Census Participation

by Charles Rynerson

change in census responseIn 2010, the Census Bureau focused outreach in hard- to-count (HTC) census tracts, based on data from the 2000 census. Twelve variables that were correlated with nonresponse rates in 1990 and 2000 were used to derive  the HTC score:

  • Housing: % vacant, % multi-family,% renter, % crowded;
  • Households: % not husband/wife, % linguistically isolated, % no phone, % recent movers, % public assistance;
  • Persons: % below poverty, % unemployed, % not HS graduate

Census workers have to conduct more costly door-to- door visits to count households that did not mail back their form. Changes in the mail response rate may reflect the success of outreach efforts or may have resulted from  demographic shifts that the 10 year old data used to determine the HTC score could not account for.

The census tracts with the lowest mail response rates in the 2000 Census were within N/NE Portland’s Humboldt, King, Boise, and Eliot neighborhoods, Central Portland’s Old Town, and Central Beaverton and Hillsboro. These tracts all had mail response rates below 65%. Statewide response rates were 77% in Oregon and 75% in Washington.

In 2010, the lowest response rates were largely in Multnomah County neighborhoods east of I-205, with the very lowest in North Gresham, at 64% and in Fairview/Wood Village, at 63%. Statewide 2010 response rates were 76% in both Oregon and Washington, nearly identical to the 2000 rates in both states.

Most of the biggest increases were in the Beaverton/Hillsboro area, SW Portland, and Inner N/NE Portland.  For example, a census tract that includes portions of the Humboldt and Piedmont neighborhoods in N/NE Portland increased from 71% in 2000 to 85% in 2010. Most of the biggest drops in mail response occurred within Multnomah County east of I-205, including a census tract in NE Portland’s Argay Terrace neighborhood where mail response dropped from 89% to 72%.  census response 2000-2010

State of Flux: An interview with former Secretary of State Phil Keisling

The nation may be out of a recession — officially — but times are still tough for Oregon. Per capita income is just 90% of the national average, while the state’s unemployment rate hovers stubbornly at 10%. Voters voiced their displeasure last fall by ousting incumbent lawmakers left and right. Republicans gained an equal share of the Oregon House of Representatives, while Democrats barely held on to the Senate and governorship. Going forward, key challenges for legislators on both sides of the aisle will be narrowing a yawning budget gap and creating more family-wage jobs, says Phil Keisling, who served as Oregon’s Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999 and recently joined Portland State University’s Mark O. Hatfield School of Government. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all will be putting partisanship on the shelf. In the following interview with Metroscape, Keisling weighs in on politics, poverty and public service. The interview has been edited for space.

MB: To start off with, let’s talk about your new job. In July, you joined Portland State University as the first permanent director of the Hatfield School’s Center for Public Service. What’s the center’s mandate, and what are some of the projects you’re working on now?

PK: The general mission of the center is to connect the extraordinary assets of the university, specifically the Hatfield School of Government — faculty and students — with the real-world problems of the public and private sector — governments and nonprofits. These real-world problems seem to be getting a good deal more complicated and difficult, rather than easier, as we move forward. We’ve identified three broad categories. One is very obvious, and that is education and degree programs. We run the executive master in public administration degree for full-time, working professionals in the public/nonprofit sector who want to get additional knowledge and get the credential. Many of them have just a bachelor’s degree. Or, if they have a master’s, it’s just very domain-specific — for example, someone who’s a biologist in a fish and wildlife department but who’s looking at managing. Portland State has the only program of this kind in Oregon. It’s very much targeted at people who have 10-plus years of [professional] experience.

We also have an array of training programs in leadership development. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, every year for the last decade, has had us put 12-15 people through a leadership- development program that’s co-produced. This means that our faculty members sit down with their key managers and work on a shared curriculum that people use to help identify the next generation of leaders, push them forward, and give them more skills and knowledge.

We also have international programs. We see leadership development and what we offer not being confined solely within the borders of Oregon. In fact, one of our professors here, Marcus Ingle, has been working with colleagues on a Ford Foundation grant that involves a new leadership program called Emerge. We’re field-testing it in Vietnam. We’re working with the Ho Chi Minh Academy helping them development the leadership skills for the challenges they face as an emerging country, particularly around sustainable development — economic, environmental and social issues.

