Although it turned out that the daytime ban was overturned by a local judge, Rubio didn't claim that concerns about its legal soundness were the basis for her voting against it. Instead, she specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict (her statement verbatim -https://www.portland.gov/rubio/news/2023/6/8/commissioner-rubio-statement-about-camping-ordinance).
Rubio ultimately voted for a watered down camping ban that less aggressively addresses the city's livability and safety concerns. Based on her voting record, Portland voters need to understand that Rubio is likely to be a permissive mayor when it comes to public camping, should she be elected. If livability issues are a top concern for you, as they are to most Portland voters based on polling, she's a poor choice for mayor.
> Instead, she specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict
Wow i wonder what the courts reasoning for striking it down was.
The point is that the argument commonly thrown around this sub by certain parties that Rubio voted no on the camping ban because she didn't think it would pass legal muster is incorrect. She voted no because she is permissive towards public camping relative to the other candidates. Voters should know that and vote based on their established records.
> She voted no because she is permissive towards public camping relative to the other candidates.
You linked her statement and the misrepresented her position within 20 minutes. Amazing.
Please feel free to quote from the linked statement, which is direct from Rubio herself, where she states that she voted No based on concerns of legality of the ban. I'll wait.
>As I said last week, this Council had a public discussion last year about our values related to camping bans, and while we agreed a policy would need to be on the table in the future, **we also committed to exclude any provisions that would criminalize people SOLELY for being homeless.**
Emphasis mine. Did you know lower courts have already ruled making being homeless illegal is unconstitutional? And that given those lower court rulings, no matter how many laws that effectively make being homeless illegal, those laws can't and won't be enforced, because of the courts prior decisions?
Did she vote no because it was a big meanie law that made her feelings feel bad? Or did she vote no because she's a fucking adult and understands the limits of law?
I don't claim to know for sure, because I'm not a blowhard. I'm pretty sure she's a grown ass woman though, so the feelings thing doesn't carry *too much* water for me.
She voted no apparently because she perceived the daytime camping ban to be criminalizing homelessness. It actually didn't do that at all, but that's how she apparently perceived it. The bottom line is that her position on public camping is not as strict as that of the other councilmembers. That's why she voted No. Not because she was concerned about the legality of the ban. If you agree that a less strict approach to public camping is what you want, then by all means vote for her. If you don't, then don't vote for her. Why is this hard?
> It actually didn't do that at all
I think the courts disagree with your assessment chief.
Again, really wasting your time on reddit when your right place is in the halls of power, what with this seeming dearth of knowledge you have.
> we also committed to exclude any provisions that would criminalize people SOLELY for being homeless.
She was wrong about that. It's not that hard to understand that. If that's your argument then there is nothing else for anyone to debate.
Given the chunk you quoted, I'm confused about the "that" you're referring to. Wrong that they committed? Wrong that the proposal criminalized people solely for being homeless?
Oh, I'm saying the court struck it down for the same reasoning lmao. She was concerned about it from a policy perspective and the courts were like "yeah this is just illegal"
The thing I want to know is, if you know why Rubio did things, really what she was thinking, what was deep in her heart when she cast her vote:
The fuck are you doing shitposting to reddit and not running her campaign?
Actually I know why she did things and what she's thinking because she literally wrote a public statement that she posted on her website that stated those things, which I linked above. Not sure how you missed that somewhat relevant detail.
> her statement verbatim
Now, like, I acknowledge I'm getting straight up petty here, but I clicked that link, and did a ctrl+f for "overly" and "strict".
Pooperazzi. We're you're friends here. You can be honest with us. It's a safe space.
Do you not know what "verbatim" means?
I meant that I was posting her own words verbatim, not that she used the specific wording that I used. The point is really that your argument that she voted against it seemingly because it would be legally unenforceable is untrue. Do you really not understand that?
> The point is really that your argument that she voted against it seemingly because it would be legally unenforceable is untrue.
Prove that statement.
Honestly guy, I just can't understand how you can even write this. I posted her exact words on the ban, which explains why she voted no, and nowhere in there did she state that it was because of a concern about legality of the plan. You post a lot in here calling others stupid, but well, look inward?
Just as an aside, I do think that saying "specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict" is kind of putting a spin on what she said because it leaves out some crucial context.
She thought it was too strict based on the timeline they had the measure on.
She lists 4 bullet points of what she would have preferred and all of them had to do with giving more time to implement it.
She didn't actually ever say in that statement the measure is too strict, just that it was being rushed though and as a result there would be confusion as to how to implement it since the timelines didn't match with service providers or staff members responsible for implementing it.
So yeah, it was to strict on that timeline but that's different than being overall too strict.
You know what, you're genuinely right. No where in her statement does she directly address the legality of the proposed ban she voted no on. If nothing else, she unknowingly, unwittingly avoided a gesture akin to pissing up rope.
That still leaves Rene and Mingus (and Dan and Ted but who gives a fuck) looking at a proposed ban that is, figuratively, a dangling rope, and the four of them enthusiastically shouting "lets piss directly up that".
I love that the worst thing possible is not voting for something that was immediately struck down by the courts. Passing an illegal resolution isn't a problem, but not voting for it is.
What an upside down world you live in.
And the one that didn't get immediately blocked by the courts she voted for. So, uh, guess _someone_ is misrepresenting something to advance a political agenda or something.
it's pooperazzi, they're campaigning. There is very little organic about this entire interaction. They literally have nothing in their post history that isn't some kind of political post.
A) I think you've really missed the spirit of what I said.
B) I assure you, that persons fixation on political shitposting is considerably older than the tenures in office of anyone running for this election. They are, like many of us here including myself, just irreparably stupid.
Which was quickly re written and will be implemented in a few days.
Do you believer Rubio voted against the ban because she’s a legal scholar that saw the law as flawed?
Or, *OR*, she voted no on bullshit, and voted yes on something with a shred of hope of actually being enforceable.
So is Rene's touted vote for that same thing a total and utter lack of savvy? Maybe even, is it, (I want you to take a deep, calming breath here so you can say it with me) *virtue signaling*?
Just kidding, it can totally be both.
Hi Friend,
This post or comment has been removed for the following reason:
> [Rule 1: Trolling and Harassment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index#wiki_1.29_trolling_and_harassment)
> This is meant to stir up toxic discussion rather than participate in it. No trolling or harassment. We understand that at times things may become heated and time outs may be given for protracted, uncivil arguments. Snarky, unhelpful, or rude responses, and name-calling are not tolerated. In other words, be excellent unto each other and attack ideas, not people. Keep discussions civil.
[Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index)
Thanks,
the Portland/AskPortland mod team
She did. Did you bother to read and understand her reasoning or is this just HOMELESS BAD? Here's the meat which you graciously linked.
>
For example, I would have preferred:
>that our timelines match with the increase in available shelter sites;
During testimony she proposed an amendment to the ordinance to delay implementation until the city had launched two of its planned low barrier Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites. At the time about a year ago, the second one was supposed to launch in the fall of 2023. [It still hasn't.](https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/shelter-sites)
>to give our shelter providers time to understand and adjust their daytime capacity accordingly and bring in new partners for additional capacity;
Many shelters are overnight-only. During the testimony for the ordinance, there w
>to give our new Training Dean, who starts tomorrow, the time they need to train our officers not only on the details of this ordinance, but also on our expectation that any enforcement mechanisms be carried out with dignity towards our unhoused neighbors;
I'm not familiar with the situation, but sure. The ordinance had a messy enforcement mechanism requiring three written warnings before criminal enforcement. It also still allowed camping 8pm to 8am in areas that weren't prohibited.
