Couplet may be declared illegal (Jack Bog's Blog)

Rumors are circulating in Salem that Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers is preparing to issue an advisory opinion early next week declaring that the proposed traffic "couplet" of Burnside and Couch Streets in Portland would violate state law. Portland transportation officials are reportedly scrambling to determine whether Myers's interpretation of the law is correct.

"City Hall was blindsided on this one," an insider in the state Justice Department told reporters late yesterday. "If they had done their homework, they would have seen this coming.

"It's a Measure 36 problem," the source explained. "Both streets are named after men (city founder John Couch and Civil War Union General Ambrose Burnside), and under state law, they are not permitted to couple." The attorney general's opinion, however, is also expected to conclude that under bills currently pending before the Legislature, the two streets would be permitted to form a "thoroughfare relationship" or a "boulevard conjugation."

"It may not mean much to some people, but the label you put on this is important in the eyes of the law," the source said. Justice Department researchers have also tentatively concluded that the existing Weidler-Broadway couplet in Northeast Portland is legal, he reported. "Weidler was male, and based on our best knowledge, Broadway is female." The opinion is expected to cast doubt on the status of the Belmont-Morrison couplet in Southeast Portland, and the Everett-Glisan couplet in Northwest Portland, however.

Comments (17)

God, you had me there for a second, nice job!

Posted by David | April 25, 2007 9:31 AM

Good one!

Posted by Mike Landfair | April 25, 2007 9:38 AM

There are at least three "public interest" power brokers hiding in this wood pile. It will be interesting to watch the fur fly.

Posted by David E Gilmore | April 25, 2007 9:43 AM

Don't quit your day job. Oh!, wait...

Posted by Thomas Ware | April 25, 2007 9:45 AM

i think the Belmont-Morrison couplet is considered a "life partnership."

Posted by ecohuman.com | April 25, 2007 10:47 AM

If the streets don't qualify for "couplet" status, wouldn't newly passed legislation allow for them to claim a basic domestic partnership?

Gawd knows, should the traffic patterns prove unsafe and the whole plan is scrapped, it will certainly be labeled as an uncivil union.

Posted by oregbear | April 25, 2007 11:00 AM

I don't think it's right for Couch to be added to Burnside's health plan.

Posted by Larry K | April 25, 2007 11:07 AM

Did MacDonald write this post? I thought he quit this "biz".

Posted by dr | April 25, 2007 12:24 PM

Arrrgh. You got me.

Posted by Alan DeWitt | April 25, 2007 12:24 PM

They're only in it for the tax incentives anyway.

Posted by Jon | April 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Despite the various efforts to make Burnside more acceptable to the public, it remains a street favored by degenerates and lowlifes. Burnside has been tying to recruit most of the nearby streets and avenues to its sinful ways for years. We cannot sit idly by while Couch (no doubt the product of a broken home) is lured into this unholy union. I’m sure there is an activist judge behind this as no God fearing public servant would be in favor of legitimizing Burnside’s chosen lifestyle. I would call Alberto Gonzales, but I can’t recall his phone number…

Posted by Gretchen | April 25, 2007 4:45 PM

North Vancouver Avenue was such a nice street before it hooked up with Williams...

Posted by Jack Bog | April 25, 2007 4:55 PM

Had me going there too. Of course, the true subtlety of the jest is that Burnside wasn't named for the Civil War general but for David Burnside (d 1882) a Vermont emigre who was a local buisinessman who would eventually become a partner in a firm with the namesake of Savier Street (Source: Portland Names and Neighborhoods, Binford & Mort 1979, pp 102 and 103, an out of print book you can have when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, so there nyah).

So the joke works on two levels...

B-)

Posted by Samuel John Klein | April 25, 2007 8:18 PM

I think the true Evil One is NW 18th and 19th. Why are they trying to hide in the closet by registering their couplet as a numbered pair? And they reside in that true den of iniquity, NW Portland. That's all we need to know. I rest my case....

Posted by john rettig | April 25, 2007 11:48 PM

Shhhh! 18th's mother, SW 57th, doesn't know that they're coupled.

Posted by Jack Bog | April 25, 2007 11:50 PM

Word on the street is that the Transit Mall was abandoned at birth and has been masquerading as the result of a legitimate union.

Posted by David E Gilmore | April 26, 2007 7:04 AM

OMG! Doesn't the Attorney General have much more serious issues at hand...like the scandal Mike Schrunk's department created at the ME's office? Get real. Just name the Thoroughfare Junction or the Boulevard Conjuction Darcelle's and get on with it! and get down to serious matters which affect citizens lives and scream of foul play to cover the hineys of those involved in the DA's office and at Local 88. Wake-up Rip Vanwinkle! You had it on a platter yesterday but you chose to suppress it. Why Jack?

Posted by nitpicky | April 26, 2007 7:19 PM

Search this site

About

Clippings

Archives

Links

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Couplet may be declared illegal

Comments (17)

Sponsors

In Vino Veritas

The Occasional Book

Road Work