What nonsense. Washington, Clackamas and Clark counties are all growing much faster, population-wise, than is Multnomah County. It's even worse if you look at just the City of Portland and especially if you back out growth due to annexation. It's amazing the lies people are willing to tell to try and convert others to their religious beliefs.

"...but Portland is no longer that city that our mother tells us to lock the doors in the Plymouth Valorie station wagon with the vinyl seats when we get into town."
--------------

You got that right!

But if it ever was a Valore kinda town, that woulda been in the 70s and early 80s. Valore was intro'ed in 1977, had a production run of only a few years, and was such poor quality, they did not last more than 5-10 years in the used car market.

PDX is now more of a BMW convertible kinda town, or a Volvo/SAAB or Range Rover kinda town.

Harry

And the car was spelled Volare. Not Valore as I spelled it, nor Valorie.

But no matter the spelling, it was and still a POS.

Harry

Not to be confused with the Plymouth Valiant.

i liked that essay, pretty good insights. although i take issue with the population density figures... comparing metro areas always makes more sense then comparing the legal limits of a city.

but he points out something that rarely gets addressed in these discussions, that the focus on city life is in part a demographic switch. many people that consider investment in urban infrastructure a waste of money tend to be people outside of that demographic.

so its easy for both sides to accuse each other of drinking kool aide and having crazy irrational thoughts... but you can explain most of the differences of opinion by differences in experiences.

And the car was spelled Volare. Not Valore as I spelled it, nor Valorie.

If the author was who I believe it was, he was probably buzzed when he wrote that. Probably.

I like how socialist-types like Hales lumps everyone into one class of people:

"..Mr. Hales expressed that our generation WANTS to live in the city."

What generation? For every smart-glassed, urban elitist I can show you a hard-working middle-class suburbanite.

God I'm tired of the Haleses of the world trying to force us into adopting Europe as our model.

"God I'm tired of the Haleses of the world trying to force us into adopting Europe as our model."

Yeah, why would we in Portland want to look to, say, Paris, Rome, or Barcelona for any kind of example when we could just emulate beautiful Beaverton--which, I'm sure you'll hasten to point out, has a higher standard of living than those "socialist" places. And bigger yards.

Chris McMullen, no one is forcing you or anyone else to adopt a model (though now that I put it into those words, it's an idea with possibilities . . .). Anyone who doesn't like population density or wants to live in a decentralized, car-based community in this country has lots of choices. Some people (like me, for example), on the other hand, like the "European" model. Copenhagen makes for a nice example -- a city about the size of Portland, it has subways, interurban passenger trains and a dense bus network -- but no streetcars. Much of the urban traffic moves by bicycle in a climate that's wetter and more harsh than ours. Density brings those advantages, and Portland's density brings some of them to us. I can't think of anyone who would seek to restrain you if you wanted to forsake living in such a place and settle in a different environment. Go and do it!

Jack,

What, I ask you, was wrong with the Plymouth Valinat???

I mean, it had the "bent six" and all...

...you're just so negative these days.

I can't think of anyone who would seek to restrain you if you wanted to forsake living in such a place and settle in a different environment. Go and do it!

Allan, old darling, what a lovely sentiment.

Many times I've thought to recommend the same to but decided that it would be untoward.

Who says that liberals have no passion?

Button pushed.

Ooh, without reading all their slick drivel, I’ll guess that they left out a few things:

1. What light rail really looks like in Portland:
www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailNeighborhhod.html

2. Light rail does not cause development, the subsidies do:
www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm
www.SavePortland.com

3. Light rail DOES NOT go near the Pearl. (the streetcar does).

4. Our vibrant downtown gained 167 businesses and lost 4008 jobs between 2001 and 2005.
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS decreased 9% (from 25 to 23%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by MAX Light Rail decreased 43% (from 20 to 14%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by DRIVE ALONE INCREASED 10% (from 44 to 48%)
www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm

5. Our streetcar costs OVER $1.67 per passenger-mile WITHOUT construction cost. For comparison private cars cost $0.202 per passenger-mile.
www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm

6. Europeans are abandoning mass transit too, Rail = -23%; Bus&Coach = -27%; Tram & Metro = -21.4%
www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm

7. Streetcars aren’t electrically powered, they are powered by whatever provided local electricity. Electricity is merely a way to move power from one place to another. In most areas that makes the streetcar powered by COAL which emits mercury, Uranium and Thorium into the air.
www..ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

8. Be sure to see their list of supporters in that slick booklet - how many are going to make money off of the construction, financing and operation?

