Clinton St. Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2 | Summer 1984

to DOWN NED SPICY; BUT NOT TOOSPICY. THAT'S CORRECT 1 HOWARD. NOW WHERE MIGHT WE FIND THE / BEAUJOLAIS? . I

PARK AVENUE RECORDS SQUARE MEALS AT SQUARE PR ICES 3553 S.E. Hawthorne 232-6588 ROXY HEARTS BRINGS IN THE SUMMER WITH OUTDOOR CAFE DINING AND OUR NEW SUMMER MENU! TRY OUR GREAT NEW LUNCH ENTREES! Open Sunday thru Thursday till Midnight Till 4 AM on Friday and Saturday Hights 1121 SWStark •223-3333* Between 11th and 12th Streets We Buy And Sell Records 828 SW. Park 222-4773 FOLK CRAFT GALLERY Robert Gilkerson Stuart Buehler July 3-28 Patricia Henricy July 31 - Sept. 1 Robert Gilkerson Sept. 4-29 Tuesday-Saturday 11am.-5pm. 222-0063 300 S.W. FIRST AVE. PORTLAND 2 Clinton St. Quarterly

Staff Contents Difference? Terry Hammond 15 Helen Caldicott Meets Ronald Reagan HELP WANTED: The CSQ Eugene Sex Education Piano Famine A Bitter Fog 16 21 24 27 37 39 43 45 47 7 11 Fred Hopkins Andy Robinson Anne Schmitt 4 5 Warm Springs-Yakima artist Lillian Pitt has recently been showing her raku masks throughout the Northwest. Meeting Gary Lewis Cracked Sharkey’s Night Ad Index Bill London David Romtvedt Steven Bryan Bieler Carol Van Strum Arpilleristas of Chile Francis at St. Augustine Nancy Hoffman Even Hoedads Get the Blues Cover Anton Kimball Letter to Bud Clark Lenny Dee Ecotopia or Appalachia Lynn Darroch Can Portland’s Mayor Make a Co-Editors Lenny Dee Peggy Lindquist David MiIhoiland Jim Blashfield Design and Production Jim Blashfield Production Assistant David Milholland Camerawork Tim Braun Ad Production Peggy Lindquist Beverly Wong Stacey Fletcher Ad Sales — Portland/Eugene Lenny Dee, Sandy Wallsmith, Anne Hughes, Laurie McClain, Tim Jordan, Ellen Adler Ad Sales — Seattle Linda Ballantine, Lars Hanson Proofreaders Anne Hughes, David Milholland Contributing Artists Arpilleristas, Tim Braun, T. Michael Gardiner, J.C. Hartung, Anton Kimball, Stephen Leflar, Jack McLarty, Steve Winkenwerder Contributing Photographers Steve Chapman, Rick Ergenbright, Betsy Reeves Typesetting Jill Wilson Archetype Printing Tualatin-Yamhill Press Public Relations Cramer/Hulse Thanks Bryan Booth, Ed Carpenter, Denny Eichorn, Jeff Evans, Jack Eyerly, Susan Feldman, Lan Fendors, Bill Foster, Jeffrey Harmes, Kathleen Holton, Gil Johnson, Melissa Marsland, Douglas Milholland, Danny O'Brien, Oregon Historical Society, Alana Probst, Eleanor Shanklin, Charlotte Uris, John Wanberg, Michael Wells The Clinton St. Quarterly is published in both Oregon and Washington editions by Clinton St. Quarterly, Inc. Portland address: P.O. Box 3588, Portland, OR 97208, (503) 222-6039; Seattle address: 1520 Western Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Unless otherwise noted, all contents copyright 1984 Clinton St. Quarterly. EDITORIAL In our global village sometimes a picture lor image that makes the moment stand still makes the history that follows a natural development. The ebb and flow of the Vietnam War resolved itself on the six o'clock news during the Tet Offensive when a Viet Cong warrior was executed in living color by the Saigon police chief. Such an image is still to reach us from the ever-escalating conflict in Central America. Recently published photos of a 1927 incident showing an American Marine holding up a Sandinista head make one ponder the effect if such a latter-day scene were to flash across America's living rooms. We’ve much to learn from that distant conflict. In our now society, with yesterday's papers already yellowing, a short course in Latin American history is in order. How many of us have any idea that from 1927-1933, some 18,000 U.S. troopS fought an early version of counterinsurgency against the original Sandinistas. U.S. forces bombed hillsides and villages while running covert operations from nearby Honduras. The Sandinistas won the battle of wills, only to find treachery in peace, and Nicaragua had imposed upon it a brutal 45-year reign of terror sustained with U.S. arms and aid. The current U.S. administration has brought out the bogeyman of a Soviet- sponsored red menace soon to be on the banks of the Rio Grande unless we respond militarily. Once again, history teaches us some valuable lessons. From 1928-33, the Soviet Union backed unsuccessful indigenous uprisings in Brazil, Chile, El Salvador and Mexico. Since that time they have been exceedingly cautious in dealing with Latin America. Far more so than we have. Since WWII, the U.S. has invaded the Dominican Republic and Grenada, occupied large portions of Panama and Honduras, abetted the overthrow of countless elected governments (notably Guatemala, 1954; Brazil, 1964; and Chile, 1973), and maintained as many caudillos and right-wing regimes as deemed possible, all in the name of democracy. In Cuba, the one that slipped away, the Soviet's influence has proven to be a controlling factor rather than a stimulating influence. In the '70s, the Soviets refused to provide free military equipment or absorb huge trade deficits for Allende’s Chile. The ’80s have brought an unwillingness to open wide the purse strings for a hard-pressed Nicaraguan government. Unlike their bogged-down war in Afghanistan, the Soviets in Latin America have used a martial arts approach: turning the weight of a more powerful opponent against him. We seem to fall for the trap again and again, lining up with genocidal right-wing governments, causing potentially deep divisions on the home front and the spectre of Vietnam-like conflict. Washington’s paternalism won't let it believe that Latins will withstand the blandishments of the Soviets. Yet the Peruvians have not genuflected towards Moscow in spite of arms sales, the farmers of the pampas have not made Argentina a Soviet agrioultural satellite even though providing massive grain shipments, and the Mexicans remain fiercely independent despite friendly relations with the USSR. With no sense of history, the U.S. is bound to repeat the mistakes of the past on a populace that still hasn’t forgiven us for either our interventions or our forgetting that they ever happened. LD WHY SUBSCRIBE TO A FREE CSQ ? I A / hen the first issue of the Clinton WSt. Quarterly hit the streets of Portland in April 1979, a peanut farmer was President and Ronald Reagan was still an ex-actor and ex-governor. The Shah was tottering, but looked secure. Portland and Seattle had just claimed back-to- back NBA championships. People still built houses, and inflation, not unemployment, was our biggest economic problem. That first issue claimed boldly