Some comments may have been lost (at least temporarily) due to a server failure on April 14, 2007.

Some folks are just sure that any problem issue can be managed.

Children are just another problem.

Posted by rr | April 9, 2007 11:12 AM

JK: Smart growth means different things in different areas. If I recall the issue in several East coast regions is a minimum lot size of many acres. In this article I found the min lot size was reduced from one-two per acre to four -five per acre:

Although the movement has helped New Jersey preserve hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands, shoreline and forest, the state has had a harder time getting towns to create neighborhoods with four or five homes per acre instead of the one or two homes found in most suburbs.
Inner Portland neighborhoods are typically 5000 sq ft lots, about 8.7 per acre.

Bottom line: they are building at about the density that people in Portland prefer: the basic urban lot with a decent back yard. Not the 1000 sq ft per unit that our idiot planners are forcing on our neighborhoods by re-zoning vast swaths of the city without our consent. Or the high density tax supported Pearl and Sowhat. Or the high density TODs that are causing congestion by causing more trips in a given area as the trips per person does not go down fast enough to compensate for the more persons. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

But their planners are also showing their lack of common sense:
Route 33, now a major thoroughfare, was supposed to be transformed into an old-fashioned commercial center, with slower traffic and parking and shops lining both sides of the street.
The idiots think people want to waste time driving in slower traffic through an old-fashioned commercial center when we can get the job done quicker and cheaper in a strip mall or a big box. On street parking is more dangerous than off parking, but planners never seem to let safety get in the way of re-creating the past.

This little gem makes me appreciate Don MacIntyre’s measure 5 which limits our tax to 2% ($2.00 per $100):
Last year, Washington Township’s tax rate was $4.78 per $100 of assessed value, up from $2.57 per $100 of assessed value in 1998. Town officials said they plan another 7 percent increase in the tax rate this year.
Could you stay in your present home if you had to pay 2 ½ times the property tax that you do now?

I have to comment on this:
“We’re constantly hitting a brick wall because the average resident doesn’t really get the benefits of a pedestrian-friendly concept,” said Jodi Stephens, ...”

He thinks like a planner - he thinks planning should be to force people to conform to their silly ideas instead of planning for how people want to live. That is why we would be better of if most of Portland’s 200 planners found honest work, say as fortune tellers.

Thanks
JK

Posted by jim karlock | April 9, 2007 11:53 AM

Jim,

it's reasonably well-accepted (among planners) that part of urban planning is behavior modification. of course, the same can be said of laws.

for example, building thousands of miles of highways was a planned, intentional form of behavior modification, especially in the Western US.

i agree with your sentiments about smart growth, but when someone says "planning for how people want to live", i (and planners, hopefully) always ask: which people?

and that's the problem. who do you plan for? The Pearl was fairly carefully "planned". it's jammed full of residents and shoppers, accomodating the way "they want to live." yet, i don't care for the area at all. i think it's a failure on many levels.

Posted by ecohuman | April 9, 2007 12:17 PM

JK and I noticed the same thing from the article about local property taxes being over twice as high in NJ than in Portland, OR. But whereas JK's response was to thank Don Macintire, mine was to remember reading somewhere that New Jersey has some of the best public schools in the country. Personally, I'd be happy to pay twice what I currently pay in property taxes if we could return Oregon's public schools to the gems that they were pre-Measure 5.

Posted by Miles | April 9, 2007 12:52 PM

i agree with your sentiments about smart growth, but when someone says "planning for how people want to live", i (and planners, hopefully) always ask: which people?

Personally, I dont believe local planners think that way at all. I think its just the opposite. It seems they plan for the way they want people to live.

Posted by Jon | April 9, 2007 12:53 PM

ecohuman it's reasonably well-accepted (among planners) that part of urban planning is behavior modification. of course, the same can be said of laws.
JK: Yes, but laws are made by elected reps, more or lee in the open. Planners schemes are kept secret till they are sprung on us. Like re-zoning Portland a few years ago. Or the “accidentally” forgetting to place a minimum build able lot size in a R5 zone. Or a new light rial line - they just spring up with the public’s first notice being an open house asking what color to paint the stations (so to speak).

ecohuman for example, building thousands of miles of highways was a planned, intentional form of behavior modification, especially in the Western US.
JK: No it wasn’t. It was to make transpiration more efficient. It lowered everyone’s cost of living, thus improving all our lives. I am constantly amazed at how little regard planners have for improving our standard of living when it conflicts with looking nice or a “sense of community”.

And don’t forget that people have been leaving the central cities since well before the interstate highway system. It started several centuries ago with the rich. Modern technology just allowed more people to live the like the rich. Why do planners think that is bad?

The very name suburb traces its roots to Rome. That is how old sprawl is. It did not start with an efficient road system.

ecohuman i agree with your sentiments about smart growth, but when someone says "planning for how people want to live", i (and planners, hopefully) always ask: which people?
JK: Which people? It is not which people. It is to allow the most freedom for the most people. For instance, when you see where people moving to an area, be sure that they have sewer, water, and ROADS. You do not look at a map and say we will build a new town in Damascus while the jobs are in Hillsboro. Only a planner is dumb enough to do that. A free market would build houses where there is demand and that is likely to be within a reasonable distance of jobs, not on the other side of town.

ecohuman and that's the problem. who do you plan for? The Pearl was fairly carefully "planned". it's jammed full of residents and shoppers, accomodating the way "they want to live."
JK: And at the expense of others who have to pay for it. The city put $125 million into that experiment and has another $125 million planned. I could be real happy if they put $100 million into my neighborhood. The Pearl is a massive public welfare program, with politically connected developers being a primary beneficiary.

Thanks
JK

Posted by jim karlock | April 9, 2007 1:11 PM

I find it amusing that many of the elements of "smart growth" seem to be plucked from unplanned urban "ideals" that evolved to suit the wants, needs and technological limitations of the 19th and even 18th century economies.

How smart is that?

Posted by rr | April 9, 2007 1:29 PM

JK: Yes, but laws are made by elected reps, more or lee in the open. Planners schemes are kept secret till they are sprung on us.

sometimes. sometimes not. there's evidence for both practices.

JK: No it wasn’t. It was to make transpiration more efficient.

both are true. what you're saying doesn't conflict with what I said.

JK: Which people? It is not which people. It is to allow the most freedom for the most people.

"most freedom" sounds warm and fuzzy to me, but lacking in boundaries. what's going to benefit the most people sounds more reasonable to me. lots of "freedom" has got us where we are today.

JK: And at the expense of others who have to pay for it. The city put $125 million into that experiment and has another $125 million planned. I could be real happy if they put $100 million into my neighborhood.

i agree.

Posted by ecohuman | April 9, 2007 1:46 PM

i attended NJ public schools and found them to be excellent. our local property taxes were about 10k a year for a 300k house about 15 years ago.

we would have to more then double portland property taxes to keep up with that in 2007 dollars.

however, i certainly would be fine with doubling my criminally low property taxes if it equated to better schools.

Posted by george | April 9, 2007 1:49 PM

It depends on where in New Jersey you're going to school -- believe me.

Posted by Jack Bog | April 9, 2007 1:50 PM

george however, i certainly would be fine with doubling my criminally low property taxes if it equated to better schools.
JK: It wouldn’t, it would go to subsidize more high density development.

Thanks
JK

Posted by jim karlock | April 9, 2007 1:55 PM

yea, jack is right to point out that NJ schools vary in quality very widely. i lived in an upper middle class town and my public HS had 95% of its students going on to undergrad.

only about 4 miles down the road you could find schools with a 60% dropout rate...

Posted by george | April 9, 2007 4:37 PM

Having read this blog for a few years I’ve come to believe that some of the frequent contributors truly believe that the people in the Pearl and being held hostage by big government goons aided by evil planner henchmen. If only they could be liberated and educated they would realize how much they would prefer a nice snout house in Tigard with an SUV to drive them around on roads that magically appear without government subsidy.

With that in mind I have a modest proposal. We put together a coalition consisting of Oregon natives and selected others and head down there to free them from their hell. We’re sure to be greeted a liberators – picture the young professionals and empty nesters showering us with petals as with march down Couch. Their may be a few spandex-wearing dead-enders who have been brainwashed into believing that they actually like their life, but if we blow-up all the Flexcars they will surrender in a couple of days. The best part is it won’t cost a cent as we’ll be able to flatten the thousands of apartments and sell the land to Barrett Homes so they can build a couple of hundred proper houses with proper garages. The others we stick in some nice houses built on that unproductive farmland we learned about a couple of days ago.

If this works maybe the people of France will rise up and save those poor sods in Paris, and our New York cousins can rescue the prisoners of Manhattan. I’m getting a nose bleed from the height of this horse so I’ll stop now.

Posted by Sherwood | April 9, 2007 5:13 PM

"We’re sure to be greeted a liberators"

Just watch out for Homer and his armor-plated Segway.

Posted by Allan L. | April 9, 2007 5:27 PM

Ecohuman : please learn your history. The US is a huge country compared to others around the world. Our freeway system was originated in the 50's under DDE primarily as a means to move military equipment around the US if needed. In addition, the GI's coming back from WW2 flocked to the auto with a vengeance and demanded roads to drive on. What a concept it was then, build roads to accommodate the demand of drivers. Now we get light rail and bike lanes few people use.

Posted by Richard S/ | April 9, 2007 6:41 PM

"GI's coming back from WW2 flocked to the auto with a vengeance and demanded roads to drive on"

GI's? You must mean GM.

Posted by Allan L. | April 9, 2007 7:37 PM

Richard,

i know my history.

you're referring to the interstate highway system, which is a *fraction* of the paved highways that exist in America.

Eisenhower's authorization of the Highway Act of '56 pertained to interstate highways.

if you're in doubt, look it up. wait--let me do it for you:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm

Posted by ecohuman | April 9, 2007 9:02 PM

"...people in the Pearl... held hostage by big government goons aided by evil planner henchmen"

Actually, it's the other ~530,000 people in Portland being held hostage. Held hostage by the planners, big government goons, and powerbrokers who have created an enclave for a few thousand select citizens who live in a community sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from the rest of Portland.

Obviously, some people are missing some major points.
A. I would like to have all or most of my property taxes deferred for 5, 10 or 20 years because of sweetheart deals made with friends down at city hall.

B. I'd be glad to have hundreds of millions of dollars invested into my community so that I could benefit, directly, and basically, no one else (unless you want to try to find a parking space near PF Chang) But who is paying for it... not the residents in the Pearl, SoWa, and the next wonderful plan coming out of backrooms.

And let's get it straight, the money spent on all of Katz', Potters, Adams, Wiliams, etc. pet projects have left the rest of Portland holding the bag.

And lastly, a modest lot with a nice house isn't destroying my friends' lives in Tigard. And if you want to use their "subsidized" Tigard streets, feel free.

Posted by Carol | April 9, 2007 9:26 PM

No, Paris is what Sherwood wants. Where the wealthy live in the city with all the services and good transportation, and the poor are relegated to the suburbs to burn automobiles.

That's his view of a "world class city."

Posted by jj | April 9, 2007 10:10 PM

Smart Growth is good. Smart growth defined by non-profits like Ecocitybuilders.org is the way to go. The Pearl and South Waterfront where designed with limited public input, therefore transparency of design and funding was limited. The biggest challenge for Portland's new streetcar set is clean air.
That's why we need to triple the amount of bikes in Portland. Zero pollution vehicles help reduce air pollution.

Posted by Randy | April 9, 2007 10:10 PM

No, Paris is what Sherwood wants. . . . That's his view of a "world class city."

Having lived in Paris on two separate occasions, it is most definitely a world class city, even given the riots of a couple of years ago. They are nothing compared to the inner-city riots we experienced in the 60s and the L.A. riots in the 90s.

It seems to me that government is always going to subsidize growth, either by giving sweet deals to developers to build in the City or by building huge new road, sewer, and water infrastructure far out into the suburbs. Personally, I prefer the Pearl and SOWA to a new Beaverton or Hillsboro, and obviously a majority of Portland voters agree with me.

That said, the problem with the Pearl and SOWA is that the City gave away way too much -- far more than was necessary -- to get the intended result. Better analysis, proper due diligence, and some common sense would have saved millions and still achieved the same result. There is a middle ground here, if we look hard for it.

(BTW, the concept of a liberation march through the Pearl is hysterical.)

Posted by Miles | April 10, 2007 12:29 PM

Personally, I prefer the Pearl and SOWA to a new Beaverton or Hillsboro, and obviously a majority of Portland voters agree with me.

That's rather a stretch, don't you think?
I don't recall an option for a new Beaverton or Hillsboro on the last ballot.
Come to think of it, I don't recall the Pearl or SoWa subsidies being on the ballot either. What's obvious is that these decisions are made without voter input. To extrapolate voter's preferences on these sorts of questions from a couple of council elections is more like wishful thinking - not really supported logically.

It's more of a fait accompli-based rationalization - kind of like what the city does....

....hmmmmm

Posted by rr | April 10, 2007 1:19 PM

I don't recall an option for a new Beaverton or Hillsboro on the last ballot.

True enough, but Pearl and SOWA and the Tram certainly were with Sten and Saltzman on the ballot. Subsidies for the Pearl and SOWA aren't a secret (thanks to this blog and others). Neither is the impact of the UGB, the Council's preference for density over expansion, subsidies for mass transit, a preference for bike lanes over new roads. . . and the list goes on. Taking Metro and City Council elections together, how can you argue that these policies don't have the support of a majority of voters?

Posted by Miles | April 10, 2007 1:53 PM

Votes for candidates, particularly incumbents, don't necessarily represent votes for policies. They're more likely votes for images and slogans -- "progressive," "gay rights," "pro-labor," etc. Unfortunately, most people don't get past name familiarity and maybe one quick impression of one candidate in each race.

And of course, way too many folks don't vote.

Posted by Jack Bog | April 10, 2007 2:02 PM

So just to recap, if we build anymore condos on brownfield sites near downtown, Tigard, Gresham, and Lake Oswego will be burned to the ground by the disenfranchised youth forced to live there by government goons. The Pearl is a gated community available only to our wealthy overlords because it can be a bit tricky to park. Meanwhile, Tigard is an egalitarian paradise with ample parking for normal people. Oh yeah, and property developers are turned into greedy scumbags when they build apartments but are charitable saints when building natural houses for normal people in the suburbs. Got it. Cheers.

Carol, when I used the term “government goons” I was, of course, being facetious. I ran your response through my patented sarcasm detector and found none present. Either I need to get the thing fixed or you really need to knock-off the AM radio listening for a while before the phrase “black helicopters” emanates from your keyboard.

Posted by Sherwood | April 10, 2007 5:45 PM

My intent here is not to get totally off topic, but I simply cannot let that one pass by without comment. Obviously, you have never seen the military helicopters used by our various alphabet soup NKVD/GPU styled internal police in person, as I have, nor have you seen what black-clad stormtroopers are truly capable of when they are never held accountable for their goonish and outrageously illegal behavior.

I grew up not too far from Waco, and I vividly remember the events of 1993 as reported in the local media, before the censorship clampdown. There is an excellent documentary on this, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." The photos of the children who were poisoned with cyanide gas and then burned, on our tax dollar dime, will make you quite literally sick to your stomach.

In other words, the phrase "government goons" calls to mind the exact same mindset that resulted in the murder of James Chasse, Jr., on a huge and federalized scale.

Ok, back to discussing the ruination of Portland by the Condo Pimps.

Posted by Cabbie | April 10, 2007 6:50 PM

Jack, I'm sincerely curious:
what's the opposite of 'smart growth'?

Posted by kevin | April 11, 2007 12:18 PM

Private development.

"Smart Growth" is subsidized infill, density oriented planner's development.

Perpetrated on theories about stopping sprawl and preserving livability but it's poppycock.
It's about having taxpayers throw millions at some Transit Oriented Smart Growth like SoWa in exchange for the notion that it will pervent some businesses or subdivisions from popping up in suburbs such as Sandy, Newberg, Canby or any route to the beach or mountains. And somehow by knowing this hypothetical theory has supposedly done so, Portland livability city wide is supposed to be enhanced. It's too friggin stupid to extend anything but laughter and condemnation to.
Often times the scenery while driving to the beach is coughed up as needing smart growth like policies to preserve to prevent continuous development along the drive. Never mind that the half dozen or so coridors to the beach represent mere ribbons of land leaving all the other land available. But it is the same moronic land use regulations whihc would dictate development happen only in these corridors versus spreading out loosly and unnoticably.
It's one BS land use farce after another. Costing way too much, overcrowding every city with excessive density and infill while spurring chaos in transportation, affordable housing and funding for basic services.
The Portland Metro region has been turned intot a sea of asphalt, concete and roofs in many areas most recently "planned".
The more recent, the more planning, the highest cost, worst outcome.

Posted by John | April 11, 2007 1:07 PM

Exactly. That's what slays me...when people who spend all of their time in places like inner SE tell me that Portland has "no sprawl" due to policies such as the UGB. I just laugh and laugh. No Sprawl ? Really ? Do tell.

It's all part of the same goddamn scam, and the people twisting the Smart Growth utopian policies to their own ends believe in none of the hooey they espouse. They are laughing all the way to the bank, while we sit in what is rapidly becoming total gridlock.

Posted by Cabbie | April 11, 2007 2:14 PM

Sherwood: "Tigard is an egalitarian paradise" I hope you're kidding.

Cabbie: Maybe if you didn't drive so much you could avoid the gridlock.

signed - 4th Gen. Eastsider, as he walks past your gridlocked auto.

Posted by Montavillian | April 11, 2007 2:22 PM

Montavilla is just old sprawl.

Posted by rr | April 11, 2007 3:03 PM

John. No it is not. You are being very silly and you should stop. However, I do want to encourage to campaign for this Strip Malls to the Sea idea. You can tap into that anti prettiness desire that lies dormant in us all. Right now no one is speaking for those people that are repulsed by trees and would rather not know they have even left Beaverton until they hit the ocean.

Cabbie. I think most people in inner SE and NE know that there’s vast amounts of sprawl all around Portland. They just would rather not spend any time in it. Ironically, not only is there huge amounts of sprawl, and vast numbers of snout houses that can be driven directly into without having to see your neighbors, they also tend to be much cheaper. That fact makes all the venting exhibited here even more odd. If you hate the idea of having a choice to walk to things, or the choice to take public transport, or the choice to do anything without driving there are tens of thousands of houses available for much less than Jack is paying in Irvington or others are paying in the Pearl. The one downside I can see of liberating the Pearlites and putting them in some nice new “normal” houses is that it’s going to make the suburbs as expensive as inner PDX.

Posted by Sherwood | April 11, 2007 4:02 PM

rr: You might be right that Montavilla is 'old sprawl' as you say. Then again you might not. It contained its own town center and clearly had plenty of countryside between its neighbor to the North, Parkrose, and to the South, Lents. It also was connected to East Portland (that's what is now the Central Eastside before incorporation with Albina and Portland) and to cities as far East as Boring via, get this, Street Cars (!!!).

In my book that will be enough to keep it from being called 'old sprawl'.

Posted by Montavillian | April 11, 2007 4:26 PM

Sherwood,
You just showed how impossible it is to dialogue with the likes of you.
Your narrow minded convoluted delusions have you entirely hobbled and incapable of simply reading and comprehending.
I did not favor or suggest a strip mall to the sea. Rather I was criticizing that fabrication you have once again used.
My point was that there is abundant land away from every ribbon corridor to the beach and there never was any reason to line the routes with development. This cockamaimie notion that we must stop development and constrain everyone within UGBs and our overcrowded exiting cities is beyond dishonest.
It's the stuff of dishonest, misguided fanatics who avoid all genuine assessing of outcomes in favor of blind
policies that make them feel good.
Preservation of "pretty" routes is as simple as buffers or freeing up land away from those routes. There is plenty of it to free up and much of it it neither farm forest or wetland. Your "strip mall to the sea" stunt is asinine. A half mile off any route reveals numerous locales where entire cities could be located without any impact to other residents, travelers, sightseers or you. The amount of land of ALL types between 26 and 18 to the beach for instance is enormous. It goes on for miles and miles. Why is it all off base because of your stupid "strip mall to the beach" fabrication?
Just as your delusions about the Metro region are. You should get out more often and drive the region and discover the sea of roofs, asphalt, and concrete our planners have spawned over the past several decades. Or look at years of aerial photographs. The various preservations of open space and natural areas have done little to offset the infill and loss of the countless smaller once open spaces, lower densities and small Doug fir forests and green areas.
Where most people actually live.
Like I said before, knowing some development was prohibited elsewhere provides no benefit to where people live their daily lives. Needlessly ruining where people live by cramming more that doesn't fit well into it does just that, period.
Your BS is useless.

Posted by John | April 12, 2007 7:58 AM

"narrow minded convoluted delusions"

"entirely hobbled and incapable of simply reading and comprehending"

"fabrication you have once again used"

"beyond dishonest"

"dishonest, misguided fanatics"

"asinine"

"your stupid "strip mall to the beach" fabrication"

"your delusions about the Metro region"

"Your BS is useless"

--------
dude. you have some good insights, but the above is not "dialogue."

Posted by ecohuman | April 12, 2007 8:19 AM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]