After revelations in the media about a long record of parking tickets and an incident in a parking lot Friday where City Commissioner Carmen Rubio hit another car and then walked away from the scene, The Street Trust Action Fund has decided to rescind their mayoral endorsement.
After the first story about Rubio’s parking infractions hit the news last week, TST Action Fund expressed disappointment about the news, but stood firm in their support, saying, “We believe Carmen Rubio remains the best candidate to deliver on the transportation safety issues that matter most to our community.” But now they have changed their tune.
Here’s the statement just released by The Street Trust:
As The Street Trust Action Fund expressed earlier this week, we were disappointed to learn of Carmen Rubio’s traffic infractions and upset that she failed to disclose those past infractions to us during the endorsement process. However, we were willing to forgive past mistakes in service of a candidate seeking to make change in how the city approaches traffic safety and investments in a complete, multimodal system that serves all street users.
As Oregon’s only complete streets and transportation safety Action Fund, we cannot say that we will endorse candidates to hold them accountable and then not do so; for this reason, in light of allegations that last week Rubio damaged a parked car and walked away, we are withholding further support of her campaign until we see real change. We still believe her positions are the best in the race, but her driving has become a distraction – one which flies in the face of our values.
We hope that Carmen Rubio – and everyone running for Portland mayor this November – remains committed to prioritizing full funding for street safety and implementing critical active transportation and safety measures. Moving forward this election cycle, The Street Trust Action Fund’s focus will be on our statewide, regional, and city council champions for our mission.
This decision will likely dampen spirits at The Street Trust’s annual Alice Awards fundraising event set for Saturday evening, where Rubio was set to be celebrated along with the Action Fund’s other endorsees. And it leaves our largest transportation advocacy group without a horse in the mayor’s race.
I’ve heard from many folks that they’d like to see mayoral candidate and trucking company CEO Keith Wilson considered. However, according to Wilson, he was never notified about TST Action Fund’s endorsement process. Wilson tells BikePortland he was very interested in receiving their endorsement and regrets not being part of it. In response to this claim, The Street Trust (and TST Action Fund) Executive Director Sarah Iannarone sent BikePortland a screenshot of an email sent to Wilson inviting him to participate. I’m still working to gain clarity on this and will share more when I can.
Focusing back on Rubio, this is just another part of a very challenging two weeks where she’s seen her campaign for Portland’s highest office crumble just as the race heats up.
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.
This is so stupid. A scuff, and it was taken care of. Don’t make this sound like a hit and run, this was nothing but a weird smear.
I know The Street Trust just can’t win. They should have probably not endorsed (or endorsed multiple, with a ranking, including Rubio!) last week or whenever they made their last statement. That could have made sense if they reconsidered then. But over this stupid little paint scuff that Rubio paid for? Stupid.
It shows a pattern of behavior, especially given last week’s scandal; and an indication of an extreme antisocial character flaw
Bull. Extreme antisocial character flaw?? This is a Tesla, not a puppy, much less a child.
Why in hell do we make stuff that is so damn vulnerable to slings and arrows that it costs 5% of blue book to fix it? (Rub it out, walk it off!) Does a dang Tesla deliver so much less mobility, once dinged, that person has to notify the so-called Newspaper of Record, which then lights up like a pinball machine?
Why doesn’t the O just soberly say that “We don’t like Carmen, no we don’t, and our friends don’t like her either, so if you give two §¥€£s about our opinion don’t vote for her”?
It’s a trifling newspaper.
This isn’t about the damage, it’s a character issue. 150 parking tickets, some unpaid for months and years, failure to appear, 6 license suspensions…pure hubris and entitlement. It all paint a picture of someone who is unwilling to learn lessons, and play by the rules. The Tesla incident is just a recent indication that not a single lesson has been learned. If, as you say, it’s a minor issue, then it’s easy to leave a note and cover the damages.
In her non-apology, she says she’s “taking accountability and moving forward.” Judging by her record, she’s only “taking accountability” because she was caught.
I get it…it’s hard when your preferred candidate turns out to be a huge disappointment but don’t minimize it and try to deflect with claims of “media bias”. She was near the top of my ranked-choice list but this is all too much to ignore.
