On the Metro President race, for me it's Bob Stacey.
Carla Axtman
Over the last two years I've become somewhat of a land-use wonk. For some reason sifting through studies on water tables, impacted wildlife, soil quality, zoning law and transportation patterns make me happy as a clam. And spending this time learning the processes of local county governments have been fascinating as well.
Having done this work and watched these processes, I've gained a more clear understanding of how key the local government positions really are. The power to make the big land-use decisions generally rests with the counties and in the Clackamas/Washington/Multnomah area, with Metro. Therefore the people that hold County Commission and Metro seats have an enormous responsibility. The point of view and priorities that they bring to these jobs have a tremendous impact on liveability in the region.
There are three people running for the Metro President position: Rex Burkholder, Tom Hughes and Bob Stacey. I've had the opportunity to interview all three candidates. Taking into account these interviews and the experience I've gained in studying all this stuff, I believe Bob Stacey will be the most effective Metro President.
Burkholder has great experience. He's been a Metro Councilor for many years and understands the processes. But I disagree with his position on the Columbia River Crossing. His articulated beliefs on urban and rural reserves mirrors mine, but I had hoped to see him really push back on the overwhelmingly awful Washington County urban reserves (besides offering an alternative map). From everything I could surmise, that didn't happen.
Hughes is a guy who also has good experience. But he's staked out the more conservative, development-over-farmland-and-environmental-concerns positions. There's already more than enough of that in Oregon, in my view.
Bob Stacey has extensive experience in land use law and policy. He has a much more affordable, creative approach to the I-5 bridge issue. And I'm hopeful that based on Bob's other work and our conversations that he'll take a more proactive approach to Urban Growth Boundary/Reserves issues.
Decisions around how land is zoned, developed (or not) and used at this local level often come down to who has the power and who does not (naturally). I've had more than one elected official at these levels tell me that land-use/Urban Growth Boundary issues are the only time they're ever seriously lobbied--and it's NEVER for less development. The power base is with the money--and that's not farmers and conservationists. It's developers and real estate folks. I'm very concerned that without someone who brings a strong conservation ethos to the Metro President job, those without power will continue to be run roughshod over.
It's going to take vision, courage and boldness to tackle these major local issues going forward. I believe that leader is Bob Stacey.
This is, of course, my personal choice. Blue Oregon doesn't endorse candidates or issues. I expect other contributors will weigh in with their own choice and why.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 25, '10
Stacey - Staff Attorney for "100 Self-Centered Upper MIddle Class People of Oregon" and endorsed by "Earl, 'Choo-Choo's are Fun' Blumenauer". (Reference: Stacey's campaign website). The people of the Metro area deserves what they get if they elect a la-la land status quo candidate like this, especially on the "strength" of a personal endorsement by Carla. (Stacey: that's the kind of endorsement you don't need, it probably will cost you more votes than it gains. So good luck with that.)
Mar 25, '10
Carla, Rex voted with Robert Liberty and Rod Park against the Washington County map. How could you give more of a "push back" than that?
Rex: "In particular, I believe Washington County’s map sacrifices foundation farmland and natural areas, which is why I voted against that map."
Sure, they lost that vote. So when the Council moved on to approve the entire three-county package, Rex reluctantly voted with the majority in order to let the responsible plans of Multnomah and Clackamas counties move forward -- but also because he was convinced lawsuits would force revisions to the Washington County map downstream (which I believe may indeed already be the case).
9:44 a.m.
Mar 25, '10
Matt: I appreciate the vote by Rex. But it seemed like there should/could have been a lot more done, especially in terms of pressuring back on the County and the Core 4 on the Washington County reserves that didn't happen, unfortunately.
Sure, they lost that vote. So when the Council moved on to approve the entire three-county package, Rex reluctantly voted with the majority in order to let the responsible plans of Multnomah and Clackamas counties move forward -- but also because he was convinced lawsuits would force revisions to the Washington County map downstream (which I believe may indeed already be the case).
