I wonder when people will realize how they can use these minor issues and waste of time and money to distract us from the potholes, lousy schools and shootings?

It's as if the larger population centers of the West Coast, aka the "Left Coast", have become so fond of the escapist practice of contemplating their navels and redefining the meaning of anything, they've lost all interest in the business of a practical democracy allowing the reins to be picked up by activists and extremists who'll have no intention of ever giving them back.

This sort of situation has happened before in prior societies and often will only rectify itself following some irreversible catastrophe.

“Somebody has to take a stand,” said Jeffrey Prang, West Hollywood’s mayor. “We don’t ban things on a whim. It’s about impacting public policy more broadly; other cities follow us, partly because it gives them cover.”

So now we know why Portland exists... as an absurd example of a city, to provide cover for follower-cities with less extreme measures to look "normal" by comparison. Actually, that explanation gives me a sense of peace. Portland is rational in it's irrationality. It's a feature, not a bug.

What law in Portland is more absurd than the ones discussed in this article?

What law in Portland is more absurd than the ones discussed in this article?
1. Locking up spray paints
2. Required permit to trim or cut trees on your own property
3. Sharrows
4. Leaf removal fee
5. Food waste composting

To add to John Benton's list:

6. Forced fluoridation and your rights to safe drinking water be damned.

But, but, but it's so progressive !

I can't believe they were able to ban sexual realignment therapy. How did the fear mongering 'other' hating Christians let that one through?

Just another example of Portland becoming more like Los Angeles.
That is METRO's goal for us:
When we measure the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage and travel times only slightly higher than average . By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion . In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided
. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it
displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate .

Bold added, from: Metro Measured, May 1994, Planning Department, Data Resource Center, METRO
see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/metro_measured.html

Thanks
JK

John, the concept of the "Nanny State" relates to the prohibition of things that might be harmful to people.

1. You're right about this one. It's complete stupidity and pointless makes up for its general unobtrusiveness.
2. Environmental regulation common throughout the country.
3. These now almost always indicate bike routes and are designed to keep bikes off major thoroughfares. They are advisory and have no legal effect. They are not a "nanny state" law or a mistake from any rational point of view.
4. This is stupid, but only marginally related to the "nanny state" - it is not designed to prohibit bad behavior, just make money for the government.
5. Certainly a step along the way

None of these things are really much at all like the laws discussed in the article, nor are they as intrusive. They are simply things you don't like.

Everything we do is a result of something that happened to our relations with the past.

Currently we are trying to amend for all the stuff we ripped off from the natives, here in what is called America.

As a result, the "modern" planner is basing the their analysis of a "modern urban development" on a guilt-based interpretation of the environment. We must be punished for past aggressions, so growth and personal freedom is seen as off limits.

With a flawed basis like that, it is any wonder that the world continues to spin with a wobble?

It seems both parties have their own bugaboos; each party with a complete rationalization for why they are justified.

But when you put the two parties together, in an alternating fashion, it means a loss of freedom for us all.

Each party in their own way, doesn't trust the individual to conduct their own lives.

It's about control of individuals ("for their own good" mind you) because "we really know better".

It's about a lack of faith in civility and responsibility of the individual.

Of course, if you put this way, to the "controllers", they will indignantly reject it. But think about it -- they don't think the individual either knows what is good for themselves or maybe is even incapable of knowing what is good for themselves.

There has always been an impulse in human nature to control other people and to bring the 'other' into conformance with 'our' values and conduct.

This isn't necessarily bad, but it can lead to an oppressive society, whether via the Right or the Left.