Predictably on the fence, from Duin. But it's just too easy to blame Potter for the behavior of people at those meetings.

The for or anti crowd? Please cite an example.

Someone against the renaming calling the chair of the committee a "fucking bitch."

Jeers and laughter.

Amy's got the scoop in this week's paper.

“We’re not knowledgeable about processes or politics or the sentiments of the community.”

From the mouths of babes...

“We’re not knowledgeable about processes or politics or the sentiments of the community.”

Are these people even US citizens?

Wait, aren't some of the people behind the renaming committee the same people who bilked the County out of big $$ to pay for their shady newspaper business deals? Yeah, they don't know anything about politics . . .

“We’re not knowledgeable about processes or politics or the sentiments of the community.” Um . . wasn't Mr. Romero at the neighborhood association meetings? The sentiment is pretty clear. Talk about playing stupid.

Funny how Potter hasn't offered to rename SW 4th Avenue...What better honor than renaming City Hall's address after Chavez?

When did calling someone a f###ing bitch become a racist remark? Bitch is used pretty universally and unless there is an adjective attached to it, it is a straight up insult, not a racial slur.

That said, it was an unecessary and hostile insult and hugely inappropriate if her child, or any kid for that matter, was present. Nothing is being accomplished with angry comments.

They will by god have a big fight on their hands if they try to rename 47th avenue.

Tracy:

"When did calling someone a f###ing bitch become a racist remark? Bitch is used pretty universally and unless there is an adjective attached to it, it is a straight up insult, not a racial slur."

I think it's hateful. And when aimed at a Latino woman at the end of a meeting on the renaming of a street, I'll call it racist. But we can disagree.

I think the person who said "minorities should go back where they came from" and the person who said "minorities have a lot of power in this town" were a little more racist, from the sounds of it.

But what are you after? For someone to start using straight-up epithets? That's not how racism works in this country, these days.

Would we even be having this heated discussion if Potter hadn't clusterfucked the whole issue every step of the way? Maybe, but probably unlikely, and definitely not to this level. The issue obviously has less to day with Chavez (hell, I've yet to hear a single person say he shouldn't be honored) and more to do with citizens getting either ignored or bent over the reamed by their mayor.

As Amy has said all along.

Next.

Matt, you sort of need to get a grip. I agreed that it was an inapproptiate, and hateful thing to say. I've been called a bitch by a non-white person before, was that automatically racist?

What am I after? I'm after preserving history. You have made it quite clear you don't care about Portland's history, except to trash it, and that's your perogative. This does not give you the right to discount other people valuing and wanting to preserve the history of where they live. I'm after our laws being followed. I'm after all of us finding a way to honor Cesar Chavez in a way that involves the entire city.

Matt, when did this became your story and your fight. I think I missed the meeting where everyone voted you the expert on racism for the state of Oregon and the city of Portland.

And about the history of racism in this country you may want to consider...no one of European descent just popped up out of the ground here. Their racism came over with them from England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc. Americans did not invent racism.

Jon, here's one person that says Chavez shouldn't be honored, courtesy of the Portland Tribune's website:

"Why are we talking about honoring Chavez at all? He has no significant connection to this state or city. And for all of the bleating I have heard from the people pushing this about 'honoring the contribution of the Latino community', the 'Latino community' hasn't really been that much of a factor in building this state or city.

It has only been in the last 10-15 years that the latino population has become a factor and many of those are illegal.

......How about we name some more things after the European immigrants who actually did build this state?"

Posted by "Chris"

I didn't realize that having too many signs of diversity would be too much for "liberal" Portland, que lastima.

1. Just because you have a Latino last name doesn't make you illegal. Chavez was American.

2. Just because you have two - count em' - two streets named after people of color doesn't make you an accepting city.

3. You've got it all, people, give us a street.

Since so many of us are stuck on this procedural issue, can Tracy or someone else remind us where the committee went wrong with regards to Chapter 17.93 and why it matters?

There are two ways of looking at the procedural errors. One, the city council is only allowed to circumvent the city process and rename a street if it's for navigational clarity (the city code specifically bans the council from renaming a street to honor a person). But that's exactly what the city is doing.

Looking at it another way, even if the city and the committee say they're following the spirit of the law, they aren't (other than talking to the community about it).

The process a group is supposed to follow is very detailed. In simplified terms (the entire law is here), the group has to file an application with the City Engineer (which they haven’t). Then, they have 180 days to collect signatures from 2500 legal residents of the city at large or 75% of the property owners on the street, make an effort to get a letter of support from the honoree’s estate, and submit a bio of the honoree.