The third broad category is what I call research and consulting. We do very specific, tailored projects for both government and non-profit organizations. We’re talking with some folks in the non-profit world about creating a “State of the Nonprofit” report to benchmark a lot of key metrics about the impact and reach of nonprofits here in Oregon. We helped Clackamas County evaluate the results of a four-day work week pilot project. They used our evaluation and decided to go forward with it on a permanent basis.

There are probably 15 discreet programs here. Some are very specific about topics. For example, we have one focused around the “smart grid,” which is fast emerging as part of what we call the “new energy economy.” We offer programs that take natural resource managers on our field trips, one week at time, three times a year, to look at what we call “wicked” problems on the ground.

MB: You mentioned “smart” grids. You were in the technology sector prior to coming to PSU. What spurred you to make the switch from hightech to higher education?

PK: Yes, I spent 10 years as an executive with a software services company based in Beaverton, called CorSource Technology Group. We did a lot of computer software programming work on behalf of clients. I enjoyed the time immensely, but at the end of the day, I love public policy issues. I made a decision at the age of 55, the kids were beginning to get off to college, that it was time for me to return to my first love in life. I was talking to a lot of people about what to do next, and someone mentioned this PSU job. I threw my hat in the ring. It’s a wonderful opportunity, and it’s an institution I’ve increasingly grown to respect over the years. And though I’ve been a Democrat for virtually my whole life — Mark Hatfield, for whom this school is named — is one of my political heroes.

MB: Let’s turn to state politics for a moment. During the next legislative session, the Oregon House of Representatives will be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans; Democrats will have a slim majority in the state Senate. … You studied pre-election and exit polling, so what were the biggest local and national forces that led to the GOP gains in the November election?

We are a poor state, economically. That has enormous implications for how we think, and understanding that this is not something that you just flip a switch on.

PK: To me, the most interesting set of statistics goes as follows: CNN does extensive exit polls on a national basis. In the 2006 election, those who described themselves as Democrats or Republicans voted about 90-93% for their tribes. That was also true in 2008 and 2010. In 2006, about 30%, though, of American voters described themselves as independents. And in 2006, they voted 58 to 39% for Democratic candidates. But wait: I think what they were really doing, more precisely, is they were voting against Republican candidates. That’s the important distinction to make. In 2010, that group went 18 points against the Democrats — a swing of 37%. It’s a remarkable swing, if you think about it. The other 70% of voters basically stayed static and shouted at each other across an increasingly large divide. So you have this 30% of the electorate that is basically the deal-maker, and it has been in recent elections.

I think this is the key to American politics — just who are these independents. What do they want? How do they think? What really makes up their disgust at both major political parties? And I think disgust is not too strong of a word.

Increasingly, when people are voting against things, the danger is that either political party takes their having more numbers than the other party as having a mandate to do things. And I think there was some overreaching that the Democrats who were in control went through. I think you’re almost beginning to see some of it already with the Republicans who overreached before, which led to the change of power in 2006.

So politics in this country right now is almost kind of suspended between these kinds of on-and-off cycles between these two poles. I happen to be a really big believer that we need to rethink the whole framework. I worked in both 2006 and 2008 on a ballot measure here in Oregon that would change the underlying rules of politics, creating a true open-primary election. Everybody runs and everybody is on the ballot. Every voter gets an identical ballot and sees all of the names. Every voter can vote for whomever they want, regardless of their party, regardless of their candidate. The top two go to the finals, regardless of their party. It’s a pretty sweeping kind of change, and it’s been something other than academic at this point because Washington voters approved it and ran the system for the first time in 2008. California voters approved it, and they’ll run it for the first time in 2012. When and if it gets revisited in Oregon, I don’t know. It got rejected at the ballot in 2008, though the last poll was 70% in support, 27% against.

We have a system where voters increasingly look at the choices and setup they have and say: “I’m not really happy with how this plays out, but I’ve got to vote one way or another.” And in 2010, the Republicans were the beneficiaries of that. But if they overreach, if they misread this (election) as a sweeping mandate, if they get into a “my-way-or-the-highway” mode — which I’ve seen Democrats do as well — I think you might see another swing in 2012. And remember, in presidential elections, a lot more people vote.

MB: You cited the significant shift nationally amongst independents. Did we see as big of a shift here in Oregon amongst independents?

PK: Not in the governor’s race. It’s interesting, especially if you look at the razor-thin margin of victory for (John) Kitzhaber. The CNN (exit) poll had Kitzhaber losing this self-described independent group by only 9%. I did a calculation that if he had lost by 13% — still ahead of the 18 points, on average, in congressional races — he’d be watching the inauguration of Chris Dudley on television. (Kitzhaber’s) ability to hold the independents better and not defect is one way to explain the election. But lots of other things can also explain the election. Kitzhaber did better amongst older voters than Democrats did, generally.

At the legislative level, my guess would be that voters acted more like they did with congressional races. You had those independents probably going 15 or 20 or 35% in favor of the Republican. I think that helps explain the flip in some of these (suburban Portland) districts. In the Oregon Senate, two seats were lost, and in the House, six seats were lost. This resulted in an unprecedented 30-30 tie in the House.

MB: You mentioned the risk of overreaching by the political parties after past elections. Given the slim majority that Democrats have in the Oregon Senate, what advice would you give to Kitzhaber in terms of governing?

PK: Well, I won’t be presumptuous to give him advice. But from what I’ve seen so far, he understands the dynamics in similar ways as I see them. I think there’s a tremendous opportunity here. It forces a governor to govern from the center out, not from an edge in. By necessity in the House, in order to get anything passed — even the smallest bill — you’ve got to find votes on both sides. On major things, you probably don’t want to pick off just one vote and have a lot of 31-29 votes in the House. That’s not very sustainable. Whoever it is that’ll be the one [dissenting] vote in the caucus, the pressure will be just enormous.

I think (Kitzhaber) will be able to say to the more liberal people on the Democratic side: “Look, this view got repudiated at the polls.” Also, he was not the favorite choice among some of the major interest groups; he did not get the support of the Oregon Education Association and SEIU. They either stayed on the sidelines or endorsed Bill Bradbury in the Democratic primary. (Kitzhaber) will be able to say that we’re not going to be able to deal with this revenue shortfall by increasing taxes.

He can also say to the Republican side: “I’m a Democrat. This state did not go bright red like some of the other places, so let’s try to find common ground. The $3.5 billion budget shortfall, that’s a big challenge. And since we can’t tax our way out of it, we’ve got to look at how we’ll be able to get more value out of existing programs.” So, I think this election result positions not only him, but any of the legislative leaders, to also want to govern in this particular way.

MB: Recently, Kitzhaber proposed that Oregon develop 10-year budgeting practices. What are the pros and cons of taking a longer view?

PK: The framework that he’s talked about, and this makes sense to me, is an outcomes-based framework where we’re not just caroming from every two-year [budget] cycle. We’re more reliant on a single tax than any other state. And the tax source we rely upon — personal income tax — is the most volatile tax. We have these huge swings up and down. So, particularly, with a state like Oregon, when you make a budget decision and you do it between sessions, you need to embed it in a framework of what you get for this money. You need to start ranking and prioritizing programs based on their outcomes and then being pretty honest and brutal about what’s working and what isn’t. You don’t cut across the board and act as if every program is equal.

It’s a new way of looking at the budget. It’s been talked about a lot, conceptually. (Kitzhaber’s) challenge, and he seems ready to dive into it, is how do you take that theory and framework and operationalize it. So the place to watch over the next year is not the place we always watch — which is the Oregon Legislature — it’s the management of state government. It’s how life changes at that operational level as the governor directs his people. How do they start managing in very different ways that can tell the public, “Here’s what we think we’ll get measuring against our goals.”

At the end of the day, remember, the governor is the head of the executive branch. And during the campaign, Kitzhaber was often asked how he would approach the governorship differently. I really like the answer that he gave, and that is: “In the previous eight years, I often viewed the job of governor as the 91st legislator, but the governor’s job is first and foremost the CEO job, the chief executive officer of the state of Oregon.” So, he’s going to ask the legislature for a lot of things, but the management going forward is his job one. My guess is you’ll see an enormous amount of change there. Hopefully, the legislature will give him the tools that he feels he needs to do it. At the end of the day, good management is not Democratic or Republican; it’s just public.

MB: Beyond the budget, what are the toughest policy fights and easiest wins Kitzhaber faces?

We are a poor state, economically. That has enormous implications for how we think, and understanding that this is not something that you just flip a switch on.

PK: I don’t think there are any easy wins now. Everybody knows that getting more jobs, particularly family-wage jobs, is extremely important. We’re 90% income, per capita, compared to the national average. It’s the lowest since 1929. Washington State is 106%. The two curves are diverging, and the gap has never been bigger, in my lifetime. We are a poor state, economically. That has enormous implications for how we think, and understanding that this is not something that you just flip a switch on. It’s really not something that a governor, alone, can fi x. The easiest thing for politicians to do is to take credit for the economic bounty when it comes. Of course, when it goes away, they say: “Do you really think government can do all that much to fi x the underlying forces in our economy?”

There’s a tremendous amount of things that are beyond the reach of government. That said, government must first try to do no harm. Then, government must ask itself where are the places, historically, where we can move the needle. I think that has to do with things like innovation in education, from early childhood all the way up to higher education at places like Portland State.

I mean, we’re below the national average in terms of kids who are proficient at reading in the fourth grade. There are southern states, which we dismiss and look down our nose at, that have done far better than we have. In Oklahoma, 70% of their four-year-olds are in a state-financed early-childhood-education program; we’ve got 7%. According to a 2008 report, our percentage of high school kids who go on to college is fifth-lowest in the country, with even Mississippi, Georgia and others 10 or 20 points ahead of us.

The first step we’ve got to take is acknowledging the reality of where we’re at. We’re a poor state. We’re falling down in education. We have way too little investment capital for the innovators who are here or come here to help them get to the next level.

There are very, very few software companies, for example, that have broken through this glass ceiling of more than $100 million of revenue. What are we not doing that we need to be doing? Those kinds of conversations very much need to happen in a new way, a way that stops the ideological divide — more taxes, more spending, more taxes, more spending. Enough. I would be paying particular attention if I were in politics today to the needs of the generation of men and women in their 20s, just entering this job market. They’re kind of job one. My generation, we’ll muddle through. But it’s even tougher for people in their 20s.

Oregon really has its work cut out for it. There’s been a bit of patting ourselves on the back for doing things differently and better. These last two years have been a real wake-up call.

MB: Is Oregon really doing anything “differently and better” in terms of attracting and keeping clean-technology companies? As you know, over the past few years, solar companies have opened manufacturing plants in Salem and Hillsboro. The wind-power company Vestas just announced plans to build its headquarters in downtown Portland.

PK: That’s a good observation. With what I call “clean energy,” everything from renewables to efficiency, we have an enormous opportunity. We need to look at what it’s going to take to not get eclipsed by everybody else, because, believe me, every state in the country is looking at clean energy as a place to put its bets, resources and energy. We’ve got a great base to build on. But how do we attract the superstars? I was working on this very question before I took this job. I think you’ll see the legislature asked to make investments. And, in a time of great budget challenges, you don’t just want to cut, cut, cut. You want, if anything, to cut and invest. You’ve got to think about what you put money into that’ll become the means by which you pull yourself out of the budget hole.

I think with Oregon’s green reputation, and the work that’s been done here by world-class researchers in terms of wave energy and nanotechnology, there are some places where we probably need to double and even quadruple down on our focus.

MB: Let’s turn to redistricting. The legislature will soon be tasked with redrawing congressional and legislative district lines to reflect population changes. Is there a weaker or stronger likelihood that the split legislature will get the job done than if Democrats still held both chambers?

PK: I certainly would like to see the legislature do its job. But I’ve had some experience here.

In 1991, lawmakers didn’t do their job, so their job fell to me. I did legislative redistricting, and the congressional redistricting, under Oregon law, went to the federal courts. Redistricting is contentious, and political insiders think it’s the ultimate battlefield. But I think the insiders are wrong. Redistricting increasingly doesn’t affect which party prevails, particularly when one-third of the electorate doesn’t like either party.

The other thing is that people are increasingly living and settling in places that fi t their ideological/political views. So in some cases, you almost have to gerrymander in order to get to a competitive district. And it’s not a standard of redistricting law that you have to draw lines to get to competitive districts; it’s to have communities of interest represented. So as the number of self-described independents increases, the lines on the map are going to be less determinant of an electoral outcome. Sure, it will seem to matter to some (legislators). Sure, it will be used to beat each other over the head and make accusations that one side is trying to preserve its advantage. But for the vast majority of Oregonians looking at that kind of food fight — they’re going to go “pffaw.”

Here in Oregon, either the legislature does (redistricting) or doesn’t. If they don’t, the Secretary of State will do the legislative lines and the [federal] courts will do the congressional lines. The legislative lines will probably be settled by the courts, anyway, because even the Secretary of State’s redistricting plan will be challenged. We’re so partisan that anybody who doesn’t like it can challenge it.

I just encourage (legislators) to just keep their eye on the prize. Redistricting is not a prize; it’s a necessity. I hope it’s done in a way that meets the standards of the law, which is keeping communities of interest together. Personally, I wish the legislature well in doing it, but I don’t have a high degree of confidence. But what will determine who wins and loses during the next decade in politics will have less to do with where those lines are.

MB: Will Oregon ever follow Washington and other states and put redistricting in the hands of an independent commission instead of the legislature?

PK: I think if it were to get on the ballot here it would probably pass. The problem would be who wants to take another run at it — the other ballot measure fell short — and when do you set the effective date. See, redistricting, almost by definition, is seen through the lens of a bipolar world that has been the baseline for what we’ve done for over two centuries. It basically says we’re going to assume there’s this inevitable battle between the reds and the blues. I guess I’m more radical in the original sense of the word, which is getting the root cause of the problem. I think we ought to look at the system and ask why are political parties given — ceded — the kind of power they are. Why are they at the center of the electoral universe?

Michael Burnham is a graduate student in the PSU Masters in Urban Planning program.

Skamania County: The Other Side of the River

It’s dusk in mid-December, and the sidewalks of downtown are bathed in the soft glow of holiday decorations and foggy windows.

Kristina Heartman, owner of Lesley’s Books on the main drag, said she earns enough money to keep the lights on, but business could be better. Like other Columbia River tourist towns, Stevenson sees its share of empty shops, tables and hotel rooms amid this Great Recession. Luckily, books appear to be both recession-proof and weather-proof this wet winter.

“Everyone else around here says things have been a bit slower,” Heartman recalled, “but when it gets darker earlier and the nights get longer and colder, people remember that they might want to read. Books might seem like the last thing you think about buying in this economy, but for something that’s extraneous, I’m doing okay.”

Skamania, the word from which this rural county gets its name, is Chinookan for “swift water.” The river is no longer wild, tamed by the hulking Bonneville Dam, half-a-dozen miles downstream from Stevenson, but the view is still stunning on a winter’s day. A dusting of snow caps craggy peaks that rise along both sides of the water as it flows toward the Pacific Ocean. Mount St. Helens is a frosted bundt cake, 30 miles to the northwest.

Such beauty is a blessing and a curse for Skamania County. For millennia, American Indians fished for plentiful salmon and traded on the banks of the Columbia. The Oregon Trail eventually brought a steady slew of soldiers, loggers and homesteaders, including the Stevenson family for which the county seat is named. Just 5 percent of the 1,684-square-mile county is developable today. The rest of the land — part of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and Gifford Pinchot National Forest — remains mostly wild.

In good times, the raw beauty draws a steady stream of tourists who stay at Skamania Lodge and shop down the hillside in Stevenson, the county’s biggest town, with 1,400 people. The rural lifestyle keeps professionals from the Portland- Vancouver metroplex coming back, season after season. Some folks never leave, said Casey Roeder, executive director, Skamania Chamber of Commerce, in Stevenson. Some, like Heartman, make a go at running a small business on 2nd Street, downtown. Some try telecommuting from their homes. The vast majority climb in a car several days a week and drive.

And there’s the rub: About seven in ten people who live here work outside of the county, Roeder noted. “Those people who are working in Portland — they’re buying their groceries and their gas there,” she explained. “That’s a great loss for our local businesses that offer the same services. We need opportunities to have those people live and work here.”

Curbing Commuting
Portland is but one of several places Skamania’s residents go to work, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. About 19 per- cent worked in neighboring Clark County, Wash., and more than 9 percent worked in Multnomah County, Ore., in 2008, the most recent year for which data are available. Other Skamania County residents worked in farther- flung places, including Marion County, Ore., and Yakima County, Wash.

On weekday mornings and evenings, Washington State Route 14, which doubles as 2nd Street in downtown Stevenson, is packed with car commuters and other travelers. “It can take a while to cross the street,” bookstore owner Heartman said. “In the summer, it can take forever.” But that’s in good times, of course.

As the economic downturn continues to take its toll on Skamania County’s tourism industry, county boosters are trying to diversify the local employment mix. They’re even treating Portland as an asset. “What we we’re trying to capitalize on is our proximity to Portland, especially to the airport, and year-round recreation,” said chamber director Roeder. “These are the kinds of things we have to offer to any kind of business.”

The Skamania County Commission is working closely with the county’s Economic Development Council to improve everything from roads to high-speed internet infrastructure to attract and keep light-industrial companies that are looking for low costs and skilled laborers. County boosters have scored modest victories.

In 2009, Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu Inc., a Boeing Corp. subsidiary that makes unmanned, drone aircraft, opened a manufacturing site in Stevenson. The facility employs about 100 people.

With another 600 of its workers scattered throughout the Columbia River Gorge, Insitu plans to consolidate is operations. Skamania County has proposed three sites for a new company campus, including one in the town of North Bonneville, Roeder said. Renewable energy is another employment sector on county leaders’ wish list.

Bingen-based SDS Lumber Co. has applied to build 50 wind turbines atop a ridge it owns in eastern Skamania County. The 75-megawatt project, which would cover about 1,100 acres, would be located outside of the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area.

Growth Projections
The county’s economic diversification efforts come amid slow-and-steady population growth. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2010 Skamania had 10,894 people, up from 9,872 people in 2000 and 8,289 people in 1990. State demographers project that the county will have about 13,400 people in 2030, up about 21 per- cent from 2000. As a point of reference, the state is expected to grow about 25 percent during the same 30-year period, to about 8.5 million residents.

Stevenson bookstore owner Heartman said she would like to see more people open independent businesses downtown. She would also like to see more major employers set up shop throughout the county to buffer her business and others during economic doldrums. “It would be nice to have more jobs that offer higher incomes, rather than just service-industry jobs,” she added.

DeWees, who works in a flower shop a few doors down, said she’d like to see fewer locals leaving town every morning, too. Perhaps then, they’ll have time more time to read a book — and maybe stop and smell the roses. “I used to work in Portland four days a week,” she said, “but I decided it was a little too much [commuting].”  

Michael Burnham is a graduate student in the PSU Masters in Urban and Regional Planning program.

Greetings from the Publisher, Winter 2011

Craig Wollner
Craig Wollner

Regular readers of Metroscape® are used to opening the front cover and reading the “Greetings from the Editor.” In this space, Craig Wollner would describe the vision behind the issue, how it was conceived and birthed, and how the pieces fit together. Since Metroscape’s first edition in 1992, Craig Wollner has played a pivotal role in the publication as editor, writer, executive editor, and general visionary.

With Craig’s death in November, this is the first issue of Metroscape® published without his careful attention to every detail from initial planning to printing and mailing. Nevertheless, before his death, as he had with every other issue of Metroscape®, Craig guided the the themes and content for this issue.

It is worth noting that this first issue of Metroscape® published after Craig’s passing is also our first electronic issue. As Craig pointed out in the Winter 2010 issue, the decision to discontinue printing the publication was difficult, but ultimately Craig welcomed the challenge, and got the Metroscape® team excited about the possibilities that the online format offers.

This issue presents a number of articles that reflect changes in the demographic and political structure of our region. With Census 2010 past us, we examine reapportionment and redistricting impacts on the region’s political representation. We also trace the history of immigration to the Portland region and how it has affected both the people who choose to move here and the region they call home. We examine changes in how the U.S. Census collects and publishes population and socioeconomic data for our region, and the implications for our understanding of changing demographics. In the Indicators piece, Charles Rynerson shows our participation rate in the 2010 Census. Michael Burnham’s interview with Phil Keisling, Oregon’s former Secretary of State, provides an insightful look into current politics. The landscape considers Skamania County, the smallest and most recent addition to the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Losing Craig has encouraged us to reflect on the vision described in the first issue of Metroscape®. The founders, including Craig, aimed to acquaint the residents of the Portland metropolitan area with their region… “ how it works, and where we’re headed. It’s about places, about history, about heroes.” Over the years, Craig’s careful guidance has brought us stories of our region and its heroes, be they elected officials, urban planners, nonprofit directors, entrepreneurs, teachers, health givers, farmers, cops, artists, or anyone who strives to make this community a better place for all. Although Craig would have protested our putting him in their company, his contributions to Metroscape® made him a hero to us.

Sheila Martin
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies