“Vision” for “Built Portland”

I suggest you take the VisionPDX survey without reading the background reports and other documents on the lead-in page. If a goal statement is clear, it doesn’t need an explanatory booklet to make it so. And if any of this Vision stuff is used at all in the future, what the goals actually say will be more important than what they were intended to say. I recommend giving feedback on the survey as if the lanugage in it will be used to set future budgets, policies, and direction for City government decision-makers. Does it describe the Portland you want, and make the Portland you don’t want less likely to happen?

The very first question is NOT what I want to see the City doing. It asks citizens to say which two of eight values are most important. They are: Equity and Accessibility; Sustainability; Community Connections; Localism and Distinctiveness; Safety; Innovation and Creativity; Inclusion and Diversity; and Accountability and Leadership.

What a horrible question, asking citizens to pick two of those over the other six! Each of those values might be most important in a particular situation. And they are all important, They should work together. Indeed, State Law requires equal weighting of the 15 Statewide land use planning goals, in preparing Comprehensive Plans. Why even ask which two of the eight are most important? What is the intent of this question? If only a minority says Inclusion and Diversity (or any one of the other seven) is most important, does that mean the City of Portland isn’t going to promote that value and goal?

I despise public opinion questions that have no purpose, and those which give false choices. This one makes me plain angry. Not a good way to start the survey. I did not mark any two options when I completed the survey, and noted in the comments why not. If you agree, please do the same. Or, as in the Charter change votes, not participating at all is a valid choice which gives information on the level of engagement of Portlanders.

The survey then covers five areas, each with suggested Vision Statements: Built Portland, Economic Portland, Learning Portland, Natural Portland, and Social Portland. And the second most-disturbing section of the survey is placed first: Built Portland. Gee, I wonder why development would be first up, rather than trees or children. Happily, “Built Portland” is one of my specialties, after 15 years as a Neighborhood Association land use chair and seven years on the Planning Commission. I believe this section of the proposed Vision is very troubling, and potentially very dangerous. In it, we are asked to endorse several suggested Vision Statements, including:

* “We are a global leader in transportation, public art, architecture, and design.”

I am getting tired of the “global leader” phrase, concept, and goal. If being a global leader in these things means the tram, the South Waterfront skyscrapers towering over the river, and parking structures in historic neighborhoods if they look nice, that’s not the Built Portland I want. Following the philosophy of Helen Keller, I don’t think it’s particularly important if Portland is the global leader in things that can be seen, heard, or touched. I want us to be leaders in things that are felt in the heart, and known in the mind. In clean air, clean water, healthy families, honest government, meaningful citizen engagement. Global leader in transportation? Does that mean walking is out? I hate to break this to the Vision writers, but there are many cities around the world where there are already sidewalks and crosswalks near schools. Could we perhaps aspire to the goal of “We catch up with developing countries in the ability to walk in neighborhoods without being run over”? How about “We have paved roads in most areas of the city”? I know this is supposed to be a Vision, but dreams seldom come true without at least some tether to reality. And in the real world, the choice will be either sidewalks in all neighborhoods, OR fancy-schmancy features in a select few.

My Vision is to provide high quality basic services to all, before we embark on providing world-leading service to some. Because you know what? There’s no mention of cost in any of these Portland Vision goals. And in the real world, we don’t and won’t have an endless supply of taxes and fees to fund any implementation of a Vision. I believe the Vision statements should reflect what we want most, in the real world.

• “Decisions about how and what to build are thoughtfully made and incorporate a diversity of viewpoints and priorities.”

I don’t think “thoughtfully” is the correct adverb here. I’m not sure what I’d substitute, but when it leads to “incorporate a diversity of viewpoints and priorities”, I know the goal has veered off track. Decisions about how and what to build should at least partly be made on the basis of state and local laws. The Zoning Code, for example. It’s, like, State law, to have decisions about how and what to build made on the basis of specific regulations, y’know? How about substituting “Decisions on how and what to build are made using fair, clear, objective processes with consideration of neighborhood character and values, free from undue influence by developers”? That’s my Vision for deciding what and how to build in Portland.

• “Our distinctive neighborhoods are built around hubs and exist in relationship with a thriving downtown which is the center of the metro region.”

What is a “hub”? And is this it for neighborhood character and identity? Yep, reviewing the entire “Built Portland” list, the only time neighborhoods are mentioned is in their relationship to downtown. And they “exist” in that relationship. Downtown thrives, neighborhoods exist. Says it all, doesn’t it? Seriously, people, if you complete the survey, think about what’s NOT on it, as well as about what each phrase and word actually says. What do you want the Vision for Portland to say about your neighborhood and the other 90+ neighborhoods outside of downtown?

• “Our built environment is a mix of the reassuringly old and the strikingly new.”

Read that again. Our Vision for Portland is supposed to be that “our built environment is a mix of the reassuringly old and the strikingly new.” What does this mean? All on one street, or some old parts, some new? This statement sounds to me like it could have been written to justify the tram over the Lair Hill historic neighborhood. It sounds like it could allow stunningly out-of-character super-modern buildings in quaint old neighborhoods like Multnomah Village. I don’t even know what they mean by “reassuringly old”. Rat-infested converted motels serving as single-room apartments? Or the beloved old houses currently being torn down to build “strikingly new” condominiums?

Holy smokescreen, Batman. I don’t know what if anything the Council intends to do with this “Vision” if it is ever completed. Apparently we are embarking on “Visioning Month” (oddly, May 19 to June 19 rather than a regular calendar month), in which we are all supposed to become enthusiastic about the Vision and its process. Several meetings to discuss the proposed Vision statements have already happened. I don’t know whether to encourage you to participate and scream as loudly as you can in the hopes of changing some of the items noted above, or suggest that you boycott (or continue to ignore) the process so any outcome isn’t supported statistically. On balance, I think many Portlanders’ voices need to be heard at this point, otherwise the Vision will likely move forward as proposed.

Either way, this stuff could be Big Trouble. I’ll cover the other four sections of the proposed Vision in other posts. I’m quite riled up enough for today.