Ted Wheeler (Friends of Ted Wheeler)
BY BRIAN LIBBY
This is the third installment in our series of conversations with City Council candidates, following interviews with Jules Bailey and Stuart Emmons.
Wheeler was born in Portland and comes from a family that made its fortune in the lumber business: the Tillamook County town of Wheeler is named for his great-grandfather, who started a lumber mill there that later became part of Willamette Industries. His education is impressive: a bachelor's degree in economics from Stanford University, an MBA from Columbia University, and master's in public policy from Harvard University. (While at Harvard, he wrote a book on government innovation.) Initially working for financial services companies like Bank of America and Copper Mountain Trust as well as his own investment company, he entered politics in 2006 by defeating incumbent Diane Linn to become Multnomah County Chair. When state treasurer Ben Westlund passed away in office in 2010, Wheeler was appointed to fill the vacancy, then was re-elected later that year and in 2012. In both his county and state rolls, Wheeler has been credited with improving dire financial situations, be it Multnomah County's budget shortfall. In his spare time, Wheeler is an avid outdoorsman, having climbed Mt. Everest, snowshoed to the North Pole and finished two triathlons.
The following questions were answered by a combination of email and phone.
Portland Architecture: What is an individual building or open space in Portland that you have found personally meaningful, or a source of civic pride, or have really enjoyed spending time at over the years?
Ted Wheeler: the Portland Transit Mall – I really appreciate that this space combines design elements and functionality for the community. It is friendly to pedestrians and has a variety of transit options. It is also welcoming to businesses and provides a variety of services and amenities in the area.
Portland is seeing a wave of older homes being demolished, but much of what is replacing these houses seems to be one-for-one and geared to the affluent, not adding density or affordability. How can we change that?
I’ve identified this very issue as a way we can do better in adding appropriate infill density to our neighborhoods while increasing the city’s affordable housing stock. As we add an estimated 20,000 people a year to Portland, and with the commitment we made to the Urban Growth Boundary, we need to be more flexible with zoning to allow duplexes, triplexes, garden apartments and accessory dwelling units. I think we can make these zoning changes while at the same time working to ensure new construction fits with the design and architecture of the existing neighborhood.
The county and the city have the same goals when it comes to getting more permanent affordable housing into the community, and should be working hand in glove — not at cross purposes. Yet the county tax assessor reevaluates the value of a home once an ADU is added, which can significantly increase property taxes. That dissuades homeowners from making improvements that would increase neighborhood density. We should do more to better align our goals and our incentives to accomplish them.
Although many if not most local leaders seem to support an urban growth boundary to protect farmland and prevent excessive sprawl, rapid rises in median rents, home values and the cost of living have caused some to question these values. Can Portland keep growing more dense without pricing out our less affluent citizens?
Our commitment to the Urban Growth Boundary means we’ve also committed to increasing density in the urban core, along transit corridors, as well as in neighborhoods. In areas where we already have density — like downtown, in town centers, and along transit corridors — we should build big, build tall, and build dense. Our housing affordability crisis comes down to supply and demand, and springs from the fact that we have a housing shortage in the range of 20,000-30,000 units (according to state economists, that’s how many units we underbuilt by as a region between 2006 and 2015).
Growing denser does not mean we need to price out our less affluent citizens. As I mentioned above, the county and the city need to coordinate better to not only allow, but incentivize affordable infill density like ADUs, garden apartments, duplexes, and triplexes. Further, as mayor I will streamline the permitting and application process and fast-track affordable housing projects to get more affordable housing online faster. I will also look at changes to the city’s costly and onerous design review process in order to streamline affordable housing projects.
Oregon used to be defined by resource-based industries like timber and agriculture, but increasingly Portland in particular has become a hive for creative industries from architecture to athletic apparel to apps. Do you subscribe to Richard Florida's notion of a creative class as crucial to a city's prosperity?
Portland is on fire economically. People want to move here, live here, and raise their families here. These are our designers, educators, artists, musicians and entertainers. Portland has always been a creative city, and has built its reputation on its strong creative class. For decades, Portland has been a destination for artists and creatives. Portland creatives are now applying their talents to technology, design, clean tech R&D, manufacturing, and research. These are jobs that have little to no carbon footprint. Creative work is one area where sustainable job growth in our city is taking place.
Portland recently committed nearly $200 million to renovate the Portland Building and about $80 million to redevelop the US Postal Service site along NW Broadway. Do you support these moves?
I have expressed concerns about the Portland Building. The $200 million price tag is significant, and I am not satisfied that we have fully vetted lower cost alternatives. I am also concerned about the lack of opportunities for women and minority contractors on the project. The post office site offers many opportunities, in terms of density, affordability and the economy. It’s a major piece of land in the heart of the city. We have to get this right. While I am excited for the possibilities, I do have some questions. For example, the city paid $37 million for a piece of property assessed at around $12 million. How did that happen?
Last year reports of a major earthquake ravaging the Pacific Northwest sometime in the next 50 years caused a major uproar. But is the city doing enough to prepare?
There are two key ways we can prepare for a large-scale disaster in Portland, specifically a major seismic event. The first is to support the Bureau of Emergency Management's work in this area. Preventing the loss of life and tending to our basic needs in the aftermath of a major earthquake will prove challenging given the potential destruction of key infrastructure. BEM has worked to recruit and train Neighborhood Emergency Teams made up of every day citizens to respond to emergency needs in their own neighborhoods. BEM has also established a set of sites around the city for Portlanders to go if they need emergency assistance. The second way the mayor can prepare the city for an earthquake is to educate the citizenry on the city's emergency preparedness plans, and more importantly, to inform every household of the things they will need to have on hand in the case of a major quake. The best way any of us can prepare for an earthquake is to have supplies and have a plan.
Should we be spending our transportation dollars on light rail and streetcar lines, or on paving roads and adding sidewalks? Or is this a false choice?
We need to prioritize both.
Many mayors have made changes to city bureaus like planning: Vera Katz split planning from development services, for example, and Sam Adams merged planning and sustainability. Are we set up to be successful in our current structure? And what do you think of the current structure in which a mayor assigns oversight of city bureaus to different members of City Council: Might there be a better way to prevent siloed thinking and encourage collaboration?
The bigger problem isn’t whether you create a bureau of environmental services or a bureau of planning. The problem is the overall structure of the government as it currently exists: we’re the only large city left in the USA that has this commission form. I think Galveston, Texas has a similar form of government but they’re about one-fifth our size. BPS and BES and Housing and Transportation: an urban planner would make a strong case that those functions need to communicate and collaborate well as part of a systematic approach to planning and design. But trying to force that into the commission form means they could be siloed from a budgetary or a system or a human resources capacity. Part of the conversations I’ve had at this point, I’ve spoken to some of the bureau heads and leaders. I do not see anything that suggests I need to do a lock stock and barrel overhaul of those bureaus, but we need to group those bureaus thoughtfully amongst commissioners who understand they can’t be stand alone functions. It’s getting back to the big picture of the commission form: think of a diff scenario. We’ve all been scared since that Pulitzer Prize-winning New Yorker article by the threat of a really big earthquake. You’ve got police, fire, the OEM: they don't necessarily need to be under separate commissioners. The budget and communication isn’t balanced. What good is it to increase police on the street if the 911 dispatch doesn’t have funding? That’s a scenario we currently have. I want to make sure we have the community, the collaboration, the budget, the human resources and technology that will allow us to do the kind of planning we need to do.
Let me take a deeper dive. This form of government was created, I believe, in 1914. Many other cities across the United States had it but concluded it was not an effective form of government. The city was much much smaller then. I don’t think it extended past about 42nd. A smaller group of elites ran the city, predominantly white men. In my mind we’ve outgrown whit structure of government. You may the smartest guy in the city, but on Day One you’re handed keys to bureaus with huge budgets, thousands of employees, labor unions, limited resources, and told, 'Here you go, Cowboy.' And you’re in charge. There’s an expertise question. There’s communication and collaboration issue, and the silos. And I think there’s a social justice component in that communities of color, lower income communities, and the geography east of 82nd seems to not be very well represented by this form of government. Everyone has to run citywide. You can be a passionate advocate for a particular community and represent a rapidly growing segment of the population. But running citywide you may not get elected. In an increasingly diverse community I don’t think this form of government leverages that in a way a more modern structure of government might.
It’s got to come from the public. I’m not running on a reform platform. Last time it was done it was seen as a power grab from the mayor. But I do think there are pitfalls of this form of government. But that means the public needs to assure city council they want a charter review.
Some have argued that local elected officials risk being over-influenced by developers and other local moneyed interests. How might you assure less connected citizens that they have a voice?
Back in September, I took the Working for the People of Portland pledge, which means that no one who has worked on my campaign or consulted me can lobby me once I’m elected Mayor. I agree that we need to increase transparency and accountability in government to earn the trust of Portlanders.
Can you name any local architects or firms working today whom you admire? Or any recent projects?
The buildings that best epitomize successful integration with our design and transportation goals are emerging in the Lloyd District. These are apartments intended for urban, transit-oriented citizens. They take advantage of existing and planned transportation corridors. They are not intended to be particularly car-friendly. If we can encourage density in areas where it makes sense, I believe we can alleviate some of the pressure placed on established neighborhoods.
I’m also a big fan of Bjarke Ingels’ work.
Advertisements
Comments