FeedsReplying to a comment on Portland City Council #1 Candidates: Clear support for the Commission-style of government
I find the comments disappointing.
It is naive to continue to believe that our complex city of 600,000--slated to grow to 1,000,000 in 20 years--has "one" set of interests and needs. The reality of a non-districted system is that the high income, high turnout, close-in areas of the City continue to dominate city politics, supplying most of the candidates, most of the campaign resources, and get most of the benefits. Eastern (esp. far eastern) portland and north portland will never have any influence in the City until we have districts, and the traditional power brokers in PDX won't let that happen.
Charles Lewis says that the current system makes commissioners "directly responsible" to the voters. I just don't understand what this means. Is a member of the state legislature or a member of congress not "directly responsible"? And since Commissioner bureau assignments bear a) no relation to the election and b) change regularly, how does this possibly improve responsibility?
I've heard Chris's claim about innovation, but this has a distinct negative side. it means that an individual commissioner can develop policy outside of the scrutiny and collective wisdom of a larger legislative body. He presumes that these innovations are always good--but what if they are bad?
Is it really efficient to have five mini-mayors? My intuition and the experience we see around the country says no. That being said, this won't change. The powers that be are too invested in the current system.
Reply
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
