And finally—as you gear up to head to that rally in NW Portland this evening at 5pm—here’s your third dose of candidate responses about whether we should relocate the Sauvie Island Bridge to NW Flanders.

The city council’s recent vote on whether to fund moving the Sauvie Island Bridge to NW Flanders has gathered a lot of attention. Beyond the actual proposal, there are larger issues at play about how we prioritize city spending and investment. On another level, it’s shined a light on the political relationships on the current council. What are your thoughts on the proposal, and what it says about our city’s priorities? What do you make of the way the current council has handled this issue?

Before we dive into the answers, take note of the amount of cash the publicly financed candidates still have on hand. Amanda Fritz and Chris Smith dropped $44K and $32K, respectively, since we checked in on ORESTAR financial records last week, meaning they’ve got about as much cash on hand as John Branam. Smith spend nearly $19K on a mailing, and Fritz put almost $40K toward broadcast advertising (she also gave herself a $4,000 in-kind contribution of “Preparation and Production of Advertising”). Charles Lewis and Jeff Bissonnette are still holding onto more than $100K, but I’m sure we’ll see spending shortly.

Onward!

Chris Smith
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: citizensmith.us
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $87,695.07 currently in the bank

I’m an enthusiastic supporter of relocating the bridge. As I testified at Council this is a defining choice and statement about our environmental values and represents a relatively inexpensive opportunity to upgrade an adequate bike/ped facility to a great facility. When we have built great bike facilities, we’ve been rewarded by large numbers of cyclists using them, taking pressure off our congested roads.

The funding process is not unlike the funding for most of our transportation projects – a collection of sources. While some of these sources might be conceivably used in other parts of the City, that is an unlikely scenario. And some of the funds are absolutely locked to this district.

While I respect Commissioner Saltzman’s concerns about the no-bid contract (and hope we will successfully address them), Mayor Potter’s comments about sidewalks in outer East Portland are simply misplaced.

Charles Lewis
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: charleslewis.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $114,253.56 currently in the bank

We need a bike/pedestrian crossing over I-405. Anyone who has tried to bike across I-405 on Glisan or Everett would be able to tell you the need for a safer, alternative route. However, this particular proposal is another example of City Hall failing to use the resources at our disposal in a fiscally and socially responsible manner. As Commissioner Saltzman pointed out, at $5.5 million this would have been the most expensive sole-source contract in the city's history. If moving the bridge is the best option available, the city should have purchased the bridge and put it out to bid.

That being said, the City could have constructed a new, safer bridge at a significantly lower cost. In his memo to the rest of the City Council, Mayor Potter notes that building a new, 15-foot wide bridge as opposed to moving the 30-foot wide Sauvie Bridge, would have cost $1.5 million less. Cycling advocates are concerned that a 15-foot wide bridge wouldn't be wide enough. I would like to explore the possibility of constructing a new 30-foot wide bridge that would be safer and more cost effective than moving the Suavie Island Bridge to NW Flanders.

The main argument in favor of moving the Suavie Island Bridge seems to be that it's "iconic." I agree that the idea of recycling an old bridge is pretty cool. However, I don't feel that it is responsible for the City Council to continue to throw money at projects that are "pretty cool" while alternatives are available that are more cost effective and would better serve the people of Portland. This proposal is reflective of the attitude in City Hall that has brought us expensive pet projects like the Tram. We need change in City Hall. Please find out more online at www.CharlesLewis.com.

Jeff Bissonnette
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: portlandersforjeff.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $113,739.31 currently in the bank

I support the re-use of the Sauvie Island Bridge. It offers an opportunity to add a key piece to our infrastructure by reconnecting street currently broken by a freeway. It will provide a bike boulevard and all but remove bikes from Everett and Glisan, thus making both biking and driving safer and more convenient for all. Pedestrians will also get a safer, more pleasant way to get across the I-405 freeway.

While it admittedly costs more to re-use the Sauvie Island bridge than it would to construct a new concrete bridge over I-405, there is willingness by area businesses to privately raise a portion of the extra funds needed and the project would also tap funds that could not be used for any other infrastructure need. This is a case where "good enough" does not accomplish the needed job. I fear that if we took the "less expensive" option of a concrete bridge, we would need to expand it in the future to accommodate burgeoning use and that expansion would cost more at that point. Spending a bit more money now will, I believe, insulate us from more expense in the future. In the end, we get a wider passageway for bikes and pedestrians, offering infrastructure better able to manage alternate forms of transportation.

Aside from the specific facets of the issue, the debate also exposes continuing tension on the city council. People on both sides of the issue have noted that debate seems to be centered not on the pros and cons or the merits of the proposal but rather an ongoing game of "gotcha," primarily dominated by mayoral election politics. While a certain amount of that is expected in an election year, there is also still an expectation for the city council to operate effectively overall, deliberating in good faith about issues and proposals.

