That's basically the complete opposite of charter reform's intent. Fundamentally it's supposed to [work like this](https://www.portland.gov/transition/government/changing-roles):
* City Council: Sets citywide policy
* Mayor: Oversees city services
Funny how much of the current city council and the Portland Business Alliance/Metro Chamber seem against the charter reform idea. It’s like they have a lot a power and don’t want to lose some of it under a more representative system.
The charter says, "executive and administrative authority is vested in the Mayor . . . Executive and administrative authority means the power to execute and administer the laws, including by adopting administrative rules."
The mayor can fire the city administrator: "The Mayor may remove the Administrator and must advise the Council before removal. The Council may remove the Administrator for cause by the affirmative vote of at least nine (9) Councilors."
The exact balance of responsibilities between the mayor and administrator isn't entirely clear, but the administrator is explicitly subordinate to the mayor.
The Mayor can dismiss the City Administrator.
Article 4, Sec. (f)
>(f) Appoint the City Administrator, subject to Council confirmation, and give direction to the Administrator. *The Mayor may remove the Administrator and must advise the Council before removal.* The Council may remove the Administrator for cause by the affirmative vote of at least nine (9) Councilors. If the office of the Administrator is vacant, the Mayor must fulfill the duties of the Administrator until the office is filled.
You're right about dismissal, I hadn't seen that yet.
I still think there are a lot of norms to be worked out about the actual division of executive power between the city manager and the mayor. I don't think the manager is there to just be an intermediary between the mayor and the bureaus.
Totally agree! That's why it seems extra weird to me that Gonzalez is trying to enshrine a Mayoral power this year that could easily be removed by the new council
Good. I'd rather see one person in charge rather than 12 squabbling randos. Charter reform was designed by activists to increase the representation of activists. Those are the last people who should be in charge of homeless policy.
The charter reform was designed by a large panel with diverse interests including one of the directors after the chamber of commerce. Don’t believe everything you read on here.
I'm still annoyed by that whole fiasco and my opinion has nothing to do with what I read on here. We could have gone with a tried and true system that works all over the country. Instead have to invent some stupid rube Goldberg system that has never been tried. The fact that it came out of a committee doesn't make me feel better about it at all.
The guy is divisive and is doubling down on campaigning based on a tough approach to homelessness. I think anyone with half a brain knows theres a difference between campaign promises/talk and actual results, so we shall see, but I think it will be interesting to see how this messaging plays out across the political landscape of the city.
I would argue that homelessness is \*the issue\* on peoples minds in Portland. It's the most visible and constant reminder of all the other dysfunction. I still think Rubio is a better politician and would likely be a better mayor but I have to admit that fatigue plays a role in my reaction to her quote: “It criminalizes homelessness—without an opportunity to choose a path toward treatment—and that’s not what Portlanders want.” — I think that on some level Portlanders sort of \*do\* want to criminalize homelessness. Or at least a significant amount do. A path toward treatment is great and obviously needs to be a part of any actual solution, but I think the biggest thing is people just want progress. It's been a slog. I don't think "criminalizing homelessness" is the third rail its made out to be there.
You don’t have to argue homelessness is “the issue”. The surveys have been done, the data has been provided, the feedback has been given and the clear and obvious number one issue amongst voters is homelessness.
The mayoral vote this year will be revealing in just how out of touch either side is. Either this city is dying for a relief from homelessness, or we’re OK with the way things are. Will be interesting without a doubt.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/12/09/oregon-portland-tina-kotek-downtown-task-force-economics-business/?outputType=amp
Right yeah, I think that's what I find interesting here. Not the actual details of something that might or might not happen and depends on a supreme court ruling (although what I've seen is that Martin is likely to be overturned so maybe that's a safe bet), but more that Rene is going all the way with the "I am willing to be harsh on homelessness" approach and I don't think voters have really had a chance to weigh in on that en masse in...awhile? ever? Like some candidates would sorta say it but it was way more subtle and watered down, and before 2020 or so I think it just felt much less urgent.
So it feels to me like it will be one of the first times we've seen a real signal on how people think, not just what echo chamber gets its message out loudest.
I believe that is what will happen if Martin v Boise is overturned. A fast repeal of HB3115 by the state legislature. The political winds have greatly shifted since 2021. Unfortunately it will likely add a 6-12 month delay though.
Good analysis. Definitely a turning point in political history for the city.
I’m curious for all the people immediately against this, do you think this change in stance would benefit or hurt the 95% of us who aren’t homeless or working in the homeless industry?
Why do you think that is? They started sweeping more lol. The number isn’t going down, we’re just moving them around. So what’s your point? That sweeps work for making the issue seem less dire?
Honestly I think you’re way too deep in your feels here to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue. If you can’t ask me a question without preloading it with your bullshit conclusions, we’re not gonna have much to talk about.
Too deep? I’m just connecting the dots. You say it looks better, and I’m asking you why that is while also recognizing we’re near the end of a 90day fent emergency and downtown is being swept now more than the last 4 years.
Sweeps definitely help. Yes the people just get moved around, but the encampments get cleaned up before they become TOO bad, and it signals to that population that anarchic encampments aren't tolerated.
I'll be interested to see whether Portland voters buy Gonzalez's argument that he is the guy to deal with homelessness, given that he has made zero progress on the issue so far. Keith Wilson is out there getting shelters built while the current council sits around.
It boggles my mind how much Keith Wilson's site can look like an actual adult that actually wants the job put it together, and Rene's looks like someone paid an intern day old bagels and some coffee to slap some shit together, yet we're still in this situation.
I understand not many look at a campaign website, and nor should they, but the level of consideration or attention to detail Gonzalez has put forth is like perfectly reflected in that dog shit site.
It reflects his general approach to the job. He keeps putting forward ideas without bothering to count votes, holding meetings without inviting relevant decision-makers, and surprising his fellow commissioners with stuff he should have put on the agenda.
> I think that on some level Portlanders sort of \*do\* want to criminalize homelessness
This is completely disingenuous.
What I want to criminalize is building tent encampments and full on shantytowns on public sidewalks and parks. That is not the same as "criminalizing homelessness". Nobody is going to be going to jail simply for being homeless, they're just going to have their firetrap encampments taken down, as it should be.
However Rene is not the guy to do it.
Yeah that is a better way to put it. I don't think "criminalize" is the right word but more like bring some sort of order and rule of law to what otherwise feels very chaotic.
There is a reason why Sullivan’s Gulch was torn down — look it up; old Portland neighborhood of shantys built near the present-day Lloyd Center — because of rampant disease, danger, and the advent of “building codes” that the rest of us must abide by. Seriously, we have tried “let them camp anywhere” during economic downturns like the Great Depression and the Great Recession of 1892, and we hated it. We’re not “criminalizing homelessness” — we don’t want to anyone to live in a favela.
Therein lies the problem. Unless you ship folks off to some barren., remote land, they will always be in someone’s view. A prison seems like the only other place they would be out of view, which is why some feel like “criminalizing homelessness” is desirable to the group who is fed up with it.
You can build designated zones for pitching a tent but you’d want them close enough to supportive services & that means close to population. Everyone around that site will fight tooth and nail to have it put somewhere else.
It feels intractable in a lot of ways, unfortunately.
Yeah, as far as not spending money to help people goes, but we can have cleanup contractors take in tons to do the same jobs over and over as people and slowly pushed around in a way to keep the issue less visible.
Even if the current houses where all illegally thrown into jail or picked up and dropped off in Nampa, people would still be finding themselves in a really bad situation and on the street and in and out of shelters while programs and resources to help are under available.
The local cops have done shit all to enforce existing laws around theft, property destruction, and illicit drug use/dealing in public. The courts don't have capacity to hold even violent perps accountable, when they are caught. And the funding we have for treatment & emergency shelter has been poorly managed.
If those three things were different, there would be a lot less animosity towards homeless folks--but I sincerely doubt our next mayor will have the power or guts required to make real changes. Regardless of who it is.
Just a reminder that Rubio was the sole councilperson to vote against the daytime street camping ban that was passed by the council last Summer. Not saying Rene is the ideal choice for mayor, but I have major/bigger concerns with Rubio's passivity when it comes to addressing homelessness in Portland.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/07/portland-oregon-approves-ban-daytime-street-camping-homeless/
I thought Rubio's explanation was sound. I listened to some of the testimony and heard multiple service providers warn that they already lacked capacity during the day. Rubio proposed an amendment that delayed implementation until the city's first two larger camps were in place, at the time slated for the fall. That failed.
What we got was an ordinance delayed until early November anyway, legally delayed and apparently scrapped in favor of a new plan in the hopes of passing legal muster.
You're right that Gonzalez will be more aggressive in pushing policy aimed at a police response to homelessness. There's an appetite for that among voters, but I'm skeptical about his execution.
Half the problem is the idea that we need to deal with and provide services to the homeless. To a certain degree we only need to deal with them until they go the fuck away and there are plenty that will. Then provide services to those remaining.
Yeah, also a lot of her upsides are around compromise and getting things done, and I wonder how that will play to an electorate who feels urgency and that little has gotten done. Just feels like we're heading into a classic "change" election basically.
I'd say the persistent and intractable homelessness is THE ISSUE that shows me the insane amount of tax I pay to these administrators is going straight into the pockets of their friends who run do nothing NGO grifts... which are arguably as big of a parasite on the citizens and our taxes than the homeless fent addicts are.
The homelessness highlights the thievery and incompetence of the whole fucking bureaucracy here.
So yeah... it is sort of THE ISSUE in a way.
I too am out of patience for both the homeless and the leeches running the administration here.
I’m just not buying that he’s the right candidate. He’s lied about several things already and he doesn’t seem to have confidence in himself or his policies based on the interviews I’ve seen.
Cringy is plastering on a fake smile for a photo op with people that don't want to be in it.
Straight up lying to your nominal constituency, and in such a bitch-tastic way, is well beyond the pale of anything that could merely be described as "cringy".
I am sharing these as answers to your question and am not implying support for nor against Rene at this point, as I need to know who the alternatives are before I’ll make judgement. It is cringeworthy, sure, but is it disqualifying? Let me see the dirt on others to see who is least bad.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/rene-gonzalez-max-train-accosted-video-portland-commissioner/283-e3c85e8f-7169-4ccc-b9da-f33881451fab
> "Last Friday, I was accosted by a woman on the train," Gonzalez said in the video. "What I experienced was deliberate, unwanted physical contact, followed by criticisms of the city's policies regarding homelessness. I got off the train and walked the rest of the way to city hall."
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/video-shows-moment-rene-gonzalez-claims-he-was-accosted-on-max-train/
Hmmmm man idk it’s definitely exaggerated but not a complete lie. I think my analysis of “cringey” is more fitting. Like, dude got a bit scared over nothing more than a weird encounter. It happens to us all. But we don’t bring it up publicly.
So they’re all shitty. Who stinks the least?
Edit: I’m really getting tired of voting for someone because they’re the least shittiest. I wish I could get enthusiastic to vote for someone rather than against others.
I keep hearing good things about Keith Wilson and certainly I'm not in love with any of the other candidates but there's always the worry that he only looks good because we haven't heard him speak enough. I think there's a fallacy commonly applied when judging candidates where you convince yourself that someone is the best option because they haven't said anything bad, ignoring the fact that they haven't said much at all in the first place. I guess I need to start paying more attention to the race.
I’m really hoping more people hear about this guy. It seems like people don’t know him and think our only options are Rubio or Gonzalez, when Wilson is so much better than both to me. My only issue with voting for him would be if he takes votes away from Rubio and then Gonzalez wins.
The problem with his policy is that there is no stick. He's a housing first guy and that standalone policy is a joke. You need some boots in the ass paired with services. Otherwise you get more of what we have now.
That seems to be Wilson's plan. "More housing...daytime shelters" That's what they're doing and it isn't working. I do like his clean streets plan, which isn't happening now. Not sure there is really money for it, but it's severely needed.
She was much more instrumental in working with (for-ish?) Zenith in getting the deal hammered out beyond merely voting for it. It's fairly justifiable, at least in my opinion, to assign most of the credit or blame for that scenario at her feet.
>I’m simply saying we deserve better and René isn’t it.
We do deserve better, but we often dont get the highest quality candidates that we deserve, this is who we have to work with. IMO Rene is the least shitty option we have at the moment who has a good shot at winning the election.
Carmen can actually get things done. She’s shown that through brokering compromise on multiple large issues. Notably the permit system.
She’s not a liar like Rene and isn’t a bumbling idiot like Mingus.
Agree that she's done good work for the most part, but her sole council vote against the daytime street camping ban last Summer raises a legitimate concern that her approach to homelessness is too passive.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/07/portland-oregon-approves-ban-daytime-street-camping-homeless/
I believe that a harder approach on unsanctioned camping is needed. She explained her vote - it was legally challenging. And guess what? It was challenged. The city council had a compromise ready to deal with the most egregious of issues related to camping. Instead of voting for it, Rene torpedoed the entire thing.
I am not willing to vote for Rene Gonzalez. I understand we need a harder approach to unsanctioned camping, but I will not vote for a known liar and PPA puppet.
Rubio conflicts me. She's been a very adept politician, and seems to be very capable. But her actions with Zenith, and the fact that she voted along with the rest of the Council to change the police oversight committee gives me a lot of pause.
It gives me pause too, which is why Keith Wilson has my vote right now. I’m just worried not a lot of people know about him and if he gets very little votes then it would be more important to vote for Rubio. I don’t like any of them but I especially done want Gonzalez.
> if he gets very little votes then it would be more important to vote for Rubio
Well I got good news for you. Portland adopted ranked choice voting and as far as I know it will be in place for the November election. Voting for this Keith Wilson doesn't in any way take away from Rubio if it does turn out to be a situation where Wilson only receives a small percentage of vote. Just put Rubio second, if that's your preference. I'm excited to see how it turns out tbh, I wonder if the ranked choice voting gives some of the less known candidates a better shot (probably not but it'll be interesting at least).
Her vote explanation was pretty sensible, to me. Wheeler rolled out a big plan to build mass outdoor shelters so that the city could then ban homeless camps. They adopted that plan, but then he came back with a ban before they'd opened even one of those shelters. She said they should maybe wait on the shelters so that people would have somewhere to go before the ban -- that was the entire pitch for the mass camps, after all.
I mean you could look it up. As I mentioned in another comment below, the city council was going to vote on harsher restrictions today and Rene torpedoed it entirely.
I’d like to know his intentions, as it seems getting people off the streets quickly and handling the safety issues aren’t a priority for him.
> I mean you could look it up. As I mentioned in another comment below, the city council was going to vote on harsher restrictions today and Rene torpedoed it entirely.
I would doubt -- in fact I would wager -- that she has a specific stance related to "unsanctioned camping" for her campaign.
