With nearly all ballots processed, we can say with confidence who will sit in 11 of our 13 City of Portland positions next year. Local media outlets have called 10 of the 12 city council seats and the mayor’s office and the remaining two aren’t likely to change. So, how did cycling, walking, transit and transportation reform in general fare? Pretty good. While a few of the true bicycling believers didn’t get elected, there’s a solid majority of folks who “get it” when it comes to the need for making Portland a place where people drive less often. And maybe even one or two who might emerge as the next great champion for cycling.
And we’ll have a very diverse city council. Politically-speaking we’ll have a mix of five progressives, three centrists, and four moderates (give or take). But let’s start with Mayor-elect Keith Wilson.
You should have a good sense of where we stand with Mayor Keith Wilson based on my story last week. The only other thing I’ll add about him is this: Now that he’s got the power, will he follow-up on his promising background and actions on the campaign trail and become a strong champion for transportation reform? There’s a big gap between being a vocal supporter of something and actually helping move the needle once you get into office.
My questions right now are: Will Wilson spend real political capital to push cycling and discourage driving? Or will he become a “let’s make the system work for all modes” kind of guy and take the easy road of incrementalism for cycling, walking, and transit — while driving continues to dominate? How will he deal with the the significant block of voters who voted for candidates (Terrence Hayes and Noah Ernst in District 1) who ran on pro-driving messages? We’ll have to wait and see.
Let’s turn our attention to council districts.
District 1
Winners: Candace Avalos, Loretta Smith, Jamie Dunphy* (*small chance that Noah Ernst or Terrence Hayes could take Dunphy spot)
Cycling advocates in Portland have long hoped to gain ground in the eastern part of our city. The story in District 1 is what could have been. I was very surprised that neither Steph Routh or Timur Ender earned a seat. Based on their personal and professional backgrounds, those two were among the top transportation reformers in the entire election. Despite that, and rather surprisingly in my opinion, neither candidate made transportation a key big of their platform or campaign conversations. Perhaps they felt bike lanes and road diets are too unpopular with many District 1 voters?
Thankfully, we still have a strong advocate in Candace Avalos, who won her race by a wide margin. Avalos made transportation one of the six pillars of her platform and she’ll be the standard-bearer for active transportation in District 1. She also had very strong answers to the BikeLoud PDX candidate questionnaire, calling for a protected bike lane network, expansion of Biketown, and bike purchase subsidies for people in need. Avalos is the only District 1 winner endorsed by Street Trust Action Fund. She owns an e-bike but doesn’t ride it much.
I was surprised to see Loretta Smith win, but her name recognition and firm public safety stance likely carried her through (as did supportive rankings from people who voted for other moderate candidates like Noah Ernst and Terrence Hayes). She’s also a known quantity with voters after having served seven years on Multnomah County Commission; but she had lost her last three races for local office and didn’t earn a single major media endorsement in this race. Smith doesn’t have a transportation background and it wasn’t part of her platform.
Jamie Dunphy could be a strong voice on transportation. His professional background is in government and nonprofit leadership and his passion lies with the local music scene. His first contact with BikePortland was in his role as an organizer of the lawsuit against Live Nation and their desire to build a venue in the Central Eastside. He was concerned the development might have a negative impact on nearby bike routes. That being said he doesn’t own a working bike at the moment and he’s not someone who bikes regularly. During the campaign he signed a pledge to support the Green New Deal and said he would not take money from police or fossil fuel organizations.
No one in this district rides a bike regularly and two candidates with strong support in the bike community fared very poorly in the vote count. Add in the fact that blatantly pro-driver candidates Noah Ernst and Terrence Hayes not only finished in front of Routh and Ender, they are close to taking Dunphy’s seat. Regardless of how that last spot shakes out, transportation advocates who want progress for cycling and transit in this district will need to remain on high alert.
District 2
Winners: Dan Ryan, Sameer Kanal, Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The big shock in this district was that Nat West finished 5th, with only half the votes of the winners. Given the number of contributions he amassed, his business background and strong brand behind his name, I expected him to win one of the seats. Similar to the absence of Routh and Ender in District 1, West who would have been a loud voice for transportation reform and the community lost the possibility of a true cycling champion on council.
Thankfully, D2 still has a cycling and transportation majority. Sameer Kanal and Elana Pirtle-Guiney are both solid on the issues and were both endorsed by Street Trust Action Fund. Kanal and Pirtle-Guiney both included transportation in their platforms. Kanal called out Safe Routes to School in his voters pamphlet statement. Pirtle-Guiney could be the strongest cycling champion in D2. She’s a former daily bike commuter who biked during the campaign and has biked with her young child (now 8 years old).
Asked by BikeLoud what she would do to make Vision Zero succeed, Pirtle-Guiney said,
“We need to make a decision about whether we are a safe city for all modes of transportation, or a fast city to get through. Realistically, making streets safer for bike and pedestrian users means we have to slow cars down and make more spaces and more space (different things, and both important) for bike and pedestrian users. This will be inconvenient for a lot of people but we don’t get safer without it.”
I don’t think current City Commissioner Dan Ryan will oppose bike-related policies or projects, but he won’t be a shoo-in either. Ryan has spoken ill of the SE Division project because the center median and bike lanes make it hard for him to make u-turns while driving his car. He also campaigned with law-and-order moderates and is the most well-known councilor-elect who was endorsed by Rene Gonzalez. An interesting dynamic to watch with Ryan is how his relationship with Mayor-elect Keith Wilson will play out. Ryan might not have a majority behind his policy approaches on council, but he and Wilson have been friends for over 40 years and Wilson called him someone he trusts deeply in his acceptance speech last week.
District 3
Winners: Steve Novick, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo
This district, perhaps not surprisingly, elected the most progressive slate of candidates. They also happen to be the strongest trio when it comes to bicycling and transportation issues we tend to care about here on BikePortland.
You already know a lot about Steve Novick thanks to his former turn as city commissioner and I shared recently how he’s still thinking creatively about how to make streets work better for bike riders. He made transportation a part of his platform and approaches it from a climate change lens.
Tiffany Koyama Lane has commuted to school on a scooter, so she intimately understands what it’s like to be vulnerable on our streets. She also earned the Street Trust Action Fund endorsement and goes into detail about safe streets, vision zero, transit expansion and more on her campaign website.
Angelita Morillo bought and began riding a bike during her campaign (it had a flat last I heard, so I hope she’s fixed it!). I have no doubt she will be a strong voice for cycling and low-car life on council. She grew up without a car, is a daily bus rider, and she brought up transportation reform on the campaign trail many times.
Southeast Portland transportation needs are in very good hands with these three. I’ve also noticed that Koyama Lane and Morillo have become good friends and they have a nice rapport with Novick too. If this trio works together on transportation, and perhaps form a bloc that attracts four other councilors, amazing things could happen.
District 4
Winners: Olivia Clark, Mitch Green, Eric Zimmerman (Eli Arnold)
Just like we expected D3 to be the most progressive, District 4 (West/Sellwood) ended up most moderate. It also has one of the strongest champions for cycling on council in Mitch Green. Green doesn’t bike exclusively, but hops on his RadPower e-bike about three times a week for commuting or errands. He’s also a frequent transit rider.
Green told the Bike Happy Hour crowd back in March that,
“If we want more folks in the city getting on their bicycles, we need to make serious capital investments to change the built environment. You have to feel safe on a bicycle. You can only do that by making investments from the budget, not just little nudges on the margins. You have to show up and make the expenditures. That’s something worth fighting for.”
We’ll see how much Green is willing to have that fight — and whether he can get others to support him — come January.
Clark and Green might see eye-to-eye on street policies. Like Green, Clark was endorsed by Street Trust Action Fund and she’s ridden bikes before (although not regularly like he does). I haven’t spoken to Clark yet, her platform didn’t include transportation, her answers to the BikeLoud PDX questionnaire were very short and superficial, and she hasn’t spoken to the media much so I don’t have much knowledge about her transportation views.
Zimmerman is a bit of a wild card to me. My hunch is that he’ll be great on transportation. Zimmerman has deep experience in local government and has gotten hard things done before (like setting up homeless shelters at the County and working on tough issues in Portland City Hall under Ted Wheeler). His website calls for more protected bike lanes. And instead of bashing PBOT or their projects, he offers constructive criticisms to make their approach work better on the ground like calling for more standardization of lane designs, more education for e-scooter users, and so on.
Overall
Portland’s council election gives progressives a lot to be excited about. There’s five that should be reliably progressive: Avalos, Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, and Green. That leaves them in the minority and means they’ll have to find votes from centrists (Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Novick) and moderates (Smith, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman) to get anything done. The electorate and the candidates moved a few steps to the center from 2020, but not far enough to begin the Rene Gonzalez era that felt imminent months ago.
Green in D4 is the closest thing we’ve got to a councilor that will ride to work and be a true champion, but it’s not clear if he’ll want to assume that role. With West, Routh, and Ender not making it in, I don’t see anyone at this point who bike advocates can lean on as their councilor. But overall, I feel like the issues BikePortland cares about are in really good shape — especially if Steve Novick is elected council president (a real possibility in my opinion).
It’s also fun to note that we have a strong Bike Happy Hour majority in City Hall with 8 of the 13 elected officials (12 councilors and one mayor) having attended and/or spoken at one of our events: Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Novick, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Green, Zimmerman, and Mayor-elect Wilson!
How are you feeling about the new city council? I’d love to hear from you.
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.
Thanks for this round up! And bravo on your election coverage this year, Jonathan!
I’m feeling cautiously optimistic! None of the city council candidates I voted for in D2 made the cut, but I’m pretty pleased that Keith Wilson is getting his shot. Hopefully he’s more Steph Curry at the free-throw line than Shaq.
Here is my hope for all the electeds: I hope they take Tim Walz’s advice and spend the capital they built in their campaigns. Clearly they all know their districts very well, especially since some were elected without a large media presence. I want to see them governing boldly for their constituents. I don’t want to see dithering or decision paralysis. I don’t want lip service. I don’t want fear. Be brave, council! You were elected for this!
Alright, here’s the lay of the land in Portland’s political playground as I see it. Strap in, because if you’re expecting a city without tents, grime, and an accidental collection of shopping trolleys, you might be in for a bumpy ride.
1. Policy Priorities and Ideological Tensions
Left-leaning councils like the one we just elected, tend to throw a lot of love and cash at virtue signaling social services, so you might want to get comfy with the idea that “policing” could mean “hope they reconsider mid-crime.” More tax dollars are likely headed for unaccountable nonprofits for questionable attempts to improve mental health, housing, and various services. And then there’s Candace Avalos, who’s got more of a knack for ‘equity’ than a pig in a mud spa—only here, “equity” sometimes translates to identity politics karaoke. Her approach could build more walls than bridges, which isn’t exactly the road map for an all-inclusive Portland.
2. Homelessness Policy and Public Spaces
This is where it gets cozy. Mitch Green’s approach to the homelessness crisis seems to be “pitch a tent wherever you feel inspired,” which sounds like a great slogan… until you want to walk on the footpath. His “camp anywhere” policy could turn the whole city into a backyard camping site—except with fewer marshmallows and more ‘Did I just step in that?’
3. Crime and Public Safety
If safety is your jam, brace yourself: property crime and car theft are probably going to stay in fashion. Angelita Morillo has mused that shoplifting could be, in some instances, a form of “protest” against poverty. While that might strike a chord in some circles, it’s not exactly the slogan of a council about to crack down on your neighbor nicking your garden gnome. At this rate, we’ll be lucky if there’s enough stuff left to steal by year’s end.
4. Traffic and Public Space Safety
Left-leaning councils do love their bike lanes, which could mean fewer bike crashes. But without solid enforcement and, you know, actual safety measures, we could end up with beautifully painted bike lanes… that still have all the road rage of Mad Max. Good luck, to all of us cyclists—grab a helmet and maybe some shoulder pads.
5. Funding Constraints and Fiscal Policies
And now for the part where we look at the city’s wallet—or what’s left of it after all these ambitions. Portland’s tax base is already stretched like a hipster’s pants at an organic brunch. With everyone wanting a piece of the pie, the private sector and high earning taxpayers might start running like it’s avoiding kale at a kid’s birthday party. It’s going to take more than dreams to pay for all these programs.
6. Virtue Signaling vs. Pragmatism
Here’s where the rubber meets the pothole. Avalos, Morillo, and Green might veer more towards grand symbolic gestures that make for nice headlines but not much else. Avalos’ equity talk can sometimes feel like she’s handing out buzzwords instead of solutions, Morillo’s approach to shoplifting isn’t giving anyone a sense of safety, and Green’s camping policies could turn the city into a quirky, open-air hostel. At the end of the day, the city might look the same—just with more high-fiving and a bit less cleaning.
In short, if you’re hoping for a sparkling, safe Portland, you might find yourself wading through more of the same. It’ll take a dash of pragmatism and a whole lot of grit to clean things up, but from where I’m standing, “pragmatism” might be in short supply down at city hall.
What are your views about the new centralized city bureaucracy which will no longer be managed by any of these 12 city councilors?
I mean, the way I see it, the city recently eliminated all the bureau and budget advisory committees and replaced them all with this elected 12-person committee that will now “advise” the bureaucracy and the mayor (whose powers are also massively reduced) – in essence y’all have “elected” a 12-member board of lobbyists to lobby on your behalf.
So in reality what any one of the 12 thinks of this or that doesn’t really matter all that much.
Getting rid of city council members running bureaus was one of the few good elements that the unelected, non-representative , non-diverse charter commission put in our charter.
The charter commission didn’t put this new form of government in the city charter. They proposed an amendment to the charter that then went to the people for a vote. The people of Portland passed the proposal 58%-42%.
Good grief, man.
Comment of the week. Insightful, pithy, succinct.
National as well as local elections have turned out to be a major disappointment and I wonder what is wrong with voters (well at least the ones that did vote).
In so many ways it is very depressing to think this is what we have to look forward to for the next 4 years. And you know what, I think it’s even going to get much much worse. So much of our nation is going to be sold off to the highest bidder and locally, officials are going to fall all over themselves to see who is most woke instead of offering actual solutions.
Scary times are ahead . . . man the lifeboats!
wow. Your energy for pessimism is astounding.
You’ll come around. It’ll just take a few years of living with our new local government to take the shine off your sunny disposition. 🙂
I’ve lived here for 20 years so I’ve seen my plenty of ups and downs.
JM seems to prefer thoughtless optimism to thoughtful pessimism.
How is my optimism “thoughtless” exactly?
Your optimism is fine. I’m referring to the way you universally pan any commenter who is even mildly pessimistic.
yeah. I guess it’s because i see so much pessimism and negativity all day all over the internet that when I come to my own little space here on BP I am more sensitive to it. I also know that a lot of people are pessimistic about PBOT/City of Portland stuff but it’s based on not having a complete picture of what’s actually doing on.
Jonathan, you’ve lived her 20 years; when I look at the last 20 years I see a downward trend, do you not?
One need only to look at the last 10 years to understand progressive leadership in this city has not fulfilled its grand aspirations.
Not sure I’d call Hales, Wheeler, or the current City Council progressive.
Can you point to a city that you think is better at this? One that inspires you with its council leadership?
So, they’re conservatives? LOL, gotta get back in the Overton Window my guy.
If one can surmise that the presentation of a city is representative of quality city leadership, the following cities are better than Portland in just about every metric: Boise (yes, smaller, but blows Portland out of the water right now), Denver (slightly better), Salt Lake City (not even a comparison, way better), Atlanta (considerably better), Austin (slightly better). Regardless, as the federal election evidences, there aren’t many cities doing their job appropriately to convey trust in their policies or evidence their policies even work at all.
Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, DC, & Atlanta all have terrible auto congestion and rapidly improving bike, walking, and transit systems.
No doubt, one thing those SE cities know is the demanded infrastructure projects require $’s. Instead of scaring of corporations and running out high tax paying earners, those cities find a balance.
I’ll give you any city in, say, northwestern Arkansas, which has better bike infra, less camping, and less public disorder than Portland does.
Too bad the rest of their politics is so messed up.
An interesting question for JM to tackle someday is whether left-leaning politics are incompatible with the kind of public order that allows for unimpeded cycling infrastructure.
I find that question to be pretty loaded with assumptions so I’m not sure that’s how I’d approach what I think you’re trying to get at.
I agree that a policy that is too permissive of camping is incompatible with public order, which is why things got so out of control in Portland and why we saw a different tone about that issue — even from lefty candidates — in the recent election. I didn’t hear any candidates saying “sweeps kill” or that they don’t want to enforce any type of regulations on people sleeping outside. I think Portland has shifted from the policies of the last several years and more people have acknowledged that more must be done to get folks off of the streets — even if it means a change in tone or a compromise in what one is willing to accept, policy-wise.
ALSO, and this is important… Keep in mind that a big reason a lot of street camping went unaddressed from 2020 on were federal rules about Covid and local leadership that interpreted that as meaning they had to be hands-off and just let people be.
When I visited my relatives in NW Arkansas before, during, and after the pandemic, they didn’t have any of the public disorder we saw then in Portland – and have continued to see since (with incremental improvement, I will admit). So you can’t pin the blame on Federal rules. It’s pretty clear that Portland has what I’d call an “enablement culture” that has led directly to public disorder.
I didn’t pin blame on federal rules. I said that was one of the factors.
Oregon had 3X the population growth as AK 2010-2020. Portland exists in a national and global economy over which it has very little control.
Jonathan, I’ve read this a bunch of times, and just cannot figure out what you are talking about in the last paragraph regarding the “federal rules” about covid having anything to do with Portland’s street camping problem.
The 2018 Boise v. Martin ruling from the 9th Circuit of Appeals decided that camping bans could not be enforced unless a city had adequate shelter beds to offer. That had an impact, but I’m not remembering anything about covid. What are you thinking of?
Hi Lisa. The CDC issued federal guidelines to all cities in early 2020 and Wheeler would use that as justification for not addressing street camping. Here’s more about it https://www.portlandmercury.com/Housing/2021/05/19/33507099/city-updates-guidelines-for-clearing-homeless-camps-during-covid
Thank you!
Along with the example of PS, I would even argue Seattle and SF have left Portland at the bottom of the dirty latrine. Last month i flew into SFO, subsequently rode the BART all the way to the stop adjacent to Alameda impressed that everyone on board looked like they paid fare. Even using the BART bathroom at one point, i was shocked to not have to step in pee or dodge needles.
Maybe doubling down on far left leftist ideology will work better “this time” right!? Also certainly every candidate tweeting all day on populist progressive ideals/solutions is acting out of pure altruism! Never would one of these DSA, public union, nor “social justice” backed candidates be acting on their own self interests nor those of the non-profit that backs them!? Right Jonathan!?
The fun of grand promises will vanish when the constraints of reality (a budget crunch, fleeing high earners and families, sclerotic union control, feckless county leadership, etc.) take hold.
Hope I’m wrong, but my family is leaving MultCo next year.
***Comment deleted. Please focus on the merits of someone’s points and not petty insults. Thanks. — Jonathan***
Hey Marvo! How about you address the CONTENT of the ideas Angus put forward instead of taking a shot at his writing style. You can get ChatGPT to help you do that, if you want.
Right on. I submitted a prompt and received a strikingly similar output. Perhaps you’ll notice some similar language, cadence, and tone. All it takes is a bit of human-touch editing (I didn’t alter the output from my prompt) and the comment section is fawning.
Prompt: Write a snarky yet informed reply to a blog post on BikePortland critiquing the new political landscape after the recent city council elections while addressing the following points in a numbered list: homeless policy, traffic safety, crime and public safety, budget constraints, and ideological differences. Be colorful.
Sure! Here’s a snarky, yet informed response addressing the key points on BikePortland:
—
**Oh, BikePortland,**
Here we go again. Another round of hand-wringing over the city’s new political landscape after the elections. Strap in, because it’s time for a reality check. Let’s break it down in a **numbered list** for ease of digestion—though, fair warning, it might leave a bitter aftertaste.
**1. Homeless Policy**
Here we are, yet again debating whether “sweeping” the homeless off the streets is a policy or just pretending the problem will go away if we can’t see it. Newsflash: we’ve tried that. It’s like shoving the mess under the couch and calling the living room clean. Maybe the new Council will actually address the core issue of affordable housing and mental health services instead of tossing tents into trucks and hoping for magic.
**2. Traffic Safety**
Vision Zero? More like Vision *Maybe*, at the rate we’re going. The city’s traffic “safety” efforts seem to involve more paint on the roads and fewer actual solutions. Meanwhile, distracted drivers continue to barrel through bike lanes like they’re auditioning for a demolition derby. Hopefully, the new councilors can focus on things like infrastructure instead of pretending the problem is going to fix itself with a few more signs that no one reads.
**3. Crime and Public Safety**
Ah, crime. Portland’s favorite political piñata. Depending on who you ask, we’re either in a Mad Max dystopia or it’s all exaggerated hype from Nextdoor warriors who think seeing graffiti is akin to the apocalypse. The truth, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. Sure, we need police reform and community-led safety initiatives—but maybe we also need to admit that whatever we’ve been doing so far isn’t working. Can we get some policies that address both over-policing *and* under-protection, please?
**4. Budget Constraints**
I’d feel bad for the city budget if it weren’t so predictably bloated in all the wrong places. The constant refrain of “we don’t have money for that” is getting a bit old when we somehow find funds for the most absurd projects. Maybe the new Council will stop funneling cash into fancy studies and surveys to figure out the exact color of crosswalk paint and actually prioritize, I don’t know, *things that work*? Maybe?
**5. Ideological Differences**
Ah, the age-old Portland tradition of ideological purity wars. This new council might be more left or right or whatever, but what matters is whether they can set aside their self-righteous speeches for two seconds and get something done. Whether they’re waving progressive flags or calling for “law and order,” can we please just get policies that are rooted in reality instead of ideological fantasy lands? The city’s been stuck in its own echo chamber for long enough.
—
In conclusion: let’s stop acting surprised every time an election leads to political gridlock and start demanding real action from the people we just put in office. **Bike lanes and unhoused neighbors deserve better than recycled talking points and excuses**.
—-
FWIW, I love living in this city. I believe the issues we collectively face — scarcity brain, unequal distribution of resources and opportunities, lack of patience for the many processes we must encounter and figure out — are shared across our species. Wild, wild planet we live on, huh?
Dude this is a Pulitzer worthy summary, for the poo situation Portland now finds itself in.
This isn’t even the result of a far left turn by the average Portland voter that has magically become way more optimistic. No this was an engineered strategy and gambit by progressive activists, such as social justice advocate and professional grifter Candace Avalos.
Most of the country has come to reject leftist extremism, including DEI policies, with the unfortunate side effect of leading to Trump’s reelection. Sadly Portland ending up going in the opposite direction, going double down on failed progressive policies.
Who knows maybe “it will work better this time”, yet I’m not going to hold my breath…
Many of the new council members swore fealty to unions, which will exacerbate the city’s impending funding crunch. More money to workers (yay) means less for already-stretched public services.
Thanks for the write-up! I was surprised Routh didn’t make it through as well, but she probably was too many people’s second or third choice instead of their first.
*shoo-in, not shoe-in.
“Portland’s council election gives progressives a lot to be excited about. There’s five that should be reliably progressive: Avalos, Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, and Green. That leaves them in the minority and means they’ll have to find votes from centrists (Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Novick) and moderates (Smith, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman) to get anything done. The electorate and the candidates moved a few steps to the center from 2020, but not far enough to begin the Rene Gonzalez era that felt imminent months ago.”
One small nitpick here is by the metrics of “progressive, centrist, moderate” that you created here, Progressive (5) would be the majority but not a plurality, and centrist (3) and moderates (4) would both be minorities. However, in all likelihood that may not be how the lines end up being drawn anyways and I’m hopeful people will work together to pass good policies that help people and not just business owners and cars.
Also this has to be the furthest left city council Portland has ever elected right? 3 candidates are not just the buzzword “Progressive” but rather called themselves “Democratic Socialists” (Kanal, Green, and Koyama Lane). As far as I can remember we’ve never had ONE before! I would disagree slightly with the few steps to the center since 2020 sentiment for that reason, and that there was never a point in 2020 when “Progressives” held a plurality, I mean Dan Ryan was elected that year right?
I’m cautiously optimistic 🙂
Only by Portland standards (and maybe Berkley or San Francisco) would Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Novick ever be considered centrists. Zimmerman…moderate okay will agree with that. Ryan, Clark and Smith…more like “not radical progressives”. .
Aaand we just so happen to be in Portland, so…
You should look up the meanings of plurality and majority again.
You got plurality and majority mixed up. They mean the opposite of what you are saying.
I volunteer to fix Angelita’s tire if she still needs it. And Bikeloud’s Bike Buddy program can help introduce her ride safely in the streets — if she wants that.
Don’t get your hopes up; he thinks streets should be easier to drive on:
I think he has a good point. The lack of consistency in our designs is a problem. It’s bad for bike and car users.
I was led to understand that changing patterns were supposed to keep drivers alert and driving cautiously, no? And do we not advocate for trying new ways to protect cyclists and pedestrians? I am OK with limiting that to ideas proven in other countries, rather than dumb ‘invented-here’ solutions like the Green Zebras that no-one else uses. Although I do drive cautiously by those as well, as no-one seems clear on who has ROW most days.
In any case, Zimmerman’s statements (repeated elsewhere as well) seemed to indicate he is in favor of things like a painted shoulder designating the bike lane, and the rest of the road free and clear for cars. No wands, islands, sharrows, etc. It might be a good idea to pin him down on those comments sooner than later.
Sorta like you said, there are ways to make it safe for cycling (they’re boring in a good way), they just also are not in line with the car first status quo, so you get all this weird stuff from engineers and planners trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I hear you cct and this is an important conversation that deserves more attention.
Yes it can be good in some contexts to make drivers have to think vs. be on auto-pilot all the time. But there’s a limit. If designs change too much too often without a clear purpose, I think folks just end up saying, “F*** it!” And from a cycling perspective it is absolutely not good that on a bike ride across town I can experience a dozen different types of bikeways. The system needs to be legible to everyone immediately. Just take signal activations as one example. Some have a small blue light for presence of bike riders but most people have no idea what that means. Some use beg buttons. Others have in-ground sensors. Some have pavement markings telling bike riders where to wait. Others do not. It’s all over the place.
I’m also not naive and I know how politicians can use “we need more consistent designs” as a veiled criticism of bikeways in general. That’s why when I listen to politicians and leaders I consider the full context of the words – who’s saying it and what I believe their intentions are. My hunch at the moment is that Zimmerman yes has some tendencies that we need to watch closely, but overall I don’t feel like he’s blatantly pro-car/anti-bike. Thanks.
Yes! Jonathan!
It will be very interesting to see how the council works. I’m also curious to see who becomes the Council President.
My hunch is on either Clark or Novick. Both were clear front runners who had a variety of endorsements. Both have quite a bit of experience, and possibly most crucially, both are up for reelection in two years.
Outside chance that it goes to someone else (Ryan, Smith, Avalos, Kanal), but I’d bet that it would be harder to get a consensus for someone who is going to be around for four years.
I was unclear about the difference between a centrist and a moderate person, politically, so I looked it up. The definition for a centrist used the word moderate, and the definition for a moderate used the word centrism. Is there a useful distinction, and what is it?
Think of it at left, center-left, and center if you want. Or left, center, and right. People are just really sensitive to any mention of “right” that I’m loathe to use it. It’s simply an organization of the political spectrum, the labels don’t really matter. Maybe I should make a graphic instead.
Did you ever study solfege? There are two systems, one uses a fixed “do” of “C,” and the other a relative “do” of whatever the tonic is — it changes with the key. Huge conflict between the proponents of each. Fights in the hall. It’s ugly.
I’m getting to my point. Most people view the labels “right,” “left,” “center” as fixed. But you treat them as relative to the Portland political spectrum.
Think of it this way: take a conservative state which has banned abortion. Two candidates are running for office. One wants the death penalty for any MD who provides an abortion. The other only wants that doctor to be imprisoned for 20 years. Would you call the 2nd doctor “left?”
That’s what people are getting hung up on.
I get centrist, actually, but the word moderate seems to want something after it. Does it mean a little right of center? Portland con? Endorsed by police union?
I’m not the one who decides what words mean. Folks have to do some research. I’m just trying to help folks have a bit of a rubric to understand all these new faces.
I think it was (Republican) Richard Nixon who said that to win the primaries, you have to steer towards the right; to win the general election, you had to steer as center as you can, to pick up non-partisan voters; once you get elected, you can go as far to the left as you want.
Jonathan, have you spent any time with the political compass (politicalcompass.org – https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2024 to go straight to a concrete example)?
It’s always been a folly to only use one axis for political description. In the context of national politics/national media, I’m cynically of the opinion that’s on purpose, so that “left” and “right” can be defined purely by culture wars (which really belong more on the authoritarian-libertarian scale), and leave wealth and power out of the discussion altogether (the true left-right scale).
We code being pro-police, for example, as being “right”, but it’s not – it’s authoritarian. Bodily autonomy for women as “left”, but it’s not – it’s libertarian.
I’m not sure how I’d apply this to some specific local/Portland issues, but it’s definitely worth mulling over.
Damien, I agree that the right-left scale is used by cultural warriors, nationally. I think some of that goes on locally too. STV in multi-member districts runs counter to that, and it is going to take getting used to by a lot of people.
The most salient outcome in this election is that we elected a council that is half women. That is really important to me. Why aren’t people shouting it from the rooftops? The next most important thing is that we got a nice balance of experienced versus newbie representatives.
Folks are struggling to see this on a left-right axis because it doesn’t lend itself to that analysis. What I expect to see is shifting groups of councilors coming together and apart depending on the issue. That’s how a healthy legislative body operates. But most people under 55 have never experienced that, hence the reflex to assign people to team right or team left.
really hope you aren’t including me into this group Lisa! I’ve tried to explain to you several times that I am using labels to help folks get a sense of where candidates stand on various issues (and many folks have told me they appreciate that because they were overwhelmed w all the candidates. I fully understand and appreciate that this election and these candidates mostly defy traditional left/right binaries and I love that about our new council and our politics in Portland right now.
Just mean that national politics became very polarized in the 1990s with ascent of hate radio and Newt Ginrich (sp?). Then the few moderate Republicans left in congress were taken out systematically in the 2000s. Most people have never experienced the two parties working together. Unless you are old, you have come of age in a very polarized environment.
My closest political friends in SD in the 1980s were Republicans — I disagreed w some on abortion, others on fiscal conservatism — but we were all environmentalists. That united us, and it is probably not something younger people have experienced. I’m 64.
thanks Damien. This is something I really care about and want to do as good as I can communicating political preferences. All the feedback on this thread and elsewhere have made me really appreciate how much care I need to take in using labels. But I can assure you that I am very very well aware of how labels can be harmful and how the media uses them and the impacts that has on our society. At the end of the day, the media has a job to give people a road map for how to understand someone and often labels are a good way to do that. I like to turn it around and tell people that part of being media literate is to know that a label used for someone isn’t trying to define their entire worldview, it’s just one adjective among many and that folks need to read and think critically to fully understand someone. I know that’s asking a lot and I don’t want to minimize the role of journalists to do that work, but there are real constraints on the media end that I don’t think folks outside the media always fully appreciate.
Yes – that one.
To get elected in Portland, you just have to talk a good game on cycling. But once elected, you cannot make anything other than incremental progress, since the vast majority still choose to drive everywhere. We need that paradigm to shift before any elected official has the cover to make radical changes.