PORTLAND – I appreciated Abraham J. Peck’s history lesson on “Why Portland doesn’t have an elected mayor” (Sept. 27) but the history lesson ended in 1953, and should have continued for another 20 years, as did the discrimination.
Portland’s darkest hours and deepest secrets happened in those next 20 years (1950-1970) through urban renewal. Autonomous thriving neighborhoods, still filled with immigrants, were designated “blighted.”then, many immigrants had become successful small-business owners, serving their local neighborhood. Then the stores were razed and removed.
As a result of urban removal Portland’s population dropped from 84,000 and growing, to 64,000 and stagnant. A luxurious and thriving “Downtown Portland” became a ghost town nearly overnight. Twenty thousand fewer consumers (and boycotts) had an impact on downtown businesses. Portland had its own little “expulsion” as it cleansed itself of 20,000 people.
How did it happen? A handful of people under the then newly formed Planning Authority thought it would be a good idea to “reindustrialize” the city. It’s now called “economic development.” Those then-thriving, growing and autonomous neighborhoods were in the way. Eminent domain was used eliminate them.
The first neighborhood targeted was Deer and Vine streets –Portland’s little Italy, where Italian was still the primary language. It was razed to make way for Jordan’s Meats.
Then, those leaders moved on to raze Bayside and the East and West ends. Only immigrant neighborhoods (Catholic, Jewish, Italian, Irish, Polish) were targeted and designated as blighted, at first.
Then they moved on to the historic districts and the clamor grew. Eventually those fighting the expulsions won in the courts, but it was too late to save our city.
The discrimination didn’t end when the KKK took off their hoods. Permanent damage was done. We never thrived or grew, and industry never came.
Taxpayers have spent four decades and millions of dollars trying to rebuild what was razed. Taxpayers have spent endless millions to “revitalize” downtown, over and over again, without success.
Those times continued a great distrust of leaders, elected and appointed. It created a great distrust of centralized power, as well as economic development. A whole generation saw the devastation that a handful of people and “speaking with one voice” can wreck upon a community when either given, or simply taking, power.
Those originally promoting an elected mayor, with the very best of intentions, didn’t look deeply enough at Portland’s history and they didn’t get enough seats on the charter commission to put a restraint on potential abuse of power.
Most votes on the commission were 5-4. The promoters of this idea were too often in the minority.
The majority of commissioners ran on several common platforms. One said, ‘Portland needs to speak with one voice.” Why? That is the last thing Portland needs, because it has many voices.
Speaking with one voice is what facilitated urban renewal (and continued discrimination). That one powerful voice silenced all other voices. That “one voice” theme isn’t about furthering democracy but about centralizing power in “one voice” called the Chamber of Commerce.
The City Council spends the majority of its time on economic development, while too often neglecting and ignoring all other voices and needs in this city. When was the last time the council actively talked about, let alone did anything for, youths, families, seniors, neighborhoods?
It is time for all voices to be heard. A mayor, who speaks with the same one voice that brought us economic development through urban removal, is a move in the wrong direction.
The platform of the majority of the commission’s members also included “more accountability to the voters.” And yet the majority adopted a four-year term for mayor, the longest possible, with no voter accountability. They actively rejected a more accountable two-year term and a three-year term, as well.
A two-year term is long enough to set an agenda and then ask for voters’ permission to continue. Four years is too long to wait for voter accountability.
Finally, the majority wanted to be able to claim a “mandate of the voters.” It was unlikely any candidate could get 50 percent voter approval, in the first vote, to claim that voter mandate. The majority realized it could only claim that voter mandate through counting second and third choices.
I’m concerned about the potential abuse of power of an elected mayor with no voter mandate or voter accountability. That’s exactly what the commission delivered — and the chamber wanted all along.
– Special to The Press Herald
Send questions/comments to the editors.
