Respect, the morning after?

Turns out the 4th Avenue proposal for the street to be renamed for César Chávez was at least jointly made by Erik Sten – see Amy J. Ruiz’s Blogtown post. Try reading the Oregonian‘s editorial yesterday again, substituting “Erik Sten” for “Dan Saltzman” each time. “Once again, Sten has come through for the city.” Hehehe.

Also of note in Amy’s post:

“After Commissioner Sam Adams met with the committee yesterday afternoon, they talked to him, too. Then Saltzman went to Mayor Tom Potter, to ask him to consider the idea overnight—and to consider owning the idea, so the council could reach consensus.

Instead, Potter’s office called the Oregonian.”

Perhaps that explains why Sam Adams didn’t mention the idea to the group he met with Wednesday evening – apparently, he was giving the Mayor the courtesy of time to review it before going public. The Mayor’s choice to put it on the front page instead seems rather like dysfunctional divorced parents using the kids as pawns to get back at each other.

So, what’s next? I’m curious to find out exactly what the Planning Commission is being asked to review. Others had raised questions about the legality of waiving the Code-required process and standards for street renaming; presumably, the referral to the Planning Commission is intended to fix that oh-so-picky requirement that the Council follow the law, by changing it. But how?

Are they asking the Planning Commission to approve “what we’ve done” as the process for this particular rename? Or is the intent to repeal 17.93? Either way, why ask the Planning Commission, which doesn’t have jurisdiction over Chapters of the Code other than Title 33? Why ask volunteers (any volunteers, on the Planning Commission or elsewhere) to review something the Council has already indicated by a 4-1 vote is a Done Deal?

The morning after this phase of the saga, I don’t see much respect having been fostered in the process or the product. The Chávez committee feels disrespected, since the members saw being able to influence the Council as a primary goal and by that standard failed to achieve it. The neighborhood folk opposing the change feel disrespected that they had to make so much noise to be heard. Observers here and elsewhere saw disrespect of opponents from both sides. The Code was disrespected, and now the Planning Commission is being asked to review something where likely their recommendation doesn’t matter (if it did, they’d be given more time).

Some people say that process doesn’t matter, that details aren’t important, that citizen involvement just takes setting up a committee and holding meetings. Perhaps now, we can agree that good public process, laws, and leadership in public participation are worthy of our respect?