I see that our new, improved Democratic Legislature has banned using a cell phone when you're driving -- but only if you're under 18! Wow, that took courage. What next -- ban smoking in bars by kids in strollers? Raise the bottle deposit to a quarter, but only on French wine bottles from prior to 1958?
They're 2 for 2 this week. Methinks it's time to wrap this year's circus up before somebody gets hurt.
Comments (37)
"Gutless" is, I think, the operative word here.
Coming up next...rules against soiling your diaper! The little buggers don't vote, so what the heck...
They're not done yet, just got an update from one of the state senators that the senate is considering a bill that would require a permit to go out of business. Look up senate bill 684. We can ensure that people are here legally as in the real ID act, but we will extract more money from you if you wish to close your business down.
SB 64 is still the real clinker that shows these guys are no different than any other Goldschmidt regime.
I am really curious on what reception the M37 reform they are proposing gets. I don't know why they cant focus on things like stable school funding they were howling about instead of letting M37 run its course - good or bad.
I agree weak, too late, and how are they going to tell the age of the texter in question. Of course the last lot would have done nothing. Luckily it seems Portland drivers are the most courteous in the nation. In my experience this is true, although speeding up a bit on the freeway wouldn’t hurt.
Jack, did you notice all of the “friends of the blog” in the paper today? Dave Lister giving advice on which plane to buy (not good for the man of the people image), and Randy giving Wheeler some stick. Fun stuff.
M37 is an attack on their central planning religion, their Castro core, their village and control by the collective.
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
Imagine the backlash if M37 runs it's course and results in essentially mild development, generating new revenue for government programs while none of the calamity appears.
Oregon voters will know that much of the central planning regime is excessive and not to be trusted.
Moreover, people will realize how terrible Metro et al was at deciding where everything got built.
M37 is an attack on their central planning religion...
Lack of central planning brought us Houston and Atlanta.
... and control by the collective.
Um, last I looked, that's supposed to be our sytem of government. CoP notwithstanding, anyway.
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
Nope, that's not the objective at all - we don't need to hide what happens when planning allows personal freedom runs amok. You only have to look at the aforementioned cities that didn't do it well - there's nothing to hide there.
Imagine the backlash if M37 runs it's [sic] course and results in essentially mild development...
Mild? Like Clackamas County's 1000 claims in process?
Oregon voters will know that much of the central planning regime is excessive and not to be trusted.
Most Oregon voters don't like M37, once they've oberved the process in action. That's why the legislature wants to fix it.
I'm all for banning the chitlins from yapping it up on the celly while driving down the road. I'm sick of tired of the near death experiences caused by the inattentive young inexperienced drivers with a car full of friends and a phone to their ear.
It takes many years to master a skill and hopefully teaching young driver to pay attention to the road will cause that trait to expand into their adulthood too.
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
What I can't figure out is why supporters of Measure 37 say on the one hand that the voters knew exactly what they were doing and would do it again, but on the other hand seem terrified of sending a revision to the ballot. If you're so certain that the legislature is out of step with the public, why not just hand them some rope, sit back, and watch them hang themselves?
Perhaps it's because deep down, you know that voters wanted to allow Dorothy English to build a home for her son, but had no intention of allowing a California developer to build 300 houses on prime farmland.
What I can't figure out is why supporters of Measure 37 say on the one hand that the voters knew exactly what they were doing and would do it again, but on the other hand seem terrified of sending a revision to the ballot.
I dont see that at all. I think we would pass it again.
What Im tired of is when the "powers that be" dont like the outcome of the vote, they re-word the damn thing and make us vote again. Enough already!
And how come the folks whining about M37 never say anything about the back taxes people have to pony up when they get their land zoning back to what it was then they bought the land? Thats could be a lot of money for the budget.
Another thing, if land cant be made profitable as a farm, (which most cannot, especially when they are losing water rights & such) why cant the farmer do what he wants with it? It is his property, right? If the busy-bodies want to control it, then we might as well let the state buy up all the "prime farmland" and then lease it to farmers. At least then they are dictating what happens with state property, not private property.
"Another thing, if land cant be made profitable as a farm, (which most cannot, especially when they are losing water rights & such) why cant the farmer do what he wants with it?"
Who's losing water rights? In Oregon? Where? All over Oregon. Courts have declared cities have priorities over farmers in up-coming water wars.
The dimmmos can't help seeing socialist ownership [ collectivism] of property going away. Individual home-ownership is not a popular dimmo idea.
What's up with the budget? Isn't it due now? Oh ya I forgot Super K has spent more than we got...This is new for dimmo's? NOT!
What Im tired of is when the "powers that be" dont like the outcome of the vote, they re-word the damn thing and make us vote again. Enough already!
The "powers that be" are elected by the same people who pass initiatives. Initiatives shouldn't necessarily trump the legislative process, and vice versa. Initiatives are blunt instruments that more often than not fail to take into account the intracacies of public policy. This helps extremists push their agendas, but it doesn't help the moderates who want to see reasonable changes without the excess. On land use, there is a big difference between allowing someone to build a couple of homes on his farm, and allowing a developer to build hundreds of homes wherever he owns land.
We're all claiming to know what the voters "said" with M37, but the truth is that every voter "said" something different. An opponent of M37, like me, isn't going to change his mind. A proponents of M37, like you, isn't going to change his mind. But there is a sizable chunk in the middle who voted for M37 and also voted for Democrats who supports revising it. Those are the people who will decide whether the rewrite passes or not. Why not let them?
Can we get something besides the Houston-Atlanta crap?
This country has countless places besides Atlanta and Houston with high livability and affordability and without our excessive chaos planning. Which it is.
M37 does not represent any running amok at all. That's where you blatanlty lie or are confused. Running amok would be if we got rid of all land use zoning and planning for all property owners.
That's what you are falsely suggesting M37 does. That M37 somehow equates to Houston policies. Stop your 1000 friends lies please.
Even with M37 running it's full course Oregon would still have, by a large margin, the most extensive land use regulations in the Country.
If you are claiming that the Clackamas County's 1000 claims in process represent a vanguishing of the county's land use planning you are horribly wrong.
NOT even close.
Furthermore I am more concerned about Metro's plans for Damascus and the rest of CC than those 1000 claims.
Those 1000 claims are essentially meaninless by comparison of bot impact and public cost.
Try and grasp reality here.
How have "Oregon voters oberved the process in action"? In the Oregonian?
And what impression would they have gotten from that lopsided anti-M37 coverage?
The legislature wants to "fix it"?
Why would they want to do that?
Every single Demnocrat was and is opposed to M37. They controll the legislature and they want it gutted or repealed.
And they have you and yours out here spreading the bald faced lies that M37 will turn Portland into Houston.
Sorry for the mean tone pal but your anti-M37 skreed is as dishonest as it gets.
There's not even a remote similarity between Oregon with M37 and Texas or Georgia land use regulation.
So that begs the question.
Why are you attempting to have Oregon voters oberve a false process in action?
I'm totally in favor of banning all hand-held phones for ALL drivers.
A couple years ago, when stopped at a red light in Cathedral City, CA, I was rear-ended by a "talking driver."
She hit my rental car without even slowing down and, upon impact, her steering-wheel airbag inflated. Ultimately, she got out of her crumpled car, STILL ON THE PHONE!
After arriving at the accident scene, the local police officer had to coax her to end her phone call, just so he could gather the details, license numbers, etc.
Any public payment for something other than for "public use" is as valid as a public gift for having a particular eye color. Drop the rose colored glasses and read the black and white print upon which the individuals have a claim -- to build/use unless restricted by laws that conform with the equal privileges and immunities for both the state and the feds. Reenact SB100 in total otherwise M37-this and M37-that is pure posturing, often in an odd role reversal sort of way that reveals far more collective idiocy than I have thought possible. Limits have prospective application in all general legislation with only minor exceptions. A generally applicable limit is not a property interest.
It’s my hope that for every unhinged wingnut like Howard, and libertarian-type like Jon there are a thousand Oregonians who believed that this was about a little old lady and a house – although where people think she got the millions for the ads is beyond me (she spent a few thousand more this weekend to tell me again how broke she is). Now the truth is obvious we can have an actual debate. This needs to be done soon before what’s wonderful about this place is destroyed and the next generation gets stuck with the multi-billion dollar bill for trying to make it function.
The reason a farmer cannot do whatever they want with their land is the same reason I can’t run a child protestation ring out of my basement – it wouldn’t be good for society (you know, the other 310 million people sharing this bit of land). If a man from “the government” comes and tells a farmer they can’t farm on their land I will gladly march with them for justice. That is very different from building a subdivision and then coming to me to pay for the roads, police etc to make it work. When the oil gets too expensive for that lifestyle to function it won’t magically return to forest or farmland.
I am not passing lies, nor am I dishonest, and I would appreciate you not taking this dialog to a personal level.
If you look around the country, there are few places that have kept liveability high, and all have had pretty restrictive zoning - Boulder, CO, Burlington, VT, and Madison, WI are examples noted by many across the political spectrum. I challenge you to name others that are liveable but have little zoning control in place. All you really have the ubiquitous pre-auto age core city that gets surrounded by the likes of Portland's SE 82nd Avenue or Beaverton's Canyon Road.
I would hope that voters get their information from unbiased sources, but I have no control over them, or the sources. Certainly the pro-M37 press, such as Oregonians in Action, which you sound a lot like, is not unbiased. If newspapers aren't providing coverage that looks favorable to you and your pro-M37 forces, then I would offer that they are simply reflecting popular sentimant. Face it, you are losing this battle.
But the ultimate test will be how an M37 measure does when referred to voters, not what we say here. And I don't think it will turn out favorably to you.
Sherwood: ... where people think she [Dorothy English] got the millions for the ads is beyond me (she spent a few thousand more this weekend to tell me again how broke she is).
She got it from Oregonians in Action. They needed a poster child to parade in front of people and convince voters that the land use system was "broken", and she filled the bill quite nicely for them.
Jon, of course you are dishonest and again you mislead with the suggestion with M37 Oregon will have "little zoning control in place" Nothing could be further from the truth.
Oregon does and will have tremendous zoning regs inplace with M37.
Your pretense that all is zoning is lost, or even good part of it is lost, by way of M37 is the core of the anti-M37 dishonesty.