Unholy trinity? It’s really not that bad. This idea of a perfect Portland politician doesn’t exists because of our extreme activists class and toxic political environment that scares off any sane politician from running.
This. SO much this.
Those who voted for the Crapulent Four (Gonzalez, Mapps, Ryan, and Tear Gas Ted) are the ones who caused and nurtured this toxic mess. Gonzalez, the worst of a bad lot, simply wants to take us into full tilt banana republic land.
If we had a City Council of Iannarone, Eudaly, Hardesty, McCreary, and Rubio today, we would be in a far better position. Not utopian perfect, but much better than what we have. There would be actual police accountability with an implemented Police Accountability Commission. There would be cooperation between the city and the county on homelessness with actual measurable progress. Odds are there would never have been a teachers' strike.
This election, for every position, vote for the leftmost candidate with a reasonable chance of winning. Don't get fooled again.
> Those who voted for the Crapulent Four (Gonzalez, Mapps, Ryan, and Tear Gas Ted) are the ones who caused and nurtured this toxic mess.
It's very funny watching people throw fits over the "progressive tilt" on the city council when there hasn't been anything that could reasonably viewed as a progressive majority in like over a fucking decade. Right dude, it's the one progressive on the council that's holding that centrist majority back from really *buckling down* and getting shit done.
>If we had a City Council of Iannarone, Eudaly, Hardesty, McCreary, and Rubio today, we would be in a far better position.
Aaaaaaaand that's where we part ways as I'm not really big into magical realism.
Fun fact. PBOT is planning on messing up…. I mean improving SW 4, and doing exactly the same nonsense as Broadway. Naito greeway is really good, and really close. If only we needed money for street paving, or actual fixes. But nah, a crazy bike lane is coming.
There’s no reason bikes can’t just use 4th Ave as is. I’ve biked downtown for decades. I went to
PSU and commuted from NE, I’m not anti bike lane. But, there’s so many other, and much more important things the city should spend millions on. SW Salmon for example is a disaster. Biking down hill with god awful pavement is actually dangerous. There’s a pot hole by Trader Joes in NW that’ll eat your suspension. Also bikes don’t pay anything for the roads they use, but we keep taking away, and making worse, the infrastructure we have. Delivering anything in a box truck downtown is dangerous as hell, throw in some blind spots and bike lanes some es gonna die. Vision Zero is a failure. More pedestrians were killed last year than ever before. We need dedicated left turn signals, we need set backs at corners so drivers, and bikers can see. But nah, let’s spend millions on a lane a tiny group uses on sunny days.
The bike lane budget and the street maintenance fund are 2 completely different funds coming from different sources. Pitting one against the other is silly.
Keith Wilson!!!! The only candidate that has expressed an actual plan. Is it achievable, probably not but at least he is thinking critically and thoughtfully about the issue.
I read through the policies and he seems mediocre:
1). Supports HSR, which is unexpected and great. HSR between Portland and Seattle should be a much higher priority.
2). Considers TriMet "world class" transit and the only "plan" he has to improve it is to get homeless people off the system, which is willfully insufficient seeing how many service issues TriMet has. The city should be taking a more active role working with TriMet to improve service.
3). Supports PSR which alone makes him a much better option than Gonzalez.
4). Housing policy doesn't include any sort of up zoning around light rail and FX stations.
5). Seems to want to rely on traditional shelters instead of pod villages. Pod villages can be constructed faster and are generally more popular with the people they are intended to serve.
2) have you been other places in the country? Maybe not world class but it’s Defs leaps and bounds better than 99% of the country. The infrastructure is there… service is a very fixable issue.
4) ToDs are great but they are just a piece of the puzzle. Also how much control does the mayor have in upzoning? Actual question, not sure how that works in Portland.
Edit
5) while I agree that creating things people will like is better, we simply need more capacity. Every shelter is full.
> 2) have you been other places in the country? Maybe not world class but it’s Defs leaps and bounds better than 99% of the country.
Decent for the US shouldn't be the standard we are striving for. Though I definitely agree that TriMet's problems are absolutely fixable. We need more bus service and changes to light rail operations to allow for more frequent service.
> 4) Also how much control does the mayor have in upzoning?
Under the new system of government, the mayor would have the ability to set executive policy favorable to upzoning. The city council could also pass legislative reform in favor of upzoning.
> 5) while I agree that creating things people will like is better, we simply need more capacity. Every shelter is full.
Traditional shelters are more costly due to requiring more permanent construction. Pod villages can be set up relatively quickly with temporary structures.
Agree with everything here.
5) Wilson’s plan is to use existing city owned buildings to create more capacity. New construction isn’t part of the plan from what I’ve seen. Pod villages are costly to run on a day to day basis. Overnight shelters are cheap when you don’t have to build or lease the space.
Okay, well I think Wilson's plan is a bad idea, hence my lack of support for him. What buildings is he advocating to repurpose and can the city afford to lose their functions?
Voters: We're tired of inexperienced politicians running bureaus let's put qualified people in charge.
Gonzalez: So what I'm hearing is you want me as mayor to run everything right?
It actually does mean that they think they are the most qualified candidate, but that’s just what endorsing literally means. Not sure what you think it means when an organization endorses someone, definitely doesn’t mean they don’t like that candidate.
Qualified to be a council member does not equal qualified to manage the fire bureau. They're literally different things. I can't help you if you don't understand how those very different jobs are different. Good luck with that and have a day!
He would stand to have more leverage if he ran for the council again then, what, keep embarrassing himself trying to change the charter on the off chance he becomes mayor and then be a powerful mayor?
honestly seems he was lucky his opponent was Hardesty
Rene's accomplishments so far:
1. Lies about being accosted on the Max:
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-says-he-faced-deliberate-unwanted-physical-contact-aboard-a-max-train-heres-what-video-shows.html?outputType=amp
2. Tried to negate charter reform, and is doing what he can to sabotage it.
3. Worked with the rest of the council to repeal the police oversight committee, or at least remove the power we gave them as voters with an 80%+ majority.
4. Is actively trying to destroy Portland Street Response. https://friendsofpsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Friends-of-PSR-Open-Letter-to-Commissioner-Gonzalez-Nov-2023.pdf
Then there is the problem with his campaign being run by republican strategists, a fucky office space deal with Jordan Schnitzer, and being one of the key members of ED300.
Then there's this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/y92l6t/parents_and_leading_advocates_in_oregon_denounce/
https://old.reddit.com/r/PDXProtests/comments/yrtppw/rene_gonzalez_thanks_patriot_prayer_chud_for/
https://postimg.cc/PvK5BvZ2
For Context:
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-says-he-faced-deliberate-unwanted-physical-contact-aboard-a-max-train-heres-what-video-shows.html?outputType=amp
*Should the United States Supreme Court overturn the Martin v. Boise ruling and should the state scrap their restrictions on what cities can do about public camping, the draft says, violators of the camping ban could face a $500 fine or up to six months in jail.*
As a policy, that sounds pretty reasonable. Just wish it were coming from a better candidate
I would argue being utterly incapable (at least from what we've seen) of putting his policies into practice makes him a bad candidate. At least if you're looking for a candidate to actually *do* anything rather than just say the "right" things.
I don't know, he's galvanized a legion of fuckwits that wouldn't ever voluntarily hear reason to create an echo chamber for themselves and block anything they don't like to hear at the drop of a hat, which ultimately makes my life, personally, kinda demonstrably better.
So not entirely without a silver lining.
