That’s why when law enforcement and community groups target one neighborhood or area of the city, we see first hand how it affects a geographical area or a population of people in another. When things flare up, or there is a heavy push by law enforcement to target a specific population such as drug dealers, drug users or homeless people, it sets off a chain reaction that often times comes with consequences.

For example, when law enforcement targets Old Town-Chinatown for drug dealing, the game simply shifts to the Pioneer Courthouse Square area. When Pioneer Courthouse Square becomes the target, dealers may move to Third and Fourth Avenues, and so on.

Unfortunately, what happens in this process is that other groups of people, those some consider the undeserving poor (panhandlers, drug users), and the deserving poor (Street Roots vendors, canvassers, etc.) are then affected. Businesses are almost always caught in the crossfire, hence, the Portland Business Alliance advocates for strict laws across the board to protect the interests it represents. Finding the balance is tricky business.

When these events are set into motion, the streets often become tense and unsafe. If you push dealers, users and aggressive panhandlers out of one area, once-stable street corners that have Street Roots vendors, canvassers and others suddenly become the target of the more aggressive population. These are the turf wars we see repeated throughout the city.

Recently, drug dealers have been targeting Street Roots vendors in the central core of the city, especially near Pioneer Courthouse Square. After two months of squeezing out the Old Town-Chinatown neighborhood through the newly created drug-impact areas, dealers are now moving their operations to a more densely populated area where Portlanders become the cover for drug transactions.

It’s impossible to staunch the flow of drugs into Portland or any other community in the United States with our reactionary policies. It’s impossible to slay the dragon with police sweeps of drug dealers that are equal parts political theater and squeaky wheel grease. It simply will not curtail the problem.

What’s the answer? In the long-term, it’s much more complicated and something the city with the current budget crisis simply doesn’t have the resources to achieve — outreach workers, economic development and other harm reduction models. In the short term, we believe it’s simple. Put more police officers on a walking beat, something Street Roots and other community groups have advocated for years as a proven means of keeping our streets safe.

This doesn’t mean more uniforms on bikes or Segways, which reinforce the distance, but officers actually engaged with the streets, top to bottom. Having police officers assigned to a walking beat in the downtown core would create a presence for which drug-dealers couldn’t hide from. Police officers would become better acquainted with business owners, neighbors and others living, working and surviving on the streets. Real relationships would be forged and together we could face the problem head on. Walking officers could also cut down on fuels consumption, carbon emissions, and even boost physical fitness opportunities among the ranks.

Chasing crime around this city doesn’t make us any safer. But we can fill the vacuum that attracts criminal activity with a positive presence that walks in our shoes.

Alan Michael Collinge’s first job as an aerospace engineer did not pay him quite enough to keep up with the payments on the $38,000 of student loans that he’d accumulated earning his degrees. Before he knew it, he was pulled into a vortex of debt, default and collection, and within seven years of graduation, his loans had ballooned to over $100,000 due to penalties, fees, collection charges and compounded interest.

Collinge faced three choices: accept his fate and spend the rest of his life in poverty, leave the country or stay and fight. Numerous others in his shoes have been so desperate that they have made a tragic fourth choice — suicide. Collinge chose to go public and fight, and so was born one of the nation’s foremost whistleblowers on the student loan industry. His book, “The Student Loan Scam,” has become a primer for the uninformed and unaware.

Before reading Collinge’s book, I was among the naive. My privileged upbringing provided me a debt-free college education, and I never questioned the standard narrative about student loans: That they were for the benefit of the student and the ticket to fulfilling one’s promise in life. “Scam” not only rid me of this myth, it also taught me that the collusion among the student loan industry, higher education and Congress is one of the most glaring economic justice issues of our day.

Collinge begins with a historical perspective, detailing the rise in power of Sallie Mae, the nation’s leading source of private student loans, into a conglomerate that controlled all aspects of the industry — loans, guarantees and collections. By 2005, Sallie Mae had become the second most profitable company in the country, and its executives were raking in millions of dollars on the backs of the borrowers. (Sound familiar?) Responding to Sallie Mae’s increasing economic power and influence in Washington, Congress began systematically removing all the standard consumer protections afforded to other forms of debt from student loans. Most troubling, student loans are the only type of consumer debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Those who succumb to defaulting on their student loans are not statistical anomalies. Collinge cites National Center of Education data that there is a shocking 20 percent default rate within the first decade after graduation for people who borrowed more than $15,000. As their loans are sold from one collector to the next, fees and penalties expand exponentially, making the prospect of repayment that much more impossible to fathom. Meanwhile, lenders and collectors have free license to garnish wages, disability benefits and even Social Security without a court order. Incredibly, it is more profitable for lenders when students remain in default than it is when they pay them back. Collinge writes: “By 1998, there was a perverse financial incentive for the student loan servicing companies to do a horrible job of loan administration. The more ineffective the companies’ customer service was, the more likely it became that students would default — and thus, the more money student loan companies would ultimately make.”

Today, student loans are a $90 billion industry and these loans have a stranglehold on millions of lower- and middle-class citizens. While tuition rates skyrocket, students have to borrow more, only to see their employment prospects dim. Rather than truly counseling students, the higher education system has become beholden to lenders and has incentives to push students to borrow beyond their means. What has emerged, writes Collinge, is “an unholy alliance between lenders and universities that trampled the very students they claimed to serve!”

“Scam” is a riveting book that exposes the student loan industry as self-interested, predatory and amoral. Although not especially well written, the book is a well-researched and credible account of an industry that is every bit as exploitative as the mortgage industry that spurred the housing bubble in 2008.

Here’s the irony: We are living in a competitive global economy that demands a highly educated workforce, yet those who pursue higher education often find themselves buried under a lifetime of debt in order to become part of this educated workforce. Moreover, if students can’t pay their debt, they stand to lose the licenses and certifications for which they were trained, creating a vicious cycle of deepening despair for students and escalating profits for lenders and collectors.

The full title of Collinge’s book is “The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History — And How We Can Fight Back.”  Unfortunately, after absorbing the author’s argument that this is, in fact, history’s most oppressive debt, it’s hard to imagine fighting back at all. Collinge provides a recipe for action, but the realization that lenders have immense political power can give the reader a sense of impotence. The people who most need to agitate for a political solution are too often silenced by their own humiliation and shame.

In his book, Collinge makes multiple references to his website studentloan.justice.org, which he developed to create a safe forum for borrowers to tell their stories and to educate the public and encourage activism. Those in the “take personal responsibility” wing of American politics dismiss Collinge’s book and Web site as the whinings of a disaffected liberal who exempts borrowers from their obligation of debt repayment. Their vitriolic responses, as seen in the comments on his blog, are hyperbolic and disingenuous.

Collinge isn’t exonerating the small minority of borrowers who make irresponsible decisions about their student loan debt.  He is saying that their choices don’t exist in a vacuum. From their first interactions with student loan officers at their colleges (who receive kickbacks from lenders to steer them into certain types of loans) to their subsequent attempts to work with lenders and collectors (who have no financial incentive to cooperate), the cards are stacked against them.

The “Student Loan Scam” is a sobering must-read for prospective students who are planning to take out student loans. It’s also a call to action for both graduates who hold student loan debt and economic justice activists.

Reprinted from Real Change Newspaper, Seattle, Wash.

Brian Schmidt sells Street Roots like a corner newsman at the turn of the 20th century. “Great articles in today’s Street Roots, read all about it for a couple quarters!” he yells, waving his bag of papers high above his head.  He calls out headlines and lets readers know what the newspaper is about: “Focus on vendors in today’s Street Roots!”

“I believe more in excitement and positivity than any kind of depth of reason,” Schmidt says, laughing with a deep, authentic trill. “I believe that excitement reveals the truth.” Excitement: that one word is the distillation of Brian’s life philosophy. “When we really get excited and we’re really engaged, we perform and produce at our peak and we’re happier.”

For nine months, Schmidt has been selling Street Roots between two locations: Bijou Café on SW 3rd and Pine and at 23 Hoyt in the evenings, a tavern in Northwest Portland. Although the neighborhoods are vastly different — Chinatown and the Alphabet District — Brian doesn’t notice much of a difference at the heart of the customers he serves in either location.

“The spirit that people have is always the same,” he says. “You have different backgrounds of people, but I think basically people give because they want to give, they want to help out, which is amazing.”

When he moved to his location at Bijou, Brian took over the turf of a long-time, retired Street Roots vendor named Colleen. While transitioning into a location of a well-established vendor can sometimes be a difficult experience, Brian said it has been very positive, and he still gets asked about Colleen by her former clients who wish her well.

Schmidt appreciates selling Street Roots because, “It’s an opportunity for people to be educated, and even if education isn’t always positive, it doesn’t mean it’s not helpful. Sometimes you have to know something you don’t really like to know in order to improve your contribution in order to help somebody out.”

When customers purchase a paper from Schmidt, they may receive more than a paper. If interested, they also get to talk about being positive. “I’m striving to get into motivational speaking, and I not only sell Street Roots, I talk to people about positivity every day because I think that regardless of whether it’s your spiritual life or your economic situation or your personal life or your social life, it’s always affected by your level of excitement enthusiasm.”

Brian’s dream is to publish a book on positive thought and speaking. He has written a rough draft, and now is thinking about the finer points. He says that simplicity and clarity are the avenues toward real positivity.

As our interview draws to a close, Brian goes back to selling papers in his positive newsman fashion, with a smile on his face. “I want to live what I tell people about,” he says. “And if I don’t have a full grasp on what I tell people and am actually doing it, I don’t feel right about telling other people what I do. I have to be living what I’m saying in order to feel right about what I’m saying.”

By Janice Thompson, Contributing Writer

ARTICLE One: Portland City Council says that corporations aren’t people

On Jan. 12, the Portland City Council adopted a resolution in support of amending the U.S. Constitution to address the Citizens United decision and the notions that money equals speech and corporations are people.

Portland joined New York City, Los Angeles, and a growing number of other cities in objecting to corporations being given undue constitutional protections. One feature of the Portland resolution is that it also urges regulating independent expenditures, like those made by super PACs (political action committees) in the presidential primaries. The resolution also requires the city attorney to assess the legal feasibility for the council to refer an advisory question for a popular vote.

Mayor Sam Adams introduced the resolution and said, “The discussion in front of us is not a big rhetorical discussion about whether corporations are good or bad. It depends on the corporation. This resolution is about what kind of electoral system the U.S. wants to design.”

The opening panel of testifiers included representatives of Portland Move to Amend, Portland Alliance for Democracy, Occupy Portland, and Common Cause Oregon. Occupy Portland’s advocacy was a critical tipping point for action by the City Council on a topic that Portland Move to Amend and Alliance for Democracy began to work on in early 2011. Many other groups also testified in support including a representative from the Program on Corporation, Law & Democracy that began its work to abolish all constitutional rights for corporations 15 years ago.

More than a dozen city residents spoke as individuals in support for this local action, citing corporate personhood and the Citizens United decision as a fundamental assault on democracy. An accountant and small business owner supported the resolution and stressed that it was not anti-business.

The only opposition came from an individual concerned that the resolution wasn’t fair and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, whose representative instead urged support for public financing reform and rigorous campaign finance disclosure requirements.

The vote was 3-0 with Commissioners Nick Fish and Dan Saltzman absent. The Portland Alliance for Democracy reports that Fish had indicated support for the resolution prior to his absence.

Article Two: What did Citizens United do?

The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court focused on one aspect of the flow of money in federal candidate campaigns: independent expenditures, which are payments for electioneering for or against a candidate that are produced independently of the candidate.

Independent expenditures are treated differently from direct contributions due to two elements of the Buckley v. Valeo decision. The 1976 Buckley decision addressed reforms adopted in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) as amended in 1974 in response to reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign.

Buckley upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates because free speech concerns were outweighed by the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Putting limits on direct candidate contributions, though, sets the stage for independent expenditures. This is why FECA included limits on independent expenditures from individuals, associations and PACs. The Buckley court, however, found that due to the independent nature of this type of political spending from these groups, there is no potential for corruption. The court also rejected other reasons for regulating independent expenditures such as fairness or leveling the playing field.

This means that even before the Citizens United decision there were independent expenditures in federal campaigns, just none paid with corporate treasury dollars.

Before Citizens United there was a history of regulation on corporate political spending that began with the 1907 Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartly Act barred labor unions and corporations from making expenditures and contributions in federal elections. These limits were such established law that they weren’t part of the litigation that led to the Buckley decision.

In 1990, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and described the reason for regulating corporate political spending as the “corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”

This Austin rationale was the key factor in upholding McCain-Feingold regulations on use of corporate treasury dollars for electioneering. These were the regulations of concern to the nonprofit group Citizens United regarding contributions for distribution of its movie about Hillary Clinton.

The Citizens United decision overturned Austin and eliminated the part of McCain-Feingold that regulated corporate- independent electioneering. The Citizens United decision upheld legal provisions about campaign finance disclosure but inaction by the Federal Elections Commission and Congress to update these rules has resulted in transparency problems.

After the Citizens United decision on Jan. 21, 2010, corporate entities could begin using treasury dollars for independent expenditures regarding federal candidates. Keep in mind that corporate entities include businesses and unions. In the case of unions, corporate treasury dollars means money that comes from the thousands of members of those groups. In the case of corporations, corporate treasury dollars mean profits.

Since independent expenditures before Citizens United could be legally paid for by individuals and PACs, the presence of independent expenditures in 2010 wasn’t new, but the volume increased due to the new availability of corporate money. This means, however, that overturning Citizens United doesn’t enable regulation of all independent expenditures. This is why one valuable element of the Portland resolution is that it recognizes the need to consider other reasons besides a narrow focus on corruption as the basis for campaign finance regulations.

Though one effect of Citizens United was to equate corporations with people and groups, it did so on the basis of the First Amendment. In the words of corporate personhood activist Jeffrey Clements, “Citizens United is a corporate power case masquerading as a free speech case.” This means that addressing corporate personhood alone isn’t enough, but Citizens United joins a long list of court decisions that inappropriately give corporations undue constitutional protections. This is why it is so important that the Portland resolution addressed corporate personhood.

What Citizens United didn’t do is overturn limits on direct contributions to candidates from individuals and PACs. It also didn’t overturn a ban on use of corporate treasury dollars for contributions directly to federal candidates, though this ban is under attack in a new court case.

The catch, of course, is that the effectiveness of these limits is undermined by the growing volume of independent expenditures.

This trend got worse when, due to Citizens United, previous limits on the size of contributions to PACs making independent expenditures were overturned by a lower court. That decision led to the formation of super PACs that can only make independent expenditures using contributions of any size from any source.

The court didn’t accept the argument that “large contributions to independent expenditures lead to preferential access for donors and undue influence over officeholders.” One wonders about that reasoning when there are donors like Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who gave a whopping $5 million to Winning Our Future, the super PAC formed to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Winning Our Future is led by past associates of Gingrich, a trend seen in most super PACs including those that support President Obama.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports a spending spike by political nonprofits in 2010 after the Citizens United decision, because now those groups could use corporate contributions for electioneering at any time. Trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are in this group that, under IRS rules, do not have to reveal their donors. Bill Moyers reports that the Chamber with “most of its funds from about a hundred businesses” such as British Petroleum and JP Morgan Chase spent “approximately $75 million” during the 2010 campaigns through a “covertly funded front.”

Labor unions have also spent money in new ways after Citizens United. For example, AFSCME used $7 million in treasury dollars for independent expenditures, and the National Education Association set up a $3.3 million super PAC during the 2010 elections. This union spending, however, comes from their many members and is outnumbered by business spending on politics.

To summarize, Citizens United had a major impact on federal campaigns in 2010 with all indications that the 2012 election season will be even more dominated by money flowing in new and poorly disclosed ways. In the words of Jim Hightower, “the more you spend on politics, the bigger your voice is in government, making the vast vaults of billionaires and corporations far superior to the voices of mere voters.”

National polling indicates that 80 percent of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling. Reclaiming our democracy from plutocracy is why the Portland resolution addressing corporate personhood and the Citizens United decision is such an important first step.

Read Janice Thompson’s breakdown of campaign financing in the Portland mayoral race, “Movers, shakers and moneymakers.”

About the author: Janice Thompson is the executive director for Common Cause Oregon. She is the former head of Democracy Reform Oregon (which was previously known as the Money in Politics Research Action Project). Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.

Portland City Council’s Resolution against corporate personhood: Jan 12, 2012

Establish as a position of the Portland City Council that corporations should not have the constitutional rights that natural persons possess, that money is not speech and that independent campaign expenditures and campaign contributions should be regulated (Resolution)

WHEREAS, each year, the City of Portland updates its Federal Legislative Agenda; and, WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings also known as “natural persons”; and,

WHEREAS, corporations can and do make important contributions to our society, but the City Council does not consider them natural persons; and,

WHEREAS, while state and federal governments may provide certain privileges to corporations, these privileges do not equate to the rights of natural persons protected by the U.S. Constitution; and,

WHEREAS, the right to free speech is a fundamental freedom and unalienable right and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance; and,

WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in a 1938 opinion stated, “I do not believe the word ‘person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations”; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that the appearance of corruption justified limits on contributions to candidates, but rejected other fundamental interests that the City Council finds compelling such as creating a level playing field and ensuring that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political views heard; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in Buckley overturned limits on independent campaign expenditures by individuals, associations, and political action committees because it found that the government’s interest in preventing corruption or perception of corruption of elections was sufficient only to allow limits on direct contributions to candidates; and,

WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens observed in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) that “money is property, it is not speech,”; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court recognized in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) the threat to a republican form of government posed by “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas” and upheld limits on independent expenditures by corporations; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission (2010) overruled the decision in Austin and the portion of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) that had upheld restrictions on independent corporate expenditures, holding that the First Amendment protects unlimited direct corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions and to sway votes; and,

WHEREAS, prior to Citizens United decision unlimited independent campaign expenditures could be made by individuals and associations, though such committees operated under federal contribution limits; and,

WHEREAS, given that the Citizens United decision “rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently” because the First Amendment “generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity,” there is a need to consider other reasons in addition to corruption or the perception of corruption regulating independent expenditures for or against a candidate; and,

WHEREAS, a February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent of Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling that allowed use of corporate treasury dollars for independent expenditures; and,

WHEREAS, the opinion of the four dissenting justices in Citizens United noted that corporations have special advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets; and,

WHEREAS, corporations are legally required to put profits for shareholders ahead of concerns for the greatest good of society while individual shareholders as natural persons balance their narrow self-interest and broader public interest when making political decisions; and,

WHEREAS, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Oregon Representatives Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer, and Kurt Schrader are pursuing campaign finance reform legislation with a focus on addressing Citizens United through amendments to the United States Constitution; and,

WHEREAS, addressing both the Citizens United decision, and corporate personhood is necessary; and,

WHEREAS, the City Councils of Missoula, Montana; Boulder, Colorado; and Madison, Wisconsin have referred the issue of corporate personhood to their communities for an advisory vote;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that it is the position of the Portland City Council that corporations should not have the constitutional rights that natural persons possess; and,

BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED given its impact on free and fair elections and effective self­governance that Portland City Council determines that the most urgent action needed to address the negative impacts of United States Supreme Court Citizens United (2010) decision is to stop unlimited independent campaign expenditures by corporations; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Portland hereby includes in its 2012 Federal Legislative Agenda support for an Amendment to the United States Constitution, which consistent with this Resolution, reverses the impacts of Citizens United, including, but not limited to the provisions of the current drafts of S. J. Res. 29 introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and H.J. Res. 72 introduced by Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon and co-sponsored by Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio of Oregon; and, respectfully urges Oregon’s Congressional delegation to prioritize congressional proposal of an amendment to the United States Constitution addressing the threats to representative government identified in this resolution so that the states may ratify it; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Portland City Council requests that the City Attorney’s Office determine the legality and process of referring an advisory vote to the citizens of Portland on the issue of corporate personhood, and present their findings within 30 days to the Council for further consideration; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Portland calls on other communities and jurisdictions and organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities to join with us in this action by passing similar Resolutions.

By Joanne Zuhl

Six months into operation, the city’s drug impact area program has excluded 240 defendants from the city’s downtown and inner eastside neighborhoods — nearly one in four of all arrests for heroin, cocaine and marijuana in the county during that period.

The $250,000 program, implemented in June, allows the courts to exclude people from three geographical areas for up to two years, based upon their conviction. The three DIAs – assigned for heroin, cocaine and marijuana convictions – largely overlap covering the Downtown, Old Town, and Holladay Park neighborhoods.

The period ended in November, and the city released the report just this month.

“When you look at the amount of crime and the types of crime — it’s working,” said Billy Prince, DIA prosecutor with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office. Prince was speaking today to members of the Old Town/Chinatown Livability Committee, which led the cry last year to bring back exclusions to the neighborhood.

Altogether, the report references 1,064 arrests involving heroin, cocaine and marijuana throughout the county – 824 of them outside of the three DIAs. Regardless of where the arrest took place, a convicted offender could be excluded from one or all of the three areas downtown.

According to the report, 81 percent of those arrested in the DIAs for dealing resided outside the areas and had come into the areas to sell the drugs. The vast majority, 180, of the 240 exclusions are for possession, with the remaining 60 for dealing.

While most of those arrested in the DIAs were white, 42 percent were people of color. Among those arrested outside of the areas, 65 percent were white and 35 percent were people of color.

The $250,000 appropriated for the program pays for the DIA prosecutor as well as overtime for a police walking beat in the neighborhoods. The program also changed policy, ramping up the criminality on heroin and cocaine residue offenses from violations to misdemeanors, making them eligible for exclusion. Since that changed, 164 cases that were formerly eligible for violation treatment were issued as misdemeanors and were eligible for exclusion as a term of probation.

Depending on the case, some people arrested on drug charges qualify for Multnomah County’s STOP drug court treatment program. Defendants enrolled in STOP are not issued exclusions as long as they are actively engaged in treatment. If the defendant does not comply with the STOP court terms, they receive a felony conviction and can then be excluded. Exclusions are not issued for people sentenced to prison.

Exclusions may come with a list of exceptions for people who need to be in one of the DIAs either they because they live there or need the services in the neighborhood. Nearly half of those issued exclusions qualify for the city’s Service Coordination Team program which helps chronic offenders with integrated drug treatment, housing and related services.

For more on the drug-impact areas see SR reporting back in August of 2011.

Candidates for City Commissioner (left to right) incumbent Amanda Fritz, State Rep. Mary Nolan, Teressa Raiford, Jeri Sundvall-Williams and Steve Novick. Photo by Israel Bayer.

By Joanne Zuhl
Staff writer

New and familiar faces among the candidates for City Council addressed an invested audience on issues of affordable housing and homelessness this afternoon.

The City Commissioner Candidates’ Forum on Housing brought together the leading contenders for the two council seats on the ballot next Spring. Candidates Amanda Fritz, Mary Nolan and Teressa Raiford are contending for the Commissioner 1 position, currently held by Fritz. And candidates Jeri Sundvall-Williams and Steve Novick were there for the Commissioner 4 position, which is being vacated by Randy Leonard.

The panel fielded questions prepared by the event sponsors on issues of gentrification, job creation, funding for affordable housing, civil rights for the poor and streamlining bureaucracy. Oregon Opportunity Network, JOIN, 211info and Street Roots sponsored the event, which was held at the First Unitarian Church in Downtown Portland.

One underlying theme through several of the queries had to deal with preserving what we have, and finding new resources for what we need.

Steve Novick, like all the candidates, acknowledged the tough times ahead – the city is facing an 8 percent spending reduction in the next budget cycle, federal and state funds are drying up, and the city’s housing fund generator, tax increment financing, is facing a major drop in revenue in the coming years.

Novick put forward several options for potential resources, including adopting a local beer and wine tax and a possible prison dividend drawn from the savings of sending fewer people to prison for shorter terms. He also revisited a major theme of his campaign: health care, as a measure of prevention, cost savings and job creation.

“My biggest plank on jobs is making Portland the best city in the world on controlling health care costs.” Novick told the audience. “It will make us a magnet for business.”

Each candidate drew on his or her particular set of personal and professional circumstances. Jeri Sundvall-Williams referenced her personal struggles with the law, poverty, and the challenges to secure low-income housing and employment. She now works for the city, and spoke pointedly on the laws that penalize people who have no money.

“My greatest frustration with the city is how people like me get treated,” Sundvall-Williams said, noting the system of fines and penalties for people who can’t afford basic needs such as transportation. “One of my biggest stressors is watching the criminalization of people in poverty.”

On gentrification issues, Sundvall-Williams called for better planning for areas targeted for renewal. “We plan where our prosperity is going to be, we don’t plan for where our poverty pockets are going to be.”

Sundvall-Williams also called for greater investment in prevention programs such as drug and alcohol recovery programs and mental health services, which would be cost effective in preventing incarceration, keeping families together, and encouraging employment and sustainability.

Teressa Raiford delivered a message of inclusion – getting people from all communities in Portland at the table on issues that impact their neighborhoods. The absence of that inclusion has left many in some communities feeling gentrified and disenfranchised from the process.

“If we don’t include the whole core of Portland, than we’re still losing and missing the point.”

Oregon Rep. Mary Nolan spoke to creating a new culture in the city, one that fosters job creation, streamlines the bureaucracy for development, and changes the behavior and investments that have led to disparities in neighborhoods.

“I think we get our heads out of City Hall and into the neighborhoods,” she said when asked about correcting gentrification.

Nolan also called for making workforce housing a greater priority.

“We’ve put a priority on really low-income housing, and I understand the basis behind that. But what it has meant is that we have a growing gap in houses for families in the working class. We need to put more energy into solving that problem.”

Commissioner Amanda Fritz spoke frankly about her own role on the City Council, particularly as a backer for Commissioner Nick Fish, who overseas the Portland Housing Bureau. She defended her record on the sidewalk management ordinance, limited car camping and the implementation of the new Office of Equity and Human Rights. She said she would continue to support the 30 percent set aside for affordable housing, incentives to create more low-income units, and efforts to find another sustainable funding source for housing. She also stressed prevention, in mental health care, recovery and employment, to keep people from falling through the cracks.

“We need to be creating jobs within the city to make sure people who have had challenges can over come them and get good jobs,” Fritz said.

Check out the Street Roots Twitter for the play-by-play.

Another political casualty: Needle exchange programs rely on local support after the feds bail on funding. Amanda Waldroupe reports on how the policy reversal in Washington D.C. makes local funding even more critical.

Corporations aren’t people — except in politics: Janice Thompson with Common Cause looks at the impact of the Citizens United case one year on, with a reflection on the city’s own resolution condemning the Supreme Court decision on corporate personhood.

Barred for life: An interview with Harvard professor Bruce Western on inequality in America and the consequences we’re all paying as a result.

Patient Physician Cooperative seeks to remodel health care: A new, non-insurance way of paying for health care in Portland.

Plus, news, poetry, artwork and commentaries by economist Robin Hahnel, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, and a review of a new book that investigates the student loan industry. Remember to bring a little sunshine into your weekend with a smile for your neighborhood vendor and a new edition of Street Roots. Thank you!

A soldier from the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division carries his bag to begin his trip back to the United States at Camp Virginia, Kuwait. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

By Sarah Edmonds, Contributing Writer

Ryan McNabb was a medic in the Marine Corps for six years. He deployed twice to Iraq and worked on the front lines, experiencing, he says, what you’d expect to experience on a battlefield. He returned home in February 2006.

A few months later, he got in a fight and assaulted two police officers. He chalked it up to normal drunken sailor stuff — just blowing off steam.

When he blacked out in rage, while driving 65 miles per hour with his wife and five-month old son in the back seat, he realized it wasn’t normal any more.

“I know I’m an intelligent human being. I know why babies cry, and they’re trying to inform me of something,” McNabb said. “But with PTSD, I don’t like large sharp sounds. It reminds me of gunshots and explosions. My son had wet himself. He started to cry. I was driving. While he’s screaming at the back of my head, he’s screaming at my soul, which set me off. So I start screaming at my wife, while going 65 miles per hour down the freeway. She shouts back at me. I rip the rearview mirror off and threw it at the floorboard. I grabbed the GPS and threw it at the windshield and it spiderwebbed going 65 mph with my wife and child in back seat. I blacked out in rage. I don’t remember pulling to the side of the road at all.”

McNabb tells people his story readily, if not comfortably, because most of the people who hear it are veterans of combat duty like himself. McNabb is the outreach coordinator for the Portland Vet Center, one of five branch offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs that work specifically with people who have faced combat. He helps returning vets navigate a world far removed from a combat soldier’s reality. The center works with about 650 veterans, most of them Vietnam veterans, but McNabb was hired three years ago for outreach specifically to the returning soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tens of thousands of Western troops are scheduled to leave those countries and make the journey home over the next couple of years. Those who leave the military will face an even more perilous journey — the road back into civilian society, where weak economic growth has made it increasingly difficult to get work.

This is a road that has already led to poverty and even to homelessness for thousands of veterans who travelled it in better economic times. Those who will now follow in their footsteps will be entering the mainstream amid increased risk of recession in Europe and the United States, and stubbornly high unemployment.

Government agencies in the United States, Britain, Canada and other nations that support those who have served are braced for the expected influx of new veterans. Officials are implementing new programs to help ease the transition from the military to civilian life. The great unknown, though, is how the economy will fare in months ahead.

Dr. Susan Angell, executive director of the Veterans Homeless Initiative at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, said the VA will be keeping a concerned eye on those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, given trends already evident in the job market.

“That population, that young population, has the highest unemployment rate of any of our veteran populations, and it’s much higher than the overall unemployment rate. So we’re very concerned about this group,” she said. According to Angell, joblessness among these younger veterans is running around 11.5 percent — higher still among female vets.

Jobs are crucial since officials and homeless experts agree that while a variety of factors make some veterans more vulnerable to personal crisis than the wider populace, the main reason they end up on the street is not drink or mental difficulties — it is poverty.

The drawdown of US troops in Iraq is already in full stride. In Afghanistan, NATO is training a force of 350,000 Afghan police and soldiers to take over when the last foreign troops leave Afghanistan by 2014.

“I don’t think there is a bureaucracy big enough to deal with the number of folks and the needs of the people who are coming back,” said Belle Landau, executive director of the Oregon Returning Veterans Project. Landau’s son is an Iraq War veteran.

The Returning Veterans Project is a statewide nonprofit that helps veterans with mental and physical problems related to their service. Service providers offer pro bono services for veterans. Among the most common issues are depression and anxiety, PTSD, drugs and alcohol abuse, and a new phenomenon — sexual addition, fueled by unlimited Internet access, lots of downtime, and the constant need for stress relief.

“In April, May 2010, 2,500 soldiers from the National Guard 41st Brigade came back to Oregon after an almost 12 months combat deployment,” Landau said. “Three months later, we saw a 144 percent increase in the number of clients we were serving.”

There are still relatively few of this new breed of veteran in the homeless population. But according to Neil Donovan, Executive Director of the U.S. National Coalition of the Homeless, those on the path to homelessness are still at the early stages of that transition.

“This is my 33rd year working in homeless services, so I have seen Vietnam veterans, I have seen other veterans, (and) I kind of have a good sense of how long it takes to come back home and spiral down. And it takes a while. It doesn’t happen in a year, and it doesn’t happen in two years,” he said.

“What tends to happen is you have a year’s worth of nightmares, and then your wife leaves,” he said, “And then you have another year of nightmares, and the Oxycontin or the Percoset that you’re on stop working because it’s a narcotic that will only work for so long, and then the pain becomes so profound that you begin using it beyond the prescribed amount, and then the doctor won’t prescribe it any longer so you start self-medicating, and then you start getting into illegal behavior.”

At this point, up to three years down the road, the soon-to-be-homeless veteran slides below the poverty line and the risk of homelessness becomes acute.

“We are quite far out from seeing the true wave of people who will become homeless. And there are going to be a lot of people who are homeless and the people who are homeless are going to be people who are physically handicapped as well as emotionally handicapped,” Donovan added.

There are other dangers in the current economy for the newest population of veterans. Many Western countries are cutting spending as they wrestle with huge deficits, and that could threaten funding for vital programs just at the point the newest veterans need help.

Canada recently proposed $226 million in budget cuts from its Veterans Affairs, but a government spokesman told Vancouver street magazine Megaphone these were aimed at improving efficiency rather than lowering benefits.

Canadian MP Peter Stoffer said he was concerned about the impact on health care and services. “As the official Opposition critic for Veterans Affairs, I have many examples of how the system of caring for our veterans is broken,” he wrote in a blog on the Canadian Veterans Advocacy website. “Veterans’ homelessness is also on the rise and more veterans are using food banks.”

Funding at the U.S. VA has actually risen after a 2009 pledge by U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and President Obama to end veteran homelessness by 2015. But Angell agrees it is hard to predict what will happen in the future.

“It’s hard to imagine that people wouldn’t be behind the employment of veterans,” she said. “And really that’s not just a government issue — that’s the American People’s issue. It’s not up to government to hire every single veteran. It’s really up to the private sector to join forces with that and make those employment opportunities available.”

Even though there are relatively few young veterans in the homeless population, there are already signs of potential trouble.

Determining a global count of veterans on the street is difficult, in part because of varying official definitions of what constitutes homelessness.

According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 144,842 American veterans, or 11.5 percent of homeless adults, spent at least one night in emergency or transitional housing between October 2009 and September 2010, down 3 percent from the year before. A second measure, the number of homeless veterans on a single night, rose 1 percent.

For its part, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans in the United States estimates that while only 8 percent of the general populace are veterans, those who served in the military account for nearly one-fifth of the adult homeless population.

Official counts are likely low since they leave out veterans who never register at a homeless facility — those who go from friend’s house to friend’s house, sleep in cars, in the woods or on the streets. It also leaves out those who don’t admit to being veterans.

Jennifer Wilcox is the program manager for Central City Concern’s Employment Access Center, which works with about 300 homeless and near-homeless veterans. While most of their clients have been out of service for many years, this past year, they saw 9 veterans who had been out of service for three years or less, a significant increase over past years.

“We’re starting to see more,” Wilcox said. “We’re still waiting to see what these waves of returning vets is going to look like for us.”

Wilcox noted that unlike most other states, Oregon does not have an active service military base, a central point for veterans to connect with their military community and its services.

In place of such a base, the VA and the veteran community conduct Yellow-Ribbon events to keep veterans to stay connected with counseling, services and other opportunities.

Experts cite a host of reasons veterans may be at risk of homelessness: trouble adjusting to the chaotic rhythm of “normal” life after the comforting rigor of military routine, post-traumatic stress disorder, difficulty translating work in the service into marketable job skills, loss of camaraderie, dependence on alcohol or drugs, serious physical injury.

Veterans may also contend with all the issues that can cause homelessness in the mainstream of society: lack of affordable housing, jobs that don’t pay a living wage, red tape that makes social services impossible to navigate, physical or mental disabilities.

There is also the trained mindset of a soldier.

“One thing I’ve learned from this job is that a veteran will ask for help if their buddy needs help, but it’s difficult for them to ask for help for themselves,” said Belle Landau with Returning Veterans Project. “The other part is that only 1 percent of the country is serving in the military. Most people are disconnected from their neighbors who may be a military family. There’s such a disconnect in these two wars more than any other. It makes people feel isolated. If nobody knows, they feel totally disconnected, as if their service wasn’t worth much. The community needs to get more involved, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

McNabb echoed the same experience.

“My generation of service members is very skittish and they don’t necessarily come out and say I’m homeless,” McNabb said. “It is pride. The military is a very fear-based society. They pretty much tell you if you talk to someone, it’s on your permanent record. You have the pride of wearing the uniform, you’re children’s heroes, and now you’re needing help and asking for it? That just throws so many people off.”

The high unemployment rate, combined with personal relationship problems and the trauma of war are being blamed for Oregon National Guard having the highest rate of suicides of all national guards. Twelve soldiers at Fort Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Wash., took their lives in 2011, up from nine in 2010. More than 34,000 soldiers are based there, up from 19,000 prior to the Iraq War.

The new returning veterans also face a greater likelihood of serious physical disability than those of the past, according to Alison Hickey, Under Secretary for Benefits at the U.S. VA.

“Those claims are coming in far more complex than we have experienced in past conflicts, largely for a good news reason,” Hickey said. “Our veterans are … 10 times more likely to survive a major injury or illness and that’s a good thing, but that means that we are going to be taking care of many more people for some very serious injuries for a long time.”

McNabb, in addition to his PTSD, suffered a traumatic brain injury, which has impaired his memory. Landau said they see many veterans with knee, back, shoulder and neck injuries as a result of the 80 to 100 pounds of equipment they carry on missions — injuries not outwardly apparent as combat related.

Donovan said there is an increased risk of substance abuse in U.S. veterans who suffer debilitating injuries because doctors often prescribe potentially addictive painkillers.

John Alford, 57, turned to the bottle after serving in Northern Ireland. Blinded in one eye by a nail bomb during his service with the First Gloucestershire Regiment, he saw two colleagues shot by snipers.

“You can never forget something like that,” he said. “After I left the army, I found it difficult to fit in and settle anywhere, and drink becomes something you suppress it all with. I lost a lot through it. I’ve been married four times.” Alford is sober now and is establishing a new life, assisted by the Forces Self Build Scheme in Bristol, a program that is helping ex-service personnel build their own housing.

Such grassroots initiatives, national veterans’ charities and government agencies have launched scores of programs in recent years to help military personnel with everything from housing to job training and advice. Many also connect veterans with veterans to give them a new sense of community and common experience.

Angell says many of the staff at the VA’s 300 centers across the United States are former combat veterans like McNabb who understand the trauma of life under fire.

Bryan Green, 64, a former staff sergeant in the UK’s Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers, found it hard to adapt to civilian life after a quarter century in the military and suffered a breakdown three years ago. He finds the sense of belonging at Norcare’s veterans’ center invaluable.

“It takes a long time to re-adjust. Bills and everything else have been done for you, so you don’t have a clue. And you’re not part of a team. Suddenly the army is gone. A door has been shut in your life,” Green said. “When I can talk about these things with these guys, people who have been through the same things, it means a lot. … Bills and everything else have been done for you, so you don’t have a clue. And you’re not part of a team. Suddenly the army is gone”

Phil Quesnelle, recently released from the Canadian Forces on disability after receiving a diagnosis of PTSD, sits on the board of the South Mid Vancouver Island Zone Veterans Housing Society, which founded a transitional residence devoted to ex-service personnel struggling to find shelter.

He also acts as a peer counselor, offering others the benefit of his experience.

“It’s not a switch you can turn on or off,” Quesnelle said. “But people expect you to go back to normal over the span of that 10-hour flight back to Canada. It doesn’t work that way and people just don’t understand it.”

Conscious of the disproportionate numbers of ex-service personnel in the ranks of U.S. unemployed, the VA has hired 400 formerly homeless veterans to act as peer counselors for those trying to find work. They coach on resumes, talk through interviews and are at the end of a telephone to give support through the sometimes stressful early days on a new job.

It has also set up a new human resources office that helps job-seekers translate their work in the military into civilian job skills along with guidance on applications.

“We’re being very proactive because honestly since poverty is the definer of the pathway to homelessness, if at least we can drop that unemployment rate for our newest veterans coming back, that should be a big prevention strategy,” said the VA’s Angell.

The VA also negotiates with lenders to help veterans who can’t afford rent, and says its efforts kept 9 percent more veterans in their homes last year compared to prior years.

“It can be quite expensive to try to get someone who has been chronically homeless for many years off the street and stabilized, compared to what it might take to prevent it,” Angell said. “You can help someone with two months’ rent, compared to what it would cost in 10 years to help this person get off the street and deal with other health issues.”

Hugh Milroy, who served in the first Gulf War and is now CEO of UK charity Veterans Aid, believes veterans are actually “citizens-plus” in Britain, with the government as well as 3,000 charities offering support. He worries that too much focus on the homelessness issue may brand veterans as victims.

He agrees the situation is tougher in the United States, in part because of the absence of universal health care and a strong social safety net.

Denmark’s support for its returnees is not as pronounced as in some other countries, according to street newspaper Hus Forbi. The Ministry of Defence there puts returning soldiers through a three-month acclimatization program. Six months after their return, they are asked to fill out a questionnaire. One-third of veterans never reply.

Donovan of the National Coalition for the Homeless in the United States says the increases in funding under the Obama administration will inevitably reduce the number of veterans on the streets, but he worries Congress may turn its attention elsewhere once the United States has withdrawn from Iraq.

“We’re a country suffering from ADD. and when we aren’t at war we’re going to stop thinking about veterans and we’re going to think about something else,” Donovan said.

The key, he said, is ensuring that enough permanent housing is built via programs like the VA’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, where veterans get vouchers for housing organized by local housing authorities in the United States.

“It reminds me of antibiotics,” Donovan said. “If you give somebody two doses the first day and another dose and another dose and all of a sudden they start feeling better and you don’t give them the last three days, what happens? The person’s going to get sick again and when it comes back, it’s going to be medically resistant, it’s going to be treatment-resistant. That’s what happens with these populations. You don’t solve the problem. You pour tons of money into it, you pay attention to it, but you don’t solve the problem and it becomes socially resistant.”

Additional reporting by Joanne Zuhl/Street Roots, Portland; Yvonne Robertson/Megaphone Canada; Adam Forrest/The Big Issue UK; Simon Ankjærgaard/Hus Forbi and Danielle Batist/Street News Service.

A troubling trend, worldwide

In the past year, street papers across Europe and America reported on the struggle ex-soldiers face when they return to civilian life. Following service in Iraq and Afghanistan, both post-traumatic stress and the global recession increase the risk of veterans ending up on the streets. With support from Reuters journalist Sarah Edmonds, The Street News Service and its participating street papers produced this Special Report.

A survey conducted by the International Network of Street Papers in June 2011 showed that a quarter of street papers in the network have seen an increase in the number of homeless war veterans in their cities in the last two years.

At some street papers, more than 30 percent of vendors report prior military service. The numbers are highest in the United States and Canada, but street papers across Western Europe also work with vendors who served in the army. The legacy of war in the Balkans accounts for many homeless veterans in Eastern Europe, some of whom now work as street paper vendors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia and Ukraine. South Korea’s street paper registered 74 veterans as vendors in the past two years alone.

Read Street Roots editorial on veterans here.

Having made the choice, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences. The military industrial complex speaks volumes to the choices our government has made, and so do the 135,000 American veterans who are homeless. It’s hard to comprehend the magnitude of money and lives our country has sacrificed in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. We have lost so much.

As outlined in the cover story, “A long way from home,” thousands of combat veterans are returning to Oregon and the U.S. to face an economy not equipped to support them, and a society far removed from their needs. At the same time, it’s that same war machine’s costs that have contributed to the very recession and social instability that greet soldiers on their arrival home.

It is an aggravating churn of consequences: joblessness in the face of increasing economic pressures, physical and mental health problems, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The results are an increase in homelessness and violence, and an inordinate number of suicides.

There’s simply no reason why a veteran returning home from war should have to sleep in a doorway or be forced into illegal activity because of the lack of jobs. Locally and nationally our attention should be to secure and develop resources for veterans, who often times are returning home with fully formed responsibilities; a family to feed and major bills to pay.

The city and county continue to look for ways to develop housing resources. It’s time that our local governments put a housing levy or bond on the ballot. A small levy or bond for veterans housing would mean a sustained funding sources to reinforce local housing development and preservation. We cannot wait any longer.

At the statewide level, the legislature cannot passively watch our returning men and women fall through the cracks. In action and message, our state lawmakers need to be pounding at the gates for improved access to jobs, housing and education. We have to recognize that military skills do not always translate to civilian employment, and military values do not easily adapt to the social service system. It is our responsibility to our neighbors to prevent the downward spiral that can fester unnoticed for years in advance of homelessness.

Federally, every Oregon elected official should be fighting tooth and nail for veteran’s resources, whether or not the word “veteran” is attached. Because the health and welfare of our returning soldiers is interlaced with the health and welfare of our most vulnerable citizens. President Obama has vowed to end the cycle of homeless veterans. Our representatives should push the administration and a war hungry Congress to reinvest in supportive services and replace the lost funding to affordable housing programs and incentives across the country. Likewise, more resources must be dedicated to the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, for veterans returning today, and those who came home decades ago.

Because every day, every year, we still have a choice. Let’s make the right one.

Individuals selling the newspaper reported back to the organization that readers were more than generous, and your support meant the world. Thank you.

