May 25, 1999
1. R’s presentation immediately followed the pledge of allegiance. After first noting the pledge, R opened by noting in a friendly tone his appreciation for being allowed a citizen’s opportunity to petition the government to redress a grievance. R then stated that he would present a brief summary of the 79th Avenue situation.
2. The Mayor (“M”) then interrupted R and said in a surprisingly hostile tone that R should state his grievance, as the Visitor’s Agenda time limit was two minutes, M had already been fully briefed on the 79th Avenue neighbors and their issues, and it was not necessary for the Council to hear further background about the neighborhood group or its positions. The gist of M’s comments was that the Council already had heard the neighbors’ concerns “loud and clear.”
3. M then said that R should be aware that Tigard was unlikely to have the money to pay for “Tigard’s share” of the project in the next budgetary cycle, implying that there was no need for the 79th Ave. neighbors to actively oppose the project at this time (i.e., until money was available to make the issue ripe).
4. Somewhat inconsistently with this implication, M then stated that the 79th Ave. neighbors had to be “realistic” about what Tigard could afford to do under its budgetary circumstances.
5. R replied that that was fine, because the 79th Ave. neighbors were opposed to any change to the street along the lines proposed by the City.
6. M then sharply retorted that “in his opinion” 79th Ave. was the most dangerous street in Tigard, the street had been unsafe since the recent housing developments had been built, and that the city had an obligation to make 79th Ave. safer.
7. R responded that he lived on the street, that he and the neighbors did not consider it unsafe, and asked what the basis was for M’s “safety issue” assertion.
8. M replied that the city had a responsibility to anticipate safety problems before actual accidents occurred (implying that the street was in fact unsafe whether or not its record or the opinions of its daily users was to the contrary). M continued that the street needed sidewalks for children, and that the light at Durham and 79th had been installed to allow children to safely cross Durham (the relevance of this latter point was unclear, except perhaps as a local illustration of M’s commitment to child safety).
9. R noted that if safety was the real issue, there was no reason to build a 40 foot wide street, and that speeds could be kept down by use of speed bumps and similar simple approaches.
10. Another council member then interjected that it was not being planned as a 40 foot wide street.
11. R responded that that was not what the city was indicating, and that the safety discussion dramatized the problem that the 79th Ave. neighbors were having difficulty getting consistent information from the city. R stressed that he was not saying the city was necessarily relating inaccurate information, but that there was confusion because of different people asking and answering questions, and a major focus of the 79th Ave. neighbors group was simply to assemble accurate information about the scope and purpose of the project.
12. M followed by stating that safety required more than slow speeds, but also good visibility from driveways and sidewalks, etc. for “connector” (note: he may have said collector or feeder rather than connector) streets such as 79th.
13. R. responded that the planning designation attached to the street wasn’t relevant to the safety issue, and noted that the southwest Portland metro area predominantly consisted of streets without sidewalks, and that by M’s standard all of such streets were unsafe. M did not respond to this point, but appeared cross.
14. Another council member then broke in and said in effect that the whole matter would require additional study and comment, and that everyone would have an opportunity to be heard before any final decision was reached.
15. R concluded by stating that the 79th Ave. neighbors group had formed, had broken into several subcommittees, would be studying the relevant issues and anticipated reaching initial conclusions in the next 60 days, and would be requesting an opportunity to formally present its conclusions to the council at that time.
16. R concluded by thanking the council, and M in particular, for the opportunity to speak.
Conclusions:
1. M’s hostile reaction was unexpected. It may indicate that he is already “feeling the heat” in which event perhaps we should pour on the steam. It may be, however, that it is simply his style to attempt to bully or intimidate opposition. My guess is some of both.
2. The safety issue was almost surely premeditated as a “clothe the issue in children” defense. City staff probably supplied this defense. While I do not believe that safety is the city’s primary motivation, it would be a victory to have the city acknowledge safety as the real issue, as there are many inexpensive ways to make the street safer while retaining its current character.
3. It was unfortunate that M adopted such a hostile tone. I was forced on the spot to accept or resist his challenge, and chose to resist in what I hope was a reasonably polite way. My (admittedly on the fly) thinking was that M was the person initiating the attack, and because it was our group’s first appearance before the council it was important to demonstrate that the group’s concerns could not be dismissed.
Front Page