Metro is looking for a few good Republicans


Metro looking for volunteers for its Opt-In panel, especially those who aren’t white college-educated Democrats living in Multnomah County.

And minorities. And suburbanites. And people without college degrees.

Why?

To join the Opt-In Panel, a voluntary group which gets periodically polled on issues facing Metro. The agency wants 10,000 local participants, and has 2,000. Unfortunately, the participants on the panel so far are not a representative sample of the region: According to a report,

Ninety-five percent of the participants are white. Seventy percent are Democrats, six percent Republican. Eighty-six percent have a college degree, and less than one percent say they never attended any college. Only 23 percent hail from Clackamas or Washington counties, which collectively have 56 percent of Metro’s constituency.

I’ve joined the panel myself, both to exert whatever influence I can (how much weight community input will be given in decision-making remains to be seen), and to get a better handle on what’s up. I mostly fit the profile (I’m white, independent but progressive, hold an advanced degree, but live in Washington County).

People who join by March 15 might win a $50 gift card, good anywhere.

So if you hate public transit, or think that the region is spending too much money building trains and should build more bus service, or have any other opinions you think are not adequately represented in the planning process, consider joining.

Disclosure: Nobody at Metro or any other agency asked me to write this, nor do either I or Portland Transport derive any benefit whatsoever from people joining in response to this article.


39 responses to “Metro is looking for a few good Republicans”

  1. If Metro was so concerned why didn’t Hughes appoint a conservative Republican to the council?

    That would have gone along way towards establishing “some” legitimacy in authentic representation of the region.

    Instead we got another clone.

  2. Well, I’d be interested, but I totally fit the “over-represented” profile, including living in Multnomah County.

    As far as the “legitimacy” (how much more “legitimate” can you get than a democratically elected representative body?), the panel is open to everyone. If conservatives or Republicans or suburbanites don’t want to speak up, they have no grounds to complain that their voices aren’t heard.

  3. How could something like this ever really represent regular people? Information about it gets posted onto sites frequented by activists that want to see things changed on all sides, and all you’re going to end up with is a whole bunch of people like me with axes to grind. Crazy transit people, crazy bike people, crazy angry-at-Portland people, etc.

    I’m not sure if the lower barrier of entry, being done on the Internet, makes it better or worse in that regard.

  4. Steve,

    I assume you refer to Robert Liberty’s replacement, and the selection of Barbara Roberts.

    Tom Hughes doesn’t get to appoint the new councilor on his own; the entire council has to approve of the new councilor by majority. It takes four votes. (See the Metro Charter for more info).

    Given that the Metro council is not an at-large body (other than the office of president), and given that four of the districts (positions 1-4) are significantly (or completely) suburban, you would think that a conservative might, you know, run for the council and win.

    I know you’ve run before, on an anti-rail anti-transit platform. If you think the regional political climate has shifted to the right, as evidenced by the 2010 elections, maybe you should try again. Carl Hosticka, who serves the SW suburbs, will be forced off the council due to term limits in 2012.

    I’m an avid small-d democrat, who encourages public participation–even from those I don’t agree with. So by all means–go for it!

  5. How could something like this ever really represent regular people?

    I believe the theory here is that as long as they get SOME sampling of a diverse set of people, they can then weight the responses to match the actual demographics of the region. So my male-middle-aged-progressive response gets weighted way down :-)

  6. I think I’d like to try for this, I’d be representing Yamhill County….. But I have my foot in both ponds. But all joking aside I ride all of them and actually am quite fond of transit there are just some quirks I think if they straightened out would make it even better!

  7. Yes Hughes did appoint Roberts. And the council rubber stamped it. No need for a charter lesson.

    “I know you’ve run before, on an anti-rail anti-transit platform.”

    No, you don’t “know that” because it isn’t true.

    I most certainly did not run on an anit-transit platform.

    However, I did come within a few 100 votes out of 34,000 against the senior professor concilor and I was out spent five fold with every newspaper and current elected lined up for Hostica.
    Had I ran on an anti-transit platform that would not have been the case.

    Let’s get real. Metro is an arm of the City of Portland. The stacked deck to make sure it stays completely of one agenda has been the problem.
    JPACT same, or even worse.

