Views on Equity
Last time we met, Sy brought up the key point that the Seattle’s equity plan came from the Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. In contrast, Portland’s equity plan is incorporated into the Portland Plan, an ambitious plan based in infrastructure. While Portland is currently seeking a long-term and dedicated equity planner, the difference between Portland’s plan and Seattle’s plan should be evident. Frankly, they attempt to address broader equity from different perspectives. Seattle’s plan aims to affect equity by working with people. Gena’s post on small-scale interventions is a great example. Portland’s equity plan, because it comes from a different institution and initiative, is focused primarily on different aspects that might affect people’s equity. The Portland Plan talks about economic efficiency, the dollar and scarce resources. In three sections that comprise equity, here’s what we noticed:
- The Thriving Educated Youth section has 4 focuses, only 1 of which is directed at Portland’s youth (pg. 33)
- The Affordability and Prosperty section has 8 goals, 5 of which are for corporations (pg. 45)
- The Healthy Connected City has 3 focuses, all on the built-environment (pg. 73)
Why is this? At first, this appears to be reason for outrage? But, the institutional differences, and their historical development, may have framed the issues of equity differently. The RSJI, using a civil rights view, might lend itself toward a focus on relationships between people and the history of inequity. Portland’s Plan, using a planning view, might lend itself toward a focus on planning, property and resources. This begs the question, whose responsibility is it to enable equity within the context of the city? Is it the city’s responsibility? A specific department? What about corporations? This lends itself to broader question: what kind of equity do we seek?
Perhaps it’s time to go back and reevaluate what we are trying to achieve by talking about equity. Not necessarily to pause the discussion of equity, but to ask how will we know when we get there? This would better inform the kind of institution that we might need, existing or not, to bridge this gap. To put equity solely in the Portland Plan seems silly. Ultimately, an view specifically created for equity would best be able to understand the measurement and accountability issues that were brought up in our last discussion.
Portland Plan Equity Blog 
wattersmurp 6:31 am on October 26, 2012 Permalink |
With regard to responsibility, remember to look at the broader context of the Equity Initiative and the transition of the Office of Human Relations to the Office of Equity and Human Rights (OEHR). The Portland Plan was the most time sensitive of three components that the Equity Initiative originally established in 2010, along with internal city practices such as contracting and human resources policy. The creation of OEHR is an acknowledgment of the City’s most pressing need to start with equity from the inside out. The coincidence of the Equity Initiative with the Portland Plan process seemed to be serendipitous in a way.
Another thought – I think the Equity Initiative’s Objectives and Actions do, indeed, have a relational character. They also provide a good beginning place for answering the question of how we will know when we “get there”.
References
Equity Initiative Objectives and Actions: http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=54115&a=339598