Bad or misleading advertising yes. Porn no. Your outraged hyperbole only contributes to the further erosion of intelligent communication, criticism, and communication. Bad yes, Porn no.

What is Bob Stacey's record on creating jobs?

Looking at his own website:

https://www.bobstacey.com/about-bob

I see no position he's held in the past where he was responsible for creating jobs. Not one.

His selling points list four bullet points - not one of them has anything to do with creating jobs.

Basically, his argument is "Metro is good", "light rail is good (screw the bus riders)", and the "only good business is 'green' business". If you're a big factory building solar panels, we'll bend over backwards for you. If you're a big factory building...boxes, then there's no room for you here.

I got the same piece of election porn and just to make a point, I didn't bother putting it in the recycling pile. I put it in the garbage so it will help pollute Eastern Oregon (if it doesn't fly off the truck somewhere in the Gorge on its way.)

Dean, if you look up the definition of "pornography," one of the definitions states "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
I think campaign flyers fit that definition.

I do find it hilarious that Stacey wants to be president of Metro, yet is bashing Hughes for taking money from "developers and developer interests."

Gotta disagree on this one. Look at who backs Tom Hughes and it's folks like Stimson Lumber and the like. I also think that the threat of suburban sprawl is perhaps greater than condos/etc. Both of them are going to do the transportation/infill/etc stuff... the key difference is what they do when it comes to expanding UGB.

(Btw, there is a rather heated discussion on Blue Oregon about Hughes incorrectly co-opting the OLCV endorsement.)

Just what is it that Metro does again?

To clarify, I'm pretty sure OLCV has a c3, c4 and a PAC.

It's the PAC board that makes endorsements, and Lemelson (I think) is only on the c3 board.

These things make my head spin.

But, but, but...The flyer was printed in a union shop!!! On recycled paper!!! So Stacey must be the most progressive candidate.

And he supports farming, family walks, and white picket fences, and clear mountain waters...You're making a BIG mistake not taking this ad more seriously.

They must believe the voters are incredibly naive.

Excuse me, but just what is it about Hughes that makes you think he's any better than Stacey? I just don't see it. He's just another 'bend over and accept the inevitable" developer puppet.

'Job creation" is a sell-out position vis-a-vis 'development'.

Wait...You're for clearcutting and urban sprawl all over all those nice orchards and vineyards, aren't you? Rape and run!

Condos in every backyard!

Go by Streetcar!

. .But as somebody who's sick of condo towers wrecking Portland neighborhoods, and streetcars and green toys bankrupting the city government, I think it's time for a course correction at Metro. And Stacey, who seems a little like an Earl Blumenauer without the bow tie, ain't it.

I was glad to see Jack's comments on this,
as I got an uneasy feeling when I saw that flyer.

The very matters that so many of us have been concerned about in our area, such as those listed above would most likely continue under Stacey.

When I read the flyer, I could see that the development interests were only listed on the column under Tom Hughes stating that: Developers and development interests who have given more than $100,000 to his campaign.

QUESTION is how much have developers and development interests given to Stacey's campaign?

AND how much in dollar benefits have been given to development interests on behalf of the agenda that Stacey most likely represents and would continue?

I do find it hilarious that Stacey wants to be president of Metro, yet is bashing Hughes for taking money from "developers and developer interests."

What? So he prefers that 'development' be vertical, rather than horizontal.

Evidently, you'd rather cover everything with single-level double-wides with inadequate sewage, depleted water tables, and flooding streams due to vast areas covered in impermeable asphalt and concrete.

Sure, let's bring more 82nd Avenues, connecting more Clackamas Town Centers to more Washington Squares, to the Metro area...everybody needs more cheezy, slatternly whore trails. Yeah, that's the ticket! More whores is more 'development'! F**k the planners! I wanna put a abattoir where I wanna put an abattoir...even if it happens to be next to YOUR house! YEAH! TED HUGHES!

Everyone has to understand the alternative vision that comes with not expanding the UGB. That vision is to force all new households into Metro's existing footprint.

It means doubling the housing density on YOUR block. It means building a four-story condo bunker with no parking over YOUR back fence. It means making housing less and less affordable by creating an artificial shortage. It means forcing more and more poor people to commute from cheap housing (Gresham) to where the jobs are (Hillsboro.) It means making every errand you run take twice as long.

If that vision is okay with you, then vote accordingly. But please do understand the vision before you do.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/10/woman_claims_bob_stacey_candid.html

This is a civil rights complaint that in Stacy's days with 1000 Friends he bullied her and created a threatening environment. Thought it was interesting that this was buried in the printed Oregonian and had no mention of his name in the heading on Oct. 11. Like we don't have enough abrasive egotistical people in office in the Portland Metro area......

I also think that the threat of suburban sprawl is perhaps greater than condos/etc.

What sprawl? Oregon's population uses roughly 2% of the land area encompassed by the state boundaries.

If it's all the same, I'm keeping my single-family house with yard. Actually, I'm doing it whether or not it's all the same.

Oregon's population uses roughly 2% of the land area encompassed by the state boundaries.

That sort of claptrap is the same stuff spouted by advocates of ANWR drilling... but, but the total footprint on the ground will only be 500 acres... yeah, true, but it is spread out over 100s of thousands.

For some things (human blood, farmland, wildlife corridors, intact ecosystems), even a little poison kills.

Need an example? Head on up and check out the "beautiful farmland" from Vancouver up to Battle Ground and all the 5-acre "ranches".

PJB: For some things (... farmland, wildlife corridors, intact ecosystems), even a little poison kills.
JK: I take it that you value wildlife & ecosystems above human happiness.

PJB: Need an example? Head on up and check out the "beautiful farmland" from Vancouver up to Battle Ground and all the 5-acre "ranches".
JK: What do you have against people living as they choose? Why do yuou think you have the right to criticize the way others choose to live? Do you also criticize Christians or gays for their way of life?

Thanks
JK

Snards: Everyone has to understand the alternative vision that comes with not expanding the UGB. That vision is to force all new households into Metro's existing footprint.It means doubling the housing density on YOUR block. It means building a four-story condo bunker with no parking over YOUR back fence. It means making housing less and less affordable by creating an artificial shortage. It means forcing more and more poor people to commute from cheap housing (Gresham) to where the jobs are (Hillsboro.) It means making every errand you run take twice as long.

That's a pretty sweet Glen Beck impression. Thanks for uncovering the conspiracy.

Actually, the UGB protects farmland, which cannot be replaced once it's paved over.

It also limits sprawl. Sprawl costs taxpayers by making infrastructure and services more expensive. Sprawl also ensures that people have to drive for EVERY errand, oftentimes much more than twice as far. The additional driving also releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which 95% of scientists say is bad.

As far as your assertions that condo bunkers, which I also dislike, will go in in everywhere is really too ridiculous to warrant a serious response.

JK: I take it that you value wildlife & ecosystems above human happiness.

Yes.

by the way, mr karlock, are you still running that anti-skinny houses web site?

Joey, maybe you haven't read the many studies by urban planners, think tanks that dispute that "sprawl costs taxpayers by making infrastructures and services more expensive".

For example, NYC has been studied by many that demonstrates that maintaining, repairing, updating, rejuvenating, and replacing old buildings, streets, underground services in full life-cycle costing, costs more for dense development. The breaking point in costs is around 5 stories in height. They have also factored in movement of goods and services in these studies that reinforces these facts.

It's not that I'm advocating sprawl everywhere, but there are economic benefits to sprawl, as well as many people preferring that choice in life style and decreased living costs.

Interesting -- according to the many anti-Metro, anti-SB-100, anti-Measures 66/67 types, this should not be happening.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/intel_confirms_itll_invest_bil.html

Instead of expanding in Oregon, Intel should be vying with Phil for the first plane out to go sit with Loren Parks.

Please improve me Joey! Save me from myself!

Bob Stacey may want to get out and around with the bluecollar workers. If he did he'd find this comment was just so much hot air; "His work has made it easier for us to get around every part of the Metro region, with light rail, streetcars and expanded suburban bus service".

Okay so it isn't hot air. Just Horse Manure.

"Sure, let's bring more 82nd Avenues, connecting more Clackamas Town Centers to more Washington Squares, to the Metro area"

Why not? People use them a helluva lot more thatn they use MAX to go shopping.

"Sprawl also ensures that people have to drive for EVERY errand, oftentimes much more than twice as far."

NOt so, I live in West Linn and I can walk to the stora and work out of my house - ALl without MAX or mass traasit or a vital downtown urban core I keep hearing about as the goal.

Why don't you just come out and say how 95% of people are too stupid to listen to the 5% that actually believe what planners say?

Protecting farmland? Please. The people running this place only give a crap about "farmland" if its growing grapes for their wine parties in Dunthorpe. They dont give a rip about real "farmers."

Joey: Actually, the UGB protects farmland, which cannot be replaced once it's paved over.
JK: What crap! Of course housing can be returned to farmland. It is being done is some eastern cities where the liberals destroyed the economy and there are many vacant/decayed homes.

BTW, I hope you know that the farmland that you value so much is being used mostly for potted plants and lawns. I guess no one told you that there is a surplus of farmland. (Did you also fall for that population is careening out of control lie?)

Joey: Sprawl costs taxpayers by making infrastructure and services more expensive.
JK: Sort of. The rest of the story is that the overall savings of lower costs far overcome any increased infrastructure costs. Anyone who passed grade school math can figure this out be dividing the alleged national savings put out by one of the green propaganda organizations last year and dividing that by the population.

Joey: Sprawl also ensures that people have to drive for EVERY errand, oftentimes much more than twice as far.
JK: Complete bull shat. There are over priced little stores in sprawl too. More importantly, spending a dollar on driving will get you ten dollars in savings at the local Walmart (more or less).

Joey: The additional driving also releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which 95% of scientists say is bad.
JK: Complete crap. You really should look as some thing beyond Al Gore’s lies. Most real scientists have an open mind about the CO2 scare and recognize, at least, as being vastly overhyped. It is mostly those “scientists” reaping in millions in government research grants that are gung ho. Many leading scientists have come out against CO2 being a problem. For instance here is a list of 450 peer reviewed papers that DO NOT support the Al Gore climate lie: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/450papers.html

Joey: As far as your assertions that condo bunkers, which I also dislike, will go in in everywhere is really too ridiculous to warrant a serious response.
JK: Do the grade school math: Double population in our neighborhoods means twice as many living units on every block. OR mega condo farms (aka: guettos) lining every major street.

Thanks
JK

Joey: The additional driving also releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which 95% of scientists say is bad.
JK: Here is some info that you might find interesting:

1. 75% of Meteorologists DO NOT think most global warming is human induced
2. IPCC admits claim of imminent Himalayan glaciers melting is 'a mistake', retracts.
3. Without data "adjustments" the world is a lot cooler than in the 1930s. (Dust bowl and all that.)
4. 30% of IPCC report references ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. Many are green propaganda.
5. Man's CO2 is only about 3% of the total annual emission. The rest is natural.
6. The majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, not CO2.
7. From 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
8. There has been a cooling trend from 2002 (but is not yet statistically-significant)
9. The rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significantly different from each other.
10. The reason that "scientists" claim recent warming has been largely man-made is "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ..."
11. Al Gore lied about the ice cores - they actually show temperature changes leading CO2 levels.
12. Al Gore's chart showing rapidly rising temperatures is a fraud.
13. A British court found many factual errors in AL Gore's movie.
14. Al Gore gets OVER $100,000 per speech. He has made millions promoting Global warming and stands to make BILLIONS if he can get the government to force people to buy carbon offsets from his companies.
15. Some leading global warming alarmists say it is OK to lie to the public
16. The recent claims of warming are due to using computer estimates instead of real data for the Arctic.
17. MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
18. “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune, 1938
19. “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post, 1974
20. “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. “ (San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989)
See: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/

Thanks
JK

Lee - Yes, I have read studies that claim sprawl is cheaper, but you need to look at what they're comparing costs to - the status quo (sprawl), minor improvements to the zoning and infrastructure, smart growth? A lot of anti-regulation, free market advocates have published work saying sprawl is good, but a review of the literature would find there's far more data suggesting it's more expensive. Here's from the Puget Sound area. It might be more applicable to our area than some of the other work you're familiar with.

Steve - I lived in West Linn for about 20 years, I'm quite familiar with the area. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that YOU living next to Safeway, Albertsons or Market of Choice proves sprawl is good. And the percentage of people who can telecommute is less than 10%. Your case is an unrepresentative anecdote.

Jim Karlock - I'm sorry, but I take you about as seriously as someone who stays up until 2:17am to comment on how the sun revolves around the Earth.

Actually, the UGB protects farmland, which cannot be replaced once it's paved over.

On the contrary, the UGB actually forced the destruction of a lot of prime farmland in Washington County when westside MAX was built (e.g. Orenco Station). The areas within the UGB were not devoid of farmland and the boundary was not devised to avoid most of that farmland (perhaps none). Now it's paved over, what irony. That's politically correct land use planning I guess.

Ryan - As populations grow and urban areas expand, some farmland will be urbanized. That seems logical to me. You seem to imply something further.

Do you really think the UGB has harmed farmland more than it's protected it? I don't know any serious person who has tried to argue this.

Going back to Senate Bills 100 and 101 in 1973, protecting the highest quality farmland (defined in large part by soil types) has been a priority for the state. Bringing it back to Jack's original post, Bob Stacey worked with 1000 Friends from its inception, and then came back in the 2000s to run it, to ensure that farmland isn't gobbled up by ever-expanding urban areas.

Joey: Jim Karlock - I'm sorry, but I take you about as seriously as someone who stays up until 2:17am to comment on how the sun revolves around the Earth.
JK: Every one of those 20 points are absolutely correct* - it is really too bad that you make a choice to remain ignorant instead of looking for the real data. All you have to do is look at sustainableOregon.com for the links to original documents and primary sources.

But I do understand - you have a religious commitment to your position and evidence does not matter to you. Unfortunately, as a result, most of what you believe is simply wrong.

* and no I am not claiming that those old newspaper reports were correct - just that they WERE published. Same for much of the other stuff - only that they were published or stated by HIGHLY credible sources - all far more credible than AL Gore, Michael Mann and Jim Hansen (2/3 of which said, in print, that it is OK to lie to the public.)

Thanks
JK

Joey: Going back to Senate Bills 100 and 101 in 1973, protecting the highest quality farmland (defined in large part by soil types) has been a priority for the state.
JK: Oh, like all that river side land near the Portland airport. You know that land under all those new warehouses & other buildings in the urban renewal district.

Or are you referring to the Rossi farm that is zoned for high density housing?

The reality is that it is not about saving farms - it is about driving up the value of land owned by the rich landowners and land speculators. And making landowners like metro councillor Parks millionaires by re-zoning their land. Stacey is just one of their many lackeys.

Thanks
JK

Joey, your post doesn't allow the Seattle study to come up. But I am somewhat familiar with it, and in many ways it disproves your point. First, Seattle (metro area) is even less dense than Portland's so it isn't the best comparison. But on your point of "sprawl costs taxpayers" and density costs less, there are several parts of the study that disproves your point. But I'm sure you'll be able to cite parts of the study that helps your cause.

PJB JK: I take it that you value wildlife & ecosystems above human happiness.

Yes.
JK: Do you also feel that there are too many people and that it would be good for the earth if 3/4 (or more) of the human race died quickly?

PJB by the way, mr karlock, are you still running that anti-skinny houses web site?
JK: You mean http://www.debunkingPortland.com ?

Thanks
JK

Joey, my point is that the UGB is just a political artifact. Though it may be protecting "farmland" outside the boundary from development, it did not protect many farms within the UGB from development. Orenco, which was on prime farmland, was a convenient location for politically correct transit-oriented development in proximity to westside MAX, so Metro did not hesitate to have it paved over.

Ryan,
Excellent point.
Much and perhaps most or even all of the best fertile farmland in our valley within the UGB has been covered up.
As the circle of UGB gets extended, doesn't it look like sprawl anyway? Why is it that McMansions and estates are outside the UGB?
Is that expanse of land outside UGB kept for the wealthy while others are deemed to live in tight uncomfortable density?

Good idea Metro has here, covering up good farmland and now we are importing food from China!