    You may want to be viewed as a “small-d democrat, who encourages public participation” but you’re an advocate of the virtual totalitarian domination when it comes to policiy making. Along with all of the methods used to keep it that way.

    Lynn Peterson’s replacement on JPACT was pre arranged before she anounced her departure.
    Typical.

    But this isn’t 2004 and Metro has a pretty ugly looking last 7 years culminating in Michael Jordon stating the Green Line was built in the wrong place, their TOD’s are not effective at leverging private investment and Rex Burkholder admitting WES never got adequate scrutiny.

    Rod Monroe’s bill to allow 10 year tax abatements for the commercial elements of TODs is certainly a banner signaling failure.

    The Urban Renewal/TIF scheming is also nearing it’s end.

    There is far more animosity to the agenda today so I suspect the cabal is about to face some adjustments.

    IMO all of this latest activity by Metro is an effort to avert and obstruct any chamge.
    The Metro auditors report on public involvement spurred the hiring of journalists to ramp up the “messaging” and this new effort is a means to avoid direct polling or voting while pretending to be getting the pulse of the public.

    The conniving has never been greater.

    The over reaching with Milwaukie Light Rail, the Sellwood bridge, LO Streetcar and CRC plans being forced upon communities will lead to a major shift.
    The obvious tone deafness by ya’ll regarding these plans and why so many people see them as madness makes the shift inevitable.

    Metro and TriMet are in trouble. Perhaps around this June after the Clackamas County fee fails, their UR petition makes the ballot, LO stops the streetcar, TriMet faces another budget crisis and Metro’s current stunts fall flat there will be the beginning of the end.

    We’ll see.

  8. Yes Hughes did appoint Roberts. And the council rubber stamped it.

    An odd conclusion, given that Hughes voted for Bob Shiprack in the first round of voting.

  9. SS: Yes Hughes did appoint Roberts. And the council rubber stamped it. No need for a charter lesson.

    As Chris notes, Hughes supported someone else initially; Roberts was only asked to join the council when nobody else who applied could get four votes. If you think that Collette, Hostica, Burkholder, and the rest simply do Tom Hughes bidding, you’re entitled to think so–but I would note that Burkholder recently ran against Hughes for the post he now holds. Given Hughes “outsider” status and suburban credentials, I seriously doubt the remainder of the council is his rubber-stamp.

    Me: “I know you’ve run before, on an anti-rail anti-transit platform.”

    SS: No, you don’t “know that” because it isn’t true. I most certainly did not run on an anit-transit platform.

    This article in ”Oregon Magazine” demonstrates a rather strong anti-rail, pro-roads, pro-property-rights stance for your campaign–but fair enough, I’ll let you characterize your candidacy how you like. (And re-reading the blurb, you did say a few nice things about the bus system, although I have concerns about the depths of your support for robust public transit, even if it were bus-only).

    SS: However, I did come within a few 100 votes out of 34,000 against the senior professor concilor and I was out spent five fold with every newspaper and current elected lined up for Hostica. Had I ran on an anti-transit platform that would not have been the case.

    Are you saying you would have been defeated by a greater margin–or that you would have won? District 3 is one of the more conservative ones out there, after all.

    SS: Let’s get real. Metro is an arm of the City of Portland. The stacked deck to make sure it stays completely of one agenda has been the problem.

    If Metro were an “arm of the City of Portland”, then Bob Stacey and not Tom Hughes would be the council president. If Metro were an arm of the city of Portland, its districts would be gerrymandered such that each one contains a substantial slice of the city, and suburban interests would be diluted. If Metro were an arm of the city, then Steve S. does not come within a “couple hundred votes” of winning election to the Council in 2004.

    SS: JPACT same, or even worse. You may want to be viewed as a “small-d democrat, who encourages public participation” but you’re an advocate of the virtual totalitarian domination when it comes to policy making. Along with all of the methods used to keep it that way.

    Oh, please.

    SS: Lynn Peterson’s replacement on JPACT was pre arranged before she anounced her departure.
    Typical. But this isn’t 2004 and Metro has a pretty ugly looking last 7 years culminating in Michael Jordon stating the Green Line was built in the wrong place, their TOD’s are not effective at leverging private investment and Rex Burkholder admitting WES never got adequate scrutiny.

