I know we've just talked about this in person Amy, but I'm tempted to see Saltzman's move, disregarding of process as is typical for him, (like when he banned smoking in Pioneer Square without even asking...) as refreshing. He's gotten something done, and without a committee!

Saltzman's motive might have been because it's politically expedient for him to have changed the street names, but then, Potter forms committees for political reasons, too. Sometimes the process of "community involvement" is just a way of pretending to listen and then going ahead and doing what you want anyway. Like with visioning.

As a separate example, the mayor has decided he wants a center for day laborers, and he's formed a work group to get it done, and will take comment cards from those who oppose it, but ultimately, Potter wants that center built. If Saltzman were mayor, he'd have hired a warehouse by now and got it up and running. Meanwhile, Potter is so keen not to be seen to ride roughshod over people's opinions that the ultimate success of the center is in jeopardy. He hasn't got long...

Sometimes things just need getting done—and with these street names, I like the changes. So I'd like to see a change in the process for renaming a street, as follows: "If a Commissioner wants it for whatever reason, and the council agrees to it, let's do it." Scrap the rest. We have to have some faith in our "leaders." Even if they don't show leadership as often as we'd like.

If we don't like our leaders based on their decisions, then we have more incentive to vote for someone else. Perhaps that's why city hall is often so reluctant to make definitive decisions. Based on his behavior over the street signs, I think I'm more likely to vote for Saltzman, not less. But then I was ever perverse, and hey, I can't even vote in this country.

Amy's right; we already did have a process for renaming streets for famous people. It was instituted in the wake of the renaming of Union Avenue to MLK Jr Blvd, because that led to a huge civic argument and tons of hurt feelings generally.

This process was promptly set aside for the very next time a major street was memorialzed–the renaming of Front Avenue to Naito Parkway. Apparently our elite so lurved the Naito family they were afraid to hurt their feelings by delaying.

As it apparently also was for the new Rosa Parks Way.

Now they're going to do the same for Cesar Chavez Blvd?

When I was growing up, my mom always told me that if she had to do it for me, she'd have to do it for everyone. With age comes wisdom; I finally understand what she meant by that.

Action that panders to a small group—which is the case for both the PioSq smoking ban and RPW when it comes to Saltzman—isn't leadership.

Providing assistance to a committee, to help them navigate a comprehensive process in a timely and efficient manner, is leadership that doesn't trample over the rest of your constituents. I've seen Sam Adams do that. I've yet to see Saltzman do so.

Agree to disagree, then. I just don't think Saltzman was "pandering," any more than Potter does. I just think he wanted an obvious, symbolic outcome from his engagement with the community, and he got it. That's not to say the neighbors don't have a right to be pissed off—but the Buckman neighbors are going to be pissed off when Potter gets his day laborers center. It's just going to be the result of a longer, more costly process for everyone.

I'd like to see NE 28th between Burnside and Glisan named after Wolfgang Puck.

Okay...well, I'll go along with that only if we can rename NW 11th from Burnside to Glisan after Gordon Ramsay.

Ironic, considering "Hell's Kitchen" was originally named after a neighborhood in New York! Oh, how the circle doth turn...

Well played, sir. Well played.

Actually, I was thinking that because of the Soor la tabley...er, sir lew table...ah, that Frenchie cookware shop there.

Democracy can be a messy business but that doesn't mean we throw it away. Sure following the laws instead of waiving them is more difficult, but isn't that what we elect and pay these people for?

And as far as the need to sometimes just git er done without dealing with those darn pesky laws or committees, well I suppose that may work for you, but in the country where I want to live it is unacceptable.

Tracy I agree with you when it comes to going to war on a false pretext. But renaming a street in Portland after a renowned civil rights activist? I'll git er done any time instead of wasting taxpayers' money with process for process' sake.

Still, I've never claimed to be ideologically consistent and tend to go with my gut on these things. I thought Saltzman's staffer's description in the feature of renaming the street as "a no-brainer," nailed it.

