It's really, just not worth the effort, but go ahead and knock yourself out. Why do you think they invented, Lake Oswego?

Three things:

Minor correction: PDX City Club report was in 1933 not 1932, and here's the report: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/view…

Minor clarification: On residency, "impossible to enforce" is a bit strong there without context, so I'll provide it. Under the proposal it has no enforcement mechanism, and we all know trying to get our residency rules enforced through what is apparently the proper channels hasn't worked out for a certain person. A citizen enforcement mechanism could help here.

These early submissions for reform are part of the public input process as refiling is basically free. My point in giving commentary is not to be opposed to reform, but to improve the drafts and get better reform. I'm not sure that intent comes across in the article.

It's still just pissing in the wind.

Why are these the only options? If the current system has problems, why switch to another system that is known to be broken? Why not consider options that don't have such problems like some form of proportional representation like most of the rest of the democratic world uses?

When you lie down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas. If you can't afford to live in a nicer neighborhood, don't expect everybody else who is barely able to live in a nicer neighborhood to have to foot the bill for you to have a nicer neighborhood. Move to Scappoose.

The Commissioner form of government is what has to be killed here.

How are council members who can take office with only 11,000 votes an improvement over those who have to earn 75,000+?

If one accepts the premise that a home address is destiny with respect to political interests, how will centralizing power in a mayor's office which has never been occupied by someone from East Portland be an improvement?

Good governance is a function of transparency and citizen interest. I don't see how district representation contributes to either.

"Things here aren't like where I came from"

And there is some reason why you are not there any longer. I am not in favor of "that's the way we've always done it", but change for the sake of change is also not necessarily a good thing. I'm not sure it's the form of government that is the problem here, but perhaps the pool of candidates that are attracted to governing. Maybe we should ask Vera Katz's advice. Agree with her or not, she knew how to get things done.

What a weird article. The two schools of opinion on reforming the city's government are a woman from LA and a guy who once ran for something and lost?

Is there any reason to think that either one are representative of anything except their own personal gripes?

Hello I am Collene Yes I am from another state but that should not detract from the fact we are trying to get every neighborhood a voice on council. Equal representation. I chose Portland as my home at of anywhere else in the United States three of us started this over concern for our neighbors who were not and still are not heard by the current government. You should not have to lay in council chambers kicking and screaming to have your voice heard. We are not politicians , lawyers or political insiders. WE are hard working residents of Portland that want to walk into our local councils office and have our concerns heard. We are sad in this day and age Portland has hung onto a style of governance thats result is discriminatory to voters. MR Woolley is not a petitioner but someone the reporter consulted as to forms of government. This is not a radical change it follows the same path as the county , state and federal government. Baby steps of change First you get council that represents the people then they can work on further changes should the council / voters see fit. There are over 600,000 people in Portland now over 300,000 of them vote. Many more would vote if they thought it made a difference. But when they look at history and the people who represent them do not reflect them they stop voting. As for the language letting council redistrict don't think for one minute the DOJ will not have oversight on that as they do with all Voting violations and gerrymandering issues. I disagree it is unenforceable to have reps live in there districts I also disagree it is in-forced all over this country every day again on the Federal level Hence why Hillary moved to New York. As for the Budget the Mayor cannot Veto the Budget in fact in this measure he writes the budget as he is the administrator just like the president.Yes he has some say in approval and content as he should because he is running the city and knows what finances you need to do so it was the right thing to do some times debate about money is good. As for the mayor legislating this measure separates the powers the mayor cannot make law himself and no longer votes on legislation at all only council does. The mayor has three choices when council passes legislation sign the law because he agrees with it. Don't sign it because he does not agree with it and it goes into effect without his signature in 10 days. Veto it. The Veto is extremely unpopular option many Mayors don't practice as it makes voters angry. But should the mayor think he knows better than all the council members you the populous voted for by all means do so and watch council override his veto with a simple 6 votes of a 9 member council. This measure is pretty simple if you read it. It is listed as PDX3 on the auditors sight here http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=529635&c=66980

You can speak to us and see whats happening with this measure here
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Portland-Community-Equality-Movement/1603331133216006

The City attorney wrote some language into the Ballot title we find disturbing in the last paragraph. The issue was not Brought up on another measure that made the ballot in 2002. The languages and the intent of both measures are pretty close to each other. We can challenge the language during the challenge period on the basis of Estoppel and the basis that the concern raised is unfounded we would need to do the Which might be difficult since we are not lawyers. Or be more specific by adding parameters which we thought where apparent.

Thanks for listening to us Collene

BJ, a Mayor with more power will be held responsible for its' use. As an example, when the Tram had huge cost overruns, everyone on the Council and the Mayor of that time seemingly pointed fingers at each other.
Also, it will be clearer to see who wishes to influence policy, as now the system is heavily weighted towards those well-heeled interest groups, whether they be Unions or Business.
Now, all they have to do is get 3 of 5 votes.
The main problem with local government, as I see it, is this antiquated form of Commissioner government, formed after local government inaction in the face of a disaster down in Texas in the early 1900's I believe.
It was the fad for awhile, but every other city has found the common sense to get rid of it.
As far as local representation, East Portland needs to speak up more, really.
In politics, those who vote and are the most vocal tend to get attention.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Can East Portland afford to make all those improvements or run a city in the fashion that you want?

Sad I don't understand your question. We are talking about direct representation. Not sure why you would ask about the East. But since you brought it up. East Portland meaning North East and south East is a very large area of Portland from the Whilamette River to Gresham boarder. So that is a pretty big area. We are interested in bringing equality to all neighborhoods, all areas, all voters. that is what direct representation does. We just happen to have started in the East because that is where we live.

I live in East Portland and it's loaded with potential. Nice homes, nice people, the biggest drawback is the lack of attention from City Hall. Typically a large city will have an Alderman running a district, which oversees development in that area. With no one watching, urban planning can become a real mess not to mention the lack of services. Collene deserves a lot of credit for stepping up and taking on the issue, somebody needed to do it. She has my support!

Frankie, why would we hold a mayor more accountable under district representation than we do now with city council? If anything it decreases accountability for specific actions, because the mayor's purview is so much broader. Whatever they get wrong there are many more things they get right and it's harder for the city, as a city, to point to just one thing and say, "you're fired because of that."

Contrast that with the accountability of the Commission system, and how that applied to Randy Leonard. Everyone knew what he did with the Water Bureau, there was no question of who was responsible or what to do about it for voters who wanted otherwise. Or looking ahead, take Fritz with Parks or Novick with transportation. Whether you like them or not there's nothing ambiguous about what they've done.

With district representation every judgment about the city has to be condensed into a single vote, be it for the mayor or the district representative. Each of those can only be a total judgment, you can't earmark votes to parks or transportation. Such votes are necessarily less specific and less informative judgments of city direction. Both from theory and from experience living elsewhere, I don't see district representation producing better or more responsive city government.

I believe everyone would know where the buck stops.
And I still attest the current system is easily corrupted by both business and union interests.
This isn't to say a strong mayor couldn't be bought, but it would be a lot more obvious.