City of Portland Ballot Measures
Plus: the most important decision you'll make this month
Before we get to City of Portland ballot measures, I want to talk about the most important election of our lifetimes. I speak, of course, of the…
East Multnomah County Soil and Water Conservation District
What is it?
I don’t know. No one knows.
That’s not entirely true. They will tell you what they do.
They are… a non-regulatory, voluntary body that deals with water and, I imagine, soil? For farms and conservation?
Still, I’ve skimmed their website and again I don’t really know why I’m voting on them. They seem to do grants and programs and education and advisory stuff. Which is great. But from what I can tell they’re effectively just a tax-payer funded non-profit, not unlike the neighborhood associations1.
What I do know is that the East district is funded through property taxes from everyone in Multnomah County east of the Willamette. (The West district is funded by folks West of the river, including Sauvie Island.)
Why is it on the ballot?
Because we pay for it, so we vote on it? We have since 1974.
Analysis
East Zone 1 (apparently my District) will be Mary Colombo, who is a small farmer and is running unopposed.
Three of the four positions in the West are folks running unopposed (and the fourth, Zone 2, has no one running at all).
East At-Large Position 1 is between two folks: James Carlson and Ramona DeNies. James is a farmer and the incumbent while Ramona is a writer who works at the Wild Salmon Center, a conservation non-profit.
How am I voting?
Ramona DeNies, almost entirely on the strength of what appears to be Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky’s2 feedback, who says:
The board needs balance and better representation. The district is funded through property taxes from everyone in Multnomah County east of the Willamette River. That means a whole lot of urban residents financially support the district. Right now, 4/5 of the board live outside city limits and all operate farms (I farm very part time). The board is lacking representation for urban folks who want to see their neighborhoods support clean water and air, and healthy soils, and who financially support the district.
…
Jim’s other commitments (work, other boards) seem to regularly conflict with his ability to fully participate on the board.
Good enough for me. Thanks Jasmine!
Why is this ridiculous?
Because this took me the better part of half an hour to do this research. Most of the papers don’t endorse in any direction. Either most folks are blindly filling out their ballot, leaving it blank, or wasting as much time as I just did. The fact that we are wasting our time voting for a non-regulatory, voluntary board is absurd.
As much as I have mixed feelings of the Multnomah County Commission, this board should just be appointed by that commission, who covers basically the same service area and are actually folks with whom voters interact and about whom they can have vaguely educated opinions. This is just a case of Too Much Democracy.
OK. Now to the regularly scheduled programming.
Portland Ballot measures! Let’s do this.
One interesting thing about all these changes to the charter is that it’s incredibly hard to find the actual text of the changes. The measures themselves (and the explanatory statements) seem pretty accurate but still I was personally curious to read the actual, textual changes.
If you too want to see them, they all appear to be in this January 2023 report to City Council.
Portland Measure 26-249
What is it?
Amends charter to delete outdated, redundant requirements to approve utility franchises.
Why is it on the ballot?
The Charter Commission recommended it. Unclear what the motivation was.
Analysis
All small technical changes, none of which strike me as problematic, to streamline the approval of utility companies so that it goes through the standard ordinance process.
Oregonian, WW, and Mercury all say Yes.
How am I voting?
Yes on 26-249.
Portland Measure 26-250
What is it?
Amends charter to make permanent an Independent Election commission.
Why is it on the ballot?
We have an independent election commission by city code and this would prevent city council from disbanding or changing it. The fact that the Small Donor Elections program wasn’t fully funded this year may explain “why now.”
Analysis
This independent election commission would not have the authority to enforce election rules. Not would they have the power to address the shortfall in the Small Donor Elections program—that’s still up to City Council.
So I don’t see the point. The Willamette Week calls this measure half-baked and I agree. The commission exists and City Council would have to disband or alter it. If they do and we don’t like it, our recourse is the power to vote them out. As Steve Novick and Chloe Eudaly and Jo Ann Hardesty can all attest: voters are more than willing to use that power.
The WW is a No, Oregonian and Mercury are both Yes.
How am I voting?
No on 26-250
Portland Measure 26-251
What is it?
Amends charter, updating authority to manage parks, sewers, and stormwaters.
Why is it on the ballot?
The Charter Commission recommended it. Unclear what the motivation was.
Analysis
All small language changes. Honestly, none of them seem to be even material changes at all but I assume the Water bureau, Parks, or PBOT thought they were necessary or clarifying.
Oregonian, WW, and Mercury all say Yes.
How am I voting?
Yes on 26-251.
Portland Measure 26-252
What is it?
Amends charter to remove “vague, archaic language” and use a consistent definition of “protected classes.”
Why is it on the ballot?
The Charter Commission recommended it. Unclear what the motivation was.
Analysis
It’s probably good not to have divergent definitions for protected classes since that could cause legal drama. The rest of the changes don’t seem material, even if they are kind of funny (e.g. “prohibit persons from roaming the streets at unreasonable hours”)
Oregonian, WW, and Mercury all say Yes.
How am I voting?
Yes on 26-252.
Portland Measure 26-253
What is it?
Amends charter to remove requiring citywide vote to change weatherization requirements for pre-1979 buildings.
Why is it on the ballot?
Climate change.
Analysis
I’m of two minds of this:
On one hand, we’re in a housing crisis. If we remove this requirement, and then the city council updates the weatherization standards for old buildings, that will absolutely raise housing costs. I’m on the record of thinking that is bad.
On the other hand, I’ve always believed the Charter should be about how the government is supposed to govern, not about substantive policy issues.3 That’s what city council is for, to make determinations about what policy should be, and then institute it. If we the voters don’t like those policies, we vote them out.
So on the merits, I don’t think we should change weatherization standards right now until housing costs are under control. It just seems like a small impact change in the scope of climate change — our time and money is better spent encouraging EVs, bike/pedestrian infrastructure, and multi-unit housing.
But, ultimately that’s for council to figure out. They should have the power to do so and if they try, I’ll try and vote them out.
The WW is a No, Oregonian and Mercury are both Yes.
How am I voting?
Yes on 26-253
Next up: my long-promised mayoral …
Wait what? Holy shit there’s another whole water district? And I have to vote for folks in 5 different positions? The Multnomah County one I remember from previous elections but I don’t even recall this one!4
Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District
Honestly, if I went deep on all of these it would take me another hour to write and 10 minutes of your time to read. I just don’t think it’s worth that. Our time, collectively is more valuable than that.
Which is not to say these folks aren’t important. They have a $150 million dollar budget thanks to the levee measure from May.5 But everyone who bothered to submit to the Voter’s Guide seem basically qualified and I don’t think me going on about them helps anyone all that much.
So here’s who I’m voting for. Take it or leave it.
District 1: Lori Stegmann (unopposed)
District 2: Ariana Johnson
District 3: Tanney Staffenson
District 4: Nic Lane
District 5: Erich Mueller
Neighborhood Associations who historically got most of their funding from the city via the Office of Neighborhood Involvement (now called the OCCL).
She is currently a Director for the East Multnomah County Soil and Water Conservation District—At-Large position 2
I apply this same thinking to the Constitution, which is why I think the 18th amendment was dumb, as was the attempt for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
It’s because this one is new, as of 2020. That’s why.
Measure 26-243, which I endorsed.