Fatuous argument in support of Charter changes

When an Oregonian editorial has me using Dictionary.com ten minutes after brewing the day’s first cup of coffee, to determine whether “fatuous” or “spurious” should go in a blog post title, you know it’s a real doozy. I went with fatuous, meaning “foolish or inane, esp. in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly; unreal; illusory”, over spurious, “not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit” – but it was a close call, as the latter has a third definition of “bastard” which was tempting.

The O‘s argument goes like this:

1. The Burnside Couplet is A Bad Idea;
2. The Burnside Couplet is being pursued primarily by Sam Adams, as Commissioner-in-Charge of the Portland Office of Transportation;
3. If City Council members other than the Mayor had no power, they wouldn’t get to waste city money researching Bad Ideas like the Burnside Couplet which may later be shot down by the whole Council;
4. Under the proposed new form of government, City Council members other than the Mayor would have almost no ability to research ideas or try innovative things without permission from the Mayor;
5. Therefore, vote for the all-powerful Mayor form of government, because an all-powerful Mayor would never have a Bad Idea, and other City Council members will have no power to do anything.

In rebuttal, I offer three words: Mayor Sam Adams.

Mayor Sam Adams is a very real possibility, whether the Charter changes are adopted or not. If the Oregonian considers Sam has too much power to work on the Burnside Couplet now, what on earth (or what in Portland) do they think is going to stop him from driving forward with something the Oregonian considers A Bad Idea in the future, under the all-powerful Mayor structure? Pressure from the almost-as-powerful Oregonian, whose endorsement will carry increased weight in the Big Money campaigns to elect the all-powerful Mayor?

It’s as if backers of the changes polled to find out what issues are unpopular with Portlanders, then resolved to quote those perceived problems repeatedly as if the new form of government would undoubtledly fix them all.

The Burnside Couplet is one such controversial proposal – I don’t believe it’s appropriate prioritization of transportation dollars myself, when other areas of our city need basic improvements more urgently than Burnside needs an upgrade. The tram is likely another – I’ve already lost count of how many times proponents of the Curiously-Strong Mayor have cited the tram’s cost over-runs as an example of something that wouldn’t have happened under the new form, regardless of the fact that Mayor Katz was the driving force getting the project approved without doing the cost analysis recommended by the Planning Commission, or the evidence that Mayor Potter continued to push it even when the price was five times the original estimate. But the supporters of Charter change have no qualms in citing such examples as “evidence” of the need for a different form of government. They apparently don’t believe Portlanders have the ability to think it through.

I believe we do.

One other notable quote from the editorial today: it laments the Burnside Couplet has not had adequate review by “the city’s experts in planning and redevelopment.” Ooh, punch in the gut, Bureau of Planning! They mean the Portland Development Commission, not the nationally-famous, award-winning Planning Bureau which serves all of Portland, not just urban renewal areas.

In your face, Bureau of Planning!