Portland street renaming: Trib has some of it wrong
Interesting story in the Trib today about the Douglas Adams street renaming proposal here in Portland. Interesting, but not entirely accurate.
The story states:
According to city policy, any group that wants to change a city street name must collect at least 2,500 signatures of support from city residents 16 years of age or older. Three-quarters of the signatures must be from people who live along the street to be renamed. The groups have until February to gather their signatures.That's not what the city code says. It plainly states:
The applicant shall, after filing a completed City Engineer’s application form and paying any applicable fees:The quoted language does not require that 75 percent of the 2,500 signatures come from property owners on the affected street. Instead, it requires either 2,500 signatures from anywhere in the city, or from 75 percent of all the property owners on the affected street. Big difference.1. Obtain a minimum of 2500 signatures in support of the proposal from legal residents of the City at large or signatures of at least 75% of the abutting property owners along the street proposed for renaming on the petition forms supplied by the City Engineer....
The Trib piece also states that "[t]he groups have until February to gather their signatures," referring to both the Adams group and the Chávez group. That, too, appears to be erroneous. As we explained yesterday, the Chávez group's deadline may in fact be later, because it does not appear that they have yet properly qualified to begin collecting signatures. Until the street they seek to rename is identified, it does not appear that the city engineer should have given them an application kit and set them loose to gather signatures. Any signatures they gather before submitting the requisite preliminary "evidence" supporting the renaming of an actual street -- which would necessarily entail identifying the street in question -- would seem to be invalid.
Meanwhile, back at the Trib, there's the matter of "stationary" vs. "stationery." This is what happens when a news organization is being run so extremely on the cheap that a copy editor and a news editor are nowhere to be found when you need them.
| Posted at 7:55 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (13)
It still is a set up. I wonder why the clods didn’t follow these rules during the last round. It seems a no brainer to be able to get 2500 signature city wide, as the ordinance doesn’t even address citizenship, just residency. I would personally love to see the requirement signatures from 75% of people who live there, or better yet the property owners. As for the 2500 signatures it would be nice to require them to donate five bucks as required for the city funded campaign financing.
Posted by John Benton | August 12, 2008 8:44 AM
When a company goes cheap to save the bottom line, quality go down the drain. Quality goes down, no one reads the paper. No one reads the paper, advertisers do not want to advertise. No advertisers, the company fails.
Posted by Bryan Dorr | August 12, 2008 8:55 AM
When a company goes cheap to save the bottom line, quality go down the drain.
You are trying to be snarky here, correct?
Posted by Mr Grammar | August 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Makes you wonder if its really an "error", or if they are spinning some propaganda for the City to get the 42nd street group thinking they dont have enough of the proper signatures, namely the residents on the street.
Posted by Jon | August 12, 2008 10:06 AM
Your understanding of the City Code is correct and I take full responsibility for the mistakes in our web story. It has been corrected. - Jim Redden, Portland Tribune
Posted by Jim Redden | August 12, 2008 11:03 AM
Wow Jim! You might survive the intertubes after all. Good to see the otherwise arrogant print media show some humanity!
Posted by dman | August 12, 2008 12:07 PM
It's hard to fault anyone for misreading the city code. Nobody fully understands it. In my business, I frequently talk to city staff who use phrases such as "nice code catch, dude," to refer to interpretive corrections like you made above. Yes, I am the dude.
Posted by James | August 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Looks like the Trib fixed it. I just read it at 2:57 and it reads according to the city code.
Posted by kda | August 12, 2008 2:56 PM
Cityhall should name some major street after Portland native John Reed. It would fit right in with the attitude in this town.
TLG
Posted by The Libertarian Guy | August 12, 2008 2:59 PM
Oops! That should read ...quality goes down the drain. Thanks, "Mr. Grammar."
Posted by Bryan Dorr | August 12, 2008 5:03 PM
Oops! That should read ...quality goes down the drain. Thanks, "Mr. Grammar."
Man, you should have claimed that one. I laughed out loud.
Posted by cc | August 12, 2008 5:44 PM
Well, it's nice to know that the Douglas Adams supporters chose Portland because of Adams's extensive connection to the Portland area. After all, considering the number of writers who've, you know, actually lived in town, from Chuck Pahlaniuk to K.W. Jeter, it makes much more sense to hype up a fifth-rate Kurt Vonnegut impersonator whose sole connection to the name change is a number. I agree with John Benton's suggestion of a $5 contribution per signature: that much of a chunk out of the supporters' allowances would get in the way of their weekly comics and anime budgets, and that would kill the renaming proposal dead within days.
Posted by Texas Triffid Ranch | August 13, 2008 2:20 PM
Today's Willy Week blurb on the Chavez proposal says:
"The Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard Committee - re-emerging after an unsuccessful battle last year to rename North interstate Avenue for the late Chicano labor leader - is proposing three new options to consider. According to Marta Guembes, one of the committee's leaders, 39th Avenue, Grand Avenue and Broadway are all now under consideration for possible rechristening."
Can they propose THREE possibilities?
IMO, any proposal seeking to change the name of a miles-long street with multiple small businesses fronting on it is irresponsible at this time. With the economy down and joblessness up, it's only going to hurt small businesses who will be saddled with the time and expense involved in dealing with a street address change.
If something must be named for Chavez, I agree with the Delta Park crowd. The choice would be appropriate and very publicly signed.
Also, I may be getting a bit curmudgeonly but "renaming", "redubbing" or "designating" are better terms to use than "rechristening" which assumes that all readers are Christian.
Posted by NW Portlander | August 13, 2008 3:49 PM