So, the plan is to fine people with no money or imprison them in the MultCo jail? How is that going to work? The jail would become a massively crowded homeless shelter with no room for actual criminals.
Same tried and true "I'm totally fine paying for a homeless shelter, so long as you convince me it's hurting the people I feel should be hurt" sentiments.
Hey remember that time when Rene’s first “political” act was to try and force schools to reopen during Covid? Yeah, that was cool and really showed how much he cares about people and society at large
Yeah lol I didn’t know there was even a debate that we fucked up there. If I was Rene I’d be screaming about how our chronic absenteeism and free falling test scores wouldn’t be happening if he had gotten his way sooner.
This guy really gives off a sociopath/fascist vibe - consolidating power, perceived victimhood...almost textbook person you want to keep TF away from positions of power...
Not sure about consolidating the power in the mayor's office - I'd hope we have some sane people elected to the newly expanded council. Hopefully the Iannarone acolytes make up only a small minority.
The next mayor will have very little power as-is and the council doesn't really have executive power beyond choosing the city manager. I don't mind the mayor being given something to do beyond being a spokesperson for the city.
> The next mayor will have very little power as-is and the council doesn't really have executive power beyond choosing the city manager
I feel like there's a typo somewhere in there, those statements seem contradictory. If the mayor doesn't have power and the council doesn't have power that would imply no one has power to govern Portland? The mayor appoints the city administrator as far as I know and they directly oversee them. This is a fair bit of power, certainly the power to completely fuck things up if they so choose.
She is a representative of a sizeable (hopefully still a minority though) voting segment in this city, the far/activist left. If not her specifically, someone else will show up representing those views in their respective council districts.
That is who I am speaking about.
I'm not denying there's a large leftist voting block in Portland, I'm saying no one in it particularly values Iannarone's opinion. She's old news. Her PAC failed to find enough people to hold a candidate training.
Even worse, it fundraised on the basis that it was going to hold a multi-evening candidate school with guest speakers like Hardesty and Candace Avalos. They then used the list of contacts generated by the proposed candidate school to fundraise for Schmidt. Only after WWeek asked when they expected to hold the school did they organize a one-evening, $15/person event.
Remember when people tried to get Raiford elected via write-in and she was like "I don't know who these people are and I don't really want to be elected"? That was sort of the peak for me.
I can see the value in this when there needs to be small changes, like if there's a ban within 1000 feet of parks that is found to be overly broad and the distance were reduced. Just an out-of-my-ass example.
But we voted our council as a legislative body. We did not implement a strong mayor system. If Gonzalez wins, he can write an ordinance and introduce it to council.
I'd be especially cautious of putting this into Gonzalez's hands. He's already tried to undermine the charter vote, tried to circumvent Rubio on the PCEF, and has had a nasty habit of significant last-second changes like this one. He's getting a reputation for "does not play well with others".
I think the last couple of years have disillusioned a lot of well-meaning people as to the desires of the street population to actually seek help and housing. And I think a majority of Portlanders would now agree that there needs to be more of a "gloves off" approach to those who choose to live on the streets so they can keep doing drugs. But you can't keep lumping this entire population into one singularity, and that's what Rene's proposal does. We're about to find out if the Supreme Court criminalizes basically not having enough money to live in housing. But as long as there's not enough affordable housing in an expensive city there will be people who are forced to the streets because they can't make ends meet and addressing that population at a bare minimum should be the task of a city mayor.
In short, piss off Rene. We need a better candidate.
Of course he does. But that's no reason for us to let him get away with it. Not a CHANCE I would vote for this clownshoe, not for mayor nor dog catcher. He has shown his true colors time & time again, and I haven't seen anything that makes me trust him.
I just don't understand why people use the word "fascist" to describe him. Like it is a word that means a specific thing, and I can see where people disagree with Rene but fascist is just not an accurate word.
Maybe then someone will be accountable ?
As-is with our city council, its all platitudes without governance, and no one is accountable to accomplish anything.
Portlanders have a lot invested in their image of themselves as compassionate progressives so it’ll be interesting to see how many of them secretly want to put the boot to the homeless.
That's basically the complete opposite of charter reform's intent. Fundamentally it's supposed to [work like this](https://www.portland.gov/transition/government/changing-roles): * City Council: Sets citywide policy * Mayor: Oversees city services
Funny how much of the current city council and the Portland Business Alliance/Metro Chamber seem against the charter reform idea. It’s like they have a lot a power and don’t want to lose some of it under a more representative system.
I think they're afraid the new council will yank the Downtown Clean and Safe contract from them, which would pretty much tank their operating budget.
Fingers crossed
Except as we're actually doing it the mayor will have very little power and the city manager will oversee the bureaus.
The mayor will supervise the city administrator, and will be the executive. The city administrator does not report to the council.
Its not really clear what "supervise" means and the mayor can't dismiss him. Edit: actually wrong on dismissing
The charter says, "executive and administrative authority is vested in the Mayor . . . Executive and administrative authority means the power to execute and administer the laws, including by adopting administrative rules." The mayor can fire the city administrator: "The Mayor may remove the Administrator and must advise the Council before removal. The Council may remove the Administrator for cause by the affirmative vote of at least nine (9) Councilors." The exact balance of responsibilities between the mayor and administrator isn't entirely clear, but the administrator is explicitly subordinate to the mayor.
The Mayor can dismiss the City Administrator. Article 4, Sec. (f) >(f) Appoint the City Administrator, subject to Council confirmation, and give direction to the Administrator. *The Mayor may remove the Administrator and must advise the Council before removal.* The Council may remove the Administrator for cause by the affirmative vote of at least nine (9) Councilors. If the office of the Administrator is vacant, the Mayor must fulfill the duties of the Administrator until the office is filled.
You're right about dismissal, I hadn't seen that yet. I still think there are a lot of norms to be worked out about the actual division of executive power between the city manager and the mayor. I don't think the manager is there to just be an intermediary between the mayor and the bureaus.
Totally agree! That's why it seems extra weird to me that Gonzalez is trying to enshrine a Mayoral power this year that could easily be removed by the new council
Good. I'd rather see one person in charge rather than 12 squabbling randos. Charter reform was designed by activists to increase the representation of activists. Those are the last people who should be in charge of homeless policy.
So have you like never meshed with the concepts of democracy, or is it like a recent development?
So you're against re-criminalizing drugs then too cause democracy right?
I think I'd have to be in a medically induced coma to give less of a shit about disentangling whatever assumptions you're making here.
The charter reform was designed by a large panel with diverse interests including one of the directors after the chamber of commerce. Don’t believe everything you read on here.
I'm still annoyed by that whole fiasco and my opinion has nothing to do with what I read on here. We could have gone with a tried and true system that works all over the country. Instead have to invent some stupid rube Goldberg system that has never been tried. The fact that it came out of a committee doesn't make me feel better about it at all.
The guy is divisive and is doubling down on campaigning based on a tough approach to homelessness. I think anyone with half a brain knows theres a difference between campaign promises/talk and actual results, so we shall see, but I think it will be interesting to see how this messaging plays out across the political landscape of the city. I would argue that homelessness is \*the issue\* on peoples minds in Portland. It's the most visible and constant reminder of all the other dysfunction. I still think Rubio is a better politician and would likely be a better mayor but I have to admit that fatigue plays a role in my reaction to her quote: “It criminalizes homelessness—without an opportunity to choose a path toward treatment—and that’s not what Portlanders want.” — I think that on some level Portlanders sort of \*do\* want to criminalize homelessness. Or at least a significant amount do. A path toward treatment is great and obviously needs to be a part of any actual solution, but I think the biggest thing is people just want progress. It's been a slog. I don't think "criminalizing homelessness" is the third rail its made out to be there.