    The Green Line critique is common among urbanists. I wholeheartedly agree with Rex on WES–which was a Washington County initiative, not a Metro or TriMet-sponsored project.

    SS: Rod Monroe’s bill to allow 10 year tax abatements for the commercial elements of TODs is certainly a banner signaling failure. The Urban Renewal/TIF scheming is also nearing it’s end. There is far more animosity to the agenda today so I suspect the cabal is about to face some adjustments.

    Then the iron is hot. Time to strike. 2012 awaits.

    SS: IMO all of this latest activity by Metro is an effort to avert and obstruct any chamge.
    The Metro auditors report on public involvement spurred the hiring of journalists to ramp up the “messaging” and this new effort is a means to avoid direct polling or voting while pretending to be getting the pulse of the public. The conniving has never been greater.

    SS: The over reaching with Milwaukie Light Rail, the Sellwood bridge, LO Streetcar and CRC plans being forced upon communities will lead to a major shift. The obvious tone deafness by ya’ll regarding these plans and why so many people see them as madness makes the shift inevitable.

    SS: Metro and TriMet are in trouble. Perhaps around this June after the Clackamas County fee fails, their UR petition makes the ballot, LO stops the streetcar, TriMet faces another budget crisis and Metro’s current stunts fall flat there will be the beginning of the end.

    Like I said. Four votes are needed to control the council. Four districts include significant numbers of suburban voters. I’m sure funding from conservative donors is available to credible candidates who go looking.

  10. It means nothing how it was processed.

    And it didn’t matter if it was Shiprack, Stacey or Roberts. They are all the same.

    So what’the point of you dwelling on how it happened? Geeze.

  11. Michael Jordon stating the Green Line was built in the wrong place

    Hi Steve –

    Thanks for mentioning that this was Michael Jordon stating the Green Line was built in the wrong place, I’ve been looking for an attribution.

    I know you’ve mentioned the “wrong place” argument a few times here previously, but in those instances you were stating it as your own opinion. (Which is odd, because I didn’t know there was a Green Line alignment you would have supported, but I’d love to hear what it is if that’s the case.)

    But I’m still looking for the original statement if you don’t mind helping me with the Google machine.

    I know that a guy called “Ben” who frequents Jack’s blog states this a lot, as does someone going by “richard2” over on OregonLive, and someone with very similar opinions called “Howard” commenting on the Tribune site, but these references seem oddly circular.

    Would love to learn more about the “wrong place” argument coming from people otherwise supportive of light rail.

    Where should the Green Line have gone?

  12. The Green Line should have gone in Soviet Russia, obviously. :)

    Actually, a common urbanist critique is that the Green Line ought to have gone down 82nd Avenue, essentially replacing the 72 (and that lanes of auto traffic should have removed to make way for the trains). Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic has made this argument; OTOH he’s not Michael Jordan, nor anyone else presently or formerly associated with Metro.

  13. I know that a guy called “Ben” who frequents Jack’s blog states this a lot, as does someone going by “richard2” over on OregonLive, and someone with very similar opinions called “Howard” commenting on the Tribune site, but these references seem oddly circular.

    I’m not exactly sure if they’re all related, but I noticed some pretty compelling evidence that at least a couple of them are likely the exact same guy in Tualatin.

  14. (Actually, yes I am. Fire up your Google engines on trip they all took to “Grand Rapids” and commented about at Blue Oregon, OregonLive, bojack.org, and portlandtribune.com. They also have quoted each other pretending to be different humans which takes it to the creepy level. Delete this comment if it’s too creepy.)

  15. It should be noted that Portland Transport allows commenters to post with a pseudonym so long as that pseudonym remains consistent and is not used for sock-puppetry.

    As for the identity of commenters on other blogs, I’ll stay out of that for now — others can decide “who’s who” based on their own intuition, but perhaps that sleuthing should be done elsewhere rather than getting us too far off-topic.

    (Yes, I know that by mentioning those other commenters I sort of started this ball rolling, but my main point is to find the original attribution to see what, if anything Jordon was talking about, and whether or not there’s a Green Line project that Steve would have supported, which I think could be a great place to start a constructive conversation.)