Anyone in a big SUV or oversized truck shows more antisocial behavior than this. This is a whoopsie. Go touch grass.
Whoopsies are the easiest things to take accountability for…why not just do it? There’s 150 other whoopsies in her past that she didn’t deal with either.
I guess Rubio gets a pass because she’s only driving a small SUV, even though it’s clear from the video that she’s had multiple whoopsies on that relatively new vehicle. Hopefully she doesn’t whoopsie right into a pedestrian or cyclist at some point.
Telling someone to “touch grass” gives major keyboard warrior vibes.
What if this “stupid little paint scuff” was your car? You’d be indifferent?
If it was a bike and hasn’t been crashed, it’s probably time to push it a little and get that over with. What stickers are for.
Hell’s bells, my number one bike has been crashed more times than I can reckon, and looks it. In that state it gets way more props than my face, sorry to say.
Is this the forum for loving on pristine cars?
Engaging with you is going to be a treat. You and a handful of people see damaging private property as something that the property owner should be thanking Rubio for!?!
“Your rights end where another’s begin” is a simple tenant of our law landscape. If I want to key my car, I can go for it- but you can’t key my car without my permission.
Tenet, not tenant. But I agree with everything else you wrote.
I am a fan of rendering SUVs and pickup trucks useless by deflating their “tyres” but I’m not a fan of drivers with a long history of illegal driving carelessly smashing into things and just walking away. This time it was a Musk-mobile but next time it might be a pedestrian.
Is this the forum for loving dangerous drivers with a very long history of illegal driving?
A “scuff” is a hit and run if you don’t respond responsibly
Absolute drama queen comments, all of these. It was a scuff, go cry about it. Or leave a note like happened here and it got taken care of. But this baby-like tattling to the Oregonian who reports on it like she ran over a puppy is just absolutely ridiculous. Listen to yourself. Grow up.
A $5000 scuff, but I suppose you are going to accuse the victim of inflating the damage for personal gain. Anything to justify your vote for Rubio.
“leave a note like happened here”
This is only a story because Rubio did NOT leave a note.
Just like it wasn’t up to her to decide nearly 100 times that her need for a parking space was greater than other people’s, it’s not her decision or anyone else but the car owner’s to decide how big a deal the “scuff” is.
I don’t want someone driving over my parked bike and saying, “That bike’s decades old and almost worthless (both true). Deal with it.”
C’mon.
It’s a hit and run misdemeanor. $5,000 in damage and she just walks away.
It’s not a misdemeanor! The article quotes that the relevant law and says what she is doing about it!!
When she walks away in the video without leaving a note, that makes it a misdemeanor. The victim contacted her by leaving a note, which is what she should have done when she hit the car. So she eventually performed her legal duty, but clearly didn’t make the effort at first.
Rescinding their endorsement over this, but not over the prior issue sends a message that the latest issue of a minor crash into a parked car is more important than the prior issue of 150 tickets et al. I think that’s ridiculous.
I don’t agree with the realpolitik choices that were behind not rescinding the endorsement then, but I can understand them. If you’re going to double down, then double down. Now, it just looks like The Street Trust has no real leg to stand on from either perspective now.
Do you say the same about people who were supporting Biden right up until they weren’t? It’s literally the same scenario, like many things in the court of public opinion, they move slowly at first, then all at once.
My interpretation is The Street Trust had previously determined to give her the benefit of the doubt with regard to her previous history of irresponsibility, but this new incident seems to give a strong indication that this pattern of behavior is not firmly in the past. So they responded by withdrawing their endorsement. Seems fairly reasonable to me.
Is that such a bad thing? It seems like an organization nominally focused on street safety for humans should be eager to work with whoever becomes mayor rather than trying to pick a winner and subsequently not have much influence if they actively supported a loser.
Just to be clear, that sentence was written without any judgment to what might be good or bad. It was just a statement of fact. Thanks.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were making a judgement.
I personally don’t like the constant rush of organizations to endorse people at the local and national level. It seems to treat members of the organization like afterthoughts and willingly spends those members funds for candidates that they might not agree with.
Wrong idiom. The TST now endorses no candidate in the mayoral race. That does not mean they are not affected by nor concerned about the outcome of the race.
