This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 28, 2013 8:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was Attention, please, this is your pirate speaking. The next post in this blog is Maybe they should just go on his lawn. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Here's the official bullpuckey

The City of Portland's agenda of making apartment developers rich is always wrapped in a cocoon of misleading platitudes. Here's the latest version from the current crop of "planning" devils and dupes.

It starts with the false assertion that the population will grown by "132,000 households" over the next 22 years. At a 1% annual growth rate, which tracks what's actually happened over the last decade or more, the population growth over that period will be only about 144,000 people, and so unless all the new households are single hipsters, the bureaucrats are lying already. And the falsehoods build from there.

Portland "planning" may have been a great thing 40 years ago, but now it's wrecking the place. Joe Zehnder wants your livability on a silver platter to give to Homer Williams, Mark Edlen, and their ilk.

We moved here by choice. Our kids will doubtlessly move out the same way.

Comments (18)

I love the pictures on page 2, where the planners play Risk with the 150,000 new baristas, singer-songwriters, and food cart operators.

And there is plenty more to come.

Metro just sent out another push poll regarding tailpipe emissions. They don't differentiate "pollution" from carbon dioxide, and fail to show that even bicyclists emit a large amount of CO2. Undoubtedly they will use the data to show overwhelming public support for their solutions.

Of course the solutions presented are more restrictive land use planning, more light rail, more bicyclists, and more apartment bunkers.

The city of Portland's Climate Action Plan predicts that 'climate refugees' will move to Portland:


Powerful social change will accompany these physical impacts. Most obviously, large numbers of people will likely move from hotter, drier regions to cooler, wetter ones. “Climate refugees” will almost certainly have a major effect on population shifts in the 21st century. The Pacific Northwest, which likely will experience less drastic initial impacts of climate change than other regions of the country, may well experience population growth significantly above current expectations

I think the ultimate goal is to make suburban living too expensive for most; forcing people out of single family suburban neighborhoods and into dense, government subsidized apartments.

"may well experience"

Yeah you betcha.

And without any indication of it occurring ever they will cling to it being "almost certainly" to occur.

Anything to justify their existence and the perpetual planning of bad plans for the sake of planning what we cannot possibly do without.

Even if positive proof emerged that there is zero benefit form all of their planning the arena would insist on self preservation as a jobs program.
Planning bureaucrats and consultants are vital ya know.


Dual Public Investment Strategy


We are going to screw you twice as much as previously because people are waking up to the scam. We now need to speed up the plans for total control of all property and commerce.

Ironic, for a city that values "local" and "independent" - do we REALLY want our living facilities (apartments, condos) controlled by a couple of very large, out of state corporate interests?

Very large, out of state corporate interests = Very large campaign contributions.

My kids who grew up here have already fled. Both parents are looking to do the same.

There are 250,000 households in the city and if there were a 1% growth rate (doubtful) you would add 61,000 over 22 years.

The number of households actually declined during the recession, as kids moved back in with parents, singles moved in with other singles and families, etc. I wonder what the new figures are nationally on household creation. I would guess the figures are still well below pre-recession numbers, and if jobs don't materialize in significant numbers, with decent income, I would guess the household creation percentage will remain low.

Don't worry. If their pictures are true, everyone will be happy, well dressed, fit, engaged in their natural environment, the built environment will be village-like, human-scale and friendly with adequate tree canopy to scrub the CO2 the humans expell, and it will always be sunny. So no worries, the future is always just around the corner and will be here soon! :- )


I think the ultimate goal is to make suburban living too expensive for most; forcing people out of single family suburban neighborhoods and into dense, government subsidized apartments.

It sure does look that way.
Question is how are they going to about achieving that goal? There are many nefarious ways and one is the use of blight.
Such a loose interpretation meaning whatever the city determines it will be, so watch out for your neighborhoods. Not only suburban ones but the traditional inner city neighborhoods are looked at with disdain by planners and others who apparently want everyone to live in the tiny units and within their 20 minute "newly" created environments and more behavioral control.

Another way to get people out of homes is to tax them out and the way things are going in this city, could happen.
What is this big drive to get people to live in subsidized public housing?
(city calls this affordable housing)
Perhaps Nick Fish, Commissioner of Housing could explain to the public just what this subsidized housing (affordable housing) is really all about? We have a right to know, don't we, especially if that is the end goal here, but according to an activist in this city who wants information on this, he indicates that council will not address this matter.

The city of Portland's Climate Action Plan predicts that 'climate refugees' will move to Portland:


These planners will bring up anything and everything to achieve their goal here, and
more apartment bunkers!

I would say if that indeed does happen, we can always build at that time, not on the mantra that "they will be coming" so we have to prepare and sacrifice our city livability right now!!

2013 Mar 28 Thursday 14:10 U (2:00 PM PT)

Great entry Jack!
By the By thanks so much for your help in opposition of the Portland Streetcar extension to Lake Oswego.

Do not move to Arlington VA in Washington DC metroplex. Irony of ironies (bad pun wrt Oregon Ironworks). They are considering a streetcar from the environs of the Pentagon to Arlington VA. Streetcar pictured looks like a touched up image from 3 - 4 years ago. Destination sign I think reads "Waterfront". See
"Arlington streetcar plan prompts debate amongst residents" At:

2013 Mar 28 Thursday 14:50 U (2:50 PM PT)

RE clineman post on 2013 Mar 28 Thursday 13:09 U (1:09 PM PT)

"I think the ultimate goal is to make suburban living too expensive ..."

This statement is becoming administration policy FAST.

1. Stanly Kurtz blog entry
"Obama’s Plans for the Suburbs: And How to Stop Them"

2. Department of Energy (DOE) source policy document referenced in above blog entry.
URL: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/transportationenergyfutures/
Heading on page: Transportation Demand
Item Title: Effects of the Built Environment ...

TriMet and Metro helped create this policy through Attachment 10 to 1994 Westside Light Rail Full Funding Grant Agreement
Items 1.2 and 1.3 for details.

"I think the ultimate goal is to make suburban living too expensive ..."

That was a quote from Anthony that I put in italics, but, I liked what he said and wrote further thoughts about it.

It may be time for a big meeting of citizens around the area to sort this out, and decide best do to put ourselves in decision making about where we live.

We have been kept too busy with "city meetings" and having to stay adhered to their agenda.

This blog has been great for a way to communicate about issues, hearing the news from LO and Clackamas area. We need to stay in touch somehow.

I'd revise that statement to, "making suburban single family residences too expensive." It's ironic while, at the same time, plenty of government folks seem to be pushing home ownership. Mixed message? Without a doubt.

At the same time, apartment living in the inner city has become unaffordable, for the most part, driving hapless workers out to Beaverton, Hillsboro, Cornelius, Rockwood and Gresham where they are forced to commute to work on the MAX or endure bumper-to-bumper traffic twice a day.

It's OK to live in the outlying areas. You just won't be able to afford an actual house.

Clicky Web Analytics