I just wish, instead of having candidates who know how to "work the system" as one commenter put it, we had a system that was open to real reform.

What does that mean, Cynthia? Specific policy proposals, please.

The choices for this seat are thin soup indeed.

I agree that Fritz is marginally better than Saltzman.

I've met Sharon Nasset. She seems like a common sense democrat (doesn't show much predisposition to fall prey to the "smart growth" brainwashing).

However (to put it diplomatically) she doesn't strike me as an electable city candidate yet.

Little money, no grassroots following, sorta light in the political charisma department = no prayer to make it through to the general.

Agreed. Which is why this thing is going to be decided in May.

My concern with Amanda is that she does not appear to have realistic solutions to major problems:

Traffic congestion.
Loss of family wage jobs.
High density in our neighborhoods.
Tax loss due to urban renewal.

Note to Amanda:
My apologies if I missed these issues on you web site. I could not find anything in a brief check.

Thanks
JK

I think you're selling Saltzman short. He's pushing for reforms to the Police & Fire Permanent Vacation Fund, and you want to replace him with a union stooge - Amanda. Go figure.

JK: At least she will sit down and listen to what you have to say about these things. And she won't run roughshod over entire neighborhoods to pay back the Usual Development Suspects from the West Hills.

He's pushing for reforms to the Police & Fire Permanent Vacation Fund

At least until the election.

BTW, calling someone a "stooge" will get you banned from here. Watch it.

On the water-storage reservoirs, Saltzman ultimately changed his mind, and allowed a citizen panel to decide the fate of the reservoirs - according to those who know him, not an easy thing for him to do. But, he did it, and went along with the committee's recommendation, despite the fact that he disagreed with it. I think that shows that he does listen, and heed the advice of informed citizens. Amanda is listening, now, during campaign season. Will she continue to listen once she's elected? Will she heed advice that goes against her gut instincts? I don't think you (or anybody else) knows the answer to that question. We already know the answer from Saltzman. Jack, be careful what you wish for.

p.s. - sorry about the "stooge" comment. It was inappropriate.

Saltzman ultimately changed his mind, and allowed a citizen panel to decide the fate of the reservoirs

Sure, right after Chet Orloff called him and told him to lay off.

Strong union supporter can only imply one of two things:

A). Higher local taxes and user fees

B). Diminished service delivery (bigger classrooms, fewer police precints open at night, etc).

Choose only one.

Sirajul: i will answer you; My dad had to go to the hospital today, so I have been focused elsewhere (although I left Jack Bog's blog on all day).

Alice -

Can't it also mean "right to bargain pn a collective basis"? Do you want to prevent people from having that right?

Oregon is currently not a "right-to-work" state. If you wish it so, please advocate for such at the legislature. I doubt you'll get very far.

Oregon is currently not a "right-to-work" state. If you wish it so, please advocate for such at the legislature. I doubt you'll get very far.

Is Oregon that whacky? If it is in fact illegal to work here ... wow. Our Legislature ought to change that or a minority of us could be in trouble. I would hope for some amenesty given this is really a matter of cultural diversity.

Well, Amanda, I'm afraid (in more than one sense of the expresssion) that you've won me over, too, despite (or possibly because of)our disagreements in previous threads.

However, nothing's running too deep here--having grown up on the east side of Mt. Tabor with those reservoirs, it doesn't take much to get me away from Saltzman. He never got it, and thank goodness for those who did and never gave up.

I agree that you at least deserve an opportunity, and best of luck with that.

I think that shows that he does listen, and heed the advice of informed citizens.

Oh, yeah, he's a real stand-up guy on the reservoirs because he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into backing down because it was no longer politically viable for him to continue getting away with it.

REAL stand-up guy.

Thank you for your endorsement, Jack. I believe I'm the only candidate who can help reach a solution to put on the November ballot for the Police and Fire Pension/Disability issue. Commissioner Saltzman has been in office seven years without fixing it. Mutual respect and willingness to consider input from all sides is the most important factor in reaching a solid proposal. If I'm Commissioner-elect on May 17, I will be able to help the unions and the city work together to define a package for November. We don't need a headline-grabbing top-down directive, we need a respectful collaborative process to reach a fair, mutually-supported resolution to this problem that's been building for decades.

Tom R., thank you for your support. As with Jack and JK, it's especially sweet when those who sometimes disagree with me can also sometimes agree. That to me is what true civic engagement is all about.

Mr Magoo, "Amanda is listening, now, during campaign season. Will she continue to listen once she's elected? Will she heed advice that goes against her gut instincts? I don't think you (or anybody else) knows the answer to that question.

Please read the comments on the Supporters page of my web site. I served for seven years on the Planning Commission. I was known for listening to and responding to citizen testimony. I continued to work at the neighborhood level while I was on the Planning Commission. You will see me in the neighborhoods all over Portland much more often than once every four years, after I'm elected.

My track record of success and 20 years of listening and working from the grassroots up offer evidence of a truly different promise. Politicians can change what they say often and easily, but it's much harder to change who they are. I have the heart of a citizen activist, the heart of a nurse, the heart of a mother. That heart will not change its very nature when elected.

Good luck, Amanda.

What I would like to see is candiates with a history of fearlessly questioning the urban renewal/PDC juggernaut. That isn't Amanda; in fact, in one of her posts here, she implied that the tram boondoggle was the only poor decision she had seen the city make. And the phrase "true community activist" doesn't do much for me: Vera and Neil would no doubt describe themselves using this phrase. A council that uses urban renewal to completely change the face of a city at taxpayer expense isn't one that anyone can truly say is not working for special interests. I am not saying I am totally against UR or opposed to urban planning; if I were I wouldn't have gone through the master's program at PSU. But UR has a tendency to end up being about developer "bottom line". There is an article in the most recent edition of the Coalition of Concerned Legal Professional's magazine "Verdict" called "Community Development Blues" about UR in Hunter's Point, San Francisco that makes this point. I am also not anti-development. But we tend to venerate developers in this town -or certain of them-to the point of making them demigogs; I recall one of Andy Parker's columns from late January where a biologist had finally deferred to the "maturity" of developers on the salmon restoration question. Developers now have godlike powers to negate scientific principles. It's overboard-has been for a long time- and Amanda hasn't been sounding the SOS. I agree that Sharon Nasset doesn't seem quite ready; I was sorry to see Don drop out of the race. Maybe it is just the nature of local government that electing real representatives seems impossible.

Oops...That's demigods.

What I would like to see is candiates with a history of fearlessly questioning the urban renewal/PDC juggernaut. That isn't Amanda...

I think that very much is Amanda, Cynthia. And not just questioning urban renewal/PDC policies, but Parks, Transportation...the whole gauntlet of city agencies that sometimes seem more beholden to new development then meeting existing neighborhood needs.

I first bumped into Amanda seven or eight years ago when I was working on local street improvement issues in SW. She was very much about "don't tell us, City bureaucrats, what we need...first you listen to us."

That's why she founded the City-wide Parks team last year, to create a "neighborhood-based" group to work with Parks, to help get new parks and facilities where park-deficient neighborhoods need them...not where PDC uses urban renewal money to plant them as incentives for developers. Commisioner Saltzman calls this the "opportunistic" use of urban renewal money; Amanda, I believe, is far more interested in seeing existing neigborhoods get their fair share of their own tax dollars. Just last night, she was speaking about the inequity of long-established neighborhoods, who've paid taxes for years, still lacking fundamental infrastructure needs like improved streets and sidewalks.

What are our priorities, as opposed to those of the folks who've typically been funding campaigns? Amanda's roots in the neighborhoods are strong, and deep. That's a very special quality to bring to the table, and to the Council.

Ms. Fritz - Thanks for your comments here. By the way, what will you do to eliminate the unfunded actuarial liability in the Police & Fire Disability/Pension fund?

Mr. Magoo,

She could treat it like automobile accident liability . . . get insurance and let the insurance company obtain a full and final release from further liability as part of any deal.

Hopefully she would see the ghost of Drexel Burnham Lambert, the junk bond kings, that spilled out like a cancer to new geographic territory, and tell any actuary that their smirk is embarrassing. It would be far too much to ask that she, or even Randy, take the really long term view as might the author of the Den of Thieves.

I will test the limits of "actual malice" for that is what I see in the advocates of the seemingly innocuous move to fully fund pensions by directing the proceeds of local government bonds to Wall Street.

Why would you ask her a question that you know she is not prepared to answer? That would be my question to you, Mr. Magoo.

I think she is too busy applying lessons from "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

Cynthia -

How about a link to the CCLP's article you reference? Or if it doesn't exist, a scanned PDF of it? Would love to read it. Thanks.

Ron writes - "I will test the limits of "actual malice" for that is what I see in the advocates of the seemingly innocuous move to fully fund pensions by directing the proceeds of local government bonds to Wall Street."

Yeah - you are right, it's clearly better that we continue to defer the cost of the promises we are making to our cops and firefighters for future generations to pay. How silly of me to question such sound financial planning.

Simply, if we want to change the direction and policies of the City of Portland, then we need to change the leadership.

We cannot keep electing the same people and believe they are going to change the dismal direction they've lead this city over the past 10+ years. I don't believe their current "rope-a-dope" tactics regarding the Tram one iota.

I will be voting for Fritz and Lister for City Council.

After that, we need to replace Leonard, Adams, Blackmer and Potter.

Mr. Magoo,

There are two distinct questions. Past promises and future promises.

The past promises are not payable except over time as they become due. See a West Virginia court case that explores this notion quite well, and where the NEA took a particularly strong interest. The point is that in court there would be no claim of liability unless it is unpaid at some future date. It is thus nothing more that like a payment on an already issued bond; it is circular reasoning.

Prospectively, as to future promises, sound design is something where an actuary could surely employ their skills. A sound pay-as-you-go scheme has a funding balance of zero, optimally. A funded plan is just an investment trust, like placing money in a bank, where the trustee/banker must answer to the depositor. Is Portland a banking institution?

The judicial commitment to honor a pension payment not yet due is no greater or lesser than that of the judicial commitment to honor a bond payment. The full funding drive for pay-as-you-go pensions smacks of dissing the judiciary in the harshest terms possible.

The primary focus today should be on the legality of prospective promises. And perhaps an exploration of criminality of recent-past promises . . . made on the expectation that the full-funding drive would smooth over all potentially unlawful excessive gifts.

Newspeak is just weird. "Underfunded actuarial liability" is a classic, a conclusory non sequitur.

I actually have some faith in the judiciary, notwithstanding my incessant whining. How about you?

Thanks for the response, Frank. I am glad it is becoming acceptable-even fashionable-to ask these questions. Thanks, in no small part to Jack Bog's Blog, I would say. I am glad Amanda is taking the initiative on these matters, but I can't say I am too impressed with what I have seen in SW neighborhoods over the years, not enough of what I would consider the right kind of compromise-among neighbors-too much of the wrong kind-with city big wigs and thier favorite developers. Not enough hard core questions that end up getting answered. To much acceptance of developer control. I think we would have a healthier PDC if we could challenge the core premise of the city's involvement in private sector development. But it's not the way things are done in Portland. I notice letters to the editor from groups like Coalition for a Liveable Future that ask questions like "Where are the affordable housing units?" while praising the tram (rimshot) and SoWa. I know from personal experience and the experience of friends that really challenging these people can get you on their sh*t list, but I don't see that that makes it any less important. I think we should be challengning the coercion to be "nice" read: unquestioning and malleable. I am waiting for theo's Easter headline: "Portland to Jesus: It's not nice to fool mother nature".

Larry,

CCLP doesn't seem to have much of an internet presence. It's too bad; I met founder Amanda Reid about 6 years ago when she was in Portland-an amazing person with a story that needs telling imho. I couldn't find the article by Googling author Barrie Cowan either.

I am up for trying to put up a scanned PDF, but must confess some technological retardation. Would you email me and give me instructions-or refer me to someone who could? Otherwise, I can snail mail the article.

Ron - I think I hear you advocating for a financially sound pension/disability system for cops & firefighters. I agree. And, indeed, our "pay-as-you-go" system is financially sound, to the extent that a sufficient tax base exists to apply the pension fund's (unique) unlimited tax rate to. The problem is that as the pension obligation grows at the projected rate, it pushes other property-tax funded services (law enforcement, fire protection, courts, jails) off the table due to the Measure 5 limit of $10/$1000 RMV for general government services. Thanks for your input on UAL - you've given me food for thought.

What's Amanda's solution - still haven't heard it.

I am glad Amanda is taking the initiative on these matters, but I can't say I am too impressed with what I have seen in SW neighborhoods...

I can't speak for Amanda, Cynthia, but I don't think she would disagree. I remember Rick Seifer, former editor of the Southwest Connection years ago talking to me about the imbalance between "downtown" and "the neighborhoods" in terms of attention, and funds. It's pretty obvious.

As much as I may hate to agree with Steve Schopp (he knows I'm teasing him) there really is a disconnect in government with just how much of a negative impact all this urban renewal revenue diversion has been. The assumption is, it seems, nothing will get built without a subsidy. And yet we see, all over the place, small business taking it upon themselves to grow their business without PDC handpouts. And, then, like Carl over at It's a Beautiful Pizza, we bitch-slap them and their initiative with totally out-of-line SDC charges.

There are systemic problems with the way the City is doing business, no question about it.

Thanks for the non-hostile response. I can get confused without a fight.

More food for thought on the politics of pensions:

CALPERS to invest in toll bridges and tunnels, energy transmission projects, port facilities.

The above would not be possible with a pay-as-you-go scheme.

"And, then, like Carl over at It's a Beautiful Pizza, we bitch-slap them and their initiative with totally out-of-line SDC charges.

There are systemic problems with the way the City is doing business, no question about it."

The City doesn't seem to be big on nuances; and it still seems to cling to the "old maid of the West coast" mindset that we will have no enterprise if we don't heavily subsidize it. I find it odd that some planners seem so locked in to this thinking, since planning in the larger sense is supposed to be about process and the big picture, constantly monitoring and adjusting assumptions.

I remember Rick S. from the SW Community Connection. Do you know if he is still around?

I remember Rick S. from the SW Community Connection. Do you know if he is still around?

Very much so...and still writing editorial pieces for the Connection, though he's no longer editor. One of those great guys that really cares deeply for the community...people who should be at the table more.

I'm going to support Fritz, too. Had Saltzman been the man to announce he smelled bad fish in the tram debacle, I'd support him, but for a friggin' MIT engineering guy to let it sale through... I don't know, Bush went to Harvard and Cheney went to Princeton, and they are f@#*ing idiots, too.

Jack you have not done enough homework. You and everyone else needs to know about her past track record with city affairs.Because they have affected thousands of property owners families housing kids and most recently schools! In a very adverse way!
If you believe in rules,regulations,protocal,standards,and no backroom deals.
If you own property or have kids in schools and care about sprawl,traffic,infill,taxes and keeping our Wonderful City Portland alive then You have picked the wrong person!

Jack
Ask Amanda how she feels about property rights her view is if you have property them the city has every right to control it! look at her testimony on the SW waterfront.
Some of her direct actions have adversely affected our neighborhood,schools,and city. The best example is in 1999 when Amanda Fritz,Marie Johnson (from planning). and Leanord Gard decided that Metro's overall plan (of at least 4.5 lots per acre in the ugb) for the state of Oregon wasn't to their current liking.and that Portlands Comprehensive plan(the one that countless people contributed too) wasn't to their liking ether and decided to change both!(what was changed was the comprehensive plan of zoning. it was changed fron R-10 10,000 sq lots to R-20 20,000 almost a half acre. But only for certain parts of S.W. Portland. When you talk to the city about this they will tell you that "information was sent out to every property owner that was affected". But they are unable to supply any of the literature that was sent. This was done for over 14,000 acres on the west side (this figure was given to me by Marie Johson from planning " 14,000 acres were taken out of metros and Portlands comprehensive plan without any meetings or reports on affects reverse zoning.Putting a complete stop to any(by the way this is a good idea because it keeps the UGB from expanding into farmland and creating SPRAWL) infill (do you think this has had an effect on new families moving into the area? families with kids and schools)
Amanda was also involved with changing the comprehensive plan in the St. Johns area after meeting with a few neighbors(some people might call this running roughshod over neighborhoods)!
It seems to me that long term plans should be just that! these are thought out after having input from everyone.
Duped by wiley coyotes? you decide
Someone was alert enough to bring to the attention of the city that by neighbor was removing ivy and blackberry plants from their property without a permit this resulted in an $18,000. fine from the city! a fellow neighbor and myself at different times went downtown and spoke to Randy Leonard(you know Randy the one that believes that the average citizen can't be at EVERY CITY MEETING riding herd on the city to protect ones rights!) about having the fine dismissed because most property owners don't know that we need a permit to maintain ones yard!At the hearing guess who was there testifying that these charges need to be enforced! At last count they are at $10,000.
Also Amanda was kind enough to give the Multnomah post a detailed report on a meeting involving the HOLLY FARM. The only problem there was she wasn't at the meeting (this probably falls into the "don't tell us" quality.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention that Mrs. Fritz is also head of SAVE ARNOLD CREEK! and that this creek (that has no salmon because the S.W. hills are clay and salmon need gravel beds to lay eggs. And that ODOT has to replace the culvert that runs under Highway 43 before any fish can ever think about returning to Tryon creek!just happens to be my neighborhood not hers!
So you might want to rethink a few things Amanda is very strong on parks a fish, but I think things have gone too far we need common business sense about how and what to do for our city.The voters passed Measure 37 becuse we are tired of defending our property!
Whens the last time you heard something like "HEALTHY SCHOOLS/KIDS/FAMILIES" from city hall?
Amanda is for parks whitch is great but we need a stable tax base so we can pay our bills we need to maintain the ones we have now!