There was a fascinating article in the November 27 edition of
Street Roots by occasional Mercury freelancer Amanda
Waldroupe. The piece asked why City Commissioner Nick Fish seems
to be lining up to put a parks levy on the ballot in 2010, when
the need for an affordable housing levy like the one recently
re-approved by 63 percent of Seattle voters seems to be more
urgent.
In Seattle, the levy will generate $147 million by charging
17 cents per $1,000 on every home. A $450,000 home, for example, will
contribute about $77 per year. With 8,000 people experiencing housing
need in Portland, such a levy should be a no-brainer for Fish, our
housing commissioner, especially in the midst of all this cold weather.
But Waldroupe’s article has placed him in a political bind.
Fish is also Portland’s parks commissioner, and parks advocates have
been lining up a 2010 parks levy for some time. Fish inherited the idea
when he took over the parks bureau from City Commissioner Dan
Saltzman in January, so perhaps he’s reluctant to ruffle feathers
by putting it on hold.
“It’s like saying, ‘Which of my children do I love more?‘” he
told Waldroupe, when asked if creating affordable housing is as
important a priority as maintaining the quality of Portland’s schools
and parks.
So I put a poll on the Mercury‘s website, and 75
percent of the hundred-or-so voters said they thought a housing
levy was more urgent than one for parks—but the poll was
slammed by parks advocate Mike Houck, executive director of
Portland’s Urban Greenspaces Institute, who said it was
“unnecessarily divisive.“
After denying he wanted to punch me in the face, Houck admitted on
the phone last Friday, December 4, that housing advocates have been
less organized than parks advocates over the years. He was also
remarkably frank on this point: “In Portland, there are so many things
that could benefit from ballot measures,“ he said. “But there
is, kind of, I guess, an informal understanding about jockeying for
who goes first. There’s been discussion about parks for years and
years now.“
So the timing of these levies is a matter of political and strategic
convenience? Far from “unnecessarily divisive,“ I think asking
the question here shows a willingness to challenge received wisdom and
the chummy status quo.
It’s up to Fish how he responds, although in this case he declined
comment. Figures.
Matt, while I hesitate to provide you with more grist for your wedge opinions re: housing vs parks, what I told you was there are strategic considerations based on polling and other factors that are considered when deciding in what order bond measures proceed. A bond for parks has, in fact, been in the queque for at least 4 years. I also told you that park and housing advocates have worked collaboratively for years invluding park advocates helping housers get a 30% set aside for affordable housing in urban renewal areas. What, you can’t bring yourself to write about us cooperating? Not as satisfying as divide and squabble?
Mike
The same Mike Houck who wanted to give Lents Park to Merritt Paulson?
I think this editorial was misplaced on the news page. Or maybe it was supposed to go in New Column: Matt Davis’ Righteous Crusade. Is your ax that dull? Do you really have to grind it that hard?
you know who else puts affordable housing before parks, “housing projects”
i like parks a lot. but portland has no shortage of parks, while there is a serious lack of affordable housing. but then again, yuppies and developers like parks more than affordable housing, so guess which one will get built first.
Matt, Tell Mike Houck to take a hike in one of his greenspaces. God knows he’s got enough of them. In 2008, Tualatin Parks passed a parks bond for $100 million. In 2006 Metro passed another Greenspace bond for $227 million. In 1995 they passed $135 million dollar bond for the same stuff. Now they want another $110 million plus.
They’ve got their money for parks, nearly HALF A BILLION DOLLARS, $462 million to be exact. Houck doesn’t want parks anyway, he and his Riverkeeper buddies along with The Audubon Soc. and 1000 Friends of Oregon only want wildlife habitat.