Portland City Hall, in Portland, Ore., July, 2023.
Caden Perry / OPB
In 2022, Portland residents voted to drastically change their form of government, this includes using ranked-choice voting and a 12-person city council. With the change in government, the mayor no longer has a vote within city council unless it is to break a tie and will work closely with the new city administrator to oversee the everyday functions of the city and help craft the budget. There are 19 people running to be the city’s new mayor.
OPB’s “Think Out Loud” invited the 4 candidates with the largest number of individual donations and funds raised. Rene Gonzalez, Mingus Mapps and Carmen Rubio are current city council commissioners who are running for mayor. Keith Wilson is the president and CEO of TITAN Freight Systems and is also running. They all join us for a debate.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. We’re going to spend the hour today with a debate for Portland mayor. The new mayor won’t just have to address issues like homelessness and public safety. They’ll also have to lead the city under an entirely new form of government. Under the voter-approved overhaul from 2022, the mayor will work closely with the new city administrator to oversee the everyday functions of the city and help craft the budget, but will not have a vote on the city council unless it’s to break a tie.
Nineteen people are running to be the next Portland mayor. We made the decision on this show to limit our guests to four. We looked at the number of individual contributors to each campaign, as well as the total money raised. The candidates we invited were the leaders in both of these categories. Rene Gonzalez, Mingus Mapps and Carmen Rubio are all current members of the Portland City Council. Keith Wilson is the CEO and president of the trucking company, TITAN Freight Systems. It’s great to have all four of you back on Think Out Loud.
All: Thank you.
Miller: Here’s a quick note to our audience about the format. We don’t have buzzers, but I’m going to be keeping my eye on the clock to ensure all of you have equal time. Please do, though, try to keep your answers to under a minute-and-a-half or so, so we can get to as many questions as possible at the halfway point. I’m going to give each of you a chance to ask one question to one of your fellow candidates. And then we hope to have a brief lightning round at the end.
We randomly chose the order for this first question – and Mingus, this goes to you first. What would be distinct about your approach to homelessness compared to the other candidates in this race?
Mingus Mapps: Oh, sure. Well, I have a PhD in government. I’ve actually worked on homelessness issues long before I came on to council. I used to do community economic development out in the Parkrose neighborhood. I’m deeply evidence based and process based in terms of my approach to public administration. So I am trying to build a system here. I will take a look at evidence and use that evidence to update our approaches to how we go about moving people from the sidewalks into safe, stable housing. And frankly, that’s what I’ve been doing for my nearly four years on council.
Miller: Keith Wilson, what would be distinct about your approach?
Keith Wilson: Completely opposite from what my opponents are offering today. They’re offering inaction or cruelty. They’re letting people suffer and die on the streets. And these individuals are just in pain before us. So, what I’ll do is I believe we can find a bed for every single person in Portland, not that includes a tent, not an RV, not in a business corridor. And by addressing that humanitarian crisis, just like I’ve noted, then we’re able to address all the other associated ills, like behavior, health and addiction and our economic malee.
I have done the research. I’ve brought together a group of national experts, many of them who have ended up on shelter homelessness. I’ve opened shelters. I’ve created a road map and I have the executive experience to see that project through. And so it couldn’t be more different. We are going to set up a network of nighttime emergency shelters – like most cities in the United States rely on tonight, that have very low rates of unsheltered homelessness versus Portland.
Miller: Carmen Rubio, what would be distinct about your approach to homelessness?
Carmen Rubio: That would be leadership, partnership, and also just making sure that we set up systems that are working and that is getting to the root structural causes, and issues that have led us to the broken system that we have today. So, no gimmicks or shortcuts are going to get us there and that’s really important for people to know. I’m offering lasting solutions by tackling the issues where they are. We don’t have a system that works. We need to do the hard work of building out that system, starting with shelters with services, increasing our capacities around mental health supports and addiction services. And that goes all the way to workforce issues and making sure that we have a pipeline of workforce that is well paid, qualified and ready to jump in. And then constantly making sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that we have a steady supply of housing
Miller: And Rene, what about you? What do you see as being distinct compared to these other candidates about your approach to homelessness in urban settings?
Rene Gonzalez: In urban settings, cities really have to take the front foot, and lead on providing shelter and outreach services, not rely on the Multnomah County to be a middleman and go directly to Metro to get support of housing dollars to fund those programs. The city can no longer take a backseat, can no longer outsource this to the county. They need to be on the forefront.
There are a number of important distinctions between the Gonzalez plan and the Wilson plan, one focused on Safe Rest Villages and TASS (Portland’s Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites). These have proven to get people off the street more quickly and into housing. I believe Wilson’s plan is actually going to make the problem worse, given the high rates people turn down congregate shelter.
Further, assure that we have low ratio services like we’re doing in our TASS sites, 15 to 1. This assures security in the area. This assures behavioral health and addiction treatment on site. Third, we have to take care of the deep medical needs of many of these folks and transitioning off the street into shelter. That means partnering with Portland Fire, our CHAT (Community Health Assess and Treat) programs to provide high quality medical at our site.
Miller: Let me stick with you and drill down on the question of the county’s role and the city’s role. You, Rene, and Mingus voted this week to start the process of asking the city to withdraw from its agreement with the county on the Joint Office of Homeless Services. Carmen, we’ll get to you. You voted against that.
I want to hear from all four of you about what you’d push for as a mayor in terms of the specific roles and responsibilities of these two governments? Rene, you have a minute or so for that first.
Gonzalez: So for a number of years, we’ve attempted to outsource this to the county. And the county has substantial responsibilities with respect to behavioral health. But the question of providing shelter at the street level is actually not a black and white question, under either city or county charter, nor under state law. It’s actually an area of some ambiguity.
I think it has been shown in the last 10 years that trying to outsource this to the county has failed, to outsource to the Joint Office has not led to success. I think the best innovations in the region in our sheltering have occurred at the city level – TASS sites and Safe Rest Villages. They were based on some national examples where other places in similar contexts could get real success, getting people off the streets. But that’s the first and foremost, that the city has to lead on this … continuing to coordinate with the county, though. It’s not taking our ball and going somewhere else. We just have to take a lead on direct sheltering and outreach.
Miller: Carmen, your take on the appropriate roles for the city and the county for all these issues.
Rubio: Absolutely that we have to stay in our roles. But one of our roles is to partner with the county. We have shared responsibilities here. And yes, we need to get more definitive about what each of our set of rules are, but we were heading in that direction. And I feel like it’s completely irresponsible to exit just three months after we inked a new agreement together. We haven’t given it the runway to actually see the work in action. Wheels are starting to turn, and we can see the impact of the city putting a lot of pressure on the county about the needs in the city – we are shaping that together. And so the timing is really unfortunate and I do think that the city can’t do this alone. The only way we’re going to be able to solve this problem is with all governments on go.
Miller: Keith, what about you: the roles you see and responsibilities for the city and the county, and what you’d want to do in terms of the Joint Office of Homeless Services?
Wilson: I understand the frustration that the council is experiencing right now with the Joint Office of Homeless Services. We have record unsheltered homelessness. So there should be frustration. But to do a pull-out without having an action plan after it, especially with a month or two before the severe winter shelter, just puts the program and the people at play. We need to have a clear plan at the end of it.
But I wanna go back to the point that Rene mentioned about focusing on Safe Rest Villages. I’ll be the first to say, yeah, it’s successful. Sheltering service is very successful. The problem is all my opponents keep saying let’s keep doing more Safe Rest Villages, but they haven’t opened one this year. Last year alone, we added 887 unsheltered souls to the street. Not only that, Safe Rest Village, it costs $189 per person per night. The shelters that I’ve been setting up, using the models from around the nation, are $19 per person per night and can be added in as little as 90 days. We have a humanitarian crisis. Delay, and inaction, and cruelty have to be put to the side, and we must act to care for Portland today.
Miller: Mingus, what about your take on the Joint Office of Homeless Services, and the roles and responsibilities that you want to see the two governments take on?
Mapps: Sure. Let’s talk about roles first. I’m deeply committed when I’m your next mayor to support our Safe Rest Village system and Portland Street Response. I also expect the county, number one – and this is one of the reasons why we’re having some issues with the county right now – to provide housing vouchers for our clients who are in our Safe Rest Villages so we can move them, first from the sidewalk into Safe Rest Villages, and then into permitted housing.
One of the struggles we’re having right now is we have not been able to secure an agreement with the county to actually provide those vouchers. That’s incredibly important because in order for our Safe Rest Village system to work, we have to have throughput. We’re actually through the system we’ve built right now, actually literally reducing the absolute number of people who live on our streets. This is one of the few programs in the Portland metro area, which is actually accomplishing this goal. But in order for this to work, we need to have the county to provide those vouchers.
And I’ll have to also tell you, one of the things that is quite disturbing here is for reasons that frankly still mystify me, the city in the county, or at least the county, seems to be unwilling to clearly define what the city’s role in this space is and what the county’s role in the space. And until we define that, we are not going to be able to make progress.
Miller: Carmen Rubio, you’ll get this next question first. According to Axios, in the first 100 days since the camping ban was instituted, over 11,000 campsites were identified, about 1,800 were removed, 24 were referred to law enforcement. And from all of that, five people were issued citations for unlawful camping and one person was arrested. Would enforcement change at all if you were the mayor?
Rubio: I think that enforcement would continue to go as the camping ban, the second version that we implemented, is intended. What we do have challenges with here in the city is making sure that the implementation is ready to go. And as we saw, we needed to have some critical conversations with the county to make sure that that happened on the sheriff’s side…
Miller: Meaning, that they would book that one person into jail?
Rubio: Or what was happening, even as we issued that. The foundational conversations needed to be had.
Miller: But I just want to pin it down here. So you’re saying that that enforcement would … that at this point, you are more or less saying the status quo would continue.
Rubio: I am saying that implementing the camping ban should happen as it is right now.
Miller: Mingus Mapps, would enforcement change in any significant way with you as mayor and the ability to decide who is running the police?
Mapps: Absolutely. One of the things I believe that our next mayor needs to do is to return to normal order. You’ve seen me, as your PBOT commissioner, hire 32 new folks to go out there and actually ticket cars that have registered or whatnot. I’ll bring that same accountability to the houseless space. Now, I know we’re not going to arrest our way out of houseless, but being able to hold people accountable for camping in inappropriate places is a key to bringing safety and cleanliness back to our streets.
Miller: Meaning, more people would be arrested, under what kinds of circumstances? What exactly would change? I’m not clear yet.
Mapps: Oh, sure. So, listen – we are not trying to arrest our way out of the houselessness problem, and I know that won’t work. However, being able to actually enforce our laws and say, “hey, this is not where you’re allowed to camp,” that is something we need to do, frankly, more of, especially when we see egregious situations. And, as the numbers that you just cited show, there are very few people who are actually being held to that standard. I think you mentioned maybe four or something like that.
Miller: This is from the first 100 days: five people issued citations for unlawful camping, one person arrested. So you want to see more?
Mingus: Certainly, in my navigation of the city, there are obviously situations, more than one situation where some sort of law enforcement intervention needs to take place.
Miller: Rene, how or would enforcement change if you were mayor?
Gonzalez: I will be the strictest mayor in the West on enforcing camping bans.
Miller: So what is not happening now that you would want to happen in terms of enforcement?
Gonzalez: I think our code is problematic. What we did and adopted, trying to comply with House Bill 3115, is too ambiguous as to when camping is banned in the city of Portland. I voted against the version that was passed for precisely that reason. I think our prior version had some of the same problems. We need to be crystal clear as we were for 40 years. Camping is not allowed in the city of Portland. Now, whether we push that with fines and enforcement or jail, I’m still somewhat ambiguous as to the actual tool of enforcement, but we have to be crystal clear.
Second, there is a challenge under state law that we have to provide 90-days’ notice, or we have to provide notice before clearing campsites. Mr. Wilson has misled voters on the argument that if you provide enough shelter, that 72 hours does not apply. That’s inaccurate. He’s been misleading voters on that repeatedly, but what he is correct about is that you do not have to provide that notice if there’s illegal behavior going on in that location. And so I think we have to aggressively assess every instance of these campsites. If there’s other illegal behavior going on, we go after them very forcefully.
Miller: Keith Wilson, would enforcement of Portland’s current camping ban change in any way if you were mayor?
Wilson: Absolutely. So what we’re going to do at the early part of next year is to rapidly set up shelters. The law states that if you have ample enough shelter in your community to meet the needs of those that are unsheltered, you can enforce your code completely, entirely. So [what] we have to do first is care for your community, provide compassion and care, not chaos and cruelty. But by providing that shelter and the option, you’re now able to provide and implement and enforce your codes entirely – no camping, no RVs, no more sleeping in a shopkeeper’s corridor, which is what we see every day out there. And isn’t that amazing? You provide for your most vulnerable and you actually improve the livability of your entire community. And every officer and every outreach worker or Portland Street Response can now provide a shelter for somebody in need. That’s a caring community and that’s what you’ll find in most communities in America.
Miller: I want to turn to Portland Street Response. It currently operates citywide from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day of the week. Keith Wilson, we can stick with you. How would you approach this non-police crisis response going forward?
Wilson: Funding is going to be a challenge for next year’s budget for sure. Portland Street Response is going to be a priority. It’s an unarmed response to a person in crisis. It takes the police out of the equation and brings a peer and an expert into that situation. We have a behavioral health crisis that’s playing out on our streets – it’s obvious to all of us.
We need to fully fund Portland Street Response. We have six units. Often times, only two are running during the day and only for half of the day. We need that to be fully funded in 24 hours and then we need to increase the mission. We need to add a sobering center quickly, use Portland Street Response for the transport and start helping those that are incapacitated, not just because of behavioral health, but from addiction which is playing out in our community as well.
Miller: Rene, your approach to Portland Street Response going forward.
Gonzalez: I think it’s a valuable program in the city of Portland to provide an alternative police response. The reality on our streets is we have dual medical and behavioral health needs, in addition to a whole host of other structural issues. So Portland Street Response by itself can’t fix those gaps. We’ve innovated substantially in Portland Fire with CHAT, providing substance use disorder support in managing addiction recovery at the street level. So, I think we need a combination of alternative responses at the street level, but PSR is a part of that equation.
Miller: Keith Wilson just said he wants to see it fully funded in 24 hours. Yes or no? Would you push for that as well?
Gonzalez: I think it is more important right now to make sure we have sufficient police officers than expanding to 24/7 for Portland Street Response. If we’re going to...
Miller: I want to dig deeper into the police in a little bit.
Gonzalez: But I support it in general. I would support it going 24[/7], but I have higher public safety priorities. I would put the police ahead of that right now.
Miller: We’ll talk to the police in a little bit. Mingus, what about you? How would you approach the Portland Street Response?
Mapps: Well, I’m a huge fan of Portland Street Response. I used to be the commissioner in charge of 911. And in that role, I helped grow PSR from a pilot program in Lents to the current program that we see right now, which serves our entire city.
One of the things that is currently missing from Portland Street Response right now is the ability to directly connect our PSR clients with services and frankly, those services are offered by the county. When I’m mayor, one of the things I’ll be doing is to negotiate with our partners at the county, so that our Portland Street clients get a priority as we make those references for mental health services, drug and alcohol services, and housing services. Frankly, that is missing now. So too often PSR responds and can only offer a bottle of water and a granola bar.
Miller: Just briefly, do you want to see 24 hours?
Mapps: Yes, 24 hours are important. But one of the things that I think is particularly important for people to pay attention to is response times. As we’ve grown the program citywide, one of the things I see is it’s taking longer and longer for PSR teams to go out there and reach people. I think I prioritize being able to shorten that response time before I necessarily would go 24/7.
Miller: Carmen, your approach to Portland Street Response as, say, the new mayor of Portland?
Rubio: I’ve consistently been the largest and strongest advocate for Portland Street Response on city council. I believe that we must go 24 hours and to all four corners of the city. And I agree with some of what’s been said, they need to have some of their abilities and duties expanded so that they can actually have more utility, like transport and other things of that nature.
But I also believe that it’s important to make sure that there is political stability for Portland Street Response. It has only experienced political and funding instability since its inception. And this council has not given it the funding footing that it needed. There was a critical point a few years ago where this council could have remedied that and taken it to the next stage, but there was not a majority vote for that. So we are behind. We do need the right responders in the right roles, and they are a vital part of our first responder system.
Miller: Carmen, let me stick with you. How would you assess the city’s current climate strategy? And what, if any, new policies would you pursue?
Rubio: So, the city’s climate policy right now is active. We can always do better, but up until recently, we had not, as a city, taken bold, strong climate action … until a confluence of issues have happened. One, we got very serious about what our climate emergency action plan is. Two, in this time of transition to a new form of government, we have now the ability to really integrate efforts so that we can scale them across the city enterprise. And three, we do have Portland Clean Energy Fund as a critical and useful tool, and leverage point for us to make catalytic moves over the next set of years.
So we do have a real opportunity. It is a start up and over the last several years, I’ve led numerous reforms of PCEF to make sure that we are able to unlock more of those funds to fund those climate action plans. One of the big things that I’m looking forward to is we’ve been working on – for the last year, plus – creating the first table for climate policy and it will be the Sustainability and Climate Commission for the city of Portland, first ever that we’ve ever had. So that, I believe, should act in similar ways that akin to the Planning Commission, where it will really chew deeply on these issues and make recommendations to city council.
Miller: Mingus Mapps, how would you assess the city’s current climate strategy? And what, if any, new policies would you pursue?
Mapps: Sure. I give us kind of a middling B grade here. My goal in the climate space is, number one, to support resilience. In other words, no one should freeze to death on our streets or die of heat stroke because they can’t afford a fan, or an air conditioner, or even a heater. The second space that we need to really focus on is carbon reduction. I’ll tell you, one of the things that concerns me frankly, under Commissioner Rubio’s leadership of the PCEF Fund, we’re paying about $1,000 per metric ton to reduce our carbon emissions. That is far too high to be sustainable and allow us to actually meet our goals to become carbon neutral within the next couple of decades.
Miller: Rene, how would you approach climate change? Any new policies you’d pursue?
Gonzalez: Well, I think we have a real opportunity to be a hub, a national and even global leader on how industry can drive that and what we can do at scale. So I’d really would like to focus on some of the opportunities created by the Clean Energy Fund to incubate industry in finding things that will scale well beyond our carbon footprint in the city of Portland, well
beyond our carbon imprint at the state of Oregon level. What can we do globally by supporting local industry, researchers and think tanks in that area?
Other big piece here: we’ve seen dramatic reduction in participation in cycling, in walking and using our public transit. We used to be national leaders on that. We need to have all of those things be clean and safe. So people will utilize them again and be joyous. Not just a burden, that we adopt it with joy.
Miller: Keith, what about you? Your approach to climate change as Portland mayor?
Wilson: Certainly. So it comes down to that record of success. So the transportation company that I own and operate has one of the lowest footprint carriers in the nation. And that’s my focus, to bring that sort of record of accomplishment to Portland as well.
I wrote a bill in the Oregon Legislature four years ago to reduce and remove the renewable fuel standard, and address petroleum diesel, and remove to renewables completely. It didn’t pass. We’re still working it through, but I’m happy to say that Carmen and her team picked it up and passed it with the council’s vote last year. That was the leadership and the lodestar that I brought to Oregon. And then I’m happy to say Carmen and her team passed it. Oregon and Portland have one of the cleanest fuel standards in the nation now.
Now, I also have at my company, the first fleet of heavy-duty electric vehicles – significant carbon reduction, but more importantly, black carbon reduction. So not only are we getting the CO2 reduction, we’re reducing black carbon which creates respiratory disease in our communities. We’re going to focus on electrifying the city fleet immediately so we can meet and exceed our 50% reduction by the year 2030 goals. And that is one of our single largest emissions producers in the city.
Miller: This is a chance for each of you to ask one question of one of your fellow candidates. Once again, we’ve randomized the order. Carmen, you get to ask the first question.
Rubio: Thank you. This question is for Rene. So as you know, we make quarterly payments for our contracts. And so if the proposal you’ve led, around removing the city from the IGA … it means that this will blow a hole in this year’s fiscal year budget and potentially programming, on both sides of the county and the city. And going forward, given it costs $40 million to keep our alternative shelter sites up and running, and that $40 million does not include services, how are you going to fill that gap and fund that while also wanting to fund more police officers?
Gonzalez: Oh, it’s a great question. So essentially the money we’re spending in the Joint Office currently, depending on the year, offsets what we spend on TASS sites and Safe Rest Villages. There is variability by year. I wanna be crystal clear on that, but it’s roughly a push. We don’t need the county. We don’t need the Joint Office to be a middleman on managing those TASS sites and Safe Rest Villages; nor do we need it from an economic perspective.
In terms of the back end behavioral health and vouchers, we’re going to continue to need help from the county. There are no two ways about it.
Rubio: For the rest of this fiscal year, what is the plan?
Gonzalez: So the wind down process is essentially going to be five months, right? When you really add up, we’re about two weeks out before it can even appear on agenda. Another week for second reading, won’t be effective for a month. And then we have a 90-day wind down under the existing IGA. We’re talking well until late first quarter or early second quarter of next year before, at the earliest, the agreement would end. So it’s going to have a pretty insignificant impact on this fiscal year, but we will have to readjust the plan going forward with Multnomah County and Joint Office for next fiscal year.
Miller: Keith, this is your chance to ask a question to somebody else here.
Wilson: Great. Carmen, we have an oversupply of housing for the more wealthy Portlanders, generally earning over 120% of the median family income, and we have an undersupply of affordable units. What can we do to address this gap?
Rubio: That’s a great question. And we consistently need to be focusing on building more affordable and middle housing. More and more people cannot afford to work and live in the city of Portland. And more and more, that compression is happening and it’s pushing people into homelessness, as you know.
So we spent out both of our bonds – the Metro bond and the city bond, which the city has performed excellently on. And we’ve actually increased our efficiency by providing 45% more housing out of that. So we really stretch the dollar as much as we can. But we do have an opportunity coming up. We are about to bring to council and if these pass, six new TIF districts (tax increment financing) districts. And as you know, 45% of those districts, the revenue collected from those districts is specifically earmarked for affordable housing. So we will have the opportunity in the short term to do that. But longer term, we need to be thinking about how we work better, and advocate at the federal and state level to support Portland in their housing development.
Miller: Mingus, your question for one of your competitors?
Mapps: Thank you for this opportunity. This one goes to Rene. Commissioner Gonzalez, several times, I’ve heard you argue that city council should place limits on the ability of citizens to come before council and criticize the police – which I’ve been surprised at. The first time I heard you say that I thought you were just pissed off, but this is a theme that you’ve returned to several times. I’m trying to understand that … that seems kind of inconsistent with our responsibility as elected officials to support civil rights and speech rights. How do you reconcile that?
Gonzalez: Boy, that’s a fair question. So the specific objection is when we have a specific agenda item before us and folks go off topic. So they engage in broader conversation around policing or policy. And we have the same folks testifying over, and over, and over again, using their three minutes to platform really sometimes abolitionist perspectives on police that are not germane to the agenda item before us. That’s where my objection is.
People who sign up for public testimony, truly exercising their First Amendment rights at the beginning of council … we have a specially designated time where people can express whatever opinion they have, whether we agree with it or not. That’s their right. That’s their First Amendment right. I am completely respectful of that even if sometimes I disagree with the people testifying. But when people Bogart a legitimate council agenda item and repeat the same stories over and over again, that is not germane to the topic at hand, that is my objection. It disrupts council.
Mapps: Can I ask you a quick follow up?
Miller: Quick follow up.
Mapps: Would you feel different if someone showed up? And as you said, Bogarted, the opportunity to testify, but in this situation, testified in favor of fire firefighters, for example.
Gonzalez: It doesn’t happen very often, specifically in the police area. I’d have to think about that on fire. But the examples we have dealt with are people that are strong critics of the police, borderline abolitionists that use every settlement, every item involving police to get into broader narratives about all the evils of Portland police. That is my specific objection when we’re talking about a specific agenda item. Again, they’re entitled to their opinion. They’re entitled to their First Amendment rights, and we separately provide that opportunity to them, but we don’t see people do that on the pro-police side the way we do on the anti-police side.
Miller: Alright, Rene, it’s your turn to ask somebody else here a question.
Gonzalez: Yeah. This question is for Mr. Wilson. The Oregonian recently ran a piece about your promise that echoes, in many ways, Mayor Wheeler’s promise eight years ago to end unsheltered homelessness. However, in their article, they cite your nonprofit and they indicated that at this point in time, right now, your two shelters are not providing any beds available at night. Is that accurate?
Wilson: Is that the question?
Gonzalez: Yeah.
Wilson: So those were set up as research. In other words, one of the shelters that closed was for winter and it’s opening back up on November 3.
Gonzalez: But are any of them providing beds right now at this day and time? This moment?
Miller: Let him answer the question.
Wilson: No, those were set up as research projects to see if I could do it in a quick manner within 30 to 60 days, we funded them through the winter, only through the winter. But we’re opening back up on November 3 because we got funding for it again. And that’s where we’re able to determine the cost basis for it, the effectiveness, and to make sure that the clients and the guests were well cared for.
But now, I opened a day shelter on February 1 and it’s open today, and the day shelter is how we connect people with services. And I’m happy to say that [inaudible] just gave us 11 new grants for interns for full-time employment. So now we have 19 people, going from previously being in tents, into the shelter and the shelter worker training program. They’re in shelter now and we’re working on housing.
So I wanted to see the continuum of how it can work, because if we’re going to make a goal to end shelter homelessness, we can’t do it pie in the sky, which is what Mayor Wheeler did. He said he’s going to do this. I’m showing you how we’re going to do it.
Gonzalez: You actually aren’t doing it right now. Your shelters aren’t open.
Miller: I think you asked that question twice. He answered it twice. Let’s move on. Because I have more questions than we even have time for. So if you can, now all of you have slightly shorter answers, we can get to more questions.
Carmen first for this – What’s an example of where you changed your position on something on some policy because you learned more about it?
Rubio: Thank you for the question. The example that comes to mind is when I first started at City Council and I was assigned to the Planning and Sustainability Bureau. And actually—and I think I might have been on Think Out Loud talking about this very issue – but there was a proposed tax on industry around air and carbon. I don’t know if you remember that. And so that was a proposal that was in process and there was tremendous concern from industry. We were just coming out of the pandemic. There were concerns about job retention, worker retention for workforce in the area. And then on the other side, how do we also make and advance our climate goals?
So what I did was, first dive into the issue, look a little more closely at the policy and then decided to do my own research. So I interviewed everybody involved and took a second look, talked to all the folks on the climate side, all the folks on the industry side, community stakeholders. And then I found a new way through. I thought actually, it’s better if we actually worked together. And the results of that coming together and resetting the table resulted in the Clean Industry Hub Project. And that is happening right now. And now, instead of just looking at ways that feel like penalizing either side, we’re actually looking at innovations and industry to bring clean industry and reduce carbon in the area.
Miller: Keith Wilson, to you, what’s an example of where you change your position on some policy because you learned more about it?
Wilson: You want to do this quickly, we’ll do it.
Miller: Yeah, please.
Wilson: So I wrote a bill to remove and reduce petroleum diesel from Oregon. It was going to reduce emissions by 9% in the state legislature. Working with all the Republicans, all the Democrats, they were not ready for that big of a change, even though it’s going to benefit everybody. But in doing so and getting to the no, we found a side benefit where if we took the wood waste in our timber community and converted it to renewable diesel, we could stand up a whole new industry and reinvest in uninvested timber communities. And that bill passed last year with 100% Republican support and 100% Democratic support. So a loss turned into a huge Oregon gain.
Miller: Rene, same question for you: If you can actually give us an example of where you changed your mind about something as opposed to trying to figure out a new way to accomplish something else, which, to me, there are differences there.
Gonzalez: Yeah, when we look at the sheltering needs of those on the streets of Portland, I once thought [about] just prioritizing building shelter above all else as a part of the solution combined with enforcement. I under-appreciated the medical needs of those on the streets of Portland that are unsheltered. In my time in Portland Fire, I saw up close the challenges with opioid withdrawal and the related physical ailments that develop for folks who are on the streets. I think our solution going forward has to include a substantial medical component in the transition from streets to shelter, then to long-term housing.
Miller: Mingus, what about you? An example of changing your mind as you learned more.
Mapps: Sure, I have a poignant example that goes back to almost my first days in office. I’m the commissioner in charge of environmental services. One of my first steps was to set up a pilot program where we partnered with members of the homeless community to help us do habitat restoration. So literally hiring houseless people to go plant trees. And frankly, we’re trying to manage stormwater runoff and whatnot.
So we did that, worked great. Folks were out planting trees. But one of the things that we discovered is that those houseless folks then frankly moved into the spaces that we were trying to restore and were functionally undoing the good work that we were paying to get done. So I pulled the plug on that project. I still love the vision of that. I love the partnership of it, but in the real world, it didn’t work, and I pulled the plug.
Miller: I stick with you. Let’s say you win and, two years past, we’re at the halfway point in your term. What is one concrete metric that you can identify now that you’d want Portland to use to assess whether or not you have been effective?
Mapps: The absolute number of people who are sleeping on our streets every night.
Miller: Ok. Rene, to you – a concrete metric that you would want folks to use to assess whether or not you’re actually an effective mayor?
Gonzalez: Building off of what Commissioner Mapps said, but going a step further: that a majority of Portland believe we’re headed in the right direction.
Miller: Keith?
Wilson: In 2017, we had 1,700 people living in shelters on our street. We closed or converted every one of our nighttime emergency shelters. Today, we have 5,398. That number must be below that 1,700 level within the two-year time frame that you noted. That’s the basis of my administration and the dashboard item that we’re going to be tracking day to day in the city.
Miller: So the same as Rene and Mingus, the number of unsheltered people living in Portland?
Wilson: Yes
Miller: That is the key metric?
Wilson: Yes.
Rubio: For me, I would absolutely be looking at how safe people feel in the city of Portland. So probably doing another survey about how safe and what that feels like. Also, it would be connected to shelter and housing, both those metrics of having the number of shelter available enough for the people in need, and how much housing and how much progress we are making on our housing goals.
Miller: Keith, you get the next question first. In terms of setting policies that require city ordinances, your effectiveness as mayor is going to hinge directly on your ability to get city council members to embrace your proposals. In other words, you’re going to need to get at least six people on board with something that they may not necessarily initially be on board with.
What is a concrete example of some policy that required buy-in from others, buy-in that was not initially there, that you actually acquired … an example of you convincing people to do something that they said they didn’t initially want to do?
Wilson: Understandable. So I added artificial intelligence to my company in 2019. We had a like 400% increase in accidents, minor accidents. We knew a catastrophic accident was coming. We felt pretty confident [about] the smartphones in the car, in the truck. And so we implemented the AI just to help our drivers with safe practices.
We spent 90 days for outreach, talked to them, had PowerPoints, and did a full comprehensive approach on it. Seven days before implementing the program, our driver quality manager noted that we were going to lose 50% of our drivers because of the change. And every one of my senior managers, when taking a vote, said we need to suspend research and review, but we’d already done that for a full year. Our core value was safety. And I held up: if we implement this, we save one life or possibly lose 50 drivers. If that scale of life was the decision and our core value being safety, what would you do? And they all said, you’re right, saving lives is more important than jobs.
We implemented the program and I’m happy to say not one single driver left. It was the change, but I was able to change their minds with the core value, the leadership, the rules of our company and the policies we have to follow to protect people, everybody.
Miller: Just in that example, you’re the CEO, right?
Wilson: Correct.
Miller: So, how did you convince people to do it? I mean, as mayor, you wouldn’t be CEO, you would not get anything done in terms of legislation, ordinances, unless you get these other people to actually vote.
Wilson: Fair question. I didn’t take a vote in that entire discussion. I always take a vote from my senior leaders and they’re almost always 100% right. In fact, I never counted and I never countermanded them. I just went through and reiterated through training [and] through our policies, our trust, integrity, the accountability part. And they all took a new vote and said we’re implementing the program.
Miller: Rene, what is an example of where you actually got buy-in for something where there was not buy-in to begin with – a success of changing people’s minds?
Gonzalez: Well, the outdoor drug ban, last year, we were preempted under state law. And for that reason, the mayor, who had originally flouted that idea, chose to withdraw, that it wasn’t worth pursuing at this time. And after hearing feedback from community members that really wanted us to make a clear statement on outdoor drug use, I convinced him and ultimately, we passed unanimously, to take that back and get it approved. It has significant impacts on influencing the state legislature on Measure 110 reform. A year ago, that wasn’t even deemed possible. And because of the leadership we did in the city of Portland that I played a big role in, we helped change minds.
Miller: Mingus, what about you? An example you can point to where you built a coalition and changed people’s minds.
Mapps: Well, I think I can point to 400 examples. That’s the number of pieces of legislation I’ve passed since I’ve been on council. That’s frankly more than both of my colleagues combined. I pretty much am batting 1,000 in this space. I think that shows that I’m a consensus builder. In my portfolio, we account for about half of the city’s budget. So we’re out there doing the work every day, functionally running the city, and I look forward to being your mayor and continuing that tradition.
Miller: Carmen, what about you? An example you can point to that shows your ability to build a coalition successfully.
Rubio: I think the best example I can give right now is the work that we did around permitting reform, and that was a very challenging process, and it has a lot of work going on today. For decades, there was interest in actually reforming these systems that were structurally problematic. And I had to call the question and get it done. And I had significant opposition from some of my own colleagues, but I was able to build a coalition, both external and inside the city, to ultimately get it done and we had a 5-0 vote.
Miller: Mingus, you’ll get this next question first. Nobody, really, if they’re being honest, knows exactly how this new form of government is going to work out. And I’ve seen very different takes on whether we have a stronger mayor or a weaker mayor. And it’s possible that we just don’t know exactly how it’s going to work out. Obviously, it’s a very different kind of power that the new mayor is going to have.
What do you see as the most important levers of that power that you’d have as mayor? And how would you use them? How would you wield power as mayor?
Mapps: I am focused like a laser beam on delivering core services to the people of Portland. So I argue that the city has a strong mayor system, because all 24 bureaus are going to be reporting to the mayor and the city administrator. That’s a revolution, something we haven’t seen in the city of Portland before. What I’m going to do is I’m going to harness the talent and the resources of all of our bureaus to solve our core problems, especially around public safety, homelessness and economic recovery.
Miller: Rene, specifically, what do you see as the most important levers of power that would be at your disposal as mayor? And how would you use those? How would you wield power?
Gonzalez: So, I agree with Commissioner Mapps – there’s been a broad misconstruction of the new city charter. Although it’s going to be flexible depending on the leadership skills of the next mayor. The ability to role make is substantial. That’s how you drive administrative action, and that power ultimately sits in the mayor. You can delegate it to the CA if he so chooses. The power of appointment to advisory boards for the executive administrative functions – people dramatically underestimate the influence a lot of those boards have on policy at the city level.
Additionally, you appoint and can remove the city administrator. You also can appoint and remove the city attorney and the police. Those are all substantial powers. And last, but not least, you have explicit authority to promote industry and commerce, which is going to be crucial for your next mayor in continuing the revitalization that we’ve started.
Miller: Keith, your take on how you would wield power?
Wilson: Yeah, and I agree with Mingus, and I agree with Rene. They’re pretty spot on. I think it’s a strong mayor position, yet it’s a slimmed down version. So the councilors are no longer committee members and having to spend two days in council addressing the legislative. They get to focus five days, six, seven days a week on organizational excellence, if you will. And so you’re able to do that through hiring and firing your city administrative officer. You’re going to focus on vision and mission, setting the tone for the city on what we’re going to accomplish as a city. But the budget is policy, and the budget starts with the mayor, and also rule making. Those are two very …
Miller: It’s not passed by the mayor, but it starts.
Wilson: But it’s not but it starts with, and those values are met and start with the budget. That’s very important to recognize as far as policy as well.
And then this is possibly the most important: the mayor has vertical control and horizontal. Carmen was just talking about permitting. She had to go through years of negotiations. As mayor now, you’re able to work beyond and through the bureaus to streamline the operation. That’s a huge efficiency gain.
Miller: Carmen, how would you wield power? Use the levers of power at your disposal?
Rubio: I agree with everything that everybody said – policy implementation, rulemaking, budget authority or presenting of the budget to council. But a few things that I think are critically important that need to be underscored are definitely holding the north star in the vision for implementation and being that really important partner to council. That is something I haven’t heard a lot discussed, but our ability for the mayor to work with the city council effectively is critically important in the setup of this new, first-time, first blueprint that we are just developing together of a new form of government. So relationships are going to be key. Temperaments are going to be key. The ability to use your influence, and bring people along, and build that coalition internally and externally is going to be really essential. Using the bully pulpit and also being that one voice communicator on behalf of the city.
Miller: All right, let me ask some very quick questions to all of you in this lightning round.
Rene, go first here. The whole premise of ranked choice voting is that voters can more fully express their preferences. In that spirit, if you can’t be mayor, who is your number two?
Gonzalez: Mingus.
Miller: Keith?
Wilson: Mingus.
Rubio: Liv.
Miller: Carmen, you’re saying leave, meaning no number two? Oh, Liv. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you said to leave me out of this. [laughter] OK. That is awesome.
OK. Mingus?
Mapps: Rene.
Miller: OK, and Mingus, we’re going to stay with you. Fill in the blank: I wish Portland were more …
Mapps: Safe.
Miller: Carmen?
Rubio: Thriving.
Miller: Keith?
Wilson: Livable.
Miller: Rene?
Gonzalez: Happy.
Miller: Rene, this goes to you: Going forward, should reciprocal contributions between candidates count toward the contributor tally that unlocks taxpayer money?
Gonzalez: No, if done through collusive means.
Miller: OK. Keith?
Wilson: If legal, yes.
Miller: No. My question is should it be legal? Should this be changed, so that reciprocal contributions between candidates were not counted? Should the law change going forward?
Wilson: Yes, the law should change. They should not be, if it’s a quid pro quo.
Miller: OK. Carmen?
Rubio: Same as Keith. It should be changed if it’s not quid pro quo.
Miller: And Mingus?
Mapps: Yeah, I think trading donations in order to leverage public funds is inappropriate.
Miller: Keith Wilson, Carmen Rubio, Mingus Mapps and Rene Gonzalez, thanks very much to all four of you. I appreciate your time.
All: Thank you.
Miller: We’ve just heard from four of the candidates running for Portland mayor: Rene Gonzalez, Carmen Rubio, Mingus Mapps and Keith Wilson.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.