Hey Portland! A column by Councilor Avalos

Hey Portland! Archive:

1. Why I’m Starting This Column — And Why I Want You With Me
2. Why Our Unified Housing Strategy Matters — and Why We Need It Now
3. Cooling Is a Right — And Portland Can Lead the Way
4. Who's Calling Me Quiet?
5. They’re Calling It a Scandal Because It’s Us
6. The Gateway That Deserves to Open
7. Guest Column: On the Cost of Vienna
8. Setting the Record Straight on District 1’s Community Office
9. Housing as a Right, not a Profit Maker feat. Councilors Dunphy and Green
10. In this Moment, We Choose Us
11. After the Fire

After the Fire
By Councilor Candace Avalos

Hey Portland,

Over the past few days, I've been trying to wrap my head around losing my car, having my home burned, and watching my neighbors go through the same nightmare. It's gutting. It's disorienting. Every time I try to describe it, words feel too small. I'm grateful to everyone who's reached out, checked in, or sent love. It means a lot to me, and I don't take the community I have for granted. I also want to thank the dedicated team at the Portland Fire Investigations Unit for their ongoing investigation into the cause of the fire.

We still don't know yet if the fire was targeted, or even if it was set on purpose. Investigators believe it started in a nearby storage shed and have said they don't think it was intentional, even as their investigation continues. They recently released a video asking the public for help identifying a man seen walking away from the fire, which is a reminder that this case is still open and many people, me included, still have so many unanswered questions. Whatever the cause, this didn't happen in a vacuum. In our current national context, it's hard not to connect this moment to everything happening around us — the threats, the division, the way public service sometimes puts a target on your back.

This also happened in a country where people are scared. Where SNAP cuts are coming, health care cuts are looming, and rent just keeps going up. The social safety net is stretched so thin that when people fall, they're too often left to pick themselves back up alone. It wasn't designed to catch them. I know what it feels like to face a setback, spending a lifetime working twice as hard just to get half as far, and this one cut deep.

But what hurts almost as much as the fire itself is the reminder that we survive not because the system works, but because we do. I've been surrounded by so much love and generosity from friends going above and beyond to care for me. I'm endlessly grateful. But it's also painful to know that so many others in my position wouldn't have the same support. The paperwork, the waiting, and the uncertainty are all a reminder of how close most of us are to losing everything we've built.

Even as I try to move forward, it's impossible to ignore what's happening beyond Portland. Across the country, public officials are being targeted simply for showing up and doing their jobs. In Minnesota, former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated, and state Senator John Hoffman and his wife were critically injured. In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro and his family barely escaped when someone intentionally set fire to the governor's residence while they were sleeping inside.

And now Portland finds itself in that same atmosphere of rising hostility. Trump and his allies have singled out cities like ours, calling us "the enemy from within." Those words have consequences. They create fear, they dehumanize people, and they invite violence.

Just a few days before the fire, my office received an email that said, "hope the entire state burns and your house is the first one to go." You don't forget something like that. It stays with you, because it shows how quickly words can turn into threats, and threats can turn into harm. It's impossible not to feel the weight of it all.

But I refuse to let fear define this moment. Portlanders have never been people who back down or turn away from one another. We take care of each other because our systems don't. We keep feeding people, showing up, and rebuilding, even when it feels like everything around us is burning.

I don't know what comes next, but I know I'm not alone. We can't always control what happens to us, but we can control how we show up for one another.

Because at the end of the day, we have us.

---

In this Moment, We Choose Us
By Councilor Candace Avalos

View full size image of Councilor Avalos speaks at a rally

Portland, I love y'all. I'm still buzzing. We passed our joint Protect Portland Initiative resolution. Twelve votes.Doce. And we stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Councilor Kanal to codify Sanctuary City protections — also twelve votes, as an emergency, so they would go into effect immediately. That didn't happen by accident; it happened because we organized, we held the line, and we used the tools of municipal government with discipline and corazón.

It's important that we have these strengthened protections and new tools at the City because we are entering an inflection point. As the Trump administration threatens to send in the National Guard to our city and abuse the president's power to score political points, I've been reflecting on my responsibility as an elected leader, the City Council's role in protecting Portlanders, and how we can best respond to this current crisis. I want to be honest: These past few weeks have not been easy. It has felt overwhelming to respond to everything this administration is throwing at us.

At the same time, we should recognize that we're winning so far. The Trump administration tried to send in the Oregon, California, and Texas National Guard and he got blocked by a federal judge who found his justifications to be "untethered from the facts." The reality on the ground doesn't even come close to what Trump and his cronies are claiming. And apologies for the language, but Americans are seeing through his bullsh*t. Stephen Miller is going on the national news saying that ICE officers are engaged in hand-to-hand combat with "antifa" every night, but the actual videos from protests at the ICE facility show Portlanders in chicken and frog wizard costumes. Portlanders are speaking out and using their First Amendment rights peacefully, with our city's signature sense of humor and creativity.

In this moment of great uncertainty, we choose us. When national politics feels ineffective and incremental, let's focus on what we can do in our own backyard. Before the council meeting I said at the rally that "the answer to federal threats is municipalism," and I meant it. Municipalism isn't a catchphrase. It's a practice: build local power, translate values into enforceable code, and protect our people with policy that's actually binding. Portlanders didn't just chant slogans—we wrote legislation, voted on it, and made it real law the same day. That's municipalism.

And I meant it when I said this is the start of a nationwide movement. The Trump administration has spent this past year waging a legal and political campaign against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions: they've issued lawsuits, funding threats, and bombastic media statements. Cities and local leaders across the country all understand that they need to use their local power to take the Trump administration's challenges head-on. That looks like litigation: for example, earlier this year we joined a multi-jurisdiction lawsuit challenging funding retaliation tied to sanctuary policies and successfully got a federal judge to stop the funding freeze while the lawsuit is underway. In Chicago, a federal judge ordered this administration to stop using tear gas, pepper spray and other weapons against journalists and peaceful protesters after local press and advocates filed suit.

We also have legislative and executive powers, as City Council demonstrated in our last council meeting. Our Protect Portland Initiative resolution, inspired by Mayor Brandon Johnson's Protecting Chicago Initiative executive order, standardized a simple premise: safety is not a pretext for profiling, and public services aren't immigration checkpoints. We set procedures, not vibes. We aligned frontline practice with legal authority. And we solidified rapid-response systems.

The ordinance led by Councilor Kanal moved sentiment to statute, codifying Sanctuary City protections and instructing our bureaus how to act when federal pressure shows up at the door. Portland has had a Sanctuary resolution on the books since 2017. A resolution is a statement; law is a shield. That's the difference between "we care" and "we enforce."

There's a lot more future work to be done and these new policies will only be as good as how well we implement them. But together, the ordinance and resolution give us a foundation and playbook to safeguard Portlanders against federal overreach and militarization. And they serve as examples to other jurisdictions about what's possible – not just in Oregon, but in every city in America.

Municipalism says: we don't wait for permission to protect our people. We build durable policy at home — and when the feds overreach, we answer with law, coordination, and community power. That's how we turned the chant of "not in our city" into two unanimous votes. That's how we face the next wave from this fascist administration.

That's how we give the city and our country a way forward. Vamos.

---

Housing as a Right, not a Profit Maker
By Councilor Candace Avalos, feat. Councilor Dunphy and Councilor Green

View full size image of Sonnwendviertel neighborhood

What if our housing system was built around the idea that all people should have a safe, comfortable place to call home? That might sound radical or unrealistic to some, but it could be reality if we just look beyond our own borders. Housing as a right rather than a privilege would look a lot like what we saw in Vienna.

There's a difference between reading about Vienna's housing system and standing in the middle of a municipal housing complex — seeing the architecture, talking to residents, and observing how public space is integrated. In our country, public housing isn't seen as aspirational. For most Americans, public housing is the projects, a result of the long history of systemic racism embedded throughout our real estate markets and housing policy that created "vertical slums" for Black and brown people.

In Vienna, public-owned and managed housing isn't stigmatized or hidden away in the poorest neighborhoods. They treat housing as public infrastructure. Leaders have made deliberate choices for over 100 years to keep housing public, affordable, and high-quality — and they maintain it like a park, not something to offload to the private market.

Vienna has a 9-hour time difference from Portland. It would have been impossible to schedule meaningful discussions with their housing experts over Zoom. Being in Vienna allowed us to build direct relationships with policymakers, housing agency staff, tenant organizers, and nonprofit leaders. These are connections we can call on in the future for technical advice, peer-to-peer exchanges, and policy collaboration. And as we know all too well from the pandemic, Zoom can't replace the trust and nuance that comes from face-to-face conversations.

In person, we got to dig deeper into the work behind Vienna's housing system. We asked hard questions, got candid answers, and heard about the challenges and failures — not just the shiny success stories included in policy write-ups. We were also able to compare our challenges with theirs in real time and see how different governance choices shape outcomes. Knowing the full picture of how Vienna built their world-class housing system helps us design policies that are realistic and grounded in what's possible in Portland.

For example, Portland could start with land banking to help create permanent housing affordability. Vienna strategically bought land decades ago, giving it the power to keep rents low today. Land costs are one of the biggest affordability challenges, and when national economic headwinds are slowing development, we can purchase land now to build public control. Portland could also pull from Vienna's tenancy system that guarantees three protections together: price controls, eviction protection, and landlord maintenance obligations. These keep people in their homes and out of homelessness.

We have to be clear-eyed about our local context and understand we're working at a disadvantage because federal policy ratified private real estate discrimination into law. Public housing was concentrated in Black neighborhoods and other neighborhoods where marginalized communities lived, while single-family homes were subsidized in white neighborhoods. A chronic lack of investment and years of deferred maintenance led to the deterioration of public housing, making it easier for federal policymakers to justify moving away from public housing programs altogether.

