If you want to listen to the debate David Pool posted the link on his Neighborhood News

http://www.news4neighbors.net/article.pl?sid=06/03/25/170213

It was a striking variety of candidates. An intersting debate.

At least this time the City Club's debate did not look like a Barbie and Ken show. The different views by all the candidates was contrasted nicely when we finally got to hear more of them. I did however notice Eric's mention of INFRASTRUCTURE, ECONOMY, and TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION which were first mentioned by SHARON NASSET at the Rose City Candidate Forum......makes you wonder. And by the way, I know of no one who chooses to sleep outdoors, get a grip homelessness is NOT a choice.....

I think Sten is guaranteed a minimum of 25% of the primary votes as the incumbent, and probably gets 40% to 45% unless he does something really stupid. Given Burdick's name recognition (and Boyles/Lister splitting the radicals on the left and the right), I doubt Sten receives 50% of the primary votes, no matter what happens between now and then. I believe this will become a three person race, but don't know if Lister or Boyles is the 3rd place spoiler: I prefer Lister, but doubt he can get more than 30% of the vote. If Sten gets less than 28% of the primary votes (which I see as impossible), then it could be Burdick vs. Lister in the General Election (very unlikely). The magic number to get into the primary (2nd slot) is 36%, or better.

I believe that under-40 "progressive" voters support Sten ("because he's our age" or "he cares", or "he's very concerned about the environment")and a majority of those over 50 will vote for Burdick or Lister, in addition to those (of all ages) who feel over-taxed and underserved.

The "anti-Sten/anti-establishment" vote will be split between Burdick, Boyles, and Lister.

Boyles will carry the Slavs, the musicians, and a certain component of the anti-incumbent progressives. I think the jugglers vote for Sten, as well as the greenies, the unions, and the soldiers-per-gallon crowd.

Here's my predictions for the primary

Sten......35%
Burdick...30%
Lister....22%
Boyles....11%
others.....2%

1. If Boyles has a good showing (better than 15% of the primary), then she hurts Burdick and Sten, and pushes Lister into the general election (vs. Sten)

2. If Burdick has a good showing (over 35%), then she and Sten go to the general.

3. If Lister has a good showing (over 35%), then he and Sten go to the general.

4. If Boyles has a good showing (over 25%), then Burdick and Sten go to the general.

If it's Sten vs. Burdick, I could care less. Ditto for Kulongoscopi vs. Saxton.

The O did cover this in Sunday's Steve Duin's column. It seems to lean toward Sten. That and the Replay of Graggs TRAM piece, make you wonder "who's minding the O's Store, they also lost their Public Editor this week, so we can send our questions to the O defender of the week.

Ses: I know of three "homeless" individuals in my neighborhood that prefers to be "homeless". It is a choice for many.

It would be a shame if it comes down to Sten v. Burdick. I was at the debate and could not have been more turned off by Burdick.

I think Boyles is a little too "wacky" and would make a great advisor, but not too sure about her leadership ability for this position.

Lister is an interesting candidate who I am leaning towards.

I do like Sten (I am 30) but really, I think it's time our local government get a little change. In my opinion, Sten is a little too much of a politician. Our local politicians need a little "charge" and I think this seat is a great example and good place to start.

I'm voting for Lister.

I do like the idea that Boyles comes across as not very politically sophisticated, but Lister gets Alpha Geek points, and he's been more outspoken on putting basic city services ahead of "visioning" and other ethereal goals.

Maybe no one chooses homelessness if the other choices include freebies and handouts, but if the other choices involve unappealing options like work and personal responsibility then it's a de facto choice some folks make. Not every homeless person - but quite a few. The fact that ses doesn't know any of them simply means he/she is talking through his/her hat (to put it politely).

Lister, like anyone with common sense, sees this fact and, unlike the other candidates, isn't afraid to state it. I find that refreshing and exactly what's missing from the other PC drones who can't open their mouths without first sticking their finger in the air.

"What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice."
--Ronald Reagan

Thought I had heard that expression before. Lister has lost my vote by association.

Derbinlge,

That appears to be a giant leap. Let's try and be clear and fair.
I think Lister, like nearly everyone understands there is a homeless problem and certain needs the city must meet. He was addressing the abundant numbers of homeless who choose the lifestyle. Not so much to live outside necessarily but to live as vagrants, panhandle and occupy shelters.
He certainly wasn't implying ALL homeless people choose that lifestyle as you are suggesting.

I believe that his point was that a segment of the homeless population is here because Portland has a reputation for excessively generous services without means or impairment testing. Handouts.
Is it your contention that this aspect of homelessness is nonexistent?
Or are you attempting to miscast Lister's position as something it isn't?
Frankly I agree with rickyragg that it is refreshing. Lister didn't give some lip service to the homeless problem. He said there are some who don't need help and the main problem he hasn't an answer for. He never suggested stopping all homeless programs or anything else.

I watched SF Mayor Willie Brown on the news a couple years back declare that there is no answer for the homeless problem.
They had thrown millions at the problem and it did no good. That's what he said.

So have you interpreted something in Lister's response to the on the spot debate question that is supposed to signal something bad for the Portland homeless problem?

If you have the answer that SF, their Mayor Willie Brown and countless $millons never found please speak up.

I was at the debate, though I'm not a City Club member. I was very much impressed by both Sten (gasp!) and Lister - I'm still on the fence between the two. However, Burdyk and Boyles both struck me as extremely bad choices. I think Burdyk would actually be worse than Sten as far as what everybody on this blog complains about (as Lister put it, the 'status quo').

Sharon, I know another great quote. It's about arguing on the Internet. Google that phrase and understand why I'm bowing out.

I loved Duin's saying Mr Lister is about complaints, but not solutions - OK, give me Sten's solutions.

I think Erik has Duin and BlueOregon in his pocket for whatever reason.

At the risk of sounding trite, I think seeing "the homeless" as individuals with individual problems and circumstances that led to the street is the best way to approach to the problem. The homeless population is as complex and textured as any other. And in this town, I have seen more wisdom and received more ministry from people at the bottom than from those in leadership positions. I don't think there are easy answers. But it starts with recognizing their humanity and not assuming the worst in all cases.

I just read the Erik Sten endorsement written by Steve Duin in his Friday column.

To summarize:
1. Erik doing a great job and Portland is in fine shape, lots of construction cranes prove what a great job Erik's doing.
2. Ginny is a corrupt hack, who will be lucky to place 3rd, and her corrupt employer (Ghengis & Gerber) are evil, and she was a corrupt legislator too, and...and...and...
3. Emilie is an air-head, and should endorse Erik before it's too late.
4. Dave is a nice guy, who's too cheap to make big important decisions.

If the Big O doesn't disclose who the editorial page is sleeping with, there's no need for a columnist to fake any pretense of impartiality.

Duin is a self-professed rube, but a reasonable writer. So he should realize that the cliche about Lister complaining but not having solutions simply grates.

Imho, if those responsible for O's general spin were to do things today, credibility would improve:

1. Quit with the above-mentioned tired old saw, and

2. Quit with the presumption that all compromise is good.

I was happy to see Dan Meek featured on the front page of the Business section today, but flinched at the headline "No Middle Ground". Meek is a tireless and brilliant public advocate. The O sinks when it gives credence to the smear tactics of the goliaths he battles. . Despite Goldschmitty rhetoric to the contrary, not all compromise is good. Integrity and public trust, for example should not be subject to a deal maker's hand (although they often are in these parts). And it isn't really what consensus building is about. A few years back, I took a public policy mediation short course at Pepperdine where we were taught that parties must first figure out what it is that cannot be compromised before they even begin the process of consensus building .

Sometimes, Big O, there really is not a middle ground. Around here it's like "oh, yeah, cops, Mafia,thieves,everybody is equal.."so long as you are not an "outsider" that is.

If you think everthing is swell in the Rivercity and you like a slick pol, then by all means vote for Sten. But if you share the feeling that Portland politics is sour, and the staus quo is not working, then take a step back and look at Dave Lister. Dave is a common sense small businessman, we can do better than a fast talking professional politician. Sten has to say everything is great, after all, he is the one with a 12 year record on the council to defend.

Is Sten's story that everything is great reflect the reality you read in the newspapers and see on T.V.? Is city hall managing your tax money wisely?

DerBingle -
Did you happen to miss the stories regarding the family that was living rather WELL as 'homeless'? They seemed to be bilking both the public at large and the public institutions (like welfare) - a PRIME example of some folks who CHOOSE to live the life of a homeless person. No one would claim that all the homeless are like that, but after giving $5.00 to a young, homeless couple last night (claimed that she was 8 weeks pregnant trying to get home to mom, both she and the boyfriend looked VERY capable of getting a job), it just reinforced my opinion that there are indeed MANY people who indeed CHOOSE to live the life of a 'homeless' person.

MMarvel, I know another great quote. It's about arguing on the Internet. Google that phrase and understand why I'm bowing out.

C'mon, give the poverty sticken the honor of a real choice!
Sorry for a bit of misdirection, but I cannot contain my jerking knee. Often the resources necessary to making one self reliant are beyond the means of those who might otherwise choose to grow.
Think of an expanded dignity village, or better yet, follow Australia's lead: S.W. Australia (think Perth) funds with tax dollars, cooperatives of families and individuals who help design, build, and reside in highly efficient homes with cooperative gardens, recycling, and a number of responsibilities which are enforced through disqualification from further residency. They exist in communities within even modest towns, such as Margaret River a small community SW of Perth. The residents stay as long as they maintain their qualifications and responsibilities. It would be interesting to find out the success rate of the poverty stricken moving to productivity under this more humane program of helping us help ourselves - and that applies to us all. How about a more humane choice? Let's hear solutions folks?? Experience + knowledge = wisdom.
Let's find some. Peace y'all! (sorry for the diversion!)