that “Sex Cures Cancer,” struck out at sacred cows everywhere, and alternately bemused, puzzled and/or disgusted its readers, depending on their predilections. Few people, including its creators, gave it a year. Yet miraculously, perhaps even defiantly, we’re still alive and kicking. Over the years we’ve won innumerable awards for our writing and graphics, printed many articles you are poorer for having missed, and generally consolidated and upgraded our operation. We now create two separate editions, one for Washington (20,000 copies) and another of equivalent size for Oregon, with contributors from throughout the Northwest and beyond. Needless to say, our advertisers, some of whom have been with us from the very beginning, are the greatest support for this endeavor. Please support them. Subscriptions we’ve always offered FIND A BETTER DEAL, WE’LL BUY YOU A DREAM HOUSE IN PARADISE!! Your name Address Circle one: WA OR Zip Circle one: WA OR Zip Feel free to copy this, or make out your own extended list on a separate page. Enclose $6 for first subscription and $5 for each additional subscription or year. We will send along a personalized note to all receiving your gift subscriptions. Please return to: CSQ, Box 3588, Portland, OR 97208. Bureau needs a highly motivated, creative thinker to help coordinate advertising and public relations for us. Additional opportunity available throughout the state. Stipend plus generous commission. Own car helpful. Send resume to: CSQ, PO Box 95, Eugene, OR 97440 before August 1,1984. casually, with tongue-in-cheek ads designed more for humorous effect than making you dig into your pocket. But now, 51/z years of history later, we’re asking you to write a check for $6 (one year), plus $5 for each additional year or gift subscription, and send it our way. That simple act guarantees your receiving each and every copy we publish, regardless of vacations, extended illness, vile and unrepentant weather or the hasty disappearance of all copies from our over 400 distribution points. A gift subscription would bring a lively personal connection to a friend or relative for.an entire year. And believe us, you’ll support a worthy cause. We’ve checked around, and found no publications offering this kind of dependable quality for anything like this price. We plan to be around much longer, continually evolving and improving, and we’ve just begun pulling the tricks from our sleeves. Subscribe today, this very minute in fact, and you’ll lose no sleep tonight. A simple act, a simple cure. We guarantee fresh, crisp, colorful copies in your postal receptacle, better health and increased longevity. We’ve made it for 51/ 2 years. Please add that to your life expectancy. And thanks for your check. The CSQ is in the mail. Your name Address Clinton St. Quarterly

By Lenny Dee . -a 8_______. £ An Open Letter to Mayor-Elect Bud Clark ^ )n Tuesday, May 15, Portlanders took a leap of faith beyond the gloom and doom old-world triumvirate of Ivancie, Atiyeh and Reagan. The revelers that evening represented a cross-section of Rose Citizens rarely seen at electionnight victory parties; from committed social activists desiring new programs to old-time hippies reaping revenge for past Ivancie indignities to assorted free spirits yearning for a soulful new beginning. No one I spoke with had any concrete idea of what you might specifically have in mind for our city. All, however, felt confident that the art of the possible would once again be experienced here. Many of us grown cynical in an era of militarism, avarice and fanaticism had forgotten how wonderful it would be to once again dream of a populace working for the common good. In the days following your election many a smile was shared over the possible fortunes of our burg. Admittedly, in this fragmented society, one would have to be a Solomon to assuage all the competing interests. I'm quite sure that many of the most powerful groups are already letting you know the priorities on their agenda. Undoubtedly, some of their proposals will bear close scrutiny. We will, however, suggest that there is something afoot in this country outside the traditional context of left and right. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower (a progressive populist who is transforming this important office) suggests that only 10 percent of the people are liberals, another 10 percent conservatives. “The rest of us are not ideological. We have both conservative thoughts and liberal thoughts, often at the same moment. The- mass of the people are mavericks. They're just mad about things all the time. They’re looking for change, for somebody who’s going to fight for the little people.” Across the country innovative programs are being initiated that reflect this spirit. They don't fall into any easy ideological category, they just make common sense. St. Paul, Minnesota's attempt at a homegrown economy is a leading example of this can-do spirit. In the early 70s, Oregon's land-use planning act and bottle bill initiative symbolized this state’s commitment to a quality of life. We since have learned that bitter economic lessons also impact the quality of our lives. Oregon’s dependence on timber has left us in a quagmire which will be difficult to pull out from. Yet the talent and wisdom is here to make Portland a national symbol of effective, imaginative government. A recent study discovered that two-thirds of all new jobs were created in companies employing fewer than 20 people. The top 1,000 firms on the Fortune list only created 75,000 new jobs between 1971 and 1978, in the entire U.S. Clearly your priority of greasing the wheels for small business would be of great benefit. Many at the party that terrific Tuesday compared the emotions to the Blazer euphoria of 77. Yet reality must tell us that nothing close to 100,000 people were out on the streets that evening. The Blazer analogy does give us the idea of trying to reach for concrete goals the whole city could unite behind. Imagine the party we could throw after a few successes in our city. Now that you’re elected, many people will suggest that you stay in the middle of the road. To paraphrase Jim Hightower, there's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead possums. Get on out of there and be with your friends. • 4 Clinton St. Quarterly