We would also like to thank the many individuals and families who have already taken the time and effort to give to the organization during the holidays. Street Roots raised more than $17,000 through the Willamette Week Give!Guide and $25,000 through the mail and through our own website. We can’t thank you enough. Your support means Street Roots will remain strong going into 2012.

This year is an exciting time for the organization. In February, Street Roots will be unveiling a new web platform that will help the organization compete in a changing media landscape. We have been working over the past year with open source developers to build a fantastic website for the general public. The new website will allow us to be more transparent as an organization, while highlighting the content of the newspaper, the vendor program and our advocacy work.

In the next year, we will also be expanding our physical space. For as long as Street Roots has existed, we have been operating in a shotgun office with editorial and vendor services. We will be staying in the same building, but creating editorial and development offices around the corner, in addition to our current space. The additional space will give us street side access on both Northwest Second Avenue and Northwest Davis Street. The move will allow for both the editorial and vendor program to grow over time.

Also in 2012, Street Roots will be working to expand sales locations and working with local businesses and organizations to serve the vendor program. We will also continue to publish more than 100,000 SR Rose City Resource guides and work with more than 200 organizations and institutions to distribute the guide.

All of this is a part of a larger strategy to go weekly in 2013-14. Over the next two years the organization is working to build capacity for such a venture. Going weekly would allow us to increase the income for people experiencing homelessness and poverty in Portland, and allow Street Roots to deliver more timely and important news that can’t be found anywhere else.

Again, we appreciate the love. Your support is going directly to supporting social and individual change. Cheers and Happy New Year!

There are lots of reasons to like Matt Taibbi. His writing is witty and entertaining, his points skewer their target with the uncanny precision of Robin Hood’s arrows, and despite his somewhat lofty perch as a contributing editor for Rolling Stone Magazine, he retains a truly remarkable level of humility. But the main reason I find Taibbi’s writing appealing is because he is so successful at making complicated things understandable. “Griftopia” is a perfect example.

“Our world isn’t about ideology anymore. It’s about complexity. We live in a complex bureaucratic state with complex laws and complex business practices, and the few organizations with the corporate willpower to master these complexities will inevitably own the political power.” In other words, Taibbi is saying that even though many modern political movements like the Tea Party “reflect a widespread longing for simpler times and solutions,” ultimately, power will go not to those who desire simplicity, but rather to those who become adept at dealing with the world’s increasing complexity.

At its most basic, “Griftopia” is a series of seven essays on modern economics and politics. On one level it is straight analysis, interlaced with a wicked sense of humor. On another level, however, the book seethes with barely restrained anger over the dishonesty, extortion and outright fraud the author feels has been perpetrated against the American people by modern corporations: “The new America … is fast becoming a vast ghetto in which all of us, conservatives and progressives, are being bled dry by a relatively tiny oligarchy of extremely clever financial criminals and their castrato henchmen in government, whose main job is to be good actors on TV and put on a good show.”

Unlike many modern pundits and analysts who temper their writing in an effort to appear “fair and balanced,” Taibbi makes absolutely no attempt to deny his biases or pull his punches. At times his prose displays all the subtlety of a hockey enforcer, complete with bare knuckles and a bloody jersey. (The chapter on Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is titled simply “The Biggest Asshole in the Universe.”) Though the language in “Griftopia” at times borders on crude, underneath it all, Taibbi’s economic analyses are always well reasoned and thoughtful. For example, on the role Greenspan played in our modern economic woes, Taibbi concludes: “Greenspan was the crucial enabler of the bad ideas and greed of others. He blew up one bubble and then, when the first one burst, he printed money to inflate the next one. That was the difference between the tech and the housing bubbles. In the tech bubble, America lost its own savings. In the housing bubble, we borrowed the shirts we ended up losing, leaving us in a hole twice as deep.”

“Griftopia” is not an exhaustive treatise on modern economics. Rather the book is an attempt to shine a light on several recent economic and political debacles. In this it succeeds brilliantly. The titles of the sections say it all: “The Great American Mortgage Scam,” “The Commodities Bubble,” and my personal favorite on Obama’s health care plan: “The Trillion Dollar Band-Aid.”

Perhaps the most notable passages in the book are those that try to give readers some way to comprehend the almost incomprehensible scale of the theft that has taken place right under their noses. For example, when considering the massive size of the recent bank bailouts, Taibbi writes, “With the $13-plus trillion we are estimated to ultimately spend on the bailouts, we could not only have bought and paid off every single sub-prime mortgage in the country (that would have cost $1.4 trillion), we could have paid off every remaining mortgage of any kind in the country — and still have had enough money left over to buy a new house for every American who does not already have one.”

As with the other topics covered in the book, with the bank bailouts the author isn’t content to merely note that the emperor has no clothes. He also wants to identify and point the finger at the thief who stole them. “(T)he history of Goldman (Sachs) is the story of the great lie at the center of our political and economic life. Goldman is not a company of geniuses; it’s a company of criminals. And far from being the best fruit of a democratic, capitalist society, it’s the apotheosis of the Grifter Era, a parasitic enterprise that has attached itself to the American government and taxpayer and shamelessly engorged itself on us all.”

“Griftopia” is a brilliant commentary on the modern world. If you want a better understanding of recent economic and political happenings, this book is a great place to jump into the pool.

Fair warning, however: After reading the book, it is next to impossible to remain ambivalent about its topic. Like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” Taibbi has produced a clarion call, one seemingly designed to wake people up and stir them to action. Regardless of which side of the political fence you sit on; whether you are a billionaire or a member of the 99 percent; whether you work on Wall Street or are occupying Wall Street, if you are not at least a little pissed off after reading “Griftopia,” there is something definitely wrong with you.

Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History By Matt Taibbi, Spiegel & Grau, Paperback, 2011, 299 pages, $16

Reprinted from Real Change Newspaper, Seattle, Wash.

Russian vendor of street paper Put Domoi Vitaly Petrovich Shashlov on the streets of St. Petersburg. Credit Aleksey Talipov

By Aleksey Talipov, Street News Service

One of four million homeless people in Russia, Vitaly Petrovich Shashlov is a vendor of street paper Put Domoi in St. Petersburg. He is 67 years old and has been selling the magazine for 12 years.

To know what a day in the life of a Russian street paper vendor is all about, I am spending a day with Vitaly in St. Petersburg. We meet at the Put Domoi distribution center, where Vitaly arrives with his iron cart and a rucksack. He looks at me suspiciously and is thinking for a long time before answering each question. He says he wants to make sure he says the right things. When I ask whether I can take pictures of him, he appears somewhat shy at first.

Thankfully, I manage to break the ice a few minutes later. Vitaly picks up several heavy packs of newspapers and realizes that he can’t manage to put them all in his cart and rucksack. I offer to help, which he seems to appreciate. On our way to a tramway stop, he brightens up, but still does not want to speak much about himself. After a while, he opens up and tells me about his previous job as a street cleaner. He says he was proud of that job because he could do it regardless of his age. I see him off to go selling, and we agree to meet later at the Nevskiy Prospect tube station. While saying goodbye, he looks at me for a while and offers me a handshake.

At the meeting time, I search the area around the station but I can’t find Vitaly. When I call him to find out where he is, he sounds a bit irritated and says he is in the station hall, but that he doesn’t have time, before hanging up the phone. I take the stairs to the station hall when he rings me again, and tells me to go to the Vasileostrovskaya station instead to meet him.

As I arrive there, I see Vitaly stand proudly in the center of the hall talking to a young person, who buys a copy of Put Domoi from him. I decide to stay out of his sight not to distract him. It soon gets busy and another young man smiles at Vitaly and buys a copy. I watch for a while as more people approach Vitaly, talk to him for some time and buy a street paper. When there seemed to be a slight break in the steady move of customers, I walked up to him and ask if my shooting pictures could interfere with his work. Shashlov grins at me and tells me his trade secret: “The more people there are around me, the higher the probability that other people come.”

And indeed, people kept coming and going and buying his newspapers as I took pictures and chatted with Vitaly. Business is good, but Vitaly explains that it is not possible to stay at one station for a long time, because police officers are watching and often ask him to leave. He explains that was the reason why he had to leave the previous station in a rush.

Then, something wonderful happens. A younger woman with grocery bags approaches Vitaly, pulls him aside by his sleeve and tells him something confidentially. Vitaly listens to her, almost looking like a father figure, nodding his head sympathetically. To a spectator, the two of them — Vitaly with his wild beard and the petite Russian woman — look like an Orthodox priest and a parishioner.

In the flow of people, Vitaliy stands out, despite his short posture. Unlike other newspaper sellers, he does not shout out loud to advertise his product. Instead, he stands quietly, pressing the pack of papers against his chest, only moving his head, looking over his shoulder to make eye contact with a new stream of customers coming off a train or escalator. He moves his head slowly towards his shoulder from time to time but his body does not move. And still, there is something about him that makes you look twice. He mirrors wisdom and life experience.

Slowly moving toward me, he tells me we are boarding the next train and going to Primorskaya station. Once we are on the coach, he complains that he is not allowed to distribute the papers in a train, which seems unfair as a lot of illegal sellers get away with it. “They are putting up a show,” he says, with irony in his voice.

At Primorskaya station I do not take any pictures, but just stand next to him and watch the business. Vitaly manages to sell almost all the papers. He has taken with him. He explains how difficult it is to predict each morning how much stock to buy, as you never know how many papers you might sell. A lot of young people approach Vitaly. When I notice that not many younger ladies seem to buy the paper from him, he smiles as if he wants to say: “Just you watch.” Within minutes after my comment the women start to approach us.

Vitaly explains that his readers are all very different. “I cannot describe one particular kind of buyer, it is all sorts of people,” he says. His comment is illustrated by the many people that approach Vitaly in the short time we are at the station: from students to older women and young working professionals who according to Vitalyu “like unusual things.”

At the end of a long sales day, Vitaly seems satisfied with the turnover. I thank him and buy one of his last copies before we say goodbye.

Translated from Russian into English by Elena Volkova

Homelessness in Russia:

In Russia, a homeless person is not simply someone without a home. Access to virtually all state-funded social and medical services in Russia is dependent on a person’s having a “propiska” С that is, registration at their place of residence. If, for whatever reason (family circumstances, a fraudulent property deal, inability to replace lost documents, etc.), a person cannot show that they have this registration, they are effectively excluded from society: they will not be able to obtain a legitimate job, access free healthcare, take recourse to law, have their marriage registered, or obtain education for their children, among other complications.

There are currently about four million people living in Russia without registration. Many of these people have nowhere to stay, face hunger, cold, poverty and loneliness, and are treated with suspicion by those around them. In most cases, they receive no help in solving their problems or surviving the dangers of life on the streets. St. Petersburg-based street paper Put Domoi, a sister paper to Street Roots, is one of the few organizations in Russia that provides a financial lifeline directly to the homeless.

Street Roots, Put Domoi, and 115 other papers are members of the International Network of Street Papers around the world. Combined, the street paper movement provide an income for thousands of vendors worldwide.

Saul Cortes watches over the community around him. During our interview at his sales location, the Whole Foods at Northwest 13th Avenue and Couch Street, he had conversations with many passersby. It was a cold day and he asked a friend who passed, “You need some handwarmers?”  She was fine, but the offer opened five minutes of conversation between the two. A few minutes later he yelled, “Hey! Check your bag!” to a mail carrier up the block who had dropped a few letters from his pack.

It’s amazing how many ways Saul has developed to greet people in the community. “Hi there,” he said to one person, followed rapidly by, “How you doing there?” then, “Howdy, howdy.” He has developed a personalized style for each individual he encounters. “I’m just trying to basically sell papers,” said Saul. “It’s actually a no-sale sale: saying ‘hi,’ being cordial to people, trying to remember what they like, getting to know the people. There are quite a few people who are basically full-time customers. I don’t have an extra story for them.”

A conversation with Saul is straight to the point: he tells it like it is, as he sees it. His self-assurance and confidence in his philosophy of life are refreshing.

“It’s all about tolerance, compassion and community for me,” said Saul. “We’re all part of a community; don’t think you’re by yourself.” As part of the community, Saul encourages people to rely on him and each other. “Use what you can from others when you need it, but at the same time realize you’ve got to put the effort out there for yourself. There’s really nobody else who’s going to take care of your problems unless they can see your problems.”

Saul’s proclivity toward compassion can be traced back to his youth in The Bronx. The oldest of 14 siblings, Saul has been responsible for others since he can remember. He vividly recalled a key moment in his development: “One day I slammed the door on my little brother, didn’t realize his hand was in there, and I clipped off the tip of his finger. I freaked, and I realized from that moment on not to do something that stupid again, to never be inconsiderate.”

From that instant, Saul was inspired to move toward working in the medical field. He worked in emergency rooms for more than a decade becoming certified as a licensed practical nurse with experience as an EMT and advanced cardiac life support. “Working the medical field, I’ve seen all kinds of stuff,” said Saul. “I’ve seen that some people live, some people die, and it made me ask ‘Why?’ I see that we really do need the spiritual side of things. I’ve always been pretty close with God and it’s not just God, but a spiritual framework I try to keep.”

Now Saul’s dream is to be a shaman. “I’m trying to get to a comfortable enough position where I can start,” he said. “I need to really get settled, and I’m wondering if Portland’s the best spot for me to do that, because, on top of the cost, I have to be in a place that I’m comfortable with. Everything about shamanism is about being practical. Right now it’s not practical for me to do anything but stay warm.”

Whether or not his dream is fulfilled, Saul has positive intentions for his present and future: “I see myself being part of a community, being part of something that matters to me, being happy with what I’m doing and trying to help the most; to pick up the scarred people who need it.”

As our interview drew to a close, a woman who works in a nearby parking garage approached Saul and asked, “Are you taking care of yourself in the cold, man?” He told her yes and they chatted for a few minutes like old friends. It is that ease of communication, friendliness and willingness to give that makes Saul an asset to his community.

Join Street Roots, the Oregon Opportunity Network, JOIN and 211info and referral for a city council housing and homelessness forum. The event will be this up and coming Monday, Jan. 23 at 11:30am until 1pm at the First Unitarian Church at 1011 SW 12th Ave. in downtown Portland.

Be there!

Mark White isn’t quite sure how many city boards, committees and commissions he’s served on over the  years (he estimates that it’s a couple dozen), but is hoping to add one more to his resume: City Council.

For the past seven years, White has been a full-time volunteer, working on a number of community projects, as well as serving on city boards set up to get input from the public on issues that span housing, urban renewal and many others. Most notably, White serves as the co-chair of the Charter Commission, which recommends changes to what is essentially the city’s constitution.

White, 52, moved to Portland 20 years ago from California and eventually made East Portland home. He has served as president of the Powellhurst-Gilbert Neighborhood Association for the last three and a half years. He is challenging Steve Novick, a well-connected and popular candidate, for the seat being vacated by Commissioner Randy Leonard.

Jake Thomas: You’ve served on a lot of city boards and commissions. What lessons have you learned from serving on them that you would bring to City Hall?

Mark White: Well for one, I bring an understanding of how City Hall works and what the real deal is behind how decisions are made. I’m not deluded to think that what happens in a committee is something that City Hall is going to take seriously. I’ve had numerous times when the city folks hear what they don’t want to hear, and their usual refrain is, you’re just an advisory committee. I have a true respect for folks who serve on committees and commissions and boards because I’ve done so many of them, and the folks who sit on them are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly passionate about what they do.

Frankly, I’m not really one for the paternalistic approach that’s been done in the past and believe that folks who live in the areas in which they live or are involved in the things in which they’re involved have a much better perspective and better insights than people in City Hall.

J.T.: You served on the Portland Housing Advisory Commission, which was set up to advise the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB). What is your assessment of how the Portland Housing Bureau’s plans are meeting the needs of low-income Portlanders?

M.W.: The Portland Housing Bureau is relatively new. It’s actually kind of a reinvention of the Bureau of Housing and Community Development. But I think they’re trying to create their own path, and so in some ways they are essentially starting over. In some ways I think that’s good, in some ways I think that’s not so good.

I was on that commission for about a a year. I could tell that there was definitely a commitment from the bureau to listen. I kind of felt like they were a bit more preoccupied with the transition of responsibility from the Portland Development Commission and the monies generated from urban renewal and how it applies to housing and homelessness and all those other kind of things and trying to make that transition as smoothly as possible.

I feel very confident that the housing bureau is wanting to do the right thing, but I don’t know if they have the ability to do all the things that are necessary in order to do the right thing. There are political pressures that guide some of the things they do with collaborations and partnerships. What’s nice right now, I think, is the new director, Traci Manning, is one of the original members of the Housing Advisory Commission. So she can see both sides. She has housing experience. She has experience with the commission, and now she’s the director. So I think that’s a really good thing. I know Traci. She’s a great person.

J.T.: So the purpose of the commission was to advise the Portland Housing Bureau. What advice do you have for the PHB?

M.W.: I was the only representative from East Portland. I think the reason I was appointed was because I had been very vocal about a lot of things with regard to housing out in our area. My neighborhood, all by itself in the last 10 years, has added thousands and thousands of households, and it’s a lot different from a lot of other parts of the city.

For example, there’s an affordable housing complex around the corner from my house. It has 37 units, but it has 174 people living in it and 126 of them are children. So it’s a really different dynamic from downtown, for example. You could have a multi-story condominium complex that has eight or 10 stories or more and not have that many people.

In my neighborhood, there’s no services for folks, so everyone has to travel to get groceries and just about everything. So it’s very problematic when you throw tons and tons of people in an area with limited services and tremendous infrastructure problems and are low-income and have lots of social service needs. It complicates their lives even more. I was hoping to bring that voice to the table to let folks know that in order for Portland to be the best city it possibly can be, we need to all be lifted up together, and if we don’t recognize or understand the issues being put on our most vulnerable citizens, then we have no right to be talking about equity and sustainability because the truth of the matter is that it’s not so copacetic and groovy in Portland.

The city of beer, bikes and bridges: it’s not the way we think it is, and I think it’s not because of the people in the city. I think it’s their government not responding in a way that respects the values of the citizens of Portland.

J.T.:What would you do with housing in East Portland?

M.W.: Well, one of the things we need to do is look at the different programs that are out there. For instance there is the home ownership opportunity area. And a lot of it includes the David Douglas School District. Part of the problem with that is twofold: It gives incentives for people to buy new homes, so it encompasses an area that’s divided by 122nd Avenue, and both sides of 122nd are zip codes that are the first and second with the highest number of foreclosures in the area. So if folks are trying to sell their homes and buyers are getting incentives to buy new homes, then there’s tons of foreclosures. The ability for them to sell their homes is almost non-existent. I know a couple of people who lost their homes and moved into foreclosure because of that. So we need to make sure that there’s not unintented consequences of our programs.

The other incentives that the city has used in the past that I’m pretty sure of is to build three-, four- and five-bedroom units, and that is one of the reasons why the complex I mentioned has so many children, because there’s lots of really big units with three to five bedrooms. And every single school within the David Douglas School District is either at, or over capacity. I think a large part of that is because of incentive programs done by the city, and I don’t think there’s any discussion about changing those. It’s really seriously damaging the David Douglas School District’s ability to do its job well. I have to say I’ve been to a number of school board meetings and these are incredibly passionate people who embrace the diversity that exists in the community and are doing a tremendous job doing the best they can with what’s there, but I think it would be better if the economic situation was a little bit more blended, and it wasn’t just so many folks who were on free or reduced-price lunch. For example, in David Douglas High School there’s over 2,250 kids on free or reduced lunch.

If we can’t do things to help rectify those challenges, it doesn’t help anyone in the city, because eventually, what’s going to happen is, areas like this that become so incredibly blighted and overwhelmed, it’s going to start sucking resources from the rest of the city. It’s really important for us to have blended and balanced communities, and if we can’t achieve that, we need to reevaluate who we are.

J.T.: What do you think the city’s doing right or wrong with urban renewal?

M.W.: I have to really think about what’s being done right. Obviously what’s happened in the Pearl District, some would say has been a good thing; it’s changed that area quite a bit. It creates tons of tax revenue, which unfortunately stays in the urban renewal area.

I think others would say that there are a lot of folks who live there who were pushed out, and I think that’s the case in North and Northeast Portland, obviously. I think if things don’t change with the strategy, if there is one, on the east side of the river with urban renewal, we’re going to see the same kinds of things.

Part of the problem is that Portland has a tendency, I think, to apply inner Portland codes and zoning to East Portland, and it doesn’t work. The same thing with urban renewal. What worked in downtown just doesn’t work outside of downtown. For example, in downtown there are lots of buildings and activity. You can buy a building, and someone in a short period of time is going to want to develop it. In the Lents Town Center Urban Area there are properties; some have been owned for a decade or more, and nothing has happened with them. We also need to focus on employment and infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure.

J.T.: You’ve been outspoken on the lack of transit in East Portland. In the past you’ve said that the way the city has invested in the street car has created “two Portlands” What would you do to make transit more equitable in East Portland?

M.W.: Well, I think if you were to look at a map of transit activities and investment within the city of Portland — I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this map — it would show that the vast majority of this activity is in and around downtown. And while I think that’s a good thing — downtown is beautiful, it’s very important to the city as a whole — it doesn’t really help other parts of the city.

My neighborhood, I think, is a really good example. In 10 to 15 years it’s the most populated neighborhood in the city, and it doesn’t have a single major street with contiguous sidewalks. It has more unpaved roadways than any other neighborhood in the city, and it has six of the 15 most dangerous intersections in the city. So those are three transportation related things that clearly show that other parts of the city aren’t benefiting from the investment we’re making.

The city leadership has a tendency to do what’s easiest instead of what’s right or best. It’s not easy to try and fix the transportation issues that exist in East Portland and other parts of the city, but I think it’s incumbent on us morally to at least try. One of the biggest issues that I have is that there are always discussions about doing low-hanging fruit. And often what happens is that the city does the low-hanging fruit and then they kind of walk away and say, we’ve done some stuff so we’re going to go do some other stuff. A lot of times, they don’t come back. The problem with that is, if you look at a fruit tree, the vast majority of the fruit is not low-hanging. It’s up at the top, and you don’t pick it, it falls and rots and creates a big mess, and I think that’s kind of what’s happening. You try and do the easy stuff, and we kind of just look the other way when it comes to the hard stuff. If you want to look at the hard stuff, drive down Powell Boulevard. I think it’s the single biggest embarrassment to the city, and no one has really done anything about it, until the last year or so, and now things are such that the money’s not really going to be there to do the things that are necessary.

One of the ideas I had was to try and use the system and development charges for transportation to pay for the salaries of civil engineers who would do nothing but help residents work on putting sidewalks in front of their homes if they wanted to do that. It becomes really important for there to be this beginning of a renaissance of communities out here, because before, when there wasn’t a lot of folks out here, it didn’t matter as much, but now we just have so many children it’s mind boggling.

Coming up with the money to do it is hard, but coming up with civil engineers to do it is one of the most expensive parts of putting in sidewalks. So if that part of the component is already done for residents, then they might be able to band together and come up with a way to pay for the concrete and the other stuff on their own and reduce the amount of cost to them personally and make it happen a lot more quickly than the city would be able to.

J.T.: On your website, you write about a plan to champion a nonprofit food-processing facility that would employ marginalized communities. I’d like to hear more about that and how it would work.

M.W.: My dream would be that folks would have the ability to work within the facility at whatever capacity, but all the profits would go towards folks to establish themselves within the social service network so they can connect to different services like employment and health care. I think it’s a way to build an economic base for the entire city.

For example, in East Portland in particular, there are huge, huge amounts of cultural newcomers. They have seven to eight months to learn a new language, learn a new culture, find a place to live, get their kids in school, get a job and all that stuff before their government subsidies are cut. It’s really, really hard to do that. So one of the things that would help is to use culturally inspired foods, that they bring from their country of origin, in community kitchens that are spread throughout the city that allow them to produce products that they can bring to a farmers’ market. Eventually, if their product becomes recognized and popular, this facility could take it on and produce it and distribute it. I’d also like to see a hybrid of the food cart scene and Saturday Market, which is to kind of retool the mall concept and shrink it down so people can start small and move up. Or it can be someone who just wants to supplement their income, or it can be a haircutter or tattoo artist. Ultimately, I’d like to see this facility as an incubator for products once they reach a certain level.

J.T.: I’d like to get your thoughts on how to sustain or even increase funding for affordable housing.

M.W.: The housing commission has discussed ways to replicate what’s been done in Seattle with the housing levy that’s dedicated to affordable housing. It gives you a definitive amount of money for a definitive amount of time, so there’s no scrambling to get things done or to know how much you’ll have this year or that year. That’s the problem with urban renewal, is that all of a sudden there’s almost no urban renewal money. With the housing levy, each year you know how much you’re going to have for very targeted projects that give you serious return on investment. What I’d look to do is combine money from the housing levy with money from urban renewal to further supplement it and make sure there’s an economic development component as part of it.

J.T.: Do you have ideas on how the city can collaborate with the county to address the needs of its neediest citizens?

M.W.: Off the top of my head, I’d say that we should probably play to our strengths. Portland is really good at capital projects. The county is really good at social services. If we have respect for those things and work toward a common goal, that’s our best course of action. As far as specifics, I don’t know. I’d have to talk to the county in order to really have some specific answers.

J.T.: I wanted to get your thoughts on the creation of the Office of Equity and Human Rights and if there were and any issues you’d like to see it take up.

M.W.: I would say that my only concern about the Office of Equity has been that I don’t think that it has the teeth in order to really seriously address the issues that are before us. The institutionalized racism in the city is actually quite profound, and to throw $1.5 million at it, I don’t want to say insulting, but I don’t think it addresses the issues.

I think it’s really going to get down to the public pushing these issues rather than allowing the city to drive them. I think it’s important for folks to realize that before the Office of Equity and Human Rights there was the Office of Human Relations, and there was something before that. I’ve heard that over time these agencies get a little tread and they’re retooled. It’s probably something that needs to be independent and not dependent on the city to fund it for it to really get going.

But one thing I try to convey to folks, especially with Occupy Portland, is that the ability to make sweeping changes in government already exists, and it’s the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission has the ability to do tremendous, tremendous things for our city, and City Hall has intentionally kind of bound our hands. I talked to Occupy Portland organizers there and encouraged them to participate in the process.

There’s so many things that we could do, and my hope is that the Occupy Portland folks will use that in a very bottom-up approach and go out into the community and work in places like East Portland and North Portland and Northeast Portland and help people to find their voice and to reclaim the power that they have over government, because you do that, and you start electing people who will effect the change you’d like to see. Not because you’re asking them, but because they know that’s what needs to be done.

You start in Portland, and you show the rest of the state that this can be done at a local municipality and then spread this throughout the state and the country. I really truly believe that Portland can be a better template for better government, and I’m really disappointed that we haven’t really used the Charter Commission to that end.