Earl Blumenauer on Portland’s Rise, Fall, and Recovery: Lessons for West Coast Cities

Earl, with Portland’s civic and political challenges being in the national news for some time now, offer our readers your take on the city today. 

I may not be the most objective person to opine on that, as you know, David. I’ve spent the better part of a 50-year career trying to make Portland America’s most livable city. I don’t think anybody would confuse us with that now, but I am profoundly encouraged that the basic bones are still there. 

The structure and the notion of civic infrastructure, which is so important…gives me some optimism. Going forward, I have quite a bit of optimism, actually. We’ve got the structure, and we understand the thesis of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone as the fraying of social networks and whatnot. His second volume was Better Together, and it had a chapter on Portland. That’s part of why I take hope going forward. 

There’s still this sense of community engagement and optimism that is taking hold. We’ve seen some improvement. Much of the problem we face can be directly tied to the aftermath of the pandemic. It frayed social contact, put undue stress on the community, cratered downtown values and revenues, as well as the overall sense of optimism. But we’re getting through that. I feel better about the situation we’re in now, and the basics in terms of things that we can control: land use, connections, opportunities to deal with issues like pricing and the curb. All those elements are still there, and they can be put back into play.

For years, this federal administration has portrayed Portland as a failed city. Drawing on your decades of representing it, what do you see as its enduring strengths? 

Well, we embarked upon a program in Portland that goes back about 50 years, where there was an effort to try to plan intentionally. We were trying to mobilize opportunities dealing with planning and zoning, strategic infrastructure investment, from bike lanes to streetcar to light rail. Putting those pieces together provided an engine for growth and provided an attractive palette for people to play these things out. You can’t take away the basic land-use and infrastructure investments that we've made, and they do continue. 

We have been targeted by this administration going back a half dozen years. Some of the things they did in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death were actually designed to make it worse. We were caught not only with an uncooperative federal government but also with political extremes, the extreme right and the extreme left, showing up and fighting each other. That really complicated the role for people who wanted to play a constructive part. 

You just saw some 40,000 people show up in downtown Portland, and it was in a lighthearted but determined effort. Frog suits and naked bike rides notwithstanding, my community demonstrated an interest in showing solidarity, being cooperative, and encouraging one another. You just can’t make that up in terms of that show of support. We’ve seen this around the country, but these are the kinds of things we needed here to reinvigorate downtown. I think we’re watching people be determined to build on our strengths.

You’ve seen in the last couple of years that things have turned around in downtown Portland. There’s more foot traffic, there’s more activity. We’re the epicenter of the food scene. No disrespect to some of your fabulous restaurants in California…but on a per-capita basis, we’ve got more write-ups from food critics and The New York Times. Those things continue, linking to our other strengths: healthy food, land use, and community vitality, as fundamental building blocks for recovery going forward. 

Address Portland’s current challenges and the efforts underway to confront them. For context, LA’s Central City Association recently launched a 90-Day Revive DTLA Plan to spur economic recovery and clean up its streets.

We have been subject to the same challenges as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and virtually every other major urban area. We’ve seen a cratering of property values; we find people are reluctant to come to work. Some are doing it more readily than others, but that continues to be a problem. Absolutely. At the core, people like to be able to congregate, and the things that we’re basing our recovery on, food, entertainment, the arts, those continue. They persist. These are things that aren’t necessarily contingent on the vagaries of the economy, the way some others are. Those are ours. You can’t take them away from us, and they are the things that pull people together and coax investment and activity. 

You see it in downtown Portland now, in restaurants being filled. The majority of downtown—aside from around four blocks that are really distressed—is, in fact, showing progress. Once you go half a mile from the downtown core, you see some of the finest neighborhoods anywhere in America. People are investing in those neighborhoods, raising children there. In my own neighborhood, we’ve seen four opposite corners where young families have moved in, making very substantial investments in the residential area. 

The past five years have brought profound economic change—from the pandemic’s impact on work habits to new tensions between housing, industry, and commercial development. How has Portland weathered this transition, and what lessons are you sharing with local leaders seeking a path forward? 

Well, as I just mentioned, the arts and food activities are a significant portion of the recovery. They’re not contingent on those other elements. We have a new mayor who’s been in office just a year, and he’s been singularly focused on dealing with the unsheltered population. Now, one may quibble with his goal that he’s going to end unsheltered homelessness within the first year, but he is committed to bringing people together. He has inspired activity, and that radiates outward. 

I don’t want to gloss over that there are real problems—there are—but what I see is a trend line. I see opportunities for people to be engaged with their neighbors. I see resurgent activity with the local government, with the mayor. We’ve seen progress in terms of cooperation, which used to be the hallmark of our community and had fallen into disrepair. Some of that is being healed. It’s not going to happen overnight. It took six years to get to the point we’re at now, but I see those challenges being met. I also see a high level of engagement, energy, and cooperation. I see people building on these elements, not being discouraged by them. That’s always been the key to this community’s success: tapping into citizen power and giving people tools to influence the outcome of government. 

We’ve had a series of mutually reinforcing problems. One of them is that we used to be Intel’s research engine, and they provided huge amounts of revenue. For a variety of reasons, Intel has had its troubles, and when it sneezes, we catch a cold. Nike, which has been a major industry driver, has had its own challenges in terms of layoffs and downsizing. That said, there’s a significant infrastructure of medium- and small-sized businesses. It’s not just Nike and Columbia Sportswear; there are hundreds, literally hundreds, of medium and small businesses in this space, and they continue to innovate and grow.

All of these are going to take time to work out, but I think there are very significant opportunities. The infrastructure for apparel and footwear is still there. There is still a core of technology, and those continue. 

The current federal administration frames Portland as a clash between socialism and capitalism, and at the same time, commentators like Ezra Klein argue that “blue cities” can’t deliver on their own promises. Speak to those portraits. 

We’ve certainly been targeted by this administration, and some of their actions have made matters worse. Look at their opposition to key infrastructure projects…the pride they took in blocking the tunnel into New York, which puts at risk an economic corridor of 100 million people. That kind of thinking isn’t just wrongheaded. It’s self-defeating, but it’s also not fatal. Portland still has opportunities to move forward, and in some ways, this administration ends up being constructive almost by mistake. 

Part of what I’m focusing on, and the Gospel that I preach, is not to get hung up on federal policies. Donald Trump does constructive things almost by accident, and you can’t count on that going forward. But we control the curb. We control the pricing of transportation. We control land use. Those things are very powerful determinants of who we are and where we’re going. 

The use of federal troops, the declaration of Portland as a “war zone,” and the language of “anarchy” all became divisive issues during that period. How did the city respond, and are you comfortable with how those events were handled? 

It’s been a learning process. Early on, there was confusion and anger, but our response to the latest provocations from the federal government has not been violent. To the contrary, the demonstrations have become more peaceful and focused. Just this past weekend, 40,000 people marched in Portland, and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, there wasn’t a single serious incident. That’s the reality that never makes it into the national headlines. The documented photos include people handing out plastic frogs and the naked bike riders welcoming people to look at this so-called “hellhole” that’s Portland. 

There have been innumerable postings that show the complete opposite, and the federal narrative just doesn’t hold up. There have also been some federal judges who’ve been rather sharp in terms of reining in—at least temporarily—the federal government. The truth is going to win out. The long-term prospects for Portland are strong because people are showing peaceful protest, humor, generosity, and neighborliness. 

I’ve been taken with how that’s generated such a spirited and warm response. I’ve always had respect for what my neighbors have done, but that response (despite the provocation) has been inspiring. I think that speaks volumes. Ultimately, it’s why we’re going to be successful.

You mentioned being impressed by Revive DTLA. What aspects of that approach would you encourage Portland’s leadership to emulate or do differently as you work to revitalize downtown? 

I like the notion of putting a parameter around it with a shorter time frame, to underscore the urgency and help people focus. I think that’s very important, and I hope we’re able to do that here. I’ll be discussing that with our mayor and showing him The Planning Report. We need people to understand the dynamic, to understand a timeframe, and to mobilize efforts. Here in Portland, part of what I’m interested in doing is focusing in a similar way on a cultural corridor, from Portland State University up the Park Blocks. 

There’s a $120 million, completely remodeled and revised Art Museum. All the major cultural institutions are along this corridor running from Portland State University to the Park Blocks, and those areas are showing signs of life. They’re being revitalized. You’re seeing an uptick in the performing arts, restaurant scene, and street activity. Those are key indicators. 