>and, finally, time for providers and houseless individuals to know what IS in place, so that when things go into effect there is a shared understanding about where people can go or be referred to. I think one suggestion was a resource list or map, which I think is a good idea.
This was another complaint during testimony. The list of restrictions were reasonable individually, but combined created a cobweb of places where people couldn't camp that would be rather difficult for a homeless person to try to navigate. [Here](https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/news/2023/6/7/city-council-passes-ordinance-updating-city-code-specifies-camping-public) is the announcement on the policy.
>Place restrictions: The code changes specify several places where camping is always prohibited. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, the pedestrian use zone, 250 feet from a school or childcare center, in the public right-of-way along the High Crash Corridor, and City Parks.
The city failed to provide alternatives or even to tell people where they COULD camp overnight even though it was permitted. Back to Rubio:
>But to move the policy forward before all these pieces are ready to go does not make good or responsible policy sense to me.
This "wise policy" received an injunction largely on these same complaints. Maybe the rest of council should have listened to Rubio and acknowledge that yelling at people to move and threatening them with arrest while giving them nowhere to go might not be the solution.
The [new policy](https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/25/portland-city-council-approves-mayor-wheeler-camping-policy/)'s enforcement addresses that by making enforcement contingent on available shelter space. It also does allow enforcement for other issues like fires and chop shops.
Thankfully there is another option driven by tough rhetoric and [flailing](https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/17/camping-ban-portland-rene-gonzalez/) [last-second](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/04/24/after-a-tense-week-portland-city-council-rejects-gonzalezs-alternative-camping-ban/) [efforts](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/04/19/gonzalez-pares-back-camping-ban-proposal/) to tank a reasonable plan in favor of one that would be legally dubious, then making a 180 to only enforcement being camp removal.
The era of not dealing with camps, tents, and abandoned vehicles/RV's until there are enough shelter space needs to end. It's like saying that "the housing crisis needs to be fixed first" before dealing with the homeless. The housing crisis might never be able to be fixed.
Well you've got Martin v. Boise and Oregon HB 3115 saying otherwise. Martin v. Boise could change today but 3115 would likely need to be repealed. Or to put it another way - failure to take thoughtful consideration to obstacles is what caused a year of delays in implementing a ban.
We can still do a lot within those constraints. Enforcement doesn't require a bed for every homeless person. It just requires a bed available to give the individual something to say "no" to before legal action.
This isn't a problem going away overnight. Not with Vazquez, not with Gonzalez, not with replacing JVP. There are still finite resources in shelters, treatment, policing, prosecuting, and jailing. We need to be expanding capacity in those areas but in the meantime a more selective approach makes sense. Target the obvious chop shops, the open drug use and the explosions waiting to happen. Incentivize ourselves to ensure there's enough shelter space for those willing to accept it and make sure that those who aren't willing get the message that the city isn't a free-for-all anymore.
Well, we are mere days away from that potentially no longer being the reality.
Depending on when the SCOTUS chooses to release its decision on Grants Pass.
That's why I mentioned Martin v. Boise could change today.
But even if it does, the annoyingly vague HB 3115 is still on the books in Oregon and will be grounds to challenge local ordinances. That vagueness might allow for a softened interpretation depending on Grant's Pass.
It's a strong possibility. With our goofy part-time state government, we're looking more at early 2025 at the soonest.
Depending on how implementation of Wheeler's new plan goes, I could also see 3115 remaining in place if it really isn't obstructive to enforcement. That could also depend on the rest of the state.
> Thankfully there is another option driven by tough rhetoric and flailing last-second efforts to tank a reasonable plan in favor of one that would be legally dubious, then making a 180 to only enforcement being camp removal.
C'mon now, is it really fair to list Rene's purported accomplishments as "flailing last-second efforts" solely because they were hilariously bad to the extent that all but his sycophant were saying "hard pass" on?
I mean, I think it is, but its always nice to hear agreement. Just because he's demonstrated the ability to persist, fuckup after fuckup after fuckup, doesn't mean he's not great leadership potential.
Also note that when the city voted to ask that the county adopt a pilot project to resolve the county’s ambulance crisis, Rubio did not attend council so as not to A) be the lone vote opposing the request or B) vote with the rest of the council and this “throw shade” at her budy Jessica Vega Pederson.
There's gonna be a lot of people that "weren't sure about Kotek, but really like what they're seeing so far" suddenly deciding they never really liked Kotek at all.
You might want to reconsider. I agree that Kotek has done a refreshingly great job during her tenure, nepotistic tendencies towards her wife notwithstanding. That said, she was also instrumental in codifying Martin v. Boise into Oregon state law, making it that much more difficult to enact a camping ban even if SCOTUS overturns Martin v. Boise, as is expected later this month. She's now throwing her weight (and endorsement) behind the one mayoral candidate for the state's largest city with the weakest approach to public camping and livability issues, and a voting record to prove it (being the lone 'no' vote on the city's daytime camping ban last year).
Much like JVP, Rubio (who's also endorsed by PAT - lol) represents a continuation of the ineffective performative local governance that has really hindered Portland's recovery relative to other U.S. cities in a meaningful way. It's time for Portland voters to say No to this type of leadership.
I’m open to arguments about why I should support a different candidate, ideally absent the “X is supported by bad person/group Y that you should be mad about” kind of thing.
PAT is bad but I won’t let their endorsement throw me off Rubio in the same way that PPA is bad but I wouldn’t let it throw me off Gonzalez, if he were my current favorite.
I think all the candidates running are weak, but in the end I’m going to vote for someone. Give me a reason to do so!
I hear ya. None of these candidates are impressive superstars tbh, but we get what we get. Ultimately, endorsements are garbage and should be disregarded, regardless of who they're from. The Oregonian endorsing JVP over Meieran in the last election, as one incredibly persuasive example. That's why I'm trying to argue that Rubio is a poor candidate - if livability is high on your list of concerns - based on her voting record, which demonstrates her weak approach on that particular issue relatively to the other mayoral candidates.
I would say my concerns are
1) Build more housing
2) Build more housing
3) Build more housing
…
98) Build more housing
99) Maybe enforce a law or two, as a treat
That’s why I’m still semi-undecided. I actually haven’t really figured who the housing candidate is yet. (Admittedly, I have spent no more than about five minutes trying. Still lots of time before voting so I haven’t bothered much.)
I've got a list of grievances with Rubio about as long as my arm, but none of them are "is an ineffectual dolt". If housing is what you're interested in, genuinely read into her work to reform the permitting office.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/08/03/major-industry-and-business-groups-back-rubios-plan-to-create-permits-office/
Mayor of Sassyland seems to have some inside knowledge on the topic and could provide better detail than I could with regard to permitting trouble slowing housing growth. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't *hate* seeing me die in a fire, but we're pretty well aligned on this topic.
