The reply is a crock, they can't believe that all metro-citizens are mentally-handicapped, can they?

Here's my reply to their reply:
"1. The streetcar pays for itself because there are parking meters along the route, and they raise more revenue than the streetcar costs to operate."
1. The parking meters would be 'along the route' in any event. Parking meters are everywhere downtown.

"2. Parking revenues should be counted as tax contributions by the businesses in the neighborhood."
2. "Parking contributions by businesses" isn't related to the train. It just isn't.

"3. The Pearl District development is a good thing, and the streetcar can take credit for the $1 billion of development there."
3. You can argue this point, but I don't think many businesses or people found the train to be a make-or-break issue. Nice to talk about, yes. But a deal-maker, I truly doubt it.

"4. City taxpayers didn't pay the whole construction tab; the federal and state governments chipped in, and property owners along the way paid $9.6 million in special district property taxes out of the $56.9 million construction cost."
4. Federal and State gov'ts get their money from the taxpayer (are folks reading the paper too slow to understand this)?

"5. The majority of the operating funds are paid by Tri-Met, so taxpayers shouldn't complain."
5. Tri-Met gets money from businesses in the area (who raise their prices accordingly), so the consumers in town are paying for the train - and yes, they should complain.

"6. The streetcar is a "boon to business" along its lines."
6. OK, this point is subjective. The times I took the streetcar it didn't seem to be a boon to anything.

"7. The businesses down at RiverPlace deserve a streetcar because it will help them get through the winter months, when few people head down that way for waterfront activities."
7. Winter weather in PDX is crummy. Taking a train somewhere isn't going to change people's decision to not go out in crummy weather.

Jack, please, PLEASE tell me the folks in PDX are giving the two responders a what-for.

So Jack... when do you get serious and run for office? I don't know you except for your blog but you seem to be a keen observer and have a genuine feel for politics.

1. The best argument that the proponents made was the comment that property owners paid $9.6 million of the $56.9 million price tag. You can argue that it wasn't enough, but it was more than most property owners pay for new public transit serving their streets. I think you are right, the Pearl District would have developed anyway with a couple of new bus lines to serve it, and the whole "good for business" stuff is pretty speculative. The rest of their arguments (parking meters, winter weather, Tri-Met pays for it, etc.) are bogus.

2. Since you seem to despise the "condo ghetto" to the north of downtown and the coming "concrete jungle" to the south, what would have been (or in the case of South Waterfront, would be) your alternative plan for these areas?

3. Do you want any of these hundreds of new inner city condos on your side of the river? Or out in the suburbs? Or just out?

The concrete jungle could have included some single-family houses on 5,000 square foot lots. And some big-ass parks. That's what made Portland great. Alas, we're not shooting for greatness any more. We're shooting for "density."

The Metro types and their developer cronies talk about how it's a choice between sprawl and 10-story monstrosities. I say that's bullsh*t.

Is the City Council only able to try and build stuff that can't realistically be supported? I am thinking of things like the (Professional) Baseball Stadium and the OHSU Tram, as well as the Pearl District.

Does Vera, et al, genuinely believe they can keep starting big projects (with matching funds from the Feds) until the economy picks up?