Looks like Opie got his 50%-plus one, saving taxpayers a couple of bucks in VOE payments. Burdick's loss also prevents a Goldschmidt clean sweep.

This just into the newsroom... Neil Goldschmidt left public office fifteen years ago after some girl trouble, which some folks still seem to be obsessed about all these years later.

Daphne,

What are Neil's top two agenda items for the next two years?

I'll take Kulo over Ron "I'll turn moderate before Nov" Saxton....anyday

Plus... I appreciate some of the stands Westlund has made, but a vote for him is Nader-esque. We'll end up with Saxton in office.

How do we know Westlund has given up the GOP for good? Was this just an election year ploy?

Of course, voters won't really know what these guys are about since most questions from the "O" concern heavy topics such as "favorite pizza?" or "Last time you went to church?".

It sounds like a damned good reason to support Westlund.

Thats odd, what Daphne calls "girl trouble" the law seems to refer to as RAPE!

AHH yes the day after the election , where progressive portland gets to bask in the warm progressive feeling of status quo.

On paper, Westlund should draw more votes from Saxton than Kulo... we WAS part of the GOP after all

Who knows.

All this election means to Portland, particularly when it comes to Sten is that slightly over 50% of the voters in Portland are happy with high utility rates, unpaved roads, crumbling schools, not enough police, a business tax that scares businesses from real growth, a growing homeless population, and like the plan to recruit the creative class with their low wage jobs to the city. And there's so much more, but it makes me get a migraine when I think of the mess that Portland will continue to be.

Way to go Portland! Free tram rides for all!

Why is it the voter turnout is so darned low? You can't make it much easier for voters than our vote-by-mail system. How hard is it to pencil-in your votes and drop your ballot in the mailbox???? I just don't get it.

Sign o' the times I guess...

Goldschmidt was just the "go to" guy for a machine that continues to grind on with the MSM's blessings. There was a front page article in the O -I think it was last Friday-on how candidates-RL was mentioned-had to get Neil's approval before running for office. It implied that that is all over now that Neil isn't registering on the public radar. But that doesn't mean the machine-with its media manager cogs-isn't still in operation. The article didn't get into what can happen to those who get too independent in this state. I am very disappointed that the electorate-and the people of Oregon generally- have allowed this to happen.

Maybe Mr. Saxton will become governor and fire all the state employees, as he has stated he would.

Why is it the voter turnout is so darned low? You can't make it much easier for voters than our vote-by-mail system. How hard is it to pencil-in your votes and drop your ballot in the mailbox???? I just don't get it."

When there are no good choices among the candidates, it's hard to justify wasting a stamp to mail in the ballot!

I think for Portland, the election results actually mean that the Goldschmidt/West Hills/PBA crowd has lost the ability to control Portland elections and Portland politicians. Their incompetence makes Sten look like a management genius.

First, they inexcusably spend $300,000 in a failed attempt to refer VOE to the voters, who would have overwhelmingly repealed it. Second, they run a candidate against Sten who runs a miserable campaign and hardly even registers at 27%, getting slightly more than half as many votes as Sten. Third, they piss off people like Dave Lister, who should be a natural ally, to the point that he says he'll endorse Sten!

And people think government is incompetent.

The Goldschmidt cabal may still control the gubernatorial race, but Portland has shed itself of that particular albatross.

And while this won't endear me to people here, I think we should respect Portland voters a little bit more. The Oregonian ran scathing editorials about Sten, the local media and blogs covered all of his foibles, and yet half of voters still supported him. They weren't duped, they aren't stupid, they just looked around and decided that they like Portland and they like Sten. Maybe they weren't quite as angry as everyone thought they were.

This just into the newsroom... Neil Goldschmidt left public office fifteen years ago after some girl trouble, which some folks still seem to be obsessed about all these years later.

Ironic, then, that yours would be the first comment to mention said "girl trouble." (Is that what the kids are calling "rape" these days?)

Amen Miles...

Miles,

I don't think Sten has been as compliant as some good olds may have liked, but he is as obligated to Homer and his "vision" as anyone. As for Portland voters, I think many of the smarter people have given up as Sam suggests. As for the rest, there is quite a bit they don't know-and won't know-so long as the media limits coverage-not to what is out there and can be proved, but to what their friends want people to know.

No doubt there are 'power brokers' in this city and every other city, but I hesitate to jump on the local conspiracy hype. At the federal level, yes (when you have billions or trillions at stake, the illuminati have a way finding strings to pull). It's too easy and convenient to be cynical and say faceless strawmen controll the shots. For those that show their face, like Homer, you can't possibly think that he's the piper of the smart growth movement and Sten is just following along... he's just here to capitalize on construction initiatives just like everyone else in his line of work does.

On that point, I'd like to know which is worse: a businessman who gets ahead by working with local government on initiatives that are closely aligned? Or a businessman who gets ahead by suing the State or local municipality to open up productive farmland so he can put 150 identical Arbor homes on it? Sheesh, guys...

Yes now I dont have to vote for governor I have a choice between 2 poisons and both are liberalism.

When there are no good choices among the candidates, it's hard to justify wasting a stamp to mail in the ballot!

That, and the fact that nothing ever changes. (Even if we do vote, stuff gets overturned or built anyway.)
Doesnt matter who is in office, none of them give a flying crap about the people that put them there. About the only thing left to really get the point across is another revolution.

"and like the plan to recruit the creative class with their low wage jobs to the city"

My "low wage" creative class job pays about twice the Oregon median income. Which means I and everyone else like me in this industry group pays a boatload of taxes. Not so bad, I think. Folks probably said the same stuff about all the high-tech workers after the transition from lumber in the early 80's.

The only people who look down their noses at "creatives" are the people who wish they had some creativity.

Kinda like the myth that nobody is using MAX when The Oregonian reports MAX carries about 1/3 of all commuters into town every morning.

Imagine that MAXY haters, imagine that???

"They weren't duped, they aren't stupid, they just looked around and decided that they like Portland and they like Sten. Maybe they weren't quite as angry as everyone thought they were."

I think the voters saw Sten as the lesser of the three evils. Lister might be a nice guy and everything, but he voted for Bush so that eliminates him from the equation. Burdick is an out of touch warmed up PDC T.V. dinner with no charisma or vision for change. Just because they voted for Sten doesn't mean they like him.

I predict that Sten will win it more or less by default with a large margin of victory in November. I suppose we have much to ponder the issue of how things might have turned out if Amanda Fritz had run against Sten instead of Saltzman.

yet half of voters still supported him. They weren't duped, they aren't stupid

Yeah, just like voters in the '04 presidential election.

Yes now I dont have to vote for governor I have a choice between 2 poisons and both are liberalism.

Don't forget Westlund - he never met a tax he didn't like. That makes 3 poisons.

Daphne, try reading for comprehension before spouting.

"The 44-mile network carries one-third of all transit rides in the Portland area."
Oregonian:
What's ahead for MAX and why it matters
(May 14, 2006)

That's completely different than "1/3 of all commuters ride MAX every morning."

Good lord, with clueless people like you, no wonder Sten won.

Miles - Take a look at Sam Adams' calendar - He is still having lunches with Neil's partners in the PR firm. However, I have to give Mr Adams props for at least being open about it.

Erik, Saltzman, Randy and Potter don't pucblish their calendars since they don't want to leave a trail.

I think things might improve a bit if Portland
elected council members by district. People might see the point if they had a specific candidate to represent them at cityhall. Campaigns would possibly cost less, meaning that others than the white boy network that runs things might have a chance.
Yes I know there was an intiative a few years back to create districts, but it was flawed from the getgo and the people aren't stupid to vote for something like that.
M.W.

No doubt there are 'power brokers' in this city and every other city, but I hesitate to jump on the local conspiracy hype.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but according to a former staffer at Goldschmidt's "Children's Fund" --my wife-- Goldschmidt was promising an OHSU tram YEARS ago. Ta-dah! And whatever the merits of the PUD and city proposals, he also worked actively to keep power generation OUT of public hands.

I'd say his agenda is still on the table.

A while ago I asked the winemaker at Penner-Ash why they still market a "Goldschmidt vineyard" Pinot Noir...isn't that a PR problem? Nah, it's a sell-out. (No pun intended.)

We've short memories, a press that's alternately lazy, brilliant, stupid and suppressed. And even bulging out to whale proportions, Goldschmidt had a certain "star" quality and presence that was amazing.

That Commissioner Leonard publicly copped to his visit to the Godfather speaks well to Leonard's honesty. That this exercise remained de rigeur for politicians speaks badly about our democracy.

I'm reminded of an old Phil Ochs song's intro, in referring to the Nixon-Humphrey race: "In order to have an election you have to have a choice...the boys decreed it's the war we need, so there's no president at all."

It would be nice to have a governor after all this time.

I find it interesting the way the word "conspiracy" gets spun in these parts to connnote insanity or consorting with space aliens,when all it really means is an agreement to get around the law.

"On that point, I'd like to know which is worse: a businessman who gets ahead by working with local government on initiatives that are closely aligned? Or a businessman who gets ahead by suing the State or local municipality to open up productive farmland so he can put 150 identical Arbor homes on it? Sheesh, guys..."

p.s. TK, I think this is pretty much a false dichotomy. I'd settle for a government that was careful to protect basic services for its citizens. After all, planning is constitutional because it PROTECTS the public interest from -among other things-land speculators, whether they be urban and entwined or rural and ruthless. I get tired of being told that if we question what is going on, we will be faced with land use chaos.Homer's way or the highway. I think we are more likely to come up with a workable system that won't have to sustain ballot measure challenge after ballot measure challenge.

Cynthia-

I think we generally agree on most points in these forums... But in this discussion, I felt the room needed a reality check to the condos(bad!), Homer(Snake Oil salesman!), Sten(our leader can't have gap teeth and a baby face!) extreme cynicism that sometimes overtakes what could provide balanced prospective.

If any rational person were to take a step back and review what smart, long-term planning has done, you couldn't possibly deny it has paid dividends when you contrast it with other cities. And I don't buy the BS that UGBs are the sole or primary reason property values are the way they are. I'll ask anyone here: Which cities --of comparable size or bigger, located on the Western or Eastern seaboard-- have a more affordable housing market than Portland? Well, maybe Jacksonville but... who the hell wants to live there? I was just in Orlando, where sprawl is starting to get ridiculous... it's at least as expensive as Portland. And the usual gripe about lot sizes? It's really no diffrent elsewhere! If you've seen one trac home, you've seen them all.

My point is, we must be doing SOMETHING right, but you wouldn't know it with the all-or-nothing CW in forums. With the exception of school funding problems... we live in paradise, people. If you don't think so, Florida would love to have you. Don't tell me SoWa or pensions are the problem, we've had funding issues for as long as I can remember. Portland gets pennies back from every taxdollar it sends the state for schools. Small communities get the ballance. We're probably giving Burns a brand new track and football field, as we speak.

My rant is not directed at you Cynthia, just the group. Because I'm feelin' post-election punchy.

Daphne : The only people who look down their noses at "creatives" are the people who wish they had some creativity.
JK: And how many people do you employ, how many books have you had published, how many products have you created?

Daphne : Kinda like the myth that nobody is using MAX when The Oregonian reports MAX carries about 1/3 of all commuters into town every morning.
JK: Apparently you are not creative enough to look behind the numbers. Here is the reality:
TriMet's usual claim is the at MAX carries 1/3 of the commuters along US26 and along the Banfield:

1. There are three lanes of freeway and one track in each direction. So, in 1/4 the "lanes" MAX caries 1/3 of the riders or about that of 1 1/3 freeway lanes. But they stopped the bus service (so much for choice!) So around 2/3 of those MAX riders would be in buses not cars. That leaves 1/3 of the MAX riders which MAY other wise be in cars. The real effect of max is to remove as many as 1/3 of its riders from cars. 1/3 of 1 1/3 is .44 or 44% of one lane of freeway. But max costs MANY times what a lane of freeway costs. Light rail costs too much and does too little.

2. As to those 1/3 that were not former bus riders and presumably attracted out of cars, there is another group that TriMet does not talk about: People who took the bus, but went back to their cars when max made their commute longer or more unpleasant. This is an effect, that some claim, is large enough to match the 1/3 new riders for NO NET INCREASE in ridership due to rail.

3. Of course only a small percentage of jobs are in downtown anymore, so TriMet's share of overall travel to work is much smaller than that implied by the market share of commuters to downtown - only 5.6% total, 5.1% bus and 0.5% rail (US Census data, 2000 "means of travel to work")

4. Trimet's market share of travel to work has only increased by 1% in the last decade for which US census data is available. At that rate TriMet will have half of us out of our cars in only 500 years.

5. It is not obvious but, those ridership numbers that TriMEt touts are not really ridership - they are boardings. The difference is that if you commute to work and back, you board twice - once each way. If you transferred then you boarded more than once each way. So a single round trip is at least two boardings. If you transfer each way, you are four boardings, etc.

7. When they open a rail line, they stop the bus service, forcing people to transfer to the train. This has two effects: 1) It inflates the boardings (which TriMet falsely touts as a great increase in transit users.) 2) It makes some people's commute less desirable and they go back to their cars.

6. Since TriMet loses money on every ride, an increase in ridership will require higher taxes to support it.

7. Comparing max to freeways is apple to oranges - mass transit to private cars. If you put all those max riders in buses on an added fourth lane (would have cost less max did) then you would have about 80% of the added road capacity left for cars, mostly solving our congestion problem. It would have been cheaper too.

Restated: put all of the max riders in buses and they would take less than 1/5 of ONE LANE of freeway. Light rail costs too much and does too little. It is Goldshits worst bad joke on us.

Daphne : Imagine that MAXY haters, imagine that???
JK: Now that you know the lies behind max, do you have any comments?
BTW do you have a last name? Do you happen to work for a government agency or contractor to a government agency?

Thanks
JK (who receives no income from city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth)

Maybe, just maybe, folks should start viewing commuter rail as a necessary evil that materializes once any city gets to a certain population threshold. Much like roads, bridges, sewers, etc... it's not supposed to be a revenue source. Fares can help offset costs, but it's a train, people. Any city this size needs a train... any city worth it's salt needs to have a flippin' train. It's amazing that the argument even comes up. There are over 2.1 million in the metro area!

People USE the thing. You can see it with your own two eyes. The only way they could move more peole during rush hour is to buy more trains. Ridership is uneven throughout the day? Well, it IS a commuter train afterall, and until everyone starts working graveshift, that's probably to be expected.

That said, I think the downtown extention is a bad idea... the transit mall is in dire need of a facelift for the sake of merchants, but the streetcar is a better fit. That line would be used more with a connection north of Pioneer Sq where it's sorely needed. MAX doesn't make sense in that capacity.

Jim -- There's something to be said for having a parsimonious argument. Even if you're right -- and I make no claim to know much about the economics of mass transit -- your argument SOUNDS like you've delved deep into statistical parsing to avoid the obvious: lots of people in PDX ride mass transit, and if mass transit didn't exist, those people would drive, which would bring traffic to a standstill. Yes, we could just build more roads, but I'm not aware of any highway project that actually reduced gridlock. Once built, it fills up until it's clogged again and the cost of driving on it outweighs the benefit.

And I have to object to you always trying to find out if someone is or is not a public employee or contractor with the government or working for whomever you believe is the antichrist. Blogs are about ideas. . . if you disagree with someone's ideas, say so -- prove them wrong -- but don't make it about the person. That's a shallow, limiting way to approach a debate.

Miles ...the obvious: lots of people in PDX ride mass transit, and if mass transit didn't exist, those people would drive, which would bring traffic to a standstill.
JK: You obviously missed a few facts.

>First I was talking about max, not "mass transit".

>Most max riders were previously in buses not cars.

>The people that max may have removed from the freeway is less than 1/2 a freeway lane.

>Had we spent the money on one added lane we would have been able to have all max riders in buses AND a lot of extra road capacity and a big pile of money left over. And that extra money could have been used for better bus service which would attract more riders to transit than we now have. Light rail costs too much and does too little.

Miles Yes, we could just build more roads, but I'm not aware of any highway project that actually reduced gridlock.
JK: That is because we quit adding road capacity years ago. In Houston they have built freeways at about the same rate as demand increased and they have kept congestion under control. (This is a little fact that transit promoters don't like to talk about)

Miles Once built, it fills up until it's clogged again and the cost of driving on it outweighs the benefit.
JK: Ahh!! The old induced demand fallacy. Do you really believe that people would drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if they didn't have congestion? Recent studies show that this is 90% BS. But suppose it weren't - it is the job of government's transportation departments to provide the services we want not what they want for us.

Miles And I have to object to you always trying to find out if someone is or is not a public employee or contractor with the government or working for whomever you believe is the antichrist. Blogs are about ideas. . .
JK: And they are also fertile ground for PDC and TriMet shills promoting their agenda and for people seeking to pawn worthless projects on the taxpayers.

Did I hit a nerve?

Thanks
JK (who receives no income from city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth

I supose the question I would posit to JK (if I may call you that), would be-what if the city were to continue to build light rail at the cost of not building new roads; shouldn't sufficient demand for rapid transportation compel (or coerce depending on your perspective) the numbers of ridership on mass transit, including the max, to rise? Granted this is sort of machiavellian in character and it is quite disturbing, but none-the-less, as people in favor and "informed" cite New York's subway system and its prolific use, often. So, to sum up: increase traffic means more people stop driving and take public transit-more people taking public transit means higher ridership on max, right? Or am I mistaken?

On a side note, purely annecdotal, in my experiences coming from a middle-class family from mid-county Multnomah (born when it was outside Portland, raised when it was annexed), most, if not all people I know like the idea of the max. They have used it on occasion (I know, way too expensive for occasional use), but still there remains, I think, a significant population that do like the max, like its presence and use it often-when they can. So... what I'm saying is, it's there because the people might want it to be. Again, this is purely annecdotal.

one last thing-i'm a student. i'm not employed, and any money I get comes from my mom-who doesn't work for any government.

in my experiences coming from a middle-class family from mid-county Multnomah (born when it was outside Portland, raised when it was annexed), most, if not all people I know like the idea of the max.

I think thats because most people dont understand what MAX actually costs the taxpayers to run. Its been sold as the "best thing since sliced bread" by the power elite of downtown Portland. Last I checked, taxpayers subsidize nearly $10 per rider, per boarding.
I ride MAX every day from Beaverton to work downtown. I also have a small fuel-efficient car, and know my fuel bill, even at $3 per gallon would be less than the $72/mo I pay for a transit pass if I drove to work. Its the cost of parking downtown that forces me on MAX. $150-$200/mo to park a car is just silly.

As for the ridership, I see it every day. Yes, at rush hour there is the occasional packed train. Usually right at 5pm. But I guarantee, the next couple trains are nearly empty. Every day. At least the ones going West.

Hey TK - I don't think Portland is as affordable (relative to other coastal cities) as you think when you factor in incomes vs. housing cost. I don't have the sources offhand, but I've seen several studies that show Portland is one of the more expensive places to live in that regard. And I think you're silly if you don't believe that the UGB has much to do with housing prices...

Question: what decent First World city, of Portland's size or larger, does not have some kind of rail network? I am legitimately asking and not (for once) trying to be a sarcastic jerk.

As far as housing prices are concerned, we just witnessed a market correction that coincided with the financing boom of the past 5+ years. People from other coastal cities (California especially) found that Portland had unbelivably low housing prices relative to its size, location, livablility, etc. All of a sudden, Portland was ripe for property prospecting on the bigger market. Also, don't discount the role of the internet in making our country 'smaller', or more accessable between locales. Amazing amounts of real estate resouces have been made available online within the last few years, which only helps to grease the slide.

If you pick up magazines from other cities, you'll see they still talk about Portland as having an affordable housing market. Obviously there is a disconnect here.

We're in agreement on your last post, TK. Which I think kinda underscores my point that while we may not be overly expensive compared with other West Coast cities, we're less affordable in relation to our incomes. No doubt in my mind that the legions of folks who are selling their 3 bedroom ranch house in SoCal for $700,000 and then moving here to buy a house is increasing demand and inflating prices.

TK,

What I am trying to say is we could be doing more planning,i.e. alternatives and impact anaysis as well as monitoring to preserve and enhance the quality of life here and less free-style dreaming and hero worshiping. I don't think the proper comparison is to other cities, but we need to look realistically at how are projects pencil out-now and in the future. A reality check, as you put it. I support transit in concept, but accomplishing it via sweetheart deals sours it. I think public partnerships sound better in theory than they turn out in practice. If we are going to have them at all, they need to be hammered out in the light of day for all to witness, imho. And I am no financial analyst, but those who are cautioning us to slow the pace of development resonate with me.

JK: Ahh!! The old induced demand fallacy. Do you really believe that people would drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if they didn't have congestion?. . . .[I]t is the job of government's transportation departments to provide the services we want not what they want for us.

Miles: We do want light rail -- that's why we keep voting for it.

One reason commuters use MAX is that driving on the Sunset and I-84 is impossible at rush hour. If you make it possible, those people will start driving again. Commuters also stagger their trips to avoid the worst traffic. Build more roads, and they'll switch back to 8:00 a.m. start time.

But the more important variable is the non-commuter. When I occasionally take a day off I'm amazed at how many people are out and about midday -- shopping, running errands, whatever. Those people have flexibility that commuters don't have in terms of when they travel, and they avoid rush hour because it's crowded. Build more road capacity and the non-commuters will start using the main roads during rush hour. Traffic will increase until a new equilibrium is reached.

JK: And [blogs] are also fertile ground for PDC and TriMet shills promoting their agenda and for people seeking to pawn worthless projects on the taxpayers. Did I hit a nerve?

Miles: Who cares that a posting here is done by someone from PDC or TriMet? If they're right, they're right, and if they're wrong, you'll prove it to them (and maybe they'll learn something). Trying to take an intellectual shortcut by discounting the views of certain people (public employees, unions, whatever your bias is) is the telltale sign of someone who doesn't have enough confidence in his arguments to believe that they'll stand up on their merits alone.

Mr. Karlock has it right: last year I did a paper on the effectiveness of MAX for a college class. Among other things I found:
1. MAX increased miles driven, because people are more likely to drive to MAX and get on it than board a local bus.
2.Almost 1/3 of Tri-Met system users are light-rail only (that is, they don't ride the bus), and over 3/4 of those people use their cars to commute.
3. By contrast, over 1/3 of trips by bus-only riders are commuting to work; bus-only riders are more likely to depend on public transit as their only transportation, are younger and more likely to be single, have greater ethnic diversity than light rail-only riders, and have a lower average household income.

About the "boardings" vs. riders... Too true. When "research" was done for the Interstate Max Line, each rider was counted twice when they boarded. The assumption being that everyone who was riding would return home on Max as well. BUT, the same people were counted AGAIN on their way home. So that the usage figures were in essence quadrupled for every person who boarded.

Portland should spend transportation monies on converting buses to use bio-diesel. It's the best bang for the dollar. Plus, when a bus breaks down it can moved ou of the way easily. When a MAx car or street car breaks down, everything stops. But buses aren't "glamerous" and there are no big bucks to be made from buses.

Miles: We do want light rail -- that's why we keep voting for it.

Wha..wha...whaaaaaaa??? Are you serious? Light rail was voted down the last couple of times...

I have talked with hundreds of people about their views on MAX. Almost universally, those in favor of MAX say that it cuts down cars and mass transit is good. When presented with what Kai talks about, they say, again, almost universally, "It doesn't matter. MAX is one of the things that makes Portland cool." Or some equivalent ("I know people who moved here bacause of MAX", or "I love it when I ride it.").

Most of those people don't commute by MAX. Some commute by bus or even bike. A chunk don't have cars and get around on our pretty effective bus service. They just think MAX is cool.

On the other side of the coin, those opposed occaisionally ride it and mostly agree on its cool factor, but simply don't think it's worth spending $10 per boarding on.

Oh, and TK, we don't "keep voting for it". As I recall, we voted the first MAX line down twice but Tri-Met got it done anyway. And they never voted again. I'd like to see the Mall and Milwaukie extension on the ballot.

Sorry, I was gone for a few years so I don't know the voting results as well as I should (at least before I write about them). I know the region has supported light rail in the past at the ballot box, and polls show broad support. Can someone give me the scoop on recent votes for light rail? Was opposition to light rail, or the financing method behind it, or both?

Thanks.

Okay, so I looked for myself, and found this link to a pro-light rail website that summarizes the local and statewide votes in Oregon since 1990:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog006.htm

A bit more than halfway down the page:

"Thus, in summary, one can conclude that in the City of Portland itself, it appears that all four light rail referenda have passed, and none has failed; and that, in most of the overall metropolitan area (TriMet service area), three of four have passed."

"...But the project was derailed when Clark County voters turned down their share in 1995. Oregon voters rejected statewide funding for the project in 1996 and again in 1998."

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=35114

I guess it depends on what your definition of "we" is.

Miles:

WOW. Read http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_por_2006-01a.htm
for a shining example of just how light rail keeps getting voted for. When presented like this, we should get rid of all buses.

Of course, it completely ignores capital costs in its operating expense comparison and it assumes that NONE of the housing built within a 1/4 mile of a light rail station would have been built were it not for light rail going in.

I don't like the arguments, either, by the way, that show how awful light rail is by accentuating all the negatives and none of the positives. It's just frustrating not having a truly objective look at the situation. I tend to believe the scenario Jim Karlock presents, that it would be far more effective to have added a fourth lane on 26 and made it a HOV/Bus lane. Cheaper, anyway.

And if middle class white people won't ride buses, they don't deserve trains.

Yeah, I'm not defending the content or substance of the website, it was just a convenient listing of light rail votes. Assuming they are accurate, there is significant support in the Portland and TriMet areas. Statewide is a different story, but why should we expect them to support funding for something that doesn't impact them at all? After all, Portland voters only send millions elsewhere in the state to pay for non-Portlander's kids to have a top-knotch public education, and it would be selfish of us to expect anything in return.

I agree that we need an objective look at the costs and benefits -- something that we don't get in Oregon from either side of the spectrum. And if adding a lane to Hwy. 26 solved the problem for less, I could be swayed. But I still believe in the induced demand theory of traffic, so I don't think it's a long-term solution. But maybe there is evidence to the contrary?

So this has morphed into a Trimet issue.
Well you know what the say: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're Trimet."
Michael

Don- I think you had me confused with Miles on the voting statement.

To Don and Miles- I'm with you on bringing some intellectual honesty in this argument. On that note, I have acknowledged the negatives for MAX and I'm unfazed. It is a necessary evil (read: not a revenue stream, part of infrustructure) that any city with a 2.1M metro population, any worth its salt, has to deal with. It's a commuter train, and it's filled with commuters. Sounds like a winner to me.

Portlanders are amazing. You have such a great city, and yet you beat yourselves to death trying to convince yourselves that it isn't.

High property values? Ha! Start worrying when property values decline like they have in parts of the Midwest. Sure housing is cheaper in Indianpolis, but it's because fewer people want to live there. Would you? There, it's the opposite: somewhat lower taxes, but little investment in the future, and many young people moving away to places like, well, Portland. In the main, housing costs are simply the lens under which we can gain an understanding of whether cities are viable, or not. Too many Portland skeptics focus on the supply side -- the supposed effect of the UGB, for example. Instead, they should consider the demand side, that maybe people are willing to pay more to live in Portland and work for lower wages simply because it's such a great place to live. I mean, if it weren't, why are all you critics still living there?

A lot of cities would like to have the luxury of debating what you see as problems. Count your blessings. I think you all drink too much coffee.

You got that right John!

Fortune magazine predicts Portland homes will go up about eight percent next year, after a series of 15 and 20-percent increases.

Las Vegas will go DOWN 20 percent. Miami plummeting too.

The last time Portland home prices went down was 1980, under The GOP and Reagan, naturally.

"The last time Portland home prices went down was 1980, under The GOP and Reagan, naturally."

Daphne, your lack of financial knowlege is really showing.

It's not Portland proper that's such a great place to live, it's the northwest in general. We are blessed with a temperate, low-humidity environment close to a myriad of natural beauty and recreational options. Plus, transplants who've sold their homes in SoCal for a pretty penny can get into a real nice place in Oregon mortgage-free. That's why our population is rising, not because of downtown Portland's 'livability' (ergo MAX).

BTW, Multnomah cty only grew by 3.2% since 2000, Deschutes cty grew by 17.4%

It's of course a subjective issue, but Portland proper is an incredible place to live -- one of the best in the country. Portland neighborhoods are vibrant, Portland boasts an excellent parks system, the public schools are still very good by national standards (although not the jewels they were in past decades), the people are friendly, and growth is being managed well. Downtown Portland is great, with top-knotch restaurants and shopping, and an easy transportation system to take you from the farmer's market to Saturday market to NW for lunch.

Our population is rising because people visit and they fall in love with the City. If Portland was dying, the market wouldn't allow for housing prices that rise as you approach the city core. You get much more for $300,000 in Gresham and Beaverton than you do in Portland -- and the reason is that people are willing to pay a premium to be close to downtown. The real estate market doesn't lie.

Last month, a West Hills matron dumped her hubby (or vice versa) and sold their small, view shack for $629,000 and thought she could go to Hawthorne and buy TWO houses for that money.

Sorry!

Ms. Matron just bought a very nice, totally re-done shack in Hawthorne... by the park... for... $609,000. No view. But she says she is lovin walking to everything and making new friends at the wine bar (wink, wink).