See, that's where we're going to part ways. I'm not convinced that a court challenge will go anywhere (but will costs oodles of money), especially because it appears that things were done within the legal boundaries (just barely) of the Senate Bill which authorized this process in the first place, if not the intent.
The remedy may in fact lie with the legislature, which makes it once again a political and policy issue.
And "Yawn"..I appreciate your comment. Disparaging Rep. Blumenauer, Stacey and myself all in one place. I'm humbled to be elevated to such good company.
Mar 25, '10
If Bob Stacey is elected Metro Chair, it will move Metro back toward its past irrelevance.
Which would be sad, since Metro has made great progress during the past few years in becoming a functional, relevant body.
Mar 25, '10
For me, this is more than about the CRC MegaBridge or the urban-rural reserves or about the Regional Transportation Plan that increases greenhouse gases - it's about electing a candidate with the clear vision, bold agenda, and nitty-gritty knowledge & experience to get things done.
I haven't had much experience working with Rex, but from what I can tell he's committed to moving projects forward and too afraid of losing public support for Metro's work; in other words, Rex keeps to the status quo. Despite a resume of progressivism, Rex is unwilling to back down from the CRC, urban-rural reserves, or the RTP - all of which progressives and environmentalists - when we take an independent, detached view of the final product - find unacceptable.
Bob Stacey, on the other hand, has never been shy from doing what's right. Bob as a policy advisory helped end mega-freeway expansion from destroying our neighborhoods and cities and later to invest in livable communities connected by light rail. Bob as an attorney helped develop the city. Bob as an advocate helped pass state legislation to require Metro to meet GHG goals - as well as to protect a state national treasure, the Metolius River.
Bob's never been afraid of disagreeing with the status quo. And right now, we need more than the status quo of building some light rail and bike lanes while we sprawl out into Washington County and Vancouver, Washington. We need to revitalize our existing neighborhoods and city centers in the Metro region - and Bob's the guy who can do it.
Of course, even if Rex doesn't win, he'll still be on the Metro Council. He'll do a fine job assisting Bob Stacey's status quo.
Mar 25, '10
This time I agree with Carla 100%.
Any logic with that pap, "insider", or are we to change our vote based on your proclamation? Nice choice of red herring, though. That's obviously one of the worst case scenarios for progressives.
BTW, is it just me, or does anyone else think accessibility should be a major issue in this race? I've found Metro to be completely unapproachable...and that's relative to the Portland City Council.
Mar 25, '10
Carla, I wasn't aware that "much more affordable, creative approach" meant "unrealistic approach that Washington and Clark County will never agree to"...
11:07 a.m.
Mar 25, '10
Cafe:
"unrealistic approach that Washington and Clark County will never agree to"...
Or perhaps better leadership will continue to help bring them along. Looks to me like the "never agree to" thing is not nearly what you describe.
http://djcoregon.com/news/2010/02/22/some-fear-bridge-will-lead-to-sprawl/
Mar 25, '10
Oh brother
"Bob Stacey, on the other hand, has never been shy from doing what's right". Bob's never been afraid of disagreeing with the status quo"
Bob and the rest ARE the status quo.
When has he or they disagreed with themselves?
So what does the status quo say it this means? "invest in livable communities connected by light rail."
More Gateway, Rockwood, SoWa, Cascade Station, and The Round investments?
"Bob helped develop the city, helped to require Metro to meet GHG goals - as well as to protect a state national treasure, the Metolius River."
It's amazing to read this stuff when it never details what is actually being proposed.
One can only conclude that more of the same follies and boondoggles we saw over the past 20 years are being proposed. All of them were also called "revitalize our existing neighborhoods and city centers in the Metro region" Great.
"and Bob's the guy who can do it" Do what? More of the same? They all are.
It doesn't matter who wins this race between clones.
Everything Metro has been and is working on will continue without missing a beat.
We'll get more of exactly what we've been watching at enormous public cost.