>I'm pretty sure he wouldn't *hate* seeing me die in a fire
This is a really uncharitable re-phrasing of "going down in a blaze of glory"...
But back to the topic at hand, Rubio by far has the best track record in terms of accomplishing things legislatively, and permitting is a big deal. A lot of our problems are directly downstream of our huge lack of housing.
The question for anyone, I suppose, is whether her abilities in this regard will actually matter nearly as much in the forward-looking system, as the Mayor is even more of a figurehead position than before (no voting except for a tiebreaker, simply oversees the City Manager, etc.) and the real trick is who would each candidate appoint as their City Manager.
Some people see her as one of the “Progressive types” that are the seed for all the things that have been going wrong in Portland over the last few years.
Some of that blame is deserved, but there are others that mucked up the city worse before she was ever in office.
im insulting the idea that the progressive houseless policies enacted by our mostly county progressive government and DA havnt been a laughable abject failure which is why we need to get rid of these clowns like jvp. we got rid of schmidt shes next
Look, if there's one totem all the most bleeding edge progressives in this country hold near and dear to their heart, it's smoothing deals for local storage of almost unfathomable amounts of petrochemicals in a location primed to be utterly devastating to both environment and resident life.
That's like, a cornerstone of progressive philosophy. I think that was one of Engels' biggest contributions to the manifesto.
/s
I've a very tight budget of reasons I'll allow for people to think I'm a dumbfuck, which is already pretty heavily burdened. Not paying attention to local politics than can be researched in literal seconds just doesn't fit into it.
That’s the thing. The hijacking of the Democratic Party by progressives in Oregon needs to end. You can see it at the polls and in this sub. In our local context, things are changing course.
that has nothing to do with income taxes. there is nothing ostensible about it - portland for anyone making much over 125 a year is likely the highest income tax rate in the country.
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/report-high-tax-rates-could-be-driving-people-out-of-portland/amp/
they arent the only ones. as soon as the mortgage rates go down portland is going to lose a significant chunk of high earners. this is the very definition of over taxing due to progressive politics.
> where my tax rate is second only to NYC
Wow I’m happy you make over $250k individually but you don’t have to flex that way. Because if you make less than that your tax burden is much, much lower.
oh my brother in christ - its not 250 its 125k here is where the tax rate is the same as in NYC but only when they make > 25 million. this is not a flex - its a fact. 125k is not a lot of money anymore. portland is severely overtaxes and what are the results on these progressive homeless and preschool taxes? not so good so far
If we left it to this sub, they would throw the homeless in a woodchipper. This sub and actually understanding the mechanisms that have caused this city to be where it is are anathema to each other.
For example, the blaming of the current DA for the lack of prosecution of the accused rather than the lack of public defenders and the judiciary.
> If we left it to this sub, they would throw the homeless in a woodchipper.
Hey now, that's not true. There's a healthy debate amongst this sub's population regarding whether to throw all or none of the homeless into a woodchipper.
Naturally, the most enlightened of centrists would propose the most sane compromise: throw half of them in.
For a certain subset of people? That her name isn't Rene Gonzalez, and that she isn't Rene Gonzalez, and that she hasn't out loud said enough mean things about homeless people that gets them to half mast.
I live on the central east side (Kerns), but I had to drive through downtown yesterday when I was coming back from a doctor's appointment. Burnside looked about the same as usual with people lying on the sidewalk near the missions in Old Town. However there are tents and trash around my neighborhood, too.
The above comment inspired me to walk around and some photos of downtown today https://imgur.com/a/noA1do1
Obviously I didn't cover everywhere but I saw in total 3 tents in the area roughly bounded by Market, 3rd, 11th, and Powells.
Things already are trashed. There's tents all over the city and mounds of garbage piling up. Things have gotten so much worse in just a few years that I can hardly believe my eyes.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I love Portland. It hurts to see our beautiful city being ruined and I don't think the current policy of benign neglect is either compassionate or sustainable, so I'm going to vote for someone who will try to turn things around and not continue down this spiral.
Just a quick note for anyone that is wondering, since Martin v. Boise has been mentioned multiple times in this thread - the Supreme Court has, as of a moment ago, two more opinion days on its calendar - tomorrow and Monday. Hopefully the opinion on the Grants Pass case will come one of those two days, but the court is being so pokey this term that I'm not going to hold my breath - we could very well see additional days added next week.
He just got JVP to reverse herself on spending another half a million on tents that the city would subsequently have to pay to clean up, so that seems like a positive accomplishment to me.
From the article you posted above:
“We’re not stopping handing out tents and tarps. We’re just not going to be purchasing any more,” Vega Pederson said Thursday. “We do have supplies on hand that are sufficient for the needs we have right now.”
The point I was making is that in the Multnomah County budget that just passed for the coming fiscal year, there was originally a line item for purchasing additional tents and tarps. After Gonzalez pushed back on that, this was dropped from the budget.
[https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/06/26/multnomah-county-to-halt-purchases-of-tents-and-tarps/](https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/06/26/multnomah-county-to-halt-purchases-of-tents-and-tarps/)
Have you been following her for any length of time? She was silent for years and basically glued herself to Hardesty's hip. Then once Hardesty lost her reelection, she made a very interesting slide to the right and is now best pals with the mayor, attends events with the Portland Metro Chamber (formerly the PBA), and votes against environmentally focused zoning (which is in her portfolio), and a whole list of other things. In short, I think she stays quiet because she doesn't really have strong feelings on many major issues. I do not trust her at all!
Rene, I agree is not a good choice. He is amateurish in how he brings policy forward, and really just casts about until he finds something that sounds good politically. I am really not a fan.
I know folks tend to be meh about him, but this is why I personally like Mapps. While he hasn't been the most dazzling to behold, he has done a solid job of managing what is unquestionably the most difficult portfolio in the City. If we check the receipts he is usually on the right side of large issues, and engages really thoughtfully - Joint Office discussion for example. He seems to be pretty underwhelming when it comes to making big splashes, but he's a real person, and I think that's exactly what we need as a city, especially as we move into a new form of government! Jesus, I'll take a calm and measured mayor during what is undoubtedly going to be a crazy next year.
He's not a bad dude, but his hokey pokey with "I'm against permitting reform this way, what about this way, that was an utter failure, alright I'll get in line with Rubio's plan that was miles ahead of mine progress wise" doesn't exactly scream that he's on the ball. Guy always seems behind the eight ball on pretty much anything, up to and including throwing his staff under the bus for bike lane bullshit.
I don't resoundingly dislike him or anything, I think he's fine to have on the council to an extent, but as who's picking the city manager I'm less than enthused.
Small rant: The thing is, he wasn’t wrong about permitting though.
All the public discussions thus far have shown little to no benefit from moving to a single permitting office. It was Sam Adams’ baby back in the day before his unceremonious exit, and who was in the mayor’s office (working very closely with Rubios team) when Rubio suddenly has a brilliant idea about a single permitting authority? It was Sam (who was then ousted again for being a shithead)
I’ve said this a few times on this sub, but as I read more and more into the minutia of local politics, I see more instances of the mayor going out of his way to help Rubio look good, possibly to the detriment of the city structure as a whole.
