Cute. Will it stand up in court?

Does that mean they'd have to go back and revisit Naito Parkway? If memory serves, they fast-tracked and end-arounded that one too.

Depends on how they worded it. It seems to me that what they need to do here is repeal the part of the code that governs street renaming. They obviously don't give a darn about it, and so that shouldn't be so hard for them to do.

And the problem pointed out here is not "cute." Either they do it properly, or it's void.

Union Avenue, as well. And North Portland Boulevard.

How has the City Council got itself to the point where it can shuck all accountability to the City Code? Anyone?... Anyone?...

I believe that the code was passed after the Union Avenue/MLK Boulevard change, in response to the hard feelings that were created by that program.

Jack,

It IS cute. The machinations of government to do what it wants to do are inevitably ingenious. They may or may not be legal, ethical or moral, but it's fun to watch them twist reality to suit their desires.

"Doing it properly" has been the point of most of the anti-change voices in North Portland for months now. We've been stereotyped as a subculture of racist thugs, however, and nothing we say matters. We don't have the power, for example, to thwart two City Commissioners' efforts to slow down and reshape the process. The pro-change folks did.

I am not talking about policy. I am talking about law. If what they do is illegal, it can be undone, regardless of the soundness (or lack thereof) of the underlying policy.

Ok fine, but in the end will Tommy feel relevant?

May you all have a Merry Christmas under a Christmas tree on Union Avenue, Interstate, and Portland Blvd. It is what it is.

Jack, the legal aspects of this will have to be fought out in court. I suspect that will happen. Ultimately I doubt the maneuver will stop the name change. But I'm crossing my fingers.

In the end, the city can get the procedure right, and so I don't think court action would stop the renaming permanently.

What would interest me most is if the opponents obtained the necessary signatures for a vote on having the street renamed back to Interstate. Now, that would be interesting to watch.

Under the present City Code, you can't rename a street that's been named after someone. The Code is operational when they need it to be operational.

I believe the city code can be amended if enough folks sign petitions and the amendment wins at the polls. Maybe I'm mistaken about that, but I don't think I am.

You may be right, but that wouldn't be retroactive. The name change would stick.

No, first you change the code to remove the prohibition on renaming the street. Then you change the name back to Interstate.

It seems to me that they need to do here is repeal the part of the code that governs renaming. They obviously don't give a darn about it, and so that shouldn't be so hard for them to do.

The problem with that strategy is that it would be subject to a referendum and this council does NOT want the rest of us (potentially "racist") voters weighing in on their decision.

So they've crafted an ordinance that takes the form of an administrative action to avoid the possibility of a messy public vote. The problem, as Isaac and you point out, is that it directly violates the street renaming process set forth in the city code.

The irony is that the renaming process that they want to conveniently "waive" was enacted as a result of highly contentious process of renaming Union Ave to MLK.

Want more irony?

The prohibition on initiating/referring the adminstrative act of renaming a street went up to the Oregon Supreme Court in the case of Foster v. Clark, 309 OR 464, 1990.

The issue in Foster?

Could citizens initiate legislation to change MLK back to Union Ave?

Answer: the citizens couldn't because it was a one time only administrative act, and their was a general policy in place for renaming streets (the same one that the City seeks to waive).

Aren't there notice and hearing requirements for repealling an ordinance? They are going to look really silly no matter what they do at this point. Should be an entertaining meeting, especially since the mayor needs to stick around to vote.

Although the people can't pass an ordinance that renames a specific street, they could pass an ordinance to require the council to (say) name any street that hosts a significant part of a MAX line after the name that the MAX line bore on January 1, 2007.

Given North Portland's lack of political power, I don't see that happening. The "minority community" (I hate that "community" designation, but it seems to work here) was mobilized by ONE e-mail, from the Latino Network, to thwart two City Commissioners' efforts to slow and expand the name-change process. No one else in North Portland had that power.

I just got back from the press conference @ the Nite Hawk Cafe. Bill Mildenberger Jr., the leader of the Save Interstate movement, stated that he is in contact with legal counsel in the event that the name change is passed on Thursday.

In the meantime, keep bombarding City Hall with phone calls until then for what it's worth.

I'd be so bold as to call for a 10-year moratorium (minimum!) on renaming any Portland street from here on out, regardless of whether or not Interstate gets renamed.

Failing that, I'd require every citizen who gets it into their head to rename a prominent Portland street (or bridge or whatever–for the record, I wasn't thrilled with that idea to rename the Fremont Bridge after Wayne Morse, as much as I admire the man's memory) to read and have a rigorously-thorough written, closed-book test, on Eugene E. Snyder's 1979 Book Portland Names and Neighborhoods (ISBN 0-8323-351-8 for those who care to find a copy) so at least they have some idea of what sort of sense of place they're going to try to erase in favor of their cause.

In view of the tempest this one's brewed up, I don't think it's too much to ask. It's not that long a book, after all.

Foster v. Clark is interesting. The "administrative" designation is based on the execution of legislative mandates. If you waive the legislative mandate, you're not executing it.

There's lots of fertile ground for lawsuits.

I find it interesting how the votes are getting divided up here. It's 3-2 but only the Mayor seems enthusiastic.

Not too tough to figure him out - he's on his way out and looking to secure some sort of enduring mark on the city (other than tram/so-what blemish). Lame-duck-longing-for-a-greater-legacy, that story gets replayed somewhere every odd-numbered year.

So Grampy took "point" but was surprised that nobody wanted to follow. Of the remaining commissioners, the two that sided with him are the ones that don't have to face the voters next cycle.

Randy and Sam are both running in 2008 so they don't want to be near it. Randy has had enough controversy over duct tape and spray paint, he needs another faction of angry voters growling at him like he needs a hemorroid.

Sam probably wants to support it (and could probably afford to) but he's using his head and will play it safe (no use in stirring up a challenger).

Sten and Saltzman were just re-elected so they can make an unpopular decision with the knowledge that passions will dissipate and north portlanders are unlikely to hold a grudge for three years.

But if this drags on too long (tied up in courts, initiative petition circulating, etc.) look for one of them to seriously consider jumping ship.

Gotta wonder what sort of stunt Grampy will pull if it goes down like that...

At this crucial point, the opponents need a darn good lawyer with either a sizable war chest or lots of time and energy to take the case pro bono.

If such a legal challenge actually has a chance, I'd like to contribute money to it.

Just like the Bushies: the law means whatever they say it means.

Hypocrites all around.

I think Lars said it best."The people have to get mad, I mean real mad and then a recall will happen."

Whether it is baby Gabriele, Interstate, Medford schools, measure 49/50. The democrats in this state and government officials are playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse. When the people get mad enough the people will retaliate and bite the head off of the mouse.

If we get mad enough we will act. If pushed far enough we will act. The results will be that we get the government we deserve not the government we were tricked into.

As always less government is the the best government.

"At this crucial point, the opponents need a darn good lawyer with either a sizable war chest or lots of time and energy to take the case pro bono."

If only a certain L&C Law professor who's licensed to practice in Oregon could be persuaded to take the case . . .

Sorry, no professional liability insurance.

Jeni says:
"Just like the Bushies: the law means whatever they say it means.

Hypocrites all around."
--------

I agree.

It is Bush's fault.

Bush has made a mockery of the law, any law. Can you fault any municipality from following this pathetic leader?

It is time for a new word: EthnoMyopism.

Don't expect the court to put the racism bullseye onto their forehead. They will let the City Council take the full brunt of the heat on this one, up or down, no matter which way they go.

I'm still drafting/redrafting my unfinished paper for civil liberties seminar class nearly twenty years ago . . . on discrimination on the court system. I don't think it will ever be done. If you have "The Answer" then by all means share it.

Oops: "[i]n the court system"

How about Mel Renfro Way or Terry Baker Blvd. A.C Green Blvd. I think I could steal the African American community vote. Also those guys could ball.

It basically shows us what City Hall thinks of due process and the law. I do think the Bush Admin example is part of this. Potter, Sten, and Saltzman are all acting like Bush. Laws and procedures are just "quaint" and "antiquated" to them. What the people want doesn't matter.

Yet I wonder what would happen if the Cezar Chavez committee (Chavez already has a school named after him) selected something like NW 23rd or Skyline Blvd to rename. Do you think any of these punks would have the guts to throw around accusations of racism? This is Bush World--a firm belief in a ruling class and disdain for democracy and rule of law. In Portland, a synonym would be Potter World.

Well, this is a new development for our house; my wife who is a non-political person came home and said: "enough is enough, I want to contribute money to that fellow on Interstate with the restaurant who's talking about legal action against the city that I heard about on the radio". Wow! And I think that's how many people are thinking. What the Mrs. says, I do.

It seems everyone would be happy if we just replace the metal street signs with dry erase board ones. Could be less costly over the long run.

It does rain alot though.

I am all for naming it Mel Renfro or AC Green Blvd! They are native born and have excelled in the area where the politicos have no influence. I can't remember, what did Cesar do for us again?

Under the current rules, a street can't be named for someone unless they've been dead for at least five years.

Sometimes its the small things politicians do which really infuriates the masses and causes their political demise. Hopefully this will be the "straw that broke the camel's back"

I will be at counsel as should everyone us who has commented. Counsel needs to know this isn't just the folks on Interstate ave alone. Counsel needs to understand damn well that people city wide will not stand for the race card being played again and again. This is a disgrace and its time to stand up and be counted.

"Counsel needs to understand damn well that people city wide will not stand for the race card being played again and again. This is a disgrace and its time to stand up and be counted. "

Yeah, and I wish Serena Cruz would honor her father's wishes to honor Ceasar Chavez by working hard and earnestly for common people, as Chavez did, instead of social climbing with developers.

Under the existing code, the council has no right to do what it is doing. . .

I think the legal theory allowing Council to waive city code is that with three votes they can amend city code however they want, so three votes also allows you to not apply city code to a particular ordinance. I'm pretty sure the Council waives sections of the code routinely when approving ordinances.

What they can't do is waive the charter. The charter is binding on all City Councils and includes things like quorum, structure, inherent powers, etc.

However, as someone said up above, if the Council is waiving city code in order to rename Interstate, it stops being an "administrative" action and becomes "legislative", which means it's subject to referral. Unfortunately, the referral process is almost impossible given the 30-day timeframe and number of signatures needed.

Pardon my ignorance, Miles, but why is it "legislative" in the case of renaming Interstate? I thought renaming a street was an administrative matter (as the Or. Supreme Court held in the Union Ave./MLK Blvd. case), and in your first paragraph you say it's perfectly OK for the Council to waive provisions of city code. I'm confused as to why it's different in the matter of renaming Interstate.

Jose,

I can't speak for Miles, but my (admittedly sketchy) understanding of Foster draws this distinction between legislative and administrative actions: Legislative actions set policy; administrative actions execute that policy. In this case the "policy" is defined by City Code Chapter 17.93. If they waive that, how are they "executing" it?

Like Guffman said, if they have to waive the existing City ordinance, that should make it a legislative matter -- they are making policy, not just executing existing policy. (Had they followed the existing code, it would have been an administrative action.)

And in any case, their action is subject to review by the circuit court, under the writ of review process. In the Foster case, the question was whether petitioners could force a public vote on a street renaming, not whether the city council did the renaming in compliance with code. In the case of Interstate/Chavez, however, the issue will be whether the city council followed its code or not, not whether the public is entitled to vote on it.

Ah, but there's this:

"The provisions of Municipal Code chapter 17.93, renaming City Streets, shall be waived, except for the following sections: Subsections (G) and (H) of 17.93.040; 17.93.060."

They're keeping two tiny portions of 17.93 in play. That's the loophole. That's the "policy" they're executing. That's their loophole.

Gonna lie down for a while....

I'm not entirely clear as to why it is that Potter, and by extension, those supporting the Interstate name change are so intent on changing that street name, rather than any other in the city.

I've heard several recommendations for other streets which I think would serve as well as, if not better than, Interstate.

I rather appreciated Fireman Randy's suggestion of westside Broadway. It seems to me that eastside Broadway would serve just as well.

Skyline seems to me to be an acceptable candidate to me....It's got a lot fewer residences and businesses to complain, for one. It's a beautiful drive much of the year. And, there are some really great views in places.

Even fewer affected existing addresses along Fairmount Boulevard and it would be a much greater honor...the boulevard which wends around the peak with Council Crest Park and views of both the north Willamette Valley and the Tualatin Valley. It'd be out there for all the tourists to see that we were appropriately appreciative of the Hispanic community and it's historic leadership.

I would think that either Marine Drive or Columbia Boulevard would be likely prospects as well.

And...What about Grand Avenue? Then we'd have an activist couplet.

More mundane would be something like renaming Division Street. I mean, "Division" is pretty mundane to begin with and the only reason it carries that name is that the road was once situated on the dividing line between two of the original sectional plats; between one original land claim (for pioneering EuroAmericans who were busy infecting local natives with new diseases and then hunting down the remnants) and another. Those land claims are long gone, subsumed under the progress of "development". The beauty of renaming Division is that it would rid us of a mundane street name, replace it with one of historical and ethnic distinction....and have a great slogan for the initiative: "Let us end the Division now, in the name of Cesar Chavez."

The big problem: Division runs all the way out and through Gresham. Ergo, either a through street will have to change names, or both Portland and Gresham will have to acquiesce.

Also...If they can ignore the stipulations of the existing ordinance to rename at will, why can't they just waive the requirement that a street named after some now largely unknown pioneer, or now obscure US historical figure? That would open even more options, like Burnside, or Couch. Or, pick any name street.

Of course, the name isn't the problem...it's the process, or lack thereof. An inclusive and transparent process.

Does this mean we could actually get our beloved Portland Blvd. back?

If SW and NW Broadway are renamed, then N and NE Broadway would have to be renamed too, because the code requires (not that thst stops the city council now) that a renamed street be renamed along its entire length and not just a portion. Marine Drive, Skyline Boulevard, and Division Street don't qualify because they don't start and end in the City of Portland, and the code requires (same parenthetical) that the street must be one that runs entirely within the city.

By contrast, SW Vista Avenue lies entirely within the city and has an eponymous bridge that could then become the Chavez Bridge.

So do Fairmount and Grand.

How about Macadam Avenue? There's not much to say for keeping the name of a street that's named not after a person but after the stuff that it once was paved with.

But that, in turn, is named after J.L. McAdam, the Scots inventor of the construction process (not that with which it's paved). But you are right that it was probably called that because it was a macadamized road.

The question is, where is the south end of Macadam? In Portland, or Lake Oswego?

How about Water Avenue? It's down there in the Produce Row area, where Cesar would feel quite comfortable.

Don't mess with SW Macadam.

It has a long history for Portland. It was one of 4 major Indian trails that converged on the highlands next to the Willamette near the present SoWhat Central District. That convergence became the first homesite for Portland's first European settler's home-the William Johnson Cabin where William and his Indian wife had two sons. It was the south riverfront route for Indians and the regions early settlers to Oregon City, future LO, Milwaukie. It connected to the future "The Clearing" to the north which became the future Portland. Macadam was one of Portland's first wood plank roads (Burnside, other) that connected to the Tualatin valley and the rest of the Willamette valley, with all kinds of commerce and regional significance. It was the first macadamized road west of the Mississippi, and maybe west of the Appalalachian Mts. It is one of the oldest roads of the entire NW region.

I think the street in front of Stens home would be more appropriate for a name change.

My historical comments about SW Macadam should be considered in the context of other recent City Council renaming street procedures. Review of the historical nature of our streets is required by city ordinances for street renaming. But it hasn't occurred, and it should. Interstate, Front, Portland, Grand all had longtime, historical significance that was largely ignored. Even if a street is not named after a person, over time there becomes a lot of historical attachments to the name that cannot be discounted. Let's not lose the history of Portland.

Jerry, the south end of Macadam is at the Sellwood Bridge. South of that point it's called Riverside Drive until it enters Lake Oswego, where it's called State Street.

My suggestion of Macadam as a candidate for renaming is a little tongue-in-cheek, but only a little; the city council didn't cavil at renaming Union Avenue (connected to the state motto), nor does it seem to recall the reason that Interstate was renamed.

Good test would be to follow code and change
the name of Interstate back to Interstate.
(start now or after the vote?)

Chris, we'd first need to change the provision of the code that prohibits the renaming of a street named after a specific person. I've heard or read that such a provision exists currently.

Chavez doesn't even crack the top 1000 historical figures of the world so why the heck the big deal? If we're going to rename stuff shouldn't we at least start with some bigger names? Where is Jesus Christ avenue, or Magellan Way, or Isaac Newton Lane? Geez, Chavez was just a guy who tried to extract monopoly rents from employees via threats of extortion.

I have been on the phones with all 4 of the commissioner offices today and for the past week. I think something is happening here in Portland that is incredible. We the people are getting involved and quite frankly, a little fed up. Read this from Jeremy at Potter's office. This flawed logic came right from the mayors office after i suggested that forcing the poetry is never wise.. Before I go, I remember what was told to the world from our embarassing leader, "if you're not with us, you are against us..." Seems Potter has taken this slogan to heart..Here's Jeremy's stance

From: Van Keuren, Jeremy (Mayor's Office) [mailto:jvankeuren@ci.portland.or.us]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Email RE: Interstate Avenue renaming proposal

Thank you for your email.

If process was halted every time it wasn't running smoothly, there would be no civil unions available for sexual minorities, child labor would still be exploited, interracial marriage and segregation would be permissible in a Jim Crow country - in fact, slavery would still be legal, we'd still be a British colony, etc.

Thanks, again, for sharing your perspective.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Van Keuren
Public Advocate
Office of Mayor Tom Potter
Portland, Oregon
503-823-4125
jvankeuren@ci.portland.or.us

Citizens of North Portland, it's time for you to get over yourselves.

Do you realize that by resisting my efforts to rename your street that you are lining up on the wrong side of history?

How small-minded of you to tarnish the memory of Cesar Chavez by clinging to a street name that sounds like a freeway!

How does it feel to be rubbing elbows with all those anti-miscegenists, homophobes, slave traders and sweatshop owners?

"Mayor Potter" post made me giggle.
Such a one dimensional pov.
And it does not even make sense...
1 point for trying your hand at communication.

I couldn't believe it when he tried to bring his lesbian daughter into this. What is he saying, that anyone against renaming Interstate is now a homophobe as well as a racist? So since I'm a lesbian, I guess I'm prejudiced against myself, because I'm disgusted with the way these so-called sensitive activists have treated their community.

And then the supporters of the change wailing about decisions happening "behind closed doors", completely disregarding the fact that THEY disenfranchised the whole community by making this decision and forcing it on us.

Makes me embarrassed to be a liberal. C'mon, people, try a little harder to practice what you preach. Democracy is about following the laws and working with other people, and not always getting what you want.

it's time our city government change their
ways. how much money was paid for the change movement? how much time behind closed doors was spent planning this sneak attack on the residents of Portland?
wasn't serena cruz in another behind the door sneak attack? what is her agenda?
why does tom potter think he can commit
to one group of people over another? is this not inappropriate of a government
official who should be looking for the benefits of ALL the PEOPLE? I say stop the
madness and leave our streets alone. if you need to name a special street, wait till we build a new one and name it! How
hard is that? our country should be based NOT on special interest groups but
on the interest of ALL groups.
thank you all for your time in reading
this and being concerned about our city.
SAVE INTERSTATE AVENUE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE! we've already lost too many originals and our history lies in the
real deal not on the ideals of one group,
no matter what one group that is.