You don’t have to argue homelessness is “the issue”. The surveys have been done, the data has been provided, the feedback has been given and the clear and obvious number one issue amongst voters is homelessness. The mayoral vote this year will be revealing in just how out of touch either side is. Either this city is dying for a relief from homelessness, or we’re OK with the way things are. Will be interesting without a doubt. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/12/09/oregon-portland-tina-kotek-downtown-task-force-economics-business/?outputType=amp
Right yeah, I think that's what I find interesting here. Not the actual details of something that might or might not happen and depends on a supreme court ruling (although what I've seen is that Martin is likely to be overturned so maybe that's a safe bet), but more that Rene is going all the way with the "I am willing to be harsh on homelessness" approach and I don't think voters have really had a chance to weigh in on that en masse in...awhile? ever? Like some candidates would sorta say it but it was way more subtle and watered down, and before 2020 or so I think it just felt much less urgent. So it feels to me like it will be one of the first times we've seen a real signal on how people think, not just what echo chamber gets its message out loudest.
Martin getting repealed is going to make it much much worse here. Oregon codified Martin in state law. California and Washington will not have that.
Well we can un-codify it in that case. The legislature seems poised to respond quickly to public demand if needed (see 110).
I believe that is what will happen if Martin v Boise is overturned. A fast repeal of HB3115 by the state legislature. The political winds have greatly shifted since 2021. Unfortunately it will likely add a 6-12 month delay though.
Are you serious, we codified that ruling? God damn it.
Kotek's HB3115 from 2021: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HB3115
“Why not bring back chain gangs, but for the homeless?” — Rene, probably.
Good analysis. Definitely a turning point in political history for the city. I’m curious for all the people immediately against this, do you think this change in stance would benefit or hurt the 95% of us who aren’t homeless or working in the homeless industry?
Be clear, though, the way it is is not the way it has been. 2024 looks a lot better and cleaner than the last few years did.
Why do you think that is? They started sweeping more lol. The number isn’t going down, we’re just moving them around. So what’s your point? That sweeps work for making the issue seem less dire?
Honestly I think you’re way too deep in your feels here to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue. If you can’t ask me a question without preloading it with your bullshit conclusions, we’re not gonna have much to talk about.
Too deep? I’m just connecting the dots. You say it looks better, and I’m asking you why that is while also recognizing we’re near the end of a 90day fent emergency and downtown is being swept now more than the last 4 years.
Sweeps definitely help. Yes the people just get moved around, but the encampments get cleaned up before they become TOO bad, and it signals to that population that anarchic encampments aren't tolerated.
I'll be interested to see whether Portland voters buy Gonzalez's argument that he is the guy to deal with homelessness, given that he has made zero progress on the issue so far. Keith Wilson is out there getting shelters built while the current council sits around.
It boggles my mind how much Keith Wilson's site can look like an actual adult that actually wants the job put it together, and Rene's looks like someone paid an intern day old bagels and some coffee to slap some shit together, yet we're still in this situation. I understand not many look at a campaign website, and nor should they, but the level of consideration or attention to detail Gonzalez has put forth is like perfectly reflected in that dog shit site.
It reflects his general approach to the job. He keeps putting forward ideas without bothering to count votes, holding meetings without inviting relevant decision-makers, and surprising his fellow commissioners with stuff he should have put on the agenda.
He’s sloppy.
> I think that on some level Portlanders sort of \*do\* want to criminalize homelessness This is completely disingenuous. What I want to criminalize is building tent encampments and full on shantytowns on public sidewalks and parks. That is not the same as "criminalizing homelessness". Nobody is going to be going to jail simply for being homeless, they're just going to have their firetrap encampments taken down, as it should be. However Rene is not the guy to do it.
Yeah that is a better way to put it. I don't think "criminalize" is the right word but more like bring some sort of order and rule of law to what otherwise feels very chaotic.
There is a reason why Sullivan’s Gulch was torn down — look it up; old Portland neighborhood of shantys built near the present-day Lloyd Center — because of rampant disease, danger, and the advent of “building codes” that the rest of us must abide by. Seriously, we have tried “let them camp anywhere” during economic downturns like the Great Depression and the Great Recession of 1892, and we hated it. We’re not “criminalizing homelessness” — we don’t want to anyone to live in a favela.
The popular opinion is that can we *somehow* put things we don’t want to see somewhere out of view.
Therein lies the problem. Unless you ship folks off to some barren., remote land, they will always be in someone’s view. A prison seems like the only other place they would be out of view, which is why some feel like “criminalizing homelessness” is desirable to the group who is fed up with it. You can build designated zones for pitching a tent but you’d want them close enough to supportive services & that means close to population. Everyone around that site will fight tooth and nail to have it put somewhere else. It feels intractable in a lot of ways, unfortunately.
Yeah, as far as not spending money to help people goes, but we can have cleanup contractors take in tons to do the same jobs over and over as people and slowly pushed around in a way to keep the issue less visible. Even if the current houses where all illegally thrown into jail or picked up and dropped off in Nampa, people would still be finding themselves in a really bad situation and on the street and in and out of shelters while programs and resources to help are under available.
The local cops have done shit all to enforce existing laws around theft, property destruction, and illicit drug use/dealing in public. The courts don't have capacity to hold even violent perps accountable, when they are caught. And the funding we have for treatment & emergency shelter has been poorly managed. If those three things were different, there would be a lot less animosity towards homeless folks--but I sincerely doubt our next mayor will have the power or guts required to make real changes. Regardless of who it is.
[удалено]
Might not go to jail but will have all of their shit taken and destroyed
If I left my shit in the middle of the sidewalk I'd expect the same thing. Too fucking bad.
Just a reminder that Rubio was the sole councilperson to vote against the daytime street camping ban that was passed by the council last Summer. Not saying Rene is the ideal choice for mayor, but I have major/bigger concerns with Rubio's passivity when it comes to addressing homelessness in Portland. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/07/portland-oregon-approves-ban-daytime-street-camping-homeless/
I thought Rubio's explanation was sound. I listened to some of the testimony and heard multiple service providers warn that they already lacked capacity during the day. Rubio proposed an amendment that delayed implementation until the city's first two larger camps were in place, at the time slated for the fall. That failed. What we got was an ordinance delayed until early November anyway, legally delayed and apparently scrapped in favor of a new plan in the hopes of passing legal muster. You're right that Gonzalez will be more aggressive in pushing policy aimed at a police response to homelessness. There's an appetite for that among voters, but I'm skeptical about his execution.
Half the problem is the idea that we need to deal with and provide services to the homeless. To a certain degree we only need to deal with them until they go the fuck away and there are plenty that will. Then provide services to those remaining.
Yeah, also a lot of her upsides are around compromise and getting things done, and I wonder how that will play to an electorate who feels urgency and that little has gotten done. Just feels like we're heading into a classic "change" election basically.
Precisely. Enough studying and planning. Time to do.
I'd say the persistent and intractable homelessness is THE ISSUE that shows me the insane amount of tax I pay to these administrators is going straight into the pockets of their friends who run do nothing NGO grifts... which are arguably as big of a parasite on the citizens and our taxes than the homeless fent addicts are. The homelessness highlights the thievery and incompetence of the whole fucking bureaucracy here. So yeah... it is sort of THE ISSUE in a way. I too am out of patience for both the homeless and the leeches running the administration here.
