This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 28, 2012 12:44 PM. The previous post in this blog was Reader poll: Which level of government is more screwed up?. The next post in this blog is Your tax window is closing. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, December 28, 2012

How many planners does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Quite a few.

Comments (14)

Right-O. They should change the name of the (in)disipline from planning to screwing. It's more vibrant.

Typical Portland these days.

Mr. Fish:

Maybe you could start with basic services like turning on the water fountains in Grant Park instead of these grand plans to spend millions that will require another bond measure. There hasn't been working fountains for a few years but we have millions to plan and spend on this.

When a local government has been structured to meet the desires of planners, what else can one expect?

Good thing they provided this useful information

Figure 5 -Solar and wind exposure

I'm not sure who to attribute this to, but it answers the question pretty well:

Q: How many bureaucrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Two. One to assure the public that everything possible is being done while the other screws the bulb into a water faucet.

How many? Drum roll please: How many can you afford?

This fall the City Council closed two community Centers. Fulton was one of these (it's now just a rental facility for those who can afford the rent.) The Council did this in the face of vigorous community support to keep Fulton open. There was a preschool program there and that's now gone. I believe the closing saved about $79,000, not enough to pay for just the plan for Willamette Park.

It should be noted that the new Parks guy is mostly interested in Parks, not community centers and their programs.

At least two, otherwise it's masturbation, not screwing.

Q: How many?
A: One MORE than is currently funded.

Don, that is a very sad statistic deserving of greater public attention. Does anyone here know what the exact cost of this study was, or the reported savings from the two closures?

My thought about that closure of Fulton Community Center was to look at the location, land around it and what plans that land might hold for something like housing in the future.
First step is to close the use of it for a community center. I don't live in that area but was disgusted when I heard about it. . . it is a charming center, but I guess old Portland charm doesn't matter to the new planners and will have to be redone.

Clinamen, as I've posted before about Fulton Park, there is over 10 acres combined with the adjacent park owned Community Garden. Being right on SW Barbur near the Terwilliger intersection, Fish/Parks is orchestrating this good sized taxpayer owned land for affordable public housing. Screw the park deficient South Portland neighborhood of a park, a community center and some open space.

The Barbur/Terwilliger area is also designated as a major transit/neighborhood node in the Barbur to Sherwood lightrail transit studies. But several of the cities farther out are planning to put this idea up to a vote, and not relying on a over $10 Million study telling us we want and need.

I never did think that Fish who is into public housing ought to be in charge of our public park land, but then again, who in those "high perches at city hall" can we count on to be good stewards of our public resources?
I liked taking a walk in that lovely area, what a shame if taken and filled with cookie cutter clutter. With so much infill and more projected, open space is needed more than ever.
I recall that community center was well used.
Shame on Fish, just another reason to recall him.

By the way, how was that parkland acquired?
Was it donated, in perpetuity to remain as open space? What is the history, was that building a school?

Clicky Web Analytics