Editorial: County at a crosswords, a pushback on growth and other election takeaways
The May election was one in which dark money won – except when it didn’t. An election where voters tossed progressives – except when they kept them. An election reflecting taxpayer fatigue – except for the many money measures that passed.Try as we might to draw a neat narrative around the biggest Portland-area races on the ballot this spring, the only clear takeaway is that even Portland’s broadly liberal voting population is deeply conflicted about the direction to take at this moment in time.But the results offer a few glimpses into voters’ state of mind that are relevant not only for the November election, but beyond. Candidates, policymakers and elected officials should take note and prepare accordingly.Whither Multnomah County: Conventional wisdom suggests that Multnomah County residents want a significant shift from the policies pursued by former Chair Deborah Kafoury and current Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, particularly on homelessness and behavioral health. But the strong showing in the primary for Meghan Moyer and Shannon Singleton – two of the biggest progressives running for the county board with many of the same labor union, nonprofit and advocacy group endorsers – suggest that a large contingent of voters isn’t ready to make that break.Between now and November, voters should press the two candidates – as well as their opponents, Vadim Mozyrsky and Sam Adams – to keep up the pace in articulating the specific ideas, proposals and diagnoses of what’s going wrong. The candidates should act as if they are already on the board of commissioners and weigh in frequently on current agenda issues in front of the board – including Vega Pederson’s proposed budget; Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards’ push to create a 24-hour sobering center; the ongoing delay in ambulance response times; and the development of a “deflection” system for providing drug users with treatment as drug possession is recriminalized starting in September. Not only do voters deserve to know where candidates stand in advance of the November election, but whoever is elected should be well-steeped in the issues and ready to take charge in January when they join Vega Pederson, Brim-Edwards and newcomer Vince Jones-Dixon on the board.The limits of big money: In reality, there aren’t many limits on big money in Oregon elections these days. We saw how that plays out, most notably in the more than $3 million spent in blistering ads from Voters for a Responsive Government excoriating 3rd Congressional District candidate Susheela Jayapal for her time on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Still, Jayapal wasn’t the only one targeted by the huge sums of money flowing in support of – or against – several candidates.The question is: how effective was it? While Jayapal lost decisively to state legislator Maxine Dexter in the Democratic primary, a similar onslaught of scorching ads against Singleton, who served as the interim director of the beleaguered Joint Office of Homeless Services, did nothing to halt her first-place showing in the race for Multnomah County District 2 commissioner. And while a flurry of ads attempted to paint prosecutor Nathan Vasquez as a favorite of the pro-Trump crowd, Vasquez, who had his own deep-pocketed supporters weighing in, prevailed over incumbent Mike Schmidt.While there’s little the state can legally do to limit the amount of such “independent expenditures” by outside groups in elections, requirements to disclose donors can help shed some light on who is seeking to sway voters in state and local elections. Legislators earlier this year passed House Bill 4024 under threat of a stricter campaign finance ballot measure going to voters. While the disclosure requirements are not as expansive as reformers sought, they will still force greater transparency once they go in effect in 2027. The key, however, is for the public as well as the good government groups who have been pushing for these changes to track implementation and make sure it matches the intent.Pushback simmering on growth: North Plains’ residents overwhelming approval of a ballot measure to halt the Washington County city’s plan to expand its urban growth boundary isn’t the end of the story. But it’s the latest sign of Oregonians’ unease over making the significant changes necessary to support economic development and reverse the state’s crushing lack of housing.The ballot measure challenged plans that had long been in the works to grow North Plains, a community of about 3,300 with median household income of $102,000, not far from Oregon’s Silicon Forest. With Intel recently securing an $8.5 billion CHIPS Act grant and other Oregon semiconductor companies receiving millions in federal funds, North Plainsis well situated to house the industrial, commercial and residential growth that such investment will generate.But critics objected to the size of the 855-acre increase, contended that valuable farmland would be lost and successfully put what is essentially a land-use decision on the ballot. Despite efforts by legislators and Gov. Tina Kotek to halt the vote – rightly recognizing that such administrative decisions should be handled through the existing process that allows for public appeals – a judge cleared the way for the referendum to go on the ballot. The upshot is that absent a Plan B from North Plains, the city’s expansion could be tied up in courts for years.Ideally, this is the kind of appeal that should go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court once the circuit court hears the case. Settling the question of whether voters can rightfully refer administrative land-use decisions to the ballot is critical for cities’ basic planning and adherence to state law. And considering many Oregonians’ antipathy to growth – primarily if it’s in their community – the prospect of voters in other cities mobilizing to stop boundary changes or other development decisions by popular vote is a very real concern. Oregon depends enormously on income taxes to pay for basic public services and continuing economic strength is vital to the state’s future. At the same time, the state has been underbuilding housing for decades and our shortage of 140,000 units is driving up rents, home prices, homelessness and contributing to declines in state population.Oregonians understandably are protective of the state’s environmental, agricultural and scenic heritage. But if they want to ensure a more sustainable future where people have good-paying jobs, families have homes and schools are adequately funded, they can’t focus on just preserving the past.-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board Oregonian editorials Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher. Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles. If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.
The May election offers a few glimpses into voters' conflicted state of mind about the direction of Multnomah County, the role of big money and growth, the editorial board writes.
The May election was one in which dark money won – except when it didn’t. An election where voters tossed progressives – except when they kept them. An election reflecting taxpayer fatigue – except for the many money measures that passed.
Try as we might to draw a neat narrative around the biggest Portland-area races on the ballot this spring, the only clear takeaway is that even Portland’s broadly liberal voting population is deeply conflicted about the direction to take at this moment in time.
But the results offer a few glimpses into voters’ state of mind that are relevant not only for the November election, but beyond. Candidates, policymakers and elected officials should take note and prepare accordingly.
Whither Multnomah County: Conventional wisdom suggests that Multnomah County residents want a significant shift from the policies pursued by former Chair Deborah Kafoury and current Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, particularly on homelessness and behavioral health. But the strong showing in the primary for Meghan Moyer and Shannon Singleton – two of the biggest progressives running for the county board with many of the same labor union, nonprofit and advocacy group endorsers – suggest that a large contingent of voters isn’t ready to make that break.
Between now and November, voters should press the two candidates – as well as their opponents, Vadim Mozyrsky and Sam Adams – to keep up the pace in articulating the specific ideas, proposals and diagnoses of what’s going wrong. The candidates should act as if they are already on the board of commissioners and weigh in frequently on current agenda issues in front of the board – including Vega Pederson’s proposed budget; Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards’ push to create a 24-hour sobering center; the ongoing delay in ambulance response times; and the development of a “deflection” system for providing drug users with treatment as drug possession is recriminalized starting in September. Not only do voters deserve to know where candidates stand in advance of the November election, but whoever is elected should be well-steeped in the issues and ready to take charge in January when they join Vega Pederson, Brim-Edwards and newcomer Vince Jones-Dixon on the board.
The limits of big money: In reality, there aren’t many limits on big money in Oregon elections these days. We saw how that plays out, most notably in the more than $3 million spent in blistering ads from Voters for a Responsive Government excoriating 3rd Congressional District candidate Susheela Jayapal for her time on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Still, Jayapal wasn’t the only one targeted by the huge sums of money flowing in support of – or against – several candidates.
The question is: how effective was it? While Jayapal lost decisively to state legislator Maxine Dexter in the Democratic primary, a similar onslaught of scorching ads against Singleton, who served as the interim director of the beleaguered Joint Office of Homeless Services, did nothing to halt her first-place showing in the race for Multnomah County District 2 commissioner. And while a flurry of ads attempted to paint prosecutor Nathan Vasquez as a favorite of the pro-Trump crowd, Vasquez, who had his own deep-pocketed supporters weighing in, prevailed over incumbent Mike Schmidt.
While there’s little the state can legally do to limit the amount of such “independent expenditures” by outside groups in elections, requirements to disclose donors can help shed some light on who is seeking to sway voters in state and local elections. Legislators earlier this year passed House Bill 4024 under threat of a stricter campaign finance ballot measure going to voters. While the disclosure requirements are not as expansive as reformers sought, they will still force greater transparency once they go in effect in 2027. The key, however, is for the public as well as the good government groups who have been pushing for these changes to track implementation and make sure it matches the intent.
Pushback simmering on growth: North Plains’ residents overwhelming approval of a ballot measure to halt the Washington County city’s plan to expand its urban growth boundary isn’t the end of the story. But it’s the latest sign of Oregonians’ unease over making the significant changes necessary to support economic development and reverse the state’s crushing lack of housing.
The ballot measure challenged plans that had long been in the works to grow North Plains, a community of about 3,300 with median household income of $102,000, not far from Oregon’s Silicon Forest. With Intel recently securing an $8.5 billion CHIPS Act grant and other Oregon semiconductor companies receiving millions in federal funds, North Plains
is well situated to house the industrial, commercial and residential growth that such investment will generate.
But critics objected to the size of the 855-acre increase, contended that valuable farmland would be lost and successfully put what is essentially a land-use decision on the ballot. Despite efforts by legislators and Gov. Tina Kotek to halt the vote – rightly recognizing that such administrative decisions should be handled through the existing process that allows for public appeals – a judge cleared the way for the referendum to go on the ballot. The upshot is that absent a Plan B from North Plains, the city’s expansion could be tied up in courts for years.
Ideally, this is the kind of appeal that should go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court once the circuit court hears the case. Settling the question of whether voters can rightfully refer administrative land-use decisions to the ballot is critical for cities’ basic planning and adherence to state law. And considering many Oregonians’ antipathy to growth – primarily if it’s in their community – the prospect of voters in other cities mobilizing to stop boundary changes or other development decisions by popular vote is a very real concern. Oregon depends enormously on income taxes to pay for basic public services and continuing economic strength is vital to the state’s future. At the same time, the state has been underbuilding housing for decades and our shortage of 140,000 units is driving up rents, home prices, homelessness and contributing to declines in state population.
Oregonians understandably are protective of the state’s environmental, agricultural and scenic heritage. But if they want to ensure a more sustainable future where people have good-paying jobs, families have homes and schools are adequately funded, they can’t focus on just preserving the past.
-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board
Oregonian editorials
Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher.
Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles.
If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.