It’s probably time for Rubio to withdrawal from the race as that would be best for the law-abiding citizens that remain.
It’s long past time for her to show some integrity in this matter.
You mean Wilson and Mapps?
There’s that good ol’ BikePortland bias.
LOL. Bias in reporting in general, and in not abusing the bullhorn I’m lucky to have on this platform, is something I think about often and take very seriously. It’s a big topic which can’t be fleshed out in a comment. But I think that there is something to be said for letting readers know where you are coming from, for being honest about what the bias is likely to be, because everyone is biased. I’m a rock solid liberal Democrat, always have been.
That said, I have a preternatural ability to put myself in other people’s shoes. I’m very empathetic. Right now I’m writing a story about the Staff Report recommendation to deny approval to the Alpenrose development. I can easily put myself in every player’s position, it’s kind of weird, but I can. And I like to think that results in fair reporting, in getting the story right.
Now the comments section is a place I check into regularly all day long, how many comments have I pushed through today? So yeah, I occasionally don’t resist making a quip. Believe me, JM will let me know if it becomes a big problem. I have noticed that he holds himself to a different standard, a different persona, in the comments than I do, I tend to let my hair down a little. Maybe I shouldn’t.
“Maybe I shouldn’t”
Why? Your comment wasn’t wrong.
Lisa,
You’re in a position of power with unlimited publication privilege and censorship control (which you wield on those that you don’t agree with). In my opinion, it seems unprofessional to insert your biases into the comment section. You should consider starting up a personal Twitter (x) account or Instagram page to present your personal opinions. Maybe it will go viral and you can hire Jonathan to help you edit it. 🙂
Why?
One of my favorite things here is that the authors DO participate in the comments. It helps flesh out what was written in the articles.
And not only is it NOT unprofessional, it’s positive, because it puts their biases in the open.
They’re not hearings officers whose job is to write unbiased legal decisions.
Well, it can be pretty jarring to add your opinion to the comments and have one of the moderators reply saying you’re a POS.
It’s not an equivalent exchange.
Are the moderators actually saying you’re a POS?*
*which I assume doesn’t mean “Person Of Southwest (Portland)”
One of the least empathetic people I’ve ever met, claimed to be very empathetic. So, eh, forgive me if I do not take you at your word.
You shouldn’t, I’ve written about 260 posts for BP, that’s how you should judge me. And you may have, and I don’t have a problem with some people not liking me.
Show us your blog?
I stopped believing in journalistic objectivity once I matured.
yeah objectivity in journalism is a myth. I’m biased and proud of it. People can read my work and make their decisions about me. I never pretend to be a robot. That’s not fair to anyone. Know that I have personal biases, but then read my work and see if/how they manifest.
One can have personal biases (we all do) and still report the facts objectively. Not every reporter manages this on every story of course, but the best have an excellent track record, and don’t sound like a robot.
Yes obviously that is possible. But not as easy or common as you might think. There are a LOT of tiny decisions that go into every reported story. They are all open to bias on some level.
And yes, it’s not an either/or in terms of being a robot or being sloppily biased. For sure. I like to think I am in the middle of that and I’m proud of my record. I acknowledge that I am an emotional person, and that has definitely created some difficulties for me on here over the years… but that’s also a personality trait that I cherish! So yeah, life’s messy.
I really don’t think they can.
The simple act of deciding what facts to report is a subjective choice.
I think you nailed it here, John V. I value BP but it’s NOT journalism. It’s a very odd (but often tasty) soup of facts and opinions. JM serves it up and tells us to eat it or leave it, and that’s pretty much the deal.
None of us have the right to define what “journalism” is. Also, I could care less what anyone thinks about what BP is in this regard. I make stuff and share it and people can think it is whatever they want. Who cares what’s “journalism” and what’s not. IMO that is such a tired and useless debate.
Ha! That’s funny, JM. The folks at The New York Times don’t think it’s a “tired and useless debate.” But next time I see them I’ll let them know what you think.
Fred,
You act like I care what someone at The NY Times thinks. Hahaha.
Sure we do, because as much as it is popular to pretend they don’t, (by people who find reality uncomfortable and incongruent with the electronic and physical echo chambers they live within) words have meaning. Conveniently, they have definitions that describe that meaning. As such, journalism is defined as people preparing the news, and news is newly received or noteworthy information, and information is facts or information about someone or something, and facts are things that are known or proved to be true.
Unfortunately, because everyone thinks they have something to say on everything, we have just coopted the need of starting from facts and allowed everyone to start somewhere in the middle, like with what they want to be true, and then they call that journalism, which of course, it is not.
There are fortunately outlets that pursue journalism in the traditional sense and they tend to not have ads but only subscribers, because nothing cuts at your journalistic integrity like a 22-year old marketing major letting you know the facts in an article aren’t right for their “brand”.
It seems that it would be beneficial for everyone if we moved away from allowing so much subjectivity into everything. It’s okay if there are things produced that are actually journalism as it is defined, then there can be entertainment. I think you straddle both effectively, on the one hand you’ll interview candidates for mayor admirably and on the other you’ll admit it took you a month to decide to interview a cop who is running for city council. You’ll lament the cost of transit projects, but the destruction of private property is dismissed as “who cares, its just money”. It might not be journalism all the time, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value because when you stray from journalism the most it definitely generates clicks, and we know how much you love…just kidding, I know you don’t care about the clicks. Keep on keeping on.
“None of us have the right to define what “journalism” is.”
I sat with this statement for a good ten minutes before deciding to comment.
One the one hand, there’s some truth to it, though I wouldn’t assign the notion of “rights” to declaring an opinion.
On the other hand, it’s indicative of just how demolished the journalistic landscape has become in an era of Instant Information and Instant Feedback.
The truth is that real journalism has become irrelevant in an age where anyone with the means and know-how can fire up a site and post their ideas. At least BP tries to fact-check and that is a hell of a lot more than many similarly opinionated blogs offer.
I won’t call it journalism because real journalism has been dying for well over a decade now.
But I do consider BP to be useful and a sort of public service, because they cover transportation issues no one else even bothers with, and they support human-powered transportation in a landscape where so many others are hell bent on destroying it.
Journalism? No.
Useful? Absolutely yes.
Hi Beth,
I think I often do what you consider to be “real journalism”. Like, talking to different sources, taking time to understand complex issues, taking photographs that tell the story, doing interviews that elicit worthwhile information, and writing it down in a way that is the balance of compelling, interesting, and understandable.
My point is… WTH is the point of this discussion? I do what I do. Other places do what they do. You can do whatever you want and consume whatever you want. There’s a lot of work to do! Let’s go!
Oh disagree completely. I don’t know how you got that from my comment.
I’m saying there is no such thing as unbiased journalism. It’s a myth that (as Fox Vanilla put it up above) you should grow out of if you’ve thought about it very much.
So this site, BP, is journalism in my opinion, absolutely. It’s not perfectly unbiased. Neither is the Oregonian, or the New York Times. They’re all extremely biased and if you don’t recognize that fact, you’ll be led to believe silly things.
This is just one of countless descriptions or definitions of journalism that would include BikePortland as journalism, for people for whom it’s important to label BikePortland as “journalism” or “not journalism”::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_genres
Wikipedia is not a source, but good try.
Fred,
The idea that journalism is not objective is really not all that controversial. Neither is the idea that bloggers can be journalists. But nor does that mean that newspapers are worthless or that any blogger is a journalist. I have no problem with Fox Vanilla’s thought above or with classifying BikePortland as journalism. It seems pretty obvious that Jonathan and Lisa are journalists; they report on what they (and an ever changing team of writers) deem newsworthy for the bike-interested readers of Portland.
A good wikipedia page cites its sources, which if you were curious, you could follow and see if you accept those references. Or, perhaps, you will accept references to what you seem to think is the standard bearer in journalism, the NYTimes.
