These are excerpts from our editorials which have been published over the last two weeks. You can find complete versions of them in the Opinion section of our website at:

Oct. 28

We back Jill Duson for at-large City Council seat

Her experience and commitment to fairness earn her another term.

“… Duson is a veteran of city government, having served four terms on the council, twice chosen by her colleagues under the previous charter for a term as mayor.…Beyond her resume, Duson brings the experience of growing up on welfare, the oldest of five children in a household led by a mother disabled by polio.

These experiences all inform Duson’s understanding of the issues that come before the council, and help her balance competing interests.

While candidates promise to listen to everyone, councilors know that everybody can’t get what they want. We don’t always agree with Duson’s positions, but we appreciate her record of working through problems.”

Nov. 1

Justin Costa in District 4, Kim Cook in District 5

Voters should support two candidates with the experience and temperament our city needs.

“…Costa has served one term on the council; before that, he served two terms on the school committee. In both settings, he’s been a proponent of forward-looking programs as well as a master of the details behind the policies.”

“… Cook is a land-use attorney and government affairs consultant … In addition to her professional experience, Cook would come to the council with a strong record of community service, including time on the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Land Bank Commission and the Homeless Shelter Planning Task Force.… She is uniquely qualified to sit on the council as the city prepares to do a major revision of the zoning code needed to bring it into line with the new comprehensive plan.”

Oct. 26

No on Portland’s Question 1. Rent limits won’t work

Portland needs more housing, and many renters need assistance.

“…There is no yes-or-no question that can solve the affordability crisis. We encourage the referendum’s backers to keep working with the city government, property owners and the nonprofit housing agencies to develop targeted policies that would really make a difference.”

Oct. 26

No on city’s Question 2: NIMBY veto is bad policy

Small self-interested groups shouldn’t dictate Portland’s future.

” … If Portland’s Question 2 passes, 25 percent of registered voters who live within 500 feet of a property – no matter how few people that is – can file an objection.

The property owner then has to get 51 percent of the residents who live within 1,000 feet of the parcel to sign a petition supporting the zoning change. If he can’t, it’s denied.

That gives tremendous negotiating leverage to the neighbors, who are free to bargain with the developer outside any public process.”

Oct. 31

On school bonds – ‘No’ on Question 3, ‘Yes’ on 4

Don’t pull out of the state funding process when there’s still a chance.

“… we support a two-step process for upgrading Portland’s rundown elementary schools, issuing bonds to renovate two of the schools now while continuing to seek state funding for two others, as outlined in Question 4 on the Nov. 7 ballot.

And for the same reason, we oppose Question 3, which would have Portland’s property tax payers solely responsible for a $64 million bond to rebuild all four schools without any state help.

Portland taxpayers have shown their commitment to public education time and time again, but their resources are not endless.

We believe that Portland voters can signal both the city’s commitment to its public schools and the prudent use of property tax revenue by voting ‘no’ on Question 3 and ‘yes’ on Question 4.”