Next Up at City Council, 10/3/2007

The Portland City Council’s Agenda for Wednesday, October 3, starts with a full slate of five speakers under Citizen Communications, for the first time in many weeks. Three will urge the Council to consider and pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney; one is down to talk about the relocation of Portland Saturday Market to Waterfront Park; and the final speaker’s title is “regarding privatization of parking spaces and developers and the infrastructure”.

Oh, this is good: Four citizens have been chosen to serve on the Citizens Campaign Commission, which oversees and advises the Council on the Public Campaign Finance program. Dylan Amo, Pete Forsyth, Kayse Jama, and Kathryn McLaughlin have agreed to volunteer their time for this long-term public good. Other than monitoring this current election cycle, one of the main tasks the Commission needs to attend to is formuation of rules for Public Campaign Financing in Special Elections. The current regulations and timelines only cover elections with a May primary and November General Election. If a seat on the Council becomes vacant mid-term, it will be especially important for candidates to have the option of using Public Campaign Financing.

Confirmation of the Campaign Commission appointments is the third Time Certain item, at 10:15 a.m. in a lineup all set for Wednesday morning – no afternoon session on Wednesday or Thursday. Before that:

1166 TIME CERTAIN: 9:30 AM – Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with the USDA Forest Service Mt.Hood National Forest for protection and stewardship of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit (Ordinance introduced by Commissioner Leonard)

1167 TIME CERTAIN: 10:00 AM – Accept the Portland Urban Canopy Assessment and Public Tree Evaluation (Report introduced by Commissioner Saltzman)

I’d like to know more about those, particularly the Tree Canopy one. Is the City making any progress in coordinating and revising tree protection regulations and incentives? Is this “evaluation” Important Stuff or more Meaningless Fluff?

But the item that concerns me most on Wednesday morning’s agenda is buried in 1187 Resolve to increase Community Problem Solving and Project 57 funding to appropriately address chronic offenders for drug and prostitution crimes (Resolution introduced by Mayor Potter and Commissioner Leonard). The resolution talks about extending and expanding the “Project 57” funding of jail and/or treatment beds for people accused of drug-related crimes, saying it’s in lieu of continuing the Drug-free zones. It says:

“WHEREAS, Project 57, providing jail beds for chronic offenders, coordinated with voluntary treatment services has reduced the rate of recidivism and reduced crimes associated with Project 57 offenses in the impacted area by 9% versus 3% citywide in 2006; and

WHEREAS, enforcement of the Drug Free and Prostitution Free Zones have not proven to address the root cause of drug and prostitution in affected areas; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Portland City Council will allow the Drug Free and Prostitution Free Zones to sunset; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council will expand the Project 57 and Service Coordination Team treatment services throughout high-impact drug and prostitution areas of the City by providing additional resources through the budget process; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council directs that these services be provided as a part of a coordinated, community policing and problem solving approach to work with communities”

I would like to see the full report on whether and how funding the jail spaces has been effective. I don’t see any link to it on either the Mayor’s or Commissioner Leonard’s web pages, and PortlandOnLine’s search function is typically unhelpful (if indeed the documentation is posted). I also believe the resolution should include reference to working with Multnomah County to figure out who does and pays for what, in social services. See this background post from my blog in May. What happened with the City-County negotiations and clarification of ongoing division of responsibilities? And see Problem-solving courts from March, for an outline of the various non-jail solution approaches for people committing drug-related crimes. How does the proposed increase in funds for “Project 57” fit in with existing programs at the County?