Next steps in the Vision for a better Portland

I believe the Vision project has two main flaws.

The expectation should not have been set that it would define a Vision that could be used to reach specific, implementable action items. Portland already has a Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1980 and continually being amended and updated. That plan is for “the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs.” Not quite everything encompassed in the Vision process, but close. Having been a Planning Commissioner for seven years, with one of the main jobs being overseeing implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, I can tell you that going from the Big Picture vision to the code regulations that are supposed to implement it is not a simple task. And it’s not one on which there is automatic agreement from all stakeholders and interest groups. What often matters most is not what a plan says, but who gets to decide how it is implemented.

And given that it was not realistic from the outset define a single Vision with implementable action items, the Number One goal of the Vision process should have been to engage citizens in ONGOING participation in civic issues. The project should be redefined with that goal, now. In many ways, where we’re going isn’t as important as who is involved in how we get there.

In active listening, after “Thank you, that was interesting”, the next step is, “This is what I heard – is that correct?” And then in VisionPDX, instead of leaving it at that, asking, “What are you able to do to solve this problem/reach this goal? How can the City/others/I help?” I attended one of the “outreach” efforts funded by City grants – Sojourner Theater’s presentation. I had to register with a City number to get the tickets, so someone has my contact information. I’ve received no follow-up since the performance. Citizen involvement should mean more than having a person fill out a survey or attend one meeting or event.

I would like to see Mayor Potter and the VisionPDX committee take the next step. And to me, that isn’t asking City Council to fund grants showing how the Vision can be implemented. It’s not a particularly accurate or complete Vision, for one thing (see details in those links to my previous posts). And thanks to Mayor Potter, Sam Adams, and the rest of the Council, grants for neighborhood projects were included in the last budgets already. But more importantly, the words and implementation of the Vision are much less crucial to the Portland of tomorrow than engaging the citizens of today in decision-making and implementation of City policies and practices.

I think the next steps in the Vision process should be these:

1. Use the full range of Portland’s Citizen Involvement web to seek feedback on the draft Vision. Ask Portland’s 95 Neighborhoood Associations, and all other civic groups that were involved in giving input, to review the proposed Vision, in September. I’ve heard the Office of Neighborhood Involvement has a list of over 300 such organizations. Ask PTAs to give feedback on “Learning Portland”, Neighborhood Business Associations and Unions to provide comments specific to “Economic Portland”, and so on. Ask immigrant groups and high school students, the Urban League, Oregon Action — ask all known groups. It wouldn’t cost much in staff time or materials to e-mail contacts in all these groups. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a specific request to organizations, asking for feedback. If the goal of the process is citizen involvement rather than an action plan, those “political, professional and business leaders” referenced in Renee Mitchell’s column (see post below) aren’t the main people to talk with. They already know how to be involved and get what they want.

2. Contact every person whose records are filed with the Vision project, and invite them to attend the meetings in their neighborhood that will discuss it. Give them a list of options — Neighborhood Associations, immigrant groups, interest focus organizations like bikes, arts, parks, whatever. Give specific times and meeting locations. Make it easy for citizens to begin participating, in whatever area sparks their passion.

3. Hold a hearing at City Council to revise the language of the Vision, and to take input on Next Steps. But don’t do that before steps 1 and 2. Don’t do a PR campaign, don’t do “a series of efforts to line up backers” as reported in the Trib. Oh, I guess that is already happening. OK, change the focus to “line up” NEW participants, rather than the “usual suspects”. We need new volunteers, and we certainly need more, different kinds of folks in the category recognized as “leaders”.

4. Base future actions and spending on what is heard in steps 1 – 3, and on the many citizen involvement and bureau improvement plans that have been defined already. We don’t need to spend more money finding new answers. We need to engage more people in implementing the answers we already know.

The words and even the actions of the Vision don’t matter nearly as much as who will be allowed and encouraged to participate in shaping our city’s future. Will the Portland of tomorrow be planned and reached by the decisions of the In Crowd, with second-class citizens preoccupied with busywork on the Vision? Or will Portland’s City Council truly embrace the value of citizen involvement, and use the Vision process to let people outside of the In Crowd be important in reaching a future Portland that works for more people?

A third option, of course, is to say, “That was real, that was good, but it wasn’t real good. Let’s call it good enough, bag it, and move on”. I think then, an opportunity to involve thousands of people who don’t currently participate in Portland decision-making would be lost. But it is an option that is on the table.