The same type of thoughts crossed my mind when I read this piece over breakfast this morning. Good on Sallinger for walking away from this production, let's hope he stays away.

I wonder if this was any more of a sham than when many years ago I quit being a member of the Citizens' Advisory Group for development of the Oregon Comprehensive Plan?

I had a similar experience on the State of Oregon Hanford Waste Board. The state bureaucrats didn't listen to the board members. They just wanted to use our names.

Audubon litigates. They holler "no" at everything. Folks like Nature Conservancy at least buy land from willing sellers, and are rarely involved in any sort of litigation. Unlike Audubon, they put their money where their mouth is.

Portland Audubon Society and Sallinger have led the way in destroying Oregon's timber industries, filing lawsuits to "save the spotted owl" and, most recently, the marbled murrelet.

Of course, following the destruction of Oregon's timber economies, it turned out that the spotted owl does just fine in secondary growth, and doesn't require the old growth that Audubon sued over. It also apparently doesn't need the 300-yard quiet zones imposed wherever spotted owls may reside; in view of the fact that they're losing a competitive battle with barred owls, the plan now is to invade the quiet zones with shotguns, to blast any barred owls spotted to smithereens.

They destroyed peoples' livlihoods through protracted litigation for no sound reason, and they continue it with their assault on logging to "save the marbled murrelet".

These folks spent years litigating against plans by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and zoos to remove the remaining California condors from the wild in order to place them into an intensively-managed captive breeding program. They lost, eventually, and the birds were removed. Today, there are over 400 condors, some of which have been released into selected habitat, where successful reproduction has occurred.

This lawsuit arises from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's decision to bring the remaining condors in from the wild. The district court granted plaintiff National Audubon Society's request for a preliminary injunction barring the Service from carrying out this decision, 627 F.Supp. 1419.

They do excel at one thing: persuading people to part with their money on the basis of sob stories. As Barnum noted: "There's one born every minute".

Spoken like a true zoo employee.

Sorry, I'm not. I do know folks there, at Metro, and in other government agencies.

I know Bob Sallinger. He's a straight shooter. If he calls it a sham, it's a sham. Period.

The citizens' committee was ambushed with detailed documents that its members weren't given adequate time to review before they were supposed to pass on them.

Mode of Operation.

I have witnessed more than I care to remember. Mounds of information to be digested by the public in a few days. Bringing citizens into the fold after "selected ones" have set the outline, and as I have said before, the list is long.

Why do we pay city planners, etc. only to have them turn around and disrespect the people?

Good for Bob. This demonstrates exactly how thin and fake the green paint is on the players in this thing.

All the public input stuff is theater anymore. Everything is pre-cooked. They select the committee people that are already on board. They spin the process out for thousands of hours that only someone paid to be there can possibly keep up with. They ambush with complex documents they give you one day to plow through.

Don't forget, this process has also cost the City and Port hundreds of thousands of dollars for the charade.

Sorry, I'm not.

Ah, yes. But you were, for many years. Come on, Jay.

The entire citizen process at City Hall ia a sham. Same hand picked cronies over and over again just on different commissions and committees.

Sham, Charade, wasted money, just wanted to use our names, ambushed with detailed documents, weren't given adequate time to review, Mounds of information to be digested by the public in a few days, Bringing citizens into the fold after "selected ones" have set the outline.

How is this any different than any other government planning operation?

The only people who come out ahead are the well paid consultants that deliver the predetermined conclusion that the people just love the plan that will destroy their neighborhood, reduce their income, waste their time or raise their taxes.

Remember the CRC!

Thanks
JK

The other ones who come out ahead are those politicians, the ones who will shill and don't have to be accountable for any mess they create as a result of being either inept or corrupt.

Accounting for natural wealth gains world traction
By Katy Daigle on June 17, 2012
Associated Press/Bloomberg News, Business Week

Excerpt:

NEW DELHI (AP) — What is a sip of clean water worth? Is there economic value in the shade of a tree? And how much would you pay for a breath of fresh air?

Putting a price on a natural bounty long taken for granted as free may sound impossible, even ridiculous. But after three decades on the fringes of serious policymaking, the idea is gaining traction, from the vividly clear waters of the Maldives to the sober, suited reaches of the World Bank.

As traditional measures of economic progress like GDP are criticized for ignoring downsides including pollution or diminishment of resources such as fresh water or fossil fuels, there has been an increased urgency to arguments for a more balanced and accurate reckoning of costs. That is particularly so as fast-developing nations such as India and China jostle with rich nations for access to those resources and insist on their own right to pollute on a path toward growth.

Proponents of so-called "green accounting" — who will gather in Rio de Janeiro this week for the Rio Earth Summit — hope that putting dollar values on resources will slam the brakes on unfettered development. A mentality of growth at any cost is already blamed for disasters like the chronic floods that hit deforested Haiti or the raging sand storms that have swept regions of China, worsening desertification.

****

"We need to understand what we're losing in order to save it," Sukhdev said. "You cannot manage what you do not measure."

The url for that article --
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06-17/accounting-for-natural-wealth-gains-world-traction

Ah, yes. But you were, for many years.

True, was. Left for good reason, as they started making animals a low priority. According to my sources, they now have some eleven managers - to the tune of over a million dollars a year - "supervising" roughly 32 "trained, experienced animal care staff". State guidelines call for one manager per eleven line staff.

They complain about road construction on highway 26, because "the elephants are very sensitive" to sound and vibration - yet they hold amplified concerts in their front yard all summer long.

Hypocrisy.

Not my cup of tea.

BTW: happy Father's Day - nice card you posted earlier.

Mojo: Proponents of so-called "green accounting" — who will gather in Rio de Janeiro this week for the Rio Earth Summit — hope that putting dollar values on resources will slam the brakes on unfettered development.
JK: And their solution is a new tax on energy to give to UN bureaucrats. And to put the UN in charge of our local resources.

Just think of enabling the most crackpot ideas of city planners, the PDC and Metro with plenty of money.

BTW, their first goal is to make energy too expensive for the common man.

Thanks
JK

We hadn't been to the zoo for awhile, so recently when we visited the zoo,
I was struck by seeing more building construction and landscaping than actual animals, seemed like the animals were a side note.
But then with Metro in charge, I can believe the animals are a low priority.
Their agenda doesn't much respect livability for people either.

BTW, their first goal is to make energy too expensive for the common man.

I can imagine the common man leading more and more the life of a cave dweller,
no lights at night and bare necessities, while the haves can have more for themselves.

Not for Sale: Why We Can't Save the Planet By Putting a Price on Nature
The people of the world must take concerted action to initiate a new framework that begins with the recognition that nature is sacred and not for sale.
By Tom B.K. Goldtooth
http://www.alternet.org/story/155844/not_for_sale%3A_why_we_can%27t_save_the_planet_by_putting_a_price_on_nature?akid=8927.145989.PNLh6p&rd=1&t=2