Editor’s note: Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5. Stay informed with OPB on the presidential race, key congressional battles and other local contests and ballot measures in Oregon and Southwest Washington at opb.org/elections.
Portland is facing an historic election involving a new voting system and an unusually high number of candidates. Journalists at The Oregonian/OregonLive and Oregon Public Broadcasting share a goal of ensuring that Portland voters have the information they need to make informed choices, and we also know candidates’ time is valuable and limited.
That’s why the two news organizations teamed up this cycle to solicit Portland City Council candidates’ perspectives on the big issues in this election. Here’s what they had to say:
For each of the following questions, we asked candidates to limit their answers to 150 words.
About the candidate:
Name: Patrick Hilton
Neighborhood: Madison South
Renter/Homeowner: Renter
Education: B.S. planning, public policy and management with urban design concentration, University of Oregon.
Occupation: Architectural designer/contractor, architectural educator and illustrator; Actor.
How long you’ve lived in the city of Portland: Oregon since 2007 (Gresham, Eugene); Portland since 2010.
Age: 48
Pronouns: Your choice
Name two existing city policies or budget items you’d make it a priority to change. Why did you select those and how do you plan to line up at least 7 votes on the council to make them happen? Please avoid broad, sweeping statements and instead provide details.
I was initially excited about Residential Infill Project (R.I.P.), but after attending meetings, I recognized a destructive loophole that encourages the demolition of original homes for new micro-townhomes and duplexes. This displaces renters from older houses and undermines existing affordability across neighborhoods. To prevent displacement and maintain existing housing options, the policy should require the preservation of original homes. This would allow for a greater variety of housing units added to existing properties. Aptly shortened as R.I.P. this policy could transform much of District 3 into a bland micro-townhome suburb with no trees. It’s contradictory to remove mature trees for redevelopment while simultaneously investing $40 million (Equitable Tree Canopy Program) to plant 15,000 new ones elsewhere in the city. That’s $2,700 per tree. I plan to advocate for more thoughtful policies by presenting examples and data to my fellow councilors, putting efficient and innovative solutions forward.
Related: What you need to know about voting in Oregon and Southwest Washington
What previous accomplishments show that you are the best pick in your district? Please be specific.
I bring my unique perspective shaped by personal experience; not accomplishments. Having cleaned thousands of dishes and toilets, been briefly homeless, and lived in an SRO and group artist housing in Portland, I truly understand affordability and the needs of lower wage workers. My diverse background as an enforcement/education park ranger, architectural designer, and my studies in ecological systems and architecture/urbanism highlight my commitment to protecting shared community assets, limiting future liabilities, and promoting innovative sustainable design. Growing up in post-urban renewal Chicago, I witnessed how short-term policies of the mid 20th century destroyed lives and parts of the city. I saw how thoughtful investments in beauty in the 90s revived the city. District 3 was spared past urban renewal, but new short-sighted redevelopment policies risk displacing working-class residents and destroying what makes parts of District 3 one of the most charming and thriving areas of our country.
Patrick Hilton is a candidate for Portland City Council District 3.
Courtesy of the campaign
Portland is on track to permit the fewest number of multifamily units in 15 years and remains thousands of units below what’s needed to meet demand. What steps would you take to dramatically and quickly increase the availability of housing?
I believe the population forecasts for Portland are inaccurate, especially given our recent population decline over the last four years. From 2000 to 2020, the city gained 120,000 residents at its peak but lost 20,000 from 2020 to 2024. I don’t foresee the addition of 150,00-200,000 people by 2045, as predicted. Trickle down affordability and supply and demand doesn’t function when local real estate has become a globally traded commodity. Inclusive zoning can’t provide all of the housing options we need. We need innovation:
Incentives and grants for:
- Adaptive re-use of vacant commercial
- Creating new housing typologies
- Adding units to homes
- Buying older homes and creating group housing
- Affordable housing preservation
- Practical rent control
- Local small landlords that offer lower than market rate apartments
- Low-income ownership opportunities
- Creating land trusts from unneeded streets
Penalties and fees for:
- Long term vacant units in large buildings
- Zombie houses left derelict by investors
Portlanders have approved many tax measures in the past decade – supporting affordable housing, free preschool programs and green energy initiatives. Are there specific taxes or levies you want eliminated or would choose to not renew? Are there specific taxes or levies you would support creating? Why?
The arts tax is the strangest tax invented. Why is it collected this way? It needs to be transparent in exactly how it’s spent, collected differently and offer a volunteer option for professional artists in lieu of payment or it should be put in a standalone low-cost levy that is only for arts education scholarships for children and adults in our city.
Above I mentioned there should be a fee or tax on houses that are bought by investors and left to become derelict. This tax should include properties that are left as empty lots many months or years after the homes and buildings on them were demolished. It is such a waste to see good housing not used when there are so many that need housing. We need to incentivize reuse of existing buildings in order to be a city full of people, not empty investment properties.
Related: Issues important to Oregon voters
Do you have any concerns with the changes coming to city elections and city governance? If so, what would you like to see change?
Yes I do. This transition comes at a challenging time for our city. Like many, I believe that getting involved in our neighborhoods can lead to meaningful change and influence on how local issues are addressed. However, I’m concerned that the new councilors may have less say and control over policy in their districts and at City Hall than the public thinks, limiting their ability to tackle issues directly. Existing practices, entrenched beliefs, and a reluctance to innovate from within City Hall could hinder their efforts. Each of the districts should be able to differentiate themselves from each other a bit in their process and policies in order to invent, explore, and find efficient practices that can be unique to that district or incorporated into a citywide system that works better for all of Portland.
Related: Listen to 'OPB Politics Now'
For the five remaining questions, we asked candidates to answer in 50 words or fewer:
Do you favor arresting and jailing people who camp on public property in Portland who refuse repeated offers of shelter, such as the option to sleep in a city-designated tiny home cluster?
A vast majority will comply to regulations, and even more so if you give good alternate options to the continued violation. If someone is exhibiting threatening behavior after good alternate options are offered and after citation then I would support arrest with a best effort for services over booking.
Would you vote yes on a proposal to fund hundreds more police officers than the City Council has already authorized? Why or why not? How would the city pay for it?
I would vote yes to fully fund Portland Street Response and CHAT and use police sparingly but we need police that are well-trained, in good shape and not over-stressed. More police and budget can make that possible. General fund. If you lived in my neighborhood you would agree.
Do you support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot? What, if any changes, would you support?
I would. Shift funds from business development to:
- Carbon reduction
- Renewable energy installation
- Grants for energy efficiency
- Carbon sequestration tech and environmental overlay
- Grants for adaptive reuse of older buildings to avoid landfill and importing new building materials created with coal energy
- Recognize embodied carbon as a currency for grants
Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?
I think Portland should be the Amsterdam of America. Bike culture has to take precedence over cars to maintain our brand and mission in the world as an ecological leader. We need incentives and safety to bike. It’s declining at the worst time for planet and for our bodies.
Have the problems impacting downtown Portland received too much or too little attention from current city leaders? Why?
Too little. Neighborhoods are fragile ecosystems. Downtown was like an old-growth forest habitat for human activity. It took over 150 years to get downtown to where it was at peak health. It took 3 years to let it get battered. It will take a lot of time to recover.