Last exit

A couple of the guys on the Portland City Council are talking about asking the city's voters one more time to come to their senses and reject some of the crazier parts of the charter reform happy meal that they foolishly passed last November. 

Mingus Mapps and Dan Ryan are floating a proposal that would, like the charter change that passed, get the council members out of managing the bureaus and hire a city manager who would run things day to day. And it would keep the pending change to electing the council from four wards. But unlike the current charter revision, as I understand it, the new proposal would:
  • Give the mayor the right to veto council actions, subject to the possibility of council override. Under the current plan, the mayor would supervise the manager and serve as a political heat shield for the council members, but have no say in any of the ordinances and resolutions that the council passes.
  • Have just two elected representatives from each ward, rather than three. This is being billed as a money-saving feature, but it might also make it harder for extremist nuts from getting elected to the governing body.
  • Change the new "ranked-choice" voting system from the current, untested, Byzantine version that apparently allows a person with 25 percent support to get elected, to a more standard "instant runoff" version. This would further ensure that lunatic fringe people don't get council seats.
Looking over at this story, you can see why Mapps and Ryan are concerned. Sarah Yada Yada and Jo Ann With the Bullhorn are back, and they're "schooling" other dimwits such as the queen of the charter commission, Candace Avalos, to join them in taking over the council through "ranked-choice" maneuvering. Under the current charter revision setup, these people are probably going to get four seats, maybe more, and they'll all get copious amounts of taxpayer money to run their campaigns.

Regardless of whether Mapps and Ryan actually go forward and get their changes on the ballot this fall, Portland is going to have a severe case of buyer's remorse once the new council in session. Last year the voters said that anything is better than what we have now, but they're going to find out that that was an overreaction.

I support what Ryan and Mapps are trying to do, but I'd go a lot further. First of all, we ought to have seven or eight districts rather than just four. Just look at the mess that's about to happen with a sliver of the east side being disenfranchised by being made part of an overwhelmingly west side district. And honestly, one council member per district is just fine. 

As for "ranked-choice" voting, it's a solution in search of a problem. One person, one vote has worked pretty well over the millennia.

And wait 'til you see whom the "ranking" gives us. Especially with taxpayers paying the campaign bills for the weirdos. Portland is, once again, going to be extremely sorry with its hasty choices.


  1. Watch all the SJW-cadres of Joann with a Bullhorn start screaming, moaning and gnashing their teeth. I'm glad I live in Washington County!

  2. This should be easy to get on the ballot. The only one of the Crazy 5 that supported it was Rubio…and she only supported it because Hardesty told her to.

  3. Portland, where nothing succeeds like stupidity. It's a hopeless city. Not a single positive change is possible.

  4. Council meetings are distracted and take the full ~2hrs & 30min attention span of humans even if all is going reasonably well in better times w/4 people, their PERS recipient staffers & whatever peanut gallery for the given single issue reactionary action Being presented…

    Sounds sensible;
    mayor already sucks as a job in most any major American city, & is at best a go-between between finance & contractors/developer weasels & a person looking for some advancement path while being a good sport about the public using their face as a toilet.

    For god sake, the layers of entrenched bureaucrats and layers of PERS receiving potential vancouverite tax dodging mouse fondlers (are you a maker, fixer or mouse-tickler?) is absurd here!

    Say what you will about AZ and vicious HOAs, idiotic post war & especially post 1970s (when they bilked the public/feds to help pay for the central aqua duct) suburban sprawl, no water & border issues, they don’t have anywhere near the taxation with vengeance, high fees, pet projects, & PERS recipient incentive structure for ~7 layers of time servers & hacks that rub it in your face every day.

    No strong or informed opinion like Jack on ranked choice voting or not.
    UK has more proportional representation & look how it’s going?
    I’m ok with simpler forms of it and run-offs I guess if we wanna?

    France and us have street protests…what did that really produce/how’s that going? (Not very well).

    I’m hoping all of farther out SW will vote to dis-incorporate like Damascus did & leave the city council to their doom/ make whatever idiotic rules they want?

    The public schools really faded in the 90s & onward, keep the county sheriff & fight it out with metro & the county?
    What are we preserving with all this dead weight of a city bureaucracy?

    What was A federally protected gravity fed water system our idiot bureaucrats are mismanaging, imposing like an expensive add-on defacto property tax & selling it out from under us by the day to alohabeaverboro sprawl (tualatin valley water district) and nestle while on the take from developers (subsidize more crapterpartments coming to a street near you with more base water bills to grow the budget they have to spend every year), nestle & subsidizing affluent nouveau riche suburbanite lawn watering WA-county home-owner garbage?

  5. I hope this goes to the ballot and wins by a bigger margin than the Charter Commission’s hot mess. If the City Council had any balls they woulda rejected the Charter Commission proposal & gone back to the drawing board with a new crew. Wheeler, Mapps & Ryan coulda forced that.

    1. Sure they could have. If they had any balls.

      Like most progs, these folks fear the public. That’s why they’d rather rule by fiat.

  6. Okay, so voters just increased the number of city council members, who then increase their pay, and then they want the voters to also hire a city manager, whose pay will have to be competitive with city managers in comparable sized cities? The cost of government is rising despite its proven ineffectiveness.

  7. It's Gonzalez NOT Mapps.


Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.