Sherwood the cleaning up the next generation will be paying for is not M37 created it is the irrational excesses of planning run amok. You and Jon are completely duped and wrongheaded if you think what has been happening has been good planning. Far from it. We've been witnessing the near total disregard for the needs of growth, in every arena,
as fanatics use dishonesty to puch more of the same and distort attempts at some modest remedies such as M37.
Jon, You are indeed off your rocker if you think the only fine communities in this country have Oregon's level of planning regs in place. Cherry picking the few who have do have that level and passing on their own self adorning propaganda is more of the same extremism yo used when tossing out the Houston crap.
Calling me dishonest doesn't advance your cause. The challenge I gave you to name others that are liveable but have little zoning control in place, would advance it, of course - but you didn't, apparently because you can't.
Face it, you're losing this one.
And BTW my name is spelled "John", not "Jon", who has graced us with comments on this blog that appear to mimic your position - in fact, the only other commenter who has done so. Just so there's no confusion.
John,
You are dishonest.
And your challenge asinine.
I never once said anything about "little" or no zoning and this is the 3rd time I have tried to get you off you lie machine.
There is a huge gargantuan distance from little or no zoning Oregon's zoning.
Yet in your dishonest ways you attempt to narrow and control the discussion as if Oregonians have only the two choices you cooked up. That being our current extreme status quo or the straw man very "little" zoning you keep insisting is the only other alternative.
You want people to mistakenly believe this is our limited choice. That makes you dishonest.
Yo further distort by suggesting M37 leads to the "little" version when it does not.
Heck M37 doesn't even get rid of our dysfunctional Urban Growth Boundary policy. Countless other regs are sustained under M37 as well. The vast majority of land of every kind is not effected by M37 at all.
Yet you want people, voters, to falsely believe that M37 is a sweeping removal of land use protections and planning.
IMO, you are a clear cut liar.
Is there some problem with my observation?
You could easily fix that problem by simply telling the truth.
If you are not lying and are genuinely confused by the 1000 liars, please forgive me.
You "challenged" me to "name others that are livable but have little zoning control in place".
What's "little" mean? I assume you mean next to none? I'll stick to less than Oregon.
Washington has less zoning control than Oregon. Ever heard of Washington? There's plenty of livable there.
Texas, and yes even Houston has some very livable communities. Clean, affordable and functional. So does Atlanta and it's suburbs. San Antonio is incredibly livable.
Pick just about anywhere. Michigan for instance has less zoning control but many very nice cities and communities just like Oregon. Idaho too. California too.
So where do you get off with your ridiculously narrow minded fantasy that only Oregon's extreme level of zoning control works to allow or preserve livable communities?
That disingenous drum beat is getting real old.
And it's not right wing to recognize that.
What is it I'm losing?
The one sided propaganda war you, your friends and the newspapers have been engaged in? I suppose you want people to equate that to a campaign and election.
Why bother with another vote. Just take the outcome of your propaganda and call it good. Just like Castro. Then get rid of the intitiative system and we're good, right?
"Texas, and yes even Houston has some very livable communities. Clean, affordable and functional. So does Atlanta and it's suburbs. San Antonio is incredibly livable.
Pick just about anywhere."
Ha! This comment assures me that you are full of BS. I'm from Texas... Moved here (to Portland) a couple of years ago after 30 yrs there. Having lived in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin I can tell you they are not livable. Austin would be the closest think Texas has to Portland, but it is rapidly going the way of the other big cities in the state due to no land use laws. They all feature crumbling inner city getos with extremely low property values, crappy city schools, higher crime rates and long, crappy commutes on overcrowded 6 lane freeways out to the subburbs 30 plus miles away just so you can find a decent place to live. No! If you want that go live there and be happy. I've been there and lived it and certainly dont want Portland to look anthing like that.
John, M37 is a statewide measure. Comparing it to the restrictive zoning ordinances of small cities scattered around the U.S. (Boulder, Burlington) makes no sense. Anyone making a M37 claim still has to abide by all local codes and requirements.
All M37 tries to do is level the playing field by forcing government to compensate a land owner when regulations de-value their property. M37 adheres to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.
Also, one man's 'livable' city is another man's Port Au Prince. I lived in Buckman for 5 years. I suffered through bums passed out on my doorstep, drug addicts breaking into my car and apartment, weekly brawls in the street and slovenly neighbors. Now I live in Beaverton (you know, that suburban hell you density-freaks love to bash) and I've left my car and front door open without incident. My neighborhood is clean, quiet and very safe. Plus, I have a huge private yard.
And Sherwad clucked the following:
"That is very different from building a subdivision and then coming to me to pay for the roads, police etc to make it work. When the oil gets too expensive for that lifestyle to function it won’t magically return to forest or farmland."
No one will be "coming to you" to pay for roads. That's what SDCs, gas and property taxes are for. Roads are very unlike light rail, which everyone pays for but only a tiny percentage uses. I suggest you look into taking a remedial civics class and get hip to how government operates.
And if oil gets super-expensive, we'll all be suffering, not just suburbanites. You think your plastic Ikea furniture is made with hemp or something?
You should stop mentioning Castro. It makes you look a tad bit nutty. Not destroying the beauty of the Portland area has not left the next generation with a bill, it’s given them a cool town with countryside all around. You may hate it but it seems that just about everybody else with the ability to move here and enjoy it is doing just that. I would love that influx to slow down but until your side wins and we become Phoenix with drizzle it’s not happening.
Still let’s assume that sprawl comes back into fashion and that we find vast new supplies of oil in countries that love America. Mmmm fingers crossed for new cheap oil gushers in Poland and Australia. Then we can scrape the hillsides and cover the farms with tarmac to create an auto utopia. It’s all still there to crap on when the urge takes us. Don’t worry so much. Just sit back and wait for people to catch up with your insight.
Chris, accusing me of having Ikea furniture in my house is one insult too far. I demand satisfaction.
What are the fans of Y2Kunstler's "Peak Oil" vision gonna do when clean Fischer-Tropsch synthetic diesel comes on line, and commercial Biodiesel production really ramps up with those refineries and algae farms ? The latest refinement of the FT method for clean diesel won a Nobel Prize, and the governors of several Western states, notably Montana, have been talking about this technology lately. Look, we are not going to slide back into the 18th century, people. Don't be silly.
You really need to do some research on this stuff, PO folks, and get your hands dirty with real-life alternative energy, as I have, if you want to sound like you know what you are talking about. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of years worth of fuel by these methods, and that is assuming that engines won't continue to advance in terms of efficiency.
Sure, when a city gets to the size the Portland area is getting to, it needs commuter rail. We also need to require the people who use it to pay for, oh, 15 percent of it's total cost. How much money do we spend a year keeping the professional beggars comfortable in "Fareless Square" ?
And if you don't think the greater Portland area has ugly suburban sprawl right now today, with the hundreds of thousands of people crowding into it, you are living in a freakin' dream world. My job allows me to tour our hundreds of square miles of sprawl nightly. Been out to the Max line thru Rockwood lately ? It's a real Utopia, all right.
When people get to the point of paying for 5% of the cost of oil I’ll worry about only covering 15% of light rail.
I couldn’t care less if cars were powered by bad feelings and emitted only Bridgeport IPA. When you build a city purely for people encased in metal boxes you get a vile city. Make it safe to walk, bike, drive, and give people a choice to take a bus/train and you’re on to something.
Good point about the sprawl. This city goes on forever and has vast numbers of houses with three car garages and nice big gardens for those who seek that. You could fit a small European country inside it. A few teeny tiny steps have been taken to give people a choice, and to try and preserve some farmland, and for some people the sky is falling.
Make it safe to walk, bike, drive, and give people a choice to take a bus/train and you’re on to something
Does this include freeways wider than 2 or 3 lanes in spots, for the gigantic amount of commercial traffic utilizing an industrial shipping terminus with well over 2 million inhabitants ?
For you to say that "Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin I can tell you they are not livable"
is beyond ridiulous.
Having been to all of them recently, traveled about their regions, know people who live there and eyewitnessed marvelous areas and livabily I know otherwise.
They don't all "feature" the getos,crappy city schools, high crime or crappy commutes any more than Portland's fellony flats, Jefferson High School, gangs and our gridlocked freeways.
You should go live lies in Cuba or delusional Europe.
The Portland region is marvelous for now but has become an increasingly haphazard planned chaos with overcrowded and strained infrastructure failing to accomodate growth in every arena. We have the crime, the gridlock, some floundering schools, lack of affordable housing and all the ills every other big megatropollis has. Our planning is making it much worse.
Your group delusions that wrap it all up in Tram and trolley pretty-speak is deceitful.
Stop breathing the air at Metro headquarters. It's restricting your oxygen intake.
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 32
At this date last year: 66
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (37)
"Gutless" is, I think, the operative word here.
Coming up next...rules against soiling your diaper! The little buggers don't vote, so what the heck...
Posted by Frank Dufay | May 15, 2007 4:57 AM
They're not done yet, just got an update from one of the state senators that the senate is considering a bill that would require a permit to go out of business. Look up senate bill 684. We can ensure that people are here legally as in the real ID act, but we will extract more money from you if you wish to close your business down.
Hey folks, you got what you voted for.
Posted by mmmarvel | May 15, 2007 5:53 AM
Barnum's wisdom surfaces again.
Posted by David E Gilmore | May 15, 2007 7:01 AM
SB 64 is still the real clinker that shows these guys are no different than any other Goldschmidt regime.
I am really curious on what reception the M37 reform they are proposing gets. I don't know why they cant focus on things like stable school funding they were howling about instead of letting M37 run its course - good or bad.
Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 7:24 AM
I agree weak, too late, and how are they going to tell the age of the texter in question. Of course the last lot would have done nothing. Luckily it seems Portland drivers are the most courteous in the nation. In my experience this is true, although speeding up a bit on the freeway wouldn’t hurt.
Jack, did you notice all of the “friends of the blog” in the paper today? Dave Lister giving advice on which plane to buy (not good for the man of the people image), and Randy giving Wheeler some stick. Fun stuff.
Posted by Sherwood | May 15, 2007 8:30 AM
M37 is an attack on their central planning religion, their Castro core, their village and control by the collective.
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
Imagine the backlash if M37 runs it's course and results in essentially mild development, generating new revenue for government programs while none of the calamity appears.
Oregon voters will know that much of the central planning regime is excessive and not to be trusted.
Moreover, people will realize how terrible Metro et al was at deciding where everything got built.
Posted by Howard | May 15, 2007 8:36 AM
M37 is an attack on their central planning religion...
Lack of central planning brought us Houston and Atlanta.
... and control by the collective.
Um, last I looked, that's supposed to be our sytem of government. CoP notwithstanding, anyway.
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
Nope, that's not the objective at all - we don't need to hide what happens when planning allows personal freedom runs amok. You only have to look at the aforementioned cities that didn't do it well - there's nothing to hide there.
Imagine the backlash if M37 runs it's [sic] course and results in essentially mild development...
Mild? Like Clackamas County's 1000 claims in process?
Oregon voters will know that much of the central planning regime is excessive and not to be trusted.
Most Oregon voters don't like M37, once they've oberved the process in action. That's why the legislature wants to fix it.
Posted by John Rettig | May 15, 2007 8:59 AM
I'm all for banning the chitlins from yapping it up on the celly while driving down the road. I'm sick of tired of the near death experiences caused by the inattentive young inexperienced drivers with a car full of friends and a phone to their ear.
It takes many years to master a skill and hopefully teaching young driver to pay attention to the road will cause that trait to expand into their adulthood too.
Posted by MarkDaMan | May 15, 2007 9:22 AM
They must halt the personal freedom M37 allows in order to prevent the widespread realization that it is far preferrable to the Metro-style planning chaos we have been witnessing for decades.
What I can't figure out is why supporters of Measure 37 say on the one hand that the voters knew exactly what they were doing and would do it again, but on the other hand seem terrified of sending a revision to the ballot. If you're so certain that the legislature is out of step with the public, why not just hand them some rope, sit back, and watch them hang themselves?
Perhaps it's because deep down, you know that voters wanted to allow Dorothy English to build a home for her son, but had no intention of allowing a California developer to build 300 houses on prime farmland.
Send it to the voters, and may the majority win.
Posted by Miles | May 15, 2007 9:37 AM
"the very young do not always do as they are told" - A Knox
Posted by travis b | May 15, 2007 9:44 AM
What I can't figure out is why supporters of Measure 37 say on the one hand that the voters knew exactly what they were doing and would do it again, but on the other hand seem terrified of sending a revision to the ballot.
I dont see that at all. I think we would pass it again.
What Im tired of is when the "powers that be" dont like the outcome of the vote, they re-word the damn thing and make us vote again. Enough already!
And how come the folks whining about M37 never say anything about the back taxes people have to pony up when they get their land zoning back to what it was then they bought the land? Thats could be a lot of money for the budget.
Posted by Jon | May 15, 2007 10:04 AM
Another thing, if land cant be made profitable as a farm, (which most cannot, especially when they are losing water rights & such) why cant the farmer do what he wants with it? It is his property, right? If the busy-bodies want to control it, then we might as well let the state buy up all the "prime farmland" and then lease it to farmers. At least then they are dictating what happens with state property, not private property.
Posted by Jon | May 15, 2007 10:12 AM
"Another thing, if land cant be made profitable as a farm, (which most cannot, especially when they are losing water rights & such) why cant the farmer do what he wants with it?"
Who's losing water rights? In Oregon? Where?
Greg C
Posted by Greg C | May 15, 2007 10:17 AM
Who's losing water rights? In Oregon? Where? All over Oregon. Courts have declared cities have priorities over farmers in up-coming water wars.
The dimmmos can't help seeing socialist ownership [ collectivism] of property going away. Individual home-ownership is not a popular dimmo idea.
What's up with the budget? Isn't it due now? Oh ya I forgot Super K has spent more than we got...This is new for dimmo's? NOT!
Posted by KISS | May 15, 2007 10:43 AM
What Im tired of is when the "powers that be" dont like the outcome of the vote, they re-word the damn thing and make us vote again. Enough already!
The "powers that be" are elected by the same people who pass initiatives. Initiatives shouldn't necessarily trump the legislative process, and vice versa. Initiatives are blunt instruments that more often than not fail to take into account the intracacies of public policy. This helps extremists push their agendas, but it doesn't help the moderates who want to see reasonable changes without the excess. On land use, there is a big difference between allowing someone to build a couple of homes on his farm, and allowing a developer to build hundreds of homes wherever he owns land.
We're all claiming to know what the voters "said" with M37, but the truth is that every voter "said" something different. An opponent of M37, like me, isn't going to change his mind. A proponents of M37, like you, isn't going to change his mind. But there is a sizable chunk in the middle who voted for M37 and also voted for Democrats who supports revising it. Those are the people who will decide whether the rewrite passes or not. Why not let them?
Posted by Miles | May 15, 2007 11:04 AM
56% of the land in Oregon is in the public domain and off the tax rolls.
Posted by James J | May 15, 2007 11:04 AM
John Rettig,
Can we get something besides the Houston-Atlanta crap?
This country has countless places besides Atlanta and Houston with high livability and affordability and without our excessive chaos planning. Which it is.
M37 does not represent any running amok at all. That's where you blatanlty lie or are confused. Running amok would be if we got rid of all land use zoning and planning for all property owners.
That's what you are falsely suggesting M37 does. That M37 somehow equates to Houston policies. Stop your 1000 friends lies please.
Even with M37 running it's full course Oregon would still have, by a large margin, the most extensive land use regulations in the Country.
If you are claiming that the Clackamas County's 1000 claims in process represent a vanguishing of the county's land use planning you are horribly wrong.
NOT even close.
Furthermore I am more concerned about Metro's plans for Damascus and the rest of CC than those 1000 claims.
Those 1000 claims are essentially meaninless by comparison of bot impact and public cost.
Try and grasp reality here.
How have "Oregon voters oberved the process in action"? In the Oregonian?
And what impression would they have gotten from that lopsided anti-M37 coverage?
The legislature wants to "fix it"?
Why would they want to do that?
Every single Demnocrat was and is opposed to M37. They controll the legislature and they want it gutted or repealed.
And they have you and yours out here spreading the bald faced lies that M37 will turn Portland into Houston.
Sorry for the mean tone pal but your anti-M37 skreed is as dishonest as it gets.
There's not even a remote similarity between Oregon with M37 and Texas or Georgia land use regulation.
So that begs the question.
Why are you attempting to have Oregon voters oberve a false process in action?
Posted by Howard | May 15, 2007 11:21 AM
I'm totally in favor of banning all hand-held phones for ALL drivers.
A couple years ago, when stopped at a red light in Cathedral City, CA, I was rear-ended by a "talking driver."
She hit my rental car without even slowing down and, upon impact, her steering-wheel airbag inflated. Ultimately, she got out of her crumpled car, STILL ON THE PHONE!
After arriving at the accident scene, the local police officer had to coax her to end her phone call, just so he could gather the details, license numbers, etc.
...from my lips to God's ears...
Posted by oregbear | May 15, 2007 11:35 AM
Any public payment for something other than for "public use" is as valid as a public gift for having a particular eye color. Drop the rose colored glasses and read the black and white print upon which the individuals have a claim -- to build/use unless restricted by laws that conform with the equal privileges and immunities for both the state and the feds. Reenact SB100 in total otherwise M37-this and M37-that is pure posturing, often in an odd role reversal sort of way that reveals far more collective idiocy than I have thought possible. Limits have prospective application in all general legislation with only minor exceptions. A generally applicable limit is not a property interest.
Posted by ron ledbury | May 15, 2007 11:46 AM
It’s my hope that for every unhinged wingnut like Howard, and libertarian-type like Jon there are a thousand Oregonians who believed that this was about a little old lady and a house – although where people think she got the millions for the ads is beyond me (she spent a few thousand more this weekend to tell me again how broke she is). Now the truth is obvious we can have an actual debate. This needs to be done soon before what’s wonderful about this place is destroyed and the next generation gets stuck with the multi-billion dollar bill for trying to make it function.
The reason a farmer cannot do whatever they want with their land is the same reason I can’t run a child protestation ring out of my basement – it wouldn’t be good for society (you know, the other 310 million people sharing this bit of land). If a man from “the government” comes and tells a farmer they can’t farm on their land I will gladly march with them for justice. That is very different from building a subdivision and then coming to me to pay for the roads, police etc to make it work. When the oil gets too expensive for that lifestyle to function it won’t magically return to forest or farmland.
Posted by Sherwood | May 15, 2007 11:52 AM
Howard,
I am not passing lies, nor am I dishonest, and I would appreciate you not taking this dialog to a personal level.
If you look around the country, there are few places that have kept liveability high, and all have had pretty restrictive zoning - Boulder, CO, Burlington, VT, and Madison, WI are examples noted by many across the political spectrum. I challenge you to name others that are liveable but have little zoning control in place. All you really have the ubiquitous pre-auto age core city that gets surrounded by the likes of Portland's SE 82nd Avenue or Beaverton's Canyon Road.
I would hope that voters get their information from unbiased sources, but I have no control over them, or the sources. Certainly the pro-M37 press, such as Oregonians in Action, which you sound a lot like, is not unbiased. If newspapers aren't providing coverage that looks favorable to you and your pro-M37 forces, then I would offer that they are simply reflecting popular sentimant. Face it, you are losing this battle.
But the ultimate test will be how an M37 measure does when referred to voters, not what we say here. And I don't think it will turn out favorably to you.
Posted by John Rettig | May 15, 2007 12:14 PM
Sherwood: ... where people think she [Dorothy English] got the millions for the ads is beyond me (she spent a few thousand more this weekend to tell me again how broke she is).
She got it from Oregonians in Action. They needed a poster child to parade in front of people and convince voters that the land use system was "broken", and she filled the bill quite nicely for them.
Posted by John Rettig | May 15, 2007 12:20 PM
how are they going to tell the age of the texter in question.
Pull 'em over and ask, of course. It's instant probable cause for a traffic stop.
(Of course, judging by recent events the PPD would probably beat it out of 'em rather than ask, but still.)
Posted by Tasteless Tattler | May 15, 2007 12:31 PM
Will they use the "We Card Everyone Who Looks Under 30" technique?
Posted by Jack Bog | May 15, 2007 12:40 PM
Jon, of course you are dishonest and again you mislead with the suggestion with M37 Oregon will have "little zoning control in place" Nothing could be further from the truth.
Oregon does and will have tremendous zoning regs inplace with M37.
Your pretense that all is zoning is lost, or even good part of it is lost, by way of M37 is the core of the anti-M37 dishonesty.
Sherwood the cleaning up the next generation will be paying for is not M37 created it is the irrational excesses of planning run amok. You and Jon are completely duped and wrongheaded if you think what has been happening has been good planning. Far from it. We've been witnessing the near total disregard for the needs of growth, in every arena,
as fanatics use dishonesty to puch more of the same and distort attempts at some modest remedies such as M37.
Jon, You are indeed off your rocker if you think the only fine communities in this country have Oregon's level of planning regs in place. Cherry picking the few who have do have that level and passing on their own self adorning propaganda is more of the same extremism yo used when tossing out the Houston crap.
Posted by Howard | May 15, 2007 1:35 PM
Howard,
Calling me dishonest doesn't advance your cause. The challenge I gave you to name others that are liveable but have little zoning control in place, would advance it, of course - but you didn't, apparently because you can't.
Face it, you're losing this one.
And BTW my name is spelled "John", not "Jon", who has graced us with comments on this blog that appear to mimic your position - in fact, the only other commenter who has done so. Just so there's no confusion.
Posted by John Rettig | May 15, 2007 1:45 PM
John,
You are dishonest.
And your challenge asinine.
I never once said anything about "little" or no zoning and this is the 3rd time I have tried to get you off you lie machine.
There is a huge gargantuan distance from little or no zoning Oregon's zoning.
Yet in your dishonest ways you attempt to narrow and control the discussion as if Oregonians have only the two choices you cooked up. That being our current extreme status quo or the straw man very "little" zoning you keep insisting is the only other alternative.
You want people to mistakenly believe this is our limited choice. That makes you dishonest.
Yo further distort by suggesting M37 leads to the "little" version when it does not.
Heck M37 doesn't even get rid of our dysfunctional Urban Growth Boundary policy. Countless other regs are sustained under M37 as well. The vast majority of land of every kind is not effected by M37 at all.
Yet you want people, voters, to falsely believe that M37 is a sweeping removal of land use protections and planning.
IMO, you are a clear cut liar.
Is there some problem with my observation?
You could easily fix that problem by simply telling the truth.
If you are not lying and are genuinely confused by the 1000 liars, please forgive me.
You "challenged" me to "name others that are livable but have little zoning control in place".
What's "little" mean? I assume you mean next to none? I'll stick to less than Oregon.
Washington has less zoning control than Oregon. Ever heard of Washington? There's plenty of livable there.
Texas, and yes even Houston has some very livable communities. Clean, affordable and functional. So does Atlanta and it's suburbs. San Antonio is incredibly livable.
Pick just about anywhere. Michigan for instance has less zoning control but many very nice cities and communities just like Oregon. Idaho too. California too.
So where do you get off with your ridiculously narrow minded fantasy that only Oregon's extreme level of zoning control works to allow or preserve livable communities?
That disingenous drum beat is getting real old.
And it's not right wing to recognize that.
What is it I'm losing?
The one sided propaganda war you, your friends and the newspapers have been engaged in? I suppose you want people to equate that to a campaign and election.
Why bother with another vote. Just take the outcome of your propaganda and call it good. Just like Castro. Then get rid of the intitiative system and we're good, right?
Posted by Howard | May 15, 2007 2:47 PM
"Texas, and yes even Houston has some very livable communities. Clean, affordable and functional. So does Atlanta and it's suburbs. San Antonio is incredibly livable.
Pick just about anywhere."
Ha! This comment assures me that you are full of BS. I'm from Texas... Moved here (to Portland) a couple of years ago after 30 yrs there. Having lived in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin I can tell you they are not livable. Austin would be the closest think Texas has to Portland, but it is rapidly going the way of the other big cities in the state due to no land use laws. They all feature crumbling inner city getos with extremely low property values, crappy city schools, higher crime rates and long, crappy commutes on overcrowded 6 lane freeways out to the subburbs 30 plus miles away just so you can find a decent place to live. No! If you want that go live there and be happy. I've been there and lived it and certainly dont want Portland to look anthing like that.
Posted by JDN | May 15, 2007 3:40 PM
John, M37 is a statewide measure. Comparing it to the restrictive zoning ordinances of small cities scattered around the U.S. (Boulder, Burlington) makes no sense. Anyone making a M37 claim still has to abide by all local codes and requirements.
All M37 tries to do is level the playing field by forcing government to compensate a land owner when regulations de-value their property. M37 adheres to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.
Also, one man's 'livable' city is another man's Port Au Prince. I lived in Buckman for 5 years. I suffered through bums passed out on my doorstep, drug addicts breaking into my car and apartment, weekly brawls in the street and slovenly neighbors. Now I live in Beaverton (you know, that suburban hell you density-freaks love to bash) and I've left my car and front door open without incident. My neighborhood is clean, quiet and very safe. Plus, I have a huge private yard.
And Sherwad clucked the following:
"That is very different from building a subdivision and then coming to me to pay for the roads, police etc to make it work. When the oil gets too expensive for that lifestyle to function it won’t magically return to forest or farmland."
No one will be "coming to you" to pay for roads. That's what SDCs, gas and property taxes are for. Roads are very unlike light rail, which everyone pays for but only a tiny percentage uses. I suggest you look into taking a remedial civics class and get hip to how government operates.
And if oil gets super-expensive, we'll all be suffering, not just suburbanites. You think your plastic Ikea furniture is made with hemp or something?
Posted by Chris McMullen | May 15, 2007 3:49 PM
Howard,
You should stop mentioning Castro. It makes you look a tad bit nutty. Not destroying the beauty of the Portland area has not left the next generation with a bill, it’s given them a cool town with countryside all around. You may hate it but it seems that just about everybody else with the ability to move here and enjoy it is doing just that. I would love that influx to slow down but until your side wins and we become Phoenix with drizzle it’s not happening.
Still let’s assume that sprawl comes back into fashion and that we find vast new supplies of oil in countries that love America. Mmmm fingers crossed for new cheap oil gushers in Poland and Australia. Then we can scrape the hillsides and cover the farms with tarmac to create an auto utopia. It’s all still there to crap on when the urge takes us. Don’t worry so much. Just sit back and wait for people to catch up with your insight.
Chris, accusing me of having Ikea furniture in my house is one insult too far. I demand satisfaction.
Posted by Sherwood | May 15, 2007 4:31 PM
Density cooker or urban sprawl? I guess the one that affects you is the worst.
Posted by KIss | May 15, 2007 5:19 PM
What are the fans of Y2Kunstler's "Peak Oil" vision gonna do when clean Fischer-Tropsch synthetic diesel comes on line, and commercial Biodiesel production really ramps up with those refineries and algae farms ? The latest refinement of the FT method for clean diesel won a Nobel Prize, and the governors of several Western states, notably Montana, have been talking about this technology lately. Look, we are not going to slide back into the 18th century, people. Don't be silly.
You really need to do some research on this stuff, PO folks, and get your hands dirty with real-life alternative energy, as I have, if you want to sound like you know what you are talking about. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of years worth of fuel by these methods, and that is assuming that engines won't continue to advance in terms of efficiency.
Sure, when a city gets to the size the Portland area is getting to, it needs commuter rail. We also need to require the people who use it to pay for, oh, 15 percent of it's total cost. How much money do we spend a year keeping the professional beggars comfortable in "Fareless Square" ?
And if you don't think the greater Portland area has ugly suburban sprawl right now today, with the hundreds of thousands of people crowding into it, you are living in a freakin' dream world. My job allows me to tour our hundreds of square miles of sprawl nightly. Been out to the Max line thru Rockwood lately ? It's a real Utopia, all right.
Posted by Cabbie | May 15, 2007 6:19 PM
Cabbie,
When people get to the point of paying for 5% of the cost of oil I’ll worry about only covering 15% of light rail.
I couldn’t care less if cars were powered by bad feelings and emitted only Bridgeport IPA. When you build a city purely for people encased in metal boxes you get a vile city. Make it safe to walk, bike, drive, and give people a choice to take a bus/train and you’re on to something.
Good point about the sprawl. This city goes on forever and has vast numbers of houses with three car garages and nice big gardens for those who seek that. You could fit a small European country inside it. A few teeny tiny steps have been taken to give people a choice, and to try and preserve some farmland, and for some people the sky is falling.
Posted by Sherwood | May 15, 2007 7:45 PM
Make it safe to walk, bike, drive, and give people a choice to take a bus/train and you’re on to something
Does this include freeways wider than 2 or 3 lanes in spots, for the gigantic amount of commercial traffic utilizing an industrial shipping terminus with well over 2 million inhabitants ?
Posted by Cabbie | May 16, 2007 5:06 AM
Cabbie,
Yes.
Posted by Sherwood | May 16, 2007 7:04 AM
JDN
Are you nuts or just another rampant liar?
For you to say that "Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin I can tell you they are not livable"
is beyond ridiulous.
Having been to all of them recently, traveled about their regions, know people who live there and eyewitnessed marvelous areas and livabily I know otherwise.
They don't all "feature" the getos,crappy city schools, high crime or crappy commutes any more than Portland's fellony flats, Jefferson High School, gangs and our gridlocked freeways.
You should go live lies in Cuba or delusional Europe.
The Portland region is marvelous for now but has become an increasingly haphazard planned chaos with overcrowded and strained infrastructure failing to accomodate growth in every arena. We have the crime, the gridlock, some floundering schools, lack of affordable housing and all the ills every other big megatropollis has. Our planning is making it much worse.
Your group delusions that wrap it all up in Tram and trolley pretty-speak is deceitful.
Stop breathing the air at Metro headquarters. It's restricting your oxygen intake.
Posted by Howard | May 16, 2007 10:32 AM
"Methinks it's time to wrap this year's circus up before somebody gets hurt."
Exactly the way I feel every single day our legislative clowns are in session.
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Posted by Sasquatch | May 16, 2007 1:35 PM