Thanks, Chuck. Nice to meet you.

Chuck, I first met you over a decade ago organizing volunteers for the Goose Hollow Family Shelter. (when I used to work with First Unitarian's Social Justice program). This is one of those races for me where more than a few of the candidates are a known quantity. Your years of service to our community is one reason you'd make a wonderful Commissioner. Thoughts with you and yours on the passing of your grand dad. You're the stuff of good family. Best, "Hans"

Seems like a legitimate candidate and decent guy with a long term love for his community.

Re: “Meet A County Candidate: Chuck Currie”


Chuck Currie has championed all the WRONG ISSUES on mental health for as long as I HAVE KNOWN HIM.

As James Chasse is an issue,it is a mess bigger, then just money,and like most people like Chuck, his answer is throw money at it.

CHUCK...WE ARE BROKE!

You called for Adams to resign, then didn't back the recall..THAT IS POLITICAL AND HUMAN COWARDNESS.

We are a city /county/state..country, on the brink of fiscal ruin,and your answer is a SIN TAX(NO, I DON'T SMOKE)not one mention of the SELLWOOD BRIDGE,not one mention of the WAPATO JAIL. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTIBILITY? there is none from a person like yourself...therefore you cannot lead.

Now for the old part..Chuck and I do not agree..at all, ever, that the "CRIMINALLY INSANE" (yes Chuck, they are mentally ill) need to be anywhere in this county..those judged guilty but insane of murder, arson or rape(good example of that would be a patient placed in WA.COUNTY,near Hillsboro, that raped a 3 yr old baby.

Chuck has refused to defend 3 yr old babies...the criminally insane have more rights.

Now before you or the interviewer go off on me as being against the mentally ill ,you need to call County commissioner John Lindsey in Linn county, and sheriff Rob Gordon in WA.county and ask them of my work with them on this issue.

WE will get this criminally insane thing resolved, IT HAS ALREADY KILLED ONE MAN RIGHT HERE.

No Chuck....your not the man for the job


Jack Peek

With no disrespect to Candidate Currie, if he's successful, he too will have assumed the mantle of "career politician" he confers to Commissioner Nick Fish and all of the other politicos he has worked with for years.

I wish candidates like Currie would stick to the issues and run on policies, not throwing brickbats at government or elected officials. Comments like Currie's contributes to the current, unfortunate distrust of both. I find that ironic, given he aspires to join their ranks.

Frankly, while there are examples of boneheaded decisions that I would take issue with, we are incredibly fortunate to have the city council we do. Remember the Frank Ivancie era? In my opinion Nick Fish exemplifies what we need more of in our elected officials, "a career civic servant and activist." That is especially true on the affordable housing front as well as parks. No other city commissioner I know has read, and can quote accurately from, John Charles Olmstsed's visionary 1903 Portland Park Plan, which clearly outlined the crucial roles, including social justice, that parks play in making a great city.

But, back to the issues. I disagree with Currie's assessment that Nick should not take on a park bond. He says he would not hazard a guess at Nick's motives for doing so. I will take a stab at his motives. Many of his constituents, including those to whom he pledged in his campaign for Commissioner that he'd work to pass a park bond this year, are also park advocates. They and Nick know that Portland Parks and Recreation has millions of dollars in unmet maintenance needs. They are also aware, as Nick is, that there are serious inequities in distribution of parks and natural areas, mostly in poorer areas of outer southeast and northeast, and north Portland. One would assume that Currie is also aware of these inequities, given his interest in social justice issues.

Finally, while I and many park advocates like me, have urged Nick to take the lead on a parks bond this year, we also supported a 30% set aside for affordable housing in Urban Renewal Areas, even though that will mean less money is available for parks. Why? Because Portland needs both parks and affordable housing. I am hopeful that in future campaign forums Currie won't pit one against the others.

Mike Houck
Executive Director,
Urban Greenspaces Institute

To Chuck's credit he called to set up a meeting to discuss the issue. While I may be a tad sensitive to the "career politician" comment, I believe I was on point with regard to the tendency of a few "housers" who to portray parks as less worthy of attention from those who consider themselves to be on the side of the angles via their affordable housing advocacy. I'll stick with my observation that both affordable housing and parks, trails, and natural areas are essential elements of a healthy and humane city.

In fact, when a bunch of us got together to found the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994 the Coalition's mission was predicated on combating allowing wedges to be driven between social and environmental interests. And, as Chuck knows, we succeeded in putting affordable housing on the regional agenda at Metro precisely because the parks and wildlife habitat advocates lobbied for a regional housing agenda, as did the Community Development Network for greenspaces. A unified front made all the difference.

My response to the status quo challenge, it depends on what the status quo is. If it's ensuring we all have access to parks and housing, then I'd have to say I'd be a huge fan of the status quo. If we're talking the Bush era, then of course I'd agree with Chuck 100%. Regarding fresh faces, Nick Fish is hardly an "old timer!" Personally, I hope he stays around city council long enough to be considered one of those old codgers, so long as he continues in the vein he has to date.

Meanwhile, I look forward to continuing the conversation off line with Chuck and wish him well in his primary campaign. As I said, it was with utmost respect that I challenged his assertions.

Regards,

Mike

Civil engagement in politics is worth its weight in gold.

I wish I could hear what this candidate has to say about Hansen's assertion (that I wholeheartedly agree with) that a cigarette tax, especially one passed only in MC, is placing the brunt of fund raising on our poorest and least mobile citizens.

Every piece of data for the last 15 years shows that the poorest of the poor are the most addicted to cigarettes and the least able to afford help getting off of them. Anyone with a car and money to fuel it will just drive out of the county to avoid a MC sin tax. At this point are we still calling smoking a "sin" and not a serious and deadly addiction?

I'm worried that a candidate for local office can blithely announce his intentions to support a tax on the poorest, most addicted citizens in MC and, in practically the same breath, talk about how we need more support for addiction counseling and not get called on it.

Well, I appreciate your response, but it didn't address at all how a tobacco tax is not, in fact, "elitist".

I work in lung cancer research, with vets, and I see every day in my clinic the people that this tax would effect. Most of them are so poor that they literally need to count every dime. Getting a gas money reimbursement can mean the difference between whether a patient shows up for his chemotherapy or not. And you want to balance the budget on their backs?

Whether the money is needed or not (of course it is), there are all kinds of taxes that are much more egalitarian. A progressive sales tax for just one instance (a progressively larger tax on purchases over $100 or more).

Of course people support a tobacco tax. It's quite easy to support a tax that won't effect you. And the mindset that those who still smoke "deserve" to pay more because if they had any self-control or if they just worked harder, they wouldn't smoke. People view the tax as voluntary in a way. But that's why the tax is elitist. It's people with the resources to quit, or the education to not start in the first place, telling those without those resources that they're bad and deserve to pay for that weakness of character.

well chuck, i am glad to see that a serious housing advocate has cropped up for the race. With the kind of money that you and others have helped raise, I can't see any excuse for the lack of housing that now exists for the lowest income people, the homeless, the at-risk. So what i would hope, is that with whatever funding you all DO eventually get, for it to be spent far more wisely and efficiently than say, this year's 2 huge, main Portland projects. In terms of creating new numbers of housing units that very low income, homeless, or nearly homeless people , can afford on disability checks or whatever.
As for Nick fish, I am glad he is doing something about the Housing plan. And asking for more citizen input. That must be where his strength lies? BUT as far as taking a whole lotta dollars and making the most of it, hmmm, well, it doesn't amount to much. That's the problem , when we get a numbers - crunching requirement like housing and the money involved--- but you get politicians that don't get how to really, really make the dollars crunch and produce max # of units plus a few extra supportive services when really, really needed. Result: overpriced projects, very few units for the money, and thousands of homeless still HOMELESS!
sorry, to anyone who thinks parks are equal to roofs over people's heads: THEY AREN'T. I'm sure you prefer a home yourself, over having nice trails for your dog. So do a bunch of other people. PRIORITIES, PEOPLE. HOUSING OVER PARKS ANY DAY. if it comes down to it.
so chuck, i hope if you are far more serious and able than this, that you get on board and help make the difference. and invite a few new players who know how it's done.

i just took note of your statement about having an appointed sherriff. ewww. bad news. because this town does not have enough accountability to the people, already. you definitely don't want to reduce what little there is. we do need to maintain balance between governmental elitism and pure democracy. the chief is appointed, let the sheriff be voter- determined. we have to allow the town to be a town, that is an old anglo saxon word. as in tun moot. the tun moot was the town meeting, and it is an essential. every adult has a say in the affairs of the town that way. we must retain at least some vestige of that or portland is doomed. In fact, since Portland seems doomed already, I'd say we need to revive MORE of the tun moot aspect of decisionmaking. that way portlanders feel less like helpless puppets being manipulated by those with the strings in their hands.