Writing a Vision, or working towards a better future?

A neighbor walks past a parent and their young child, working together on painting the outside of their home. The child is making a mess – paint splatters everywhere, using the trim color on the siding, uneven coverage with the brush strokes. There are continual questions, chattering constantly, and taking frequent bathroom and snack breaks. “I bet you could get that job done a lot faster if you had less help,”, says the neighbor to the parent. “I’m not painting the house, I’m raising my child”, responds the parent.

This parable has been very helpful to me, over nearly 21 years of mothering. I think consideration of its principle would be helpful to consider as the VisionPDX is in draft form, and the Portland City Council will be deciding what to do next with it.

Is VisionPDX writing a specific plan that we expect City staff/Important People/someone-else-not-me to implement? Or is the main point of the exercise to include more people in participating in City decisions, in the project and in the future?

Renee Mitchell, in yesterday’s Oregonian, gives her perspective on Mayor Potter’s Vision project, titled, “It’s time to go from talk to action”. Renee’s summary:

“All Potter has produced so far is an expensive read on what the community wants to be in 30 years. What are the next steps? Who’s paying for it? Who’s accountable? Who knows?”

Jim Redden gave an update with more information on the process so far and over the next couple of months, in the Tribune last week. Their Editorlal board commented, too, saying much the same thing as Renee – ” If the visioning process, which has consumed thousands of volunteer hours, is to be worthwhile in the end, Potter and his staff must put some shape to it — and quickly.”.

I disagree that what’s needed now is more specific form and action items. I think that would mean more money spent on fluff without making much difference in the lives of most Portlanders, either of today or tomorrow. I believe Mayor Potter and his staff should focus VisionPDX on WHO will help shape the Portland of tomorrow, rather than what that will be.

Jim Redden notes:

“Whether the council will approve any more money for the project is unclear, however. Committee members have talked about asking the council to fund an ongoing series of grants to nonprofit community organizations to show how the vision can be implemented.

Another thing the committee agrees on is the need to build public support for the vision before it goes before the council.“

Newsflash for the committee – not happening. The product doesn’t inspire any more than the process. For details, see my reviews of the Vision sections for Built Portland, Economic Portland (interesting that it isn’t “Working Portland”, huh?), Learning Portland, Natural Portland, and Social Portland. One outstanding example: How can a Vision for Portland talk about “Learning Portland” without mentioning Portlanders’ support for our public school districts?

Returning to the Trib article:

“Toward that end, it has launched a series of efforts to line up backers. One is a Mayor’s Partnership Group Meeting set for July 30 with Potter. Another is a reception and celebration with supporters set for Sept. 6. Details of both gatherings still are being worked out.”

Ah, that presumably is to help line up the In Crowd – the people referenced in Renee Mitchell’s column here: “Historian Chet Orloff, who had his Portland State University students track the visionPDX project, says it ignored the political, professional and business leaders who create the jobs, build affordable housing, provide philanthropy and establish policies that keep the city livable.” Gee, do those people only participate in surveys if they’re specifically invited, or if there is a Blue Ribbon Focus Group set up exclusively for them and their opinions are given greater weight? No wonder the proposed Vision is a more generic “we wish Portland worked better for more people”, rather than “more subsidies for highrises in South Waterfront”. People who aren’t insiders sense something is rotten, but they can’t define what it is since they don’t have information about how decisions are made in Portland and who benefits.

Jim’s article continues:

“Some committee members also have begun briefing council members on their work. They already have met with Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who said he was pleased the surveys show the public supports parks and sustainable development, two areas in his bureau portfolio.”

Yeah, without the Vision survey we would only have had the fact that one third of Portland Parks & Recreation’s workforce hours are provided by volunteers – oh, and the voters’ repeated support for parks levies and bond measures – to let us know Portlanders care about parks and the natural environment.

OK. enough review of the newspaper coverage. I think the Vision process might still be used constructively, if we start thinking about and working on it as a vehicle to reach a Portland where more people feel the city works for them. More on that in another post.