  16. 1. I’ve also noticed the similarities between Steve and commenters mentioned at other sites, but I think he has been consistent here, and based upon a TriMet board meeting Steve S. is his real name.

    2. It does make some sense to put the Green Line down 82nd, as that’s where the people are. But I question whether lanes could be removed as 82nd can get very congested (especially around Powell). (Was Interstate Ave ever that congested?)

    Moreover, it would be more costly as there was already empty space along I-205 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-205_Transitway ) and a line on the surface of 82nd would have to travel slower and be more vulnerable to crashes and other incidents.

    Plus, such a line would miss Gateway.

  17. Was Interstate Ave ever that congested?

    Depends on what your definition of “ever” is. :-)

    But in the years closest to the start of construction of the Yellow Line, Interstate Ave. was lightly utilized compared to 82nd Ave. today.

    I think there was justification enough to say there was capacity available to fit MAX in the median of Interstate Ave. given that much of the roads original purpose had been supplanted by I-5, but 82nd Ave. would be a much tougher sell given current traffic levels.

    Separately from the Green Line, 82nd Ave. was considered as a corridor in the Streetcar System Concept Plan, but as 82nd also served as the boundary between various planning districts, no one district took ownership of the street and there wasn’t a big push to have it included.

    Here’s the adopted plan from September 2009 (PDF):
    http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953

    That document shows 82nd Ave. and Killingsworth (basically the route of the #72 bus today) as a “Tier 2” (not top priorty) potential route.

    Maybe Chris can give us more about the current state of the Streetcar System Concept Plan, as there’s not as much info as the used to be available on the city’s web site.

  18. A lot of the 82nd-vs-I205 debate centers around debates over the fundamental purpose of transit (or other forms of transportation): Getting people different places quickly, or placemaking?

    In my mind, there’s room for both; and a given project should be up front about what it is trying to accomplish (and be funded and designed accordingly). It’s hard to do both simultaneously on a single line–the most common way of doing it is to have “slower” transit integrated into the urban framework at the ends of a line but have fast-moving segments in the middle; this is how both the original eastside MAX, and the westside MAX, were designed. (Unfortunately, they are part of the same line, so crosstown trips on the Blue Line are far slower than they ought to be).

    With the Green and Milwaukie lines, you don’t have high-stop-density at the suburban ends of the line, and adjacent-to-highway running. Which is fine if the plan is to extend or branch the lines further; a bit dubious if Oak Grove and CTC are truly the “end of the line” for the long term.

    There are schools of urbanist thought, though, that only calls for more local service routes. In some cases this manifests itself as the “focus on inner city bus service” movement, often promoted by social service advocates such as OPAL. In other cases, this shows up in the streetcar movement–Portland Streetcar is pretty upfront in that they see the streetcar as a tool for placemaking. OTOH, Portland Streetcar Inc sees itself as complementary to, not a replacement for, true mass transit.

    There are some upper-class urbanists I can think of who view mass transit with the same skepticism as they view freeways, For example, there is a movement in Vancouver BC which proposes building streetcars along the Broadway corridor and elsewhere instead of an underground extension to SkyTrain’s Millenium Line; many involved in this movement have a pronounced “if you want better access to the city, move out of the ‘burbs” attitude towards suburban dwellers who use SkyTrain to get around the metro area. If it isn’t obvious, I’m decidedly not a fan of this school of thought, and have been known to mock such urbanists as “NIMBYs without backyards”. :)

  19. I should also point out that, back int he heyday of that planning process, “Tier 2” does not mean “less viable” or “more expensive” … the concept plan is meant to envision a complete system. It’s more a question of what should come first in creating the system because, even if approved and the funding were solid and uncontroversial, it couldn’t be built all at once.

  20. 82nd Avenue is also still an ODOT facility (as is Powell Boulevard, another street on which mass transit has been discussed); whereas Interstate Avenue (formerly the route of US/OR99W) was turned over to the city many moons ago.

    ODOT is not likely to permit two lanes of one of its facilities to be converted to exclusive transit use.

  21. Had the Green Line gone down 82nd, people would be complaining it was too slow…. just as some are opining about the Yellow Line’s routing on Interstate Ave vs. I-5. The Green Line’s just fine where it is.

  22. Green on dedicated alignment on 82nd might well have been preferable to the I-205 in many respects, but it would have been expensive and wouldn’t be able to travel at nearly the same speed as it can now unless barricaded off from the world.

    One measure for Green’s success is that it’s Cost/Boarding Ride is second only to Blue at $1.49 weekdays. Red gets more riders but loses out because relatively few of them go beyond Gateway.

    This success is not draining much from the 72 which is now tied with the 6 at $1.97 C/BR for 2nd place for buses behind the 14 at $1.94.

    Sometimes a compromise really is good enough.

  23. Thanks, Grant. Steve and some of the commenters on other sites had misspelled the name and I didn’t check to fix it. I was also searching for “wrong place”, which actually isn’t in Jordan’s quote. In fact, the individual words “wrong” or “place” don’t appear in the Tribune article at all.

  24. (It’s perhaps only a difference in degree, but it’s one thing to say that a project’s routing was a “missed opportunity”, as Jordan actually said, rather than boldly stating that it was in the “wrong place”, which seems to be the take that all of those other commenters had.)

  25. Wow, ya’ll went sideways there.

    The “wrong place” is not my argument. It’s Jordan’s.
    He was referncing the isolation of the line by the freeway and buildings and that it should of been on 82nd.

    I would have opposed that as well.
    That was not the point. The point was the foolish and cavalear spending of so many millions on LTR and WES without adequate scrutiny.

    As for my name and those other claims?

    I never made the pretense that the wrong place was my own opinion.

    I see Aaron can get personal and right on by the moderators.

    I have never “quoted each other pretending to be different humans” and your charge is unethical.

    Talk about creepy.

    As for using different pseudonyms on different blogs? So what. You’re bit slow if you just now noticed. I have never made any attempt to or thought for a minute it wasn’t obvious.

  26. I see Aaron can get personal and right on by the moderators.

    Aaron did not attack you personally, he made note of the self-referential nature of commenters on other blogs (whom you’ve now apparently owned up to being… fine.)

    Immediately after Aaron’s remarks I redirected the conversation to the topic and suggested that sleuthing a commenter’s identity should be done elsewhere.

    The “wrong place” is not my argument. It’s Jordan’s.

    Steve, on at least a half dozen previous occasions right here on this blog, posting as “Steve S.”, you’ve claimed the Green Line was built in the “wrong place”. You were writing in the 1st person and not quoting anyone else.

    For example:

    October 19, 2010:

    We naysayers say big deal. No one has done it because it’s a foolish idea and a waste of money. Much like WES or building the Green Line in the wrong place. How do loyalists toss aside those whoppers anyway?

    November 4, 2010:

    Success has been elusive as billions get spent. Tram, WES and then the Green Line being built in the wrong place is the latest trend of failure.

    November 30, 2010:

    Now we’re looking at a Green Line that was blindly built in the wrong place and MLR being pushed with all of the identical flawed proclamations. This in addition to the many problems on other lines I’m not going ot bother listing yet again.

    More recently:

    February 5, 2011

    WES is a travesty, the Green Line was built in the wrong place, Metro said their TOD investment approach is not effective and now they trying to raid more state money for MLR and seeking 10 year tax abatements for the commercial parts of TODs.

    February 9, 2011:

    That’s exactly what TriMet and Metro have been doing for many years on every project. WES, Green Line in the wrong place and acknowledging TODs are ineffective are recent examples.

    To repurpose your insult, you’re a bit slow if you can’t see how repeatedly ranting like that in the 1st person might lead somebody to think that you actually believe what you’re writing.

    Suggestion: Spend more time worrying about what you actually write, rather than worrying so much about moderator actions and/or inaction.

  27. Wow, I just did a handful of trip plans for Daimler Trucks North America employees who were impressed that the Green Line gets you from CTC to RQTC in just over 30 minutes. Its just 10 minutes more to DTNA via the 85. MAX is a game changer for these folks; several others asked when Milwaukie will open.
    What is lost with a freeway alignment is station area development like we are beginning to see on Interstate Avenue. Who want’s to live or shop next to a loud, smelly, toxic freeway? They do help with affordable housing, but what a poor way to do that…having those with less means live in the poison zone.

  28. Hollywood TC would be a fantastic place for a top notch TOD if it didn’t have I-84 right there to make it a miserable place.

  29. Why don’t you spend more time on the actual points instead of always diverting into hair splitting nonsense.

    [And so on…]

    [Moderator: Pointless fact-free rebuttal and complaint (yet again) about the moderator (and furthered by a swipe at Lenny) that doesn’t prove anything removed. Stay on topic, Steve. You got caught, you were wrong, deal with it and move on. – Bob R.]

  30. Who said what is quite irrelevant since the Green Line was built in the right place. Running it down 82nd Avenue would have been dramatically more expensive to build, it would have run a lot slower, and the construction impacts would have been pretty dramatic. As for the 205 alignment, there’s plenty of land near a quite a few Green Line stations that would be good candidates for redevelopment when the economic conditions are right.

    Maybe someday 82nd Avenue will get a streetcar. I’m not saying it’s a good idea; I’d prefer to see a limited/rapid bus supplementing local service. But if rail is ever put on 82nd, better a streetcar that shares a traffic lane than LRT.

  31. Who want’s to live or shop next to a loud, smelly, toxic freeway? They do help with affordable housing, but what a poor way to do that…having those with less means live in the poison zone.

    Getting off topic and asking for some freeway 101 here: why does land near freeways necessarily need to suck so much? Urban freeways like 405 through downtown may stink a little and make some noise, but there’s certainly development around it. Obviously it was already downtown Portland before a freeway was put in. But I notice differences:

    • I-205 has what seems to be 150ft of grass on either side of it in most areas. Is that part of its design or is that vacant land
    • Why such wide medians?
    • Street connectivity is poor around I-205, compared to 405 where most streets connect with overpasses.

    Obviously 205 is simply a bigger freeway with more lanes, but its footprint and horridness seems to not have been scaled linearly with the lanes.

  32. dan w:“Had the Green Line gone down 82nd, people would be complaining it was too slow…. just as some are opining about the Yellow Line’s routing on Interstate Ave vs. I-5. The Green Line’s just fine where it is.”

    Was just going to say this. Thanks for the logic finally.

    No more slow rail — I can’t believe we have people arguing for LR on 82nd (or at least it appears so). There’s no reason to even discuss such a stupid option. LR on surface streets is called a bus. Get that through your heads. The way we have been building rail is not how it is supposed to be done traditionally.

    The Green Line is NOT predominantly ill placed. In the hierarchy of “best needs” for the metro area for rail development, it is not well timed, that’s all.

    The Green Line needs an east-west HCT line connecting it to complete the “connection”. Frequent bus service to LR stations when necessary is integral to a good transit service.

    A Milwaukie frequent bus service to Clackamas line after the Milwaukie LR line might be a good idea.

    Smelly stinky freeways can be mitigated through intensive tree planting. The Friends of Trees has done a GREAT job with this (they take donations btw). But I see so many swaths of highway medians and strips that could use a nice Douglas Fir or Big Leaf maple to block noise, pollution and ugliness from surrounding neighborhoods — something that could be a great boon to development for adjacent properties.

    Think of all the wasted fuel on mowing the grass for I-205 year after year.

  33. Smelly stinky freeways can be mitigated through intensive tree planting. [snip] Think of all the wasted fuel on mowing the grass for I-205 year after year.

    I don’t know this for a fact, but I’ve always assumed the wide grassy tree-less shoulders were intended to cut down on road kill.

  34. Douglas K:

    It might be, but it’s probably based off of 1950’s roadway design standards. Fact of the matter we’re talking about a few trees along highway corridors, something that is still not habitable for animals in very urbanized environments.

    Grass medians certainly don’t cut down on fires.

  35. Douglas K.: I don’t know this for a fact, but I’ve always assumed the wide grassy tree-less shoulders were intended to cut down on road kill.

    For what it’s worth, I-205 gets comparatively lush down near it’s southern junction with I-5. Don’t know if this is what ws is talking about, but it’s certainly a nicer to drive through.

  36. Does TriMet fall directly within Metro boundary? Is there anything which would prevent TriMet from having it’s boundary go outside the “metro area”? Just curious and what would happen if, say, TriMet extended the WES to Salem and TriMet was controlled by Metro instead of the state. Hmm…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *