Deep breath. Let’s talk about politics.
What an election season this has been, huh? Unprecedented in the amount of candidates, the potential for political change, and the scope of the campaigns — I’ve personally never been involved in anything close to this in the past 19 years. With just a few days left before the pencils-down moment of truth, I’ve got a mix of emotions that I’m sure overlap with what many of you are feeling.
Before we transition into talking about who won and why, I wanted to open up a thread to hear your views on local politics, share who you’re voting for, give one last pitch for your favorite candidates, or just share vibes. Whether you’ve voted already or not, I’m curious what BikePortlanders are thinking about this massive — and massively important — local election.
To me, the general political question in Portland right now isn’t whether our electorate has moved to the center or not. That’s settled science. After years of moving to the left that reached a peak during the racial justice and anti-police protests of 2020, I’ve talked to countless people who’ve either told me directly, or signaled in some other way, that they are more centrist in how they see our most pressing issues and the political choices around them.
Beyond private conversations with a variety of people (private because many Portland progressives (a.k.a. liberals, lefties, etc…) fear being called-out or canceled if they don’t appear left-wing enough — a common fear that speaks to a larger problem for progressivism in this city), just look at how the candidates talk on the campaign trail: There are no abolitionist candidates and I don’t think any of them want to be seen as anti-police. Even some progressive standard bearers don’t say, “We shouldn’t have more police.” They say things like, “Let’s fill existing vacancies first,” or, “Let’s make sure we send the right person to the right call.”
The big question is: How many people have moved to the center and how far have they gone?
I know several folks who are classic Portland progressives in many respects, but who’ve voted for candidates that are running on a platform that includes more police, “cleaning up the city” rhetoric, and who’ve been endorsed by Rene Gonzalez (a mayoral candidate so reviled there’s a “Don’t Rank Rene” political action committee).
While clear differences in where candidates fit on the political spectrum are still evident, the lines are not as bright as they would have been in 2020. Portland’s politics have changed significantly.
The big question is: How many people have moved to the center and how far have they gone? I have friends I love and respect who are staunchly in the “Don’t Rank Rene” camp, and others who are voting for him while challenging me to explain why I’m so skeptical. And what’s wild about this election is that, even if you could divine a solid answer to my question above, you wouldn’t have a clear road map of which candidates might benefit from this shift! That’s because many of the leading candidates are difficult to pigeon-hole into traditional left/center/right labels (I’m thinking of folks like Olivia Clarke in District 4, Jesse Cornett and Steve Novick in District 3, and Mariah Hudson in District 2).
For those reasons and others, it is very hard to predict which three candidates will get the nod from each district. I hope we get a healthy mix of political perspectives and lived experiences on council. We need candidates who disagree about key issues like homelessness, public safety, and transportation — because I’ve always believed our best ideas and policies are forged by a healthy debate and openness to “the other side.” Of course, that admittedly idealistic view only works if those 12 councilors — who were backed by different interest groups and bases on different ends of the Portland political spectrum — are willing to work together and make good policy that makes a material difference in our lives.
Then there’s mayor. Keith Wilson has a very good shot; but given the new world of ranked-choice voting and the confused mood of Portland voters, it could be anyone among the top three.
What do you think? How are you feeling about our local races? I’d love to hear your predictions, picks, and perspectives.
One last thing… Make sure your ballot is either in the mail and postmarked by Election Day (Tuesday, November 5th), or dropped into an official ballot drop box before 8:00 pm that same day. Find official ballot drop boxes on this Google Map.
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.
I’ve moved to the center mostly due to recognizing that I can only know so much. It has taken my edge off but shedding some of the baggage of thinking “things should be a certain way” has me much lighter and calmer to listen to a wider variety of voices now. Vote!!!
Hey Tommy,
Hope you’re doing well. That’s interesting and I appreciate you sharing.
By “I can only know so much” are you saying that you realize you have limited ability to change some of the big things you are concerned about? And that has naturally made you more open to compromising so that you can at least see some changes instead of being locked into a stalemate?
Hello! I mean, my ideals may not actually line up with scociety’s needs requiring me to adjust my behavior to model what I’d like to see more of. Taking an L or a W… never stale. Thanks!
“Pencils-down” – ha! It does feel like an SAT now doesn’t it.
The most confusing test ever, with answers unknowable.
I’ve moved to the center on homelessness because I’ve come to feel that a few hundred people are destroying the livability of the region for the million plus population that lives here. It’s the definition of inequitable. For people that need housing, let’s get them housing. People that just want to steal things, break stuff, harass people on the street and take drugs should face appropriate legal consequences.
The JVP approach of “free tents and boofing kits for all” has been an epic failure and needs to be vigorously rebutted.
Having said that, Rene Gonzalez is unsuitable for a number of reasons: the Wikipedia nonsense, his desperate need to look tough (can’t he just buy a lifted truck like everyone else?), and the embarrassing ” ouch, you touched me, police!” incident.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for sharing.
I hear you on homelessness and I think that’s an issue that has definitely moved a lot of people to the center for the same reasons you outline. I think one of the biggest failings of Mayor Wheeler was to make good on his promise years ago that he would “seek out the criminal elements” (or something like that) in camps and make sure they face consequences. I realize that’s a very hard thing to do that requires close coordination with PPB and is fraught with all types of risk… but the failure to demonstrate success at that and/or to communicate progress with Portlanders about it, was a huge missed opportunity that could have earned Wheeler more trust and respect on the overall issue.
But yeah, how far does this move you to the center is the question right? For some people it’s way into the Rene Gonzalez “I will have backbone” and “law and order” and “time to get tough and arrest them” camp. Or, like I just heard from Candidate and commissioner Dan Ryan, “Let’s take our city back!” rhetoric (which I find really problematic fwiw.. from who? Why stoke anger at an undefined “other”?).
I think Gonzalez had a big opportunity to amass power that he’s squandered by being so clumsy and not building trust with people who are skeptical of him. I think Wilson drove a truck right into that space by offering a kinder, gentler version of Gonzalez that a lot of people trust. Trust is such a big thing to me. Say whatever you want about policy, etc… but at the end of the day I have to trust that you won’t go off the deep end and trust that you can build the coalition necessary to be productive and build a better city.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks.
I continue to be amazed by the love for Keith Wilson, who has no political experience. But maybe you go to a plumber to have your cavities filled.
Referring to someone who runs a large business and a large non profit as a “plumber” rather than a dentist shows your complete lack of understanding of the Mayor’s role in the new city government.
***Portion of comment deleted for mean and inappropriate words toward another commenter. Please be better than than. Thanks! – JM***
I think Keith has shown a level of commitment that is rare. He’s been using his own money to travel and research solutions. I think we all think his plan is overly ambitious, but don’t we all set targets for ourself that are going to hard to reach – so we do the best we can?
He doesn’t have the charisma like Rene does, the populist agenda is what’s in right now.
I don’t think you need political experience to be Mayor. I think you need experience working well with others, the ability to listen/hear a variety of ideas, the confidence to try something new and stop doing what is not working, the skill to inspire and empower others, and the humility to admit if you made a mistake.
You also need experience managing a complex organization made up of individual kingdoms that aren’t accustomed to being told what to do.
Some would say that’s not the new mayor’s job but the job of the City Administrator.
Fair enough. You need experience managing someone who manages a complex organization made up of individual kingdoms that aren’t accustomed to being told what to do.
The mayor needs to inspire and be good in front of the camera. Wilson is neither. People in east Portland love Rene.
Listen to this interview to inform yourself about Wilson. Many are just jumping on the “he feels good” wagon.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keith-wilson-president-and-ceo-of-titan-freight/id1579198261?i=1000657639260
Rubio and Gonzalez are both unfit to serve. Mapps is anti-bike. Got any other viable candidates?
And please do tell where a newbie to running for political office is going to get political experience?
Be elected to the local PTA or HOA board?
The people in the race who have political experience have presided over Portland’s decline and done…nothing much to reverse it or even slow it down. I don’t see that as the kind of experience that should be rewarded with another shot at the wheel.
I think I’ve also moved a toward the center, from left, on this issue for similar reasons – especially since I replaced a window yesterday that was broken for no apparent reason.
For local elections, I’ve become a single issue voter for transportation. If candidates do not understand or have a vision for an accessible, equitable, sustainable transportation system that causes minimal harm for individuals, communities and the global environment, then they do not understand how cities function or how they need to be transformed to meet the needs of the planet. They do not understand zoning or housing, they do not understand public health, they do not know what the priorities of a city should be and how we can increase the quality of life for all Portlanders.
If they do not have a strong transportation platform, then they are not curious and have not really thought about city government.
I agree, SD. For me there were only two issues in this election: public order and transportation. Thanks to BP for doing such good work in educating us about the candidates’ positions on the latter. It’s no exaggeration to say that BP shaped my vote for the council.
