Is Metro’s David Bragdon a true friend of the environment?
April 6th, 2006
Metro Council’s President, David Bragdon, is running for re-election. But he has no challenger. That should not excuse us from carefully examining his record.
After all, in his last election, David Bragdon won the votes of environmentally-minded voters as he beat back Kate Schiele’s pro-development campaign. It was a close race. And perhaps given the dynamics of that campaign, in office, Bragdon moved to what he perceived as the “middle” and thereby lost the hearts of many who voted for him and passionately argued his case.
Indeed, David Bragdon voted against the environment more than any other council member. This sad fact is according to Multnomah County’s branch of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters’ report on Metro.
- David Bragdon was one of only 2 Councilors to vote for conversion of top-priority farmland into industrial land.
- David Bragdon voted against reasonable environmental safeguards in the Tualatin basin.
- David Bragdon voted against monitoring of fish and wildlife.
- David Bragdon voted against requiring the Port of Portland to follow the same rules as the rest of the region for fish and wildlife protections.
- And, for those of us who love Forest Park, David Bragdon voted to include land on the west flank of this jewel INTO the urban growth boundary (despite strong grassroots opposition):
 This aerial view of Portland’s Forest Park shows the approximate area, in red, of Area 94. By arguing and voting for inclusion of this area in the Urban Growth Boundary, David Bragdon effectively guarantees that an important buffer (and possible future conservation target area) will be replaced with residential subdivisions. |
And, remember, Bragdon proposed environmental safeguards (or, rather, his staff did, after listening to public input), caught some flak from developers, backed down and made them voluntary. And not only that, but any incentives for these voluntary measures were fuzzy and unfunded. Such weenyism and awkward “compromising” helped Measure 37 pass: instead of making a strong case for the value, necessity, and purpose of commonsense environmental regulations, he let developers seize the storyline, he let developers frame the very idea of regulations as something bad and anti-freedom.
This anti-regulatory meme played itself out in the media, with no contrasting argument (well, other than Bragdon eventually backing away from the very safeguards he proposed), and helped fuel Measure 37. Had Bragdon, and others, stepped up and made a compelling case, well, things might be very different all over Oregon. Or, in this case and in others, had he more closely involved community members, rather than broadcasting from on high, the backlash and his retreat might have been muted or precluded.
Look at his Web site. It’s all about “fiscal responsibility” and “creat[ing] jobs” and opening new parks (and unlike every other Metro member, his email address is not available). No doubt, he must play to all sides. But, in one of the greenest cities in the country, shouldn’t we have a Metro President that passionately argues for the value, purpose, and necessity of regulations and government’s role? Shouldn’t we have someone that helps educate about such? Shouldn’t we have someone that includes and involves communities and groups, and brings them to shared goals?
The comparison might be a bit unfair, but some politicians aren’t afraid to stand up for government action: “Some of my friends who talk glibly of the right of any individual to do anything he wants with his property take the point of view that it is not the concern of federal or state or local government to interfere with what they miscall the “liberty of the individual.” With them I do not agree and never have agreed… My conception of liberty does not permit an individual citizen or group of citizens to commit acts against nature in such a way as to harm their neighbors” (FDR).
It’s too bad that in this election we don’t have a slightly different contrast than the Bragdon/Shiele match-up. Instead of facing off against a developer-friendly candidate, if only Bragdon had to defend against a green candidate. Perhaps that would encourage him to go to Portland’s true center in his next term.
Related posts: Land Use Watch primary endorsements..., George Advertising not in violation, Liz Kaufman and the battle against Measure 37
4 Comments Add your own
1. AO | April 13th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I live in OR (3 years, from Aridzona) but not Portland. Nevertheless, I’m interested in what happens everywhere in the state. You wrote: “in one of the greenest cities in the country, shouldn’t we have a Metro President that passionately argues for the value, purpose, and necessity of regulations and government’s role? Shouldn’t we have someone that helps educate about such? Shouldn’t we have someone that includes and involves communities and groups, and brings them to shared goals?” My answer is yes, absolutely. My question is, why are there no challengers, Green Party or otherwise? Why, in this precious green state are development-friendly people getting the upper hand? Where are the people who love it and care about the environment? Why won’t they run? Maybe the “conspiracy” folks are right and “chemtrails” are impairing our judgment. Let’s hope that at some point, before all is lost under the rubble of buildings, we wake up and step up.
Thanks for your blog. Very informative.
2. John Tess | April 17th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Hear, Hear.
3. Anu Raudsik | April 22nd, 2006 at 7:53 am
Are you a true friend of environment?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed