Monday, December 12, 2011
Portland’s Handling of Occupy
Portland was Patient, Dignified,
Polite, Well-intentioned— But It
Forgot the 1st Amendment
By ORLANDO DELOGU
In a nation that still protects the rights of Ku Klux Klan members to
march, vilify whom they will, spew their bigotry— that protects the
rights of neo-Nazi organizations to do much the same — that tolerates
the vile protests of a hate group from Kansas that pickets the funerals
of fallen soldiers, we seem unwilling to accommodate the largely
peaceful protests of fellow citizens who are saying what we all know to
be true— the rich, the 1%, are too rich, too greedy, leaving many
others - a large majority of the 99% - with not enough income, high
unemployment, little hope, and no sense that things will soon change.
I find it anomalous that England, which has no Constitution or a 1st
Amendment, has a more tolerant sense of free speech rights, and
peaceable assembly to petition government for a redress of
grievances, than we seem to have. They’ve used Hyde Park for over
150 years for larger and smaller gatherings of protesters, for varying
lengths of time. They’ve tolerated tent cities in the shadow of
Parliament, Big Ben, Westminister Abbey for almost two years to
protest Afghanistan and Iraq wars. And after early City of London and
Church of England dissent— followed by the resignation of several
high church officials - London has come to terms with their own Occupy
people who have erected another tent city on the grounds of St. Paul
Cathedral, in the heart of what’s called “The City”—London’s version of
Wall Street.
It’s no answer for Portland’s city fathers to point out that they’re not
cracking any heads (as others cities have done) to move the Occupy
people out of Lincoln Park; that the Council listened patiently for five or
six long hours, that they’re sympathetic to the underlying message, that
they appreciate the tone and civility of those who spoke to the Council
on behalf of the Occupy community— that’s just face-saving rhetoric by
a Council that is prepared to throw the Occupy people and the 1st
Amendment under the bus.
It’s no answer to point out that the Occupy people are breaking the
law— change the law to accommodate the occasional needs of the 1st
Amendment. It’s no answer to say Occupy activities give rise to health
and safety problems— deal with them; that’s what police and public
safety people are for. The Occupy people have demonstrated that
they are more than willing to work with the City to address these
issues. The same police that protect the worst “haters” when they
exercise their 1st Amendment right to march, shout, engage in bigotry,
should be prepared to remove trouble-makers and intruders who would
use the Occupy movement to achieve their own ends. Closing streets,
re-routing traffic, arresting those who would threaten the “haters”—
these are steps commonly taken to protect the 1st Amendment rights of
those who spread hate. Why aren’t we prepared to do as much to
protect the 1st Amendment rights of the largely peaceful Occupy
people? Shame on you Portland.
Finally, it’s no answer to say the rights of others to use Lincoln Park
must be protected— what a sham argument this is. We all know that
Lincoln Park was/is little used by the public— that any number of far
more suitable areas for public park use are close at hand. Lincoln
Park is conveniently located— close to City Hall and busy streets
enabling the message to be heard. It’s well suited to the long term
goals of the Occupy movement. And wasn’t it the City that suggested
this cite (rather than Monument Square) in the first place?
In sum, the exercise of 1st Amendment rights is not (and should not
become) a matter of convenience— a set of rights to be exercised only
in small doses, when and where it’s convenient. They are at the heart
of a truly democratic society. People have died to protect these rights.
Without regard to what other Maine or American cities are doing, the
Portland City Council— our new Mayor, can and should do more to
protect Portland’s Occupy movement. Lincoln Park seems a suitable
place. We can tolerate a little inconvenience. We need to hear the
message for as long as it takes— that’s my view.
Orlando Delogu is a former Portland City Councilor, and a
founding members of the Maine Civil Liberties Union.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Portland's New Leader Emerges
By ORLANDO DELOGU
We have a new mayor - a shiny, brand new mayor
with some real credentials.
It began as something of a joke— a trickle of candidates - soon grew
to twenty; all of them out gathering signatures, fundraising, shaking
hands. You met them in Monument Square, along Back Cove, at the
Deering Oaks market. Many were people you’ve never seen or heard
of before, but they all wanted to be Mayor -why not - at $65,000 a year
and unemployment what it is. But the signature gathering process
served its purpose— the truly witless and less serious were weeded
out. Twenty candidates were pruned down to a still- large field of
fifteen.
I must say, however, that as I observed them (often from afar) they
seemed an earnest lot--- well-intentioned, certain that they could
correct Portland’s ills, put us back on our feet. I actually didn’t know
that Portland was off its feet— that things were as bad as many of the
candidates portrayed them. I was fooled by all those national
magazines that said we were among the top twenty outdoor, quality-of-
life cities, top ten places to raise a family, top ten food cities; among the
best cities for access to college and university-level educational
opportunities. Silly me - what do all those magazine people from away
know. These candidates convinced me - I need to stop feeling so good
about Portland, and start worrying a lot more than I have been.
In spite of their earnestness, looking at the fifteen candidates did
raise some concerns in my mind. A few seemed to have just arrived in
town, relatively speaking— been here a year, or three, or five. They
knew where Congress Street and City Hall were but they surely didn’t
have a feel for where Portland has been over the last 20, 30, 40
years. And if you don’t know where we’ve been, how could you know
where we should be going? I worried that so few of the candidates had
any real “institutional memory”— people, events, ideas tried (some
successfully, some not) to guide them in the mayoral tasks they would
undertake. Seems like there was a good deal of “chutzpah” in the field,
but not a lot of candidates with the sort of Portland background I
thought was needed to be mayor.
And while I’m on the subject of candidate qualifications, I was troubled
that so few had any real political experience— quite a few wanted to
start out near the top - MAYOR of the biggest city in the state. Starting
near the top doesn’t work in very many fields of endeavor. I doubted it
would produce the best mayor. And not many of the fifteen candidates
had any real business experience either. Some had not even held a
meaningful day job. But they wanted to run a government that is in fact
a $300 million dollar annual business. It seemed to me there was more
“chutzpah” in the field than real candidate qualifications.
One candidate asserted that: He’d proven he could do better. I don’t
know when he did that, or how. Maybe I was out of town that day. He
certainly proved he could raise a lot of money, and put out a slick
mailing. Finally, in what looked like a lean election year, I loved the
signs; they sprouted up everywhere; the colors were great, and some
had a little swing to them. And I loved the jockeying around of the last
few days - I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. But I don’t know
that any of these activities qualified one to be mayor, or made much
difference in the final analysis.
When all was said and done, Portland voters showed an inordinate
level of common sense; they waded through a newfangled voting
system - the chutzpah of some candidates, and lack of experience of
others, to elect a man (Michael Brennan) with some real knowledge of
Portland’s history, some real political/job/business experience. There
were one or two other candidates that might have filled the bill, but
none better than the man Portland voters chose. I wish you well Mayor
Brennan--- good luck in your new office. Given the circumstances
facing the state and the nation, you'll need it. That’s my view.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The Public Art Committee and
the Bayside Benches
ORLAND DELOGU
Public art is a reality— some of it is tendered to the City gratuitously,
and is sought to be positioned here or there— usually a space the
donor thinks appropriate. But sometimes the art and/or the site is not
appropriate. Sometimes public art is sought to be put in place by the
City— a memorial to 9/11, to war dead, to a past leader we would
recognize, or simply to decorate a public space. But again, the
memorial or decoration must have taste, an appropriate scale, the right
location; costs must be within reason. In helping elected officials make
better decisions with respect to these public art issues, the Public Art
Committee serves a valuable function. They bring background, an
experienced eye, a perspective, that City Councilors often do not
have.
One hopes that, with respect to any/all issues involving public art, the
City Council would listen to the Art Committee’s views and
recommendations. But final decisions with respect to public art,
particularly when they involve a significant level of expenditure, rests
with the City Council. This is as it should be.
That brings us to the Bayside benches. I confess that I had not
thought of benches along the Bayside trail as art— I saw them as
utilitarian— a place for runners, walkers, older citizens, mothers with
prams and young children to rest for a moment, take in the
pleasantness of a flower bed, a warm day, a sunset. But, of course, if
lobstermen and traps, ocean waves, and people going to a ball game
can become objects of public art, then the Bayside benches can also
become objects of public art— but should they be at this time, in this
place? These are the questions that must be asked at this point.
With all due respect to the Public Art Committee, I submit that the
answer to these questions is No. Mr. Donald Delisle’s recent letter to
the Portland Press Herald got it right— spending $42,500 for three
stone benches is inappropriate. The timing could not be worse. Given
the fiscal realities we find ourselves in, this suggested spending
evidences a lack of common sense, a tin ear to the realities of tight
budgets, high unemployment, people (Portland people) facing real
hardships.
We can, and should, have benches along the Bayside trail; twenty, or
more, seem necessary. They should be well designed, sturdy, and
more comfortable than stone. Mr. Delisle suggests wooden benches
would do nicely. I agree, and I’d be surprised if the number I envision
could not be had for half the cost the Art Committee would spend.
But if this more sensible approach is to be taken, the Council needs to
step up and call a halt to the direction the Public Art Committee has
been moving in. Some money, a relatively small amount, has already
been spent— that spending was authorized. Fine— pay the bills. And
it should be said that the Art Committee and the artists involved have
all acted in good faith— their integrity is not in question. But this is not
the time for a costly public art project— the timing and the place call for
practicality. The Council needs to make this clear— that’s my view.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Welcome To Portland—Gotcha!
Why does the City give out so many parking tickets-
while ignoring dangerous driving violations?
ORLANDO DELOGU
We hold ourselves out as being a welcoming city— great food, great
shops, great walking (or running) around— a city with an architecture,
a history. We need and want the increasing numbers of visitors to our
city. They keep businesses open, which in turn provides jobs and tax
base. Given these realities, and the fact that most of the visitors to our
city come by car, it’s hard to explain some of our parking rules and the
fines that we impose. It’s equally hard to explain why some driving
rules are never enforced— why we put
ourselves and visitors at risk. Let me give some examples of both types
of these inappropriate behaviors.
Let me be clear, I’m not pleading the case for visitors who speed, drive
while impaired, park by fire hydrants, or in handicapped spaces.
These are universal prohibitions— ticketing visitors and residents for
these violations is appropriate. But visitors with out-of-state license
plates (often in easily identified rental cars) who park for a few hours or
a single night in residential neighborhoods can hardly be expected to
know the city’s arcane neighborhood and overnight parking rules.
They’re here on business, visiting the Maine Medical Center, staying at
a local inn or B & B, whatever—but the ticket says 'Gotcha!' I saw
several of them this past week in my West End neighborhood— it’s not
welcoming; it’s not smart; it’s more than a little unfair. In my judgment,
even in our downtown area, we ought to allow out-of-state vehicles a
one-time pass on meter violations— that’s being welcoming.
As for driving violations we never enforce— let me give you two
examples that will get someone killed unless we do more to curb these
behaviors. First, bicyclists who go the wrong way on one-way streets
are a danger to themselves and to drivers who sometimes need to
brake hard, or swerve suddenly, to avoid them. And it’s not an
occasional thing— it’s widespread on the peninsula, where car,
pedestrian, and bicycle traffic is heaviest. The corner of Pine and State
Street is particularly dangerous. Bikes coming down Pine (the wrong
way) can’t be seen until the last moment by cars turning right off of
State Street— it's an accident waiting to happen, here, and at a dozen
other places in the downtown area. I’ve never seen a police officer, or
parking violation personnel give a ticket to an errant (a dangerous)
bike rider— it’s time they did.
Second, and worse yet, is the growing propensity of drivers (mostly
residents, but some visitors) to run yellow, and even red lights. It used
to happen occasionally— we’ve all been guilty at some time. But today,
this unsafe driving practice is epidemic. Stand at the exit from Deering
Oaks, and watch cars crossing Park Avenue heading up State Street.
Or watch cars that have come down High Street, crossed Park Avenue,
gone through a corner of Deering Oaks, and are entering Forest
Avenue. Yellow and red lights are run with impunity at these
intersections. There have been accidents here. I’ve seen them. I don’
t know if anyone has been killed yet, but it seems only a matter of time.
I know I’ve never seen a police officer or parking personnel giving out
tickets at any of these intersections.
Though the examples I’ve used focus on my random observations on
the peninsula, the latter problem is citywide, perhaps even nationwide
— but that does not make it right, or any less dangerous. In fact,
running yellow and red lights is highly dangerous— it puts at risk
residents and visitors to our city. It needs to be stopped— addressed
by education and stronger law enforcement, before someone is killed.
That’s my view.