I recently had a discussion that went nowhere because I refused to play by the rules. My friend "Dale" pointed out an article in a local newspaper that emphasized how overpriced property is in Portland. That wasn't news to me. I've rented without the hope of buying now for years.
Dale and I are both liberals, if that word still has any meaning. As far as I know, our voting patterns and most of our views are similar. That is, Bush was obviously the wrong choice, his war - less profits for the few - is pointless and futile, corporation - or business as usual - is running rampant, etc.
Dale was saying that the median household income of $67,000 (for a family of four) wasn't sufficient in order to afford property in Portland. Indeed I've been aware that housing prices have significantly exceeded the general rate of inflation for several years. People with money to invest have made buying property a matter of speculation. I actually agreed with the gist of the article. That is, median households are increasingly being priced out of the market. The irony is that I got in hot water when I scoffed at the notion that the figure of 67K was valid in terms of median family income. Dale wanted to know if I knew the difference between median and average, Dale articulately related that median referred to a value below and above which there are an equal number of values.
My question was (and still is) how exclusive is this statistic? Does this survey consider, for example, homeless people? Do they count? Dale said no, they don't count and although I don't think he meant it with malice, that's where the conversation ended. I thought to myself, what about people living in foster care homes, nursing homes, assisted living homes, half way houses, prison, and folks like migrant laborers, people that live on reservations, etc. I wondered if they didn't count as well. I guess you have to live in the rosy part of America in order to count. Dale left me with the newspaper and there it was in black and white, $67K. They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true, would they?
Dale looked at me with frustration beaming from his face. "I can't talk to you!" he exclaimed. Was I a fool or a heretic? Is questioning the validity of a statistic really perfidious? A Jesuit might give me the same look if I suggested adding agnosticism to the Catholic theological curriculum because, logically, it's a defensible theory. Maybe I was pushing Dale's buttons, but I certainly wasn't trying to.
From across the aisle at the tavern, "Jolly" overheard our discussion. "Some people," referring to me, "are sure obnoxious." Jolly is a hefty, middle-aged man who lives off annuities and dividends and admittedly doesn't work. He resembles the people that Heinrich Mann wrote about in the increasingly indifferent world of imperial Germany in the late nineteenth century. Jolly is just that if salient elements of reality are left out of the conversation. That night he scolded me, "You bring negativity into the tavern."
I guess being liberal is a matter of perspective. I believe that reality beckons. The point of writing this is that all too often it's convenient for even decent people to ignore disadvantaged folks. In their world, there are the median American households that pull in $67K a year and then there are the ten million plus people that don't count. If they did count, then that median figure would plunge a bit and maybe the plight of so many folks in our best of all possible nations would be reassessed. Maybe then it would be easier to categorize the health and welfare of America as being - generously - precarious. In her street roots article, "Stress Test," Ms. Arch aptly documented that the health care crisis is being perpetuated because it is not yet important enough to fix. Similarly, unless you want the picture to look brighter than it is, it makes no sense to statistically disenfranchise those who live on little or next to nothing. The only place the problem can be ignored is on paper. Societal, health care and the all too human costs of those left behind or out of the equation will escalate the longer they are neglected.
Sincerely,
Brian Carter
p.s. Also, allow me to say hi to Roger, the vendor. He sells us our edition of street roots, contributes great stuff to the paper and wonderfully watches our dog Moose as we shop at the store. Thanks much, Roger!
Last week, after being confronted twice on the streets for playing my keyboard and asked to leave by a bicycle cop and a Clean and Safe officer, I decided to write a letter to a ranking city official. Now, not mentioning any names, since I don't want more trouble, I was nicely told about the Partnership with the city between me and street entertainers. I didn't have the gumption to write this official back to say I never signed off on that agreement with the city of Portland.
Apparently over half a decade before I arrived in Portland this happy little proposal was drawn up. Not dissimilar from the license you need currently to legally drive most motorized vehicles. Plus, let's not forget the agreement that made it mandatory to possess car insurance and fishing licenses. This partnership agreement looks to me like the step prior to licensing busking, which falls under panhandling guidelines according to powerbrokers downtown. It isn't that they don't want entertainers, they say they do in the brochure. I am talking about the Partnership with Portland pamphlet.
The problem I have with these kinds of friendly ordinances is they aren't too friendly in practice. Because once you abide by them, they tend to ratchet things up further. Currently, a busker can play for 60 minutes, then you are suppose to pick up your gear and push on so as to leave time for the next performer, who may or may not show up at the end of your hour. It's all about consideration and not inconvenience.
But, what if it takes you 60 minutes to gather a crowd, or get to the good part of your presentation. I mean, I don't go right to work with my best material. I wait, and then I hit them with the song, "I hate The Police" But all kidding aside, if I give into the city and leave, what is stopping them from taking another inch and changing it to a max of 30 minutes, then you have to move? Then 20 minutes? Maybe they will put us on moving conveyor belts so one spot is never taxed too heavily with outcast performers and other street urchins. Let me remind you, there was a time when you didn't have to have a license to drive or go fishing. It is such a pretty picture of a horn on the cover of this brochure. I can almost smell the noise. I mean it almost seems like they really want you to be heard, and even disturb the peace, whatever peace remains downtown. Go ahead and make noise up to 100 feet. Until I read the fine print.
The fine print says that in order to be heard over the din of buses, construction, trains, ambulances, sirens, hotrods, you have to play at least twice the city limit for noise in certain choice spots downtown. I have actually witnessed police cars parking with their headlights flashing about 100 feet away from where I am playing. Maybe I am paranoid but I turn down the volume anyway when this occurs. Now, I am not public enemy No. 1 or even No. 3. There might have been a day when I was pretty dangerous if only in my mind, but now I just want to play my music and entertain children of all ages and sizes. In order to do that I need an audience. I could play across the street from my apartment but five or six people strolling by in an hour just wouldn't maximize my time and efforts.
So, in the morning and early afternoon I play downtown. If I need a license to entertain folks over there, then bring it on. I will pay the $25 a year and I am even willing to wear the badge hanging on a rope around my neck. I also have high blood pressure and sometimes I don't play well with others. I can be a little unfriendly to people with canes when they try to get on an airplane before me. So, profile away. I have plenty of neck space for whom it may concern.
Buddy Bee Anthony
Portland