The NYTimes seems not to have a problem with either admitting that journalism is produced with bias (1) or with acknowledging that blogs are organs of journalism.(2)
Instead of thinking of these terms in binaries (either one is biased or one is not; either one is a journalist or one is not), I find it more useful to focus on where bias takes place. In journalism, bias affects everything from what a journalist thinks is newsworthy, what an editor thinks deserves front-page coverage, which articles a layout editor decides deserve photographs, which op-eds a publisher chooses to print, how much rope an editor will allow an investigative journalist when the IJ is looking into a scandal involving the newspaper’s owner (I’m looking at you, Washington Post) and so on. Bias affects photographers in how they frame a shot and, as Errol Morris (while writing for the NYTimes) notes, what they leave out. (3) We all become much better readers of journalism the more we are actively aware of these biases.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html
(2) https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/judge-clarifies-that-bloggers-can-be-journalists-just-not-one-in-particular/
(3) https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/which-came-first-part-three-can-george-lionel-and-marmaduke-help-us-order-the-fenton-photographs/
You missed the central bias – it has to pass the clickbait filter or its not getting published. Commercial value is an absolute filter, nothing gets past it. It determines or at least influences all of the things listed here.
Well written. This recent piece from the Oregonian would seem to say that how a picture is framed does not meet the definition of bias; however, I agree with your assessment.
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2024/09/letter-from-the-editor-addressing-questions-of-bias.html
All endeavors require choice. Arguing the act of choosing is inherently subjective so the whole concept is worthless misses the point.
Even if perfection is an impossible goal, working toward an aspirational ideal makes you better at your craft. This is as true in journalism as in any other field.
I have zero issue with Jonathan expressing his opinion here, but I do wish he made more of an effort to separate it from his factual news reporting. I would take issue with a reporter from the NYT, The Oregonian, or even WW doing the same. I guess I hold them to a higher standard.
But they are very biased, in everything they report. They put on a facade of objectivity, and it misleads a lot of people into thinking it’s so. I don’t think anything about the NYY is any more objective than any random bike Portland article, the only difference is the lack of faux objectivity and a human face.
For what is worth, the League of Women Voters cites research ranking the reliability of the NYT highly, along with a slightly left leaning presentation (along a left-right axis) presentation. Others similarly situated include PBS, AP, and the BBC. I’m looking at the two-dimensional chart towards the end.
When the NYT reports something, you can reasonably assume it is true. Factual reliability is probably the most important thing to me in a news source. Political outlook is easier for me to deal with myself.
I’m sure the NYT seems very right leaning to you, but I’ve found no outside analysis that agrees. If I’m right, I’d take that to be more a reflection of you than them.
https://my.lwv.org/california/torrance-area/article/how-reliable-your-news-source-understanding-media-bias-2022
“When the NYT reports something, you can reasonably assume it is true.”
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Irag? Repeated use of anonymous sources described in ways that deliberately obscure the sources obvious bias. How do they fact check statements from ” us intelligence sources”? The reality is that the New York Times is a captive of its sources. It is never going to do a report that betrays their interests because they depend on those sources. That is true of the media in general.
My recollection was that the NYT was (accurately) reporting on what people were saying, not asserting that WMD actually existed.
If you can find me a news source that is more reliable that the NYT, I’ll start reading it.
While I’m not going to defend every line anyone has written in the NYT, is there a specific uncorrected factual error that particularly rankles?
The air is crisp, the leaves will soon start to fall, the progressives are beating each other down with minor ethical complaints to clear the path for morally bankrupt candidates. It must be autumn in Portland.
This made me laugh! I appreciate the humor and I agree with the sentiment that the left half of the political spectrum holds itself to higher standards than the right half. “But her emails” is the best example.
However, I disagree with the characterization that Rubio’s demonstrated careless behavior is merely a “minor ethical complaint.”
Even if you’re solely referring to the most recent incident, it’s the latest of what one must acknowledge is a very long list of reckless behaviors and choices.
Surely that must have *some* ethical weight, right?
Carmen Rubio is scrambling. That was a tough interview and she held her composure, answered the questions, and kept on the topic. How many people could pull that off?
I already have some issues with her on other topics but I respect her now way more than I did before. She’s got guts.
Some people have a terrific ability to lie and gaslight confidently.
To me this is all part of the same pattern anytime anything goes wrong for rubio be it a parking ticket or a speeding ticket or hitting and damaging a parked car her first impulse is to run and hide and hope it just goes away on its own. She didn’t take responsibility for the collision until confronted with video evidence and it seems like it took the threat of collections to get her to pay a lot of the tickets. A mayor can’t just pretend proble.s don’t exist.
I don’t mean to wholly dismiss these transgressions, but compared to Gonzalez in substance and consequence these are minor. I am concerned that many Portland voters don’t follow city council that closely and actually give some weight to the always wrong Editorial Board of the Oregonian. They may not be thinking about RCV and just vote for Gonzalez because he didn’t break the Guinness record for mayoral candidate with the most parking tickets.
What are Gonzalez’s transgressions, exactly? It’s received wisdom among progressives in Portland – regular readers of the Mercury, for example – that “Gonzalez is bad” so we all are supposed to take it as an article of faith.
Please enumerate what he has done wrong so we can evaluate these transgressions.
Seems most are upset because he’s almost coming across as the law-and-order candidate. That is what many far left types are very scared of.
I’m not sure if I’ll vote for him, but Rubio is off the table for sure.
Seems most are upset because he’s coming across as the above the law-and-order candidate.
Which candidates are morally bankrupt? I bet I know your answer, but I’d like to hear exactly how they are morally bankrupt, rather than just how they’re not aligned with your preferred policies. Certainly Rubio, Gonzalez, and Mapps have all had their moments of poor ethical judgment, but moral bankrupcy?
You know. Everybody knows, because for a couple of years we have been tethered to the narcissistic midlife crisis of a dimwitted corporate lawyer who is bankrolled by bunkered millionaires. You probably realize that asking for details is an inconsiderate imposition because the list of unsavory, unethical acts is constantly growing. But a commenter on the last story was kind enough to list some of the highlights.
https://bikeportland.org/2024/09/19/video-in-interview-rubio-addresses-record-of-tickets-and-parking-lot-incident-389715#comment-7529669
The truly morally bankrupt in this whole scandal is The Street Trust, its director Sarah Inarone and the rest of their leadership. They put adherence to their political agenda above doing the right thing. Yes they finally pulled support from Rubio, but It’s too little too late.
Speaking of morally bankrupt, didn’t Sarah draw a cartoon of male genitalia on a coworker’s door?
I honestly don’t know what’s worse, not paying your tickets or (presumably) sneaking up to someone’s door in the middle of the night to do graffiti.
Was it a good drawing? Did it tend toward realism or cubism?
What are you even talking about? What could a political endorsement be other than a political agenda? What is the “right thing”? There is no “right thing” here, that doesn’t make any sense.
What does “we cannot say that we will endorse candidates to hold them accountable and then not do so;” mean?
Also, with “but her driving has become a distraction – one which flies in the face of our values,” is it the driving or the distraction that flies in the face of your values?
Portland elections! They make me nostalgic for those important class elections that we all fondly recall from middle and high school. You remember? A bunch of popular kids with big friend circles campaign on their looks, their social clout, and some really awesome sounding ideas like, “I’ll eliminate math tests as Junior class treasurer!!!”, that have no chance of ever being enacted. A couple of random thoughtful kids run and get drowned out by the cliques right away. After the votes are cast, the offices are won by the biggest bully/jock, the rich stoner that throws good parties, and the catty cheerleader that never face accountability. During their respective terms, nothing gets done but they will win again next year because they maintain a bloc of sycophants that will always go to the mattresses for them.
“The City That Works” has been replaced by “A Collection of Aging Adolescents”.
Some how I don’t I don’t see Wheeler as being a bully in high school.
Rich kids don’t have to be bullies in order to survive.
I don’t know if “go to the mattresses” is a freudian slip or commentary on Portland conflict resolution, but it certainly paints a picture.
I was very surprised to learn that Teslas have cameras that are on at all times and record everything that happens around the car, which is how Rubio got caught.
It’s a new level of surveillance in our modern society! Elon is watching you!
TST nixed their endorsement because there was a loud public outcry followed by intense media scrutiny.
TST is little more than a professional lobbying club, and lobbying lives and dies by public perception.
I don’t trust The Street Trust to help me feel safer on my bicycle or on public transit.
So why should I trust them to make an educated endorsement in this year’s election?