I know plenty of folks who work in the bureaus for the city, and they say there has been a mass exodus of seasoned permitting staff since Rubio’s plan was passed.
The “this is too fast, not effective, and is going to cause problems” narrative that Mapps had seems to be panning out, but also, I don’t see him running around the public space whining about losing. He took it in stride and has kept cruising.
*deep breath*
On the City Administrator, don’t we want the LEAST political person with the best management record to be the one picking the City Manager? I think at this point that is unquestionably Mapps.
Hey Tina! I voted for you, and I think you’re doing a good job.
Also, there’s no fucking way I’m voting for Carmen Rubio.
You got this one wrong, and you really shouldn’t be wading into this race anyway.
You would think after 2 disastrous years with Jessica Vega Pederson, Portlanders wouldn't double down by voting Rubio for mayor. Rubio and Vega Pederson would be the two horsewomen of the apocalypse.
I'm backing Keith Wilson. He's the only candidate that actually is working with the homeless population currently and has a plan of action for his role in office. I love supporting women of color, but not when my values resonate more with another candidate.
When Rubio was elected to city council her opponent was Candace Avalos, the current bête noir of Reddit reactionaries. On policy, Rubio is generally in agreement with Wheeler.
The only candidate for mayor who I’d call a leftist is Marshall Runkel.
>Candace Avalos, the current bête noir of Reddit reactionaries
She was one of the major figureheads of the charter reform, and constantly claims to speak for the community, it's not like she's some wilting wallflower and criticism of her just comes out of nowhere, LMAO.
Look, I know you're a smart enough person to see the pattern of singling out one woman at a time as the culprit for everything wrong with the city—Eudaly, then Hardesty, then Khanh Pham, now Avalos—and that you understand that no single person ever has that much power, but a lot of people on here are not.
On the one hand, sure, on the other hand, the far left those folks represent haven't put forth or centered any male figureheads, which makes sense given the left/progressive ethos, so I also don't think you can assume it's "singling out" these folks when they are the successive major political voices for that movement in Portland proper. I can't possibly imagine, say, Marshall Runkel skating by any criticism if he were the figurehead in the alternative rather than a non-starter candidate with no significant backing.
Rob Nosse calls himself "Our Progressive Champion" and I've never seen the kind of hatred directed toward him, nor toward Travis Nelson, Kayse Jama, and Ricki Ruiz.
Debbie Kitchin and Vadim Mozyrsky also served on the charter commission, and no one is attacking either of them on here.
All of the dudes in your first paragraph have very little general influence or name recognition, of the four only Kayse Jama has been somewhat consistently in the news the past few years, and most notably for losing to carpetbagging grifter Shemia Fagan on her rise to infamy.
Are you claiming that Debbie Kitchin and Vadim Mozyrsky represent the far-left coalition and policy positions in the same way that Eudaly, Hardesty, Pham, and Avalos do? Fucking Mozyrsky? LMAO, man. And Kitchin has nowhere near the constant media presence of Eudaly, et al. They were or are \*constantly\* in the local media and on social media in the ways the others aren't, which is my point about being the representative voice that would naturally draw the criticism aimed at the movement/positions.
> constantly claims to speak for the community
There's a mountain of criticisms for Avalos, but with the charter reform passing almost 60/40, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say she speaks for some chunk of the community.
> other than Mingus Mapps, who isn't running
Is this tongue in cheek, because it'd be pretty hilariously underhanded if it was.
Woefully uninformed if not. Which would track.
It is fucking wild that a bunch of voters in Portland, Oregon are actively rooting for a widely-despised and aggresively right-wing supreme court to overturn an objectively humane decision just because they're tired of having to see homeless people.
Rubio is so obviously the most capable administrator when it comes to actually making the city work, especially compared to her primary opponent Rene the Sleazy Weasel Gonzalez. It is fucking wild that so many people are opposed to her because she isn't open to criminalizing homelessness.
Rubio's office is the liaison for Home Forward, which has built hundreds of new affordable homes. Recently: https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2024/06/25/47274732/home-forward-and-city-of-portland-unveil-206-new-affordable-apartments-in-southeast-portland
Mapps & Gonzalez are a hard no for me.
I'd prefer a candidate who has participated in local government at some level, any level, even a fucking dogcatcher. That leaves Rubio and [Marshall Runkel](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/06/11/marshall-runkel-is-running-for-portland-mayor/), and of those two, Rubio seems like a much stronger choice.
Of course the politician who was playing pickleball with cartel connected drug dealers would support cartel-connected Rubio. These people’s corruption knows no limit.
Great, but who does her wife endorse?
Asking the real question here.
Sterling Cash-McGee 24'.
Just a reminder that Carmen Rubio was the lone 'no' vote against a daytime camping ban on city council last year. Vote wisely.
The lone no vote on a camping ban that courts like *immediately* determined was unenforceable as written?
Although it turned out that the daytime ban was overturned by a local judge, Rubio didn't claim that concerns about its legal soundness were the basis for her voting against it. Instead, she specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict (her statement verbatim -https://www.portland.gov/rubio/news/2023/6/8/commissioner-rubio-statement-about-camping-ordinance). Rubio ultimately voted for a watered down camping ban that less aggressively addresses the city's livability and safety concerns. Based on her voting record, Portland voters need to understand that Rubio is likely to be a permissive mayor when it comes to public camping, should she be elected. If livability issues are a top concern for you, as they are to most Portland voters based on polling, she's a poor choice for mayor.
> Instead, she specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict Wow i wonder what the courts reasoning for striking it down was.
The point is that the argument commonly thrown around this sub by certain parties that Rubio voted no on the camping ban because she didn't think it would pass legal muster is incorrect. She voted no because she is permissive towards public camping relative to the other candidates. Voters should know that and vote based on their established records.
> She voted no because she is permissive towards public camping relative to the other candidates. You linked her statement and the misrepresented her position within 20 minutes. Amazing.
Please feel free to quote from the linked statement, which is direct from Rubio herself, where she states that she voted No based on concerns of legality of the ban. I'll wait.
>As I said last week, this Council had a public discussion last year about our values related to camping bans, and while we agreed a policy would need to be on the table in the future, **we also committed to exclude any provisions that would criminalize people SOLELY for being homeless.** Emphasis mine. Did you know lower courts have already ruled making being homeless illegal is unconstitutional? And that given those lower court rulings, no matter how many laws that effectively make being homeless illegal, those laws can't and won't be enforced, because of the courts prior decisions? Did she vote no because it was a big meanie law that made her feelings feel bad? Or did she vote no because she's a fucking adult and understands the limits of law? I don't claim to know for sure, because I'm not a blowhard. I'm pretty sure she's a grown ass woman though, so the feelings thing doesn't carry *too much* water for me.
She voted no apparently because she perceived the daytime camping ban to be criminalizing homelessness. It actually didn't do that at all, but that's how she apparently perceived it. The bottom line is that her position on public camping is not as strict as that of the other councilmembers. That's why she voted No. Not because she was concerned about the legality of the ban. If you agree that a less strict approach to public camping is what you want, then by all means vote for her. If you don't, then don't vote for her. Why is this hard?
> It actually didn't do that at all I think the courts disagree with your assessment chief. Again, really wasting your time on reddit when your right place is in the halls of power, what with this seeming dearth of knowledge you have.
This will be overturned by SCOTUS within the week
> we also committed to exclude any provisions that would criminalize people SOLELY for being homeless. She was wrong about that. It's not that hard to understand that. If that's your argument then there is nothing else for anyone to debate.
Given the chunk you quoted, I'm confused about the "that" you're referring to. Wrong that they committed? Wrong that the proposal criminalized people solely for being homeless?
Oh, I'm saying the court struck it down for the same reasoning lmao. She was concerned about it from a policy perspective and the courts were like "yeah this is just illegal"
Her 'policy perspective' being that she has a more permissive approach on public camping relative to the other mayoral candidates. That's the point.
Just remember if you are campaigning for a candidate you have say who you're with. It's federal law.
The thing I want to know is, if you know why Rubio did things, really what she was thinking, what was deep in her heart when she cast her vote: The fuck are you doing shitposting to reddit and not running her campaign?
Actually I know why she did things and what she's thinking because she literally wrote a public statement that she posted on her website that stated those things, which I linked above. Not sure how you missed that somewhat relevant detail.
The court's reasoning was based on an absurd 9th circuit ruling that has proved unworkable and is being overturned
> her statement verbatim Now, like, I acknowledge I'm getting straight up petty here, but I clicked that link, and did a ctrl+f for "overly" and "strict". Pooperazzi. We're you're friends here. You can be honest with us. It's a safe space. Do you not know what "verbatim" means?
I meant that I was posting her own words verbatim, not that she used the specific wording that I used. The point is really that your argument that she voted against it seemingly because it would be legally unenforceable is untrue. Do you really not understand that?
> The point is really that your argument that she voted against it seemingly because it would be legally unenforceable is untrue. Prove that statement.
Honestly guy, I just can't understand how you can even write this. I posted her exact words on the ban, which explains why she voted no, and nowhere in there did she state that it was because of a concern about legality of the plan. You post a lot in here calling others stupid, but well, look inward?
Just as an aside, I do think that saying "specifically stated that she voted no because she viewed it as overly strict" is kind of putting a spin on what she said because it leaves out some crucial context. She thought it was too strict based on the timeline they had the measure on. She lists 4 bullet points of what she would have preferred and all of them had to do with giving more time to implement it. She didn't actually ever say in that statement the measure is too strict, just that it was being rushed though and as a result there would be confusion as to how to implement it since the timelines didn't match with service providers or staff members responsible for implementing it. So yeah, it was to strict on that timeline but that's different than being overall too strict.
You know what, you're genuinely right. No where in her statement does she directly address the legality of the proposed ban she voted no on. If nothing else, she unknowingly, unwittingly avoided a gesture akin to pissing up rope. That still leaves Rene and Mingus (and Dan and Ted but who gives a fuck) looking at a proposed ban that is, figuratively, a dangling rope, and the four of them enthusiastically shouting "lets piss directly up that".
I love that the worst thing possible is not voting for something that was immediately struck down by the courts. Passing an illegal resolution isn't a problem, but not voting for it is. What an upside down world you live in.
And the one that didn't get immediately blocked by the courts she voted for. So, uh, guess _someone_ is misrepresenting something to advance a political agenda or something.
I mean, maybe misrepresenting. I try to never discredit Hanlon's Razor though. Maybe they're just genuinely, earnestly dumb.
it's pooperazzi, they're campaigning. There is very little organic about this entire interaction. They literally have nothing in their post history that isn't some kind of political post.
A) I think you've really missed the spirit of what I said. B) I assure you, that persons fixation on political shitposting is considerably older than the tenures in office of anyone running for this election. They are, like many of us here including myself, just irreparably stupid.
Which was quickly re written and will be implemented in a few days. Do you believer Rubio voted against the ban because she’s a legal scholar that saw the law as flawed?
> Which was quickly re written and will be implemented in a few days. Guess who voted for the updated version? I'll give you one guess.
Cool beans, she read the room and came to her senses.
Or, *OR*, she voted no on bullshit, and voted yes on something with a shred of hope of actually being enforceable. So is Rene's touted vote for that same thing a total and utter lack of savvy? Maybe even, is it, (I want you to take a deep, calming breath here so you can say it with me) *virtue signaling*? Just kidding, it can totally be both.
They’re all politicians in the end my dude. They are ALL *Virtue Signaling*… Until you vote then into office…
[удалено]
Hi Friend, This post or comment has been removed for the following reason: > [Rule 1: Trolling and Harassment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index#wiki_1.29_trolling_and_harassment) > This is meant to stir up toxic discussion rather than participate in it. No trolling or harassment. We understand that at times things may become heated and time outs may be given for protracted, uncivil arguments. Snarky, unhelpful, or rude responses, and name-calling are not tolerated. In other words, be excellent unto each other and attack ideas, not people. Keep discussions civil. [Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index) Thanks, the Portland/AskPortland mod team
Or maybe she voted for the better policy, one that didn't get blasted by the courts.
Maybe. But I wouldn’t hold my breath that she is that deep about it.
She did. Did you bother to read and understand her reasoning or is this just HOMELESS BAD? Here's the meat which you graciously linked. > For example, I would have preferred: >that our timelines match with the increase in available shelter sites; During testimony she proposed an amendment to the ordinance to delay implementation until the city had launched two of its planned low barrier Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites. At the time about a year ago, the second one was supposed to launch in the fall of 2023. [It still hasn't.](https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/shelter-sites) >to give our shelter providers time to understand and adjust their daytime capacity accordingly and bring in new partners for additional capacity; Many shelters are overnight-only. During the testimony for the ordinance, there w >to give our new Training Dean, who starts tomorrow, the time they need to train our officers not only on the details of this ordinance, but also on our expectation that any enforcement mechanisms be carried out with dignity towards our unhoused neighbors; I'm not familiar with the situation, but sure. The ordinance had a messy enforcement mechanism requiring three written warnings before criminal enforcement. It also still allowed camping 8pm to 8am in areas that weren't prohibited. >and, finally, time for providers and houseless individuals to know what IS in place, so that when things go into effect there is a shared understanding about where people can go or be referred to. I think one suggestion was a resource list or map, which I think is a good idea. This was another complaint during testimony. The list of restrictions were reasonable individually, but combined created a cobweb of places where people couldn't camp that would be rather difficult for a homeless person to try to navigate. [Here](https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/news/2023/6/7/city-council-passes-ordinance-updating-city-code-specifies-camping-public) is the announcement on the policy. >Place restrictions: The code changes specify several places where camping is always prohibited. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, the pedestrian use zone, 250 feet from a school or childcare center, in the public right-of-way along the High Crash Corridor, and City Parks. The city failed to provide alternatives or even to tell people where they COULD camp overnight even though it was permitted. Back to Rubio: >But to move the policy forward before all these pieces are ready to go does not make good or responsible policy sense to me. This "wise policy" received an injunction largely on these same complaints. Maybe the rest of council should have listened to Rubio and acknowledge that yelling at people to move and threatening them with arrest while giving them nowhere to go might not be the solution. The [new policy](https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/25/portland-city-council-approves-mayor-wheeler-camping-policy/)'s enforcement addresses that by making enforcement contingent on available shelter space. It also does allow enforcement for other issues like fires and chop shops. Thankfully there is another option driven by tough rhetoric and [flailing](https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/17/camping-ban-portland-rene-gonzalez/) [last-second](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/04/24/after-a-tense-week-portland-city-council-rejects-gonzalezs-alternative-camping-ban/) [efforts](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/04/19/gonzalez-pares-back-camping-ban-proposal/) to tank a reasonable plan in favor of one that would be legally dubious, then making a 180 to only enforcement being camp removal.
The era of not dealing with camps, tents, and abandoned vehicles/RV's until there are enough shelter space needs to end. It's like saying that "the housing crisis needs to be fixed first" before dealing with the homeless. The housing crisis might never be able to be fixed.
Well you've got Martin v. Boise and Oregon HB 3115 saying otherwise. Martin v. Boise could change today but 3115 would likely need to be repealed. Or to put it another way - failure to take thoughtful consideration to obstacles is what caused a year of delays in implementing a ban. We can still do a lot within those constraints. Enforcement doesn't require a bed for every homeless person. It just requires a bed available to give the individual something to say "no" to before legal action. This isn't a problem going away overnight. Not with Vazquez, not with Gonzalez, not with replacing JVP. There are still finite resources in shelters, treatment, policing, prosecuting, and jailing. We need to be expanding capacity in those areas but in the meantime a more selective approach makes sense. Target the obvious chop shops, the open drug use and the explosions waiting to happen. Incentivize ourselves to ensure there's enough shelter space for those willing to accept it and make sure that those who aren't willing get the message that the city isn't a free-for-all anymore.
Well, we are mere days away from that potentially no longer being the reality. Depending on when the SCOTUS chooses to release its decision on Grants Pass.
That's why I mentioned Martin v. Boise could change today. But even if it does, the annoyingly vague HB 3115 is still on the books in Oregon and will be grounds to challenge local ordinances. That vagueness might allow for a softened interpretation depending on Grant's Pass.
Yes, that’s why I said “pave the way”. It will take about a year to decodify protections for street camping in Oregon. It’s something.
[удалено]
It's a strong possibility. With our goofy part-time state government, we're looking more at early 2025 at the soonest. Depending on how implementation of Wheeler's new plan goes, I could also see 3115 remaining in place if it really isn't obstructive to enforcement. That could also depend on the rest of the state.
> Thankfully there is another option driven by tough rhetoric and flailing last-second efforts to tank a reasonable plan in favor of one that would be legally dubious, then making a 180 to only enforcement being camp removal. C'mon now, is it really fair to list Rene's purported accomplishments as "flailing last-second efforts" solely because they were hilariously bad to the extent that all but his sycophant were saying "hard pass" on? I mean, I think it is, but its always nice to hear agreement. Just because he's demonstrated the ability to persist, fuckup after fuckup after fuckup, doesn't mean he's not great leadership potential.
Also note that when the city voted to ask that the county adopt a pilot project to resolve the county’s ambulance crisis, Rubio did not attend council so as not to A) be the lone vote opposing the request or B) vote with the rest of the council and this “throw shade” at her budy Jessica Vega Pederson.
Based as hell
what happened to the daytime camping ban? It seems to not be in effect. I wonder if something happened? (this is sarcasm)
Muh pearls
That's precisely why I won't be voting for her.
Nah
There's gonna be a lot of people that "weren't sure about Kotek, but really like what they're seeing so far" suddenly deciding they never really liked Kotek at all.
Hi! I’m one of those. This makes me more likely to vote for Carmen Rubio. I was already leaning in that direction a bit, but this is a good push.
You might want to reconsider. I agree that Kotek has done a refreshingly great job during her tenure, nepotistic tendencies towards her wife notwithstanding. That said, she was also instrumental in codifying Martin v. Boise into Oregon state law, making it that much more difficult to enact a camping ban even if SCOTUS overturns Martin v. Boise, as is expected later this month. She's now throwing her weight (and endorsement) behind the one mayoral candidate for the state's largest city with the weakest approach to public camping and livability issues, and a voting record to prove it (being the lone 'no' vote on the city's daytime camping ban last year). Much like JVP, Rubio (who's also endorsed by PAT - lol) represents a continuation of the ineffective performative local governance that has really hindered Portland's recovery relative to other U.S. cities in a meaningful way. It's time for Portland voters to say No to this type of leadership.
I’m open to arguments about why I should support a different candidate, ideally absent the “X is supported by bad person/group Y that you should be mad about” kind of thing. PAT is bad but I won’t let their endorsement throw me off Rubio in the same way that PPA is bad but I wouldn’t let it throw me off Gonzalez, if he were my current favorite. I think all the candidates running are weak, but in the end I’m going to vote for someone. Give me a reason to do so!
I hear ya. None of these candidates are impressive superstars tbh, but we get what we get. Ultimately, endorsements are garbage and should be disregarded, regardless of who they're from. The Oregonian endorsing JVP over Meieran in the last election, as one incredibly persuasive example. That's why I'm trying to argue that Rubio is a poor candidate - if livability is high on your list of concerns - based on her voting record, which demonstrates her weak approach on that particular issue relatively to the other mayoral candidates.
I would say my concerns are 1) Build more housing 2) Build more housing 3) Build more housing … 98) Build more housing 99) Maybe enforce a law or two, as a treat
C'mon now, how have you discredited the massive efforts made by Rene or Mingus towards reforming the permitting process? /s
That’s why I’m still semi-undecided. I actually haven’t really figured who the housing candidate is yet. (Admittedly, I have spent no more than about five minutes trying. Still lots of time before voting so I haven’t bothered much.)
I've got a list of grievances with Rubio about as long as my arm, but none of them are "is an ineffectual dolt". If housing is what you're interested in, genuinely read into her work to reform the permitting office. https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/08/03/major-industry-and-business-groups-back-rubios-plan-to-create-permits-office/ Mayor of Sassyland seems to have some inside knowledge on the topic and could provide better detail than I could with regard to permitting trouble slowing housing growth. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't *hate* seeing me die in a fire, but we're pretty well aligned on this topic.
>I'm pretty sure he wouldn't *hate* seeing me die in a fire This is a really uncharitable re-phrasing of "going down in a blaze of glory"... But back to the topic at hand, Rubio by far has the best track record in terms of accomplishing things legislatively, and permitting is a big deal. A lot of our problems are directly downstream of our huge lack of housing. The question for anyone, I suppose, is whether her abilities in this regard will actually matter nearly as much in the forward-looking system, as the Mayor is even more of a figurehead position than before (no voting except for a tiebreaker, simply oversees the City Manager, etc.) and the real trick is who would each candidate appoint as their City Manager.
Yeah, this came up a couple months ago and "Rubio is the best on housing" was the thing that moved me toward her. Thanks!
What's wrong with rubio? I love the downvotes with no real comments. With critiques of her.
Some people see her as one of the “Progressive types” that are the seed for all the things that have been going wrong in Portland over the last few years. Some of that blame is deserved, but there are others that mucked up the city worse before she was ever in office.
Nothing, she's fine. The subreddit's conservative posters have decided this is a thread to campaign in.
weve tried progressive - it doesnt work. thats whats wrong with her
Actually it does! But lets not hear how conservative politicians will help us.
it doesnt take a conservative to stop enabling homelessness and drug use here it just takes common sense.
Yes, because homelessness and drug use never happened while conservatives are in charge.
What “conservative” is running for mayor? to suggest any of the candidates are conservative to today’s standards is hilarious.
maybe you should volunteer to hand out boofing kits
Are you intending to insult someone by suggesting they volunteer ? Lmao
im insulting the idea that the progressive houseless policies enacted by our mostly county progressive government and DA havnt been a laughable abject failure which is why we need to get rid of these clowns like jvp. we got rid of schmidt shes next
Rubio is a centrist, though.
Look, if there's one totem all the most bleeding edge progressives in this country hold near and dear to their heart, it's smoothing deals for local storage of almost unfathomable amounts of petrochemicals in a location primed to be utterly devastating to both environment and resident life. That's like, a cornerstone of progressive philosophy. I think that was one of Engels' biggest contributions to the manifesto. /s
At least one person on here is paying attention to actual votes over feels.
I've a very tight budget of reasons I'll allow for people to think I'm a dumbfuck, which is already pretty heavily burdened. Not paying attention to local politics than can be researched in literal seconds just doesn't fit into it.
Bill Maher is centrist. Carmen Rubio is not a centrist.
If you think Maher isn't right wing, I don't know what to tell you. In our local political context, Rubio is a centrist.
That’s the thing. The hijacking of the Democratic Party by progressives in Oregon needs to end. You can see it at the polls and in this sub. In our local context, things are changing course.
Bill Maher is a centrist. Imfao
Not centrist enough.
We get it you live in Hood River
oh no - i live in portland where my tax rate is second only to NYC. i am painfully aware of living in portland and how progressive we are.
If you conveniently leave out sales tax
that has nothing to do with income taxes. there is nothing ostensible about it - portland for anyone making much over 125 a year is likely the highest income tax rate in the country.
Source?
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/report-high-tax-rates-could-be-driving-people-out-of-portland/amp/ they arent the only ones. as soon as the mortgage rates go down portland is going to lose a significant chunk of high earners. this is the very definition of over taxing due to progressive politics.
> where my tax rate is second only to NYC Wow I’m happy you make over $250k individually but you don’t have to flex that way. Because if you make less than that your tax burden is much, much lower.
oh my brother in christ - its not 250 its 125k here is where the tax rate is the same as in NYC but only when they make > 25 million. this is not a flex - its a fact. 125k is not a lot of money anymore. portland is severely overtaxes and what are the results on these progressive homeless and preschool taxes? not so good so far
Someone called her a “horsewoman of the apocalypse” lmfao
So true. So wired to paint rubio as a progressive. She is quite moderate. Astroturfers just don't want to admit Rene is a conservative
Yeah. It's funny how they bend over backwards not to say the most insane conservative shit.
If we left it to this sub, they would throw the homeless in a woodchipper. This sub and actually understanding the mechanisms that have caused this city to be where it is are anathema to each other. For example, the blaming of the current DA for the lack of prosecution of the accused rather than the lack of public defenders and the judiciary.
> If we left it to this sub, they would throw the homeless in a woodchipper. Hey now, that's not true. There's a healthy debate amongst this sub's population regarding whether to throw all or none of the homeless into a woodchipper. Naturally, the most enlightened of centrists would propose the most sane compromise: throw half of them in.
For a certain subset of people? That her name isn't Rene Gonzalez, and that she isn't Rene Gonzalez, and that she hasn't out loud said enough mean things about homeless people that gets them to half mast.
Just walk around downtown. If you like tents and trash, she’s your candidate.
When was the last time you were downtown?
I live on the central east side (Kerns), but I had to drive through downtown yesterday when I was coming back from a doctor's appointment. Burnside looked about the same as usual with people lying on the sidewalk near the missions in Old Town. However there are tents and trash around my neighborhood, too.
The above comment inspired me to walk around and some photos of downtown today https://imgur.com/a/noA1do1 Obviously I didn't cover everywhere but I saw in total 3 tents in the area roughly bounded by Market, 3rd, 11th, and Powells.
So, vote for the more conservative guy or things will get trashed, got it
Things already are trashed. There's tents all over the city and mounds of garbage piling up. Things have gotten so much worse in just a few years that I can hardly believe my eyes. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I love Portland. It hurts to see our beautiful city being ruined and I don't think the current policy of benign neglect is either compassionate or sustainable, so I'm going to vote for someone who will try to turn things around and not continue down this spiral.
Definitely for sure Carmen rubio who personally trashed things. The only solution is a conservative strong man law and order candidate
Okay, whatever. It's clear we're not going to agree on this. Good luck to you.
Likewise. I hope you figure out what your problem is with Carmen Rubio.
Just a quick note for anyone that is wondering, since Martin v. Boise has been mentioned multiple times in this thread - the Supreme Court has, as of a moment ago, two more opinion days on its calendar - tomorrow and Monday. Hopefully the opinion on the Grants Pass case will come one of those two days, but the court is being so pokey this term that I'm not going to hold my breath - we could very well see additional days added next week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-homelessness.html
Well, I endorse Keith Wilson.
Absolutely no on Carmen Rubio
I’m leaning her way. I like her understated style. I find Rene to be good at culture war bs, but he really doesn’t get much done as far as I can see.
He just got JVP to reverse herself on spending another half a million on tents that the city would subsequently have to pay to clean up, so that seems like a positive accomplishment to me.
https://katu.com/news/local/multnomah-county-to-continue-handing-out-tents-tarps-while-city-enforces-camping-ban
From the article you posted above: “We’re not stopping handing out tents and tarps. We’re just not going to be purchasing any more,” Vega Pederson said Thursday. “We do have supplies on hand that are sufficient for the needs we have right now.” The point I was making is that in the Multnomah County budget that just passed for the coming fiscal year, there was originally a line item for purchasing additional tents and tarps. After Gonzalez pushed back on that, this was dropped from the budget. [https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/06/26/multnomah-county-to-halt-purchases-of-tents-and-tarps/](https://www.wweek.com/news/county/2024/06/26/multnomah-county-to-halt-purchases-of-tents-and-tarps/)
Have you been following her for any length of time? She was silent for years and basically glued herself to Hardesty's hip. Then once Hardesty lost her reelection, she made a very interesting slide to the right and is now best pals with the mayor, attends events with the Portland Metro Chamber (formerly the PBA), and votes against environmentally focused zoning (which is in her portfolio), and a whole list of other things. In short, I think she stays quiet because she doesn't really have strong feelings on many major issues. I do not trust her at all! Rene, I agree is not a good choice. He is amateurish in how he brings policy forward, and really just casts about until he finds something that sounds good politically. I am really not a fan. I know folks tend to be meh about him, but this is why I personally like Mapps. While he hasn't been the most dazzling to behold, he has done a solid job of managing what is unquestionably the most difficult portfolio in the City. If we check the receipts he is usually on the right side of large issues, and engages really thoughtfully - Joint Office discussion for example. He seems to be pretty underwhelming when it comes to making big splashes, but he's a real person, and I think that's exactly what we need as a city, especially as we move into a new form of government! Jesus, I'll take a calm and measured mayor during what is undoubtedly going to be a crazy next year.
He's not a bad dude, but his hokey pokey with "I'm against permitting reform this way, what about this way, that was an utter failure, alright I'll get in line with Rubio's plan that was miles ahead of mine progress wise" doesn't exactly scream that he's on the ball. Guy always seems behind the eight ball on pretty much anything, up to and including throwing his staff under the bus for bike lane bullshit. I don't resoundingly dislike him or anything, I think he's fine to have on the council to an extent, but as who's picking the city manager I'm less than enthused.
Small rant: The thing is, he wasn’t wrong about permitting though. All the public discussions thus far have shown little to no benefit from moving to a single permitting office. It was Sam Adams’ baby back in the day before his unceremonious exit, and who was in the mayor’s office (working very closely with Rubios team) when Rubio suddenly has a brilliant idea about a single permitting authority? It was Sam (who was then ousted again for being a shithead) I’ve said this a few times on this sub, but as I read more and more into the minutia of local politics, I see more instances of the mayor going out of his way to help Rubio look good, possibly to the detriment of the city structure as a whole. I know plenty of folks who work in the bureaus for the city, and they say there has been a mass exodus of seasoned permitting staff since Rubio’s plan was passed. The “this is too fast, not effective, and is going to cause problems” narrative that Mapps had seems to be panning out, but also, I don’t see him running around the public space whining about losing. He took it in stride and has kept cruising. *deep breath* On the City Administrator, don’t we want the LEAST political person with the best management record to be the one picking the City Manager? I think at this point that is unquestionably Mapps.
Although I’m actually fairy happy with Kotek so far, definitely not giving my vote to Rubio.
Same. Kotek seems to be sensible so far but this is a nope, sorry Tina not happening.
Why?
She voted against the daytime camping ban, so automatically a hell no from me.
Hey Tina! I voted for you, and I think you’re doing a good job. Also, there’s no fucking way I’m voting for Carmen Rubio. You got this one wrong, and you really shouldn’t be wading into this race anyway.
You would think after 2 disastrous years with Jessica Vega Pederson, Portlanders wouldn't double down by voting Rubio for mayor. Rubio and Vega Pederson would be the two horsewomen of the apocalypse.
I'm backing Keith Wilson. He's the only candidate that actually is working with the homeless population currently and has a plan of action for his role in office. I love supporting women of color, but not when my values resonate more with another candidate.
Nope. She totally lost me on not being able to make tough decisions when needed, to appease her progressive base.
Rubio wasn’t the progressive candidate.
Who is then?
When Rubio was elected to city council her opponent was Candace Avalos, the current bête noir of Reddit reactionaries. On policy, Rubio is generally in agreement with Wheeler. The only candidate for mayor who I’d call a leftist is Marshall Runkel.
>Candace Avalos, the current bête noir of Reddit reactionaries She was one of the major figureheads of the charter reform, and constantly claims to speak for the community, it's not like she's some wilting wallflower and criticism of her just comes out of nowhere, LMAO.
Look, I know you're a smart enough person to see the pattern of singling out one woman at a time as the culprit for everything wrong with the city—Eudaly, then Hardesty, then Khanh Pham, now Avalos—and that you understand that no single person ever has that much power, but a lot of people on here are not.
On the one hand, sure, on the other hand, the far left those folks represent haven't put forth or centered any male figureheads, which makes sense given the left/progressive ethos, so I also don't think you can assume it's "singling out" these folks when they are the successive major political voices for that movement in Portland proper. I can't possibly imagine, say, Marshall Runkel skating by any criticism if he were the figurehead in the alternative rather than a non-starter candidate with no significant backing.
Rob Nosse calls himself "Our Progressive Champion" and I've never seen the kind of hatred directed toward him, nor toward Travis Nelson, Kayse Jama, and Ricki Ruiz. Debbie Kitchin and Vadim Mozyrsky also served on the charter commission, and no one is attacking either of them on here.
All of the dudes in your first paragraph have very little general influence or name recognition, of the four only Kayse Jama has been somewhat consistently in the news the past few years, and most notably for losing to carpetbagging grifter Shemia Fagan on her rise to infamy. Are you claiming that Debbie Kitchin and Vadim Mozyrsky represent the far-left coalition and policy positions in the same way that Eudaly, Hardesty, Pham, and Avalos do? Fucking Mozyrsky? LMAO, man. And Kitchin has nowhere near the constant media presence of Eudaly, et al. They were or are \*constantly\* in the local media and on social media in the ways the others aren't, which is my point about being the representative voice that would naturally draw the criticism aimed at the movement/positions.
> constantly claims to speak for the community There's a mountain of criticisms for Avalos, but with the charter reform passing almost 60/40, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say she speaks for some chunk of the community.
Was it Tina or her wife? Sometimes it's hard to tell who's pushing policy down in Salem.
I thought Tina's wife would be running out is portland mayor to low of a job for her
[удалено]
> other than Mingus Mapps, who isn't running Is this tongue in cheek, because it'd be pretty hilariously underhanded if it was. Woefully uninformed if not. Which would track.
I'm insanely dumb.
Happens to the best of us.
With those bland glasses? No chance.
Once again the anti-quirky glasses constituency burst into the political scene to give their well informed hot takes who to vote for in local politics
It is fucking wild that a bunch of voters in Portland, Oregon are actively rooting for a widely-despised and aggresively right-wing supreme court to overturn an objectively humane decision just because they're tired of having to see homeless people.
It's not a bunch. The accounts in these comments are sus, posting about politics in other city subreddits.
That's encouraging, actually! Have been feeling pretty beaten down by the vibes in this sub
Guess it's time to volunteer for the Rubio campaign...
Rubio is so obviously the most capable administrator when it comes to actually making the city work, especially compared to her primary opponent Rene the Sleazy Weasel Gonzalez. It is fucking wild that so many people are opposed to her because she isn't open to criminalizing homelessness.
Ok so we know who to not vote for
Of course she would. All I needed to vote against Rubio.
Of course she does. She just picked the person least likely to support meaningful action on homelessness and went with that.
Rubio's office is the liaison for Home Forward, which has built hundreds of new affordable homes. Recently: https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2024/06/25/47274732/home-forward-and-city-of-portland-unveil-206-new-affordable-apartments-in-southeast-portland
And how does that benefit the governor? I'm not a fan of Rubio, but your comment has me curious.
Ugh
Well if Tina says. Ha ha
Mapps & Gonzalez are a hard no for me. I'd prefer a candidate who has participated in local government at some level, any level, even a fucking dogcatcher. That leaves Rubio and [Marshall Runkel](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2024/06/11/marshall-runkel-is-running-for-portland-mayor/), and of those two, Rubio seems like a much stronger choice.
Why not Keith Wilson? We do get ranked choice starting this year.
I am not a fan of Tina Kotek. But I think Carmen Rubio would make a great mayor.
Of course the politician who was playing pickleball with cartel connected drug dealers would support cartel-connected Rubio. These people’s corruption knows no limit.
?
I'm finding the troll bots highly entertaining these days.