We’ve had problems, but we’re not unique in that respect. What I like is our ability to tie these pieces together, and what’s important in what you did with that plan is that you put a box around it. That helps people concentrate on the opportunities and have a timeframe that encourages focus. Even if you can’t get it all done in that timeframe, it focuses attention in a way that you could. I’m hopeful we do that here in our community, with the cultural corridor and these other items that will help guide and inspire local activity. 

As San Francisco’s new mayor centered his agenda on reversing the city’s “doom loop” by simplifying permits, strengthening the local economy, and restoring confidence through effective management, are those kinds of priorities gaining traction in Portland? 

They are. There’s been more attention to dealing with the fact that we’re the city that plans. We have people in our political environment who are better at designing initiatives that pass rather than initiatives that work. This is a reset for the City of Portland: encouraging cooperation between major jurisdictions, the city, and the county. We’re watching what’s happening with our transit agency. Despite difficulties with the federal government, we’re focusing again on things that we can do that make a difference. 

You and I have talked about legacy highways that crisscross our state and yours—highways that have outlived their usefulness. Being able to focus on those legacy highways, to update them, to take advantage of development opportunities, and that’s where we should put our energy. I think Ezra Klein has put his finger on a huge problem: that we haven’t focused on delivery. But that’s changing. In cities around the country, the rhetoric is different, and the actions are more pointed and focused. I don’t see any sign that’s going away.

A year ago, I believe Portland approved a new charter. Coincidentally, Los Angeles is debating a charter change as well. Speak to the resulting elections and the culture of delivering, reaching consensus, and actually getting things done. 

My advice to you in LA is to look very carefully at reforms that may create more questions and roadblocks than solutions. Here we have a reform that’s almost impossible to describe. We now have four council districts that each elect three individual councilors by ranked-choice voting, which allows someone to win a seat on the new council with 24 percent of the vote. 

Beyond that, the ranked-choice system and multi-member districts almost guarantee there’s no cohesion, and it complicates matters. Superimpose on that the fact that there are only about three people with any experience…and nobody in America has experience with this form of government. I’m in the process of trying to meet with each councilor, and there are a dozen of them. It’s not easy to track them down and meet with them. They’re all energetic and interesting, with varying degrees of political sophistication. They have a system that nobody in America has. One designed to promote diversity rather than action. That’s a challenge we’re going to have to overcome. 

It’s something the new members of the council are still familiarizing themselves with, and frankly, they’ve had some real difficulty. I’ve heard people joke that they can’t order lunch. It’s been depressing for them, but you accept the wisdom of the voters one way or another. I think it’s important to be careful about how one ties in reform that has unintended consequences and no antecedent anywhere in America. That’s rolling the dice in a problematic way. 

What's the most important thing for the voters to focus on? The people they elect, or the structure of government they create? 

I think it’s the performance that’s delivered. I think that there needs to be accountability, regardless of the structure. Beyond that, it’s the quality of the people who are there and their focus on being there. Nobody’s going to be elected in Portland or Los Angeles or San Francisco who’s not a progressive. I think the focus is on trying to have productive progressives. People who are focused and accountable in delivering. 

I do think that our friend Ezra Klein is correct. We have too many examples where we’re unable to deliver, where resources are wasted, and where time doesn’t appear to make a difference to some folks. There’s no sense of urgency. I think we’re in a situation now in urban America where there needs to be a sense of urgency and accountability, where people are held accountable and willingly held accountable for results. It’s too easy to avoid responsibility, to engage in finger-pointing, to get sidetracked on peripheral issues that really don’t deal with the basics.

Are we able to produce affordable housing? Can we repair the streets? Do we have a transit system that works? Is there a way to accommodate the interests of cyclists and the needs of people in the surrounding neighborhoods? ...I’ve seen it can be done. It’s not easy, and we have to be committed to producing results by engaging the public in problem-solving, not being bogged down in process and acrimony. 

Portland once had a great newspaper, as LA and many other cities around the country did. Much of that has disappeared over the last decade, and increasingly, the last few years. How does one, in a digital age with no central source of information that people believe is factual, hold elected officials accountable? 

I think it is a serious problem, and we’ve seen daily newspapers disappear. We’ve seen, in part, that the same forces that caused the collapse of downtown property values have decimated the business model for newspapers. What we’re seeing in our community is a resurgence of serious journalism, led by the Oregon Journalism Project, and by the editor of the weekly alternative paper Willamette Week, which continues to produce some of the best journalism in the region.

The publisher there, Mark Zusman, has been part of the Oregon Journalism Project, seeking greater support for that effort, including alternative funding models. This model includes Willamette Week’s publisher and, candidly, public broadcasting. Public Broadcasting now is the backbone; they’re involved in cooperative efforts with the remaining print journalists, sharing resources and inspiring one another. 

We’ve seen record support for public broadcasting in Oregon, and this—as you may remember—has been a high priority for me throughout my congressional career. We organized a Caucus for Public Broadcasting to support that work. This has really exploded across Oregon. With a new CEO at Oregon Public Broadcasting and these partnerships, they’re showing not just signs of life but leadership, providing some of the best journalism I’ve seen. 

You’ve spent decades supporting and defending public broadcasting. Watching it now face defunding efforts in Washington, cast as a partisan issue, what’s your perspective on how to protect and reinvest in this vital civic infrastructure? 

I continue to work with my former colleagues and with people who support public broadcasting. The case for public broadcasting is compelling. It’s not just NPR, it’s the backbone of emergency communications. I remember being in New Mexico during wildfires, and the way people got information was through emergency communication via New Mexico Public Broadcasting. In Alaska, which is more dependent on federal resources than anyone, public broadcasting is one of the few things that ties that massive state together. They broadcast in five different languages. Nobody else does that. 

We must continue to beat the drum and make the case, and it is being made. In Oregon, we’ve seen an unprecedented outpouring of private support for public broadcasting. They’ve broken all funding records—they’ve raised enough money to replace all the lost federal money. So there are opportunities to illustrate to the public how important it is, but I think the public gets it. We’re watching an outpouring of support around the country. 

Support needs to be focused. It needs to be integrated, as I mentioned, with other areas of journalism and communication, but also expanded, to let people know what stake they have in it, like emergency communications. For example, where would we have been without public broadcasting during the pandemic, with the educational opportunities it provided? 

Earl, in an effort to advance bipartisan support for public broadcasting at the federal level, organizers planned a dinner to honor leaders from both parties. Yet the Republicans couldn’t identify anyone willing to be recognized by public television. How did we reach that point? 

Well, it broke my heart because it involved a person I’ve worked with on controversial issues who was given an award but didn’t feel comfortable showing up and accepting it. Now, to be fair, that happened at the beginning of this session of Congress. I think people are watching the dynamic and the ripple effect. I would think there would be opportunities to give awards to courageous people, but folks are seeing how essential this is. What we’re witnessing now with Ken Burns’ latest epic dealing with the Revolutionary War, on top of his other major works, shows that people still care deeply about storytelling. The range of offerings in public broadcasting continues to expand. 

I think this is an opportunity to reinforce the role that public broadcasting plays. This has been a wake-up call in ways I haven’t seen in my 50 years of work on the issue. We’re seeing people begin to understand it, but it’s still difficult to get the point across. There’s no substitute for pounding the table and pounding the streets. It’s a cumulative effect—people are seeing the consequences of what’s going on. I think, ultimately, people are going to come around and support it. 

We’ve watched the public, 170 million Americans who engage with public broadcasting every month, rise to the occasion. They’re relying on it now more than ever. I don’t want to pretend we’ve solved the challenges in rural and small-town America, which will never have the resource base of San Francisco or Portland. But there’s a cumulative effect of people understanding its value, and it’s a call for us to redouble our efforts. 

To close, let’s address your return to Portland. After five decades in public service, locally and in Congress, what are you focused on today? What do you hope the next chapter of your work for the city will become? 

Well, I’ve accepted a position at Portland State University, working with a dynamic new president there. I’ve been in classrooms, a different classroom every week this spring, and I just had my first class with Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). I love that interaction. With the Institute for Metropolitan Studies, we’re doing analysis on transportation funding options. Oregon has been a leader in paying for transportation based on road usage. We’ve seen in New York that this works, and people are turning to it. 

We’re doing research there, looking at land use, transportation, and trying to provide some perspective that I can offer after being through this for 50 years. There are things we’ve done right, and there are things we can do better. I think there are examples I’m proud to share. 

I’ve got 178 boxes of records: everything from the cannabis revolution to streetcars and bicycles, and I’m trying to help people understand what we did and how we did it. The working title of the book that I’d write, if I were more disciplined, is: “The Rise, Fall, and Recovery of Portland: America’s Most Livable City.” That’s the trajectory we’re on. 

Earl, thank you again for decades of sharing your perspective with TPR readers.