Mayor Sam Adams has still not responded to our request for comment last Friday afternoon, offering him the opportunity to expand on the prepared statement about the convention center hotel that he put out with Metro Regional Council President David Bragdon and County Chair Ted Wheeler. Mayor, we’re not in the habit of quoting statements: It looks a little bit like we’ll just parrot any old nonsense. But there’s still time to call—25 hours, in fact—if you’d like to comment on the decision to abandon the hotel idea like Bragdon and Wheeler have, in our newspaper. Otherwise we’ll make a point of writing that “the mayor refused to expand upon the prepared statement,” when our story goes to press. Fair’s fair. This morning, the mayor Tweeted a link to Friday’s statement:
The Tweet didn’t dwell on bad news, mentioning “plan B” within a few characters, which is to gather “visitor industry reps” to discuss bringing more visitor dollars to the region. Adams also linked to this video, produced by Travel Portland:
Videos are all very well. But I’ve talked on here before about burying bad news. Putting out a statement on a major policy shift at 5pm on a Friday afternoon and then avoiding (even phone!) interviews about it is burying news. Tweeting about a “plan B” on Monday morning is, er, well, optimistic, I guess. So far the only direct quote from the mayor appears to be on Ryan Frank’s blog:
“We don’t have enough money to go forward to the next phase,” said Adams, who had been the project’s chief supporter. “I’m absolutely supportive of the decision to stop. It would have been unwise to move forward at this time.”
But I’d like to ask a few questions that aren’t really answered in the statement. Here are a few that come to mind:
1.If the mayor now supports the decision to stop, why was he such a proponent of continuing with the idea when everyone else wanted to drop it?
1b.Awkward, huh? Are there concerns about voters seeing indecisiveness in the move?
2.According to Metro and the County, there isn’t enough money in taxes collected from room rental and car rentals in the region to repay the $5million to $12million it would have cost to continue looking into the Convention Center hotel. So is Portland losing visitors in 2009, compared to 2008? That’s not what I remember hearing when Travel Portland presented to council two weeks ago. But if we knew there wasn’t going to be enough money in the pot, why did we extend the deadline on this deal again, back in April?
3.What form will the new sit-downs to discuss Portland’s visitor strategy take? Who are the stakeholders and “visitor reps” in this process?
3b.Will they be the same people who were pushing for the convention center hotel? If so, how can we trust them to come up with any better suggestions?
4.Where is the data to support these efforts? What work is being done on identifying who comes to Portland, why, and where there might be areas for growth?
5.How will these efforts tie in with Portland’s “economic development strategy,” which is yet to come up with an implementation strategy?
6.Is there an element of blind optimism in Portland’s efforts to lure visitors from around the world? If we book them, they will come?
7.If there isn’t an element of blind optimism to these efforts now, was there, ever? What data did we have to suggest that the Nines Hotel would pencil out downtown, for example?
Seven questions. They should only take five minutes to answer on the phone, mayor. There’s 25 hours until our press deadline! Please…don’t hurt Portlanders’ feelings.
“the mayor refused to expand upon the prepared statement”
You know I love you, Matt, but shouldn’t that be:
“the mayor did not respond to requests to expand upon the prepared statement”?
Or did Sam actively refuse at some point?
To me, “refusal” requires some kind of action. If you want to be colorful about it, but still somewhat in the ballpark of accuracy, you might go with “stonewalling”.
I’d agree with you if it weren’t for this blog post, Bob, but I’m challenging him here to respond. If he doesn’t, then it’s a refusal. Given that his communications director has acknowledged receipt of an email linking to this blog post, if he doesn’t call us, I think that’s an active refusal. Especially from a man who knows the rules, and how to play the media, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
A reporter “challenging” a politician or their staff and being ignored is not news, or journalism. Never was, never will be. Maybe it tries to be in Rupert-land.
Even you know the answers
1 To give the proponents a chance to prove themselves wrong
1b No, no
2 Yes, fairness and transparency
3 Talk to POVA
3b No
4 Talk to POVA
5 That is about jobs, not tourism, conventions or hotels
6 Yes, yes
7 Talk to the Nines developers, has nothing to do with the City
That hotel was a County, MERC & PDC item going back to 1989 not a Mayor item.
The Merc is beginning to sound like an even more irritating WW, generating non-news fodder.
I’m not sure you can hear me from up there on your high horse, R, but you’ll be pleased to hear that the mayor has scheduled an interview for later this afternoon. He called a moment ago, but we were interviewing an Iraq veteran, and I didn’t get the call. He sent a txt message saying “why don’t you answer my calls? are you ignoring me?” Which I suppose was deserved.
Is Sam Adams sexting Matt Davis? Or did Sam text the wrong number? I’m sure Marty Davis and Matt Davis look quite similar if you’re in a hurry.
Now see Matt, you’ve ‘forgiven Sam and moved on”, but you don’t really trust him, do you? That’s the big problem Sam will face for the rest of his term – we’ll never be able to trust his word and we’ll forever be suspicious of his motives.
I think it’s pretty clear that Sam is a very typical politician, concerned only about his political survival, and will put himself first before the greater good of Portland. Maybe most politicians do that, but I think most of us that voted for him thought we were getting something different – like an honest and ethical leader. We were wrong.
I don’t necessarily trust any politician, but this isn’t related in my eyes to the events of the last 8 months. All I’m asking for is a brief phone conversation about a mayor’s significant change in policy, which will then be relayed to you, the reader. That’s my job.
Surely this is a good thing? We have a mayor who will take the time to thoroughly consider an issue, and then make a decision based on the facts at the time, even if that decision goes against what he thought originally. Sounds good to me.
The alternatives are “make a snap judgment based on personal opinions rather than facts and stick to it no matter if the facts change” (see: Amanda Fritz); or “make a judgment and stick to it no matter what so you look decisive” (see: GW Bush).
17 minute phone call now complete. And very comprehensive, I might add. Read the mayor’s responses in the paper this week.
I’m really fed up with all you dipwit twits agonizing over your (political) relationships with dear old Sam, when you could have simply voted for me and elected a mayor who actually thought issues through and issued a considered and sustainable position on any subject in the public discourse.
Sorry.
The mayor’s responses here:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
I’m all for keeping tabs on local politics, but this seems a bit extreme. And then whining when you don’t get the interview you want in time? You come off as juvenile. In the future, please report the local news but try to keep your hurt feelings our of it – it isn’t about you. Sorry.