Street of Dreams

The quest to rename a Portland City street to Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard has rumbled on for two years –testing the City’s collective patience. What was once a somewhat well-honed, targeted effort to rename Interstate Avenue after the late workers’ rights advocate, has turned into an attempt to rename the street-of-least-resistance –whatever street that may be. The latest target of the Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard Committee (CECBC) is 39th Avenue, which became one of three ‘alternate’ streets (alongside Broadway and Grand) to garner consideration for renaming after the quest to rename Interstate Ave. failed.

If you’re still unclear as to what all the fuss is about, the Oregonian provided an excellent perspective and history of Chavez. As for the storied battle to reclaim one of the City’s streets in the name of Cesar E. Chavez, you can read the City’s formal overview of the project.

History aside, this most recent quest to rename 39th Ave. has added further weight and breadth to the big questions that plagued the CECBC at the onset: Is it appropriate to rename a major street like 39th Ave.? Is it good to rename a street that, in the eloquent words of politico Sean Cruz, “…features absolutely nothing remotely related to Cesar Chavez or to farm workers or Hispanics along its entire length, a street that is truly an innocent bystander?” Is it a good idea to rename a street at all? Should the City spend money on this type of project –especially now?

For those who would like to educate themselves on the nuts-and-bolts arguments against the proposed renaming, a myriad of opinions and insights have been collected over the two-year battle. Additionally, opponents of the efforts to rename 39th Ave. continue to highlight the hidden costs of street renaming, as well as new and intriguing discrepancies in the application to change the street name. This includes everything from an incorrect number of signatures and invalid signatures, to a recent investigation showing that NE 39th Avenue doesn’t belong to Portland alone –it actually stretches into Milwaukie, putting it out of the bounds of consideration.

But for those who want a solid snapshot of the more thought-provoking arguments against the current proposal to change the name of 39th Ave., for your reading pleasure I present these arguments herein. Consume, stew, digest or regurgitate.

ARGUMENT 1: The efforts to rename a street for Chavez are misguided.

The Chavez renaming committee hasn’t presented (and doesn’t have to present) any data to show a correlation between street renaming and a greater interest in –and appreciation and respect for– Chavez. This shows both an inherent gap in City policy, as well as a flaw in judgment by those seeking the name change. The Portland Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to allow and recommend that 39th Ave. be renamed for Chavez. In issuing their support for the renaming, Commissioner Irma Valdez said, “This change is really for the children and future generations of Portlanders. We’re in the position of doing the right thing for future generations.”

How is the name change going to benefit, “…the children and future generations of Portlanders”? And how is the name change, “…doing the right thing for future generations”? The comments from Valdez rely on emotional anecdote as opposed to hard data about educational correlation and awareness related to street renaming. No one has shown any reasonable data to support the argument that renaming a street will increase interest in and awareness of the impact of Cesar E. Chavez. Then again, no one is required to show a causal relationship.

While the short-term impact of renaming a street name might be arguable, the long-term impact of street names is more tangible and quantifiable via informal street surveys. How many Portlanders have any idea about the relevance of Dr. J.C. Hawthorne, Benjamin Stark, Dr. Rodney Glisan, or John Couch –all dead Portland icons that defined this city? Their impact to the City of Portland was huge and direct, but I will venture a guess that they’re little more than street names to the majority of Portlanders.

If the CECBC’s members were focused on working to ensure that Chavez’ work is promoted to and remembered by the youth of Portland, they might consider a more active –and likely more difficult– approach. This might include the creation of a non-profit educational organization designed to do nothing less than promote the work of Chavez and the United Farm Workers of America in public schools — in both urban and rural agricultural communities. This would certainly be a challenge, requiring significant time and investment. This being said, it would likely fill an important gap that simply is not being filled by public schools, which are working under ever-tightening budgets.

ARGUMENT 2: The individuals seeking the name change have lost focus, invalidating their initial argument to rename Interstate Avenue.

The recent push to get the city to approve the change for 39th Ave. is not grounded in any data to support that renaming 39th Ave. would have a positive impact towards achieving the renaming committee’s goals. In fact, 39th Ave. was not selected… it was chosen through a policy of trickle-down resistance.

The Chavez renaming committee is so driven to get a street renamed that they have an ever-decreasing level of concern for which street is the target of their efforts, focusing instead on whichever City street produces the least resistance. The group originally fought hard to rename Interstate Ave., bolstered by a pre-defined set of criteria for selecting the North Portland thoroughfare:

“…The CECBC studied various factors when selecting a street. There were restrictions on certain streets that were already named for an individual or had specific historical relevance. The goal of the committee was to identify a street that was visible, well traveled, closer to the heart of city, and reflected the rich diversity of the city of Portland. Interstate Avenue met those criteria.”
–Chavez renaming committee Web site

Unfortunately for the committee, they faced too great of a challenge from Interstate residents and businesses, and subsequently moved on to Broadway. This re-focused effort also produced an uproar that seemed too big to quell so the group moved on to Grand Ave. When Grand became a hurdle too high to jump, the committee sought the innocuously named and seemingly unimportant and unloved 39th Ave. Unfortunately for the committee, their assumptions were not grounded in community outreach and/or public opinion.

Marta Guembes, co-chair of the Chavez renaming committee, who, when asked if the group would consider seeking a park name for Chavez, stated, “No, we are in the process for a street, not for anything else but a street.” This is indicative of the committee’s desire to press forward regardless of reason, as opposed to memorializing Chavez in the most meaningful way. This reflects poorly on the CECBC, making it appear as if this is not about memorializing Chavez as much as it is about creating a legacy for the individuals on the committee.

ARGUMENT 3: The issue at hand is complex and deserves better judgment.

1. Should the City memorialize Chavez as apposed to any other of the myriad of people who may be deemed worthy of a memorial? Regardless of what the City code states, what deems an individual as worthy of a memorial?
2. How does a memorial serve an individual’s memory; and specifically, how would a street named after the individual serve their memory?
3. How should the City of Portland handle requests to make significant changes to city infrastructure (e.g., street names) towards the goal of a memorial, based on the request of any given sub-set of the population?
4. Why rename a street? Why not some other form of memorial –or simply naming a ‘new’ street?
5. Should we make changes that are akin to erasing important markers of the City’s past?

These are bigger questions that seem less likely to gain traction from proponents or opponents as they require academic-level inquiry and truly thoughtful, community involvement. Proponents of honoring Chavez with a road correctly note that there are no Portland streets named for Latino heroes and plenty named after documented racists. As thoughtfully stated by Anna Griffin at the Oregonian:

“Instead of reinventing the city’s past, however, we should be learning from it. Learning that money can buy power and that sometimes the wrong people are lionized. Learning that sometimes we name roads after liars, cheats or thieves just because they happened to own the land beneath. Learning that our responsibility is to make different mistakes than the people who came before us, to add our history to theirs rather than replace it.”

ARGUMENT 4: Those most affected by the proposed street name change don’t want the name to change.

A postcard survey paid for by the Chavez committee –and carried out by the city auditors’ office– found opposition along all three street locations pushed ahead by the CECBC. Along Broadway, 95 percent of residents opposed. Along Grand, 84 percent opposed. And along 39th Ave., roughly 87 percent opposed the proposed renaming. Additionally, the following neighborhood associations have all voted against and issued formal opposition to the proposed name change:

• Hollywood Neighborhood Association
• Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association
• Richmond Neighborhood Association
• Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association
• Montavilla Neighborhood Association

ARGUMENT 5: Chavez’ own son believes it’s an inappropriate use of resources.

As stated in the Oregonian, Chavez’ son, Paul, said, “He (Cesar E. Chavez) would scold everybody for wasting so much time on it (efforts to rename a street for his father)… He would remind us there’s so much work to be done, and that’s what we should spend our time on.”

My Opinion:

The arguments presented by proponents for renaming a Portland street have all centered around one central premise: renaming a major Portland city street will both commemorate and memorialize the workers rights leader, raising awareness of his contributions to society for generations of Latinos and non-Latinos alike. I do not disagree with the relevance of this goal. What I disagree with is the vehicle for achieving this goal, which seems misguided.

If the people who signed the petition believe that Cesar E. Chavez should be memorialized, then by all means, pool your money and build a memorial, or better yet, work to ensure his legacy –not just his name– is not forgotten. But don’t assume the City of Portland owes anyone a street in Chavez’ name. There’s little reason to believe it would help meet the goals of furthering Chavez’ legacy.

The Cesar E. Chavez Foundation states that his life motto was, “si se puede” (it can be done). To the CECBC, I implore you to consider deeply whether a street named after Cesar E. Chavez will have any measurable impact on increasing the interest in and awareness of this honorable man. But more importantly, I ask you to look past your own personal legacies and fight for something more meaningful for memorializing Chavez; it can be done.

If you, like me, believe this issue has created a tremendous vacuum of sensible thought, reason, time and energy, please consider voicing your opinion at the next City Council meeting:

City Council Hearing
Portland City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Ave., 2nd Floor
Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 6:00 pm
Can’t attend? Send an email to City Commissioners

Related Posts

• June 1, 2009 -- OurPDX shared links for June 1st (2)

Tagged as: Cesar Chavez