What Did Onward Oregon Learn from Defeating a Big Box

By Lenny Dee of Portland, Oregon. Lenny is a long-time progressive activist and a co-founder of Onward Oregon.

[Editor's note: Recently, the Portland Development Commission decided to ask the three developers producing plans for the Burnside Bridgehead area to submit new proposals - this time, without involvement from "big box" retailers. Onward Oregon played a major role, delivering hundreds of grassroots messages to the PDC.]

The grassroots work of neighborhood activists, combined with Onward Oregon's internet advocacy proved to be an effective combination in keeping a Home Depot or Lowe's from the foot of the Burnside Bridge. We are trying to replicate that model to repulse proposed Wal-Marts in Bend, Cedar Mill, and Gresham. Given the political realities of the local governments in these communities we're going to have to work hard and smart, remembering a few lessons.

1) We need to reach out across a variety of different constituencies. The Kerns Neighborhood activists did a great job of engaging other close-in eastside neighborhood associations. Onward Oregon talked with over 50 neighborehood associations, and enlisted the support of environmental, transportation, and land use groups.

2) Apply political pressure to local influencers even if they're not the decision makers. Our emails went to the City Council even though PDC was the decision maker.

3) Provide an overarching frame of smart growth. Even though big box approval is suppose to be based on technical grounds, remind our local officials that the big boxes are antithetical to the kind of livable communities we re trying to build in Oregon. Does anyone ever walk on their lunch hour to pick up a 2x4 at Home Depot?

4) Tied to smart growth is the reality that big boxes are bad for Oregon s economy. For every dollar spent at a locally owned store 73 cents stays in the community, as opposed to 41 cents for out of town chains. Our friends in Bend (NotAnotherWalmart.org), Cedar Mill(SaveCedarMill.com), and Gresham (GreshamFirst.org) need your help. Please spread the word to those you know in those communities.

And come join with us at Onward Oregon, OnwardOregon.org, to make a difference.

  • (Show?)

    For whatever it's worth, in the PDC summary of public comment received, they specifically gave a separate line to emails received via obvious organized effort. Whether or not that then becomes (in the minds of any of the Commissioners) a stigma to those particular emails, I have no idea.

  • (Show?)

    I'm curious how those emails looked different to the commission - were they clearly labeled as from OnwardOregon? Were they just the same damn text over and over again?

    Seems to me best practices might encourage folks to write their own personalized notes, and then make sure they go "from" the actual activist, not the organization.

    Then, they're the most personal and meaningful - and the organizer has no fingerprints on it (unless you're checking mail headers for common IPs.)

  • (Show?)

    Stay vigilant! Word is that Walmart is looking at a site stradling the Portland/Milwaukie line.

  • Federalist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What brave rich white little Progressives, saving people from the evils of WalMart and lower prices! And making up statistics to boot.

    You going to cough up the 20% savings that Portland's low income residents would have saved if they had a WalMart, or should they just take one for the team?

    And why don't we see some normal everyday low income people protesting WalMart? Maybe because they don't have the Progressive hatred of saving money.

  • eric carlson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I want to make a diffrence.
    Also, for other news about wal-mart in diffrent countries check out what Candada is doing.

    -eric: Revolutionary

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lenny Dee of Onward Oregon: Provide an overarching frame of smart growth.

    JK: Smart growth, of course, is based on using the power of government to force people to live in certian ways.

    Why do you want to force people have a lower standard of living in high density instead of allowing people to freely choose to live anywhere they desire?

    Why do you want more traffic congestion, an undeniable efect of high density?

    Why do you want to force people to wast more time away from their friends and families by increasing commuting times, an undeniable efect of high density?

    Why do you believe that you have the right to tell other people how to live?

    Maybe you think that George Bush has the right to tell you how to live? After all, he is the president. And that trumps you, private citizen.

    Why not just leave people alone?

    JK

  • Todd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have to wonder about what Cedar Mill is exactly objecting to with Walmart. There are no neighborhoods there, just subdivisions separated by roads and walls. If you go to "downtown" Cedar Mill, you'll find you can't walk more than a few blocks in any direction. The WalMart is going to be located along Sunset Highway, far from any neighborhood. Sure, more subdivisions will someday be located nearby, but they will not be integrated to the currently available shopping across the street from the WalMart site. Having lived along E Burnside, I can see the difference between a neighborhood and a subdivision. If there is no neighborhood, and the site has 5 lane streets on both sides, either WalMart or some other big box is coming to the Beaverton site (which is what it is, Cedar Mill is across Barnes Rd). Lessons learned at E Burnside may be used in Cedar Mill, but Save Cedar Mill will have to have a better stategy than taking over an informational meeting if they expect sucess. Besides, if you think Portland has a closed power structure, you haven't seen anything until you've been to Beaverton!

  • phriedom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Why do you want more traffic congestion, an undeniable efect of high density?"

    Because suburban sprawl causes even worse traffic than high density does, and a lower standard of living and more time away from family.

    "Why not just leave people alone?"

    Because of the Tragedy of the Commons. Each person acting in their own interest has no incentive to conserve a shared resource, if they don't use it someone else will. So rules must me imposed for everyone for the overall benefit of everyone. In this case, land is the shared resource.

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Answer to phriedom, JK's new comments are JK2:

    JK:"Why do you want more traffic congestion, an undeniable efect of high density?"

    phriedomBecause suburban sprawl causes even worse traffic than high density does, and a lower standard of living and more time away from family.

    JK2: Then why does LA, the most dense urban region in the county have such bad congestion? The dense core of London had such bad congestion that they started driving away people with daily fees. I think that you will find a direct correlation between density and congestion: higher density = higher congestion with few or no exceptions. One source states that when you double density, driving increases by 80%. This may look like increasing density will reduce congestion, but you will be deceived:

    Suppose you had 1000 people in a region, who each drive 10 miles per day for a total of 10,000 vehicle-miles per day.

    Now double the density. You now have 2000 people, that each drive 8 miles per day. The propagandizers proudly proclaim that driving has been reduced to 8 miles per person. True, but they leave out this little detail:

    You now have 2000 people driving 8 miles, for a total of 16,000 vehicle miles per day where you previously had 10,000 vehicle-miles per day at half the density. This is why density causes congestion (while it reduces driving.)

    Its the same with pollution: total pollution is reduced, but it is increased where people actually live.

    Is that what you want? To live in more congestion and more pollution?

    JK:"Why not just leave people alone?"

    phriedomBecause of the Tragedy of the Commons. Each person acting in their own interest has no incentive to conserve a shared resource, if they don't use it someone else will. So rules must me imposed for everyone for the overall benefit of everyone. In this case, land is the shared resource.

    JK2: Perhaps you missed the critical point of the commons problem: a commons area is commonly owned, so no one has a vested interest in using it wisely.

    Land is NOT A SHARED RESOURCE because it is privately, not jointly, owned. So your example is null and void.

    However, the government is constantly dictating its uses without having to pay the cost. Among other things, they want prevent the use of some of it by declaring it "open space" without paying for it - sort of a reverse commons problem.

    How would you react if you bought a car that easily goes 55 on the freeway, then suddenly the manufacturer presses a magic button that limits its speed to 30mph. Would you want to return the car, or demand that the manufacturer make it like it was when you bought it?

    Now replace car with land, and speed with use. That is measure 37.

    Have a nice day.

    JK

  • Rick Ray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Emails sent by Onward Oregon members through our website come from the member herself.

    The only way to identify that these emails are part of an organized effort is the similarity of the content of the email. For this reason and others, we encourage members to replace our "boiler plate" message and subject with words of their own.

    Rick Ray OnwardOregon.org

    <hr/>
guest column

connect with blueoregon