The excursion to the Port of Portland was insightful but not surprising. The hosts of the tour were friendly and informative. There were a few things of interest that was new, but much of it turned out to be a power-point review. The facilitator of the tour answered most of my questions through answering questions from my classmates. One question that was raised by a classmate had to do with the capping strategy for the Willamette River Superfund Site clean up, and if the capping would be compromised by dredging of the river for large vessels to navigate. The facilitator told us that there was “little too none” persistent organic pesticides in the deep channeled part of the river. I however asked three questions: 1. Where there treaty obligation that the Port of Portland had to honor? 2. Was there a role that the Port of Portland was participating in to encourage public comment by Portland citizen during the sixty-day comment period? 3. What where the circumstances that led to the Willamette River to be listed as a Superfund? The answer to the first question was yes. The agreements are negotiated and settled by the Federal Government and Tribal Nations concerning tribal waters and fishing rights. The tribes are an integral part of the process of deciding procedure for the Willamette River clean up. The second question was answered by what the EPA was doing by having community meeting and placing advertisements into the local papers. There was not an answer given about what the Port of Portland was doing to inform citizens. The last and third question about who instigated the listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund Site was explained as a bureaucratic endeavor by the state to clean up Oregon Rivers. However, it was my understanding that it was a group of Tribal leaders that went to Washington D.C. to lobby the government about the deleterious state of the Willamette River.
The Retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland, by Norman Krumholz conveyed a brave approach to delivering the advocacy and equity planning to the citizens of Cleveland. The outreach strategy that the Port of Portland has exhibited, in regards to the Willamette River Superfund Site, shows a willingness to keep citizens in the “sandbox” and placing them on “Indian reservations” (Krumholz, 1982). A bold and brave move for an agency who’s soul purpose is to bring business to the state of Oregon, would be to put democracy and the resources for the public good front and center, An activist approach to having a clean an viable river open to everyone will produce development, business, and revenue that the state desires. How much revenue has been lost to the risk of persistent organic pesticide contamination? How much development has been lost that could have promoted that cities ethics of a green corridor? When it comes to the Willamette Superfund, and participation outcomes, and the EPA, I have heard many Portlanders confess that they have succumbed to “meetingitis” (Arnstein, 1969) because of the length of time that this tragedy has been going on. To have citizens to stay continually abreast, neighborhoods need there own technician (possibly hired) to keep them informed and engaged. The city of Portland provides this to a degree with it’s community engagement systems but when large cleanups like Superfund impact our communities, the federal government should be providing educators and organizers to make sure that the community stay informed, engaged, and active in the decision making processes. By Michael Pouncil Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35:4, 216-224. Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969-1979, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:2, 163-174.
1 Comment
Kirk
5/13/2016 07:10:17 pm
First of all, I have never heard "meetingitis," what a great term to describe how many members of the public feel. Keeping the public involved is such a tricky balance as you pointed out. How many meetings is too many? How much information should be given at what point in the process? It is difficult to sustain involvement for such a long process as this Superfund cleanup. I also thought your comments about the potential to bolster Portland's green image by really doing a good cleanup and the possible economic benefits of this. Like we talked about in class, it doesn't always have to be jobs vs. environment. Thanks for all the good thoughts!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|