The Future of a City: his development program too, one must assume — was rejected in his bid for a second term this May. One theory attributes his defeat to voter perception of his shift in allegiance from the little people to powerful developers and financiers. However, as City Commissioner Mike Lindberg points out, “Frank Ivancie has done quite well at carrying out his agenda”: the traditional, industrial strategy based on providing the city resources necessary to get large manufacturers to locate or expand in our area. Dare we depend on traditional approaches to economic development to save us? We have moved dangerously far from the self-confident Ecotopia of the 1970s, even to the brink of becoming a Western Appalachia. Remember, Appalachia is a region where economic colonialism is practiced with a vengeance, and the loss of local control and resulting human misery are the costs of short-term job creation and industrial growth. Our region’s prime natural resources — fish and timber — have been plundered in a similar manner by distant corporations. Consider the diminishing quality of our public education, continued high unemployment, plant closures, towers of unrented offices, human service cuts, and the paralysis of our state government. Portland is now in transition, with Mayor-elect Bud Clark and his different but as-yet-undefined agenda for development. City Commissioner Margaret Strachan feels, “There’s a whole new sense of goodwill in the city, a rebirth of the spirit that took hold of our community over ten years ago.” Can a more progressive vision of Portland's future now become a reality? To answer that question, let’s first look at the problems the city has faced over the past four years; then examine how our representatives have handled them, and compare that to one alternative being developed in St. Paul, Minnesota — their “Homegrown Economy Project.” Instead of devoting their municipal resources to courting outside developers, they are nurturing small, local businesses and providing a variety of services designed to open up new public-private partnerships within the community. In search of a model for development better suited to Ecotopia than Appalachia, we may discover how to get Portland not just “in business,” but into the business of promoting a better life for its citizens. “Portland Is Open For [BIG] Business” Ecotopia orAppalachia? Economic Development in Portland By Lynn Darroch Drawing by Stephen Leflar ■■cotopia ... Do you remember? The idea first gained national attention in 1976, when Ernest Callenbach used it as the title for his novel describing the secession of Oregon, Washington and Northern California from the United States. Callenbach’s imaginative portrait of this new nation sold hundreds of thousands of copies and helped to spread the notion — given wide currency by then-Governor Tom McCall’s famous “Come visit but don’t stay” speech — that the Pacific Northwest was a maverick, progressive region where industrial development was subordinate to a resource that was then in great demand: quality of life. Those were heady times. Portland and Seattle became national leaders in energy conservation with their home weatherization programs, and the state of Oregon was heralded for its bottle bill and nuclear waste initiative. New immigrants were flocking to the Portland area — the 1970s produced the greatest population increase in recent history — in pursuit of a better way of life. As the smaller of the two regional centers of Ecotopia and free of the military that surrounds Seattle, Portland was seen as a forward-looking place where culture, progressive politics and the magnificent natural world all favored an alternative to the corporate skyscrapers and streetlevel decay of many other cities. As late as 1980, in fact, on the eve of the election of Ronald Reagan and the most severe recession since the 1930s, Joel Garreau, in his book The Nine Nations of North America, described the Pacific Northwest as operating “politically, socially and economically ... on some fundamentally different assumptions from its neighbors’.” The key to that difference? Our approach to development. “While the other eight nations speculate about how, in times of scarcity, they will further their current ways of life,” he wrote, “Ecotopia asks a profound question: Were we heading in the right direction in the first place?” We took a long look and questioned some basic assumptions; and briefly we inclined toward a future different from the materialistic vision of improving life by economic expansion. But what has happened since? Jobs have been lost, city and state revenues have declined, services have been cut, and some of those talented immigrants who had appeared eager to trade a reduction in their monetary standards for an improvement in the quality of their lives, began to leave. The progressive visions that seemed to characterize our area during the Neil Goldschmidt-Tom McCall years have been in retreat, their proponents timid or powerless, while our environmental legislation and land-use goals are blamed for a faltering economy. In Portland, the shift in agendas from the Goldschmidt administration of the mid-1970s, through the caretaker years of Connie McCready, to the tenure of Mayor Frank Ivancie from 1980 to the present, has paralleled these social and economic changes. During the past few years, many people in business and government agreed with Frank Ivancie that the city needed to take significant action to stimulate the local economy, and attempted to accomplish that by luring multi-national manufacturers and land developers to the area. Ivancie — and Portland was seen as a forward-looking place where culture, progressive politics and the magnificent natural world all favored an alternative to the corporate skyscrapers and street-level decay of many other cities. Tom Higgins, publisher of The Business Journal and a former Iowa State Legislator as well as Carter administration official, is one of those recent immigrants to Ecotopia who chose Portland — when he could have found employment anywhere — because, he says, “this was the place where I wanted to live my life." Higgins, who considered running for mayor himself last winter, notes that economic development “is a regional problem” that the City of Portland cannot address alone. “Our economic destiny doesn’t stop at the borders of the city or the borders of any of the counties or at the river," he says. “This area is either going to Clinton St. Quarterly 5

prosper as a metropolitan area or it is going to decline as a metropolitan area.” The State of Oregon's dependence on a wood products economy has caused the Portland area to suffer from a recession that slowed homebuilding and related industries, even though lumber and wood products constitute only 8 percent of the city’s manufacturing base. In addition, the state’s failure to enact tax reform and its cuts in higher education have also contributed to an ebbing of the tide of progressive optimism that marked the “Ecotopian years.” Beyond all that, however, Portland has shared the problems that changing conditions brought to all American cities: a deteriorating infrastructure (those essen- It is their emphasis on a sense of place over the unhindered mobility of capital that stands behind St. Paul’s commitment to retain as much economic value as possible within the city’s borders. economic spin-off effect and thus creates more jobs both directly and indirectly, as well as greater municipal revenues. Interestingly, the PDC has no established process for assessing the net benefits to the city of their projects; there is no standard criterion, like the number of jobs produced, on which to evaluate the success or failure of the industrial assistance the city provides. Another facet of the traditional approach to economic development is annexation of unincorporated areas to the city. Despite East County opposition, the largest annexations in the history of Portland occurred in the past year, and other large annexations are in the planning stages. One of those annexed parcels, to the area. A few other cities, however, have responded to changing economic conditions and the decrease in federal aid by seeking innovative alternatives that emphasize a new role for the city and a new goal for development: local self-reliance. St. Paul’s Homegrown Economy: “The self-reliant city views itself as a nation.’’ Zn many ways similar to Portland in its size, past dependence on Eastern capital, and its former status as a resource colony for outside manufacturers, St. Paul, Minnesota, also faces an economic situation where the prime stimulus for development — federal money — is declining, where the amount of goods imported creates a large outward flow of dollars (cities have trade deficits too), and where plant closures and corporate relocations are a constant threat. Unlike Portland, however, St. Paul is not alone in its region but sits directly across the river from Minneapolis, Minnesota, the site of a disproportionate number of large corporate headquarters and a definite influence on its neighbor's economy. St. Paul has decided to address its situation by using the city’s economic and political authority to “create new entrepreneurial and business development oppormnities which use local resources and Ci^te new local wealth.” Based on evidence that most jobs in cities come from start-up firms and the expansion of existing small businesses rather than from large manufacturers moving in, the City of St. Paul has developed a program to nurture homegrown business. Since they believe that the key to de- velopipg their economy is to retain capital in the local area, St. Paul has set up programs designed to serve businesses that are locally owned, that produce for or use the products of other local tial public services such as transportation, water, sewer, waste disposal, etc.); the “new federalism," which has reduced grants to cities, monies for public works, and aid to individuals; and the increasing mobility of large businesses, making cities with less federal dollars even more vulnerable to the demands of private capital. In the past three years, for example, both Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Evans Products Company have moved their headquarters out of Portland, the Hyster Company closed its local manufacturing plant, and other large employers. have laid off or cut back significant r'Smbers of workers. The metropolitan area’s public transportation system is experiencing ridership declines, revenue shortfalls, and has reduced service; there have been wage freezes on city employees; and although some money has been restored this year, the city's budget has not regained pre-1982 levels, especially in human services. It was therefore not surprising when Mayor Frank Ivancie had a number of billboards erected to proclaim that “Portland Is Open For Business,” and a highly publicized campaign to attract outside industry to Portland was instituted by the mayor and his appointees on the Portland Development Commission, which for the first time was given primary responsibility for setting development policy. This strategy for stimulating economic development is based on the assumption that large corporations are the prime creators of an ever-increasing economic “pie” that over time will have a multiplier effect allowing all citizens to share in the benefits — either directly through jobs created, or indirectly through services funded by tax revenues or other businesses generated by the larger industry. Until recently, this approach has been almost universally accepted as the best way to stimulate prosperity. The dramatic growth of the Sunbelt as a manufacturing ‘area for relocated Northeastern industries, or the Puerto Rican “Bootstrap Program” of the 1950s and 1960s, are examples of the immediate and short-term benefits of this kind of development. When city or state governments try to stimulate the economy in traditional ways, therefore, their strategy is to first discover what might induce a company like the fiber optics manufacturer NEC Corporation of Japan to locate a plant in the area, or a large developer like the Rouse Company of Maryland to build in the city, and then to provide those inducements, whether in the form of sewer and road development, land deals, loan packages, or other instruments available to a city like Portland with its AAA bond rating. While these corporate recruitment efforts funded by the Portland Development Commission draw a lot of media attention and promise big returns for the city, they are actually secondary to the PDC’s program of providing assistance to existing, local industries. To accomplish that goal, they offer site selection information and loan assistance for expansion or relocation. Their emphasis, however, is almost exclusively on industry rather than the myriad other forms of local business, since the Commission believes that, as the basis of our national economy, industry offers the greatest the more than 3.000 acres known as Columbia South Shore, will be made available for industrial development because the city has initiated an $11 million program (with substantial federal assistance) to build sewers and streets on the property. Thus annexations become another tool to produce growth in the