July 29. I’m starting this draft sitting in the gallery of Portland City Hall. In 20 minutes, the Council will receive public testimony on the report of the West Hayden Island Community Working Group. Following that, they will vote on Mayor Adams’ proposal to have the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability prepare a report on the feasibility of development of a single marine terminal on the island and the preservation of 500 acres of habitat. It’s a difficult issue, with concerns about jobs, the economy and the environment all needing thoughtful, responsible consideration.

So of course we are going to have a battle of over two competing either/or scenarios. Zero-sum politics.

The unions are here, several dozen workers all wearing stickers that say, simply, JOBS. For the unions, it is that simple. Understandably so. The economy has yet to recover, unemployment is awful, and any source of jobs is welcome. It’s the same mindset that leads the Oregon AFL-CIO and other trade unions to be major supporters of the biggest possible Columbia River bridge project. 12 lanes equals maximum jobs. Union leadership sees its only responsibility to the membership, and, for them, that means: what can we do to get the most jobs?

Opposing labor, hammer and tongs I’m sure, are environmentalists. The fragile nature of West Hayden Island, and what they say is an unproven case for the need for industrial development on the island, is leading them to oppose any development. They’d be happy for another 10 years of no-decision, leaving the habitat to its own devices. For them, even the smallest possible terminal development, which is pretty much what the Mayor is proposing for study, is too big.

There will be no common ground found between the two sides this evening. You don’t need a degree in political science or a crystal ball to figure that out. This is a public hearing and, as the old saw goes, these are attending by the “angry and the activist”. This is not a forum for discussion, debate and deliberation. If allowed, each side would try to shout down the other. [At the beginning, Mayor Adams forbid clapping, booing, even murmuring; he didn’t want anyone planning to speak to feel intimidated. I get the feeling he’s been through this before.] Given that the Council will pass the resolution, the no-development enviros are going to leave angry, cynical and ready for a longer fight. And given that the resolution does not commit the City to anything beyond studying a single terminal, the union folk are not going to be happy either; they will also leave in a bad mood, albeit less so than the “enemy”. [As it turned out, the hearing went over 3 hours so everyone left exhausted. Or early.]

Zero-sum politics.

I’m here this evening to speak for a transparent, inclusive and democratic public involvement process. I”m inclined towards a no-development stand on this, but I don’t know that to be the right solution. There is a lot I don’t know about this issue, so I’m not ready to take a stand on build/don’t build. I am ready to take a stand on something far more important and valuable: the democratic process. If the City wants to make an eventual decision that has any measure of political legitimacy, they can’t simply rely on Bureau staff to present a bunch of facts and figures — and the results of a few open houses. For this thing to be successful, public involvement has to be the paramount task of the Bureau.

The Founders and those who followed them in our national government understood one sad truth: without compromise, we go nowhere. That is the current game plan for the GOP, of course — to refuse compromise and ensure we do go nowhere — but I think we recognize how destructive that is of democracy. The trouble with compromise is it rarely can be done without the compromise of values & ethics — or so it often seems. So few things in our public sphere are value-neutral. Who do we ask to set aside what they believe in? How do the rest of us determine whose values we give precedence and whose we trammel into the dust under our hob-nailed boots?

I believe in the inherent creative genius of people who are determined to find solutions that benefit the entire public good. Creative solutions require looking beyond the narrow parameters of a specific issue. I don’t think development of West Hayden Island is the right way to go, but I am very concerned that we develop more jobs. If we are to decide to not develop West Hayden Island, can we then find ways to create jobs elsewhere? Perhaps innovative partnerships with the Port of Vancouver. I don’t know, but I’m not very well informed on this issue. I believe that a community that can come together to explore a wide range of options that protect fragile habitat and create new jobs.

But only if we decide that we will find solutions we can all share, not just the one we want. As long as we look at issues like this as zero-sum games, we all lose. We can do better than that. We must do better than that. We must get away from this us-versus-them competition over issues; it’s a stupid way to live in a society.