Suk Rhee, the leader of Portland’s civic engagement bureau, on Friday defended her agency’s drive to lessen the powers of the city’ storied neighborhood associations, declaring the change necessary to make government more inclusive and stating emphatically that it is not meant to diminish the influence of neighborhoods.
At a speech before the Portland City Club, Rhee offered her rationale for redoing the portion of city code that recognizes neighborhood associations and gives them official powers. That code was written more than four decades ago and today, she said, the government should not exclude some groups by bestowing recognition only upon neighborhood associations.
“When communities have not been named in code, or policy or law – or only when some groups have been named – this has had devastating impacts for being represented, served, resourced and valued in this country,” Rhee told the City Club. “We have a moral and legal obligation to remedy this in the next iteration of code.”
The City Council ordered Rhee’s bureau in 2018 to reexamine city code regarding neighborhood associations in light of shortcomings identified by city auditors, including unequal funding to neighborhood groups and lax oversight of the spending. The bureau, the Office of Community & Civic Life, then convened a 25-member committee to suggest new code language.
A draft of the recommendation includes removing all mention of neighborhood associations and deleting requirements that the groups abide by state public records and open meetings laws. The draft addresses auditors’ spending concerns by requiring “an equitable distribution of public resources.”
Those potential changes have leaders of neighborhood associations worried that the promise of greater inclusivity is a pretext to curtail their powers for political reasons. In particular, they fear the government wants to lessen the influence of neighborhoods over land use decisions, such as those to build apartment complexes or high-rise towers, because the groups have stymied development to the annoyance of some local politicians.
City planners are unsure of the ultimate effect of removing the recognition of neighborhood associations. Currently, the city must seek input from the groups on land use and zoning decisions and they may appeal City Council decisions free of charge.
[Read more: Emotions flare as Portland, long friendly to neighborhoods, weighs gutting their powers]
At the City Club, Rhee said the code change “doesn’t speak to” land use powers and the issue is only “one of many things Portlanders care about.” She stated repeatedly that neighborhood associations would still have influence, but that clout would be shared among a wider crop of interest groups.
“If someone tells you that I or we do not want neighborhood associations in the city of Portland, they’re not being truthful, and I want you to know I don’t lie,” Rhee said.
Civic engagement is a cornerstone of democracy, Rhee said, and it’s incumbent on the city government to make that system more inclusive. She said that is especially so given that American democracy “has its origins in white supremacy and economic exploitation.”
“We need all of us and not just some over others,” Rhee said. “That is not government’s role, to pick winners and losers.”
Rhee’s comments will likely do little to quell the uproar. Last month, for example, neighborhood association members stated vehemently at a meeting of the code change committee that they would never support removing their organizations from city lawbooks.
The committee, officially called Committee 3.96 after the section of city code it seeks to modify, is scheduled to hold a final vote on the matter Thursday. The City Council has scheduled a special session on the code change for Sept. 3.
-- Gordon R. Friedman