I know, I know. That sounds like a remarkably divisive question, coming from a columnist who recently professed a desire to have the Commissioner’s babies.
Actually, I still do want to have Nick Fish’s babies—WHATEVER HIS WIFE THINKS. But occasional Mercury freelancer Amanda Waldroupe has a fascinating feature in this week’s Street Roots, grilling Fish on why he doesn’t want to push Portland voters for a housing levy in 2010, like the one Seattle voters recently passed again.
Bobby Weinstock, a housing specialist at Northwest Pilot Project, is quoted in the article: “We ask for [levies for] things that are important to people like the libraries and the zoo and school buildings,” he says.
In Seattle, the owner of a $450,000 home contributes just $79 per year toward the levy. Thing is, Fish says, it’s going to take at least three years before he pushes for a similar idea here. Meanwhile, he’s pushing for a parks levy on the 2010 ballot, and says: “there’s a bunch of other community priorities that have been identified.”
Nevertheless, asking him to choose between housing and parks is like “asking [him] to choose between [his] children,” Fish says. But it seems to me like he just CHOSE BETWEEN HIS CHILDREN.
Perhaps he needs to have a few more children. By me. Digressing.
Go read the Street Roots piece. There’s also a poll on their Facebook page, asking whether you’d support a housing levy. But since today is POLL day in the Mercury news room, I’m going to ask you straight up whether you would prefer a parks levy or an affordable housing levy in 2010. Let’s give Fish a little democratic feedback. FROM THE KIDS.
Parks levy, or affordable housing levy in 2010?
We shouldn’t have to choose between a parks or housing levy. A truly livable city would provide adequate funding for both.
That being said, an affordable housing levy is important. We need a solid champion for both parks and affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Julie Massa
Portland Policy Coordinator
Oregon Opportunity Network http://www.oregonon.org
No——–he is a passionate supporter of parks and affordable housing and social justice.
And, so are the rest of us. Since the Coalition for a Livable Future formed in 1992 this region has had an effective regional voice on affordable housing; building a world class parks, trails, and natural areas system; protecting fish and wildlife habitat, providing options for mobility, improving urban design, and regional growth management.
Park advocates worked with our allies in the affordable housing community, got affordable housing on Metro’s agenda when our regional planning agency contended they had no role in affordable housing. Likewise, affordable housing advocates testified in support of regional parks and natural area bond measures. Park advocates testified at City Council to support the affordable housing advocate’s effort to set aside 40% of urban renewal funds aside for affordable housing, even though there is a real potential that this would result in less funding for parks. We did so because we have developed a collaborative, mutually supportive effort to ensure Portland and the entire metropolitan region has parks, affordable housing, and the other elements of a livable sustainable community.
We are all in this together. Your poll is, as you suggest at the outset of your piece, divisive and retrograde. You seem to prefer the days when park and affordable housing advocates were on occasion placed in an adversarial, zero sum status.
Park advocates worked with Portland Parks and Recreation long before Commissioner Fish’s election, for a 2010 parks levy. To his credit Fish has pledged that he will continue along that path. I’m pleased to say that Commissioner Fish, in addition to his passion for addressing affordable housing issues, is a strong parks supporter. Your casting him in the role of having to choose between parks and affordable housing is counter productive.
Mike Houck, Executive Director
Urban Greenspaces Institute
mikehouck@urbangreenspaces.org
http://www.urbangreenspaces.org
503-319-7155
“We are all in this together. Your poll is, as you suggest at the outset of your piece, divisive and retrograde. You seem to prefer the days when park and affordable housing advocates were on occasion placed in an adversarial, zero sum status.”
I hear that you’ve been working on this for years, but right now, what’s more urgent? Counter-productive it may be—but that’s democracy, in my experience.
Also next poll, Mike: Diamond stud earrings, or silver hoops? Which is better? Actually, forget that. I know how it’s going to turn out. Diamonds.
You win.
If you want to play divisive polling games let’s choose between these two items:
how would you like to spend your extra time and energy?
voting on divisive issues…? more divisive issues! more divisive issues! OR
building greater regional prosperity and equity?
In other words you’re wasting the people’s time, Matt.
Yes, God forbid we actually involve the public in shaping policy, when we can do backroom deals and keep everybody moderately happy.
Matt, “backroom deals?” Your point is what, exactly? I’ve worked out in the full light of public opinion and democratic involvement. 62% of the region, in all three counties were asked their opinion, via a vote whether they were willing to tax themselves to provide parks, trails, and natural areas in their communities and region wide. Guess what, that’s democracy in action. There have been no “backroom deals.”
We got involved at the grassroots. Complaining about so-called backroom deals is cheap shot and as much a disservice to your cause as the lame poll that would pit park advocates against park advocates. The successful affordable housing advocates I know and respect don’t stoop to us vs them tactics.
Mike Houck, Executive Director
Urban Greenspaces Institute
mikehouck@urbangreenspaces.org
http://www.urbangreenspaces.org
Mike:
Okay, okay. Alright, alright. Let’s take a deep breath here.
I think the point being made by Amanda’s article is that while a parks levy is ready to go and has been in the works for some time, there’s more urgency around an affordable housing levy—especially in the grassroots activism community.
I don’t think the poll I put up is “lame,” and find the dismissive language a touch defensive. And yes, divisive. An “us versus them” phrase.
75% of the respondents so far also see more urgency around the housing levy than the parks. As a show of good faith, perhaps Commissioner Fish might allow homeless people to sleep in one of his parks—currently forbidden overnight. Homeless advocates have been calling for this for decades, and with more homelessness than ever, right now, I can’t help thinking it’s about time.
I hadn’t realized this post was going to touch such a nerve. I sincerely don’t intend to use “us versus them” tactics. If we’re going to vote on a new tax, shouldn’t we consider what kind of tax we’d like to pursue, first?
By “backroom deals,” what I mean is, I cover city politics, and I hadn’t even considered this question: Parks levy or housing levy. Having read Amanda’s article I think I, too, would like to see a housing levy sooner, rather than later.
As to your last paragraph: You’ll have trouble pinning me down as an “advocate,” then again I’m not really a “journalist” either. Nor am I particularly “successful.” Ask anyone. But I do respect you. And I hope we can continue this discussion on that basis of mutual respect.
What’s stopping voters – us – from placing an initiative on the ballot to accomplish what the city won’t?