Below is my letter to the Mayor and Commissioners. Please call or email them and let them know about your transportation priorities.

–

Dear Mr. Mayor and Commissioners,

While I could take this opportunity to stand on my soap box and solidly argue why you should only fund bicycle and pedestrian projects in your transportation budget, I think Portland’s reputation as a progressive city is due to the fact that we are shifting away from car culture slowly by funding many transportation options.

That being said, how can you cut bike and pedestrian projects in your transportation budget!? Especially (ESPECIALLY!) safe routes to school? It’s bad enough that our generation is rooted in car culture, but we have a choice to give future generations options on how to get around our walkable and bikeable city that don’t rely on an internal combustion engine.

The most ridiculous comment I heard in the blogosphere since the PBOT budget was requested was that safe routes to school should be cut because parents should be teaching their kids how to walk and bike.

Quite frankly, our children need to be teaching us.

Please fund biking and walking projects in Portland. Correction… OVER-fund biking and walking projects in Portland.

Sincerely,
Scott Yelton

MTCY&NPG representatives propose their plan to Portland City Council

First, the act of presenting in front of City Council is something I am troubled by. I’ve written a lot about hierarchical systems and the need to move past them, and testifying in front of council yesterday is very symbolic of why we need to do this. Part of me enjoys the pomp and circumstance (or at the very least, the formality of it) but it is INTIMIDATING! Even for someone like me, who is comfortable speaking in front of a large audience, I get shaky and nervous expressing my point of view in front of three powerful men with a clock ticking off the seconds of my allotted time (three men because Adams disappeared, Saltzman was a no show, and Fritz hasn’t been sworn in yet).

Maybe it’s part of life and I need to just deal, but I don’t think the setup encourages thoughful, honest interaction.

It is along those same lines that I bring up my second point about yesterday. Almost immediately after my testimony – which wasn’t much more than agreeing with what others had said and espousing the need for collaboration – I got an email from a trusted friend and fellow MTCY&NPG member, Pete, about my lack of honesty what I chose to emphasize in my testimony.

He and I have pushed, and screamed, and whined to break away from “traditional” collaboration models to move toward interactive communication using blogs, wikis, bulletin boards, online calendars, and the like, but never saw it come to fruition for reasons we can only guess at.

I appreciate that he is holding me to task on this issue, and in hindsight I would have reworded much of my testimony. But since I can’t go back in time (yet…), I’m jumping on the interactive communication band wagon and putting my thoughts on this blog.

I still hold to the notion that this process did a good job of including parties that traditionally wouldn’t have been included in the detailed conversations, and for that I am thankful. That said, however, we are missing an amazing opportunity to expand our collaboration to not only include more interested parties, but to do so in an efficient manner – efficient with time and efficient with tax payers dollars.

Again, I won’t rehash the details, but will direct you to my previous blog entries that cover my thesis project, specifically the chapters on Web 2.0 and my Conclusion.

The path to true collaboration isn’t easy, nor is it well documented, but we have the opportunity to do so much more, especially in an environment conducive to thoughfulness, honesty, and collective expertise.

“As we all know – the economic downturn is hitting us all.  Portland Parks & Recreation is planning for significant budget cuts in the next several years and needs your help.“

Parks will be using our feedback to plan their budgets accordingly and I urge you to fill out the survey.

However, I think it’s a poor survey. Actually, I think it’s a poor budget cutting process. Though I’m sure that our input will help Parks prioritize, they’re merely moving numbers around on a spreadsheet which only encourages furthering this broken system.

The economic downturn is hitting us all, and we need solutions that aren’t the same old, same old. Acquire land and keep acquiring land – but keep it open, keep it wild, keep it protected. Swimming pools and art classes are wonderful, but they’re expensive investments that have been created to entertain a society that has done away with nature.

Let’s prioritize wisely. And Parks, if you’re reading this, re-vamp your survey (at least put a comment section in it).

Dear Mr. Mayor Elect Adams… From your communique:

• Nearly half our city’s eighth graders drop out before receiving a high school diploma. This is an economic and financial time-bomb: dropouts earn on average $300,000 less over their lifetimes than high school graduates. Meanwhile 75% of state prison inmates never graduated from high school.

• Portland is facing local impacts of what some economists fear will be the worst national recession since the Great Depression. It is estimated that up to 30% of Portlanders are trying to make ends meet
at a poverty wage job or are unemployed.

This global depression (recession, whatever you want to call it) is begging for thinking that goes “beyond the box.”

Let us use all the key phrases that gets measures, bonds, bills, etc. (ie. policy) passed by the majority/double majority when needed – such as “investing in our future,” “sustainability,” “economic development,” etc. (I know, there are a lot of “etc.s” here, which is sort of my point), and connect the dots to find that:

These dropouts – and really, a lot of today’s kids, no matter what grade and what “passing” level they’re at – are telling us something obvious – that the system is broken. We are paying more attention to this now because the entire global financial system is broken… or at the very least, breaking.

We also know that these children – all children – are the key to our future. And it’s not because they will be able to recite passages from famous text.  It will be because we will give them the opportunity to follow what is true in life.

We need to invest in our children – our future – by allowing them access to the real meaning of life. The art of growing a garden. The art of connecting humankind with its surroundings. The art of calling bullshit, bullshit – that “fair trade” with China isn’t fair. And what’s worse is that it follows a path that led us into this global mess.

Our children, in these times, are asking to be engaged differently (in the round-about-way teenagers ask).

Mr. Mayor-Elect, invest in our future. Don’t encourage change that in reality asks these children to simply digest textbooks to help them pass standardized tests – ask them to provide for our future. Ask them to tend a garden. Ask them to build bicycle frames. Ask them to design greywater systems that restore natural habitat and save tax payer’s money. Ask them to re-code city policy that allows for greywater systems!

Embrace the role of “non-traditional mayor” and right this ship. Remind us of what is important in life.

Members of the MTCY&NPG meet with Susan McKinney, Supervising Planner for the Bureau of Development Services.

I was able to participate in the meeting with the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) yesterday, September 10, to discuss whether or not the construction of a new maintenance yard and nursery is “accessory” or “non-conforming” use.  There was much back on forth on what the different categorizations mean to this process, so my understanding is only one point of view.  This is what I got out of the conversation and the repercussions for MTCY&NPG:

If deemed “accessory,” we continue along the path we’ve been traveling along – which is to update the yard and give the employees a safe, efficient working space on land that has been used for the same purposes for a while now.  As a group, we’ve highlighted the need to minimize the footprint, and I think we have been rewarded by Opsis’ designs.  Regardless of which option is chosen, an accessory use would allow Parks to continue with the same services the yard provides, as well as add some to increase efficiency.  An accessory use would keep us on pace to complete the project in the time frame we agreed to.

If the update is deemed “non-conforming” use, the redesign would trigger a land use review because zoning would need to be updated/adjusted.  This is about all I could comprehend (if I could comprehend it all).  It would definitely add time and layers to our work.

My take is that I think as the MTCY&NPG, we can trust that the partnership we’ve built will watch-dog this process and deliver what it promises. I agree with what Maija said in the meeting with BDS – that if the update was categorized as accessory use, it would change nothing about the transparency of this process.

I think we’re laying the foundation for an equitable process for all issues concerning Mt. Tabor.  And 10 – 15 years from now, when a cherished Portland business approaches Mayor Kennedy-Wong with grand visions of building bowling alleys and cyber cafés at the summit, she will 1) stick her fingers in her ears, and 2) personally escort them to the monthly meeting of the Mt Tabor Neighborhood Association to meet with neighbors first before coming to her.

I have great faith in this process.

My concern, however, is when this tight knit group dissipates – whether in 16 years, or 30 years.  If we don’t legally and ritualistically dot our Is and cross our Ts through all the red tape, are we setting up the next generation for heart break when the City realizes that they can designate anything done to Mt. Tabor an accessory use?

Maybe not, because Mt. Tabors neighbors are so thorough.  But how about at other Portland parks where neighbors don’t have the luxury of monitoring all that happens in their parks – they don’t have research teams who are adept at understanding city policy?  Are we doing them a disservice by skirting the rules?

I hesitate because of the interaction we had with Greg from the Water Bureau (see my previous post on that issue).  Once it’s out of the hands of 40+ dedicated community members, the system will continue to produce the same results by trying to make/save a buck. It’s our nature… I hate to admit that I’d end up drinking cappuccinos and bowling a couple frames at the Summit Cafe and Bowling Alley.

If I’ve miscomprehended the terms accessory and non-conforming (or anything else), please let me know and I can make the appropriate changes.

The benefits of biking are abundant and easy to define: regular exercise to keep my body and mind fit, ease of skirting traffic jams, and little reliance on petroleum based energy spring to mind (‘little’ because I am curious about the trade off of paying less at the pump for paying more at the grocery store as my caloric intake has had to increase to replace the energy my body puts out).  The greatest benefit I found, however, goes far beyond classical reasons that biking is advantageous, and deals with connecting with others.

I read recently in a Willamette Week article focused on Portland’s dating scene that a common rendezvous is to take a bike ride.  Apparently connection is a classical reason to jump on a bike, but through my bike expeditions, I found that connection is much more than finding a compatible mate.

On an journey to Mt. Tabor for some fresh air and 360 degree views of Portland, my path took me away from established bike routes and I found myself lost in a maze of dead end streets in southeast Portland.  Deciding that I’d rather not waste time disoriented with my surroundings, I opted to take a busier thoroughfare that I knew connected with a bike boulevard that would take me to my destination.

Though traffic was heavy, it slowed to a standstill ahead of me.  I chuckled at the long lines of commuters sipping their latte’s and gabbing on their cell phones waiting for whatever mess was ahead of them to be cleared out.  All were firmly in their seats itching to move along with their day, absorbed only in their self-interest of how late they were for their various appointments.  I cruised past all of them, admittedly flaunting my ability to flow right past this bottleneck.

Ahead of the traffic jam, however, I halted.  A fellow bicyclist was sprawled on the asphalt, an apparent victim of a run in with a four wheeled counterpart.  The image was disturbing enough, but most depressing was that except for a lone bystander on a cell phone standing 10 yards from the injured man, no one came to his aid.  I leapt off my bike, placing it squarely in the middle of the intersection blocking more traffic (mischievously wanting all the commuters to ‘pay’ for their selfishness) and knelt down to the side of the bicyclist.

Through my inquiries, I found that 911 had been called and an ambulance was on its way (apparently not everyone was as selfish as I first thought), but I did my best to address the injured man.  Not trained in first aid or CPR, I knew little about what to do, but I consoled him as best I could.  Conscious and able to talk, Chuck (the injured bicyclist) relayed what had happened, how it had been a beautiful day to ride and about how his wife was at home, expecting him any minute and would worry when he didn’t arrive.

Covering him with a borrowed blanket, I consoled him by expressing our shared contempt for car culture and made promises to call his wife to inform her of the situation.  I did little for his physical well being, but his gratitude for my attention seeped out of him.  Looking deep into each others eyes, we connected in a way that few people connect in their daily passing – certainly more than those commuters still locked in their vehicles, cut off from the world around them.  Though unspoken, we agreed that our journey on bikes, no matter how outnumbered, was a quest worthy of pursuit.

“Supporting China in its efforts to become sustainable is not only a moral imperative; it is also an economic opportunity.  One of the goals of the trip will be to place Portland and its businesses in a strategic position to benefit from the ‘greening’ of China,” says Adams. (For text of the entire email, please read It’s Time for Portland to SELL more good and services TO China)

If you have followed any of my rhetoric on sustainability (see my Sustainability post on this blog) you know that I advocate balancing the economy, the environment, and equity.  Adams is touting the economic and environmental benefits of trade partnerships between Portland and Asia, but looking to boost our bottom line at the expense of human rights is in no way sustainable. Oh, it’d be nice to see all of our wallets get a little fatter – especially with economic conditions in America worsening everyday – but we are past getting rich by repressing people (or at least I hope we are trying to get past that).

If we in Portland were true leaders in sustainability, we would make a stand and show the world that to progress in the 21st century, supporting regimes that rule with an iron fist is not acceptable.

In my dream of dreams, Adams would visit China touting our goods and services that they cannot live without, but before contracts are signed, money is distributed, and our products set sail across the Pacific, we declare that absolutely no deals will be made until Tibet is free.

Let Mayor-Elect Adams know your thoughts at:

samadams@ci.portland.or.us
1221 SW 4th Ave., Rm 202
Portland, OR 97204
tel: 503-823-4128
fax: 503-823-3017
www.commissionersam.com

Land ownership of Mt. Tabor is complicated and not something I completely understand (does anybody?…) but, in a nut shell, the Water Bureau owns part of the land that the maintenance yard sits upon. If/when the re-design of the yard occurs, the Water Bureau is requesting that they “trade” the piece of land they own for an equivalent piece of land near Mt. Tabor to be used as a staging area for future construction projects on or near Mt. Tabor (e.g. work on the water reservoirs).

A couple of things bother me about their request.

Future staging area for Portland Water Bureau construction projects

First, the area that the Water Bureau is requesting is just north of the maintenance yard on land that is currently open space near the dog park. This area works for the Water Bureau because it is large enough to store heavy machinery, it allows for easy access to the reservoirs, and it doesn’t interfere with public access to the park. The Water Bureau expressed how the staging area would be temporary – used only during the time of construction. However, storage of heavy machinery, tools, and materials for a period of time would do irreparable damage to the wildness of the land.

I understand that materials and machinery need to be stored some place, but are there other options? Could they be stored on another spot on Mt. Tabor that isn’t currently open space, such as the playground or the “airstrip” (as I like to call it) above Reservoir #5?

Could the Water Bureau use this land above Reservoir #5 as a staging area

I’m not a fan of shutting down the playground for a couple of years, but my point is that using this area won’t harm the land further because it has already been compromised. And neighbors would get a refurbished playground once the Water Bureau is done (and possibly an added incentive for the City to get in and get out?)

And why not use the “airstrip?” Could somebody please let me know what this area is used for.

The second issue I have deals with the new road that will be built around SE 64th.  Via city code, any updates to the maintenance yard land triggers a ruling that a road be built connecting SE Division to SE Lincoln ajoining the property.  The planning group has known about this ruling and we are working the new road into our plans in hopes of creating a southern entrance into the park that is limited to pedestrian and bike access only.

The Water Bureau seemed satisfied with this idea, but stated that if/when the road is needed for construction, it would become fully accessible to vehicles. Neighbors asked if the vehicle access road could be deconstructed afterward, to which Greg replied, “let’s talk about the economics of that…”

We didn’t have that discussion because it veered us off topic, but the Water Bureau’s point bothers me and it needs to be investigated because it veers away from all we have discussed about being sustainable.

One of the points about sustainability that I have presented to the group – at meetings and in my thesis project – is that we prioritize the environment, economy, and equity in our planning considerations. That we’re together as neighbors, city officials, and employees discussing options makes this an equitable process. That the group, along with Opsis (our design firm), is pursuing green building standards shows that we are dedicated to the environment. But when more players become active in the process – in this case the Water Bureau – we are immediately brought back to the “reality” that economics holds the most significance in our decisions.

Economics does play a HUGE role in this process, and I realize it’s a much easier sell to the public if the tax dollars being spent are low(er). But aren’t we past realizing that when we carve up, trample down, pave over, and dismantle nature we find ourselves in quite a conundrum? That when you pave over half the world the weather gets a little bit crazy? That when we make an access road for maintenance vehicles only, 10 years later it’s ane anvenue for congested traffic on Division to cut the light at 60th and skirt across the hill…. or 20 years later it’s a major thoroughfare, complete with stop lights and (hopefully) cross walks?

If the Water Bureau needed to build the road for their construction project(s), one solution would be to leave some sledgehammers and jackhammers behind and let the neighbors take care of the deconstruction (and maybe a truck or two to haul away the asphalt).  This isn’t that crazy of an idea – see what others have done at www.depave.org.

I think the least we can do is talk about this some more because having the Water Bureau walk in and say this is the way it is doesn’t feel collaborative.

Please comment.

Regardless, I felt it was something I could share with you on my blog…

Much of what I wrote about in my project paper had to do with communication. Though I proposed that the interactive internet be utilized in government/community interactions, the suggestion I made on my comment card was far from the group harnessing new technology.  It still deals with communication, because it seems that contention is still prevalent at times – highlighted at last night’s meeting, but it’s often there – for a number of reasons.  I think it’s due to time constraints – this is just my opinion, but I think we’d all like to talk, and talk, and talk.

So my proposal (comment) is that we talk… outside of the meetings. We could do this on blogs but what if we got together for a social gathering(s) to get to know each other? We could talk shop and/or talk about our lives and values. This could be as simple as walking/conversing on Mt. Tabor, or as intermediate as a potluck, or as extravagant as a camping off-site.

Yes, this is where it veers toward the ridiculous (at the very least it’d be logistically, um… nuts), but besides the benefits of 1) getting an opportunity to explore issues together for longer than a couple of minutes, and 2) getting away from fluorescent lights, it would make a great marketing tool. Knowing that we have to present this to the council and to the community, images of Parks and the community engaging in innovative ways will go a long way in helping pass this update to the master plan.

Oh, and most importantly, I think it would help dissipate the contention and misunderstandings.

Anderson, J. (2004, June 22). Activist’s secret? Words, words, words. The Portland Tribune. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from www.portlandtribune.com

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

City of Portland (1999, June). Maintenance facilities plan: Guidelines for improvement and development. Portland, OR: Portland Parks & Recreation

City of Portland (2000, January). Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan Report. Portland, OR: Portland Parks & Recreation.

City of Portland. (2003, April). Portland City Council Agenda. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=16377

City of Portland Office of Mayor Potter. (2006). Report on Portland’s neighborhood association. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from: www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=159929

City of Portland (2005, April). Portland’s green building policy: A status report and recommendations. Portland, OR.  Retrieved March 23, 2008 from: www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=41701

City of Portland (2008, April). Operating protocols. Portland, OR: Portland Parks & Recreation

Edwards, A.R. (2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers

Friends of the Reservoirs. (2004). Friends wins revenue bond case. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from www.friendsofreservoirs.org

Geller, C.A. (2004). Friends of the reservoirs. Retrieved April 16, 2008 from www.friendsofreservoirs.org

Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438.

Gordon, J. & Berry, J. (2006). Environmental leadership equals essential leadership: Redefining who leads and how. New Haven & London: Yale University Press

Jones, A. (2008, January/February). A case of collaboration made simple. Econtent, 31, 44-46

Lappe′, F.M. (2007). Getting a grip: Clarity, creativity and courage in a world gone mad. Cambridge: Small Planet Media

LeCompte, M. & Schensul, J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Leighninger, M. (2006). The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance. Vanderbilt: University Press

Lin, K.J. (2007, May). Building web 2.0. Computer. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/menuitem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3 index.jsp?&pName=computer_level1_article&TheCat=1075&path=computer/homepage/May07&file=webtech.xml&xsl=article.xsl&

Mazza, D. (2004, June). Panel votes not to bury reservoir. The Portland Alliance. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from www.theportlandalliance.org

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from O’Reilly website at:
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press

Pein, C. (2007, November 28). Lowball landscaping: Prison can be a walk in the park. Willamette Week. pp. 8

Quiggin, J. (2006). Blogs, wikis and creative innovation. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 481-496.

Schwinn, C.J., Kesler, J.T., Schwinn, D.R. (2005). Learning Democracy Centers.  In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century. (pp. 228-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shirky, C. (2003). A group is its own worst enemy. Retrieved May 31, 2008 from the Clay Shirky website at: www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Shirky, C. (2008, May). Gin, television, and social surplus. Retrieved May 17, 2008 from the World Changing website at: www.worldchanging.com/archives/008009.html

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: The Penguin Press

South Tabor Neighborhood Association. (2006, October). A message from Warner Pacific regarding campus expansion. South Tabor Neighborhood Association. (2007, January). STNA: General meeting minutes.

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Penguin Books

Travel Portland (n.d.) Portland, Oregon, in the news.  Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Travel Portland website: www.travelportland.com/media/portland_in_news.html

United Nations. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development. General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from Wikipedia website at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Linux.  Retrieved June 1, 2008, from Wikipedia website at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

Wikipedia (n.d.). Wikipedia.  Retrieved May 18, 2008, from Wikipedia website at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-6