See, Isaac Laquedem: The West Hills need a day care center for the grownups

My suggestion to the folks mentioned:

Just start a new group already.

That's the way to do it for labor unions too.

That's also how you render the gaming of outside (or inside) meddlers useless. The lawsuit, that latest one, sounds silly.

Free speech is not about stifling someone else's speech but enabling divergent voices. Two voices are better than one, and the legal system is not equipped to restrict speech or declare that only one group may offer visions for a given little territory.

The land use laws that sprung from SB 100 included a component for encouraging citizen involvement. I would surely not want to construe this goal of expanding citizen involvement to mean that there should be one voice, and ONLY ONE voice.

Back to the labor union analogy. Could Portland Public Schools ban the formation of Associated Portland Educators (pdxape.us)? No.

Should Portland be paying money directly to any non-governmental private association? The Portland Office of Neighborhood Involvement has always troubled me, in this regard.

There doesn't seem to be anything that a few public dollars can't screw up. The Portland School District likes to think that they support labor, generally, by picking one group and simply disregarding any other voice. Hum. See the common elements?

Hey, the proposed modifications to the rules include this little tidbit:

"Establish open meetings and public records standards for Neighborhood Associations and District Coalitions."

The associations, as a condition of getting public money, must reveal membership lists.

The city has no desire whatsoever to get out of the business of using public money to control ever more voices to speak with one voice in favor of the city itself.