Recent reports make me think that most of the folks in that race are not going to qualify for public financing. Lewis might, but it will be tough for him to make it. Weiner can't; he started way too late. It's not looking good for Chris Smith, either.

I know you will all beat me up for this too, but the public "incumbent insurance" plan also ensures that challengers spend the first few months of their race getting signatures, rather than campaigning. Yeah, I know, there's no incumbent in this race, but when there is that's just another way this plan gives them an edge.

Go ahead and shoot now....

I am pondreing my vote, assuming it will be either Lewis or Ms Fritz. I like both, if for nothing else, they start to break up the Mafia regime we have now.

I am undecided on Lewis, though, he does seem to be pretty slick, but at least he started his campaign focusing on potholes.

"Bust a move for Charles Lewis"
"Become one of Charlie's Angels"
"Get on the Chuck wagon"
"Charles takes on Stephen Colbert with a 700 pound bear"

and so on.

Charles, you seem like you care a lot. but if you're reading this: cut it out. stop pandering to hipsterism and ironic cuteness (like so many others), and take a stab at being a visionary leader, or at least produce some sort of clear vision that tackles the systemic problems we're facing. hint: potholes are waaay down the list.

meanwhile--I'm leaning towards Amanda Fritz.

Amanda Fritz has my $5--and my vote.

Fritz is a perennial candidate. If her ideas were so revolutionary and groundbreaking, she would have declared against Adams.

Unless, of course she approves of his handling of all his various pet projects and the way he handled the Chavez debacle.

Sheez, c'mon people....

Fritz a perennial candidate? She's run once before. How does that make her a "perennial candidate"?

From Merriam-Webster.

Its definition of perennial.

Given her blog and deciding to run two cycles in a row it sounds a lot like Fritz to me.

1: present at all seasons of the year
2: persisting for several years usually with new herbaceous growth from a perennating part
3 a: persistent, enduring b: continuing without interruption : constant, perpetual c: regularly repeated or renewed : recurrent

It is good to know that eyesore building is going to be renovated. My bus goes by it everyday and I always think about what a beautiful building it would be if someone had the time and money to clean it up. That alone will not win my vote for Mr. Lewis but it is a positive for the neighborhood. For the record, I am a lifetime resident of that part of town, not a hipster or a member of the creative class. Just a working class person who appreciates improvements.

I gave Fritz $5 BECAUSE she has publicly disagreed with the Chavez Blvd. fiasco from the beginning.

The name change committee has already stated they will be back after the first of the year, and as an Interstate Ave resident, my vote will go to a candidate who opposes changing the name of my street. Sorry Rojo DeSteffey.

No Dave, Fritz is a perennial candidate. She has run for other offices before her first city council run.

And lost.

In the primary.

Big time.

Fritz has never yet carried her ome precinct.

The Harold Stassen of SW Portland wanna' be's, yt again seeking to collect welfare for politicians.

I am pondreing my vote, assuming it will be either Lewis or Ms Fritz. I like both, if for nothing else, they start to break up the Mafia regime we have now.

If you think Fritz will "break up" anything, I believe you'll be disappointed. Other than being a woman, there isn't enough substantive difference from the existing "Mafia regime" to distinguish her as anything really "new". I think the operative term might be "...she will break into the Mafia regime...".

Once she breaks in, any alleged differences, new ideas or approaches she may tout will be devoured by the beast of citguv. I don't think you'll hear much wailing as she's digested and you won't see much difference in the end result.

I wasn't aware that Amanda had sought office prior to two years ago, but my idea of a perennial candidate is someone like Lew Humble, who is in the voters pamphlet every election, for any available position.

Fritz hasn't clearly laid out any sort of plan. As much as I like the idea of her, this must change if she wants to win.

It is good to know that eyesore building is going to be renovated. My bus goes by it everyday and I always think about what a beautiful building it would be if someone had the time and money to clean it up.

he's not "renovating" the building, according to the press release and other sources. he's replacing the windows and giving it a good sweep; then, when the campaign's over, giving it back to the owner (with some unboarded windows and slightly cleaner.)

The Amanda Fritz who has quietly collected almost 900 donations in the current race for Portland City Council has run for public office only once before, in May 2006.

Portlandmodest, Portland has plenty of plans, that have been adopted after great citizen involvement and diligent staff work. We need someone on the Council who knows those plans exist, and is eager to implement them. Portland has enough vision. Citizens deserve more results.

All of which reminds me: Season 4 of The Wire is finally out on DVD!

While Amanda's lean to the left worries me, I think her character is what City Hall really needs. I honestly can't see her wasting money on pet projects as the others have. If you think she's going to be just like the others, you probably haven't met her.

Portland has plenty of plans, that have been adopted after great citizen involvement and diligent staff work. We need someone on the Council who knows those plans exist, and is eager to implement them. Portland has enough vision. Citizens deserve more results.

thanks, Amanda. i mostly agree with you. but i'm not convinced that all the plans we need actually exist.

and when i say "vision", i think i'm looking for a candidate who can articulate the critical problems clearly, then (as you say) get some results. put those two together and i'd call it a "vision".

as you can guess, i'm more focused on the environment and human health.

Ecohuman. You smack of elitism. Ask the people in the community what the Albina Arts Center used to stand for in NE Portland. Ask the people what type of drug dealing and violent crimes have occurred on that once proud corner of NE Portland. Ask them if they care that, to use your own words,

"he's not "renovating" the building, according to the press release and other sources. he's replacing the windows and giving it a good sweep; then, when the campaign's over, giving it back to the owner (with some unboarded windows and slightly cleaner.)"

Ask them what's its like to have this once symbol of the community opening up again and what it means to the neighborhood. Or I guess, you'd only be happy if it were an "environmentally friendly" Whole Foods.

I'm wasting my votes on write-ins for all three open city council seats, but might be persuaded by Lewis. Lewis' volunteerism appeals to me a lot more than the heavy hand of government used by the current slate of coucilors (Mayor included). The others, including encumbents, mostly advocate for borrowing, taxing and spending heavily on building the downtown fiefdom or futile attempts at wealth redistribution.

Ecohuman. You smack of elitism.

thanks, man. your analysis of my entire personality and life goals based on a blog post is astounding.

Ask them what's its like to have this once symbol of the community opening up again and what it means to the neighborhood.

as far as i can tell, it's not "opening up again". did you read the press release? it implies it's being used for a campaign headquarters, then shut again. it's not open for public use.

so, i'm confused. can you help me understand what's "elitist" about my reading of the press release?

As Todd H. once famously said on this website, "Ecohuman......stick a fork in it."

anonymous "pdx man", my thoughts exactly.

Ecohuman. You smack of elitism.

It's not elitism, it's just focus.

Is that so bad?

Would any candidate that is trying to get the necessary signatures to obtain money from the City of Portland Party (an official Political Action Committee under anyone's definition) desire to join in a judicial action to make that number of signatures a prerequisite to placement of any candidate's name on the ballot? I wouldn't want any candidate that is NOT seeking to obtain signatures to NOT BE ON NOTICE of contemplated action.

If the challenge of gaining signatures is not too burdensome to demonstrate public support for a few public bucks then it surely would not be too burdensome to gain placement of one's name on the ballot, wholly irrespective of the validity of the delivery of public campaign dollars to some candidates but not all candidates based on the content of their speech. (Consider the challenge of Ms Lopez Torres. Lots of reading from the lower court too.)

Excuse me but Citizen Smith has already been annointed to that possition.

i think i'm looking for a candidate who can articulate the critical problems clearly, then (as you say) get some results. put those two together and i'd call it a "vision".

Vision --seeing-- is only one of the senses. There's also listening...and I appreciate Amanda's willingness to listen to what folks have to say, and not just give back pre-packaged well-spun answers, but thoughtful responses to new information. Being a good listener --as Amanda is-- is an underappreciated virtue, especially in someone running for office.

I'm a lot more serious than Sam, just a lot less name recognition.

Also, I look much less dorky in a yellow bike helmet.

Wait until we meet in the Mayor's Mile at Alpenrose in the spring!

I think Scam Tram likes to play dress up.

I plan on giving $5 to all the candidates because I want to see as many qualify for public funding as possible.

If a candidate is serious, has the credentials and smarts, and is working hard to get contributions, I think they deserve a shot at public funding (whether I intend to vote for them or not).

As for Chris Smith... I heard the Oregonian got the numbers wrong and he's actually got well over 500 contributions so far.

Remember to not always believe everything you read in the media ;-).

My prediction is that Fritz and Lewis will be the only two to qualify.

Then, After Jan 1 Rojo de Steffey will jump in and scoop up the money from the PBA and the developers.

Then there will be three candidates with the money to mount a campaign.

If we're making predictions, I say Fritz, Lewis, Smith, and Branam all qualify. Rojo de Steffey also gets in but doesn't use public financing.

Rojo de Steffey gets a plurality in the primary, but not a majority (I'm guessing 40%). It's a free-for-all among the other four, but I think in the end it comes down to Fritz and Branam, both at between 15-20% of the vote. If I had to put money down, it would be on Fritz, but I've always thought Branam is a sleeper in this race.

Miles,
Interesting prediction. It's going to be fun to watch how it all comes down. My own view is that Rojo de Steffey comes in with too much Multnomah County baggage to be able to win. We'll see.

I agree that it will be tough for Rojo de Steffey to win the general since her negatives are so high and you have to get to 50%. But I see her coasting through the primary given name recognition and a motivated base of support.

It will be really tough for Marie. When the Sellwood Bridge further fails this spring; the Sauvie Island Bridge is lifted into place and doesn't fit (like Fremont); when Wheeler adds up the Multnomah Co. bridge maintenance again and discovers we need $2B for maintenance; and when any opposing candidate asks the obvious question, "Marie, as being the self proclaimed bridge troll county commissioner for over 8 years, why are we having these bridge disasters?", then the camouflage will unravel.

Add in the underhanded gay marriage, Chavez, the county jail, husband on the gravy train/conflict of interest, Goldschmidt Mafia issues, then it will be tough for her if she is held accountable.

Jonathan,

I'll put on my professor's hat for a moment: you operate under the mistaken assumption (shared by the Auditor, who expressed similar concerns that candidates who are 'working hard' may not qualify) that more candidates is necessarily better.

Quite the opposite is true most often--the more choices citizens face (particularly when information levels are very low, as they will be in this race), the more likely you will get a bad result. Candidates supported by a small but committed minority have a better chance fo moving on to the general, and broadly appealing candidates tend to do worse.

(Why? Because there tends to be more of the broadly appealing candidates, and then they knock each other off in a "top two" primary system, allowing a lower tier candidate to slip in.)

We MUST have some sort of pre-election screening device like 1000 contributions. The question I have is whether the bar is high enough (again, contrary to Auditor Blackmer, who at times has talked about lowering the bar even further.)

Candidates who can't make 1000 contributions have failed to show sufficient public support, and should either self-fund or get off the ballot.