You may remember that back in 2007, a controversial effort to rename Interstate Avenue after Cesar Chavez erupted like a cyst on Portland’s civic consciousness, with accusations of racism met with vehement counter-accusations about a “lack of public process,” the former mayor declaring himself “irrelevant,” and ultimately, the whole thing falling apart in catastrophe.
This time around, there’s a concerted effort on the city’s behalf to achieve a different outcome. This morning, for example, was the first meeting of the street renaming historian panel, whose job it is to decide whether any of the three streets up for consideration, SE 39th, Grand Avenue, and Broadway, have such “historic significance,” that their names shouldn’t be changed. Why three streets? Well: Only one street can be renamed, but the city attorney says there’s nothing in the code that prohibits considering renaming three streets in the first instance. Others with a more skeptical bent suggest keeping the options open gives “the inevitable opposition that much less time to get up in arms and organized.” You decide.
HISTORIAN PANEL, L TO R: Dena Marshall, a consultant from Marshall Mediation, Mike Caldwell, a general from the Oregon National Guard, Willamette Law professor Gil Carrasco, Cully neighborhood association chief Kathy Fuerstenau, and Joe Hertzberg, another consultant from Decisions, Decisions, a survey group…
Many argue that most of the controversy around the attempted Cesar Chavez rename came about because the city didn’t follow its own code regarding street renaming—17.93. Although the city has never, in fact, followed the code. It waived the process when it renamed West Front Avenue for Bill Naito, and North Portland Boulevard after Rosa Parks in 2007, not to mention Union Avenue after Martin Luther King jr in 1989. This time, however, they’re going to follow the process, following the submission of 2500 signatures to the city auditor’s office by the Cesar Chavez renaming committee, on January 23.
The main criteria under the code for renaming a street are the “appropriateness of the proposed honoree,” versus the “historic significance” of the current name, or “significance in its own right” of the street proposed for renaming. Ultimately, it’s up to City Council to decide on all this, after taking input from the historian panel, and from the Portland Planning Commission.
“Oregon is a strong state for lots of public process,” says Mike Greenfield, one of the three consultants being paid a total of $30,000 $35,000 in city money to shepherd the process through to completion. “[City council] could just haul off and do it, but there might be a little trouble at the ballot box.”
In addition to surveying residents near the three streets by postcard, the group also plans to hold three three hour hearings, currently slated for March 23 (Grand), March 30 (Broadway), and April 6 (39th Ave), one near each of the streets, to ask residents about the historic significance of the street’s current name, and the appropriateness of renaming the street after Cesar Chavez. On April 20th, from 7-9, there’ll be a final meeting for the historian panel at 1900 SW 4th, to discuss all the public comment, and input from the city’s website, and the postcard surveys, and decide on a recommendation.
This morning, the group has been discussing the logistics for those three hour hearings—they’ll be in public, accessible locations, there’ll be two moderators, and people will sign in for three minutes to speak, each. There’ll be a plainclothes security officer present, too. All this may sound like overkill, but perhaps not when you remember that at the hearings on the issue in the past, there was chaos, with folks calling out from the audience, and increasing hostility from meeting to meeting.
The historian commission will not be hearing testimony on how much it’s going to cost to rename the streets, or to print new business cards for area businesses. “That’s something that would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission,” says Fuerstenau.
“Hopefully the process will be more respectful and run more smoothly, and that’s the whole goal, here,” says Fuerstenau.
GUEMBES IN ’07: Now leading a “new start…”
“This is a new start for everybody,” says Marta Guembes, co-chair of the street rename committee, who led the group back in 2007, and was in the audience at today’s meeting. “Each person here, I think, is expecting everything to go fairly, we’ll go through the process, and the goal is to rename a street. This process is very transparent.”
Yes, but what about the effort to rename 42nd after Douglas Adams? 🙂
‘one of the three consultants being paid a total of $30,000 in city money to shepherd the process through to completion’
Ah yes, I recall the City of Portland FINANCIAL EMERGENCY era quite well.
Time spent wisely.
Yeah, I like the Douglas Adams idea a lot. Cesar already has lots of streets and schools and parks named after him, I think he’s been fairly well honored.
Let’s rename SE Bush St. instead!
It is stupid and confusing as all hell to rename numbered streets to non numbered names
For clarification: Only one rename process can go through per year, according to the code.
As for renaming numbered streets, Carrasco pointed out that a street like Fifth Avenue in New York has historical significance as a name, despite being a number. But he couldn’t think of any other examples.
Matt, for clarification, when did the petition process start? Got a date?
“It is stupid and confusing as all hell to rename numbered streets to non numbered names”
It doesn’t have to be a pure renaming of the numbered street, it can be an honorific… for example, 82nd Ave. is also called “Avenue of Roses”, but everyone gets to keep using 82nd Ave. for their address, driving directions, etc. Something similar could be done for 42nd. (I don’t know the exact process involved and how that might differ from the current process, though.)
Guffman:
The process to begin again began last June, and was reported on by Amy Ruiz.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/si-se-…
I’ll have a precise date on signature gathering for you shortly.
An additional $35,000 of our money to follow their own written policy. This city is doomed.
Blabby –
It costs money to follow a written policy in any process where there are lots of variables (and dealing with public input indeed adds variables). Ask any industrial company serious about following regulations.
Regardless of where you stand on the actual merit of the renaming, it is pretty clear that last time around the city blew it with respect to process. I don’t mind them spending a few $$$ to get this right this time around — assuming that’s what actually happens, of course.
I mind it. How many employees does the city have? None of them is qualified to go through this process without hiriing an outside team for $35,000? Silly.
And public input? This city has like 500 planners. Everyone of them should be able to lead a public input process.
Once again, Blabby with the really constructive input.
Matt,
To clarify: I’m looking for the date the Chavez folks filed forms & paid applicable fees. If that’s clear enough.
Once again, Graham offers no original commentary or opinions on the post at hand, but just comments on me. Quit stalking me dude.
Get a room, you two.
Guffman: It’s in the original post. January 23.
No, Matt. I have that date. That’s when they turned in 2500 sigs. I would like to know the date they filed the application with the City Engineer.
It might be important.
Blabby, but all you do is complain. You never seem to have an opinion of what should be done instead, only that you don’t like how it’s being done.
If you think spending $35,000 to rename a street with a perfectly good name is anything but fucking stupid, then you’re an idiot. Period.
“You never seem to have an opinion of what should be done instead,”
Yes he does. He suggested that existing city employees should be equipped to administer city rules. Sounds reasonable to me.
Actually, in a way, I find Blabby’s comments encouraging. In one comment thread he’s managed to:
1. Come out against outsourcing.
2. State a belief that city employees are qualified to handle something better than a private-sector contractor.
3. (Apparently) endorse the existing renaming policy, as his objections thus far has been entirely about the expenditure, not the rules.
One thing though, Blabby, what is your source for your statement that the city has “like 500” planners, and how many of them have experience managing a public street renaming process?
@GLV and BLabby. If you actually read articles all the way through before you started complaining, you’d read what the consultants are being paid to do.
Dena Marshall works for Marshall Mediation. A group that specializes in bi-lingual (Spanish and English) dispute resolution.
Joe Hertzbog works for Decisions, Decisions. A public survey group.
Mike Greenfield, doesn’t say who he works for or what he does.
The assumption that already employed city-workers could be doing what they’re doing is faulty. It assumes that those city-workers are just sitting around not doing anything and can start working on this project. Like with any new project, you have to hire someone to do it.
Matt, here’s a hint: They would have filed the application with the City Engineer AT THE START OF THE PETITION PROCESS. The official start.
Nudge, nudge.
Guffman –
Can you tell me what you’re getting at — what is the significance of the filing date with respect to the current situation? I’m genuinely curious.
Bob, I don’t have an issue with street renaming. Using an actual process instead of the debacle last time is a good idea. I just think the city has staff to handle it.
I don’t think we literally have 500 planners. I’m a trained planner, familiar with the “community” here, work with the Bureau of Planning, and I know that Portland keeps a very large planning staff. Have never quantified it.
Portland hires well-qualified planners. They get plenty of applicants and can be choosey. Good planners should be able to run public involvement processes. It really is part of the job and the training.
“Like with any new project, you have to hire someone to do it.”
Graham, you don’t pay property taxes do you?
Bob R.,
Hold that thought for a bit. I’m trying to determine whether Matt knows how many beans make five.
Wink, wink.
For clarification, from consultant Mike Greenfield: “As far as we understand, an applicant does not file with the City Engineer, but rather with Dept of Transportation or the City Auditor. The CECBC (Cesar Estrada Chavez Boulevard Committee) picked up their application 180 days before February 6, 2009 (July, 2008). They submitted 2 batches of signatures to the Auditor: first batch on 10/27/08; second batch on 1/23/09. Per Auditor’s memo 9/22/08, Auditor takes 30 days to verify a 10% random sample of each batch. The deadline for verification on batch #2 is 2/20/09.”
If Marta Guembes has anything to do with it, then it’ll be a clusterfuck as before.
Carolyn Leonard, who co-chaired the committee that renamed a street after King, said, “The sadness is this really shows how white Oregon is — that people don’t know how to live with diversity.”
ttp://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-hometown-portland28-2010feb28,0,1632726.story
Poor, poor Oregon, just too white to know any better I guess.