What's going in Milwaukie after light rail? A heavily urban renewal subsidized Gateway or another Round? What? What's going anywhere? Livable communities sounds swell but if you're talking about more of the same why not come clean and tell the public "YES, we want more of these everywhere"
Mar 25, '10
None of the three candidates really offer much other than the same old status quo endorsements of socially engineered policy making, a desire to control the people and gratification of the special interests at the expense of the general public that Metro has become notorious for. Stacey however is the worst of the three with his out to lunch and unrealistic socialistic views on transportation policy - including his opposition to increased freeway capacity the CRC – all of which will only create more congestion, drive businesses out of the Metro area and increase the cost of living for all who live here. Stacey is both an elitist and a socialist in democratic clothing living in the same unaffordable bubble the majority now subsidizes for the few along with Sammy Boy Adams, Bicycle Breath Blumenauer, and all their appointed cronies who serve in advisory positions disguised as citizen representation.
Mar 25, '10
"... it seemed like there should/could have been a lot more done, especially in terms of pressuring back on the County"
Like what? The record shows Rex exerted as much pressure as possible given his position outside the "Core 4":
So how much more could Rex, Robert and Rod have done? That their proposals were stiff-armed by the Council did indeed suck -- and of course they were excluded from Core 4 deliberations where most of the horse-trading happened -- but blaming them for "not doing enough" is unfair, to say the least.
Mar 25, '10
I agree with Carla on this. Columbia Crossing is the crucial issue for the next few years, and Burkholder has been mostly supportive of the sprawl-creating, climate-warming mega-bridge. Stacey takes a more forward looking stance on the project.
As far as Metro's orientation toward development, I also agree with Carla. I find little enthusiasm for increased population among the people of the metro area. Those who profit from development would love to pave the entire planet, starting with that nice flat farmland in Washington County. And they do more than lobby. They contribute a healthy portion of the money Metro candidates [as well as county commission candidates] spend on their campaigns.
One dollar, one vote. So it goes.
Mar 25, '10
Just Saying wrote:
None of the three candidates really offer much other than the same old status quo endorsements of socially engineered policy making
It's the "social engineering" that is relatively new, J.S.. Putting personal property rights above the common good is status quo.
Mar 25, '10
Just Saying wrote:
None of the three candidates really offer much other than the same old status quo endorsements of socially engineered policy making
Like the right wing isn't major into social engineering as well. At least we're not hypocrites. "Republicans aren't supposed to have a social agenda. These people (Reagan/Bush) will ruin the party". So spoke the oh-so-liberal Barry Goldwater.
Right wingers like the founding fathers and their inspiration. I propose you consider one of Jefferson's inspirations, Voltaire, and Candide's statement "Il faut cultiver notre jardin". "We must cultivate our garden" was probably meant to make fun of narrow minded self interest. Voltaire would be very surprised to find out that while our technical ability has increased so much, it's actually acceptable political debate to propose that maybe there should be no cultivation at all. Even the bumbled headed status quo Candide never went that far.
1:18 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
So how much more could Rex, Robert and Rod have done? That their proposals were stiff-armed by the Council did indeed suck -- and of course they were excluded from Core 4 deliberations where most of the horse-trading happened -- but blaming them for "not doing enough" is unfair, to say the least.
Matt: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Actually having an alternative proposal is great--and yes, being outside the Core 4 deliberations must have been very difficult. That's where, in my view, the leadership for those who really believed in greater rural reserves needed to become more aggressive. Instead, it seemed to turn into doing everything possible to keep Tom Brian from walking away. In my view a completely senseless move.
Is that unfair? I guess that depends on what you observed and who you talk with. It certainly seemed like some outside the Core 4 did manage to get in some discussion while other either couldn't or decided against it.
Mar 25, '10
I totally agree with your frustration about the Core 4 letting Brian off the hook, but what did that have to with Rex, exactly? Shut out of those sessions, what could he have done, over and above throwing his weight behind an alternate plan and the work he did to raise public awareness on the issue?
That's certainly way more than the other two candidates did, in any event. By your argument, "not doing enough" on the urban reserves issue is a strike against Bob, not for him.