Our country has effectively turned over the entire construction and management of affordable housing to the private market. Today, we're seeing the limits of that system as more people are losing their homes than are finding housing stability in Portland. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the main tool for cities to encourage affordable housing construction, is designed as a tax write-off to make the construction of affordable housing more attractive for investors. It also has built-in expiration dates for affordability, unlike in Vienna where housing is permanently affordable.

Residents at Tigard's Woodspring Apartments, an affordable housing complex for seniors, had to fight rent increases after their landlord raised rates once LIHTC requirements expired. Washington County ended up purchasing the property, but there are 4,189 more affordable housing units our state is at risk of losing by 2030. That's on top of an already daunting shortage of affordable housing in Oregon.

Too often in Portland and around the metro region, renting is precarious and predatory. One of my takeaways I shared at the Homelessness and Housing Committee is that in Vienna, renting is stable, dignified, and designed to build long-term security. One way Vienna creates stability is by removing lease term limits and allowing families to pass down their apartments to children, enabling intergenerational wealth building.

The scale of this is huge — 75% of all tenants qualify for social housing, and 76% of Vienna residents are renters. And yet, Vienna is consistently ranked one of the most livable cities in the world. It's proof that housing stability, not necessarily homeownership, is the real foundation of thriving communities

I was thinking a lot about what that policy would mean for my constituents in East Portland, many of whom were priced out of other parts of our town. For generations, housing policy here displaced Black Portlanders and other marginalized groups — through exclusionary zoning, racially restrictive covenants, and redlining. Those were political choices that transferred wealth to white property owners and stripped it away from everyone else.

Vienna's policymakers made a different choice, and we can too, because our current way of doing affordable housing isn't working. For Portland leaders, coming back from Vienna with a shared set of observations builds alignment on where we need to go. It's easier to advocate for bold ideas like land banking, rent caps, or tenant protections when we've collectively seen them working at scale.

Importantly, international trips remind us that we are not alone. Other cities across the globe are wrestling with the same affordability, climate, and justice issues. It's humbling and empowering to see that transformative housing policy is possible, and to connect Portland's work to a global movement for housing as a human right.

As far as next steps, we'll be working more with Portland Housing Bureau staff to capture all that we learned in the report that's due next spring, collaborating with community partners and housing providers to identify policy priorities and potential pilot projects, and joining future community engagement events hosted by Neighborhood Partnerships. I've asked my colleagues Councilor Mitch Green and Councilor Jamie Dunphy to reflect on their takeaways from Vienna, and what City Council can do next to help create quality housing and affordability for all Portlanders.

Councilor Mitch Green

View full size image of Meeting with Elke Hanel-Torsch, Austria National Council, Executive Chair of Tenants' Association Vienna

My biggest takeaway was the staggering cost-effectiveness of the Vienna model. We saw a city that is able to deliver high-quality, permanently affordable homes for the majority of its population at a fraction of the cost per-capita we spend in Portland. Vienna used to have many of the same problems Portland has today- unaffordable housing, rampant homelessness, and a withering economy. Their solution was to design a system around the idea that housing should be a right, not a commodity. They saw that the city could and should play a decisive role in ensuring that right. The result is one of the safest, cleanest, and most livable cities in the world. It's a model that is dramatically more humane, and more fiscally responsible. You can't experience that system and not want to come back and fight for something similar here.

We're often told in Portland that things like tenant protections, rent control, and taxes on the wealthy will tank our economy. Yet in Vienna, a city with the world's strongest tenant protections, near-universal rent control, and steeply progressive taxation, the economy is booming. Shops and cafes are bustling. There are construction cranes in the sky everywhere you look. Vienna's success puts the lie to the scare tactics used to maintain a status quo that is clearly failing us.

I think one of the main lessons we can take from Vienna is how they allocate affordable housing. In Portland, we treat public housing as a program for the poor, and as a result it is stigmatized, neglected, and chronically underfunded. In their model, anyone making 150% of the median income or less (the equivalent of $120,000 per year in Portland) qualifies for Social Housing. That's about three-fourths of the entire population. By guaranteeing housing stability to the broad majority of middle class residents, it becomes less of a political football, and something more akin to a core service like parks or schools. That's the recipe for a successful, sustainable system.

Councilor Jamie Dunphy

The experience our delegation had in Vienna left a deep impression on me. My biggest takeaway from the study trip was how profoundly housing shapes a community when it is treated as a public good. Walking through Vienna's neighborhoods, I saw people of all incomes living together intentionally. Kids played in shared courtyards, families gathered in parks that were seamlessly built into each block, and every few minutes a train pulled up, full of people taking part in one of the best public transit systems I've ever seen. What struck me most was the absence of housing insecurity: people had stability, community, and dignity, and that sense of security permeated the entire city.

What surprised me most was how invisible income differences were. You couldn't tell how much someone earned by looking at where they lived. That wasn't by accident. It was by design: policies and investments that prevent segregation and ensure everyone has access to quality housing and neighborhood amenities. Seeing that in practice was far more powerful than reading about it.

For Portland, the lesson is clear. If Vienna can treat housing like schools, parks, or roads, something built, maintained, and protected as essential infrastructure, then we can too. With new Tax Increment Financing Districts on the horizon, we have the chance to invest in housing models that create lasting affordability, like co-ops, limited-profit housing, and publicly-owned developments that stay affordable for generations. We may not catch up to Vienna's century of progress, but we can take bold steps now to ensure that in the future, Portland neighborhoods are places where affordability is permanent, incomes are mixed, and every family has the security to plan their future. The Vienna model proves it is possible, and the question before us is whether we are ready to take the leap here in Portland. I believe we can.

---

Setting the Record Straight on District 1’s Community Office
By Councilor Candace Avalos

Guest Column: On the Cost of Vienna
By Jamey Evenstar, Chief of Staff for Councilor Avalos

As the Chief of Staff and budget manager for Councilor Avalos’s office, I thought it best you hear straight from me why our office decided to invest part of our budget in a study trip to Vienna.

 First, all costs were covered from a budget that was fully allocated to our office, just like every other council office. How each councilor chooses to spend their budget is their discretion.

 In the 9 months Councilor Avalos has been in office, she has prioritized spending in 3 main ways:

1.  Constituent relations. We spend a lot of time and resources on connecting with constituents in District 1. We even hired a community organizer specifically focused on building those relationships and creating more events and opportunities for Councilor Avalos to spend time face to face with as many East Portlanders as possible. From door knocking every week, to throwing the first-ever D1 People’s Picnic with free family-friendly activities, much of our budget is focused on the people who live, work, and play in D1.
2. District Office. We need a dedicated office space outside of City Hall to be accessible to our constituents. District 1 councilors don’t have the privilege of affordable options to rent an office in their community. We dedicated a fair amount of last year’s budget and are also reserving some in this year’s budget to the staffing, supplying, and programming of a shared office space where constituents can receive information and connect with their representatives. This is a cost burden not shared by most other offices.
3. Learning and Skill Building. Councilor Avalos spent many years as an educator at PSU and considers herself to be a lifelong student. Being a first-time councilor for a historically disenfranchised community comes with the responsibility of learning from the experience of other peers to be an effective and well-informed representative. Since entering office, Councilor Avalos has prioritized opportunities to learn about policies directly impacting her community, learning about her roles and responsibilities in government, and connecting and learning from other elected officials across the country to bring back emerging and innovative ideas.

Second, how travel costs are estimated and paid understandably is not common knowledge for many people outside the City. There are rules to spending that all council offices are accountable to. We are required to submit travel forms that estimate the maximum amount we may spend on the trip in order to alert the budget staff and other admins to help reconcile costs after they are complete. Not all anticipated costs are realized in the end, meaning the maximum amount we submit in the travel forms is not always the actual final amount we spend. The federal government sets the rates for food per diems and mileage reimbursements, we do not. The City’s travel agents book flights and hotels at our request, we do not control those costs. 

However, we only recently learned that we have discretion on how we arrange our flights. Our office was told we had to use the City’s contracted travel agents to book flights but only learned later that flights can be booked directly without going through a third party that charges large fees. This is why you will likely see differences between offices. Some people knew this, and some did not! This is a lesson learned for our office. We’ve also heard criticisms about the fact that we ask for food per diems to be paid out ahead of time. This is not standard city policy, but we believe that bearing a personal cost for work-related educational trips is classist and undermines access to people who don’t have large nest eggs or credit cards. Our office will never require our staff to pay for food or transportation out-of-pocket when traveling for their job. As their employers, it’s not our business to pry into the personal financial situations of our staff and personal finances should not prevent them from participating in opportunities to advance their careers.

Finally, on the costs of Vienna specifically, this was a big decision our office took months to consider. This trip was not our idea, nor was it arranged by our office. A community partner arranged an educational curriculum that we were invited to participate in. This invitation came shortly after Councilor Avalos co-sponsored a resolution for a study on the opportunities for alternative housing models here in Portland that was passed unanimously by City Council. The trip was an opportunity to learn from a city that serves as the gold standard for housing models that create stable long-term housing and build community wealth and livability. As the Chair of the Homelessness and Housing Committee, Councilor Avalos felt a responsibility to the cause and also knew this would be a rare chance to learn directly from experts, residents, and government officials.

But we also knew it would come with a high cost. We reviewed our budget, we explored ways to lower the expected fees, and we also discussed what it would mean to not join a Portland cohort of planners, architects, policy makers, and electeds that would all come back with a dramatically new understanding of the work ahead. In the end, the lived experience, and the nine-hour time difference (!) convinced us that it was worth the time and expense to do this the right way. Zoom calls (did I mention the nine-hour time difference?) were just not possible.

After we decided to accept the cost, we learned that Portland Housing Bureau staff were also considering attending but were told they would have to pay out of pocket since the bureau did not have money budgeted to travel. We felt strongly that the staff member responsible for drafting the report required in Councilor Avalos’ resolution should not be prevented from learning directly from the foremost practitioners on alternative housing models due to personal costs. We decided to sponsor her trip as well because we felt it was the right thing to do.

In the end, we are very glad we went. We learned so much, came back inspired about the future, and are connected to an entire cohort of other Portlanders and experts in Vienna who we will work together with to secure quality housing and affordability for all Portlanders. So, the cost was worth the learning, and we don’t apologize for spending our own budget in a way that prioritized our values and our goals.

But for those still interested in the numbers, here is our best estimate of the final costs for Councilor Avalos and two staff (travel pre-authorization forms will be much higher based on estimates before travel):

• Flights: $6,714
• Hotel: $3,900
• Food per diem: $1,963.14 (full per diem not spent as 8 meals were provided by program)
• Transportation: $100 (best guess based on travel to and from airport as transit was used for the majority of the trip)
• Program fees: $7,000 ($3,500 per person, with PHB staff member fees waived. It is important to note here that it is possible we may receive a slight refund after program hosts reconcile their total costs.)
• Total approximate costs for three people: $19,677.14
• Approximate cost per person: $6,559.04

Kindly, 

Jamey Evenstar

The Gateway That Deserves to Open
By Councilor Candace Avalos

When I first heard Fred Meyer was closing its Gateway location, I had the same reaction many of you did: concern, frustration, questions. It’s never just about one store shutting down. It’s about what it represents. For many in East Portland, Gateway Fred Meyer was a reliable stop for groceries, prescriptions, household items. A familiar and accessible place in a part of town that’s had to fight hard for every scrap of investment it’s gotten.

The loss of this anchor tenant, along with the earlier closure of Kohl’s, has left a growing hole in the Gateway Shopping Center. Storefronts are sitting empty. Neighbors are wondering what comes next. And as your councilor, I’m asking the same question: What is the future we want for Gateway, and how do we get there?

Let’s be honest. The Gateway TIF (Tax Increment Finance) district was supposed to bring transformative investment to this area that we haven’t seen yet. And while there have been some wins, the process got off to a slow start. Early zoning rules envisioned Gateway as “East Portland’s downtown,” with dense high-rises and big-ticket developments. But planners misunderstood what this community needed, and what it was ready to support. Meanwhile, the basics—streets, sidewalks, sewer lines—still weren’t in place. Unlike other parts of the city where TIF dollars went further, Gateway has had to play catch-up.

In 2022, after years of community pressure, the Gateway TIF was extended by 15 years. That extension unlocked around $60 million in potential investment. Prosper Portland is now working with David Douglas School District, private landowners, and community leaders on a new vision. There’s even a signature project planned for a 5-acre site in the Gateway district: 250+ units of middle-income housing and new infrastructure to support it.

But the Fred Meyer closure changes the math. That store was expected to bring in half the projected rent for the Gateway property, a major part of the financing puzzle. Without it, the plan to sell the land at an affordable price for redevelopment is suddenly in limbo. And once again, East Portland is left to deal with the consequences of economic forces far outside our control.

This isn’t just about Gateway. Across the country, big-box stores are struggling. Kroger, Fred Meyer’s parent company, is looking to cut costs after the failed Albertsons merger. Brick-and-mortar retail is still reeling from the rise of Amazon and the ongoing pressure of online shopping. Pharmacies, especially those inside grocery chains, are closing nationwide. And developers are facing high interest rates, tight lending markets, an unpredictable national economy, and fears that new buildings won’t pencil out.

But if East Portland has taught me anything, it’s this: we don’t wait around for someone else to save us. We build from the ground up, rooted in community, creativity, and care.

That’s why I’m convening conversations across City Hall and across our district. I want to hear directly from you—residents, workers, small business owners—about what you want to see in Gateway. The 2024 Gateway Action Plan gave us a roadmap: housing that’s truly affordable, economic growth that reflects the diversity of our community, and activation of public spaces that make Gateway feel alive again.

Let’s build on that vision. We are not trying to reinvent the work that’s already been done or step over East Portlanders who have been talking with the City about their ideas for Gateway for years. Thanks to city charter reform, East Portland has more of a voice than we’ve ever had in City Hall and we are not going to let the City repeat the same mistakes in Gateway that led to the situation today.

The Gateway Transit Center is the second busiest in the TriMet system. BIPOC homeownership in the area has grown by 300 percent in the last decade. We have strengths. We have momentum. What we need now is a city that shows up.

This is about more than filling an empty storefront. It’s about finally giving Gateway, and East Portland, the investment and attention we’ve long deserved. We must make sure this closing becomes an opening to finally fulfilling promises made. Let’s get to work. 

They’re Calling It a Scandal Because It’s Us
By Councilor Candace Avalos

Let’s be real. Portland City Council has always had coalitions. For decades, a handful of white men, who overwhelmingly came from the same couple of neighborhoods, ran this city by making deals with each other and with landlords, developers, and business interests. 

That was business as usual, and it meant those shut out of the conversation — like East Portland — got left with the scraps.

Now that the coalitions include women, people of color, renters, and people with working-class roots, we’re seeing city councilors willing to fight for the communities that too often have been left behind in our city. That’s something we should be celebrating, but instead the front-page news is caught up in legalese and whether it’s “sneaky,” or “a threat to democracy” when elected representatives with common interests work toward shared goals. That double standard says more about who’s uncomfortable with change than it does about anything we’ve actually done.

Here’s the truth: we were elected to work together. Portlanders voted for charter reform because they wanted a council that actually reflects the people of this city. Over 80% of voters ranked a candidate they helped send to City Hall. That’s more representation than Portland has ever had. So when people say “you don’t represent us,” what they really mean is “you don’t share my politics.” That’s not the same thing.

And let’s talk about the law. The serial communications law is new, confusing, and even the people in charge of enforcing it admit they don’t fully understand it. Robert Taylor, the City Attorney, didn’t find fault with what we did. Instead, he called this whole situation a “critical opportunity for additional training.” He pointed out that the Legislature passed this law in 2023 without clarifying how it’s supposed to work, and that it’s being rolled out at the same time Portland is implementing a brand-new form of government. Even the Oregon Government Ethics Commission’s own vice chair admitted she didn’t know how to tell when a violation had actually occurred. If the lawyers can’t figure it out, how are councilors supposed to?

That’s what makes all this “gotcha” framing so cynical. The facts are simple: the chat was below the number of councilors needed for quorum, on a platform subject to public records, and nothing in it was hidden from the public. Our conversations were the blunt, unpolished way colleagues talk when they’re trying to move through long days of policy debate. The actual decisions, the votes, the outcomes — they all happened in the open.

The real story here isn’t that a group of us worked together. The real story is that Portland finally has a representative council, and that makes some people uncomfortable. Coalitions on council aren’t new. What’s new is that they’re finally working for the people who’ve been left out for too long.

And that’s exactly what Portlanders voted for.

Note: Some people have suggested we owe the public a running commentary of every text or chat between councilors. That’s not how open government works. What we owe is that decisions and deliberations concerning city business are made in public— not that every private message is broadcast in real time. During budget negotiations, every single one of our policy positions and debate showing how we got there were expressed in public, on the dais.

We used a Teams channel precisely because we knew it was under public records law. The reason why this story exists is because public records law ensures accountability. What it doesn’t require — and shouldn’t — is that every conversation between councilors be livestreamed to everyone.

Who’s Calling Me “Quiet?”

By Councilor Candace Avalos

ICYMI, I was just featured in an Oregonian article titled “Portland city councilor quietly uses AI to help craft her public pronouncements.” I’m used to people talking about me. I served for years on the Citizen’s Review Committee to push for police accountability; I was the executive director of Verde — one of Portland’s most vocal environmental justice groups; and I sat on the Charter Commission which helped advocate for a more representative city government. I’m used to hearing talk, but one word I haven’t seen used to describe me is “quiet.” 

I’ve always been upfront with my beliefs, even when it would be easier politically to stay silent. I’m not afraid to be loud, especially when Portland’s power brokers have ignored the voices of the people I represent in East Portland for too long. So, miss me with the accusation that I’m doing anything “quietly.”

I want to be clear: the column you’re reading right now wasn’t written by AI (you can run it through an app if you want to check). But that’s not because of one article in the Oregonian. I’m writing this column without AI to show you that it’s always been my voice, my stories, and my leadership, no matter the process it takes to get to the final product. I understand that not everyone is going to agree with the use of AI, and that’s okay. We do need to have these conversations though, because AI is not going away.

First, I want to address some of the ways the article misrepresented my use of AI. I don’t frequently use AI on the dais, I use it occasionally and that’s what I told the reporter. I mostly use AI for personal use. Other councilors have used AI, including the Council President to analyze the speaking time of council members. As the reporter himself wrote in an earlier article, “the analysis, generated using an AI transcription program, reviewed 31 regular council meetings and work sessions held between Feb. 5 and June 5.”

Just like newspapers, businesses, and other organizations, I use AI “in a variety of ways to edit and draft” some communications. But I don’t use AI for everything, and all my communications are reviewed by me and my office. It’s a tool, and like any tool it can be used to cause harm, or it can be used responsibly.

