-new-york-city
[1] The genius of this is that while they’re billed as temporary experiments to curry political favor, once the general public gets a taste of how much better a particular street can be with more outdoor seating and space for people, to reverse one would lead to even more of an outcry.
This is exactly the process that has happened dozens of times in NY, and accelerated during the pandemic. Silver lining. Try removing the open street area on 34th ave Queens.
yeah create car free zones with no way to bring in supplies, or people workign there bringing their tools etc and you basically screw over most of the small businesses.
Sadly most people on this blog hate cars, but have no actual solution. Slacktivism at it’s best.
You close downtown Portland like genius Iannarone wanted to do, and you will put so many people out of business.
But who cares for trust fund babies who live close in and don’t have to deal with poverty.
Did you watch the video? Have you actually seen an open street? There are cars on every block. Local traffic, particularly delivery vehicles, are given priority drop off zones (as opposed to the status quo where they must often double park).
Jaime. There are car free/ pedestrian friendly zones all over the world. They are able to get goods and services to these locations. How can they do it?
Does anybody remember the battle of NE 28th Avenue? PBOT put out a modest proposal for a bikeway, a business owner wrote a letter, the usual number of suspects signed on and the plan got the chop.
PBOT staff probably do remember this. It’s easy to say in the comment section that we should do this or that. It’s harder to get it built. A commissioner with a big idea has to bring along the staff AND the businesses on the street.
The opposite is true too. In East Portland we got numerous bike & ped projects funded with state and federal money plus massive support from local businesses AND business associations, but PBOT staff kept giving us excuse after lame excuse of why it couldn’t be done, or done now, or even done next year.
Let’s make 122nd car-free. That will no doubt make the residents of East Portland feel like their voices have finally been heard.
I second that. Great idea!
What happens to the auto dealerships on 122nd?
They can use parallel back streets to drive the cars, same as what bicyclists must now use. Not enough parallel back streets in East Portland? Tough.
To make the white well off portland bicyclists happy, let’s screw over the residents, the businesses etc and make sure people who live there can;’t go to their jobs easily.
Genius! Well done white rich people, because of your hatred of cars, you are perfectly ok to ruin people’s livelihoods and traffic to get to their jobs.
Must be so nice to be better off, white and jobs where you do not have to drive to.
Some bicyclists are seriously off their rockers. Not that different than hateful trump supporters.
You care so much about this city, you are ok with screwing over a vast majority of it so you can ride your $2000 bikes in car free streets. Who cares about outer SE!
What an absurd echo chamber this is. The vast majority of citizens and businesses don’t agree with your car-free utopia. And your “government can and should just shove it down their throats cuz we know best”is absolutely fascist. But – the thing you’ll have going for you is a local government that loves power and hates freedom (especially the dissenting kind).
You know what those citizens east of 82nd want? Paved roads, potholes fixed, sidewalks, crosswalks – not your elitist utopian car-free garbage.
How did PBOT and Eudaly serve Portland these last four years – created acluster@$!# which in turn led to record pedestrian deaths – bravo for those Progressive Dems (forever long on “sounds good,” delivers “works like $#&!”) and their commitment to the vocal minority.
I know, it’s sad that people don’t want to live in a utopia 🙁 But I think the fact that all you can sarcastically call it is a utopia really says something. I think you agree that it’s a utopian vision, as in the best possible way for people to live, but you think it’s unrealistic, and therefore silly to dream of. You think you’re being pragmatic or realistic or whatever, when you’ve really just lost touch with your imagination and youthful desire to dream of a better world. That’s what’s kind of sad to me.
Zach Katz, Sad that you want to rebuild the city to force others to live your vision, instead of their own visions. I value the rapid transportation that my car provides as well as the safety of not being locked in a vehicle with criminals, murders (Jeremy) and druggies. I also value being able to travel on my schedule, not some bureaucrat’s.
Perhaps you don’t know:
1. Transit can get only to about 8% of area jobs in a 45 minute commute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0512_jobs_transit.pdf
2. Transit actually uses more energy than cars per passenger-mile. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb34/Edition34_Chapter02.pdf Table 2.14.
3. Transit costs more than double what driving a car cost. (Taxpayers pay about 75% of the cost of transit.)
1. Transit in the US accounts for a tiny fraction of the transportation budget compared to highway expansion/maintenance particularly in comparison to countries in Europe and East Asia.