2:31 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Shut out of those sessions, what could he have done, over and above throwing his weight behind an alternate plan and the work he did to raise public awareness on the issue?
Other Metro councilors outside the Core 4 seemed to manage it. At least that's the information that came to me.
I wouldn't have expected Hughes or Stacey to have that same inside track--not being already on Metro or the County Commissions.
Mar 25, '10
What about the CRC do you disagree with?
That it needs to be built at all? The present bridge is a conglomerate of bridges and repairs that started in 1918, added to in 1958. ODOT and the US DOT both agree the bridge is functionally obsolete and already beyond its expected life span.
Do you disagree with the infamous drawing of the megabridge? Final designs are not approved.
We're stuck with a rather dubious honor, those of us in Portland Metro at this time. We HAVE to replace our grandparents' bridge, and at the same time build something our grandchildren will use. I would love to think that the bicycle revolution has arrived and we'll be able to annually transport 4.2 million TONS of commodities via bikes, but we're just not there yet.
Nor will we ever be.
The longer we delay the inevitable the more likely it is we'll spend more; be hurried because of the obsolesence of the existing bridge; and still have to produce a car/truck-oriented structure.
Mar 25, '10
Carla, the problem Stacey will have is that he he's too extreme in his positions. He'll never get things done on the Metro Council that way, let alone working with 25 cities three counties and themayors and commissioners from each of them. He can say the word "collaboration" until he's blue in the the face, but he'll never be collaborative unless decisions lean towards his opinions. And that's why Rex WILL be successful - he knows how to get things done and where to spend his energy and time, as well as how to compromise and reach an agreement. And as for supporting a candidate because of ONE project (albeit a rather large one) you're as misguided as the people of Vancouver, who voted for Leavitt because he didn't support the bridge and tolling. Well guess what, Tim doesn't get to make that decision alone. He'll be a failure in lots of people's eyes when construction and tolling starts, because that's the only way to move traffic and FREIGHT dn to keep this region viable. And anyone who thinks that Rex NOT supporting the reserves process would have caused made a huge difference in the end result is also off base. Washington County would NEVER stand for less urban areas, and besides, dozens of people had to work this out. Do you think Stacey could have moved them all in his direction? Dream on.
Mar 25, '10
Carla: Sorry to keep pressing you about this, but with respect, that doesn't add up: "others outside the Core 4 did manage to get in some discussion" is good, but Rex going against the majority of the council by backing a better plan -- and publicly broadcasting it and his thinking through various venues -- is not good enough. True, that isn't "discussion" -- it's actual pressure.
And yes, as citizens and as influential public figures, Bob and Tom could easily have participated in that discussion and pressuring, but as far as I know, they did not.
2:59 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Washington County would NEVER stand for less urban areas, and besides, dozens of people had to work this out.
Yes, they would have.
There is no way Tom Brian would have walked away from 1,000 fewer acres in urban reserves in Washington County. He probably wouldn't have walked away from 5,000 fewer.
If Brian had walked away, the process would have defaulted to the old UGB way of doing things. There is NO WAY that particular process would have allowed for the amount set aside of urban reserves for Washington County that Brian negotiated. Not even close.
Mar 25, '10
Rex has been a tireless advocate for good land use planning since the mid eighties.He received an award from 1000 friends for being the "most effective citizen advocate". Effective. He understands how to create green jobs.He has shown leadership over and over. What has Bob done other than sue folks? He passed up invitations to be on the CRC Task Force, he didn't weigh in on the Urban reserves discussions, didn't participate in the process. We don't need a metro pres that only knows how to litigate. We need someone who doesn't fade away or stay out of the mix when there are tough and nuanced decisions to be made. that kind of leader is Rex. Vote for Rex for Metro President.
Mar 25, '10
I support Carla Axtman's endorsement.
I expect Bob Stacey would be a great ally of Robert Liberty and that the two would agree on just about everything. I believe Robert Liberty is one of the great visionaries that our region has had- an environmental advocate who is also a fiscal hawk (as evidenced by his effective criticism of the fiscal boondoggle CRC).
What we need to do is move forward toward sustainability (especially as regards greenhouse gas emissions) and do it while spending as little money as possible.
I believe Liberty shares that vision and that Stacey would, too.
Mar 25, '10
Martin Burch wrote:
What about the CRC do you disagree with?
it's high cost will hinder other infrastructure construction.
it will lead to increased SOV miles driven.
it rewards the policy of sprawl in southwest Washington.
goods and people can be transported less expensively by utilizing traffic management strategies and increased public transport.
it's design is informed by pre-peak oil conceptions of energy use. Trains, ships, and public transport will increase, and truck and car travel will decrease as energy costs rise.
5:19 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Carla: Sorry to keep pressing you about this, but with respect, that doesn't add up: "others outside the Core 4 did manage to get in some discussion" is good, but Rex going against the majority of the council by backing a better plan -- and publicly broadcasting it and his thinking through various venues -- is not good enough. True, that isn't "discussion" -- it's actual pressure.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I appreciated Liberty and Burkholder's mapping. But knowing he was running for a bigger leadership position, I had really hoped to see Rex show up at the meeting in Washington County when it was revealed--and do some real advocacy for it. As it was, it went away pretty quickly, unfortunately. And then when the Core 4 got down to it--it seemed like there were some Metro Councilors and County Commissioners outside the Core 4 that managed to do advocacy and get some movement on stuff. Andy Duyck and Kathryn Harrington come to mind immediately. I didn't see any of that from Rex.
I feel like we've gone over this point ad nauseum, so feel free to have the last word.
Mar 25, '10
robert leander wrote:
it's high cost will hinder other infrastructure construction.
it will lead to increased SOV miles driven.
it rewards the policy of sprawl in southwest Washington.
goods and people can be transported less expensively by utilizing traffic management strategies and increased public transport.
it's design is informed by pre-peak oil conceptions of energy use. Trains, ships, and public transport will increase, and truck and car travel will decrease as energy costs rise.
=============
It's never going to get cheaper, and the bridge is a central component in ALL infrastructure work short of telecommunications and aviation infrastructures.
SOVs are unfortunately a reality for the foreseeable future. Rather than deny this reality and opt for a rope bridge, I say we have to deal with this reality as we plan our infrastructures. Changing the fuel requirements of SOVs is the prudent and only practical goal.
Sprawl? I'd love to see the data you use to reach this conclusion about SW WA. Likewise your claims about transporting goods and people.
You seem to be assuming the final designs for the bridge have been presented and approved; they have not.
Mar 30, '10
Sorry for the delay in commenting. I've been busy.
Martin Burch wrote: It's never going to get cheaper, and the bridge is a central component in ALL infrastructure work short of telecommunications and aviation infrastructures.
Bridges are important, but Portland already has two interstate bridges that are far below capacity much of the time. For the most part, nothing is going to get cheaper. We should spend our limited capital where it will provide the most value over time.
MB: SOVs are unfortunately a reality for the foreseeable future. Rather than deny this reality and opt for a rope bridge, I say we have to deal with this reality as we plan our infrastructures. Changing the fuel requirements of SOVs is the prudent and only practical goal.
Bridges are expensive and take decades to pay for. The important reality is that transportation will change radically in the next few decades. We should build infrastructure for the future, not the past.
MB wrote: Sprawl? I'd love to see the data you use to reach this conclusion about SW WA. Likewise your claims about transporting goods and people.
Take a look at the map here, which shows recent sprawl in SW Washington. The wrongheaded development that Oregon has avoided has moved across the Columbia and drives to work in Oregon five days per week to work and on weekends to shop.
This is not the place to educate you about peak oil and climate change. You can start at these sights if you choose to get up to speed:
ASPO Postcarbon IPCC 350
MB wrote: You seem to be assuming the final designs for the bridge have been presented and approved; they have not.
<h2>I oppose any bridge that even vaguely resembles the present plan. It represents seriously screwed up vision.</h2>