John Branam
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: john4pdx.org
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $69,112.93 currently in the bank

Our city has been defined by making bold decisions and supporting efforts that define Portland as the leader in sustainability, and as America's most bike-friendly city. The idea of reusing the Sauvie Island Bridge as a pedestrian and bicycle bridge to improve safety and connectivity is one that would continue to bolster this reputation. Further, our doing so would be smart because by promoting biking and walking we'll further reduce our city's carbon footprint and save ourselves money by getting more cars off of our roads (thus saving repair and congestion costs.) Funding this proposal would affirm our commitments to the aforementioned principals. As such, I firmly support the idea of funding the bridge's move.

In terms of the political relationships on the current city council and the way it handled the this issue, there did indeed seem to have been a communication breakdown on the specifics of the proposal which led to its not passing. Clearly this was/ is unfortunate since it's left this project in a state of limbo. There also seems not to have been sufficient deliberation on this issue before it was brought to council, nor does it appear all commissioners' questions were answered before hand to ensure a well-informed vote was cast by all. When elected I look forward to providing the collaborative leadership that ensures key conversations are had before important votes like this are cast so that opportunities like this, those that would move Portland forward by building on Portland's strengths, are not lost. Ultimately I am hopeful this project will eventually be funded.

Amanda Fritz
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: amandafritzforcitycouncil.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $70,554.28 currently in the bank

Portlanders care about livable neighborhoods, walking and biking, and recycling. I support those good values. I also care about spending taxpayers money wisely, and fairness in prioritizing that spending, and I believe Portlanders share those priorities, too.

The first core question I've heard from neighbors all over Portland, including some in NW, is whether spending an extra $1.5 million to reuse an old steel bridge is good use of public funds, compared with the cost of building a new concrete bridge half as wide. Mayor Potter noted the cost of the project can rise an additional $1.3 million before being re-approved by Council. If elected, I will work to change the City Code that currently allows overruns of 25% in City contracts. I will always ask the questions, "What is the true cost? Who pays, who benefits, and is that fair?"

I appreciate Commissioner Saltzman's insistence on putting the project out for bids. Given that the idea of reusing the bridge was posted on CommissionerSam.com in March 2006, the fact that the ordinance was filed as an "emergency" is ridiculous. I believe emergency ordinances are sometimes used to pressure compliance on votes. To facilitate better public process, I will ask other members of the Council to use the "emergency" designation only for true emergencies.

The Mercury, Oregonian, Tribune, BikePortland.com, and CommissionerSam.com have all covered the issue. These sources state that funding for the $5.5 million relocation would come from $2 million in River District Urban Renewal Area funds, $2 million in transportation Systems Development Charges, $1 million in federal funds, and $500,000 from either private donations or from all Portlanders as part of the Safe, Sound and Green streets proposal heading for the November ballot. What would those pots of money be spent on, if not this project?

* Which projects will drop off the list for funding in the River District, if this bridge project is done? Is it really the highest priority for pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the plan area?

* Is the $2 million from the River District existing funds, or part of the proposed $311 million extension of the Urban Renewal Area?

* Which neighborhoods will have to wait longer for their Systems Development Charge projects to be completed?

* Why is this bridge in this location more deserving of additional public funds, faster, than planned pedestrian/bike projects in other areas of the city, such as the promised bridge over I-5 in the neighborhood formerly known as Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill, now South Portland?

How many jobs would be created in renovating and moving the old bridge versus building a new one and recycling the old steel? With the economy weakening, supporting more good jobs with benefits should be considered in every decision.

Global warming, pollution, and building green should also be part of the equation. What are the carbon impacts of the two methods of providing this bridge?

This ordinance asked for a vote on "Is this a good use of public money?", when the real question is, "Is this the best use of public money when compared with other ways it might be spent?"

Since the Council's vote on this matter, I have heard from neighbors in all parts of the city, even NW Portland, opposed to spending an additional $1.5 million to renovate and reuse the Sauvie Island bridge on NW Flanders. While those testifying at the hearing were predominantly in favor, most Portlanders are not able to take time off work to ask the Council to prioritize funding of basic services throughout the city. I will provide multiple ways for Portlanders in every neighborhood to give input, to facilitate engagement in our government.

More information is needed before deciding whether the bridge relocation proposal is the best use of transportation and urban renewal taxes, or not. If you elect me to the Portland City Council, I will make sure that important questions are asked and answered clearly, soon after a project is initiated.

Mike Fahey
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: friendsofmikefahey.com
Financial status: $14,630.00 in contributions to date, $10,523.99 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.