Then, application complete, the group who wants the rename has to “make a fee deposit to cover the full cost of printing and mailing postcards and public notices as determined by the City Auditor… If the street proposed for renaming is more than ten City blocks (½ mile), the minimum deposit shall be $1,000” and the committee has to pay for any costs above that. (I believe the city has borne the cost of notification for the upcoming meetings, including tonight’s.)

Then, the city forwards the application to a panel of three historians, who have 45 days “for review and determination as to appropriateness of the proposed name and its compliance with criteria for selecting a new street name, and determination as to historic significance of the street.”

Meanwhile—and this is happening, but at the city’s expense or organically—the City Engineer “shall notify all neighborhood and business associations recognized by the City which encompass or represent owners of property or businesses located on property abutting the street proposed for renaming of the proposed renaming and request that they submit in writing to the City Engineer their support or opposition to the proposed name change within 45 days.”

The historians make a recommendation to the City Planning Commission, then the Planning Commission reviews the application and conducts a public hearing, of which the auditor notifies all property owners and residents along the street, giving them 30 days to give input (which is forwarded to the Planning Commission).

The City Engineer “shall prepare and submit to the Planning Commission a budget impact statement as to the direct cost of production and installation of new street name signs and related City costs.” (That’s a question many in the community have asked, and no one has an answer).

The Planning Commission makes “a recommendation to the City Council as to the best interest of the City and the area within six miles of the City limits.”

Then, finally, it goes to the city council for a public hearing, and the council can approve or deny the proposal.

Why is it important? For starters, it’s a long and involved process that allows adequate time for the community to digest the proposal and weigh in (knowing that the decision about the proposal is at the end, not already possibly locked up). Costs are borne by the group that wants to make the change, not the city. There’s a budget impact statement that answers some basic questions. Historians and Planning Commissioners—people who (hopefully) don’t have a political or personal stake in the equation—review the idea, and make a recommendation for the city, not a constituency or neighborhood.

And most importantly, it matters because it’s a law (and a well intentioned one at that, which was born out of the drama over renaming MLK), and it’s frustrating when our city’s leaders decide to cast aside a law just because they want to, especially when following the law isn't a burden on anyone.

Here's what should have happened...

1. There is a process of getting signatures from 75% of the people living on the street or 2500 signatures of citizens at large before the application is even submitted.

2. The application is to be filed with the city engineer and that should have triggered a first class mailing to everyone who lives on the street telling them about the proposal, asking for their input and informing them of any public hearings, meetings or votes on the proposal. This would have brought the community into the process early on before any final decisions were made.

3. The application would also have required that a panel of historians or people with expertise be appointed to study the impact on the historic neighborhood. This is what many people are concerned about, erasing history.

4. Permission should have been obtained from the honoree's estate or heirs to use their name. I'm not sure if the committee did this for Cesar Chavez but it was not done for Rosa Parks and her organization didn't appreciate it.

5. The petitioning body is to pay for the notification mailings, public notices and petition costs. This would have included the initial mailing to the residents about the proposal.

6. All neighborhood associations affected should have been involved. (For Rosa Parks Way only two of the four NA's were even approached) Only two of the three NAs involved in the Interstate proposal were allowed to vote so there is still lack of involvement from the people who live there.

7. The City Engineer is supposed to prepare and submit a budget impact statement as to the cost to the city. It sounds like this has not been done yet because the Chavez Committee has been placed in the position of trying to answer the hard questions about the cost to the city and that is completely unfair to them.

and the last, but most important point..

8. The Council may rename a street in order to correct errors in street names, or to eliminate confusion. Such action may be taken if it is determined that insignificant impact will result and it is desirable for the convenience of the general public. Renaming of a street by the City under provisions of this paragraph shall not be undertaken to rename a street after a person as provided for in other sections of the Chapter.

That is where the mayor and the city council allowed the committe to go wrong. Why it matters is the law is there to guarantee the involvement of the people most affected by the change. It is a well written law. It matters because laws are imperative in a society and in this society the laws are supposed to apply to everyone.

Amy,
I don't know if I missed it in one of your earlier stories, but what rationale does the city council use for circumventing the law as it is written in the case of Rosa Parks and Naito? Have they addressed the issue to your knowledge? Or was the subject not brought up? I seem to remember someone at the Arbor Lodge N.A. meeting saying the City Council can do whatever they want.

This is good. If the process is the problem. Let's talk about the process.

Did the committee say they have no intention of following these rules or that these are ongoing tasks?

They got the signatures and notified the neighbors, and then even held meetings with the neighbors. Meeting with neighborhoods is not even a requirement of the rule.

The rule only gives the opportunity for residents to respond in writing before the hearing.

I would assume that the 3-person historic panel is one of the next steps. But that is the portion of the rule that involves the community the least--and doesn't strike me as the underlying spirit of the law. Neither does filling out forms.

In that sense, the committee has followed the spirit of the law and even gone beyond it by meeting with multiple established neighborhood groups--an ambitious and somewhat naively genuine task for a group that clearly has no PR expertise.

Perhaps they erred by not hiring an attorney to walk them through the process. But no one else has ever used the process to my knowledge, not even for Naito.

SCG,
Sorry, but you missed the last part of the process...the city council cannot re-name a street at will, but they have been anyway, three times. The process has been waived by the mayor and council repeatedly so that's why it has not been followed. This time the general public has become aware and involved in a way that was not possible for the other re-namings because the law waiving has come to light.

Input from the people in written form is the same as what happened at the NA meetings, people would have either accepted the proposal or rejected it.

The committee did in effect say they did not want to be held to following the process because no one else had and even there you can't blame them. The mayor and council have made promises they shouldn't have. This is the third time the mayor and council has tried to do this by circumventing the law, but you know the old saying...two (or three) wrongs do not make a right.

Any attorney worth his salt could have informed the committee about the fact that re-naming cannot happen unless it is to correct an error and avoided all of this. But the committee should not be the ones responsible for this, the city has attorneys that could have been brought in to advise and keep this from going so wrong.

Tracy
Thanks for answering my question (#19).

Do you know if the city is within their rights to waive these rules?

Could they potentially face lawsuits in your opinion?

Tracy--look more closely at the rule if you're so interested in following it. Only a Council initiated re-name is limited to correcting errors.

Re-names initiated by others (such as a committee in this case) don't follow that rule, they follow the string of other rules above it.

Do you know which route this group is taking?

And if you think it's such a good law, note that it doesn't have an appeal procedure built in. So the neighborhood doesn't have any real say in the decision, except in the form of comments to the planning commission and the Council before the decision.

Apparently the city has the right to waive laws, but in this particular code it says the council may not waive the law just to re-name. They have now done this three times.

I do believe that the city is open to be sued. It would probably be most effective as a class action suit if people really wanted to pursue it.

There is also the city ombudsman who is there to mediate complaints against the city and that might be a way to redress the issue.

I talked to someone in the city auditors office when I found out about my street being re-named and that person said "we were wondering how long it would take before someone was going to come to us about this." meaning they knew it was irregular. And when I spoke to one of the city attorneys his main concern was that the people living on the street were not notified before the change was finalized.

The city council initiated it because an application was never turned in. Without the application it is a council action.

"Without the application it is a council action."

Where does it say that in the rule? And when did the council initiate it?

All I've seen happen is that Council passed a resolution calling for a five-week minimum period of public comment on the proposal.

Do you know if they've even scheduled a hearing to make a decision?

And if you think it's such a good law, note that it doesn't have an appeal procedure built in. So the neighborhood doesn't have any real say in the decision, except in the form of comments to the planning commission and the Council before the decision.

The input of the planning commission shouldn't be dismissed (same with the historian panel). That's two layers of independent review, the sort of analysis and review that's not happening at the community meetings, and may not happen at the city council, because in those venues, everyone's out for their self interest. The historians and planning commission, however, offer an impartial and non-politically motivated POV, and consider the city as a whole.

It's not clear if the committee will come anywhere close to 2,500 signatures from Portland residents. Their online petition has less than 200 signatures, and not all are from Portlanders. From what I hear, they are collecting signatures in the neighborhoods around Interstate, but last time I checked in, they either didn't have a tally or didn't want to divulge. They certainly don't have 75% of the street in question.

On the earlier question, I'm not entirely familiar with Naito, but my understanding was that it was waived entirely because the rename didn't meet the "dead for five years" requirement. (It seems to me that waiving one line of an expansive law could make sense in some cases, but I believe they tossed out the whole thing.)

For Rosa Parks, the group who wanted the change wanted to make it happen in time for the 1 year anniversary of her death. They needed the council's help to expedite the process, and to specifically waive that "dead for five years" part.

Meanwhile, a guy who filed an application in 2005 to rename Killingsworth for Malcolm X was shut down (because you can't rename a street already named for a person). I wonder what would have happened if he found a sympathetic council member, instead of following the process.

"Without the application it is a council action."

Where does it say that in the rule? And when did the council initiate it?

All I've seen happen is that Council passed a resolution calling for a five-week minimum period of public comment on the proposal.

Do you know if they've even scheduled a hearing to make a decision?

Technically speaking, the council hasn't yet waived the law, but the committee hasn't begun the official process. The law would be waived, as it was for Rosa Parks, in the resolution or ordinance that changes the name, if they vote to do it. A hearing has not been scheduled. So technically speaking, the committee could go back to the drawing board and follow the process (likewise, the city council could vote next week to waive the law and rename the street).

Thanks again Tracy!

I would love to see somebody bring up your points in a reasoned manner as you just have at the Ockley Green meeting tonight.

Tracy, I believe that the city council has the explicit privilege of waiving the normal procedure for re-naming streets, which I think in this case that is what they did.

I think that your argument should be presented to encompass the importance of following the process and neighborhood involvement (as you have detailed here), but I don't think an argument based on a belief that they are "circumventing," "breaking," or "waiving" the law and can be sued will work, because it is my understanding that the council has executed legal decisions based on the powers they were given.

So if I have this right...

Council has not initiated anything, let alone set a hearing date.

But, the committee to re-name has started collecting signatures, has noticed the residents, and has been to multiple neighborhood meetings--going beyond the requirements of the law, which only requires the NAs to be notified.

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page about procedures.

Skinny City Girl, you keep saying the the Chavez committe has notified the residents. I was told by the City of Portland that they were the only ones notifying the residents at the City's (taxpayer) expense. I certainly haven't been notified by the Chavez Committee and I live withing 5 blocks of Interstate. Also, the City of Portland only notified residents that live within 500 feet of Interstate, leaving many neighborhood residents still unaware of the proposed name change.

pk, the notice requirements are written into the city's laws. And there's also a rule that says if you found out about the meeting beforehand, then no harm was caused by you not receiving notice.

The City is supposed to send the notice and the committee pays it back. That's how it works with other notices in the city, too. That's why there's an application fee.

Do you know for sure whether or not the committee has or is planning to pay that fee?

One thing this thread has shown is that none of you even know what the procedures are, let alone whether the committee and the city have followed them.

If you're against renaming the street, you're against it. For other reasons, obviously.

Don't try to deflect that by bringing up laws and procedures, it's insulting.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Skinny City Girl is my wife.

"One thing this thread has shown is that none of you even know what the procedures are, let alone whether the committee and the city have followed them"

SCG, both the time line of what the committee and the City did are fairly clear and well documented here as well as what the procedures are (as stated above they are easily located online and I've read through them twice now). Should we go through each sub chapter and heading step by step to determine if the Committee and City followed them?

I feel pretty confident that I understand these procedures (they are very detailed, yes, but easy to follow). I'm sad to report it, but given the information, neither the City nor the Committee followed several key steps in this process including the filing, or the steps it takes to go before City Council. Tracy is correct in her assessment. In addition, I believe (although I am not 100% certain) that because this is required to go to Planning Commission BEFORE it comes to City Council, that it is subject to the same review and public input procedures and thus appeal procedures, as other recommendations that the Planning Commission provides for zoning, development and other changes.

Can someone tell me though, Did the City provide 3 historians to review this? It's a little thing, but clearly written in the Code and is one of the first steps, so I'm just wondering at what juncture things went off course.

Dan, I do not believe that Council, unless it comes in front of them as a clear and formal code amendment - which has a whole extra set of review and public input steps - has the right to waive this procedure.

Seems clear to me. Regardless, it is sad, because so much of this boondoggle could have been prevented if it was just done right from the start.

If the procedure doesn't work, then Council needs to go through the formal and proper process of changing the Code. Instead, they have chosen to just ignore it and that is not only unacceptable, as we can see from this example, it leads to a whole bunch of other problems in the community.

Finally, I'm all for renaming Interstate if the process actually follows set process. I don't think it did, and the more I find out, the more certain I am of this.

"Both the time line of what the committee and the City did are fairly clear and well documented here..."

What has been well documented here is a lot of rumor and conjecture and not a lot of fact to back it up. LC, you even hedge about all the specifics after declaring that the committee and the city broke the rules.

Not one of the people claiming to hold these procedures so close to their hearts has been able to answer any of these procedural questions with any degree of certainty:

1. Did the committee file an application?
2. Did the committee pay the fee for the notice?
3. Does an application form even exist?
4. When was the notice sent and to how many property owners?
5. Did the Auditor estimate the budget?
6. When does it go before City Council and how does Council adopt this change?

The questions go on and on--and no one who purportedly cares so much about the rules, and who hold them up as the only reason they oppose the street re-name, has even bothered to look into it and find out.

I don't claim to know the rules, either. But I'm not opposing the name change on those grounds.

I'm just calling people out for being ignorant and hypocritical.

Did I mention we're married?

SGC. Fair enough. You pointed something out to me that I did not clearly understand. I thought 1-6 had been determined. So they haven't? Interesting. I stand corrected then.

Amy, can you clarify or provide answers to SGC's questions.

To Address number 6. It is my understanding that the process goes like this (from the Code) after several steps (like the one you mention) and after it goes to the Planning Commission for public review and input:

F. The City Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the matter and make a recommendation to the City Council as to the best interest of the City and the area within six miles of the City limits in accordance with ORS 227.120.

G. The Auditor shall schedule a public hearing before City Council on the matter. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not less than once within the week prior to the week within which the hearing is to be held.

H. A public hearing shall be held before City Council on the proposed street name change.

I. The Council may approve or deny application for a street name change upon determination of the best interests of the City and the area within six miles of the City limits. If Council denies the application, it is filed with no further consideration, and the subject name and street shall not be considered again under this Policy for a period of at least two years. If Council approves the application, certified copies of the enabling Ordinance shall be filed with the County Recorder, County Assessor, and County Surveyor.

Although even I think I'm getting too wonky nit-picky at this point so I'll back off. Still, SGC you make good points and I'd like to see them addressed.

Amy or anyone else, can you answer SGC's questions? Otherwise, a quick call to the City should do it.

1. Did the committee file an application?

Last time I checked with PDOT, no. I'll call and ask again tomorrow.

2. Did the committee pay the fee for the notice?

Everyone I've asked has indicated the city—PDOT and ONI—paid for it. There's been no indication the committee plans to or is expected to pay it back.

3. Does an application form even exist?

I have a copy of one. PDOT's Kurt Krueger has them.

4. When was the notice sent and to how many property owners?

I don't know the details on that one.

5. Did the Auditor estimate the budget?

There's been no complete budget estimate yet that includes things like renaming MAX, updating state highway signage, or estimates the costs to businesses. At tonight's meeting, the number $3,000 x 5 years was an estimate just to change the actual city street signs along Interstate. So $15,000 for that part.

6. When does it go before City Council and how does Council adopt this change?

If they do it the same way they changed Portland Boulevard, they pass a resolution with all the "whereas" language of why Chavez is great, with a line saying something like "this overrides city code chapter 17.93 except for the section on implementation." Potter, tonight, said the council would be deciding one way or another by the first of the year—that was the first any date has been floated.

LC, If you or anyone else can send me a link to any information showing that the City Council has waived any rules so far in the Interstate re-name proposal, please do.

In order to waive the rules, City Council has to do something at a meeting. They have to make a motion and vote. It doesn't just happen.

By the way, the re-name is NOT a land use decision.

PS, the Rosa Parks Way ordinance is here: http://efiles.ci.portland.or.us/webdrawer/rec/2783960/

Click on the little magnifying glass to download the Word file. The section relevant to waiving the code reads:

a. North and Northeast Portland Boulevard shall be renamed as the Rosa Parks Way.

b. The provisions of Municipal Code chapter 17.93, renaming City Streets, shall be waived, except for section 17.93.060. Implementation.

(Which means that so far, the city council has not waived 17.93. Their waiving it for Rosa Parks allowed them to avoid the "council shall not rename a street" provision, effectively creating a third way to rename a street, also known as the "whatever the commissioner championing the idea thinks the process should be," as is what's happening with Interstate.)

Thanks, Amy.

I understand everyone is pissed about Rosa Parks Way.

We're talking about Interstate now. Has Council waived any rules pertaining to Interstate?

In fact, did they not first pass a resolution to engage the community before the rename could be considered?

Yes, they did.

The committee hasn't submitted the application, which would trigger the other parts of the rule. It looks to me like they are engaging the community first. How is the community being bypassed right now? Because the committee has held multiple meetings, the community is way more involved than the rule even requires.

What is the problem here?

I'll have to search for it and verify it, but the yesterday the Tribune reported that the City Council approved a resolution to move forward on this renaming. By approving this resolution(once again I will need to verify it and when it occured, and I will), they did both take action and make a decision outside of stated policy procedure for street renaming.

Yes, it is not a land use decision, but has some very similar and specific criteria and steps for how the change occurs, and how it is approved by Council including council resolution following stated City policy.

The committee hasn't submitted the application, which would trigger the other parts of the rule. It looks to me like they are engaging the community first. How is the community being bypassed right now? Because the committee has held multiple meetings, the community is way more involved than the rule even requires.

It's my understanding that there's no intention of ever filing an application and going for the 2500 signatures or 75% of the property owners. The committee had actually hoped that the council would change the name by Oct 15, to coincide with Hispanic Heritage Month—so this community process at the behest of the city council is extending the committee's own timeline.

And yes, it's great that they're getting out into the community and talking about this, which is not part of the official process. But unfortunately, because they went to the city council first instead of picking up a PDOT application and saving the council for last, it's created a perception of "a done deal," to quote nearly everyone who's touched on the topic (including the mayor, tonight). There might be community outreach and input, but much of the community doesn't feel that their input is meaningful—it's being perceived as empty community involvement, and as "not being listened to" (which is triggering the vast majority of the tension in those meetings—people are rebeling against the structure of the meetings, out of frustration about not being heard).

And I'd argue that due to the highly personal nature of a debate like this—NIMBYs vs passionate activists, businesses who'd have to pay for the proposal vs. a community that wants recognition for their cultural contributions, people who yearn to be heard vs. a committee that believes in their idea and believes they already have council support—the impartial review by a trio of historians and the planning commission would add a sorely needed "big picture" perspective that would compliment the community input.

The Interstate public comment resolution is here: http://efiles.ci.portland.or.us/webdrawer/rec/2965272/

Not being listened to?

The rule actually allows LESS public involvement than the committee has carried out.

The rule would send the application straight to a little group of historians and planning commissioners who are appointed by the Council. The property owners and NAs would only have to be notified in writing and given 2 minutes testimony at a hearing.

Talk about a done deal. Talk about not being heard.

By the way, the resolution was to "Initiate a period of public comment on the proposal to change the name of Interstate Avenue to César E. Chávez Boulevard" It wasn't to change the name or make a motion to change the name or make a motion to schedule a meeting to consider the change.

The resolution initiated the public comment period, which is what everyone is screaming they wanted in the first place. So what gives?

Let's all admit this is not about process.

And I'd argue that due to the highly personal nature of a debate like this—NIMBYs vs passionate activists, businesses who'd have to pay for the proposal vs. a community that wants recognition for their cultural contributions, people who yearn to be heard vs. a committee that believes in their idea and believes they already have council support—the impartial review by a trio of historians and the planning commission would add a sorely needed "big picture" perspective that would compliment the community input.

Who said this wasn't going to be done? Is your point that "the group and the City are seeking public comment! (oh my!)" but the whole process hasn't played out yet? Or are you just simply against renaming?

Ultimately, code doesn't call for public meetings, just a check box on a postcard. This group has gone above and beyond that. These were public input meetings, not Council votes, so the process obviously isn't completed.

If/when the group goes to historians, and the planning commission, is it okay with you or will you find another argument against it? When you can't hide behind the process, what is your opposition?

What gives is the committee says they have the mayor's 100% support, and that the rest of the commissioners support the proposal. What good is public comment when the committee indicates they've already rounded up five votes?

(Though, to be fair, the mayor said tonight that his four colleagues are currently in the undecided column.)

Maybe it's not about process for everyone, but from attending every meeting on this so far, the sidestepping of the process has reopened a lot of the anger over Rosa Parks. I don't have a personal stake in the actual proposal on Interstate, and don't really care one way or another if it's renamed. But I do care that the city follows its own laws, if only to avoid the appearance of predetermining such a charged issue.

Ok, why the hell did Council pass a resolution to "move forward" on this in the first place if there is already a clear and detailed outline for the committee and Council to follow to move forward? Doesn't make sense.

And SGC, I beg to differ with you on a few points.

1. For me, (and I am guessing others) this IS about process, or specifically the City not following it. I find this not only disrespectful to all involved but very bad government, which leads to the risk for all kinds of contentious problems in the community including future distrust and resentment leading to the inability to get additional things done in the neighborhoods, and yes even potential legal issues and risks.
2. If you read the Code there are several junctures for public input and outreach A. During the public signature gathering after the committee has filed the application and then where the Committee is supposed to make a "good faith effort" to reach out to the community, B. During the Planning Commission Process which requires notification and allows for public input and testimony and C. During the City Council decision making process which also requires notification and allows for public testimony. It is far from a small closed committee as you state.

Finally, while I stand corrected on my assumption that the Committee did indeed NOT file their application and thus the steps have not been followed (still need to verify that), I stand firm that Council has not followed clear procedures for renaming this street thus far by taking it up and showing support BEFORE it goes to the Auditor and Planning Commission. And well, this hasn't worked very well for anyone has it?

You know, it's not always about how much public involvement there is, but how that public involvement is handled that makes a difference in whether or not things will move forward, how fair things decisions are, and how citizens put faith in the ability of their governments to be good stewards of the public good. I do not believe that the City has done a good job of this and they could have avoided many of the problems surrounding it if they were just a little more tuned into the issues and hot buttons.

Ramming a street name change down a community's throat, either by direct action or by taking sides before taking action (they mayor has clearly done the latter) is simply bad politics. It is the job of council to listen to all sides, and specifically in this case listen to the recommendations of the Auditor and the Planning Commission BEFORE making up their minds.

In addition, what really pisses me off about this is that I am actually supportive of the name change, but I just can't get behind the way it is playing out with the Mayor's office. Maybe the code is flawed or out of date, but if so then it needs to be changed, until then it should be followed.

Oh God, I'm starting to write in CAPS now. Time for bed. Amy, Matt, et al, keep us posted...

I understand your frustration, SCG, and I think many people do hide behind process when they're actually opposed for another less palatable reason.

But there is a valid reason to be nervous about the speed and process of this name change, and it has more to do with the Rosa Parks change and the rapidity with which this proposal has followed that one. People are now wondering what the rules are exactly, and who gets special treatment and who doesn't. I think by making it all about race (which is not to deny that it's a factor) we neglect to see the complex issues of who is included and who is left out. And in the end, I feel justified and even kind of patriotic to say that as a resident of the area, it is my right to oppose or support something that affects me for any goddamn reason I please.

Personally, I'm unsure about the Chavez change because it inconveniences me. Now that I've heard more of the arguments for/against it, I'm more inclined to be in favor of the change. I just don't want a precedent to be set that paves the way for a new street name change every 2 months.

And my understanding is that this is the point of the rules, to allow for careful steps to be taken BEFORE a decision is made. Signatures from the neighborhoods affected are required, which is not about the quality of involvement but the QUANTITY. If every single resident of North Portland speaks at a meeting but the decision has already been made, then that doesn't really count as 'involvement'. Perhaps the city & the committee intend to follow the process more closely this time around -- but people are nervous because they didn't for Rosa Parks.

Everyone of course has their own reasons for supporting or opposing changing Interstate to Chavez which have nothing to do with HOW it's changed -- I bet a lot of people, like me, have mixed feelings -- but following the steps carefully insures that people have time to process those feelings and trust that the final decision has taken into account all the consequences.

la foi,

Very, very well said. Ditto.

la foi,

Signatures from the affected neighbors are NOT required by the rules. If you're going to lecture people about principles of the law and following the rules, then look into what they actually say.

To clarify, as per item C of 17.93.030:

C. The applicant shall, after filing a completed City Engineer’s application form and paying any applicable fees:

1. Obtain a minimum of 2500 signatures in support of the proposal from legal residents of the City at large or signatures of at least 75% of the abutting property owners along the street proposed for renaming on the petition forms supplied by the City.

Thanks, LC.

Yes, that says signatures from the City at large or 75% of the abutting property owners. It says nothing about any signatures from affected neighborhood associations, whatever "affected" even means.

City at large--that's anyone who lives in the entire city, not just NIMBYs who show up to a neighborhood association meeting to yell at committee trying to make a positive change in our community.

You know, when I originally objected, based largely on arguments I had read that insisted the process hadn't been followed, it all seemed so clear cut.

Now I have no idea. There are people here who certainly know a lot more than I do about these things, and they don't seem to agree on any part of the process.

At one point I had noted that people were so fired up about this (on either side) because it was easy to understand and easy to get involved. It's clearly not so easy to understand, so I'm going to slink back to my "I'm just one person" lurker status.

Yep, and that's probably one of the reasons that this code is in place and written as it is - to allow and help guide a standard outreach and input process to the larger community without having to get mired in the nimbyism (or specialized interests if you want to use more neutral language) that is often so apparent on the neighborhood association level. Yet another reason the code process should have probably been followed from the start.

Policy exists for some very good reasons. This is a perfect example.

I didn't mean that the neighborhood associations had to provide the signatures. By "affected neighborhoods" which admittedly is a vague phrase I just meant residents of the area, which could be extended to mean the city. The point was that the signatures would be gathered before any decision was made, not after, and that the signatures are a way of measuring how much support the change has. I am not a lawyer and I am not on a mission here, I am just giving my argument for why I think people are genuinely concerned about the process.

SCG, is your argument that the process IS being followed to a T? That they in fact have followed the process and exceeded it so far? If that is the case, AWESOME. I think that's smart. Maybe we should all stop speculating now and see what they do.

I just think it's a valid point that nothing is set in stone yet and it would be easier to have a reasoned argument if everyone knew what step came next. The only reason people are arguing about the process is they're confused about it. If it was crystal clear, they would go back to arguing about the thing itself, and that would be a shorter argument.

And as you point out, the process as it's supposed to go doesn't require any debate or input from neighbors at all. That's fine by me as long as I know that the steps are being taken to assure this change happens smoothly and with the support of the majority of Portland residents or WHATEVER THE HELL THE RULES SAY.

tODD,

It takes guts to move beyond the whole argument about the procedure and I commend you for it.

A lot of us have a negative reaction to changing the name, but we're not sure why. It's easy to latch onto procedural issues because it's safer than talking about their fears. I felt that way before I looked into the procedures and realized no one even knew what they were talking about.

The committee should hire a professional to take care of the procedural issues. If that's what the neighbors want, then I say give it to them. It's the least they can do for themselves and the community to get that issue off the table.

la foi-

No decision has been made by the City Council(!) The only decision made has been by a loud group of NIMBYs who have decided they do not want Chavez Boulevard.

My point isn't about whether the committee followed the rules, but that everyone claims to love Chavez and claims to be against the proposal simply because the city didn't follow the procedures--but they don't even know what the procedures are or whether the city followed them.

Everyone is arguing about the process, not because they are confused, but to avoid talking about what is really bothering them. They don't care about the process or what step comes next. If anyone did, they would surely help their neighbors understand instead of spreading rumors they think will help kill the proposal.

In the interest of consolidating several live threads about this issue, please consider taking your comments to the current one.

A lot of the public concern about this is that the law has been thrown out of the window twice already. The perception of many is that if Amy Ruiz had not reported so heavily on this story the same thing would have happened again. Many believe the only reason this is not going down the exact same road as before is that the city council and mayor got "caught" this time. The city code has been waived so people reacting to that and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again is not just some whim and it doesn't make them unreasonable.

It's interesting to note that Dan Saltzman, the commissioner who led the code waiving re-naming of Portland Blvd, is rumored to have sent a report to the mayor saying he did not think they would not be able to re-name Interstate because there are too many businesses along the street. That was the reason he didn't go after Sandy Blvd for Rosa Parks, too many businesses to object.

The city has attorneys and since the mayor has so publicly thrown his support behind the committee, why not appoint a lawyer for oversight to make sure nothing irregular happens this time.

It isn't just about the law however. People against the change have said repeatedly that it is also about preserving history. Many of the people for the change do not care about the history of Portland, that does not give them the right to tell other's not to. Just because you do not agree with someone does not make them wrong.

There are two sides to almost every issue. The way this country generally decides on two sides of an issue it to vote. If given a chance to vote, most people in this country accept the outcome no matter what they personally believe. Look at the last two presidential elections. The country was pretty evenly divided but the half that wasn't for Bush sucked it up and dealt with it. No one staged a coup. People agreed to disagree and move forward.

I find it interesting that SCG continually states that the REAL reasons neighbors do not want the name change is (1) NIMBY, (2) fear of change, or (3) racism.

There may be some who oppose the change for that reason, but almost everyone I have talked to focuses on the historical significance of Interstate Avenue and the identification and pride that we have with the Interstate Corridor. Those of us that have been here for many years and have seen the street change and improvements attach much to the Interstate name. It has truely become THE identifier for this area.

I am saddened that SCG and others so easily dismiss the feelings of the community.