Thanks
JK

Chris McMullen, no one is forcing you or anyone else to adopt a model.

Absolutely correct, Allen! They're just forcing us to pay for it.

Jim,

Where have you been, mate. It’s not a transportation debate unless you chime in comparing 2% of the cost of cars to 100+% of the cost of light rail. Total codswallop of course, but I find it strangely reassuring.

Chris, are you saying that there isn’t a big move back to cities? Most of the whinging I hear here is aimed at the influx of young professionals forcing up house prices in inner Portland. I would stick with that argument as it may be the only time you’re right about something. I, and thousands of other people, are pouring into Portland to get away from the sterile auto suburbs and exhurbs that carpet freedom’s land. Those same type of places cover most of the Portland metro area (see density numbers in the original note) but most of the folks (almost all looking disturbingly like recent transplants) I saw at the Hollywood Market this morning don’t want to live there.

Rr, I have noticed that you are one of the few curmudgeons here that isn’t “threatening” to flee this hell hole as soon as possible. It’s only going to get “worse” you know. It might be better for your blood pressure to find a nice spot in outer Vancouver. You can still pop over (gas prices willing) to catch informative debates at the airport Shilo Inn. I saw one the other night where an Orange County Register “journalist” came to tell the good wingnuts of Portland that planning doesn’t work. Now I’m as big a fan of irony as the next man, but when a writer from the worst paper in America (it makes Chris and Howard’s bizarre “I see socialists” rants seem normal) comes to tell us Portland should be more like OC I get dizzy.

And 100% of the cost of cars would include subsidies such as "free" parking, oil defense, pollution clean-up (like a portion of the Big Pipe) and some roads (like those funded by Washington County's MSTIP) as well as indirect subsidies, such as new suburban schools (where biking/walking/taking transit is less feasible).

Also, if 100% of those costs were paid for directly by motorists, we might not need light rail and streetcars to attract people to transit. Either that or riders might be willing to forgo discounts such as free fares, transfers and passes.

Sherwood You can still pop over (gas prices willing) to catch informative debates at the airport Shilo Inn. I saw one the other night where an Orange County Register “journalist” came to tell the good wingnuts of Portland that planning doesn’t work.
jk: Just when was it that you saw the OCR guy - (I must have missed this latest appearance)? The only talks that I recall, he was mostly outing idiot planners and city officials for things like cutting deals with big box stores to use imminent domain to steal people’s property and give it to the big box store so the city can get more sales tax revenue. He also talked about one city manager bragging that he controlled the city council.

Which of those do you disagree with?

Sherwood Now I’m as big a fan of irony as the next man, but when a writer from the worst paper in America (it makes Chris and Howard’s bizarre “I see socialists” rants seem normal) comes to tell us Portland should be more like OC I get dizzy.
jk: What did he say that gave you the, probably false, impression that he thinks Portland should be more like OC? From what I have seen, he spends most of his time criticizing OC officials for the same kind of crap that the PDC and council do here.

Thanks
JK

Given all the great talk about how fine and cost effective Trimet is and the lightrail it might be nice to get some comparisons regarding their accounting system.

How does it compare with other transit systems around the country?
Are we getting good data?
Does it meet with the standards of the Government Accounting Standards Board?

It might be nice to see a costs/benfit analysis from an independent organization.

MHW

This one is so easy: "Given all the great talk about how fine and cost effective Trimet is and the lightrail it might be nice to get some comparisons regarding their accounting system."
Tri-mets answer Federal money all for us, State money, all for us, county money, all for us, city money, all for us. Taxation on employers, money for us.Taxation money from home owners, money for us. Now that the credit side of Leger.
Now we go to debit side of Leger: Nice shinny new toys, to show the suckers err voters, we care. Plush jobs for polititco cronies, nicely covered up. Money spilled over, financing the politico's that back us in an election. Money for slick advertising. Money spent on getting more money for more projects.
And that is why we left the great city of Portland, and we aren't coming back

I keep reading imminent domain on this site. It’s “eminent” isn’t it, or is this one of those divided by a common language moments? I do have a problem with it being used to select winners (the supreme court ruling a while back seemed very dodgy to me).

This time he was going on about various OC towns trying to create centers: i.e. trying to get some there there (the place makes LA feel like Amsterdam). To be honest I think that the only way make OC livable is a tsunami followed by starting from scratch. The implication was that they are messing with what makes OC so great, and going against the laws of god and nature. Of course normal in OC is three development companies (it makes Weston seem like small fry) building cookie cutter shite wherever they have land and joe taxpayer paying to join up the dots.

I’ve spent thousands of hours behind the orange curtain. Married in Laguna Beach to a woman who was raised in Mission Viejo. I shudder at the prospect of Portland becoming even one percent like that. Of course the roads are in great condition and no money has been “wasted” on light rail.

To take 2 of Richard's three examples that I've visited recently. Both are great places to visit but I think poor development examples:

1) Paris. Sure, fine city, where the wealthy live in the city and the poor and working class are relegated to terrible slums (with lousy public services) like Lyons. Unemployment is high, incomes are lagging, and most of the city sneers at the tourists that prop up its economy.

2) Barcelona. What struck me most about Barcelona last summer was how *dirty* it was. Unlike Portland, awash in greenery and clean air, Barcelona promenades wide sidewalks (good) but few trees and lots and lots of trash.

Both Paris and Barcelona have subways--not light rail and streetcars--and incredibly extensive bus systems. And both are millenia old.

Sherwood You can still pop over (gas prices willing) to catch informative debates at the airport Shilo Inn. I saw one the other night where an Orange County Register “journalist” came to tell the good wingnuts of Portland that planning doesn’t work.
JK: As usual, you have most of you facts wrong:
1) He didn’t mention Portland in his talk.
2) He wasn’t at the Shilo, he was at the Crown Plaza Hotel. In Atlanta. (For shame, you can’t tell Atlanta from Portland)
3) It wasn’t a debate. It was a talk on the folly of government planning practiced in Orange County.

BTW his name is Stephen Greenhut. I can see how you got confused, because his telling of the planner’s folly in OC sounds much like Portland.

Just to inform the casual readers, here are a few of his main points:

Do American officials make better decisions than individual people through a free market place?

He observed, based on his visit to Vietnam, that the big difference between Vietnam officials and ours is that theirs like to talk about free markets.

Main purpose of downtown development is to maximize revenue to the city government.

Garden Grove used eminent domain & subsidies to create a bunch of hotels which were mostly empty, so they needed an attraction, built a river walk and downtown which also failed. Greenhut called it the Eastern European model.

In Brea, they bulldozed the downtown and went $600 million in debt to build a new downtown for a city of 32,000 people. ($20,000 per person debt)

City of Cypress tried taking a church with eminent domain because “churches don’t pay taxes.”

Redevelopment officials say that not all of their projects work out, but there is no other alterative to the city degenerating without their schemes.

Greenhut gave details of Anaheim’s new deal, a broad de-regulation plan:
1) No more eminent domain for non-infrastructure.
2) Tried to change attitudes among the planning staff.
3) Eliminated home business license
4) Reduced / eliminated many business fees.
5) Reduced code violations from misdemeanors to infractions.
6) Allowing housing instead of big box stores.
7) Stopped harassing owners of older hotels.
8) Allowing old shopping centers to develop
9) Overturning planning commission decisions that go against property owners.
10) Creating an environment that says you are free to do what you want. (No he wasn’t talking of putting in a rendering plant)

He read from Jane Jacobs: “There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.”

Also from Jane: “As in all utopias, the right to have any plans of any significance belong only to the planners in charge.”

I liked his final line: “Its not a question of planning, it’s a question of whose planning - are we planning or is the government planning in the goal to create successful down towns is to let us - individuals - plan our lives, not let them - the government officials do it.

BTW that show is part of a weekly series on local cable TV called Preserving the American Dream. It’s show times are:
Sunday 10 pm, ch 11 (all metro region), Mon 7pm, ch 22 (Portland only); Fri 5pm, ch 23 (Portland only)

This weeks show, starting tonight, is about housing afford ability and how the planners screw us again. It starts with a dynamite presentation by Wendell Cox on how planners have driven the cost of housing out of most people’s reach even in Australia!, followed by Ed Stringham (San Jose State University) explaining hosing prices in the Bay area.

Portland’s planners could learn a lot from these people, as could you.

Thanks
JK

I accept that it wasn't a debate. Otherwise his stream of "amusing" anecdotes would have been challenged and forgotten instantly. I also believe you that it wasn't at the Shilo Inn. Whenever I see see programs on obscure stations that make Fox look fair and balanced I assume it's the Shilo effect. One conference room look likes much like all the others (insert dig about American towns here).

I also agree that the attempts to create somewhere in OC were pathetic. As I said before, the only solution to that mess is to start agian from scratch. I do, however, understand the desperation that caused it. I fell it every time I'm there.

The housing affordability talks were interesting. The idea that it's cheaper to holiday in a fine hotel in Cancun that live in a tiny house in SF tells us a lot about bubbles. Stay tuned.

Sherwood The housing affordability talks were interesting. The idea that it's cheaper to holiday in a fine hotel in Cancun that live in a tiny house in SF tells us a lot about bubbles. Stay tuned.
JK: Its not only about a bubble, its about planning destroying afford ability through idiot schemes that deliver the opposite of what was promised.

Check out 10pm tonight on Cable Ch11. You’ll see how planners managed to create a land shortage in Australia! And unaffordable housing too.

Those idiots are all over the world screwing up people’s lives.

Thanks
JK

Jim,
Mmmm. I believe one of his points was that about three affordable units had ever been built. I think it’s safe to say that has had absolutely no effect on prices whatsoever. Now, what we’ll refer to as the “market” solution has resulted in people moving to Stockton to find cheapish housing. To get these people to work will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars and even after that money is gone the situation will remain a farce costing businesses and individuals hundreds of billions in lost time/gas/poisonous air etc. Thinking things through (hereto after referred to as planning) doesn’t guarantee success but the alternative guarantees failure. I’ll take the Portland way every time.

Check out 10pm tonight on Cable Ch11. You’ll see how planners managed to create a land shortage in Australia! And unaffordable housing too.

Those idiots are all over the world screwing up people’s lives.

Thanks
JK

Gosh guys can you'all give me a break. The only question here is what developers do you want to susidize. The ones who want you to pay for freeways and utility extensions into the farmland so they can build out. Or the ones who want you to extend streetcars and utility extensions so they can build up. The rest of it is all so much philosophical claptrap.

By the way Jim you never answered my earlier question. Is it cheaper to build light rail from Gresham to Portland or to expand the Banfield to 24 lanes like they are doing in Phoenix? Or are you comparing the costs of Urban Light rail to the costs of building a new freeway from The Dalles to Bend? I'll give you a hint. It's always cheaper to build anything on the outskirts because the land aquisition costs are cheaper.

Greg C

Check out 10pm tonight on Cable Ch11. You’ll see how planners managed to create a land shortage in Australia! And unaffordable housing too.

Point #2. Land costs (and housing prices) go up when the availability of BUILDABLE land is growing slower than population influx. I have seen housing prices skyrocket when cities couldn't build water and sewer lines to the farmland as fast as builders needed. Typically what happens then is that the builders pay the city more to make sure the utility lines get built faster.

Greg C

Greg C: You apparently haven't been following the money trail for SoWhat that is typical of the other 10 Portland URA's. Homer and Co. hasn't paid a dime for the "streetcar and utility extensions". Us, the taxpayers have paid it.

Even the Local Improvement District formed for partial payment of the streetcar in SoWhat has not received any money from Homer and Co. because he wrangled a "deal" that the LID obligation was transferred to other property outside of the LID boundary.

If you only knew.

The taxpayers have paid for almost all infrastructure improvements in SoWhat. The streetcar extension into SoWhat was also additionally funded by the sale of PDC owned land (taxpayer's land) where The Strand condos are being built in RiverPlace (another Homer project). Then Block 3 next door to The Strand(again owned by US) recently was sold to Homer for $4.2M, and that money will be applied to the still remaining debt for the streetcar. Plus Block 8 right south of Block 3 was "given" to Homer with "exclusive rights" to purchase at a future date; and that money will also be used to help retire the streetcar extension debt.

Wait, there is more-us taxpayers from our CoP transportation budget (our street maintenance budget) also gave $3MILLION dollars for the streetcar extension. Yes, you are right, developers in URA are sure subsidizing a lot of improvements-not.

That God we have people like Charlie and streetcar advocate and City Councilman wannabe Chris Smith telling us that no tax dollars are used to build our streetcar lines. The lines don't even collect fares. This all adds up to true subsidy by the rest of us, especially when less than 1/2 of 1% of all residents use the streetcar. This doesn't mean that I dislike the concept of the streetcar, but I do like reality and common sense in setting our priorities.

I have to wonder if "Choo-Choo Charlie" told the folks that a growing portion of TriMet's budget comes from taxes on ALL businesses in it's territory - even those that have little or no service nearby? That in 1995 65% of TriMet's budget came from the business tax and now it's 70% and growing evry year.

Greg C By the way Jim you never answered my earlier question. Is it cheaper to build light rail from Gresham to Portland or to expand the Banfield to 24 lanes
JK: Why would we want to build 24 lanes? According to Trimt, light rail only carries the equivalent of 1.2 lane of a freeway. See trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf.

But Trimet forgot to tell us that most of their riders would be in buses, not single occupancy cars. Once you adjust for this little oversight, you get a light rail line removing about 1/3-1/4 lane worth of traffic from the freeway. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm

Comparing the cost of 1/3 lane of freeway to one toy train track is no contest:
Light rail costs too much, does too litle.

Greg C Or are you comparing the costs of Urban Light rail to the costs of building a new freeway from The Dalles to Bend? I'll give you a hint. It's always cheaper to build anything on the outskirts because the land aquisition costs are cheaper.
JK: Of course, the reverse is true. A freeway actually uses less land than LRT in any fair comparison:
1) Transit to transit: Rail on tracks to buses on busways. Buses carry several times more people.
2) Heck, even transit on rail compared to buses on a freeway leaves enough free space to carry 2/3 of all the cars that a freeway normally carries PLUS FREIGHT!
Light rail costs too much, does too litle.

Thanks
JK

Hooray for urban planning, light rail, density and all the rest of it.
I'm serious.

I didn't have the stamina to read all the comments on this thread or others, but I can't quite figure out your point of view on land-use planning etc, Jack. (Though I do have the utmost respect for your intellectual curiosity.)

In one post I read, you rightly lambasted those darn property rights nuts, who have some perfectly valid ideas but go way too far.

In others, you deride PDX's planners, light rail, condo developers, etc.

I'm not saying we have to embrace one or the other, but what do you propose?

Also, I remain convinced that despite "subsidies," Portland's high density development is largely self supporting and positive--especially when compared to the suburban sprawl type development that is the alternative. As examples, I give you the I5 bridge (price tag, $2B+), and a laundry list of road projects that ODOT and or Metro estimated at $3-6B, unfunded. With the gas tax as it's current level, there's no way to pay for all this. It makes the city's $9 to 10 MILLION for the tram look minimal.
Of course, we can be sharp accountants and find a lot of other subsidies, but in the big picture cost benefit analysis, I believe that appropriatelt sited mid and high density growth are about as costly to the public as sprawl. What puts dense growth over the top is that it can achieve other goals: pleasant, walkable neighborhoods; lower CO2 emissions; preserved natural landscapes; less insane stuck in traffic time.

Thanks for blogging, cheers, pick Oden.