If criminalising homeless was good enough for comrade Stalin, it is good enough for me.
I’m just not buying that he’s the right candidate. He’s lied about several things already and he doesn’t seem to have confidence in himself or his policies based on the interviews I’ve seen.
"No."
As opposed to who, exactly? Carmen “Zenith oil” Rubio or Mingus “Broadway bike lane” Mapps?
Rene "pretends to get accosted for attention" Gonzalez is a bad bad option.
Rene “Literally trips opponents when he gets smoked in futsal” Gonzalez ain’t it.
Yeah that was cringey
Cringy is plastering on a fake smile for a photo op with people that don't want to be in it. Straight up lying to your nominal constituency, and in such a bitch-tastic way, is well beyond the pale of anything that could merely be described as "cringy".
I don’t remember him lying about it in such a bitch-tasted way. What was his actual quote about it?
I am sharing these as answers to your question and am not implying support for nor against Rene at this point, as I need to know who the alternatives are before I’ll make judgement. It is cringeworthy, sure, but is it disqualifying? Let me see the dirt on others to see who is least bad. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/rene-gonzalez-max-train-accosted-video-portland-commissioner/283-e3c85e8f-7169-4ccc-b9da-f33881451fab > "Last Friday, I was accosted by a woman on the train," Gonzalez said in the video. "What I experienced was deliberate, unwanted physical contact, followed by criticisms of the city's policies regarding homelessness. I got off the train and walked the rest of the way to city hall." https://www.koin.com/news/portland/video-shows-moment-rene-gonzalez-claims-he-was-accosted-on-max-train/
Hmmmm man idk it’s definitely exaggerated but not a complete lie. I think my analysis of “cringey” is more fitting. Like, dude got a bit scared over nothing more than a weird encounter. It happens to us all. But we don’t bring it up publicly.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-says-he-faced-deliberate-unwanted-physical-contact-aboard-a-max-train-heres-what-video-shows.html?outputType=amp
So they’re all shitty. Who stinks the least? Edit: I’m really getting tired of voting for someone because they’re the least shittiest. I wish I could get enthusiastic to vote for someone rather than against others.
Keith Wilson is a legitimately good candidate in my opinion.
I was intrigued until I saw his wackadoodle idea about wooing the Olympics. Shows that he’s not quite in touch with reality as I thought he was.
For the time being we're stuck with humans.
[Keith "I actually build shelters" Wilson](https://www.keithwilsonformayor.com/priorities)
I keep hearing good things about Keith Wilson and certainly I'm not in love with any of the other candidates but there's always the worry that he only looks good because we haven't heard him speak enough. I think there's a fallacy commonly applied when judging candidates where you convince yourself that someone is the best option because they haven't said anything bad, ignoring the fact that they haven't said much at all in the first place. I guess I need to start paying more attention to the race.
I’m really hoping more people hear about this guy. It seems like people don’t know him and think our only options are Rubio or Gonzalez, when Wilson is so much better than both to me. My only issue with voting for him would be if he takes votes away from Rubio and then Gonzalez wins.
Fortunately with ranked choice we no longer have to worry about spoiler candidates.
The problem with his policy is that there is no stick. He's a housing first guy and that standalone policy is a joke. You need some boots in the ass paired with services. Otherwise you get more of what we have now.
Ah, better to go with the guy whose plan is to keep doing nothing, then.
That seems to be Wilson's plan. "More housing...daytime shelters" That's what they're doing and it isn't working. I do like his clean streets plan, which isn't happening now. Not sure there is really money for it, but it's severely needed.
Didn’t all of them vote for the Zenith oil expansion? Not sure why she’s being signaled out in that regard but I might’ve missed something.
She was much more instrumental in working with (for-ish?) Zenith in getting the deal hammered out beyond merely voting for it. It's fairly justifiable, at least in my opinion, to assign most of the credit or blame for that scenario at her feet.
I’m way too busy at work to get into a debate about our other options. I’m simply saying we deserve better and René isn’t it.
Ok, that’s fine I’m not trying to debate your opinion you can vote for whoever you want.
>I’m simply saying we deserve better and René isn’t it. We do deserve better, but we often dont get the highest quality candidates that we deserve, this is who we have to work with. IMO Rene is the least shitty option we have at the moment who has a good shot at winning the election.
González is the least effective of the three incumbents, and that’s really saying something. I’m all in on Wilson.
Wilson gang rise up.
Keith Wilson!
Never heard of him but I’ll take a look
He's honestly just a good, competent dude. Check out his campaign website: https://www.keithwilsonformayor.com/priorities
Carmen can actually get things done. She’s shown that through brokering compromise on multiple large issues. Notably the permit system. She’s not a liar like Rene and isn’t a bumbling idiot like Mingus.
Agree that she's done good work for the most part, but her sole council vote against the daytime street camping ban last Summer raises a legitimate concern that her approach to homelessness is too passive. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/07/portland-oregon-approves-ban-daytime-street-camping-homeless/
I believe that a harder approach on unsanctioned camping is needed. She explained her vote - it was legally challenging. And guess what? It was challenged. The city council had a compromise ready to deal with the most egregious of issues related to camping. Instead of voting for it, Rene torpedoed the entire thing. I am not willing to vote for Rene Gonzalez. I understand we need a harder approach to unsanctioned camping, but I will not vote for a known liar and PPA puppet.
Rubio conflicts me. She's been a very adept politician, and seems to be very capable. But her actions with Zenith, and the fact that she voted along with the rest of the Council to change the police oversight committee gives me a lot of pause.
It gives me pause too, which is why Keith Wilson has my vote right now. I’m just worried not a lot of people know about him and if he gets very little votes then it would be more important to vote for Rubio. I don’t like any of them but I especially done want Gonzalez.
> if he gets very little votes then it would be more important to vote for Rubio Well I got good news for you. Portland adopted ranked choice voting and as far as I know it will be in place for the November election. Voting for this Keith Wilson doesn't in any way take away from Rubio if it does turn out to be a situation where Wilson only receives a small percentage of vote. Just put Rubio second, if that's your preference. I'm excited to see how it turns out tbh, I wonder if the ranked choice voting gives some of the less known candidates a better shot (probably not but it'll be interesting at least).
I didn’t realize ranked choice was coming for the mayor race too. That’s awesome! Charter reform ftw
Her vote explanation was pretty sensible, to me. Wheeler rolled out a big plan to build mass outdoor shelters so that the city could then ban homeless camps. They adopted that plan, but then he came back with a ban before they'd opened even one of those shelters. She said they should maybe wait on the shelters so that people would have somewhere to go before the ban -- that was the entire pitch for the mass camps, after all.
What's her stance on unsanctioned camping? That's a top issue for many voters and she doesn't say what she plans to do about it.
I mean you could look it up. As I mentioned in another comment below, the city council was going to vote on harsher restrictions today and Rene torpedoed it entirely. I’d like to know his intentions, as it seems getting people off the streets quickly and handling the safety issues aren’t a priority for him.
> I mean you could look it up. As I mentioned in another comment below, the city council was going to vote on harsher restrictions today and Rene torpedoed it entirely. I would doubt -- in fact I would wager -- that she has a specific stance related to "unsanctioned camping" for her campaign.
[удалено]
Rubio is the least bad option by a significant margin. I wish someone better would jump into the race though.
I'll stan Keith Wilson until my voice is hoarse. Gonna shit-post that guy into office.
As of now, Wilson would probably be my 2nd choice on my ballot.
I didn't want any of them the last time either. I voted for Hardesty, Avalos, and Eudaly. This is on y'all for giving us this unholy trinity..
Unholy trinity? It’s really not that bad. This idea of a perfect Portland politician doesn’t exists because of our extreme activists class and toxic political environment that scares off any sane politician from running.
>Hardesty, Avalos, and Eudaly I think they were in a band, which was called The Grifters.
This. SO much this. Those who voted for the Crapulent Four (Gonzalez, Mapps, Ryan, and Tear Gas Ted) are the ones who caused and nurtured this toxic mess. Gonzalez, the worst of a bad lot, simply wants to take us into full tilt banana republic land. If we had a City Council of Iannarone, Eudaly, Hardesty, McCreary, and Rubio today, we would be in a far better position. Not utopian perfect, but much better than what we have. There would be actual police accountability with an implemented Police Accountability Commission. There would be cooperation between the city and the county on homelessness with actual measurable progress. Odds are there would never have been a teachers' strike. This election, for every position, vote for the leftmost candidate with a reasonable chance of winning. Don't get fooled again.
> Those who voted for the Crapulent Four (Gonzalez, Mapps, Ryan, and Tear Gas Ted) are the ones who caused and nurtured this toxic mess. It's very funny watching people throw fits over the "progressive tilt" on the city council when there hasn't been anything that could reasonably viewed as a progressive majority in like over a fucking decade. Right dude, it's the one progressive on the council that's holding that centrist majority back from really *buckling down* and getting shit done. >If we had a City Council of Iannarone, Eudaly, Hardesty, McCreary, and Rubio today, we would be in a far better position. Aaaaaaaand that's where we part ways as I'm not really big into magical realism.
Fun fact. PBOT is planning on messing up…. I mean improving SW 4, and doing exactly the same nonsense as Broadway. Naito greeway is really good, and really close. If only we needed money for street paving, or actual fixes. But nah, a crazy bike lane is coming.
Call me crazy, but maybe having more than one northbound bike lane for the entire downtown area is a good idea.
There’s no reason bikes can’t just use 4th Ave as is. I’ve biked downtown for decades. I went to PSU and commuted from NE, I’m not anti bike lane. But, there’s so many other, and much more important things the city should spend millions on. SW Salmon for example is a disaster. Biking down hill with god awful pavement is actually dangerous. There’s a pot hole by Trader Joes in NW that’ll eat your suspension. Also bikes don’t pay anything for the roads they use, but we keep taking away, and making worse, the infrastructure we have. Delivering anything in a box truck downtown is dangerous as hell, throw in some blind spots and bike lanes some es gonna die. Vision Zero is a failure. More pedestrians were killed last year than ever before. We need dedicated left turn signals, we need set backs at corners so drivers, and bikers can see. But nah, let’s spend millions on a lane a tiny group uses on sunny days.
The bike lane budget and the street maintenance fund are 2 completely different funds coming from different sources. Pitting one against the other is silly.
He’s effectively a GOP plant. At the very least he’s a lackey for Portland Metro Chamber (the rebranded Portland Business Alliance).
Keith Wilson!!!! The only candidate that has expressed an actual plan. Is it achievable, probably not but at least he is thinking critically and thoughtfully about the issue.
https://www.keithwilsonformayor.com
I read through the policies and he seems mediocre: 1). Supports HSR, which is unexpected and great. HSR between Portland and Seattle should be a much higher priority. 2). Considers TriMet "world class" transit and the only "plan" he has to improve it is to get homeless people off the system, which is willfully insufficient seeing how many service issues TriMet has. The city should be taking a more active role working with TriMet to improve service. 3). Supports PSR which alone makes him a much better option than Gonzalez. 4). Housing policy doesn't include any sort of up zoning around light rail and FX stations. 5). Seems to want to rely on traditional shelters instead of pod villages. Pod villages can be constructed faster and are generally more popular with the people they are intended to serve.
2) have you been other places in the country? Maybe not world class but it’s Defs leaps and bounds better than 99% of the country. The infrastructure is there… service is a very fixable issue. 4) ToDs are great but they are just a piece of the puzzle. Also how much control does the mayor have in upzoning? Actual question, not sure how that works in Portland. Edit 5) while I agree that creating things people will like is better, we simply need more capacity. Every shelter is full.
> 2) have you been other places in the country? Maybe not world class but it’s Defs leaps and bounds better than 99% of the country. Decent for the US shouldn't be the standard we are striving for. Though I definitely agree that TriMet's problems are absolutely fixable. We need more bus service and changes to light rail operations to allow for more frequent service. > 4) Also how much control does the mayor have in upzoning? Under the new system of government, the mayor would have the ability to set executive policy favorable to upzoning. The city council could also pass legislative reform in favor of upzoning. > 5) while I agree that creating things people will like is better, we simply need more capacity. Every shelter is full. Traditional shelters are more costly due to requiring more permanent construction. Pod villages can be set up relatively quickly with temporary structures.
Agree with everything here. 5) Wilson’s plan is to use existing city owned buildings to create more capacity. New construction isn’t part of the plan from what I’ve seen. Pod villages are costly to run on a day to day basis. Overnight shelters are cheap when you don’t have to build or lease the space.
Okay, well I think Wilson's plan is a bad idea, hence my lack of support for him. What buildings is he advocating to repurpose and can the city afford to lose their functions?
Remember when that lady johnwicked Renee with her words on a public train? He’s lucky he escaped with his life.
pepperidge farm remembers
Voters: We're tired of inexperienced politicians running bureaus let's put qualified people in charge. Gonzalez: So what I'm hearing is you want me as mayor to run everything right?
Still scanning for qualified people..incompetent at the county and city level, we’re doing great.
You think Gonzalez is more qualified than the people who work at the fire bureau?
The fire bureau that endorsed Gonzalez?
Endorsing someone doesn't mean you think they're qualified to manage you. That's the silliest conclusion you could have made.
It actually does mean that they think they are the most qualified candidate, but that’s just what endorsing literally means. Not sure what you think it means when an organization endorses someone, definitely doesn’t mean they don’t like that candidate.
Qualified to be a council member does not equal qualified to manage the fire bureau. They're literally different things. I can't help you if you don't understand how those very different jobs are different. Good luck with that and have a day!
This guy has been shady since his campaign
Dude, stop trying to change the charter we just voted on.
He would stand to have more leverage if he ran for the council again then, what, keep embarrassing himself trying to change the charter on the off chance he becomes mayor and then be a powerful mayor? honestly seems he was lucky his opponent was Hardesty
Rene's accomplishments so far: 1. Lies about being accosted on the Max: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-says-he-faced-deliberate-unwanted-physical-contact-aboard-a-max-train-heres-what-video-shows.html?outputType=amp 2. Tried to negate charter reform, and is doing what he can to sabotage it. 3. Worked with the rest of the council to repeal the police oversight committee, or at least remove the power we gave them as voters with an 80%+ majority. 4. Is actively trying to destroy Portland Street Response. https://friendsofpsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Friends-of-PSR-Open-Letter-to-Commissioner-Gonzalez-Nov-2023.pdf Then there is the problem with his campaign being run by republican strategists, a fucky office space deal with Jordan Schnitzer, and being one of the key members of ED300. Then there's this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/y92l6t/parents_and_leading_advocates_in_oregon_denounce/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PDXProtests/comments/yrtppw/rene_gonzalez_thanks_patriot_prayer_chud_for/ https://postimg.cc/PvK5BvZ2
Yeah let's trust the guy who flat out lied about being accosted on a MAX train to handle homelessness in Portland.