city's industrial land base, and hence to promote the development of industry with municipal assistance. Has It Succeeded? Mike Lindberg On Economic Development Commissioner Mike Lindberg worked as both Director of Public Works and latter head of the Office of Planning and Development before being appointed to City Council by Mayor Goldschmidt in 1979. He has since twice been re-elected. Poponents of this traditional approach can cite a number of impressive local projects besides the recent Columbia South Shore development that can be expected to stimulate the area economy: the $130 million Morrison Street Project developed by the Rouse Company; the $80 million South Waterfront Project financed by the Cornerstone Development Company, a subsidiary of Weyerhaeuser; the $80 million PacWest Building, called by Mayor Ivancie “the first Japanese investment of its type in this country”; and the recently announced plans of Japan's NEC Corporation to build a plant in Hillsboro. All but the NEC plant were initiated in the boom years of the 1970s, however, and although the Ivancie administration did move these projects toward completion, the problem now, as Commissioner Lindberg sees it, “is that there is not much of the visionary-type work that was occurring seven or eight years ago.” Commissioner Strachan, another immigrant to Portland during the Ecotopian era and a strong advocate of long-range planning, believes that the strategy of attracting large manufacturers is important in conjunction with a program to help smaller businesses already in the city. What worries her is the kinds of jobs those large industries will produce. “I look at some of the cities in the South that are supposed to be growing apace,” she smiles, “and I’m not sure they aren't running amok. If you look at the kinds of jobs they are producing,” she explains, “and the level of pay, you see that many of those people who are working full time are still at the poverty level.” Based on the concept of an industrial society — an image of our world that is perhaps not suited to current realities — the traditional approach to economic development seeks to replace vanishing federal dollars with large corporate capital investments, and sees the city's role as providing the assistance necessary to encourage local industrial expansion or to recruit new industries and developers Clinton St. Quarterly: Has Portland lagged behind other similar cities in stimulating economic development? Mike Lindberg: Generally, I’d say yes. What you've seen here are some very solid efforts in the area of recruiting new businesses, some already coming to fruition, and some that will come to fruition in the next six months. In terms of local, innovative economic development efforts that involve alternative strategies ... we have done very little. In spite of that, we’ve become much more sophisticated in the last four years in a variety of areas.. .. My own feeling is that all these efforts are valid, legitimate, necessary, and there are some success stories. The unfortunate part is that we focused all of our energy at bringing in new business, and we've ignored the fact that most of the new jobs are created by the expansion of existing business and the start-up of new business. We need a balance in the program, we need to do much more to help existing businesses thrive and prosper and, beyond that, we need to become what I call an “incubator city," the kind of place you’d want to start a new business. Specifically, existing businesses lack accessibility to capital; it's much easier for large business to get loans than it is for small- and medium-sized business, and a lot of small businesses want a loan from $25-$50,000 at a reasonable interest rate. What we re talking about is a greater need to make sure our private financial institutions meet that market and some government intervention. Capital availability is an absolute key and one of the major things that small businesses tell me is an obstacle to their expanding. Second, there isn’t a very close relationship between small- and medium-sized business and the government; many of these businesses feel alienated from the government, they feel that not only is government not doing the sorts of special things that will help them, but that it sets up obstacles that may hurt them. An example would be all the businesses in our neighborhood commercial districts.. . . What you've seen historically is that 99 percent of the city's funds are focused in the downtown area, and that’s important, but there's been a neglecting of these neighborhood commercial districts.... The last area has to do with energy. There are some very simple and do-able energy conservation programs that would be a major asset to our existing businesses. I'm working with the private utilities and the Bonneville Power Administration to offer free energy audits to Portland business. Because we had a federal grant, we were able to work with 500 businesses within the city previously, and on an average they were able to cut their energy consumption by 20 percent. If you could get all the businesses in the city to be more energy efficient, we’ve estimated around $50 million a year increased profitability of existing businesses due to energy efficiency. The next level of programs go beyond that to the things we might do to encourage start-up business. One of the proposals that I sent to the PDC was something out of Connecticut called the New Products Division, where the state basically allocated money and set up a venture capital fund for loans to firms and people who had invented and patented new products. What has happened here is that people with new products took them to other states because they felt it was easier to get capital and that it was a better climate for business. CSQ: Do you think some of these innovative development approaches would be quicker to come on line than more traditional development projects? ML: I'm not saying it takes six to eight years between the time you say, ‘Let’s go out and recruit a business,’ and bringing that business; with NEC Corporation in Washington County, for example, that took only a year and a half. But all these things take a tremendous amount of hard work, and we have to look to the long term. So if the new mayor comes in and we divert some of our energies to these new sorts of economic developments, they'll take several years to produce results. We'd be mistaken if we said, ‘Now if we abandon this recruitment thing and start moving to help existing businesses and start-up businesses, we could do this very quickly.’ I think mistakes are made when the problem or solution is oversimplified, or you look for the quick fix for economic development problems. CSQ: Wouldn't funding be a problem if we continue the recruitment efforts now under way and add a program like the St. Paul effort at local development? ML: The reality is, we haven't pursued these alternative strategies in sufficient detail to know whether they would absorb all the funds that might be available. Second, these programs involve making an investment. I think we ought to go to the State Legislature and say, 'Let's make an investment of $5 million in these alternative strategies.’ I’m convinced that if these are good ideas and if the leadership and a consensus are there, the resources can be found to make these things happen: it isn’t a resource problem ... so it could be done if the commitment is there. Basically, the obstacle is a lack of vision and a lack of commitment. • 6 Clinton St. Quarterly

businesses, that create primarily skilled jobs, and that provide for a community or employee stake in the enterprise through profit-sharing, cooperative ownership or other means. An example of this approach being put to work in St. Paul is the “growhouse” operation for raising fresh produce within the city. Though located in the heart of a rich agricultural zone, the City of St. Paul has been importing fully 85 percent of its produce from outside the state — a clear economic loss to the area. The growhouse venture addresses the need to decrease the city’s costly food imports, and makes use of otherwise wasted recycled energy; hence becoming a prime candidate for the city’s assistance under the criteria of its Homegrown Economy Project. In their attempt to stimulate the local economy from within, the City of St. Paul has created a support system of technical and financial assistance for local businesses that includes the following services: • underwriting the training and placement of workers in small, local businesses through a McKnight Foundation Fund of $1.25 million, a subsidy those businesses are expected to repay; • setting up a program by which large corporations can identify and utilize small local businesses as suppliers of products and services; • helping small businesses get on bid lists with federal agencies and providing assistance in preparing contract applications; • providing financing tools to assist entrepreneurs not able to get start-up or operating funds from private banks; • providing an “incubator facility” where new businesses can receive management and technical assistance from the city aimed primarily at cooperatives and worker-owned companies. “The self-reliant city views itself as a nation,” writes David Morris, a consultant to the City of St. Paul for its Homegrown Economy Project and author of the book The Self-Reliant City (Sierra Club Books, 1982). And it is their emphasis on a sense of place over the unhindered mobility of capital that stands behind St. Paul’s commitment to retain as much economic value as possible within the city’s borders. “Stop the Leakages," Morris says, “has become a rallying cry for those demanding local self-reliance. Whether the leakages are raw materials dumped into landfills, or branch stores that take the majority of their earnings out of the community, or retired people who can’t find places to offer their time and skills, the result is the same — the loss of valuable resources.” What It Means f he development program designed to transform St. Paul’s municipal services really does offer an opportunity to build new economic institutions which may well create the seeds of a better future within our present society. What is being attempted is a completely new role for a city government. As Morris puts it, “the city is beginning to emphasize production, rather than merely ameliorate the effects of consumption to promote the general welfare.” This new role for the city, he points out, defies traditional political categories: “The liberal thinks people want services,” he says, “the conservative believes we want commodities. Each agrees that the individual citizen is not the actor but the acted upon. Those encouraging local self-reliance . . . see the individual as a producer of wealth and an active participant in the political process of resource management." Stripped of the abstract language that often makes these crucial economic issues inaccessible to the layman, in effect leaving decisions to technocrats and career government servants, St. Paul’s program for a Homegrown Economy can be summarized, this way: Rather than looking outside their area for partners to revitalize their economy, they are taking what federal money is available and looking within to favor the local and the small. CAN PORTLAND’S MAYOR MAKE A DIFFERENCE? By Terry Hammond “TI he election of Bud Clark is the biggest upset in the entire 133 years of mayoralty races here,” asserts leading Portland historian E. Kimbark MacColl. What difference will it make for the city? Portland is notable as the largest city in the country with a “weak mayor” form of government, where the city's departments are portioned out to the autonomous authority of several commissioners. In one sense the mayor here is merely an equal fifth of a segmented power structure. Yet the mayor stands out as a figurehead, representing an image of what the city is and wants. Bud Clark’s predecessors have found that personality and ceremonial decorum are the important tools of readership in the office of hizzoner the Mayor. The popular George Baker (1917-33) began his first career in Portland working in theaters, finally owning the now-renowned Baker Theater.- He was first known for the performers he brought to town and, during his second career, as mayor, he retained all the flair of the showman. By joining every organization that approached him he demonstrated his accessibility, and with his jovial nature exercised a remarkable degree of influence. As the Oregon Voter put it in MAYOR RILEY HAD A SAFE BUILT NEXT DOOR TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE ESPECIALLY FOR GRAFT MONIES, WHICH RAN INTO SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH MONTH. 1924: “Mr. Baker has supplied the color and dash which a more prosaic but nevertheless efficient business man might not possess.” For growing little Portland on the West Coast, colorful public relations was just what the city felt it needed. With union strikes, racial segregation, a thriving criminal element fed by the years of Prohibition, and a massive influx of people requiring housing and services, any mayor had a job keeping an unblemished reputation. Mayor Baker was notorious for his tolerance of the Ku Klux Klan. Payoffs from gambling, bootlegging and prostitution filtered toward City Hall through the police department from Baker’s time, but a decidedly crooked mayor didn’t appear until Earl Riley took over the position (1941-49). It is alleged that Riley had a safe built next door to the mayor’s office especially for graft monies, which ran into several thousands of dollars each month. Through the war years, citizen and army protests against vice met an unlistening and less than charming response from Mayor Riley. Vice? What vice? The mayor’s office has two important powers: appointing the Chief of Police, and distributing the departments of the city to the commissioners. Riley, in keeping with tradition, retained the Department of Public Safety. Therefore, when the City Club reDorothy McCullough Lee in her first Rose Festival Parade as mayor. leased an investigative report on vice in Portland in February 1948, Riley was directly in the spotlight facing charges of corruption. A grand jury was unable to find enough concrete evidence for an indictment. With the heavy influx of war workers for the shipyards, housing became a critical problem during Riley's terms. A Housing Authority was halfheartedly established in 1941, but its accomplishments were dismal. On Memorial Day 1948, the rising rivers burst through the dike west of Vanport, and within hours the disgracefully shoddy war-built housing project was totally destroyed, leaving 18,700 blacks homeless and 15 dead. The number of flood refugees in Multnomah County neared 25.000. In his typical way Riley refused to respond to the problem. City Hall was picketed. The mayor was finally unnerved by public sentiment. In August he stormed out of a public meeting raving that people were avoiding him. Prominent Portland businessmen displayed a keen lack of ethics by honoring Riley with a splendid party at the Portland Hotel during his final days in office in December, awarding him a $5,000 Packard. When Dorothy McCullough Lee moved into the mayor’s office January 1, she found it empty. The Oregonian’s banner story “Files Found Missing” assured Mrs. Lee that that was simply how it was done and concluded that the affair was “much ado about nothing.” Lee was trained in law, served in the Oregon legislature and as a Portland commissioner, was bright, energetic, and possessed a gift for articulation that made her political poise almost perfect. The press, however, continued to make Portland’s first woman mayor look ridiculous. Her hats were editorialized. Her health was questioned. But Mayor Lee installed a new Chief of Police and began to enforce the law. She put vitality into the Housing Authority, and sought to end segregational practices. Although elected on a reform platform, the city wasn't prepared for her vigor. Kim MacColl comments that Dorothy Lee had no personal warmth and was not a good listener. This worked against her becoming a beloved public figure. She went to the wire in the 1952 election and lost to Fred Peterson with 47 percent of the vote in November. Peterson (1953- 57) had been Commissioner of Finance under Riley. True to form, he spent his last days in office as mayor, along with his Chief of Police, attending grand jury hearings. Corruption was being ferreted out of city government for a long time. The crime syndicates of the forties melted away, but graft continued to permeate the layers of power. The venerable Mayor Terry Schrunk faced a probe by the U.S. Senate and was indicted by a grand jury during his first months in office in 1957. The charges dated from his prior years as Multnomah County Sheriff, and only after months of battle.in court were the local papers able to proclaim “Shrunk Found Not Guilty." The city forgot about it. For 16 years Mayor Schrunk's style, his integrity and sincerity, made him the most popular mayor since George Baker. His re-elections were no contest until failing health forced him to resign in 1972. Reflecting the progressive image of the city during his period, a good listener, a careful talker and hard worker, Schrunk is credited with expanding the Port of Portland, cementing relations with Japan, and being active in housing and mass transit issues. In December 1966, he created a precedent for the mayor's office. Keeping the Bureau of Police, he put the Department of Public Safety into the hands of a commissioner and took over the Department of Finance and Administration. The new post has become traditional now for the mayor, offering an opportunity to oversee the efficiency of all the other departments. Schrunk's legacy, however, was a bulging weight of responsibilities for future mayors. In 1977 Mayor Neil Goldschmidt took, the next logical step and gave away the Bureau of Police, in itself the largest single bureau in the city. There have been subsequent instances where the mayor has found it necessary to reclaim the police in order to administer it to his liking, but at present the bureau remains in the hands of a commissioner. Juggling the city’s agencies forms the primary and special power invested in the mayor, and Goldschmidt attempted to use that power as none had before. Connie McCready, appointed mayor for the interim between 1979 and 1981 after Goldschmidt became Secretary of Transportation in the Carter administration, tells tales effacing off her authority as commissioner against Goldschmidt’s political wiles. Accused of Machiavellian tactics, Goldschmidt found that his delightful personality provided him more influence than his formal prerogatives as mayor. Connie McCready very nearly became Portland's second elected woman mayor, but complains she “had an opponent who was famous for very dirty fighting." While she was working 14 hours a day at City Hall burdened under the mayor's work load, Frank Ivancie abandoned the city’s business and boasted he was campaigning 17 hours a day. Analysts point out that McCready was a victim of the conservative backlash of 1980. “My finest hours," she remarks ironically, “were four totally unrelated death threats in two days.” She was proud to have the support of former mayor Dorothy McCullough Lee. Can Portland’s mayor make a difference? Neil Goldschmidt provided a good example of the outstanding role a mayor could play. The position requires him or her to be active, outspoken, articulate, have a saving sense of humor, and be able to create public pressure for policies being pursued. Most of all, the mayor must be a good listener and a warm, receptive person. Voters see these qualities as much more valuable than stolid business sense. Especially in Portland, the mayor's office does not offer much opportunity for power brokering, ft is an arena where a local citizen may, for personal rather than political reasons, devote him or herself to public service. Once enmeshed in the growing tasks of city government, a figurehead bobbing amongst thousands of people of all kinds, there's little time for anything else.» Terry Hammond has recently returned from Amsterdam and plunged wholeheartedly into Portland history. Clinton St. Quarterly 7

Economic Independence? Why has Portland turned away from its progressive, 1970s reputation to pursue a traditional industrial model of development when other alternatives are available? Three factors have played a part in shaping this response to the challenge of the 1980s: the history of our whole region as an economic colony; the structure of our city government, unique among major U.S. cities; and the policies of our elected officials themselves. A Resource Colony ■ he Pacific Northwest originally developed as a resource colony for outside interests, and the relatively few industries that have grown up here (the electronics field excepted) have been controlled by capital from outside the area and mainly devoted to harvesting, primary processing and transport of those resources, whether they have been fish, timber, or wheat. The arrival of Japanese industries may indeed be seen as a continuation of this process of colonial development. Portland’s position as a deepwater port, financial center, and communications and distribution focus for the entire region means that to a large extent it must reflect the economics of the region’s industries, while at the same time it will necessarily have an economy greater than the sum of these individual parts. Its diverse manufacturing base, in fact, has made it at times appear to be “an oasis in the Pacific Northwest,” as a consultant to Moody’s Investor Services proclaimed recently. Portland has always been a city of small businesses with no “chief industry” comprising more than 26 percent of its economic base. Nevertheless, the fate of Portland cannot be separated from the rest of the region, where the 1970s stand out as a somewhat aberrant decade in which our “livability" (dramatically declining in other parts of the country) suddenly became more valuable than our raw materials, and spending by the federal government more than made up for the lack of investment by private industry. Who’s in Charge? The second factor that has hindered the pursuit of a bold, alternative development strategy in Portland is the structure of the city government. Always susceptible to surges of populist sentiment, the citizens of Portland reformed their governmental structure in the early part of this century to limit the power of city hall political machines. Today, however, Portland is the only major city in the country that has retained the commission form of government, where the mayor is one of five equal members of the city council with but one vote and no veto. This system hinders the concentration of power in one official’s hands, but it also diffuses responsibility and limits the mayor’s ability to direct city policy except by force of his or her personality or vision, as Neil Goldschmidt’s leadership demonstrated in the mid-1970s. “It requires," Tom Higgins believes, “somebody to fill the office in a fashion larger than life almost, where he or she uses the presence of the office to draw the major players together and to compel them to cooperative and coordinated action.” Responsibility for economic development policy, moreover, rests not solely with the mayor and the city council, but also with several quasi-public agencies like the PDC, whose commissioners set development policy but are not elected and jealously guard their independence from council oversight. Since the mayor appoints the PDC’s corhmissioners, and the city council reviews the agency’s budget, the council has the ability to direct PDC policy but has been less than zealous in doing so. Less than 5 percent of the PDC budget comes from city funds, however, with the majority tied to specific projects funded by federal grants or revolving funds controlled by the agency itself, and its projects often continue through a change in administration. The PDC, in effect, acquires a vested interest in a particular set of development goals, and a new mayor may need to consider a thorough housecleaning or the creation of a separate city office to carry out his own development agenda. The Port of Portland, whose commissioners are appointed by the governor, is another quasi-public agency that controls vast amounts of land within the city and carries on its own development projects while remaining virtually unaccountable to voters. And one cannot ignore the influence of the state Office of Economic Development and the state’s tax policies — or lack of such — on the city’s programs. Even when Governor Atiyeh and Mayor Ivancie have appeared to share a common set of assumptions about development, there has been a marked lack of cooperation between them. A Risky Business ■ he appeal of the traditional model of economic development to our political • DELICATESSEN • SPECIALTY FOODS • IMPORTED BEER • FINE WINES Mon-Fri 8:30-6:00 Sat 8:30-3:00 7901 S.E. Stark 253-9436 Buttertoes Unique dining amidst Victorian Charm H Now serving Breakfast Monday-Saturday Hours: M-F 7!30AM-9:00PM Sat 9:00AM-9:00PM Sun 12 Noon-3:00PM 3244 SE Belmont ‘Where everything is just a little bit different. ” 239-9205 Summer Sense Summer Makeup Bare Escentuals natural-base make-ups come in cool and sizzling color for your eyes, face, and lips. Skin Care Uncommon Scents custom-scented moisture cremes, lotions and oils help you control the effects of sun and wind. Summer Luxuries Mason Pearson natural bristle brushes, Karina hair ornaments, imported soaps, a myriad of perfume oils are a few of many treats for you and for summer gift-giving. scents Total Bath, Beauty and Body Care Upstairs in the Yamhill Marketplace, Portland 222-3826 Downstairs in 5th Street Public Market, Eugene 485-8164 ‘Sitting Duck’ $25 unframed Lithographs & Posters by Michael Bedard exclusively at MICHAEL'S ------Qalleiuf---- 101 SW Main, Corner of 2nd and Salmon • 241-4040 8 Clinton St. Quarterly

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz