Here are the candidates for seat #1, on the issue of the week:

Stakeholders in Old Town Chinatown—homeless advocates, the Chinese community, residents, business owners, developers, the PDC—have been at odds over where to site a homeless day access center, raising issues about process and power as they debate future development in the neighborhood. How would you, as city commissioner, handle such a hot button issue? What’s the solution for siting the homeless day access center?

John Branam is up first:

John Branam
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: john4pdx.org
Public financing status: Awaiting final certification

Clearly the issue of where to situate a homeless day access center in Chinatown is one of the more challenging and seemingly divisive issues our city has faced in the last year. In several respects it is not too dissimilar from the conversation regarding the renaming of Interstate. In both cases there are passionate opinions on all sides of the issue as well as the omnipresent concern by neighbors and business owners that “the city” simply isn’t listening.

“Listening” cannot be undervalued. Although it most certainly must be coupled with a timely decision, it is critical that our city commissioners consider all reasonable options to highly contentious issues such as where to locate a homeless day access center in Chinatown. How we as a city decide to move forward on this and other similar issues says as much about our values and our priorities as the decision itself. Neighbors, business owners and all concerned citizens must feel like their opinions are heard, and genuinely appreciated. The invitation to provide input should not be, therefore, simply a token gesture. City Commissioners should approach this and all similar conversations with open minds that are subject to being persuaded.

Such an approach to Portland’s challenges and opportunities represents an important element of the collaborative and visionary leadership I would bring to City Hall. It is a leadership style that values all voices and all reasonable opinions. Being genuinely interested in the opinions and experiences of Portlanders who are actually doing the work is one of its hallmarks. So too is leading in a way that ensures our community conversations are both rigorous and respectful.

Leading collaboratively is something I have a lot of experience doing. I did so as Chair of the Arbor Lodge Neighborhood Association at a time when the neighborhood was undergoing tremendous change; I did it as the Program Manager of a highly successful educational non-profit in Washington DC where the established educational community was reticent to embrace our catalytic model; and I also did it for 2+ years in the Peace Corps in South Africa as I helped move forward a small rural community that had been torn apart by decades of apartheid. Portland needs City Commissioners that are collaborative and visionary in their leadership style, and this is precisely the value I would add to our Council.

In terms of the solution to locating the homeless day access center, it seems clear that doing so on block U represents the best solution. Not only would our doing so ensure Portland continues in its commitment to improving services and support for our homeless population (with the vision of ending chronic homelessness in ten years) but we also would also honor the concerns and wishes for a significant percentage of those living and doing business in Chinatown. Further, it appears that selecting block U represents an opportunity to save additional financial resources as compared to the leading alternative.

Chris Smith
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: citizensmith.us
Public financing status: Awaiting final certification

It’s important to recognize that there are multiple threads of conversation going on here.

The Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood has historically been supportive of the social service agencies located within its boundaries. It’s disheartening to see that as the demographics of the neighborhood change, this support is diminishing, and something that looks a lot like NIMBYism seems to be emerging.

But there are also legitimate questions being raised about whether Block 25 is indeed the right site within the neighborhood. Alternative sites have been suggested, and as Commissioner I would be careful to distinguish legitimate and thoughtful questions from NIMBY sentiments. My experience is that all too often the press and sometimes our leaders fail to distinguish between the two, labeling anything other than immediate support as NIMBYism.

My belief is that the day access center is a key part of the plan to deal with homelessness in our City, and this neighborhood is the location where the center can be most effective. My job as Commissioner would be first to listen, then to sort through the community response, teasing out the meaningful issues from the reactive noise and working to build the broadest possible base of support for an effective location.

Jeff Bissonnette
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: portlandersforjeff.com
Public financing status: Awaiting final certification

At the risk of raising the spectre of another "hot button issue," there is a story about labor organizer Cesar Chavez that I've thought about a lot recently:

Three young organizers, eager to learn from the best, drove through the night to see Cesar Chavez at his home. When they got there, they all sat down to talk. "Tell us, please,” they said, “the secret to being a good organizer.” Chavez replied, “Well, first you talk to one person, then you talk to another person…” “No, no, no," they said. "We want to hear how it really works. What you’ve done here that’s made farm worker organizing and the grape boycott so successful.” Chavez was silent for a moment.

“Well,” he said finally, “first you talk to one person, then you talk to another person…”

There's a powerful lesson in this story. Whether we're talking about the day access center or any other controversial issue, communicating person by person and constituency by constituency is central to making good policy decisions. In addition, other factors come into play as well: having a sense of the range of available options and staying open to a variety of possible outcomes is also key. Being able to differentiate between genuine concern and obstructionism is very important. And, lastly, determining when to be an advocate and when to be a facilitator is critical.

I believe my success as a community organizer over the years has come from ability to meld my particular vision with those held by potential allies and even potential opponents. To do that, it requires a lot of work to fully understand where others are coming from and what they want to accomplish.

I also try not to get stuck on a specific outcome but rather, I try to have an idea of a general result I would like to achieve and be willing to accept that the result could come about in different ways. Finally, I try to be perceptive about whether honest concerns are being raised in an attempt to move a process forward or whether obstacles are being thrown down to interfere with getting agreement on a plan or a policy.

Now to apply all that specifically to the issue of siting a day access center. First, I would meet individually with each constituency with a stake in the issue so that I could fully understand the issues each might have with the center's location. I would be very clear with all parties that I support the creation of a day access center but that I was not committed to a particular location. I believe a mistake that has been made in the discussion of a day access center is fixating on only one option: Block 25, the block bounded by NW 3rd and 4th Avenues and Flanders and Glisan Streets. This makes area neighbors and businesses suspicious because they then believe the result is cast in stone and increases their resentment. That does not lead to productive discussions. Last week, Block U, bounded by NW Broadway and 6th Avenue and Irving and Hoyt Streets, was acknowledged as another possible option and that is a positive development.

Charges of NIMBY-ism have been leveled at neighbors raising concerns about the day access center. While the characterization may be true in some cases, it does not apply across the board. If reasonable people are dealt with reasonably, usually a reasonable solution begins to develop. A critical mass of support can then be formed around this solution. Once that starts to happen, a broader consensus can overcome the obstacles put down by true NIMBY-ites.

Lastly, a city commissioner needs to understand when a situation calls for an advocate and when it calls for a facilitator. While it's obvious that a policymaker will have strong opinions about issues, my approach would be to be an advocate when my policy position is not already represented by a stakeholder at the table. With that in mind, there are able advocates involved in the debate who are raising the issues I would raise myself. So I would see my role as a city commissioner in the day access center siting issue as facilitating an acceptable solution that the various stakeholders could agree on so that a center could be built and sustained.

By acting in that facilitator role, I would seek to build a working coalition of interests that could support the day access center over time and would also then be in place to address other concerns once the day access center issue was settled. Ultimately, that is how long-term problem-solving is achieved: building the relationships to develop solutions and get results by talking to one person, and then talking to another person and then talking to another person....time after time after time.

Amanda Fritz
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: amandafritzforcitycouncil.com
Public financing status: Certified as a publicly financed candidate

As your next City Commissioner, I will facilitate finding solutions for all issues through respectful consideration of multiple viewpoints in open, inclusive discussions that follow public process rules. I did not wait to be elected to the Portland City Council before taking leadership on siting the Resource Access Center. I made time to research the problems, and acted to find solutions. I looked at the issues both from the perspective of a psychiatric nurse caring for people needing homes and services, and from the viewpoint of a former Planning Commissioner experienced in reviewing urban renewal and economic development proposals.

Here's what I did over the past two months, to illustrate how I will solve problems when I am on the City Council:
* I did not take a position before participating in the public process
* I attended an open meeting in the neighborhood and listened carefully
* I asked questions of people on both sides, and learned about the issues
* I made sure I knew and understood the rules by which the decisions must be made
* I promoted respectful consideration of alternative viewpoints of community participants, City Council members, and PDC Commissioners and staff
* I posted my analysis of problems and potential solutions, Public Process Problems, Block 25 and beyond.

I did this not because I thought it would help me win the election, but because Portland is my community and I wanted to help resolve this problem.

Portlanders care about public process, because it is vital to how our democracy functions. We know that when citizens are given accurate information and inspired to talk with each other, the community often comes up with great solutions. Once it became widely known that outcomes being presented as "Done Deals" are in fact subject to public review and votes, neighbors in Old Town Chinatown asking for alternatives to be considered began to be heard. It seems likely a solution will be reached for placing resources for homeless people in two locations within the neighborhood. This outcome is acceptable to many more stakeholders, and promotes multiple public benefits. Carol McCreary, a community leader in Old Town Chinatown, sent me this message earlier this week:

"Old Town Chinatown appears to be moving toward a resolution. We'll remain vigilant. And also work for healing. The controversy has drawn a range of talented people into the Neighborhood Association, providing energy to move forward strengthening community. But in the end, I think you made the big difference. Thank you."

As a City Commissioner, I will work with fellow Council members to ensure that all public input processes are set up in a way that allows Portlanders to participate in making legitimate and sound decisions. Neighbors, business owners, workers, and people needing services should not have to struggle to be heard. For over 15 years, I have wrestled with difficult issues in Portland city government and in neighborhoods. I've acted both as a mediator who seeks collaborative solutions, and as a leader who intervenes quickly when necessary. I am the candidate for Position 1 with the best record of resolving a broad range of problems all over Portland, producing results by turning arguing into agreement, talking into action.

Here is a question for my fellow Blogtown readers: Do you want to elect someone who waits quietly in the background during controversies until it's clear which side is winning, or do you want a new City Commissioner who will be out in the community helping citizens find solutions? When making your choice for Position 1, I ask you to look at what candidates have done for Portland, as well as what we say we are going to do.

Charles Lewis
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: charleslewis.com
Public financing status: Certified as a publicly financed candidate

When I am a Portland City Commissioner, I will handle similar issues by actively and meaningfully engaging all of the community’s stakeholders. City Council has gotten itself in trouble time and time again by not following established rules and regulations. When rules are discounted or waived for specific interests, it creates hard feelings and pits well intentioned people against one another.

My wife, Sarah, works at the Julia West Homeless Day Shelter right now. The center is completely overloaded, and there is often a line outside of people wanting to come in and simply use the bathroom or to get warm after a cold night on the streets. I’ve visited several times, and was impressed at how much homeless people are like everyone else -- they have families, some have jobs, and all have hopes, dreams, and aspirations. If I was on the street, I would want someone looking out for me.

In addition to being bad for our community, homelessness is bad for business. One of my jobs is running a bio-diesel powered amphibious tour company called Portland Duck Tours. Many visitors from out of town comment on how many homeless people are on our streets. For a business person or resident in Old Town / Chinatown, it must be especially difficult cleaning up after the approximate 3,000 people living on the streets every night. It’s not fair for certain neighborhoods to bear the overwhelming brunt of a much greater societal problem, and we must absolutely use city resources to help address this critically important issue.

I’m hopeful that Commissioner Sten will bring together the various stakeholders to find a solution that will appease most everyone. I know that there are different considerations involved with each of the potential sites, and am hopeful that the city can work together to find an amenable solution. As we know from past experience, though, the process in finding the solution is as important as the final result and can have long lasting impacts on the state of our community.