For mayor, an environmental champion: Eileen Brady
By Sen. Jackie Dingfelder and Rep. Jules Bailey of Portland, Oregon.
On this 42nd Earth Day, we celebrate the beauty and bounty that nature provides us - and consider how to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and all the things that make our city and our state a great place to live. In Portland, that abundance is especially visible, from the majesty of Mt. Hood to the serenity of Forest Park. We are fortunate to live surrounded by such an incredible range of wilderness and to have some of the cleanest drinking water in the nation.
Today we are writing to urge you to support the one environmental champion in the Mayor's race - Eileen Brady.
This past fall, we were named Environmental Champion of the Year and Environmental Innovator of the Year by the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. In the Oregon Legislature, we are the Chairs of the Senate and House Environment Committees - on the front line of the fight to protect the environment in Oregon. We support Eileen Brady because we know that she will join us every single day to promote environmental protection and build a sustainable, clean economy.
As we lead the environmental fight in Salem, we need a Mayor of Portland that will be a strong partner. That leader is Eileen Brady.
Eileen has shown strong leadership on the environment, climate change, and sustainability throughout her life and career.
Eileen has been an environmental activist for 25 years - demonstrating working models for more a sustainable, green economy. From her early anti-nuclear activism to her leadership in the natural food business, Eileen has lived sustainability, and practiced it in her daily life. She has taken leadership in building many landmark environmental programs in our city, such as Zenger Farm, Ecotrust, and the Chinook Book. Some believe in the old myth that protecting the environment is at odds with economic growth and job creation. Eileen's accomplishments are proof that they, in fact, go hand in hand.
Eileen is the ONLY candidate in the Mayor's race to offer a specific plan for protecting our environment. As Mayor, Eileen will:
- Since 40% of emissions are linked to buildings, develop and implement a comprehensive energy efficiency plan to retrofit existing buildings.
- Apply the power of the mayor's office to ensure a cost-efficient, comprehensive cleanup of Portland harbor.
- Push for congestion tolling on the I-5 bridge - the most effective method for reducing emissions and increasing use of transit.
- Push for development of an electric vehicle charging network.
- Fight for Portland's air quality by insisting on air quality monitoring and pushing for air quality standards near public schools.
- Increase the tree canopy in Portland to 35% coverage to use nature’s systems to increase air quality, storm water management, and to manage flooding and erosion.
Eileen has our support because we've seen the positive impact she's already achieved through her leadership. Please join her grassroots, people-powered campaign. Eileen has nearly 2000 donors - an extraordinary accomplishment for a first-time candidate.
On this Earth Day, let's pledge to work together for a clean, healthy environment and to elect Eileen Brady, our next environmental champion.
|
April 22, 2012
|
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
6:03 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Any candidate who -- when asked by the AFL-CIO about her position on the Columbia River Crossing, replied "Let's build this thing!" -- is not the candidate I would consider an environmental champion.
Even if she does say something different when people ask her about it today.
6:21 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Why does the Hawthorne Bridge have signs that tell drivers to turn their cars off instead of idling? Those of us biking on the bridge know that cars stopped, or going at a snail's pace, is the least efficient means of burning gas -- slow traffic means more pollution, period. And given the remarkable amount of pollution that is spewed by people idling or driving in first and second gear, all the way across the Columbia River, we have to have a solution.
Which is why Eileen Brady appears to be the only candidate standing with Governor Kitzhaber on getting a skinnied bridge built -- one that will (1) allow light rail, (2) improve ped/bike transport, and (3) reduce congestion and the associating pollution.
And while I realize that Jefferson just can't do anything more than the conservative line of "don't invest in infrastructure" on the CRC, the bottom line is that real environmentalists view our city holistically, and know that sustainable agriculture, livable communities, and jobs that don't force people to drive many miles to work, is the best way to steward our environment.
7:25 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
The problem with that argument is that the CRC's own data shows that there will be more cars sitting in congestion on the bridge after it is built than there will be if the bridge is not built. And the congestion will be worse further downstream at the Rose Quarter, resulting in pollution pouring into Portland neighborhoods in addition to the pollution at the bridge itself. In short, there are no environmental benefits to the bridge.
"jobs that don't force people to drive many miles to work"
Locating housing in rural Clark County where people have to drive to Portland to find a job is what "forces people to drive miles to work". One of the primary results of a new bridge will be to encourage even more people to commute from Clark County instead of living close their job in Oregon. That's one of the reasons a new bridge won't reduce congestion, just increase the space so more cars can sit on the bridge in the congestion at the same time.
9:56 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Ross, I don't understand your argument.
On the one hand, you say that the bridge won't reduce congestion.
On the other, you say that the bridge will just encourage more people to commute from Clark County.
Seems to me that the only way it encourages more people to commute from Clark County is if it reduces congestion. If the congestion is the same as it ever was, how would it impact where people want to live?
You may be right about one or the other, but I don't think it can be both.
(And for what it's worth, I still think this is much ado about nothing -- there ain't going to be any money for this.)
Full disclosure: My firm built Eileen Brady's campaign website. I speak only for myself.
11:13 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
It happens all the time. I used to see it back in the Houston area all the time. Roads are completely congested, so we expand them and/or build another one. Congestion drops for just a short period, after which more people pile onto the roads and we're back where we were before - completely congested roads. We just now have even more people living further away from their work than we did before.
So while yes, congestion drops for a short period, in the long period we end up right where we were before. And it's that long-term outlook that people are talking about.
11:09 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
I see Kari supports Jefferson's position: where's the money coming from?
2:16 p.m.
Apr 24, '12
Kari -
They not only are not in conflict, they are mutually the same. There will more people commuting, they will all end up sitting on the bridge and there will be the same congestion. This has been the universal pattern of suburban road development.
To use an analogy. Lets say you have a supermarket check out and once it reaches 10 people waiting, customers just leave instead of waiting. So you open a second check out. Customers still leave when both lines reach 10 people. But there are now 20 people waiting in line, instead of 10.
With congestion that latent demand is almost always there. If its not there immediately, it will soon be created.
10:07 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
There is not a single environmental organization I know of that supports the CRC mega-highway, the largest, most expensive legacy our region will face during the next mayoral term, and perhaps generations to come. There are many who oppose it.
Nor does the CRC have the support of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance or Bike Walk Vote - so the idea that building it is the pro-bike position is also doubtful.
The idea that Brady's position to push forward the current plan from the highway departments - that, as Ross notes, will increase congestion and pollution in North Portland - is the environmental position is doubtful.
Again, it's not mainly a bridge. It's mainly a five-mile highway expansion. To spend $3 billion on highway expansion to move congestion south and get the $1 billion of things that may benefit the region is foolish. And to talk about it as if it's about the $1 billion parts of the project is disingenuous.
Finally, Jefferson Smith has also been one of the handful of legislators singled out by the Oregon League of Conservation Voters for his stellar environmental work in the legislature. He has experience in public office protecting the environment, and a record of delivering.
I think all three main candidates have a basic support for the environment - which is great. When it comes to politically tough decisions like the CRC, I trust Jefferson Smith.
10:52 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Oh, yes, disclaimers: I've done some paid work on the CRC mega-highway issue. I served as the Legislative Affairs Director for OLCV for a couple years. I speak only for myself.
Finally, I think Jefferson's position on the CRC is very far from how you portray it.
Among other things, he asks: is this our highest priority and best use of limited resources? and, Is the money actually there to build it? Two central questions that the mega-project has never answered.
4:55 a.m.
Apr 25, '12
I personally trust the abilities, focus and record of Charlie Hales. Jefferson is good non profit leadership material but the environment, and our City need a proven leader who has navigated the complex city silos and produced winning successes for the environment.
I saw what Charlie was able to do in his decade leading on the environment and balancing that with our economic needs. The Willy Week was on the money about painting the urgent need for a proven leader in these times.
I look forward to the results after the primary. That said, as a 20 year plus Environmental Law Enforcement professional, I'm for HALES. Looking forward to watching the results with you Evan. :)
HALES YEA!!!!!
11:07 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
Almost always, the most environmentally favorable thing is to re-use, not to build new. That aside I don't think the CRC does much for any of your priorities. We for sure need a better way to move freight, but that doesnt mean new freeway How about if people just commute less by living near where they work?
11:18 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Eileen Brady has been known to many people as a persistent and plain-spoken advocate for the environment.,
Throughout the years she has campaigned for good water quality and good development practices along the banks of the creeks and the Willamette River. She promoted sound growth management as a Ecotrust VP county commissioner and as a representative to the regional sustainability council.
Over the years Eileen Brady has been a staunch friend to Sierra Club,Ecotrust and other Environmental issues in the NW assisting us in our endeavors and offering her home for benefit fundraisers. Her decades of work for the environment make her a real champion to us.
5:14 a.m.
Apr 25, '12
I agree 110%
As an actual career Environmental professional I have little trust in anything other then clear corporate "GREENWASHING" from Brady. Almost every environmentalist I respect has offered public and or private support for Hales and Jeff.
Sustainability and marketing Chinook Books and New Seasons products is not the key to protecting the environment. Protecting the actual environment through saving open spaces, reducing transportation related pollution, and especially through environmental enforcement is what progressive Portlanders need. I am happy the Willy Week and the Oregon have now both Endorsed CHARLIE HALES , not corporate Greenwasher / Portland Business Alliance favorite Brady.
HALES YEA
6:41 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Jefferson is the candidate in the race who has done more than just say he'll do work to protect the environment - he's actually done it as an elected official. And he didn't just work together with people on the same side of the aisle as him - he brought together people from both sides to solve water issues in Eastern Oregon, for instance.
He's done a lot of work to promote the growth of local businesses. The more local businesses we have to get services and products from, the less that has to be shipped in from elsewhere. And as we all know, the shipment of goods across the country produces a lot of waste and pollution.
Just because you can do good in areas where people self-select to participate doesn't mean you can turn that into action as an elected official. As an elected official, you have to build coalitions with both sides of an issue to pull together enough votes. That is very different than a community activity where you mostly work with people who already agree with you.
7:29 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
I have a great deal of respect for the legislators who authored this post, but this is bunkum. Say what you will about Eileen but she's not "the one" environmental champion in the race. If she were, she'd be asking tough questions about the CRC rather than toeing the PBA line and then later revising her position.
9:57 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
Jules & Jackie, thanks for speaking up. thanks for letting Portland know where you stand on who you think should be your next mayor. your credibility will go a long ways in helping undecideds what the right choice is.
(disclaimer: i work part-time for the Brady campaign. and when i say, "i'd vote for her anyway", i'm speaking only for myself.)
10:42 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
I'm voting for Jefferson Smith because he's the only candidate in this race who has the budget, legislative and CEO experience to represent ALL of Portland. We, and America, have seen too much of how monied interests have driven the political discourse, to the detriment of those least able to join that discussion. Jefferson Smith has proven, time and again, that he has the best grasp of where our city has been, what we need, and how to motivate great people to pitch in to take us forward. From the environment, to education, to jobs, to our larger culture, Jefferson is the hardest working public servant we've seen. By a large margin. Jefferson walks the walk!
11:33 p.m.
Apr 22, '12
An "environmental champion" with the courage to stand up to every credible environmental organization by supporting the CRC, an environmental (and fiscal, and urban planning) catastrophe. Wow.
It's nice of Rep. Bailey and Sen. Dingfelder to lend their environmental credibility to their chosen candidate, but instead lends Eileen's environmental insincerity & contradictions to them...
12:09 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
I respect the position of those who oppose the CRC. I don't think it will be an "environmental catastrophe", however, because I think it's largely a fictional idea.
But curious about the implicit message in your comment that the CRC is the only environmental issue that matters in the Mayor's race.
6:57 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
The CRC is an interesting issue because it's a fabulous way to see how candidates react when under immense political pressure to support a project that's bad for the environment, bad for human health, and bad for less flashy investments like road maintenance.
There are clearly other issues, some of which were discussed at the recent environmental forum co-hosted by three of our large environmental groups.
The event was covered by OPB's Cassandra Profita. On those, Profita's reporting suggests:
Brady was the single candidate to say in the lightning round she hated the city's composting program (when forced to choose between loving and hating it). While all gave some caveats, she framed her reaction as negative, while the others framed theirs as positive.
Brady gave the least supportive answer for a local carbon tax.
On shipping coal through the city, Brady had the least clarity on a willingness to use the city's leverage to stop it.
As far Brady's plan announced above, it's a fine start. I don't see anything controversial in it - it leads by suggesting bringing the model of energy retrofitting buildings that Jefferson Smith (and others) championed in the legislature for schools to the city.
Again, I think all candidates value the environment, which is fabulous. But there are differences, as witnessed by the donor lists to the campaigns.
8:27 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
Evan, perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the very real problems created by the city mandating composting. And by that, I don't mean the problems of the end "user" -- the dumpsites, but the problem created when you tell citizens to do something and they refuse. As I understand it, a good amount of the green bins are full of non-compostable material.
All of which is why the compositing program should have been rolled out as a voluntary measure, so that those of us who are dedicated to complying can reap the benefits for our community (perhaps incentivized?).
2:28 p.m.
Apr 23, '12
The composting program is voluntary - have you seen anyone penalized for not composting? Is that anywhere in the code?
It sounds like a conservative conspiracy theory to frame it as other than voluntary (or polled talking point, as another Brady supporter talked about it that way recently).
When you use such vague measurements as "a good amount" I don't have much to respond to. I'm well aware that programs take time to settle in, and our recycling program still has non-recyclables in it, etc. Learning new habits can take some time.
For now, our landfills are benefiting from a lot less non-trash being added to them.
8:28 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
As for campaign contributions, I agree that it doesn't look like Eileen Brady has a lot of non-local Harvard Law School grads donating to her campaign.
7:45 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
Considering the magnitude of the issue and the difference in candidate's positions, functionally, it's the primary environmental issue in the race.
Hopefully it is a fiction - if by that you mean it won't really get built because the design is bad and the money's not there - all the more reason your candidate shouldn't support it.
In the unfortunate event the bridge does get built, it absolutely will be an environmental tragedy - investing $4-10b in a major highway system encouraging suburban sprawl is not a future worthy transportation investment. Further, projections don't show it'll cut commute time much, and in all likelihood will result in more pollution for the neighborhoods I-5 runs through.
7:41 p.m.
Apr 23, '12
The issue is big, but the difference in the candidates' positions are smaller than advertised, and the power of the next mayor to do anything about it is very small.
This is an issue that will largely be resolved between the Governors who run the DOTs, and the members of Congress and state legislators who will fund it.
8:38 a.m.
Apr 23, '12
Pushing for air quality monitoring near schools? Great idea. Putting a mega freeway near those schools? Not so great.
Pushing for congestion pricing? Great idea. Pushing to build a mega freeway in addition? Not such a great idea.
No candidate would have a chance in Portland without caring about the environment. And in Portland, we all love trees.
But sometimes you need to stand up and make the hard political decisions if they are the ones that resonate with the values of Portlanders. Jefferson was willing to do that early on, and Charlie is opposed to the freeway project also.
I celebrated Earth Day by walking for Jefferson. Portlanders care about the CRC, and he's got the best position on it.