Search Google Appliance


planpdx.org: Interview with Joan Smith

Date of Interview: September 27, 2000
Interview By: Ernie Bonner
Location: Portland, Oregon

JS = Joan Smith
EB = Ernie Bonner

EB: This is an interview with Joan Smith at her home in Madison Tower in Portland, and it's the 27th of September in the year 2000. So Joan, why don't you start off and just tell us a little bit about how you got to the Planning Commission?

JS: Okay. This is Joan Smith. We moved to Portland in 1973, in the spring. There were so many interesting things going on. I was oblivious, until we reconnected with a friend of my former husband's, Clem Lautenberg, whose wife was Cindy Banzer. At that time Neil had been elected mayor. Cindy was chairing the Budget Advisory Committee for Planning and Development, which oversaw the budgets of OPD, Planning Bureau, Transportation, Buildings, PDC. There may have been one or more other bureaus. But anyway, she said, "Would you like to be on one of these committees?"
So I agreed. I joined the Budget Advisory Committee for Planning and Development, and we dutifully did our studies. As we got into it, we realized that the bureaus were not interested in having their budgets studied. I think Neil had lost interest in the whole process, so we, like all the other budget advisory committees, were out there flailing around, except that we took it seriously. Each year we put out a report. I think I was on the BAC three years, and one year I chaired it. We decided to make our reports really broad, to make them "big picture," rather than getting down into the bureau's nuts and bolts and pennies and nickels.
Somewhere in the midst of all that, and I can't remember the year, maybe '78 or so, there was a vacancy on the Planning Commission. I think because we had taken our jobs seriously, and they were looking for a housewife from Southwest, that I fit the slot. So off I went to...

EB: They were? They were looking for a housewife from the Southwest?

JS: Yes. They were.

EB: Really? Interesting.

JS: Well, that's what I was told. You know, you couldn't have more than two people from one profession. Many members came from Northwest or Northeast. So this was geographical diversification.
I knew nothing about planning - except what I'd learned through the budget process. I was fascinated by the city. I especially liked downtown. So I just dived in. That's it. No background, no nothing.

EB: Right. Well, but that was a sort of a logical way to get in there, right?

JS: Yes.

EB: Do you remember the dates, anything about the dates, like when you went on the Commission?

JS: I was looking that up, and I think it was '78, maybe toward the end of '77. That's it, because we only lived here maybe two years before I went on the BAC. So let's say I went on the Commission in either late '77 or early '78. I think it's in my materials. And I left in '80, '81.

EB: So you were there when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted?

JS: I was. In fact, it started out with Mike Katz as chair, but I basically chaired the Commission through the whole Comprehensive Plan, right through till its acknowledgement by LCDC. Including 2400 hours of public hearings. I think we counted them.

EB: Right. Well, let's go back to sort of the beginning. What are some of the early issues that you remember being involved in with the Planning Commission?

JS: The main issue I remember was with Rod O'Hiser finalizing the regulations for the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan had been passed, but the regulations hadn't been.

EB: These would have been the development regulations...

JS: Yes, like height and density. We spread out into other things like the signage business, the high density residential, rain protection. We got into the R-X zone. I think by the time I got there, it was more or less blessing a lot of work that had been done, but somehow had never made it all the way through the Commission to the City Council. And even in those days we had Design Review, so I remember the first building reviewed. I think it was my first or second meeting. It was the TN Building, down there near where the U.S. Bank Tower is today. The TN Building turned out to be a fairly crummy building.

EB: So the downtown development regulations were big. They started, actually, in 1973, and so then they didn't really get handled until - really until 1980. So it took a long time for all those to get through.

JS: It did take a long time, but I do remember that as being one of the big things. And the other big thing was planned unit developments.

EB: Ah, that ordinance.

JS: That ordinance was big, you know, and its implementation. Those were the two main ones.

EB:. Who do you remember was on the Commission at that time? Do you remember anything about any of those individuals?

JS: Well, I do remember Mike. I think he was the Chair at that time. Ogden Beeman. But they all start to blend together. I remember Sharon Roso from North Portland. Joe Voboril from Southeast. I'd have to look at the list again. It's in my materials. Frances Diemosz, who's married to Alan Weber.
She was on fairly briefly because then they moved back to Massachusetts.

EB: Right. He was on the Willamette Week, then, I guess at that time?

JS: Yeah, they moved back east when Neil left, or maybe slightly before. They went to Harvard.

EB: So when did you become Chairman?

JS: I think it was probably in '79, because we were really rolling on the Comp. Plan. It took forever to get that started. It blended in with the block grants, which were still available then for housing and community development, and were used by the neighborhoods to do some planning. And then of course the State had its deadline. We had a terrible time getting off of dead center. You may remember Tracy Watson.

EB: Yes.

JS: He was in charge of the Plan. The thing that was key in that era was we were doing fine as long as Neil was there. But when he left in '80, the bottom fell out. I like to recall that I survived four Planning Directors and three Mayors. But by the time Terry Sandblast got there, under (Mayor) Frank Ivancie, all the things we'd worked for became shams.

EB: Yeah, that's absolutely correct. That is right, that went from Neil to Connie to Frank.

JS: And it went from you to Doug Wright to Frank Frost to Terry Sandblast.

EB: Interesting change there, right. So what did you think about the Comprehensive Plan, just in general? You spent a lot of time on it; was it worth all that time you spent on it?

JS: Well, I think it was worth the time. We had moved to Oregon just as the land use planning law passed. It made sense to me, because I had gone to a couple of conferences on land use planning and urban sprawl. I thought that there should be some way to be logical about growth, but had no idea what.
I do remember that one of the things that took the longest was the citizen participation piece. They had an advisory committee that was meeting as I came on. Then they were basically shunted aside, and off we went.
I thought it was a very good effort. "Comprehensive" was a good word. I just pulled out some of the original projections, and I gave them to Mike (Katz), who took them to the Planning Bureau, which of course had never heard of them. I wanted to see how close we came, because we had projected to the year 2000. It turns out that it's hard to compare because of all the annexations.

EB: Oh, yeah, definitely.

JS: So in the big picture, it looks like we didn't grow, we didn't become more dense than we were at that time, but it's mainly because of the annexations.
I think we did a good job of going around and getting testimony and that sort of thing. Most of the neighborhoods that were savvy, and had done their plans, had them by and large adopted. They would show up at all the hearings. And then we had our groupies that would also show up at every meeting. We had the people that were afraid of things like row houses. They showed up everyplace.
But for the most part, we had pretty good turnout when we went from high school to high school throughout the city.

EB: And so you basically went out into the community and had hearings?

JS: Oh, yes.

EB: Well, it always struck me as an herculean effort to attempt to zone every square inch of the city, and so you come across every property owner. There was a lot of interest and animosity, I bet, about that.

JS: Well, there was, and there was of course fear of change. As we worked through the first draft to the final draft, we got a lot of criticism because after all of that, it didn't look on the surface like much had changed. We blessed what was there, in many ways. I think there's a rule of thumb that the more inclusive you are, the more likely you are to come out with the status quo, because of the political pushing and pulling.
So by the time we got to the Council, which was its own special nightmare, we had people running for office again. Frank was running against Connie, and Connie was trying to support the plan. Frank and Mildred decided "densifying" the city was a bad idea. By and large the plan came out somewhere right in the middle, with a few innovative twists, like mixed-use zoning, and recognition of mixed-use around transportation arterials, a result of the transportation plan, where we designated which streets were traffic-oriented and so on.
It also really was the capstone, I think, of neighborhood involvement, neighborhood zoning, neighborhood planning. When the federal grants ran out, there was nothing quite as cohesive as planning to hold neighborhoods together. I mean, otherwise they would decide whether they were in favor of a variance or not. And even though we gave neighborhoods the premier place as we considered zone changes and projects and what not, neighborhood involvement disintegrated, so today it isn't quite as strong or effective as it was in those days.

EB: Well, that's true. I think the whole idea of a neighborhood planning its future gave them something besides the ordinary 'we'll stop the apartment,' or 'stop, you know, the traffic from our neighborhood.' It gave them something more positive to do.

JS: Plus there was the money, so they had staff to help. The ordinance for neighborhoods passed in '73, as I recall, so they were up and running just in time to use the block grant money and to use it for not only projects in their neighborhoods, but for the planning effort. So that all came together very well.

EB: Who was actually working on the Comprehensive Plan, in terms of the bureau staff?

JS: It was a mixture of people. Of course, I remember Tracy Watson, who eventually moved on to Florida, and then I think Frank Frost took a role in it, to keep it together. Michael Harrison, who's about to retire, comes to mind. At that point Jessica Richmond was an advocate for the downtown neighborhoods and later became an employee. You know, I remember that it was agony for almost everybody.

EB: I bet it was. I bet it was. It always struck me that there was no answer - you know, there was no right answer. There was a constant kind of manipulation of interests and logic and so forth, and coming out to some kind of result, essentially a result that you could stand.

JS: Exactly.

EB: It was always so dissatisfying that way.

JS: I think we all dreaded it when we had to have meetings about the Comprehensive Plan because it was so hard to get our arms around it.

EB: Well, like I say, I think it starts with having to deal with every square inch of the city, and you have to know everything about every lot almost - as distinct from a situation where you might set some general policies for the city as a whole, and that's your plan, you know, a set of policies, and you judge things ...

JS: Well, we tried to, you know, but when push came to shove, and the application of those policies reared up, like making more residential space available, well, then you really heard from neighbors. The Southwest hills, and even a little bit the Northwest hills, were up in arms over allowing mother-in-law apartments within some of these larger older homes.

EB: Exactly. And of course I don't think that LCDC would have been satisfied with less than a zoning plan for the whole city.

JS: No.

EB: Basically they were zoning all over the state.

JS: Right. But we still had to address the energy goal and the natural resources goal.

EB: Right. And there are thick pages of policies in front of all these zoning maps, too.

JS: Oh, yeah. And of course once we got there and tried to move forward with it, neither the political leaders nor the Planning staff were interested in doing so. In fact, at the end there was a lot of nose-holding and just getting through it because the State required it, rather than making a dynamic plan for the future, I think.

EB: I never felt that Neil cared at all about the Comprehensive Plan, and on logical grounds: you know, I could spend all my life getting a Comprehensive Plan, and what does it get me? The very first time I ever talked to him, he said, "What good is a comprehensive plan?"

JS: I can just hear him.

EB: So he was smart about that, and he did a lot of other things with his energy and so forth that made a big difference. I've had discussions with people from LCDC at the time about what they were doing, and of course Portland was lagging way behind everybody else. The city that should have been in the lead was lagging way behind. It's because there simply was hardly any interest. Even on my own staff, I couldn't get Doug Wright or Don Mazziotti or any of the real power I had interested at all in it. So it was a difficult, but a required thing to do.

JS: You know, in some ways Portland, even though a plan hadn't been codified, was making good decisions, especially in the downtown. Those decisions were well underway before the bill passed in the legislature, Senate Bill 100.

EB: That's a really good point. That's a good point. I really think the difference between Portland then and Portland, at least in the '80s, is that good choices were made.

JS: So I don't think the Comprehensive Planner was the driver. I think it was a duty.

EB: Definitely. Well, the more and more I saw Planning, the more and more I said it's over at the Development Commission where the action is.

JS: Well, in the end that's really where it was. Of course those were the very best days of the Development Commission, as well.
One thing I've heard time and again from developers, though, is they liked Portland because they knew what the rules were. Even though the Comprehensive Plan just codified the rules, they already knew what the rules were; they knew what the heights were, they knew what the trade-offs were. So they didn't have to fool around a whole lot, even though they would complain bitterly about the rules.

EB: Right. Well, they don't seem to feel that way now, for some reason.

JS: I'm sure they don't. I don't even want to know.

EB: They don't seem to feel that way now. Okay, so you were - how did you like being chairman? I mean, what does the Chairman of the Commission mean?

JS: Well, I liked being Chairman. It was one of the first real leadership roles I had in this community. I liked the staff, and I liked watching it all come together. What did it mean? It meant actually conducting the meetings and making sure they were fair, and that they moved right along. I think that is very important as well as making sure that each person on the Commission got to have a say if they wanted to.

EB: Big challenge.

JS: Yeah, a big challenge, but something I liked doing. I could place emphasis where I wanted it.
Mainly we did what staff directed, you know, and it was more about implementing the staff agenda. It wasn't that the Commission had its own ideas, in general.
The other thing I always felt strongly about is that we were the lightning rod for the Council, that we could get things done at our level that they couldn't, or wouldn't, and that was a very important duty.
I also remember how grateful I was that this city had passed an ordinance (in 1976) that allowed hearings officers to do the nitty-gritty, because citizen panels are virtually inept at doing that sort of thing.
When I first got there, the meetings were quite long. The later it got, the worse the decisions. I remember numbers of those. But toward the end we were able to meet for a more civilized length of time.

EB: Right. Oh, that made a big difference, the hearings officers. You pointed out that you could be a kind of a lightening rod for the Council. Did you feel at times that the Planning Commission actually was more radical than the Council, or at least entertained more radical kinds of ideas than the Council would?

JS: Oh, definitely. I think all five of the members, as they changed over the years, were perfectly delighted to have us take the heat for more creative, radical, visionary ideas. I think as the whole the City Council didn't really want to have anything to do with it. It was a no-win situation for a Council to take on a subdivision or a neighborhood or a developer, because they got their money from the developers, and their votes from the neighborhoods. It was absolutely no-win.

EB: Right. That's a good way to put it. You implied that there might be a story behind the review by the Council of the Comprehensive Plan. Tell me a little bit about that. What actually went on there?

JS: Well, by the time the Plan got to the Council, there had been a lot of publicity. They held a number of hearings, that were fairly lengthy. You have to give them credit for sitting still, more or less, as still as they could sit, and then having these people come up and give their ideas, especially the ones who didn't get their way in the first couple of rounds.
However, it was coming up on an election, so they were doing media performances. Ivancie had just crushed Connie McCready, when she tried to make it more visionary. He took one or two themes, the main one being densifying the city: what do we need to do this for? why do we need to have all these people here? We're fine as we are. Well, that definitely struck a responsive note, and Mildred followed right along and did the same thing. None of them did much homework. None of them seemed to be very well briefed. They concentrated on one or two issues.
And then Mildred in particular would take on various people that came to testify. I remember a woman from the League of Women Voters, who came to say doing this was a good project and was important for the city's future. Mildred scolded her about how terrible this plan was.
But mostly what they'd do is they would listen to whatever comment was being made, and then they would turn to the Planning staff and lay them out. It was excruciating to watch. It was a real low point, in my opinion, of citizen participation because of the behavior of the Council at that time.

EB: Did you have any role in that? Were you there?

JS: I attended most of them, but they didn't seem to be interested in getting at me or the Commission as much as they were the staff.

EB: That was a particular ploy of Frank's and Mildred's...

JS: Yes.

EB: Mildred was an excellent politician in that way, in the sense that she was always against everything during the discussion, but then she always voted for everything.

JS: Yes.

EB: So you could never nail her down and say, "Well, your record shows you did this, that and that," but she was always so critical of everything. So I think she made friends on both sides.

JS: Well, she had the media and the people with her because she would show how tough she was.

EB: Right. They liked that attack kind of...

JS: Yeah, they liked the attack dog approach.

EB: Exactly. Particularly against bureaucrats.

JS: So the Council basically went through all the hearings, fiddled around with all the different provisions, and eventually just held their nose and voted yes. Basically.

EB: See, now, Neil was right.

JS: Yeah. I mean, it was a losing proposition. In order to meet the first goal, which was citizen involvement, the process had to be out there in public, and it did interest the media from time to time. And once you're out there, you have to produce something, which was enormously difficult. Then it kind of faded. In the time since then I really think Metro became the comprehensive plan organization because the only thing that really counted was the urban growth boundary.

EB: Which really said nothing about what happened inside...

JS: No, not a thing.

EB: ...which is the problem. Right. Well, then we got into a lot of trouble. I guess that had already started, there were evidences of that in the comprehensive plan process about people not being in favor of more density in the city.

JS: Oh, yes. It made sense to us that if you don't want urban sprawl, you have to make sure that you can do in-fill. People were just outraged about it, even though it didn't really happen until developers in Northwest started doing the row houses, and that raised all sorts of other problems. But intellectually it seemed like a good idea at the time.

EB: The logic of the Thousand Friends and LCDC and others, I think, is that a denser city is a better city, but that's basically because of the efficiencies that you'll get from that higher density.

JS: Absolutely.

EB: It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the livability of the place.

JS: Well, we thought we could add livability in there by making the set-backs generous, and making sure you didn't get a wall of garages along the street, and all that stuff, but most people like a little bit of yard.

EB: That's sure true. What else do you remember about the Planning Commission days?

JS: Well, there were a couple of issues that went on at the same time. Of course one was Design Review. I served on Design Review for a while. I always felt ambivalent about it. I always felt it was difficult to tell an architect to redesign a project. I thought that was very intrusive. And yet looking back, most of the collaboration between the Design Review committee and the project managers turned out to be pretty good. I think it was Design Review, more than the commission, that made sure we didn't have blank walls on the sidewalks downtown, and that most projects looked at whether they had to respond to a pedestrian street or a traffic street.
The strangest project I remember was the hassle over the banners for Rose Festival. Mike Russo was on Design Review, so we had roses and designs of roses coming from everywhere. And he said, and I've remembered it to this day, that drawing a rose is one of the most difficult things you can do. So we came out with a stylized rose, and off we went.
That was also the era of historic preservation. The Historic Preservation Commission was very active. We had two districts, we had money, and we had people who were very knowledgeable. And for the most part it went very well, and I think we did a lot of good work in those days. But pretty soon everything that ought to have to been preserved was either preserved or changed. I remember that when we got over to King's Hill, the neighbors were very powerful, and even though they kept their properties in pristine condition and didn't modify them in an inappropriate way, they really didn't want "preservation" to happen. And by that time it was early '80s...

EB: This was a proposal to make King's Hill an historic district?

JS: Yes. It never happened. So we wound up with our two districts downtown, by and large, and then some individual properties. But reaching out to King's Hill was kind of the end of the great historic preservation movement.

EB: Right. The thing that seems to be still building is an effort by the historic conservation people to do something between nothing and an historic district, I think they call it an historic conservation district...

JS: Right.

EB: ... where you set up a limited process to review what goes on in the district. But it isn't that heavy a load. They seem to be picking that up in various areas around the city now, which I think is a good idea because it's pretty heavy, that historic district designation. It's highly regulatory in some respects.

JS: Another thing that we worked hard on was transportation planning. There was a comprehensive, in small c, comprehensive planning that went on for transportation throughout the city in the arterial streets study and the arterial streets plan. I think Steve Dotterer is still around. He was the pioneer of all of that. I remember the early planning for the west side light rail, not that we had a lot to do with it. The Council had to sign off to get federal money. We learned from Toronto how important transportation planning is, because development really does follow public investment. And what a difference that would make. And I just have to get this on your tape:
I remember, and it's in my notes, the day that John Bentley, who was vice chair of the Commission, said, "Why don't we do a tunnel on the west side, so that we can avoid that grade going up the canyon?" And everybody went, "Oh, that could never happen, that is really a dumb idea," on and on, "No one will have that kind of money." And I've chuckled to this day, thinking of when they opened that tunnel under the Vista Ridge, knowing that John Bentley said it could happen and that was the way to go.
So transportation was a big deal. We did some other things, like the R-X zoning, which was to mix housing near Portland State in with commercial. And as Mike Katz would have said, and probably did, it doesn't matter how you zone, it's the economics that will make it happen. You can zone your heart out. As it turned out, I really do think zoning did lead to the housing coming into that section of downtown, on the southwesterly side of downtown. Now there's a lot of housing.
We looked at the park blocks. There was an original plan for the park blocks that said no commercial use should face on the park blocks. Today of course we have a lot of commercial uses facing on the park blocks. But we do have some good infill there, too.

EB: Do you remember considering the possibilities of not having the commercial park blocks, but have a park go right on through, like they've been talking about recently?

JS: Not really. I think we were very pragmatic in the end. Those streets were there, and those buildings were there. That just wasn't going to happen. And I don't think it's going to happen now, but if it keeps people busy, that's good.

EB: Well, I think the only reason it's being discussed is that Moyer has offered to pay for it.

JS: Well, he would be paying a premium. I'm not sure that the folks at the Arlington Club would be enthusiastic.

EB: No.

JS: What else did we do? We did a lot of stuff. Oh, I also served on a number of the design-build projects for downtown, because I was the Planning Commission representative. The first one was the successor to Cadillac Fairview, which became the Morrison Street (Pioneer Place) project. Another was the KOIN project up here, Blocks 130 and 131. Another was the waterfront, where they built Riverplace.
But the three main ones I was on were the Morrison Street development, KOIN, and the Portland Building. The Portland Building was an experience never to be forgotten. In fact, I saved so much of my stuff that an architect from the University of Washington used it in several articles she wrote about the process.
By the time the Portland Building came along, however, Ivancie was in charge. Pretty much all the decision-making, starting with Morrison (not as much in KOIN) and the Portland Building was done by Bill Roberts. It didn't matter what we did as a committee or who submitted what, he made the final decisions.

EB: This is the design committee, you're talking about?

JS: Well, no. These were project selection committees. We had to choose the developer, and a developer had to submit not only the project, but the design of the project. Each one was very interesting. The Rouse project (Morrison Street/Pioneer Place) had a developer from back east. Wright Runstad was another bidder on it, and they had Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca as their architect, and then there was somebody else from Oklahoma.
In KOIN there were three different outfits that bid, and Olympia & York was the one that won it.

JS:nd in the Portland Building, there were three - one was Giurgula from Philadelphia. His was basically nonresponsive because they had this puny budget of about $19 million, and he didn't come close. He was six million over. They all had local construction companies. Then the next one was Arthur Ericksen of Vancouver, B.C. He was $2 million over. And Michael Graves was right on the budget, even though everybody knew that after the change orders, they would all be around Arthur Ericksen's budget.

EB: At twenty-five million.

JS: Yes. And that's how it turned out.

EB: And then several years later when we went back to correct things, it was worse.

JS: Don't even start! That was my biggest disillusionment, because when I started with the Budget Advisory Committee, coming from Illinois, I was so amazed that this city was so open to its citizens being involved and how important that was. And then it was reinforced by the Comprehensive Plan. Finally the planning process itself was very open, and made it very easy, as easy as possible, for the citizens to be involved. By the time Terry Sandblast got there, and Frank Ivancie, it closed up like a clam, and citizens were not welcome, except certain citizens, and input was just a facade.

EB: It was a fairly significant change. I was on the Design Committee when the Portland Building went through, and I'll never forget that, either.

JS: It didn't matter what you said, did it?

EB: No, it didn't, actually. But the thing I remember was being so angry at Michael Graves, for being so arrogant with us about the requirement that on Main Street, which according to the Downtown Plan was to be a pedestrian street, buildings should be designed to produce a pleasant pedestrian environment. His design showed that he had just totally ignored that requirement. I argued pretty loudly about that. I could have argued on aesthetic grounds, because I couldn't stand the look of it, but I said, well, I'm just going to take the tack that the building has to meet the city's requirements - but the Committee voted approval on it. When I left, I just went over to shake his hand, and he says, "You know something, Mr. Bonner? You're wrong." What an arrogant son-of-a-bitch. It always seemed to me that this was a situation where there's no right or wrong. At least he could have followed the policy. To say that I was wrong... Anyway, I thought he was quite an arrogant person.

JS: He really was, and yet he was also a victim in that process, because he wasn't chosen on his merits. He was chosen because Philip Johnson thought it would be amusing to give Michael a project that was really visible somewhere. This all goes back through Bill Roberts and Ivancie and how they got Philip involved. Two juries went back East, and he didn't make the cut. Then all of sudden he did make the cut, and so on.
I think it was really an interesting time. Starting in the '60s and ending with the Portland Building, which was the early '80s was really the golden age of planning, and involvement, and intellectual interest, and citizen participation. By the time the Portland Building got here, there were other agendas at work, and the citizens really had little say. We had that great schism between the two architectural communities with Bob Frasca on one side and John Storrs on the other. Even Michael Graves was left out in the end. They hired two more construction companies because they knew his plans had little to do with actual construction. They kept him out of the meetings.

EB: Who was the "they"?

JS: The "they" was Bill Roberts and Ivancie, and there was - who was the civil servant that they made chief - I can see him now, he retired right after that. Mildred was involved in it.

EB: Earl Bradfish, maybe.

JS: Bradfish, that's who it was. And then they had another guy who was supposed to be managing the process, Ed Wunder-something. But even Michael Graves was kept at arm's length.

EB: Amazing.

JS: They didn't even allow Michael Graves to bid on the interior. ZGF got it and went along with his design. They didn't have enough money, and that's why it didn't hold up well.
But to me it demonstrated the great contrast between the real caring of a public involved in its city and the old political involvement.

EB: Right. It's really interesting that in the last part of the '60s, you could have added Ira Keller to that mix... and you would have had almost exactly the same thing. You would have had Ira Keller and Bill Roberts and Ivancie...

JS: Well, you might recall right after - or right along with that was the Pioneer Square.

EB: Right. That came in '84 when they finished that.

JS: Right. And I was involved in that one, too, as a fund raiser. I remember how they didn't want anybody on the square. We all had to troop up to Vancouver to look at the aviary. You know, they wanted a big dome over the thing so they could keep people out. Then this grassroots movement started, and we started selling bricks.

EB: The brick idea was wonderful.

JS: And by the time that got going, there was nothing that could be said in opposition.

[End of Interview]