I honestly thought the candid conversation I had would lead to a larger discussion of how local governments approach AI policy. The article that came out missed the mark. Really, I think what was published says less about me and more about how certain reporters have chosen to take every opportunity to get yet another dig on a young, Blacktina woman who’s not afraid to challenge our city’s establishment. If you’ve been following the news over the past couple months, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

I’m always looking for ways to be more efficient. Since I’ve been in office, it often feels like there’s not enough hours in the day to meet with community stakeholders, prepare and attend council and committee meetings, make visits around Portland, and knock on the doors of East Portlanders. AI is just one of the strategies I’ve used to maximize my time so I can focus on what matters most: helping constituents stay in their homes, resolving unfair fines, and fighting for East Portland.

I’m not a quiet person and I refuse to play by the rules of those used to setting our city’s agenda. I started this column so I could speak directly with you instead of relying on the media to represent me and my values. This new article is yet another example of why it’s necessary to have my own space. Sometimes this column may involve AI in the editing or drafting process, but I promise you that it’s always me behind the words.

AI has a host of challenges, from data privacy concerns to worker rights violations to environmental burdens. But pretending like AI isn’t out there won’t help us regulate it better. If you have thoughts or concerns, you can always reach out to my office. Having constructive dialogue is the only path to finding true solutions to the issues that face us.

To continue the conversation, I reached out to East Portlander Héctor Márquez, who has been thinking about the growing use of this technology and how we can best maximize its potential while minimizing the risks.

View full size image of Hector Marquez

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal.

Héctor Márquez, Executive Director of Historic Parkrose

1. Tell me a little bit of your background, what was your first experience with AI?

I was born in Mexico City and have a degree in Communication Science and Digital Media. My first exposure to IT came early—my stepdad was part of the team that designed the network for Mexico’s internet and later for the country’s electoral system. Watching that work sparked my interest in technology. Now he is one of the academics in Mexico that studies the impacts and uses of AI.

During college, I worked at a digital newspaper, which was my first step into professional communications. From there, I became a consultant for the Mexican government, supporting the IRS, the Senate, Congress, the Secretary of Education, and local governments, helping them improve their digital footprint.

About ten years ago, I moved to Portland and joined WeLocalize, a global company working in translation, localization, and data management for clients like Meta and Spotify. That’s where I began using automation—what I think of as the “preview of AI”—to streamline workflows so people could focus on more strategic tasks. One of my first projects involved training a machine to recognize words in different languages by pairing text with images and even detect small grammatical issues.

Later, I worked with Nike as a localization quality assurance expert, responsible for ensuring the quality of content across 21 languages and markets worldwide. That was right when AI tools were becoming accessible, and I began experimenting with large language models. I trained AI systems to produce translations that weren’t just literal but culturally accurate and natural for each region, which made it possible to scale multilingual content much more efficiently.

Now, as Executive Director of Historic Parkrose, a small nonprofit with very big goals, AI has become a vital tool. With limited staff but major responsibilities, I’ve learned to leverage AI to turn ideas into real projects—whether it’s communications, analysis, or planning. Used responsibly, it’s an incredible asset.

In short, I’ve been involved with technology and automation from an early stage, and I embraced AI as soon as it became available. For me, it’s never been about replacing people—it’s about using the tool to expand our capacity and impact. And honestly, I believe: if you’re not using it, you’re losing it.

2. How do you use AI?

I see AI as a tool—like a shovel or a calculator—not as intelligence. The term “artificial intelligence” sounds marketable, but in reality, the machine isn’t thinking. It’s not truly processing information—it’s mirroring, it’s predicting. It’s very good at guessing what we want to see or hear, but the quality of the result depends entirely on the user.

For me, AI is an assistant, not a worker. If you don’t know how to use it, or if you’re not an expert in the subject you’re applying it to, the results will be mediocre and wasteful. But if you bring your expertise and use AI wisely, it can enhance your ideas, streamline workflows, and multiply your capacity.

I don’t use AI for things that humans can do better, like creating original art. I use it for what it does best: bouncing ideas, improving clarity in language, checking translations, drafting instructions, or building workflows that free my staff from repetitive tasks. In my work, it’s like a “language calculator”—a machine that helps me do more with less.

And the truth is, we all already use AI. Every day. Your email spam filter, your phone’s autocorrect, your Spotify and Instagram algorithms—that’s AI. The difference is whether we use it consciously and responsibly. That’s why I believe small and large organizations alike need to understand AI as a tool that enhances human intelligence, not one that replaces it. If we feed it good information and ideas, it can expand what we’re capable of.

3. Why do you teach a class on ethical AI use in East Portland?

I teach a class on ethical AI use in East Portland because it’s crucial for small businesses, nonprofits, and the public sector to understand both the opportunities and risks of this tool.

On one hand, AI can save enormous time and resources. For a small team that doesn’t have the money or staff to manage every detail, AI can help polish complex instructions, translate communications, or generate drafts that would otherwise take hours. It’s not about writing emails or creating memes—that’s wasteful. It’s about leveraging the tool to do more with less.

On the other hand, AI comes with real costs. It consumes huge amounts of energy, and when misused, it spreads misinformation or creates fake images and text that can confuse the public. Just as older generations struggled with misinformation online, we now face an even bigger challenge with AI-generated content. That’s why training people to recognize what’s real and what’s fabricated is essential.

For East Portland, this work is especially important. We have many immigrant- and minority-owned businesses and nonprofits with small teams who don’t always have the time or resources to keep up with fast-moving technology. Meanwhile, large corporations are already using AI at full speed. If our local community doesn’t learn how to use it wisely and responsibly, we risk falling behind.

So my goal is twofold: to empower people with practical, ethical skills for using AI as a resource-saver, and to build awareness so we can recognize and guard against its dangers. At its best, AI is not a toy or a replacement for people — it’s a powerful tool that, when handled responsibly, can enhance our intelligence and strengthen our community.

4. Is there anything specific you think people should keep in mind with AI use?

The most important thing to remember is that AI is not a toy. It’s accessible to everyone, but it’s not always being used in ways that are productive for humanity. My hope is that AI can free us from unnecessary work, help us understand ourselves better, and maybe even level the playing field a little more.

But AI is a double-edged tool. Just as it can create opportunities, it can also be used in harmful ways. Our society has a history of creating powerful technologies without always putting the right safeguards in place. That means we have to stay vigilant, because there are always private interests and actors who may not use AI in the public’s best interest.

The reality is, AI is here to stay. So the real question is: how do we use it responsibly, to leverage our collective power as a society? We need regulations, education, and strong guardrails to ensure AI is used to strengthen communities rather than exploit them. If we demand accountability and stay awake to how these tools are being deployed, AI can be part of building something better, not something more dangerous.

5. Is there anything specifically you would tell elected or government officials about the use of AI?

To elected officials, my message is simple: you need to catch up. Right now, the legal and regulatory understanding of AI is far behind the technology itself, and that gap is dangerous.

AI is a powerful tool—it can help society solve problems, improve efficiency, and expand opportunity. But it’s also a dangerous one if left unchecked. Without strong oversight and clear regulation, AI can be misused in ways that undermine trust, destabilize communities, and even threaten the systems we’ve worked so hard to build.

This is not an area where “wait and see” is an option. Government must step in now to:

• Establish guardrails that protect the public from harmful uses.
• Ensure transparency and accountability from the companies building and deploying these systems.
• Support education and training, so communities understand how to use AI responsibly.

AI is here to stay. The question is whether our laws and policies will evolve quickly enough to ensure it serves the public good instead of private interests alone.

Cooling Is a Right — And Portland Can Lead the Way

By Councilor Candace Avalos

AC requirement may hit rentals in Portland

You may have seen the news: the City of Portland is preparing to require landlords to provide cooling in rental units. This follows years of advocacy and heartbreaking events. Most painfully, the deadly 2021 heat dome, when 72 people died in Multnomah County alone because they couldn’t escape the heat. And with climate change, we’re only going to see more dangerously hot days like we experienced this week.

As someone who formerly led Verde, a Portland environmental justice organization that has worked on climate resilience and energy equity and now serves as Chair of the Housing & Homelessness Committee, I want to share why I believe this policy matters and how we can do it smartly, equitably, and affordably.

In Oregon, landlords are already required to keep rentals from falling below 68°F. That makes sense: people shouldn’t freeze to death in their own homes. But we now know that extreme heat is just as deadly, especially for seniors, people with disabilities, low-income households, and those living in older, poorly insulated apartments. A maximum heat standard is not about comfort or luxury. It’s about survival. This is why “right to cooling” policies have been moving at the state level, and why Portland’s local action is so important.

Here’s the good news: we have tools on hand to make this work.

When I was at Verde, we installed ductless heat pumps (DHPs) in homes across the city, often for free. Heat pumps are efficient, climate-friendly systems that provide both heating and cooling. My own neighbors benefited from this — they got DHPs installed through programs supported by the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF). But here’s the challenge: Renters can’t access these programs on their own. They can’t decide to install a DHP in an apartment, even if it’s free because that decision sits with the landlord.

That’s why we need to expand access and bring landlords into the conversation. Before I left Verde, we worked with a rental building owner to do exactly that: we retrofitted the apartment complex with DHPs, using available incentives. That’s proof it’s possible.

As Portland moves forward, we should:

✅Partner with landlords, not just regulate them, by helping them apply for PCEF or other retrofit funds.
✅ Expand programs so they explicitly include multi-family buildings, not just homeowners.
✅ Center tenants’ lives and safety, making sure no one is trapped in a deadly indoor heatwave.

This approach delivers multiple wins:

• Tenants get safe, livable homes
• Landlords get help covering upgrade costs
• The city advances climate resilience and housing justice

Who doesn’t love a win-win-win?! 😍

As Housing & Homelessness Committee Chair, I fully support a maximum indoor heat standard for rentals. As a former Verde leader, I know we have practical solutions ready to go.

This isn’t just about rules — it’s about saving lives, cutting carbon emissions, and making sure every Portlander has access to safe, climate-ready housing.