I’ve turned into a single issue voter as well, homelessness. If your language even comes close to that of JVP’s, you’re out. I’m glad the council has formed a coalition to get out of that awful agreement with the county.
I’m sorry, of course everyone can have an opinion, but this is West Wing TV fantasy nonsense. This is a thing to want if you believe in nothing but you like a government that seems busy. It’s what gets you studies, and analysis, and forming committees. Endless back and forth, and any significant fix or change getting torpedoed by one of those people who disagrees. It sounds high minded and good, but in reality this is not how change happens.
What we need is to get a council that’s on the same page. Getting people who disagree is easy – it’s what we’ve had for many years. And the result has been nothing can possibly get done. The only changes that ever happen are always small and inoffensive (ineffective) enough to squeak through. Things like the rose bus lanes. Things like taking no action on homelessness. Side tangent, this is a canard people trot out, like we’ve had a deliberately hands off approach. No, we’ve had a dysfunctional approach because we have a healthy mix of perspectives and people who disagree, so the result is do nothing. We’ve done nothing. A bit of tinkering around the edges.
I mean, if you’re playing politics defensively, getting someone in who disagrees will at least slow things down, so when we inevitably get some lurch to the right, hopefully we’ll still have some people in there who disagree and keep them from getting anything done.
I agree completely with this. If you actually have principles and ideas about how society should be run, then it is totally backwards to think that it’s better to have people with ideas diametrically opposed to yours in government than having people who represent your own ideas/interests. Only someone who sees politics as a game, not literally a life and death struggle, and is materially well-off enough to be fine regardless of who wins could think that that West Wing “team of rivals” nonsense is a good idea.
Are politics literally a life and death struggle in Portland? It sounds dangerous there.
I’m glad you are refusing to hear any ideas but those in your own bubble, after all, you and your closest friends know best and those losers on the other side don’t have your high principles and correct ideas anyway so who cares what they have to say (heavy sarcasm).
Opposing ideas exist to strengthen ones owns ideas and arguments. It’s good to hear an opposing viewpoint. I would prefer to have a ruling council be made up of people with disparate ideas and walks of life, an autocracy of 12 minds with one voice and the CCP version of communism is no way to actually “run a society”. As if it’s government role to “run a society”. Goodness sakes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Advocate_Unit
Is this a joke? We just recently saw two cases of cyclists killed by cars, there is drug abuse, homelessness, and various violence, all of which are obviously life and death. Half the advocacy / media coverage on this site is literally about life and death (i.e. traffic safety).
This isn’t about refusing to hear ideas about those outside your “bubble”. You don’t have to have people outside your bubble have a seat on city council to take their ideas and consider input. But having your actual opposition, who ostensibly by definition you disagree with, on the council makes no sense.
The devil does not under any circumstances need an advocate on city council.
Yes politics are really a life and death struggle, maybe not for everyone directly and all the time:
Over 300 Fentanyl deaths in Portland in 2023, even with high availability of Narcan out there.
If you believe (and I have no doubt you do) that politics are a life and death struggle and the government has a vast if not total responsibility for the life and death of the citizens then are you morally able to vote for any incumbents at any level of power as they have been in authority while these people died? Also, if you have voted for any of the people now in power while these people died, does that make you at fault for their deaths?
“If you actually have principles and ideas about how society should be run, then it is totally backwards to think that it’s better to have people with ideas diametrically opposed to yours in government than having people who represent your own ideas/interests”
Remember when people thought having a diversity of views would produce better solutions? Clearly, a monoculture that believes what I do would be better.
We’ve spent the last 8 or so years with Social Justice Warriors being the majority in high positions of elected offices in Portland, that sure hasn’t helped us at all. And of course anyone who opposed their oppressive governing were shouted down and silenced.
Yeah, the hive mind may be good for bees and ants, but not so much for running cities.
Hardly. Wheeler? Mapps? Ryan? Gonzalez?
No, Hardesty, Eudaly, JVP. Two are out.
That is not the least bit true. Portland is currently run by the same big-business-funded good ol’ boy network as always. Maybe the upcoming election will introduce some new ideas.
East Portland is going to be a monolithic voting bloc on crime, police, and homelessness (I bet anyways).
IMO, this election is utterly overshadowed by the likely election of an authoritarian who would reshape government and the courts to ensure that his movement always wins.
But, but but Gaza and you know, the price of eggs and you know I think a vote for Jill Stein fixes all that….
1. Trump is an even more fervent supporter of Israeli genocide than Harris.
2. I eat a vegan diet and a lb of tofu at Winco is still $1.99.
3. I have zero interest in voting for Stein, so stop lying (as you often do here).
LOL, I was not referring to you but obviously it hit a nerve…Cornel West I am sure appreciates your vote more…
Another lie.
I’m voting for Harris because this pathetic undemocratic system gives me no other moral choice.
For the folks who have Harris/Walz lawn signs, which city council candidates do they also have signs for?
Ditto for the other pair, which council candidates do they have signs for?
Jonathan,
Do you only allow inflammatory comments from those of the far left progressive persuasion?
Often seems that way.
Is it inflammatory to call a spade a spade? If someone repeatedly makes things up about a person they don’t know, that seems like lying. And deliberately trying to start a fight. BB can’t put three words together without trying to insult someone and call names. I think that’s a pretty good counter example to your claim.
Thanks for flagging that. I’ll take a look and consider moderation.
It may come down to Michigan, because one activist is urging voters to go Trump, because she feels like there’s a 1% chance Trump will end the war in Gaza, where she sees 0% chance with Harris. Insane.
In Michigan, Israel’s expanding war could shape the election results
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/g-s1-30762/michigan-voting-israel-lebanon-gaza-war
It’s okay to open the curtains every now and then to let some sunlight in. The invisible drones won’t see much inside so it will be safe and the light might help your mental process.
We already opened that curtain and I recall it was Bleach and not sunlight that is the cure…. Most sane people know that a lying rapist uses a flashlight more than sunlight, I don’t think you are going to learn much more from him in the next few years.
One of the benefits of the new system for council is it’s most likely going to create an ideologically diverse council. Even in the leftist districts there will likely be 25%+ of people who will coalesce around the conservative voice.
That said, it’s also led to a muddying of the waters – in their attempt to get to 25%, people say similar things in their campaigns, but are known to be pretty different. Endorsements matter more than before in cutting through the rhetoric.
For me, knowing someone is supported by the right-wing police union is helpfully disqualifying (remember the racist Hardesty smear?)
I’m hopeful that will lead to healthy dialogue at council and attempts to acknowledge nuance and try different things. Who knows?
Most likely the new council will form voting blocs similar to state legislatures and city budget advisory committees, likely by race, who gets support from PBA (or opposes them), gender, and/or perceived right/left alignments. Within a few years it will eventually hit a rut, but Portland might get lucky like Charlotte did when they got lots of under-40s on their city council – all kinds of concrete protected bike lanes started getting built, transit rapidly improved, homeless services suddenly started to make sense, they even started a TDM program based on Portland’s Metro. Getting rid of (or not electing) mamils is very important – white males over 50 tend to be stuck in their ways of thinking.
I mixed feelings about the election and its likely results.
On the one hand, I am optimistic about the new form of government because I think, for example, that Joann Hardesty would have been great as 1 of 12 councilors, but was in my opinion just ok in the old form of government. Even Rene Gonzalez, loathsome though he may be, would have been much less damaging as 1 of 12 councilors, and I am feeling optimistic that he will not end up as mayor. I think we will ultimately end up with a more diverse set of viewpoints on city council, including at least some deeply progressive candidates and hopefully at least 1 person who actually daggone takes biking seriously as a form of transportation, whereas our current city council seems like it is mostly just PBA/Metro Councils lackeys.
On the other hand, I am pretty skeptical about much meaningful change happening for the biggest problems that we face:
I would also say that my basic experience is that people are much more progressive with abstract issues that don’t impact them, but tend to be more conservative the more directly they are impacted by the outcomes of progressive policies, which is why people will do things like support bike infrastructure (unless it makes it tougher to park their cars) or support denser housing (until someone wants to build some apartments in the neighborhood). Or, like Terrence Hayes, “support” safer streets while opposing all of the policies that actually create them.
Yeah. Nail on the head.
Your comments on homelessness get at the root of the conflict between people who allegedly “want” (they don’t) a “hands off” approach to homelessness. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants people in tents, on the street. But without actually addressing the problem, which is affordability, the usual solutions of sweeps and arrests don’t do anything but hurt people. So it’s a conflict between people who will do whatever it takes to get homeless people out of sight with no regard for their lives, and people who would rather allow them to survive (i.e. “do no harm”) until our dysfunctional society at large figures out how to get people in homes.
I haven’t really followed the rental market closely in Portland, but I did look it up, and rents appear to be down since 2015, even without adjusting for inflation.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cost-growth-of-rental-housing-in-Portland-OR-Source-cityobservatoryorg-14_fig5_351674681
What am I missing? It seems to me that a hardcore drug addict can’t afford an apartment at any price. Free housing isn’t going to get us to 100% on homelessness.
That graph only goes to 2018, and if you’re not adjusting for inflation and cost of living, you’re not really getting much of a full picture.
People always say things like this, then kind of hand wave away free (public) housing and skip straight to sweeps and prison. Because, as Kyle pointed out, “the actual complaint from many people is that they have to see people doing drugs, rather than stemming from real concern about helping people”, so they don’t really care about solving the housing problem, so they’re fine just skipping that step.
I agree that the ‘cost of housing’ is an overblown explanation for our current social ills. There is an apartment that was recently advertised for rent (great location, livable apartment) that I used to live in back in the late 90’s — according to an internet inflation calculator, the inflation adjusted rent today is 105% of what I paid in 1998 (i.e. basically the same). Housing has always been expensive. And addicts out on the street were never able to afford/obtain/retain even section 8 subsidized housing, let alone “market” housing where you need to have first, last, security deposit, credit check, etc.
West Virginia has had a far bigger drug problem than Oregon, yet very little homelessness. Maybe because they also have far less real estate speculation.
It may also be because fewer people travel to West Virginia to enjoy their permissive laws and street culture without having a plan for getting housing.
Most likely it’s a combination of things, availability of low-cost housing being one of them. But let’s be real — people collecting cans to get high are not going to be paying rent even if it’s $500 per month. They have better things to do with their money.
Thanks for the reply, Belynda. Your hypothesis (high housing costs resulting from speculation causes high levels of houselessness in Oregon) adequately explains why unhoused people are more visible here than in WV. I’m suggesting that it does not fully explain the history of the visibly unhoused in Portland. While I agree that the supply of market-rate housing in Portland (and Beaverton, Gresham, Tualatin, etc.) is too small, I don’t think there have been really drastic changes in the studio-2 bedroom rental market in the last 30 years. (I often hear that the housing market has changed a lot, but I don’t think it’s true.) There has been an unmistakable increase in campers in places that everybody sees them. Adverse interactions with visibly unhoused people (and their dogs, battle axes, machetes, barrel fires, etc.) are fueling a backlash against historically notable attempts to improve government policy and programs for people experiencing housing insecurity and houselessness. I don’t want to lose all that progress. I enthusiastically support building more housing close in, and I totally get that the housing crisis is bigger than mentally ill people roaming the streets looking for drugs. But those folks are the ones that make houselessness an emergency for a lot of people (read the anecdotes here about people ‘moving to the middle’ on the issue). And I don’t think we can build enough (market rate) apartments to defuse their political salience. I believe a big mac and apartment rent have inflated similarly in the last 30 years. I think the real price of cigarettes is way higher than 30 years ago. Which is most relevant to the people on the street?
Since you asked, one thing that you’ve missed is that not all unhoused people are “hardcore drug addicts”. Some of them are working poor people with kids in school. Similarly, some people with a hard drug habit have jobs or their own business, pay rent and sleep indoors as I guess you probably do.
When you make the mental error of thinking that unhoused people are all the same, of stereotyping them as burnouts and losers, you’re building a glass ceiling over some people who are striving and able to make the most of any chance they are given.
Market rate rents would have to go down a lot to be affordable for a person with fractional employment, and a conventional lease agreement with a credit check is going to exclude a person financially crippled by medical expenses or some other catastrophe. I don’t think we can build enough housing to push market rate rent down to a level that is affordable for a person working a minimum wage job.
People who “fall out of housing” due to bad luck (like medical debt) are pretty easy to deal with. They’re usually highly motivated to get back in an apartment, and the obstacles they face are relatively easy to overcome. In short, their problems are eminently fixable. If they were the core of our homelessness problem, we’d be a lot closer to resolving it than we are.
What “damage” did Gonzalez do, exactly? Did he hurt people’s feelings? Did their feelings maybe deserve to be hurt?
I keep hearing these lazy critiques. Show us some evidence.
Well, he banned handing out tents and tarps in the middle of a cold-weather emergency where two people died. He hobbled Portland Street Response, which helps reduce the burden on police and reduces response times, instead of expanding it as scheduled. He wasted your tax payer dollars trying to massage his wikipedia to boost his campaign and then his campaign lied to the city auditor about it, wasting more city resources. He has launched multiple doomed efforts to stop democratic reforms and programs voted in by the people of portland. Not bad for two years.
Alright, let me give you my take. Look, I get that some of Rene’s decisions don’t sit right with everyone, but here’s the other side.
Hear me out: banning tents and tarps might actually be the more compassionate move. Think about it—leaving people out on the streets isn’t doing them any favors. Those streets are dangerous, with people getting assaulted, shot at, and worse. So yeah, maybe Rene’s approach seems tough, but maybe he’s trying to push for real solutions that actually help people get off the streets and away from that constant danger. It’s not about ignoring the problem; it’s about saying we need to do better than just handing out tents and hoping for the best.
Sure, Portland Street Response took a hit, but if you think about it, blending it more with existing emergency services might lead to faster and more sustainable help for everyone. Project Respond from the County has more authority and can actually get people off the street who are a danger to themselves and others while PSR cannot.
Now, the Wikipedia thing—yeah, that was a mess. But c’mon, every campaign makes mistakes, and honestly, one slip-up shouldn’t erase everything he’s done. And the so-called “anti-democratic” stance? Let’s be real: questioning reforms doesn’t automatically make someone anti-democratic. Sometimes, people just disagree on what actually works for the city! So, yeah, his approach might seem rough around the edges, but maybe he’s the one actually ready to make some tough calls. I consider a vote for Gonzalez to be a vote for a better Portland.
Passing out tents is ignoring the problem. Getting people inside is the first step (of many) to solving it
I appreciate the response. As Kyle mentioned below (and as I should have included), none of these things actually tangibly moved the needle on homelessness, safety, or emergency services overload. It was all to create a vibe of being “tough” or “standing up to enablers,” without actually making any of the hard choices to address the problem.
If we take what you’ve written as given, and say handing out tents and tarps (in the middle of a cold weather emergency) is actually the less compassionate move, then what did stopping their handout do? Did it put any of those people in a home? Did it give them drug or mental health treatment so that they’re not dealing with addiction in addition to being unsheltered? Saying we need to do better than tents and taking the tents away, but then not actually do anything to shelter people isn’t making anything better.
Did Portland Street Response taking a hit (at least in part Gonzalez didn’t like the politics of PSR employees, calling them “abolitionists”) actually enable County programs to do any of the things that you list above? How did Gonzalez support those County programs? How did failing to expand PSR actually “lead to faster and more sustainable help for everyone?” What is the realistic mechanism by which hobbling PSR might lead to those things in the future?
The wikipedia thing was more than one slip up. His top deputies lied to the city auditor’s office about the existence of evidence that the auditor specifically requested and Gonzalez hasn’t fired those deputies. There is a culture in his office of thinking that the rules don’t apply to him. (See also him asking people not to call 911 unless it was for a really serious emergency and then calling after someone walked by him on the Max).
The whole point of an elected official is that they’re supposed to do what their constituents want. Charter reform passed by a large margin (58-42) in the same election that put Gonzalez into office. Instead of listening to the people of the city, he decided that he knew best, and tried to enact large changes to what voters passed at the last minute and without the kind of public input that the ballot measure had. That’s more than “questioning reforms.” That’s more than “disagreeing on what actually works.” It’s contempt for Portland voters. Luckily, he wasn’t successful in countermanding the will of the voters in this instance.
It is tempting to confuse strong opinions and an ability to deliver them forcefully with actually doing something. But he has failed just as much as anyone else has to actually accomplish his stated goals of reducing homelessness and improving safety. More importantly, none of the policies or efforts that he put forward ever had any chance of actually leading to better outcomes on those goals. He saw that people are frustrated with the state of the city and decided that he was going to talk tough to win some votes. It’s all vibes, pandering, and “law and order” for thee but “lying to city investigators” for me.
“It’s contempt for Portland voters”
Is that the same sort of contempt that the state legislature showed by reversing a large portion of Measure 110 so soon after it passed by an even larger margin (as opposed to putting some reforms on the ballot)?
Yes, the process that repealed M110 was less democratic than the one that enacted M110. I think it’s a little bit apples and oranges though. The M110 repeal went through the normal order of the legislative process, was debated in committee and then by the general body of the legislature. It was a months-long process that the public could weigh in on by contacting their representatives. It also occurred four years after M110 was approved and allowed time for constituents to make their feelings about how 110 was working known to their representatives. Gonzalez tried to push these plans through a city council work session before charter reform even took place. His changes would also have eventually required ballot measure, so I don’t know what purpose his actions really served other than making it look like he was doing something to upset progressives.
The place where the state really showed contempt related to 110 was in its total failure to enact it as written by providing sufficient treatment and by having cops and others being able to direct people to that treatment.
The fact that we would have voted on any proposed change underscuts your claims that the proposal was undemocratic.
If voters didn’t like the changes, they’d reject them, and it would have been a loss for Mapps and Gonzalez, showing they were out of touch with voters.
But I agree that the state failed miserably to do their part, setting back drug decriminalization efforts nationwide by decades.
It seems like some other commenters have listed many of his failings so I will just say that on his signature issue of homelessness, I think all of his policies are needlessly cruel and more importantly not actually going to do much to actually solve the problem.
“homelessness is straightforwardly a function of housing affordability’
It is? There are a lot of folks out there who simply could not manage an apartment if they had one.
The problem is a lot more complex than that, and I hope a critical mass of the folks we elect understand that.
“the actual complaint from many people is that they have to see people doing drugs, rather than stemming from real concern about helping people”
Voters overwhelmingly dedicated a fair bit of money to provide treatment to folks and get them the help they need to deal with their addictions. That the state and county can’t get their act together is a real shame, but we put our money where our mouth is and tried to get people real help.
I agree that the Portland area is one of the few places where there has been a decent local effort to help. It’s beyond frustrating to see CoP and MultCo fail so spectacularly given the budgets they have to help people on the street. I would urge my fellow Portlanders not to give up on funding services for those in need. It may seem like throwing money down a black hole. I can’t promise that a well funded effort will be successful, but I can promise that an underfunded program won’t.
It’s not going down a black hole though. It’s readily clear where the vast amounts of money goes and that’s what makes it noxious. The money goes to the non profits and there the money goes into high salaries for a few at the top and “expenses”.
A great way to build actual trust would be to stop giving out taxpayer funds in endless, untraceable grants and instead pay government employees living wages and benefits to administer the various programs.
Yeah, as it turns out there are, you know academics who study this and there is a strong consensus that it is more or less just housing affordability. Like, basically everywhere has people who are drug addicts or who have mental illness but if housing is cheap they are just inside and not so visible (and also being homeless exacerbates both substance abuse and mental health issues).
Regardless, we’re building plenty of market rate housing, but very little of that is affordable to those with sub-YIMBY incomes.
We are, in fact, not building enough market rate housing. Oregon is in the bottom ten of states in housing deficits and Portland is on track to issue the lowest number of new housing permits since 2009.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/11/02/national-report-on-housing-shortage-places-oregon-among-10-states-struggling-most-to-produce-new-units/
There’s a lot of vacant units downtown.
Jonathan Tasini in District 2 was the only candidate I heard who flatly said the housing issue is economic. I voted for him because of that and because he was one of 3 D2 candidates who signed a letter about Zenith Energy and/or the other tanks between Hwy 30 & the river.
Not in that district, but if I had heard that view that it’s only economic, when in reality it’s economic, employment, health, addiction, and many other reasons why people are living on the streets, I sure wouldn’t have voted for them. Many probably have multiple reasons, but to say just one has sure been the false narrative of many a politician and non-profit organization in Portland.
I’ve moved to the right on homelessness after having my life threatened by campers and their dogs on multiple occasions over the last 5 years in Portland. I also go to witness the absolute destruction of the outer Columbia Slouch / Marine drive natural area by a small group of individuals up close.
It has radicalized me against Multnomah County’s hands-off approach, and any politician who promises anything less than sweeps and forced rehab.
You mean the ‘natural area’ that was created by Army Corps of Engineering dikes?
There’s not much land in this country untouched by human hands, even before Europeans arrived.
Sure. But Chris I described the effects of riverside slums as ‘absolute destruction’ without acknowledging that other actors have changed the same landscape in big, fundamental ways without the same level of scrutiny. I was motivated to comment because, of all the bad faith arguments made about people living on the street, I find complaints based on environmental concern to be especially galling — it seems dehumanizing to hold the houseless to a higher environmental standard than the nearby industries, the airport, or the neighborhoods. Of the many reasons to decry people living in makeshift shanties along the Columbia, environmental destruction is way down on the list.
There is indeed a double standard; if I dumped big piles of household garbage out there, I’d definitely get fined. If an industrial company did the same, they’d be forced to clean it up and would get a fine on top of that.
If your argument is that things were different decades ago, then yes, things are different, thank goodness.
I’m holding them to a lower standard. When they cleared out that area, they found hundreds of stripped down vehicles back in the woods. All of that oil, antifreeze, human waste, etc all dumping into our watershed, just a few blocks away from one of the Columbia Aquifer wellheads. BTW, that is our backup water supply when Bull Run cannot be used…
No business in this area is doing anything even remotely close to this level of destruction. Runoff in the area is strictly regulated.
We tacitly accept oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, etc. (not much poop, granted) leaking all over the place from all the cars driving everywhere. That runoff also does environmental damage (not to mention the gas phase pollutants, including CO2, emitted by cars). You and Watts have a lot of faith in the regulatory state. I’m more skeptical that our local industries are as squeaky clean as you say (it was the Forest Service, after all, not any part of the government that regulates urban factories, that detected the Cd, As, and Cr emissions at Bullseye glass). I’m quite sure the surface waters carried by the Columbia (where surface discharge from the encampments on outer Marine Dr. is likely to go) have all sorts of pollutants (from Canadian mines, industrial dairies in the Yakima valley, pulp mills on the lower Snake, and the Hanford nuclear reservation to name a few obvious sources). So I find your attribution of environmental degradation to this one specific group, when it is clearly a collective sin with widely shared responsibility, to be worthy of push back.
“You and Watts have a lot of faith in the regulatory state.”
What’s the alternative?
I’m all for regulating industry. I’m just not gullible enough to believe the system we have now is effective (maybe I need to update my tinfoil hat). Unlike you and Chris I, I suspect there is ongoing pollution that Portlanders will uncover in the future. And people will say “things were different decades ago.” There is always a loophole for important industries because jobs.
“I suspect there is ongoing pollution that Portlanders will uncover in the future.”
You could well be right. What does that have to do with ongoing pollution we know about today?
It’s the shape as well. I like to make a boat shape and i use the heavy duty foil -)
Not to mention Precision Cast Parts
After the PPB harassed Hardesty, if I were running for city council, I would be hesitant to be outspoken calling for police reform, defunding, etc.
The ballot itself is exhausting. I don’t mind ranking a single candidate, but picking six to get three is a little ridiculous.
I simply don’t believe what most of the candidate field is saying. They speak in platitudes, then leave us straining to hear their true stances expressed only in whispers and dog whistles.
One exception to that is Rene Gonzalez. I don’t know that I’ll rank him at all, but if I do, it’s because he is a straight shooter, if not necessarily on target. I get why people don’t like him, but it is unfortunate that this guy, in this down-ballot election, is the guy living rent free in so many people’s heads when democracy itself is up for a vote.
Democracy ≠ rules based society
Only an ‘murrican would describe a kleptocratic duopoly that elects an imperial president via the appointment blue team or red team “electors” as “democracy”.
What’s at stake in this sorry nation is not “democracy” but rather due process, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches/seizures, freedom of assembly etc.
Trump’s intent is to become a dictator in a country where he would see us have no vote.
Democracy is literally on the ballot because if Trump wins, we may not have another legitimate Presidential election.
“The ballot itself is exhausting. I don’t mind ranking a single candidate, but picking six to get three is a little ridiculous”
“Exhausting”? Really?
I filled out my ballot Saturday – thoughtfully, I think – and it took a little longer than it has in the past. I like to think I’ve been doing a pretty good job of keeping track of the mayor and city council (for my district) races. I attended a local candidate forum, I read a couple local press recommendation articles, listened to a couple podcasts, talked to friends and colleagues. I did what I think is necessary (for me) to make an informed choice. Democracy depends on an informed electorate. but it was in no way “exhausting.” I certainly spent a lot more time last week working to put food on the table. And honestly, I’ve spent more time in the last two weeks watching football games and episodes of Only Murders in the Building than I did getting ready to vote.
But if the new form of voting hurts your brain, you are free to treat the new ballot just like the old ballot: pick one person for mayor, one for city council, lick your envelope, and drop it in the mail.
I don’t understand the “Rene Gonzalez is a straight shooter” line of thinking, but I see it a lot so I must be missing something. Looking at his record, he: 1) lied about his encounter on the Max to push a political agenda and was then disproved by video and refused to address it; 2) used public funds to wordsmith his wikipedia for a more favorable image; 3) lied and refused to cooperate with the investigation of (2)– when the city auditor asked for the attached “scan” referenced in one of their emails and his campaign told them that there was no attachment, that the “scan” was “just a visual scan of the wikipedia page” (lol there was an attachment); 4) he refuses to meet with groups who disagree with him; 5) he wants to muzzle criticism of police in public city counsel meetings (the definition of view point based discriminations on speech); and on and on.
To me, he is the epitome of the politician who just wants to say the right thing to get elected. The only difference is that the audience he wants to say the right thing for isn’t the “typical” audience that politicians court here in Portland. Just because you’re upsetting liberals doesn’t mean you’re some “teller of hard truths.”
Maybe someone can tell me what I’m missing.
These are the same people that fly Trump flags that say “No more bullshit”.
Gozales’s supporters are Trump supporters–hmmm, I don’t think Trump has a lot of supporters in Portland, its 10 percent at most.
You’re right, donel. They are not the same people. I expect Trump supporters in PDX, who I would wager number more than 10%, will largely back RG, but most of his support is from more reasonable folks. The construction of the argument (that the most conservative candidate is swimming upstream because he has the gumption to tell hard truths to the pansy woke establishment) is identical, though. For both RG and DT, it’s an ironic argument, because they are both liars.
“ranking a single candidate” is not ranked-choice; that would be the system we had before…
You’re still free to do it now if you want. That was the point.
Semantically, is it even correct to call it “ranking” if there’s only one item on your list? I’d say no.
The option is up to you for how many candidates you vote for.
The left/right/center spectrum is certainly important, and a shift to the center neatly maps current political sentiment in Portland. However, the competent/incompetent spectrum is of huge practical importance, and is unfortunately much harder to judge candidates on! I would guess many Portlanders would be less aggravated with local progressive/left politics if they felt that those politics had been effective.
For example, if voters had seen government rapidly stand up supportive housing/treatment programs (left-coded), they might not be as enthusiastic about an increase in camping bans/enforcement (right-coded). Lots of voters will say “get people help and housing,” until, after years of local leaders promising to do just that, voters just throw up their hands and say “I don’t care if you have to throw people in jail, just clean this town up!”
I think that’s the real dividing line: in the absence of *effective* government from the left, people are pulled to the right.
There’s also the issue of structural challenges inherent in the arrangement of divided governing authority.
With regards to homelessness and drug addiction, our crisis lies at the intersection of federal and state disinvestment in mental health, City over-regulation of housing, and incompetent County provision of health services. The State and Union Pacific act as absentee landlords by only sporadically maintaining highway margins. Relative to Portland, other regional cities have underinvested in homeless services (creating a push/draw incentive). Finally, we have a fentanyl crisis in part because scientific advancements and lax regulation in China have lowered the price of manufacturing the drug.
This problem of dispersed authority calls into question whether any city can effectively solve this problem for itself. (A counterargument would be that many cities in the US seem less wracked by homelessness/drugs- maybe they have effective but draconian enforcement strategies that Portlanders are unlikely to stomach. Also, wouldn’t that help push the problem elsewhere, though?)
On the one hand, I’m optimistic that this form of government will be an improvement. On the other, since so many authorities have had a role in creating this mess, we should temper our expectations for any near term solution!
I think you are correct that voters would be less aggravated with perceived progressive/left policies if they believed those had been effective, but the examples of those policies being enacted in Portland are almost non-existent. The mayor and the majority of the city council have at no point in recent history been progressive or left-wing, but somehow there’s this notion that progressive policies have failed the city. However I think you are entirely correct that the problems Portland faces are structural issues that basically every city in the country (and mostly, the world) faces -why do so many people seem to think that we’re the only place with these issues? So even with a differently-structured city government with a different ideological makeup, expectations of significant change should be greatly tempered.
I think you’re right and I think that indicates a real lack of thought by people in general, and that’s dispiriting. Or maybe people are just gullible? As in, they believe it when the Oregonian or people like Gonzales keep saying we have been trying left wing politics and Portlanders are fed up with it. Which is just a half truth, because we haven’t really.
When I see a lack of *effective* government from the left, it doesn’t make me not believe in the left or want to “move center”. It makes me want to elect more and more principled left leaning politicians (among other things). Oh maybe more “effective” leaders, sure, but in my view the issue is really that we actually currently have (as people love to think is good) a “team of rivals” in office. They don’t agree with each other! So of course they can’t get anything done.
Yeah, that’s a real concern. As you say, we can’t solve it, but we sure can use the police to push homeless people somewhere else. It’s a race to the bottom.
“we sure can use the police to push homeless people somewhere else”
A guy I work with told me “somewhere else” meant Districts 1, 2, or 4.
It was probably the novelty of ranked choice voting, but I have to admit I enjoyed learning about all the candidates. Normally I avoid talking about politics with people I don’t know well, but I enjoyed hearing about everyone’s preferred mayoral candidates and city council candidates. There was a mostly good selection in each district, I think. I focused on ranking candidates that regular ride bikes in the city. Fingers crossed!
So I’m feeling optimistic on the city level. I hope hope hope that the new county commissioners can either override JVP or force her to take action. If there’s one thing that irritates me most, it’s a politician who talks a big game and then hesitates over and over, not really accomplishing, or even trying, anything. She got preschool for all passed, but it’s not being adopted by the biggest childcare providers. She’s left millions in tax revenue unspent on homelessness because she didn’t want a recurring expense for a while… It would just be nice if the County could be a more decisive actor with the City this next go ’round. Please, spend the money!! Try literally anything other than just letting people rot on the street!
Lastly, thanks for your reporting this election cycle, Jonathan. I was initially skeptical of Keith Wilson, but ranked him #1 on my ballot, mostly thanks to your early coverage of his campaign. And I want to sow a little chaos by saying I appreciate your labeling of candidates’ politics. I found it helpful to categorize them so I knew who to put more energy into researching. It’s fine if people want to reject labels/categories, but I still find them useful.
“I appreciate your labeling of candidates’ politics. ”
Me too! Also totally agree with the rest of your comment.
Thanks for asking! I’m solidly in the center and tired of the enabling of public degradation we have seen in Portland since the Charlie Hales administration. When I saw the “Don’t Rank Rene” ads, they only steeled my resolve to vote for him, since he’s the best on all of the issues, including cycling (this is a cycling blog, if I recall correctly). Anyone who has the cojones to stand up to the enablers has my vote.
It’s richly ironic that the experts said ranked-choice voting would bring peace and harmony, when instead it brought a smear campaign where Rubio etc ganged up on one candidate. How deeply cynical that it’s not “Vote for me” but instead “Vote against that guy.”
As for ranked-choice voting, I’m now against it and will vote for its repeal at the first opportunity. It did NOT give me clarity about whom to vote for – it merely created a confusing slate of umpteen candidates. Bring back the primary and let us pick the top two to run in the general.
Wouldn’t including a primary just shift the “confusing slate of umpteen candidates” to May vs November? Or are you in the majority as someone who typically only votes in November? We should expect far fewer candidates on subsequent years.
“We should expect far fewer candidates on subsequent years.”
Once we have a new raft of incumbents to contend with, you are probably right. I believe the new system gives even more advantage to incumbents and others with name recognition than the old one did, which should keep the unwashed masses at bay.
Primaries cleared the field a bit, and made it easier to compare and contrast a manageable number of candidates. We could have used ranked choice in the primaries to narrow the field to 6, then ranked choice again in the general to pick the top 3. That would have given us time to get to know folks a bit better. This election was crazy and feels a bit more like a lottery than a reasoned decision making process.
Watts, so much has already been written about this, but I’ll repeat it again. Few voters vote in the primary. So having a small segment of voters select which candidates will appear in the general works against giving the broadest number of voters a voice. This was particularly true in cycles where a candidate won a seat outright in the primary, In those cases, a handful of high-propensity voters selected the winner.
That said, turnout is low for this election we are currently in. I’ll write about it for Monday. Maybe folks are spending this rainy Saturday voting and I’ll have nothing to write.
“Few voters vote in the primary.”
I realize that. Primary elections are hard because there’s so many candidates to wade through. It’s probably ok if a subset of interested and informed voters help narrow the field (and in my proposal, no one would win outright). Anyone who wants to participate in that process can.
If turnout remains low in this election with such high national stakes, that will lend credence to my argument. If it is high (and remains high over the next couple of cycles), my argument will be undermined.
For Oregon voters the stakes are high but any one person’s vote on national candidates would seem to have little impact. Blame the crusty old electoral college. You’d think that recasting city government would be a big enough issue to get a lot of people involved but maybe it isn’t.
Yes, and maybe more would vote in the primary if Oregon would let them. It’s long past time to have open primaries in every state so that more people feel welcomed into the process. If neither of the two major parties aligns enough with your views that you can’t register with either of them, you will be shut out of the voting process, and that’s just wrong.
Open the primary and you’ll see more people vote.
You don’t need to be registered with a party to vote in city and county primaries, and registering to vote in a party primary is trivially easy. I “join” a party before each primary and quit it just after.
That said, I have no objection to open primaries, and would support going that way if that were the way we were going.
I’m making sure not to rank a candidate who stated his opposition to unions within his ED300 initiative, endorsed the extremist Ross Day for Keizer City Council (look him up), and claims for convenience to be a Democrat but has used Republican-affiliated and other right-wing aides:
[Anti-union and pro-Ross Day screenshots available upon request.]
Steven,
Alright, let’s break this down, because it’s giving serious conspiracy board vibes. So you’re saying you’re out here doing a full background check on every advisor’s political alignment, podcast appearances, and who they maybe, sort of, possibly know? Yo, this sounds like you’re writing a Netflix political drama, not voting in a local election.
Let’s be real: if Rene’s biggest sin is having advisors who’ve worked with Republicans before, that hardly makes him the next dark overlord. And Ross Day? Sure, maybe he’s controversial, but “extremist”? Are we talking full villain cape and cackle here, or just someone with views that don’t totally align with yours?
At the end of the day, if we’re basing votes on who said what on an obscure podcast years ago, we might all end up voting for ourselves. So maybe let’s focus on what these candidates actually want to do for Portland right now, yeah?
If I was a kid in one of the school districts where Rene helped to install anti-LBTQ or anti-muslim school board members so that people would be forced back to in person work during the height of the pandemic before there were vaccines, it would be a big deal.
Pandemic response became a symbol of political purity, and it turns out that the red states might have been right to return earlier than we did. Maybe Oregon would have been better if we had done what Gonzalez suggested.
“Today, there is broad acknowledgment among many public health and education experts that extended school closures did not significantly stop the spread of Covid, while the academic harms for children have been large and long-lasting.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/upshot/pandemic-school-closures-data.html
Brave to say!
Not much doubt the politically motivated long term closures did some serious harm to the economy as well as school age children’s mental health and those who had to provide for them. I can’t remember, was it a full scholastic year of lockdown?
Armchair revisionist history of COVID isn’t brave. It is callous. It is spitting in the face of the first line workers who sacrificed a lot that they won’t get back.
I “got” to keep working through it. Stripping down after getting home, packaging my clothes to wash in highly diluted bleach and detergent for the next day for several weeks before the reality of what was going on became clear. Caught it twice pretty bad despite being up to date on the “vaccines”. Pissed me off to see the country stop working and fall apart for so long while my crew and I had to keep going. If you spent the time learning how to bake sourdough and fretting that you had to break into your trust fund that’s just too bad. The lockdown went too long. We knew the co-morbidities to look for after 3 weeks or so. Remember the mercy ship arriving to great fanfare and then leaving New York since they weren’t used? Perfect analogy of the whole miserable experience. Nice attempt at faux outrage though. Should I find you another article to tell you how it really happened?
“If you spent the time learning how to bake sourdough and fretting that you had to break into your trust fund that’s just too bad.”
Thanks for letting me know you’re not interested in a real conversation. I won’t waste my time.
The lockdowns were horribly managed and after several weeks clearly political. As someone has mentioned already, the lockdown became a purity test of political identification. I will always be surprised at all the anti-trump folk who got tattoos of the vaccines he managed to get out in record time and yet still hate him.
I wasn’t able to participate in all the fun new trends online that the upper middle class were able to do to wile away their time at home as I was still working onsite so I’m not sure what kind of conversation there is to be had. The lockdowns showed unequivocally that traffic negatively impacted everyone’s life by reducing it and allowing human spaces to flourish. They also showed that people will willfully ignore science to push their own version of political reality in order to maintain control of others and that far too many citizens righteously participated in their own house arrests while the elites partied.
Vaccines in scare quotes – this is a very informative view into your politics.
It’s more of an informative view into my age and lived experience. I’m not the type to believe everything is about politics.
I remember (through the mists of time) when vaccines were expected to prevent illness and now that is quite clearly not really true. I was sick with Covid twice (both times verified by med staff with qtips shoved up the nose testing) while being fully vaccinated (mandated by employer). So I use quotes around vaccine because they did not prevent me from getting really sick and I regard them more as “flu shots” where they might help, might prevent or might do nothing.
Did you ever get sick while up to date vaccinated? If not then I am jealous! Most everyone I worked with caught Covid despite the vaccine although all of us lived.
Absolutely I got Covid while fully vaccinated. The flu shot is a vaccine (no scare quotes). Breakthrough cases exist for every vaccine ever created and Covid is no different. Vaccines always have had a varying efficacy.
“they did not prevent me from getting really sick”
But they did keep you from dying (and getting even sicker than you were) which is a pretty good deal.
I’m not sure if it was the vaccine that saved me, but since results speak for themselves I can’t really disagree with what you’re saying.
It’s not spitting on anyone to recognize we made some bad choices.
That you would even think that suggests not everyone is ready to learn from our experience.
Of course it wasn’t done perfectly. The focus of your comment is off-topic and conflates many different aspects of the response to praise the groups that exploited the pandemic, like ED300 and Gonzalez.
“Of course it wasn’t done perfectly.”
It would have been a miracle if our response had been perfect. We need to recognize where we made mistakes (even if it vindicates people we don’t like) and learn not to repeat them the next time a pandemic hits us (which it will).
It may well be off topic for a bike site, but you brought it up.
I think you may be missing that Rene’s group were anti-social distancing way before it made sense to start relaxing measures. This group also included anti-vaccine and anti-mask contingents. If their demands were met, many more people would have died. But, in the end, they were asking for something that was impossible at the time based on local circumstances and they knew it. They exploited a crisis. The possibility that Oregon could have changed its policy sooner and had better educational outcomes does not vindicate their harmful position. They also could have been reasonable advocates for what they wanted and been more effective. They weren’t. By the time there was a chance to have a real discussion, no one took them seriously. I am not googling articles and putting all these pieces together. I watched this unfold day by day. It was ridiculous.
It seemed crystal clear to me at the time that if bars could reopen, then the schools should too.
If you were tracking what Gonzalez was saying day-by-day, I’ll give you credit; I never even heard of the guy until he ran against Hardesty in 2022.
And now it looks like he’ll be riding off into the sunset and we have bigger issues to contend with.
In Portland, schools shut down in March 2020 and didn’t fully reopen until fall 2021—about a year and a half of mostly remote learning. The impact was huge: kids fell behind academically, missed milestones, and struggled socially, and the adjustment back was tough for families.
Oregon’s teacher unions were a big reason for the long closure. Even after teachers got priority for the COVID vaccine in early 2021, unions insisted on additional safety measures like ventilation upgrades and smaller classes, delaying reopening even as other states were back to in-person learning by fall 2020.
During this time, Rene Gonzalez—now a city commissioner—advocated hard for reopening schools. He argued the closures were doing more harm than good, especially for students’ mental health. He worked with parent groups and pushed for practical solutions like rapid testing, adding pressure on officials and highlighting the effects of prolonged closures.
We had full lockdowns for a time, and then the disaster we called “hybrid schooling.”
Wealthier folks got their kids into private schools, which reopened much earlier, and so generally fared better than those who stuck with public school.
The fact that we had to drop standards for graduation and still can’t reinstitute them says a lot about the damage our policies did.
Not the best advertisement for PPS. I remember Newsom in California sent his kids to private schools which my nephew’s family couldn’t afford while keeping public schools shut. I try not to use the word “hypocrisy “ very often, but what those in power all along the west coast did for their own children vs what they did to everyone else’s was a bit too blatant. It’s unfortunate that so many seem to go along with pretending those egregious decisions were never made and acted on.
Maybe that would have been a good question for the candidates? What did you do during Covid?
At the height of the pandemic before vaccines is different than the conclusions of the article you cite and the general topic of when it was safe for kids to go back to school.
In Europe, schools generally closed for shorter periods than in the U.S., and governments prioritized reopening sooner. European countries, like France, Germany, and the Netherlands, reopened schools by fall 2020 after initial lockdowns, emphasizing the importance of in-person learning. They used measures like masks, staggered schedules, and ventilation improvements to keep schools open, even through COVID surges.
In contrast, many U.S. schools, particularly in states with stronger teacher unions and more cautious approaches (like on the West Coast), stayed closed for longer stretches. Places like Oregon only returned to full-time in-person classes by fall 2021, a full year after many European schools reopened. While some U.S. states (like Florida and Texas) reopened more quickly, the national response was overall more fragmented and, on average, slower than in Europe.
The takeaway? Europe’s approach highlighted that it’s possible to balance health concerns with keeping schools open. Their shorter closures and swift focus on safety protocols helped minimize academic and social disruptions for students. In the U.S., however, the extended closures had a more profound effect on kids’ learning and mental health, especially in areas that took a more cautious approach. European countries’ experience suggests that, with the right safety measures, schools don’t have to be closed long-term to protect public health.
I read somewhere that Italy never closed their public (state run) schools at all.
Going back to school in spring of 2020, before vaccines were generally available, would have been crazy. By the time fall rolled around, vaccines were generally available and most of us had taken the recommended doses.
And public school teachers were given priority in the vaccination queue. I don’t mean in line, I mean as a group they were eligible to be vaccinated months before others because they were “front-line” workers. But it took them a long time to get back in class despite their priority status.
We spent months in Paris in 2021/22. France had a Passe Sanitaire. Everything was open, but you couldn’t get through any door without getting your Passe Sanitaire scanned. This amounted to an automatic contact tracing program (which would never be accepted by Americans). Most people wore masks. Outside, they’d keep it around their wrist and place it on when passing someone who was wearing a mask.
We went to restaurants, plays, crowded art exhibits–Paris was open for business, but with no tourists. Restaurant proprietors were thrilled to see this American. One even put her hands in a prayer position and bowed to me. In Paris!
“But it took them a long time to get back in class despite their priority status.”
The state reopened bars and restaurant before schools. If that’s not a sign of broken priorities, I don’t know what is.
And this is the frustrating crux of the matter. The fact that certain groups wanted an unreasonable return that was out of line with every legitimate public health recommendation and an exploitation of a crisis is forgotten, because retrospectively we can make good arguments that it may have been possible to handle it better than we did in Oregon.
Maybe what they wanted wasn’t unreasonable then?
Judging actions taken based on what we can only know retroactively is unfair; we can only base an assessment on what we knew at the time.
We decided it was safe to reopen bars and restaurants in June of 2020. We also knew that masks worked, that kids didn’t generally get sick or transmit, that kids were suffering ill effects (mentally and educationally) from being out of school, that teachers had every opportunity to get vaccinated, and that private schools were managing to reopen without ill effect.
Given what we knew at the time, why was it so irresponsible to call for reopening public schools as well?
https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/docs/covid19/FactSheet_COVID19_Reopen_Phase2.pdf
I couldn’t find any solid evidence that Rene Gonzalez has supported anti-LGBTQ or anti-Muslim school board members. His work in Portland has focused on safety, homelessness, and improving the city’s livability, along with advocating for schools to reopen during the pandemic.
Let’s be cautious about spreading unverified claims, especially during election season. Misinformation can really impact public trust and our democracy! It’s always best to stick to the facts, even if they don’t line up with all the rumors we hear.
I’m still waiting for your sources on this….I haven’t seen any credible evidence of what you are stating.
Not a response on left, right or center, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the number of quality candidates we have. Previously we rarely saw more than a few people with both interest and qualifications running for council positions. I worried that we’d see it even worse by opening up to more councilors. I am concerned about having district only representation, I do think Portlanders have some good choices in front of them.
I agree — I think the by district council system seems to be going well. I live in D2 and had tons (more than 6 that I would enthusiastically support) of good candidates. I hope the new system helps people feel like they have a voice. I think it could help people accept policies they disagree with if they have a locally faithful voice on the council.
Agree. I ranked 6 candidates in district 3 who have extensive experience and who I think would all be solid councilors, and I still had to leave out 2 I also wanted to vote for.
I had the opposite view in my district. The vast majority were bad in my views, and I only ranked 3 for council and 2 for mayor. I couldn’t bring myself to rank any others as I felt no others deserved it.
I spent one of my precious voting for a guy who thinks Portland should build housing with bricks made of hemp. He’d be a hoot!
At least he didn’t begin every answer at one of the candidate forums reminding us he’d one been homeless (while at college) as if that were some sort of qualification.
Some of us have been near the middle all along.
In Oklahoma you’d be considered far left.
Rene Gonzalez stands out in Portland’s mayoral race as a Democrat who’s genuinely focused on getting things done and bringing some balance back to the city. He’s practical and straightforward, which could be a breath of fresh air if you’re a bit worn out from the repeated failures of Portland’s progressive policies from people like Hardesty, Chloe Eudaly, Mike Schmidt and Vega Pederson
While some (especially in the Bike Portland echo chamber) might paint Gonzalez as leaning conservative, it’s not about ideology for him—it’s about cracking down on issues that need urgent attention. Gonzalez, for example, wants to tackle homelessness by enforcing rules around camping and increasing shelter availability. He’s not here to vilify people experiencing homelessness but wants Portland to be safer and more livable for everyone. His approach includes pushing for accountability and supporting transparent, city-led programs to manage resources better, rather than letting bureaucracy slow down change
He’s also committed to environmental initiatives, like strengthening the Clean Energy Fund, with a focus on scaling sustainable industry solutions—so he’s not veering off Portland’s progressive path. For voters used to progressive politics, Gonzalez offers a pragmatic approach without sacrificing values. It’s all about common-sense changes, cutting down on red tape, and actually following through on promises to make Portland a place people are proud of again.
“following through on promises to make Portland a place people are proud of again.”
I’m already proud of Portland.
“Rene Gonzalez stands out in Portland’s mayoral race as a Democrat…”
I love how much energy goes into convincing everyone that Rene is democrat. It’s hilarious.
What’s truly hilarious is how much energy is spent by the far left progressives in Portland with their the Trumpian style disinformation campaigns trying to “smear” Gonzalez as a “evil Republican”. Now that’s hilarious.
One thing I have found interesting is that some of the positions people take have very little to do with the new job descriptions. The council sets policy. They don’t make decisions about how it is implemented. That is the job of the city manager and professional staff. The Mayor really has no policy role other than indirectly.
The city council candidates talk about “constituent service”, but that isn’t really their job. They don’t have any ability to directly influence how services are provided. The department heads work for the city manager. The mayor may have some influence but if they let the city manager and professional staff do their jobs as the charter envisions they aren’t going to directly intervene in how services are provided either. If you don’t like the specific design of a bike facility in your neighborhood, the city council and mayor really have no more to say about it than you do.
At least that looks like how it is supposed to work. This being politics, there is going to be a huge amount of jostling for power. Whoever is elected to lead the council may have the biggest role.
Informal power and personal sway within bureaus may be the the most important thing in the new council, giving insiders and those invested in doing things “the bureau way” the most opportunity to realize their vision.
I totally agree. For PBOT at least, and likely Water and BES as well, those “classified” employees who lead divisions within the bureaus cannot be hired or fired willy-nilly by any city manager or mayor, only the appointed directors and some of their underlings can, so you’ll likely see a high turnover in frustrated city managers/administrators and their deputies when they discover how little power they really have over the bureaus they are assigned to run.
As the City Council will still approve budgets and hold the purse strings of the bureaus, they will still have great sway in what the bureaus do or don’t do.
You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours, will still be very much in play even with the new form of local government.
Hiring and firing the city manager is a big role and despite the no veto power of the mayor (a mistake in my book) the mayor will have power. Also there will be the passive aggressive “slow roll out” of any policies passed by the city council that the mayor does not approve of. If the city manager doesn’t “de-emphasize” their implementation they will be packing their bags. It’s a poorly designed government structure but it’s what we have now. It’s gonna be passive aggressive, it’s gonna be messy. It’s not gonna work out well.
If you’re considering voting for (or have voted for) Keith Wilson for mayor you owe it to yourself to listen to this interview with Keith by local attorney Kristin Olson of the local politial podcast Rational in Portland. It will either give you pause or remorse for your vote.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keith-wilson-president-and-ceo-of-titan-freight/id1579198261?i=1000657639260
You posted this twice and I listened to it.
What exactly is your problem with him?
there is nothing cryptic or strange about his program at all.
He is attempting to find solutions.
Honestly, Keith Wilson’s got some good intentions, but he feels a bit too naive about how to make his ideas happen. He’s got this vision of a safer, cleaner Portland and wants to tackle homelessness with what he calls a “compassionate yet firm” approach. But then, he isn’t counting on any help from Multnomah County, even though they’re sitting on a pile of tax money specifically earmarked for homelessness. I mean, why wouldn’t you tap into the biggest resource in the area for one of the city’s most urgent issues?
Don’t get me wrong—Wilson’s definitely a step up from someone like Carmen Rubio. But compared to Gonzalez, who’s got years of experience and knows which political hoops you have to jump through, Wilson’s a bit green. Portland’s problems are no joke, and they need real political savvy to navigate, not just a list of lofty goals.
In theory, his ideas sound pretty appealing. But unless he’s got a magic wand (or some secret plan he’s holding back), I’m afraid he will be in over his head on actually getting them done.
This is the second time you’ve brought this interview up, I didn’t think your raw schilling for a candidate over the last few weeks could get anymore sad and desperate, but you were able to. Congrats?
Jonathan is this the type of personal attacks you now allow for those that come from the far left…..? It’s not conducive to positive discussion.
The one good thing I will say about Wilson is he finally did agree that jailing some homeless who refuse shelter will most likely be needed (as a last resort of course). At least he’s finally beginning to realize that you can lead horses to water but you can’t make them drink.
You’re the first (and I suspect only) person to ever accuse me of being far left here. You totally made my night, LOL 🙂
It put a smile on my face too!
And the personal insult you allowed through also put a smile on your face?
Hi Mary S,
Thanks for participating in this comment section. We value your input. But please stop assuming things about people that are not true. One way we keep this community functioning is by giving other people grace and not assuming malicious intent when there is none. I’ve noted your concerns about other comments and will consider them. Thanks.
Hi Mary S,
You don’t seem to be bothered to work your candidate of choice into the ongoing conversations or even to tie them to transportation or cycling at large most of the time. You’ve been active for weeks posting long statements that are clearly cut and paste political ads while everyone else is having a conversation either about their candidate or how candidates in general fit into cycling and/or transportation. I have nothing against you or your candidate, but I do have issues with the way you seem to be mis-using this forum to constantly extol the virtues (imagined or actual) of your candidate.
That you called me a far leftie showed unequivocally that you are not actually participating in any of the discussions and rather just using opportunities to place political ads throughout the discussion.
I’m guessing you consider yourself a conservative voice since you reference slurs by the lefties multiple times on this one thread alone. I have to ask you, do conservatives really stand for as much censorship as you are begging for? Do conservatives really have as thin a skin as you are showing? Do you think the way you are supporting your candidate is helping them or is it hurting them on this forum?
Thankfully the election is tomorrow and then all we have left to do is sit back and pick up the pieces.
I think that the framing of Portlanders shifting to the center or to the right is incorrect. Many people just want a proportionate response, and as the houselessness crisis worsened due to several factors, the response has needed to change. People who think “we tried the liberal approach and that didn’t work, now let’s try a hardliner approach” have a superficial understanding of the issue and are just processing in partisan heuristics. Grifters like Gonzalez, who promise oversimplified, red meat solutions are just tapping into lazy frustration. Much of the liberal free-for-all that his supporters claim is failing is an imaginary construct that doesn’t exist now and never existed, or is being taken out of context.
The Social Justice Warriors had their day and their chance. I truly had hoped they would have stepped up to the job and been a positive and constructive influence in Portland, but they failed miserably.
It’s way past tIme for a change.
Any of the candidates who came across as SJWs got an immediate “no” vote from me.
Let’s give credit where it’s due—Rene Gonzalez has been stepping up for those in Portland who feel let down by how the city’s handled the homelessness crisis. It’s not about shifting right or center; it’s about getting real results. Calling him a “grifter” is just missing the point. Gonzalez isn’t out here with some oversimplified, hardline agenda—he’s pushing for a balance of compassion and accountability, and that’s hardly “red meat.”
People in Portland aren’t calling for a free-for-all. They want to see a practical approach that actually works, rather than ideas that sound nice but don’t deliver. Saying we’ve never tried a liberal approach here doesn’t really hold up; we’ve had years of leniency, and the situation’s only got worse. Gonzalez’s approach isn’t extreme or reactionary; it’s just sensible, focused on tackling a problem that’s clearly out of hand.
As I’ve gotten older and slower, I’ve definitely moved closer to the center on issues like safe streets, sufficient funding for police and fire departments, and much more funding for safe, reliable public transit.
When I was younger and more nimble I could assertively advocate for myself on bike and foot, simply by getting out of the way of aggressive folks and evading their behavior.
Now that I’m older and slower, I can’t do that for myself anymore, and I need my city leadership to step up and show up to keep our city safer and more accessible for those who do not drive a car.
I’m disappointed in BikePortland for calling punitive anti-homeless policies (that are proven not to work) “center.” Center of what? A frenzy of pointless cruelty?
“Ah, yes Chezz, because nothing says compassion like keeping people in tents where they can enjoy Portland’s scenic views of… getting mugged, rained on, and occasionally set on fire. Truly the dream.”
It’s more compassionate than doing nothing. And practically free. It’s called harm reduction, a thing to do while our inept government is not taking actual action to address homelessness.
“a thing to do while our inept government is not taking actual action”
We don’t have to choose between doing nothing and doing almost nothing. Mayor Wheeler got several hundred people off the street in a way that is scalable and seems to have made just about everybody happy.
But the county won’t fund it with their pot of money because Wheeler isn’t in their political club.
No one wants people to have to live on the streets, Mary. What we disagree on is the solution.
The essential choice we’re facing is tents anywhere vs. shelter and some restrictions on where people can set up tents.
Hi Chezz, Can you clarify what you are referring to here? Thanks.
You said voters are moving toward the center. They might be moving, but it’s not toward the center of anything but cruelty if they are embracing the law-and-order, lock-em-up, sweep-em approach embraced by Wheeler and Gonzalez and proven not to work.
I think this issue is a bit more complex than thinking “moving to the center” means you are moving toward cruelty.
But that is what it means. It is not a “Left” position to do nothing to address homelessness. It isn’t even a position, it’s a symptom of having inept government. So you’re not “moving to the center” if you stop doing nothing and start doing harm (harm is what Gonzales et al want to do).
Maybe it’s the case that there is no such thing as “moving to the center”. It’s meaningless. You’re moving left or right. Current government is not handling homelessness, so people are getting more reactionary (moving right), which will mean more cruelty. People are moving towards cruelty, they’re saying “I’m tired of seeing homeless people, do whatever it takes.”
This is why I hate the concept of a “center” or a moderate. It smuggles in this idea that there is some wise, sensible middle ground and there just isn’t. It’s a pretend anchor point that doesn’t exist, but is really useful for telling people they’re not bad for voting to do more harm to homeless people. “You’re just moving to the center, don’t worry, you’re not Donald Trump”.
John V, I’m curious, do you consider Mayor Wheeler’s Temporary Alternative Safe Shelters to be “cruel?” If so, please explain.
John V what you are describing sounds like a sad and cynical view that we cannot process anything from other than a binary, left/right approach. I not only disagree with that, I think expanding the political spectrum and embracing that there are different shades of middle, far-lefts, far-rights and so on is a strength of democracy, not a weakness. My goal is for the best ideas to win and if people are either with us (left or right) or against us (left or right), then I don’t think that’s the kind of environment that produces the best ideas and policies.
Everyone’s goal is for the best ideas to win. The difference, what lies on the left/right spectrum, is what “best” means. Nobody said anything about people either being with us or against us. But ideas that I think lead to increased cruelty are bad, and I think ideas that move to the right increase cruelty.
My point about there being no center is simply that there are no fixed absolutes. There is no center, nor is there a real scale, they’re just unitless directions. When people talk about “moving to the center”, I think they – deliberately or not – support the idea that there is a sensible middle ground and that it’s the rational choice. In reality our “left” isn’t really very left, and I feel like talking about the “center” is misleading.
Tomorrow is the big day. I am nervous but cautiously optimistic that sanity will prevail nationally.
I want to ask everyone here to join me in pledging not to try to delegitimize the election results regardless of who wins. The biggest danger we face is not a Trump victory, but a breakdown of confidence in the system itself; such an erosion of trust would only make it easier for a bad actor to act badly.
Thank you.
Hang in there and stay safe. I was still there in 2016 and remember watching the early morning news on the 6th and wondering if I should go to work and risk getting caught in the brewing violence or stay home. I see Oregon has their National Guard on standby and up here the governor has activated the National Guard “just in case”.
Fingers crossed the 6th will be the dawning of a saner few years!
Generally the amateurs on the East Coast riot only for a few hours at most, if at all – most of the time local church leaders talk the would-be rioters out of it, continuously disappointing local riot control police with all in their gear and water cannons at the ready. Now the professional rioters on the West Coast on the other hand…
I voted for Rene because I feel like the mayorship needs to bump to the right for a little bit and then come back to the center. I used to be liberal as hell, now I’m just a tired middle aged man hoping my kids don’t have to walk over a person passed out from fentanyl as they go to school. Rene seems to be the only one using language that’s different than the status quo. Yup, time to nudge people into services, no more free tarps!
I’m a voter in Sunnyside, District 3, and I’m done with the go-along-to-get-along status quo, embodied by the likes of Rubio and Vega-Pedersen.
For mayor:
1. Rene Gonzalez
2. Keith Wilson
For council District 3:
1. Jesse Cornett
2. Kezia Wanner
3. Steve Novick
4. Rex Burkholder
5. Philippe Knab
6. Daniel DeMelo
Like your message but your # 1 council choice (Cornett) is endorsed by the PAT, Carmen Rubio and Sarah Inarone’s The Street Trust. That sounds pretty status quo to me. Harrison Kass is someone who would bring a new direction. Waner, DeMelo and perhaps Knab as well. The others not so much.