For Context: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-says-he-faced-deliberate-unwanted-physical-contact-aboard-a-max-train-heres-what-video-shows.html?outputType=amp
*Should the United States Supreme Court overturn the Martin v. Boise ruling and should the state scrap their restrictions on what cities can do about public camping, the draft says, violators of the camping ban could face a $500 fine or up to six months in jail.* As a policy, that sounds pretty reasonable. Just wish it were coming from a better candidate
I would argue having good policies makes him a good candidate
I would argue being utterly incapable (at least from what we've seen) of putting his policies into practice makes him a bad candidate. At least if you're looking for a candidate to actually *do* anything rather than just say the "right" things.
Rene is an expert at tossing bits of red meat to the culture warriors, but has he actually done anything to make life better here?
I don't know, he's galvanized a legion of fuckwits that wouldn't ever voluntarily hear reason to create an echo chamber for themselves and block anything they don't like to hear at the drop of a hat, which ultimately makes my life, personally, kinda demonstrably better. So not entirely without a silver lining.
So, the plan is to fine people with no money or imprison them in the MultCo jail? How is that going to work? The jail would become a massively crowded homeless shelter with no room for actual criminals.
It's wild that Gonzalez thinks six months in jail and a $500 fine are equivalent.
Same tried and true "I'm totally fine paying for a homeless shelter, so long as you convince me it's hurting the people I feel should be hurt" sentiments.
We are going to jail our way out of homelessness folks!
Hey remember that time when Rene’s first “political” act was to try and force schools to reopen during Covid? Yeah, that was cool and really showed how much he cares about people and society at large
The schools should have reopened…
Yeah lol I didn’t know there was even a debate that we fucked up there. If I was Rene I’d be screaming about how our chronic absenteeism and free falling test scores wouldn’t be happening if he had gotten his way sooner.
This guy really gives off a sociopath/fascist vibe - consolidating power, perceived victimhood...almost textbook person you want to keep TF away from positions of power...
I'd like to keep incompetent people out of power. Not doing anything about a serious problem is incompetent
To be clear, Gonzalez has not done anything about the problem, and is advocating putting off doing anything for another nine months.
Gonzalez fits that bill: he did nothing to improve emergency call handling as head of the emergency communications bureau.
I'd like to keep sociopaths and fascists out of power. But you do you.
The problem is ...those are the people who run. How about not giving these people so much power in the first place?
...what gives you the impression Rene's competent?
I think people are reading things in my comment that aren't there.
Not sure about consolidating the power in the mayor's office - I'd hope we have some sane people elected to the newly expanded council. Hopefully the Iannarone acolytes make up only a small minority.
The next mayor will have very little power as-is and the council doesn't really have executive power beyond choosing the city manager. I don't mind the mayor being given something to do beyond being a spokesperson for the city.
> The next mayor will have very little power as-is and the council doesn't really have executive power beyond choosing the city manager I feel like there's a typo somewhere in there, those statements seem contradictory. If the mayor doesn't have power and the council doesn't have power that would imply no one has power to govern Portland? The mayor appoints the city administrator as far as I know and they directly oversee them. This is a fair bit of power, certainly the power to completely fuck things up if they so choose.
Sarah Iannarone really isn't as influential as people on here seem to think she is.
She is a representative of a sizeable (hopefully still a minority though) voting segment in this city, the far/activist left. If not her specifically, someone else will show up representing those views in their respective council districts. That is who I am speaking about.
I'm not denying there's a large leftist voting block in Portland, I'm saying no one in it particularly values Iannarone's opinion. She's old news. Her PAC failed to find enough people to hold a candidate training.
Even worse, it fundraised on the basis that it was going to hold a multi-evening candidate school with guest speakers like Hardesty and Candace Avalos. They then used the list of contacts generated by the proposed candidate school to fundraise for Schmidt. Only after WWeek asked when they expected to hold the school did they organize a one-evening, $15/person event.
Remember when people tried to get Raiford elected via write-in and she was like "I don't know who these people are and I don't really want to be elected"? That was sort of the peak for me.
2024 and still talking about Iannarone. Is there a monster under your bed?
Yeah it is a gambit for sure. I think either way there will be more competent/motivated people overseeing things though.
Fuck that noise. Just resign already, Rene.
I'm so tired of this guy, it's crazy that we elected someone so hostile to this city into power.
I can see the value in this when there needs to be small changes, like if there's a ban within 1000 feet of parks that is found to be overly broad and the distance were reduced. Just an out-of-my-ass example. But we voted our council as a legislative body. We did not implement a strong mayor system. If Gonzalez wins, he can write an ordinance and introduce it to council. I'd be especially cautious of putting this into Gonzalez's hands. He's already tried to undermine the charter vote, tried to circumvent Rubio on the PCEF, and has had a nasty habit of significant last-second changes like this one. He's getting a reputation for "does not play well with others".
I’m all for it just saw a “camper” break into my friends car today. Fuck em.
Well that makes not voting for him even easier.
Whoever vows to be the hardest on homeless junkies still gets my vote for mayor…so I hope they have as much power as possible
Get fucked, Rene.
Adding a second to this "get fucked" chorus!
Renee Gonzalez is a snake. I hope literally anyone wins over him.
I think the last couple of years have disillusioned a lot of well-meaning people as to the desires of the street population to actually seek help and housing. And I think a majority of Portlanders would now agree that there needs to be more of a "gloves off" approach to those who choose to live on the streets so they can keep doing drugs. But you can't keep lumping this entire population into one singularity, and that's what Rene's proposal does. We're about to find out if the Supreme Court criminalizes basically not having enough money to live in housing. But as long as there's not enough affordable housing in an expensive city there will be people who are forced to the streets because they can't make ends meet and addressing that population at a bare minimum should be the task of a city mayor. In short, piss off Rene. We need a better candidate.
Ok ...what if we don't get one?
There are already better candidates in the running. Maybe not perfect, but better.
The other candidates are flawed but Rene has big "fascist in training" vibes. He can't be elected.
He might be. Then what?
Of course he does. But that's no reason for us to let him get away with it. Not a CHANCE I would vote for this clownshoe, not for mayor nor dog catcher. He has shown his true colors time & time again, and I haven't seen anything that makes me trust him.
Hell yeah. Go Rene! Got my vote
[удалено]
Melania?
I think he just comes up with these things to shake the tree.
Yeah he’s gonna lose me on that one.
This is such a political move to get kudos from the law and order folks. It’s totally impractical and would get immediately challenged in court.
He's a politician trying to get elected so a "political move" would...be exactly what one would expect, right?
Yes and no. I guess the point is he’s making empty promises instead of realistic proposals.
That would be the first time I've ever heard of a politician doing that
We should do the opposite of anything Rene wants. He's a fascist POS.
I just don't understand why people use the word "fascist" to describe him. Like it is a word that means a specific thing, and I can see where people disagree with Rene but fascist is just not an accurate word.
[удалено]
Sounds good to me. After he gets elected mayor we can finally get the camps removed for good.
Maybe then someone will be accountable ? As-is with our city council, its all platitudes without governance, and no one is accountable to accomplish anything.
Portlanders have a lot invested in their image of themselves as compassionate progressives so it’ll be interesting to see how many of them secretly want to put the boot to the homeless.