2. Tax subsidies for oil and gas are around >$20 billion per year. This doesn’t include the cost of health affects, climate change etc.
3. Taxpayers pay a lot more for oil
eawriste wrote–“1. Transit in the US accounts for a tiny fraction of the transportation budget…”
1. Transit carries a tiny percentage of passenger-miles and zero freight, so it should get little money. Let the users pay 100% like with roads instead of being supported by non-users. BTW, hopefully you know that transit uses more energy per-passenger-mile than cars.
2. Highways are OVER 100% paid for by users through user fees. So they are a user fee, not a taxpayer subsidy. And part of fuel tax money is stolen for transit.
eawriste wrote–“2. Tax subsidies for oil and gas are around >$20 billion per year. This doesn’t include the cost of health affects, climate change etc.
1. Your link does include alleged cost of health and climate change (BTW: no one has ever shown evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause – prove me wrong with evidence.).
2. Your link shows cost of military which no longer applies since we no longer rely on foreign oil imports (thanks to Fracking & Trump, but don’t worry Biden has promised to cut production and thus cost us more for energy)
3. On a per BTU produced, subsidies to unreliable renewables are many times higher.
4. Your link includes payments to help low income people afford energy. Would you have them freeze in the dark?
eawriste wrote–“3. Taxpayers pay a lot more for oil.
Only if we reduce production is a futile attempt to control the climate (hopefully you know that it was warmer in Minoan, Roman and Medieval times without fossil fuels. And man only emits 5% of the annual total emissions.)
Please. The evidence is overwhelming. Statements like this undermine your credibility in other areas.
Except, car free streets actually exist in literally thousands of places elsewhere. So it’s less an imagined utopia than a reality millions of people live daily.
I’m happy to have the last word on this topic:
Whatever change we want to see in our community, we need to bring the community along with the change and not just impose it arbitrarily. When leaders from the right (think Trump) try it, people call it fascist – and people are right. When leaders from the left (like Eudaly) try it, people call it fascist – and people are still right.
Let’s work with people to create the community we want to have. Before anyone’s street becomes car-free, the people who live on the street and do business on the street and use the street should be able to weigh in.
Of the dozens of open streets I’ve seen in NY (and abroad) only a tiny fraction were closed due to neighborhood rejection. Almost every open street in every neighborhood is now looked at as a neighborhood asset by people who live there.
I think we should be empowering neighbors to make these decisions, either on a temporary or permanent basis. We already do that to a very limited extent with block party permits; we should expand that program to permit longer-term closures and let people experiment.
YES, for sure HK. Right now my parents have given up on just getting a speed bump on their street after a decade. So allowing neighborhoods to experiment with open streets is a cheap, and-better yet-participatory process.
We used to let people pay for speed bumps themselves. Yes, this let “rich people” jump the queue, but it also let the city focus its resources on those most in need, with the progressive outcome of those who could afford it in effect paying more tax than others.
IDK my parents aren’t rich, and it’s not a “rich neighborhood” but it’s a residential road so I understand it’s not a priority. Kinda ambivalent if it’s better as you suggest to make neighborhoods speed bump their own streets.
I would pose it as a choice; you could wait in line for public funds if you wanted to. It seems better to save public money to for those in need in cases where residents are willing to pay themselves. We would get more projects done and those in line wouldn’t have to wait as long. Everyone wins.
Kitty,
With the slowed 911 response times due to the regular destructive protestors maybe we should allow Portlanders to hire their own police as well? If enough people signed up it would probably be affordable even for lower income individuals. This would save taxpayers money as the city could cut more funds to the PPB and those who pay would at least get adequate police response. Everybody wins or do they?
Fred says: “When leaders from the right (think Trump) try it, people call it fascist – and people are right. When leaders from the left (like Eudaly) try it, people call it fascist – and people are still right.”
OK, as a Trumpster, I’m curious what actions Trump has imposed on the community arbitrarily. Can you name some?
“car free streets actually exist in literally thousands of places elsewhere.”
Including Portland. But a focus on car free streets is more likely to create a bunch of boutique streetscapes than to move us toward a less auto-dependent and more sustainable general transportation system.
If by “boutique streets” you mean places where people can walk, eat, play, ride bikes, buy stuff, hang out, and generally live instead of just pass through quickly, I’m all in.
Kudos! Your comment without context almost sounds reasonable. First of all, it only works in few places where conditions (income level, physical distances, people’s physical abilities, terrain, how compact the city is, how much public transportation exist etc) all come together. This is not the case in Portland. It rains all the time here, we do not have a flat terrain, and most low income people work much farther than feasible. I looked at public transportation when I got my job and it takes over 2 hours each way.
Stop acting like a spoiled priviliged white person and think about the reality of this city. Despite screwing over motorists purposefully for years, building (unused, unasked for) bicycle lanes, bycicle ridership declined.
maybe, just maybe, your utopian ideas are what they are – utopia. Create actual solutions instead of trying to make everyone support your lifestyle and privilige.
LOL. Here is a map of open streets in NY in most parts of the regardless of race or income. There are a lot of people who had exactly your reaction and now have become advocates for open streets because they see their kids playing safely, and get to meet their neighbors. Here were their concerns: people must be rich, people must be white, people must not have physical disabilities, it must be flat, there must be public transportation, it must not rain.
It’s weird people call other cities “utopia.” It’s like those places have humans living there, the same physical laws, and they have the same problems, but we must somehow be the one exception.
This is why I think “temporary” pilots are the best way to make things happen. People just won’t believe it’s possible to remove cars from a street until they see with their own eyes how great it is.
Even Stroget, Copenhagen’s most famous pedestrian street, was converted in 1962 as “an experiment:” https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/pedestrian-priority-spaces/pedestrian-only-streets/pedestrian-streets-case-study-stroget-copenhagen/
LOL
I think to make “temporary pilots” credible, they need to be removed after the test period is over so everyone understands that they are not a camel’s nose.
Only if they’re not successful. If the majority of residents like it and businesses see increased revenue, it would be highly unethical to remove it.
Not necessarily; many trial projects are done in a non-permanent fashion. You don’t dig up the street for a 3 or 6 month trial that you might have to remove.
Regardless, if people are not absolutely convinced a project is temporary and that it will be removed if the community doesn’t like it, they’ll resist trials. Guaranteed removal is the easiest way to offer reassurance on that front. There may be other ways, but I can’t think of any.
Car free regions tend to kill businesses and become homeless meccas.
Zach, your views are so outside of the reality of many low income, mostly minority people’s experiences. Your white saviour mentality is really annoying and is just a sign of privilige. Aren’t you the genius who wanted to take lanes away from the busiest streets and turn them in to plazas? And reading here what you wrote, it is clear that you wanted those to be thin end of the wedge, you had no intention to help the businesses, you just wanted to further your car hating agenda, while screwing the neighborhoods who now have to deal with overflow parking, traffic etc.
but as long as the well off people who can afford restaurants and live close to your rich neighborhoods benefit, why would you care about the people living at Powell Butte to go to their jobs.
Check your privilige. And also reality. Your echo chamber of radicals is really an incredibly small minority.
Tse, well said! Eudaly took lanes from the busiest streets to turn them in to absolutely unused bicycle lanes. She screwed over the people in Outer SE where traffic is far worse and there is not a single bicyclist using those lanes (I took videos while we were stuck in traffic).
Bicyclists who hate cars so much that they are willing to make many low income people’s lives hell are a real impediment to solving traffic.
Just making drivign difficult obviously didn’t work. All it did was increase deaths, and increase air pollution. Also bicycle ridership declined.
Maybe instead of just wanting to screw over drivers, maybe you can try to come up with reasonable ways to get people off their single driver cars?
I find many commenters here to be incredibly priviliged. They are all able bodied, and obviously priviliged enough to live close to work or work from home, maybe no kids and definitely better off.
Look, Eudaly’s ideas didn’t work. It made things worse. Bicycle lanes are useless except near downtown, and screwing traffic hoping that people will drive doesn’;t work because you give people no options other than putting a family of four in a bicycle somehow in the rain and ride miles.
FIRST make DOWNTOWN car free. (ALL city employees take transit.)
Lets see how well that works.
BTW transit uses MORE ENERGY than cars per passenger-mile. Look it up! http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb34/Edition34_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.14.
I think there are important qualifications to that table–1) transit that has high occupancy uses far less energy than cars. There is a huge variation in results, and even in that table, you can see that transit energy use per passenger mile used to be twice as efficient. 2) the table does not take into account production energy costs, which are significantly higher in automobiles (and can be 20%-40% of the total energy use of a private vehicle–higher with electric cars) 3) the table does not take into account road maintenance–I don’t know how this variable effects the figures, but I’m sure it isn’t negligible.
In order to make the system work, for every packed, peak hour vehicle, we need multiple nearly empty off-peak vehicles moving around. Large vehicle, fixed-route, fixed-schedule transit is not the future.
Eric–“1) transit that has high occupancy uses far less energy than cars.”
Sorry, you are wrong. Look at the top five by passenger-miles:
BUS:
New York, NY……3222 BTU/passenger-mile
Los Angeles, CA…3649 BTU/passenger-mile
Newark, NJ……..3446 BTU/passenger-mile
Chicago, Il…….4590 BTU/passenger-mile
CAFE standard for new cars is 40mpg or about 3075 BTU/mile which becomes 2365 BTU/passenger-mile at 1.3 passengers/car.
Eric–“2) the table does not take into account production energy costs
Nope, same for transit vehicles which also use energy to produce.
Eric–“3) the table does not take into account road maintenance–I don’t know how this variable effects the figures, but I’m sure it isn’t negligible.
Transit tears up roads too. In fact are the single worst source of road wear due to their extreme weight.
From that source:
“Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
Probably better to look at carbon emissions per passenger mile than energy usage per passenger mile.
Also, just hilarious that the source you cite explicitly warns against comparisons of energy usage between modes, and yet you do so repeatedly in all caps
Let’s go one step further and make them people free.
That seems like a good idea, but experience seems to contradict it. Car free areas, in our auto-dependent society, tend to become commercial dead zones with no cars, but no pedestrians either.
What we really need is mixed use streets where cars operate in a manner safe for other users. That means operating at pedestrian speeds with the vehicle responsible for avoiding collisions. That is going to be critical as we see self-driving cars emerge.
One of the most important unresolved issues is whose safety is a priority when a self-driving vehicle is programmed, the vehicle’s passengers or the public? We saw Uber’s response, they shut off the systems designed to avoid pedestrian collisions because it was a nuisance. If their automoated taxis are given the same right-of-way that drivers currently enjoy, no one will be safe.
Joanne Hardesty is not a transportation geek. But she has a history of considering transportation issues as part of larger issues of equity and justice. The question of burdens and benefits. We casually refer to “limited access” highways without considering whose access is limited and who benefits from those limits. The reality is the access of people who live along highway 5 is limited for the benefit of people driving through their neighborhood. That perspective of burdens and benefits can be applied to individual streets. Who benefits from traffic speeding along the street? And who pays the price for it.
Great point about car-free areas sometimes becoming dead areas. That was Portland’s experience with the first MAX line through downtown. 1st Ave is still pretty much a ghost town. You need the right land use mix of businesses and destinations to make it work. You can’t just make it car-free and expect it to be successful without a lot of other good ingredients. What New York City has is massive residential density that results in massive pedestrian activity, so the plazas tend to be successful right away. Portland has very few people living downtown, and not much density in most neighborhoods, so it’s more difficult here.
Though I agree withg most things you said, her “history of considering transportation issues as part of larger issues of equity and justice” is not about finding solutions but more about blocking things.
What soltuions did she accomplish? She blocked Wapato and made sure hundreds of people who needed shelter couldn;t use it for a long time. She only says no, she never seem to come up with solutions.
She is great at dismantling and pointing fingers (often right when it comes to police briutality), but she is horrible at building things.
Because of her, motorcycle cops have decreased from 32 to 10 or something like that. Her policies in fact increased number of traffic deaths and people speeding. She hates cops so much that we have very few cops left to enforce, and now people can speed as much as they want to.
She will most likely be an ideology drive ineffective person. I hope I am wrong.
A counterpoint to your “car free areas are dead” comment would be the 3rd street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA which was beautifully transformed into a vibrant non-vehicular street. They have a significant homeless population as well but must have figured out a way to keep it clean and safe. It was definitely well planned out with nice public sculpture and seating and a mix of national and local stores. Not just a “temporarily block off the streets and hope for the best” plan. Of course the winter wether in CA is more conducive to outdoor shopping.
https://www.downtownsm.com/
How will you bring people who are really poor, have 3 kids and are not super healthy (due to many reasons) who live at SE 148th to their minimum paying job downtown?
Are you a Reed college graduate or what? This whole anti-car mentality is why we never get solutions. Bicycles are absolutely not a good solution in Portland for commuting to work. It rains, you can’t pack kids in them, and it is not flat and poor people live far away.
Most drivers are not rich people. They are people who are trying to go to their low paying gigs from their low rent outer Portland places. Listenign to able bodied priviliged white people telling them how they should be giving up their cars while providing no solution is pretty gross.
Don’t worry about the small stuff like unaffordable downtown housing. Joe will likely steal the election and implement the GND which will shut down the following industries and more: oil, gas, coal, automotive, meat production, air travel, food production (ain’t happenin’ without oil), mining, tourism, hunting, fishing, gun manufacturing, etc. This will, of course, cause a total economic collapse – that’s a feature, not a defect – that is the goal – global reset. Property downtown will be available for the taking at no cost. It’s a comin’.
Red light and Speed cameras ASAP, please.
Not a chance. She hates enforcement.
I think you’re wrong here. I feel like Hardesty (like Eudaly) is not against enforcement, she’s just against unfair and unjust enforcement.
Is it unfair or unjust to give tickets to people who put the lives of others in danger by driving dangerously? The Traffic Division seemed to be able to do this reasonably well, so the task is not impossible.
It would be unfair and unjust if said enforcement were disproportionately carried out towards members of marginalized communities, which is exactly the problem that’s being discussed. If measures are taken such that enforcement is conducted equitably across all communities, then there’s nothing unfair or unjust. Cameras can serve as a visual disincentive to speeding and violating traffic lights, and as long as specific measures are taken to prevent the human reviewer of the footage from exhibiting bias in their ticket-issuing decisions, I see that as a good thing. Let’s see what Commissioner Hardesty does to that end.
Being “equitable” would seem to require that communities facing greater threat from dangerous drivers receive more protection than those that need it less.
Unless, of course, you see traffic enforcement as a burden on communities, rather than a positive service that can save lives.
I am curious as to what percent of time the human reviewer is biased and how that represents itself in actual tickets issued. Does anyone have a number on this, in particular with Red Light Cameras?
Well, I think the equity angle is not really around the ticket issuing process, but resolution. Basically that people who are well off are far more likely to be able to safely navigate the legal system (whether it is getting the ticket waived via legal action, or easily paying it, or not having it pile atop other court activities, etc).
I suppose there are also potential equity issues around camera placement, but whatever just put them everywhere.
That said, I’m still all for speed cameras. I’d put one in front of my house. At the end of my block (Holgate & 35th) there is actually one of those speed displays, and as it turns out, pretty much everybody speeds, despite it immediately preceding an elementary school.
If you can’t afford a ticket, one solution is to slow down and drive more carefully. I know that’s a radical thought to express on a bike blog, but I’m a radical kitty.
Ok, Boomer.
/s
Hypothetical situation:
OK, so let’s say we make it 100% fair. Camera on every street in every “community”. Go with throttle-up! The system is now operational. OOPS! Certain groups of people seem to have far higher numbers of tickets than others. Was it fair? Yes, it was. Will leftists howl and scream racism? Yes they will. 😉
LOL. Of course the bicyclists who say things like that break the laws all the time, but they do not care. Also lowering the speeds to ridicilous amounts and then ticketing them is fascistic and hateful.
How about bicyclists should wear body armour, go 3mph etc? And we ticket everyone who goes over by $1000 per mph.
Laws are written by people in power. You have zero interest in fairness or people driving dangerously, you just hate motorists and want their lives miserable and they drive the way you want them to drive.
maybe think about realities, not just your fantasies.
I need to see a road sign that says: “Speed Limit Ridiculous Amounts”
Do you think traffic cams are fair enforcement? They absolutely are not. It is a revenue generating machine, and screws over low income people. I have friends who lost their jobs because they couldn’t pay the ticket and thus couldn;’t drive.
Cams aren’t perfect but they can be very effective and fair when implemented right. I absolutely don’t see them as a “revenue machine” and the policy and data don’t back up that claim whatsoever. Sorry to hear about your friends. I wish it was easier to live without having to drive everywhere.
$346 for my red-light ticket. Fair amount of revenue there.
It’s a lot, but running a red light involves a lot of endangerment. Maybe it’s enough that you won’t do it again, and that $346 may be a bargain compared to the cost of paying out for the injury or death of another person, or damage to their property.
Maybe they should have been following the traffic laws, it’s not hard, there are signs everywhere.
God, I hate this forum sometimes. All you care about is screwing over motorists., not solutions. You are ok with fascistic tools that change nothing but just punish lower income people indiscriminately while looking the other way about the actual issues. Create friggin incentives for people to get off their cars and see what happens, instead of trying to make their lives a living hell. it doesn’t work.
Are you also ok with ticketing bicyclists and holding them to the same laws?
Reading and posting are optional. Maybe take a walk between posts? Or just read it on Tuesdays?
Yes, ticket cyclists that don’t follow traffic laws.
“I hate this forum”
Comments 1,000 times a day
Exactly, only include all traffic enforcement. Electronic enforcement would not only get us closer to the behavior we want it would get armed cops out of the traffic enforcement business and save lives. Police shouldn’t risk their lives to tell someone they have a tail light out. And Black men shouldn’t be afraid a bad tail light will get them killed.
I disagree with the cameras. Reason is many ppl are getting tickets and dont even know they are getting them. And the tickets go to collections. It doesnt really stop the problem.
I presume Hardesty is referring here to dangerous drivers. While I agree that better roads would improve safety, it is not unreasonable to focus at least some attention on those who choose to drive dangerously. In the same manner that a lone person carrying an envelope of cash to the bank attracts robbery, wide open roads attract speeding and illegal passing. But that doesn’t mean that the robber/driver is not to blame for their actions, and if they hurt someone while committing their acts, they are still responsible, no matter how tempting the environment made it to commit them.
So I agree that armored trucks and well engineered roadways will help prevent robbery/dangerous driving, but those engaged in those activities are criminalizing themselves. We will never eliminate opportunities for robbery/dangerous driving, so there will always rely to some degree on individuals to follow the laws we have in place to protect more vulnerable members of society, and if they choose to ignore those laws, there needs to be some repercussions.
Perpetrator-deresponsibilizing is as pernicious as victim-blaming, but it needs a catchier name.
Move all downtown PBOT staff and offices to 122nd and Division ASAP.
Or up to Vancouver WA. Then CRC2 will be built 😉
Over the long weekend, all around 122nd and Division/Powell, I saw two Lamborghini’s (one parked, one ripping down 122nd. also, what Portland is this I live in now?? it’s stupid Portland!) and another guy turn north onto 122nd and gunning mid turn to do some wild fish tail action (in a slammed Subaru, lol). Woulda been pretty cool had there not been, ya know, pedestrians and other folks in vehicles just trying to get from a to b that the sick drifter might have taken out.
Not surprised. There’s a Lamborghini dealership on 122nd between Glisan and Halsey, and a Lamborghini repair shop at 102nd and Glisan. East Portland used to be the rich suburb a long time ago, days long gone, but there’s still some odd reminders of those bygone days of glory, including a pro golf store on Halsey, the Glendoveer Metro-owned golf course, and several rich enclaves nearby.
Sorry David, no there is not. You are referring to Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo which had an occasional Ferrari or Maserati in the showroom but they have long since pulled out. And I don’t know who has seen Lamborghinis out here but that is certainly not the demographic of this part of East Portland. Ever since the Multnomah County sheriffs office moved out of the Hansen building years ago and it became a homeless shelter it’s been a downward spiral ever since.
Ron Tonkin used to have all their operations along 122nd, including the fancy Italian cars, but I do see they’ve moved on. Jordan Motorsports at 203 N. 122nd seems to be a dealer in used cars of such type now – likely the observed cars came from there.
FYI, the downward spiral began in the annexation period of 1986-1991, 30 years ago.
Blame the construction of MAX and the inevitable apartment complexes that followed. I watched it up close and hardly recognize some areas when I go back.
They are a Ferrari dealership. They also imported other supercars. They relocated down to Willsonville right next to the Mercedes Benz dealer.
Golf, sports cars, wealth in general. . . Bad stuff eh ?
What a twisted city youve become with such progressive brainwashing . Hell, all i had to do was post some demographic FACTS and youre pissed now. Youre outnumbered too. . . 6.3%, Portland’s African American population is three times the state average. Over two thirds of Oregon’s African-American residents live in Portland.[104] As of the 2000 census, three of its high schools (Cleveland, Lincoln and Wilson) were over 70% white, reflecting the overall population, while Jefferson High School was 87% non-white. The remaining six schools have a higher number of non-whites, including blacks and Asians. Hispanic students average from 3.3% at Wilson to 31% at Roosevelt.
The visuals on this site bear out your opinion based lie.
“You’re outnumbered.” Jonathan, please look into this.
Are you still stuck in the year 2000? What’s it like? Did you not get the 2010 census? What about the very high non-white percentages in the other school districts that serve Portland, you know, Park Rose, David Douglas, Centennial, & Reynolds?
I was actually quite surprised. I’ve lived in the Portland Metro area since I was a youngster and I’d wager I can count on one hand how many Lamborghini’s I’ve seen in person. To see two in a few days seems pretty crazy to me. Lamborghini’s just don’t seem very Portland to me.
I agree. Portland is a Prius town.
I know a few PBOT employees. They are currently transit riders or bicyclists partly because of their personal values, the cost of parking downtown, and because they chose housing convenient to downtown. I’m pretty sure they would drive alone to work if their duty station was abruptly moved to 122/Division.
The point of the move is to force PBOT staff to actually implement the improvements they’ve been promising for 3 decades all the sooner, out of self-interest and self-preservation. I’m pretty sure those who regularly drive or use public transit would still likely bike or use transit (or die in the attempt). PBOT has been consciously hiring such staff for decades now. Some of the staff have always driven and moved to parts of Boring or Vancouver that supports that lifestyle and use the underground parking at the Portlandia building, fortunately a constantly shrinking number. The PBOT staff at the Russel Street maintenance operations mostly drive as do those at the Sunderland facility, nor would they be shifted to East Portland anyway, just the Portlandia employees. And there’s no reason that the city need supply unlimited parking at the hypothetical new PBOT building at 122nd & Division – after all, both streets are safe to bike on, aren’t they? And Division will have speedy BRT, right? And they can catch the 72 from that ultra-safe Blue MAX station too?
FYI- the basement of the Portlandia building is now one enormous bike parking basement and locker room. JM did an article about it when he got a preview. There is no available parking for City employees, on the extremely rare occasion that I’ve had to drive downtown because I needed a car for a post-work family obligation way out of town- I pay $18 for the downtown all-day parking lots. I don’t know a single PBOT employee who drives to work.
I believe that even before that, it was parking for city vehicles. I don’t know that there has been any employee parking in that building for decades, if ever.
There was employee parking there when I worked there 2000-2006, whereas all the city vehicles were in the other city garage at 1st & Jefferson. Of course it’s now 14 years later and things have clearly changed. Most of the people I knew who drove still work for PBOT and still live in Clark County.
I expect ride share companies to be treated poorly.
lol
You have a strong funny streak going. Well done! I need some giggles. This move sucks. Let’s drive around and shoot people.
At a transportation forum during the 2018 campaign Hardesty proposed a new tax on Uber and Lyft. It got one of the loudest cheers of the night!
Only thing Hardesty knows how to do is raise taxes. No coalition building, no esprit d’corps, Just I’m right and you should pay for it. Oh brother.
I wish we could do that with Airbnb and free up some much needed housing (or raise funds for such).
Oh, there is already a 11.5% tax on AirBNB in Portland.
Multnomah County Transient Lodging Tax: 11.5% of the listing price including any cleaning fee for reservations 30 nights and shorter. 11.5% is the maximum Transient Lodging Tax for listings in Multnomah County (excluding the State level tax). For example, for Portland listings that are also located in Multnomah County, the Portland Transient Lodging Tax is 6% and the Multnomah County Transient Lodging Tax is 5.5%. For detailed information, visit portlandoregon.gov
There’s actually a cool hack/loophole here that’s good to know: If you’re planning a month-long stay, if you book 31 days instead of 30, you actually end up saving a couple hundred $$ (basically, at least one or two free nights) because the tax gets waived.
Well, now it’s pretty clear that she really doesn’t like Lyft, not sure about Uber. 🙂
https://www.google.com/amp/s/katu.com/amp/news/local/commissioner-hardesty-gets-into-dispute-with-lyft-driver-calls-911
Sorry, but it’s going to take a long time for JoAnn to live that one down.
Defund the police but call 911 when you get in a personal dispute. Huh?
Give me a break. So no one can ever propose cutting the ever growing police budget by any amount without being a branded a hypocrite for ever calling 911? That is absurd, petty gotcha politics and a receipt for unsustainable spending on police leading to the fruitless treating the symptoms not the root causes of crime.
The complication for Hardesty is that she called the police over a personal dispute, not to report a real crime. This is the same sort misuse of the police that others in Hardesty’s camp complain about. But I completely agree she has every right (moral and otherwise) to call 911 if she is in danger. I also agree that repeatedly bringing this up serves no real purpose and only cheapens our politics (if that’s still possible).
Well, unfortunately it’s hard for people to unite behind an elected official directing a public agency who:
LIES:
https://www.newsweek.com/portland-protests-hardesty-police-arson-1519883
and is a HYPOCRITE:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/katu.com/amp/news/local/commissioner-hardesty-gets-into-dispute-with-lyft-driver-calls-911
Portland Police aim to respond to high priority 911 calls within 5 minutes but have been falling far short of that lately. In my case, it took around 15 minutes for police to arrive when someone broke into my home in the middle of the night. The increase in response time is a direct result of the policies she has championed. I see the story as an antidote of people downplaying the importance of policing (and often dehumanizing the people who do the work) and still expecting them to be there when you need them. In her case she didn’t even need to call 911 and seemed to be just venting her anger at her Lyft driver.
This is the same JoAnn that calls the POLICE on a lyft driver? Defund the police – unless they are trying to protect you???
They need to stop putting radicals in charge of transportation. Hardesty (and Eudaly) are directly responsible for more traffic deaths. because of Hardesty, we have far far less (down to 10 from 36) motorcycle cops, and she is great at blocking things, but almost never actually coming up with solutions. THought I appreciate her stance on social justice, she is a terrible commissioner as her main line of thought is how can I stop something by calling it racist. She is not a solution maker.
So let me get this right, joann hardesty lies about Portland police and the use of enforcement which she publicly had to admit she did, then she calls 911 because she was rude and being asked to get out of the lyft driver’s car and that too was reported and now shes handed a lead position with transportation?
I dont get it. Reward someone with more responsibilities that abuses her position already. I originally voted for her too but she turned out to be a terrible choice.
All City Councilors are given bureaus to govern/run, it’s the way Portland is set up. For most of us who use this blog, PBOT is the most important to us, but in terms of importance to the city in budget size or number of personnel, it’s pretty far down the list. Water (PWB) is the most important bureau with the largest budget and is typically given to the person with the best skills in handling a large budget, often the most conservative member of council. Next down the list is Sewers (BES). Water and sewers is often given to the same person – for the longest time it was Nick Fish, but he’s dead alas. Next in importance is Police followed closely by Fire. Often the mayor handles both these bureaus, but sometimes not (Saltzman had Police for a time). Next is Parks, then PBOT (in some years this is reversed), then a whole slew of smaller bureaus, offices, and special agencies. If a mayor doesn’t like or trust a particular councilor, they’ll usually assign them a bureau where they can do the least amount of damage, which unfortunately for us often includes either Parks or PBOT.
Even if say to the mayor this is a position she could do the least damage, she will end up using this in some way to create a platform for her controversial behavior.
Hardesty should resign.
I honestly believe anyone who has a real problem with hardesty,it is simply because a)she is a she and b) because she is black. Plus, she embraced her heritage. Which really drives some of the white folks crazy.
Had she made mistakes? Yes. But if she was a he and she was white, that would be overlooked. For those in this thread who are so against her, examine your true motives. Imagine her as a him and white…and truly ask yourself… “Would I be upset that she is charge of (wait for it) pothole repair and striping?
She is polarizing but as a white guy, I realize that part of that is she is different than me in both physical makeup, life story and family life. I admit (and some will judge me for it) this has gotten under my skin in a weird way in the past without me knowing it. I realize that now…and recognize it and disavow it. It’s wrong.
You know what? I should be excited for her and Portland, not worried. Look fellow white people, you still have a very white mayor. So, you are stil safe in the burbs and the condos. (This is an attempt at humor).
So simmer down pot roast and chill. You had your run white guys in pbot, time to let go and let others lead. You’ll be fine.
If this comment gets approved and left up, I’ll be proud. And if we can get an article on what odor did to minorities in order to ram i5 through, even more proud.
Nope. I don’t like Eudaly or Wheeler either. And I’m as white as them. And I am far from “safe” in east PDX. Between the gun violence and zero traffic enforcment it’s downright scary out here. Please stop it with the shaming.
I don’t like Wheeler nor Hardesty and it has nothing to do with their gender or color of skin. It’s what they do, what they have done, or promised to do and haven’t delivered. I can’t pass judgement on the newbies on the council because I haven’t seen them do (or not do) anything yet.