Seconded.

Jack, I'm somewhat surprised that you've been such a vocal supporter of the guy who is the more "pro-developer" of the two candidates.

I thought Bob Stacey was the pro-tree guy. How can you really tell the difference between the two?

I grew up in Hillsboro.

Tom Hughes never saw an undeveloped piece of land he didn't want to see a commercial building on.

I voted Stacey.

Yeah who needs jobs when we have our wonderful quality of life in Oregon.

Can I pay rent with that?

Nancy,

The mdeia is sitting on it like Goldschmidt but as the head of Portland planning department Stacey removed environmental zoning under a phony claim of a mapping error, left the stream in a culvert, and arranged to cover up the city polluted site in SW Portland with 80 condos. It was to be a park, stream and all.

You see what happens to the environment when a bureaucrat plays big shot.
Stacey running Metro is like having Adams run an intern program.

nancy : Tom Hughes never saw an undeveloped piece of land he didn't want to see a commercial building on.
JK: Nancy,
Why are you against jobs?
Do you like Oregon usually having a higher than average unemployment rate?
Why are you against affordable homes?
Do you like your mortgage payments being doubled because of Metro?
Do you like paying higher rent because of Metro?

Thanks
JK

Ben -

Where, what location, what is the current address in SW Portland.

I want to go look at the site.

Jack, I'm somewhat surprised that you've been such a vocal supporter of the guy who is the more "pro-developer" of the two candidates.

Tom Hughes never saw an undeveloped piece of land he didn't want to see a commercial building on.

There are two interesting facts about these statements: (1)It's exactly how Stacey has tried to portray Hughes, and (2)It's false.

Stacey is just as "pro-development" as Hughes. Calling Stacey an "environmentalist" or "anti-development" is like calling Sam Adams a "fiscal guru".

And by the way, Sam Adams endorses Stacey. Know why? Because Stacey is very supportive of increasing and densifying land inside the UGB.

Strangely--so is Hughes.

Stacey supported Metro's recent plan for adding land inside the UGB.

So did Hughes.

Stacey supports the CRC, but has kept changing his story on that support. Hughes has been clear and consistent in his view.

Stacey has frequently claimed to stand for the environment, while doing the opposite.

Hughes hasn't.

Like I've said before--it's gag-inducing to put a white hat on either of these fellows. They're both grey, and they're both pro-growth, pro jobs, pro urban development, and pro density. Despite the furious efforts of Stacey, there is no meaningful difference between them on the environment.

There *is* one meaningful difference between them: Hughes understand that Metro is about far more than land development and ecology.

Good luck getting that address, Nonny

If their policies are similar, then which one would be more likely to listen to the public when this whole house of cards and metro plan falls, fails, or is noticeably seen by all just how unworkable the agendas are?

Nonny,

I believe Ben was referring to the condo/apartment bldgs built a few years ago off of SW Barbur Blvd...I believe it is called "Headwaters." (About 2 blocks off Barbur, by the Chevron, can't remember exact street) A disgusting development imo.

Bob Stacey is a baffoon who stands for all the same things Mayor Creepy does. Hughes has some issues but he understands this area needs jobs and he has experience making that happen.

NoPo has it right - the "Headwaters" development (rather a snide name, when you think about it). Coming from downtown on Barbur, turn right at the Chevron station.

You can't miss it.

Here it is -- a fourth piece of glossy election porn in less than two weeks from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, and the third devoted exclusively to telling us what a dedicated environmentalist Bob Stacey is:

These most likely have been approved by their board.
(I tried to provide the link to Oregon League of Conservation Voters, didn’t work, but you all know how to look for it.)

Do they not know about the mapping error in SW Portland regarding a proposed park that just did not happen as a result?

In my opinion, selective blinders work so well in Portland!

The property that Ben cites is located off SW Slavin Rd. which is a several block long deadend street off of SW Corbett in Johns Landing.

It's an immediate left turn heading north on SW Corbett as it passes over 1-5. All the condos on the south side of Slaving constitute the 10 acres that Stacey removed the environmental zone to allow 100 units by various developers.

There was a more thorough explanation of Stacey's CoP's Director of Planning moves regarding this property a few days in a Bojack post. Maybe Jack could run that again with a printout of Stacey's request to call the environmental zoning "a mapping error".

No Po: I believe Ben was referring to the condo/apartment bldgs built a few years ago off of SW Barbur Blvd...I believe it is called "Headwaters."...A disgusting development imo.

Max: NoPo has it right - the "Headwaters" development (rather a snide name, when you think about it).

I believe Stacey was Planning Director in the early 1990s, and The Headwaters was finished a couple years ago, so what's the connection? What's being "inferred"?

Just based on the timeline being decades apart, it doesn't seem like there's a logical connection. But I'm willing to be educated.

Here's the property that wold have been a preserved envitronmental zone, stream and city park.

http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Photo&propertyid=&state_id=&address_id=&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7643418.444&y=671817.691&place=4700%2D4899%20SW%201ST%20AVE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=SOUTH%20PORTLAND&seg_id=141281&Year=2009&StreetAnno=no&Taxlots=no&AddressPoint=yes&Size=4%27

Intead it's condos, homes, polluted land, buried stream and environmental area gone forever. Thanks Bob.

That's a nice aerial of some development immediately adjacent to I-5.

I'm interested in learning more about how it would've been a "preserved environmental zone". I'm also interested in learning how it's Bob Stacey's "fault". Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Joey, you must not have been reading many of numerous posts Jack has made on the Metro race.

Particularly go to Jacks archive's Oct 24th post "Oregon League of Devastation Voters" and scroll to 11:29AM. Note Bob Stacey's quote from his memo:

"He [Brooks, CoP] recommends removing EP & scaling EC 'way back'. Bachrach [developer's attorney] wants us to do that, as a mapping error. I agreed to do it that way, and to try to do it soon." signed Robert E Stacey Jr.; City of Portland Planning Director; initials 'RES'

Then, earlier;
"Sure would love to see that the city gets rid of the land including any of its problems. [toxic dump site] Don't want another River street or 2nd and oak Problem", signed "Fred" (Fred Venke-CoP)

There's copies of many of the documents surrounding CoP's giving/trading this property in the city archives. Stacey is no more of an environmentalist than Hughes, if that is your denominator.

Lee,

You are correct, I have not read ALL of Jack's posts. Nor have I read ALL of the comments they generate. Don't have the time.

To save time, it's helpful if you provide links to pages you want people to see (for example, the date you cite is incorrect).

I'd also find it helpful - and more credible - if the document you are referring to was actually available for public viewing. No offense, but I'm not inclined to take your word that some mysterious document exists with Bob Stacey's handwritten notes.

In fact, I'm somewhat curious about the identity of the anonymous "Ben" who apparently has access to all these secret documents. Sounds pretty fishy.

What I know, is Tom Hughes is proudly displaying his endorsement by the Home Builders Association, in addition to Jim Francesconi and Randy Leonard. I thought that would surely doom him around these parts. So I'm just wondering what the disconnect is.

Oh brother. Joey's more curious about me than the city polluted park site that Stacey removed the e-zone from.
Joey are you Bob?

The docs aren't secret. They're flying all over the place. Some media has a copy.
The Hughes campaign has a copy too.

I got my hands on a copy fro one of my moles. :)

They are exactly as described here.

As for Hughes over Stacey. Are you kidding? You don't know Stacey is far more extreme than Hughes? Left of Rex?

Previous posts are easy to find.
Google bojack bob stacey e-zone.

http://bojack.org/2010/10/oregon_league_of_devastation_v.html

I missed the date by one day, sorry. You can easily just put the title in Bojack's search and get your answer-but Ben answers it for you. I've seen the docs and a lot more not cited. They are real. And will probably see the light of day here or elsewhere soon. Or ask Nigel, or reporters at the O, if it makes any difference to you.

Like I wrote, the city files have them too. Research LUR 95-00649 SU AD; LUR 93-00067-ZC; LUR 95-00649 Re-notification; and others to get you started. I don't have the Zoning number handy for the Removal of Environmental Zoning, but the memos, letters referred to in earlier posts are in the above LUR's.