Matt, the interesting thing is this would not have cost the tax payers a dime to have gone through the process legally.

The only "no-brainer" aspect of this shameful abuse of the political process is that Saltzman and his crew didn't put much thought at all into which street they chose. They just went for the path of least resistance.

And yet the neighbors are now resisting after the fact?

Why not name the new Day Laborer Center after César E. Chávez? Or a new street, or the park in South Waterfront? Street renaming is pandering by politicians. It costs them nothing, and does little for the honoree. It disrupts residents and businesses on the renamed street, yet because we are all decent people who believe in heroes, we don't like to complain in the context of a specific re-naming. That's why we have the process outlined in the code, to protect people who are too polite to protest about a particular name. Laws exist (in part) to protect minorities, Matt. "Leadership" isn't skirting those laws, especially in the name of honoring different minorities.

Great article in the print version, Amy.

Remind me who it was you stood against at the last election, Amanda? MMmmmyesss...DAN SALTZMAN!

If the neighbors are too polite to protest, I would suggest that is their problem, not ours. Or that it simply didn't mean that much to them. Or that they realized that ultimately, it didn't bother them that much.

I refer readers to Scott Moore's City Club position: "Portland is too polite."

The problem is that those protesting a street name change are labeled anti- whatever the group may be. Don't like Rosa Park Way> You're a racist! Don't like Chavez Blvd? You're a racist! It is difficult to be polite and still protest the changing of your neighborhood street. And once again, it is a street in N Ptld, by a group who are not even representative of the area. How about coming up with a range of possible street names and have the locals decide?

"No-brainer" seems to imply that objection to Rosa Parks Way was stupid. I don't get that. Maybe someone smarter can explain it to me.

If Rosa Parks Way was a "no-brainer," surely Cesar Chavez Boulevard is, as well. Chavez' contributions to this country were no less significant than Parks'. Even so, there was no reason to subvert established city process for Parks, and I see no reason to do so for Chavez.

Amy's feature makes a great point: Renaming streets impacts peoples' lives. It's easy to be flippant about it when you don't live two blocks from the intersection of Interstate and North Portland -- or Interstate and Rosa -- or Chavez and Parks....

Amanda,
Thank you for phrasing a sensitive issue far more eloquently than I have been able to. For the record, I want to make it clear that to me, Rosa Parks was an amazing, brave woman who made this country a better place. She deserves to be recognized but how do we get that done? For the record, I also wish you had won the election.

That said, Matt you are just not getting it. The residents and business owners weren’t even given the chance to be too polite, and it isn’t the first or even the last time. This is about whether or not people in this city have a right to be informed and have a say in what happens to them as we are legally entitled to be. You mentioned not being able to vote here; well we can and were not allowed.

Was Portland Blvd the first choice for Rosa Parks? No, it was Sandy Blvd and other suggestions put forward were Grand Avenue, the Steel Bridge, 6th Avenue, a major bus street, the Park Blocks, Peninsula Park and the list goes on. Was Portland Blvd chosen because it was a major thoroughfare? Was it because it had anything to do symbolically with the bus or mass transit where Mrs. Parks made history? Did Portland Blvd have a racist history that needed to be redressed? Did Portland Blvd have a history all of it’s own that mattered to the people who lived on it?

It was chosen because they thought they could get away with it. Saltzman was quoted that it was chosen partly because there were not too many businesses on it to object and that it made sense to rename a street where the majority of the African American citizens in this city live (not by accident either) Isn’t that still trying to put Rosa Parks to the back of the bus?

The commissioner went to two of the four neighborhood associations to pitch the idea and only one of them voted for the change. The people who lived on the street never heard about the public hearings so your inference that no one cared enough to attend and say anything polite or not is out of line.

Did Portland step up and give her a significant enough commemoration? We could have done better. All of this has left me wondering how she would have felt about the way people’s civil rights were taken away on her behalf?

Concord:

"The problem is that those protesting a street name change are labeled anti- whatever the group may be. Don't like Rosa Park Way> You're a racist!"

What about the neighbors who opposed the Holocaust Memorial because they had "traffic concerns?" Don't forget them! Nobody is using the word "racist," here. But perhaps it's interesting that those complaining about the name change are getting so flustered about the circumvention of a city process. I wonder why.

"And once again, it is a street in N Ptld, by a group who are not even representative of the area. How about coming up with a range of possible street names and have the locals decide?"

I would say renaming a street in North Portland, an area where the city's African American community is concentrated more than, say, in SW or Lake Oswego, and to in a city which historically, has treated that population with contempt (Vanport, anyone?!) (The neighborhoods bulldozed to build the Memorial Colliseum?!) after a civil rights activist who was inspiration for the Montgomery Bus Boycott was long overdue.

Parks took direct action. In a way, the direct approach to renaming a street after her in this city is kind of fitting.

Having said that, Tracy, I had no idea they considered other places first. It's disappointing that Saltzman, cosy as he is with the city's business owners, chose a street because he didn't want to offend anybody with a wallet.

Sad. What a loser.

Remind me who it was you stood against at the last election, Amanda? MMmmmyesss...DAN SALTZMAN!

And the relevance of that to this issue is....? Oh, and we RUN here, Matt. They "stand" in the UK.

This isn't about particular politicians - at least, it shouldn't be. We have LAWS (that's what the Code is, law) about how everyone, politicians included, are supposed to do stuff. If you, Matt, or the Council members want politicians to be able to change street names whenever they choose, then change the Code to say that. Don't just waive it, waive it again, and announce the intention of waiving it in the future.

I'm posting a longer comment on my blog.

Matt,
Thanks for seeing part of my point. I think a lot of people didn’t hear what really happened and had a hard time understanding why this was so upsetting to some people. The mayor and city council did't even consider any of the other suggestions that were offered during the public hearings, on the mayor's website when he asked for input, and at the meeting where the vote on the proposal was taken.

Unfortunately, when you use a word like "flustered" to describe people's very real feelings about having their rights taken away, it’s hard to not take that as insulting and trivializing. Can you find no empathy with the people this happened to at all? Maybe you only get angry when something wrong happens to you.

As far as the appropriateness of naming a street in North and Northeast Portland after Rosa Parks. You listed several reasons why the African American population is mainly concentrated there. What you may not be aware of is that it wasn't until 1952 that the Portland Realty Board finally changed their racist code of ethics to say: "It is no longer the Board's official position that the presence of African Americans depresses property values." Up until then they would only show housing to African Americans within the "red line" area of town. So is your thinking that we should force a population into the depressed areas of town and then make it so that is the only place appropriate to honor their heroes as well?

Chris Rock has a comedy routine about how the streets named after MLK are always in the worst parts of town and how it didn’t make any difference when they changed the name. Don’t Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez have a right to be recognized in the prominent areas Portland? What kind of a community doesn’t even consider it? And yes, the fear of being accused of being a racist comes across everyone’s mind when it comes down to issues like these. Ironically, the fact that all of the honors for any minority icon are all in the same area of town seems to point to a latent racism at City Hall.

Tracy: I believe we're all latently racist in the end, sadly. But that's a different conversation and it could take some time.

More and more on the street renaming, I'm coming round to your position. I don't mean to trivialize the feelings of people in the neighborhood (actually, I did...but never mind, I didn't mean it). But I DO think neighbors are always going to react badly to any change near their property—see Linnton, for example, and the hoo-hah they're making over the building of a biodiesel plant. Property values, anyone?

Whether it comes down to renaming a street after a historical figure, building new apartments, or re-zoning a property, most homeowners would rather that happened elsewhere. It's only the really shrewd developers and politicians that manage to convince communities their projects are a good idea—and sadly, you often do that by pretending to listen, and then going ahead with the project you planned, anyway. They should teach the skill at Portland State, if they don't already.

In building New York City, Robert Moses never considered neighborhood opposition, only the neighbors' relative political power. I've been reading my wife's copy of The Power Broker—and while Moses was a complete maniac, he did wonders for the city. My point is: Sometimes you have to ignore people, in order to get things accomplished. You have to go with your beliefs and believe they're more important than other people's. I believe that kind of moderate psychosis is a common facet of strong leaders, although of course, it's not something that's widely admitted or applauded.

On the "property values" point again: In a city where neighborhood groups hold a lot of lobbying power, without being strictly defined as lobbyists under the terms of city code, it's interesting that those complaining over neighborhood issues rarely seem to consider or mention their personal investment as property owners. Most of us are all most definitely selfish, when it comes down to it. Yet we're quick to inflate things that affect us personally into debates about broader social or political issues—because it's more socially acceptable that way and because ultimately, it's more likely to get us what we want.

But yes, yes. Cynicism aside, Saltzman should have renamed Sandy, or Big Pink, if he really wanted to make a point, rather than picking a street with no businesses on it. It's a dubiously motivated move, and Chris Rock has a point. So thanks for persisting here with the discussion—you've accomplished the rare feat of changing my mind.

Lastly, Amanda: Having accused Saltzman of pandering to the electorate, I think it's only fair I point out that by knocking Saltzman, you're at least in part using this issue to score political points against him. And why not?! But that's where it's relevant to this discussion. Don't tell me you're not considering another run against him!

Matt,
Thanks for taking the time to give me a chance to more fully explain my views on this.

Maybe I'm clueless, but the effect of the street renaming on my property value never entered my mind. What I did react to as a property owner was that I was one of the last to know about it, and that it erased a part of the history of the city I love.

As far as the "not in our backyard" viewpoint. That too was not the issue for me. As far as diversity goes, I chose the neighborhood I live in specifically because it was diverse (more like the real world). And I am trying to not be so cynical as to not give people the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing if given a chance. Every single person on the mayor's website that objected to the changing of Portland Blvd but gave alternative, more significant streets, bridges or parks to be considered. Not one person thought she should not be recognized. It's just a shame that our city took the quick and dirty route to accomplish this.

Matt, please cite some examples of "neighborhood groups holding a lot of lobbying power".

I can give you a whole list of projects where neighbors look out for the good of the community, rather than their own personal gain. Hundreds of thousands of hours of time, and buckets of sweat, donated to causes that do the volunteer no good personally, except the good feeling in their hearts. Please spend some time helping neighborhood groups with their cleanups, park projects, newsletters and suchlike, then tell me if you think neighborhood volunteers are only doing what they do for selfish reasons. I've heard the "property values" mantra far more often from people who only show up to one meeting, than from folks who volunteer month after month, year after year.

" Having accused Saltzman of pandering to the electorate, I think it's only fair I point out that by knocking Saltzman, you're at least in part using this issue to score political points against him."

A perfect example of one reason I chose not to knock him for it during the campaign - that others would project political motives where in fact, I care about the principle. It's not about the particular politician. If anything, I try to be especially careful when commenting on Dan's actions since May 2006, to avoid the appearance of sour grapes.

Running against Dan in 2010? Depends how 2008 plays out. Regardless, I didn't snipe at him during the campaign, let alone three years before, when I ran last time. There are some things about my campaign strategy I'll change if I run again, but that isn't one of them.

Amanda:

As an example of neighborhood groups with lobbying power—the planned closure of North Precinct, which was halted by neighborhood concerns.

And on neighborhood involvement: I agree it's easy to knock people's self interest, but those living in an area obviously have a stake in seeing it improve. So I'm a cynic, but I think neighborhood involvement is often given a wide berth by cynics, although not from what you say.

Please run against Dan in 2010! But if I were your consultant I would advise: SNIPE MORE! All this "be the change you want to be in the world" isn't going to win a dirty election fought with the gloves off...