If I weren’t so upset by what it means to Eugene politics, I might laugh at the drama of the Jan. 13 City Council meeting. Councilors made a rip-roaring start on what could become a more ideologically contentious year than most students have ever seen.
I’ve been watching Eugene politics since the late 1980s, and I’ve been a politically active city voter for many years as well, which is why I am using this space to write about something other than the Emerald. Students may not think City Council has much campus impact, but in many ways, it does (think “Special Response Fee” for parties and increased pot fines currently being considered).
Eugene councilors are non-partisan, at least for the purposes of election. In practice, they are anything but non-partisan. Progressives and pro-growth conservatives currently split the Council seats, although two of them might be called “moderate” even though they vote with one bloc or the other fairly regularly. This causes 4-4 ties, with pro-growth Mayor Jim Torrey left to break it. Council was split before the recent election as well, and 4-4 votes were cast on hardcore ideological issues.
But the ideology took an ugly tone Jan. 13, and it became clear that a conservative mood could drown out Eugene’s progressive voice. The subject was pretty arcane for most watchers — electing the council president and vice-president — but the discussion had a telling ideological tone. The tradition governing who gets elected to the largely ceremonial executive positions was questioned, and two conservative-leaning councilors were elected to the posts.
This should be disturbing to all Eugene voters, because the progressive voice, which represents the progressive half of the electorate in our bipolar town, now has no role in the ceremony or administration of the Council.
Equally disturbing was the acrimonious debate before the election. There were personal accusations, charges of ideological war, high tension and general incivility. I have been watching the Council at work long enough to know that it can get much worse; I remember the food-throwing and shouting matches of years ago.
Maybe that’s what makes me so concerned: Council has made such progress since then, and the city doesn’t need more of those public policy train wrecks.
Recent years have shown that the two ideologies have a lot in common. Progressives are not anti-growth, they generally are just asking for something better than simply additional low-wage, big-box corporate jobs and developments that only line the pockets of developers. Pro-growth advocates don’t hate the environment or low-income residents, they are generally just asking for policies that make it easier to draw companies with jobs. With some work, these ideas can meet.
Unfortunately, what was on display at the Jan. 13 meeting was a subtle indication that a “Gang of 9” mentality (for those who remember the growth-at-any-cost cartoons from 18 months ago that lampooned progressive councilors) may decide that informed argumentation and discourse is beneath it, and that brute force is the best way to achieve its goals.
Such an attitude won’t serve any Eugenean well — except maybe those watchers who enjoy food fights.