Here it is saved for posterity.

Your dislike of local planning & development has earned a following.

The same money-hungry sorts who are wrecking the countryside, over the objections of local government, are also wrecking Portland, with the assistance of local government. Don't blame me for that inconsistency.

Bog,

Isn't the photo "from this", on the Yes on M49 website, merely a current depiction of Metro planning?

I see this "stack & pack" everywhere!

So how is it that you favor protecting yourself "from this" that already exists prior to M37?

Oh yes far preferable to M37 development is declaring farmland blighted so an Urban Renewal scheme can skim millions from basic services to subsidize one of Metro's "communities of distinction."

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1186973765249160.xml&coll=7

"The possibility that 800 acres of rolling farmland in Washington County might be declared "blighted" so that other taxpayers would subsidize development there isn't going over well."

I guess they were all asleep when Metro/Wilsonville's "Villebois" did exactly that.
Now watch as North bethany does the eaxct same thing. Ushered along with all the same falsehoods echoed by "political leaders" throughout the region every time this tool is used.
This story today has a nice sample of the lies.
"As easy 10-acre sites are no longer available to develop, Metro, the regional government, will likely bring in huge chunks of rural areas into urban development."
Nonsense, 10 acre sites are all over the place including many sitting idle in the 2002 UGB exapansion awaitng more "planning".

"Brian said. And it's not necessarily a subsidy, he said."

Yeah right.

"It really makes the area help pay for itself," Brian said.

As with every Urban Renewal scheme, what a liar.
lopment.

"Hillsboro Mayor Tom Hughes said his council isn't opposed to the designation. But he acknowledges that turning farmland into subdivisions isn't the typical use for urban renewal."

"That really begins to stretch the concept of what blight is," he said.

That's exactly what Wilsonville/Metro did to pay for Villebois.

"The Tigard City Council is scheduled to talk about the issue during a study session Tuesday night. Mayor Craig Dirksen said it's unlikely the city will take an official position."

Wow that's amazing, NOT. Tigard in engaged in their own UR scheme to subsidize their downtown development and commuter rail station.

I think Measure 49 is as flawed as 37. Another knee-jerk, feel-good from Super K that really fixes nothing. "Stack and pack" and "density cooker" are as viable in summation as "urban sprawl". A question "lefties will not address is: Is land use laws creating unfordable home ownership for the middle class?

First, posting at 1:02 am? Wow.

I looked at the website and they don't give you a clue who they are writing the blog. The posts are by someone who calls himself Fruity Frenchie. Any ideas?

Measure 49 is a flawed attempt to fix a fatally flawed Measure 37. Anything short of outright repeal is unfortunate but I guess it's what we have for now.

Luckily, I think that many folks have now seen the huge piece of wool that was pulled over their eyes. That cranky old lady was simply a Judas goat.

I’ll support anything that limits M37. M49 says that if this was all about little old ladies building a couple of houses then that’s OK. The opponents will have to tell the truth this time, and will not have the benefit of piggy backing (unfortunate phrasing) on a gay-baiting proposition.

As for “planning” forcing middle class families out of the housing market – total tripe. Every city on both coasts (not to mention the south and all around the world) has experienced massive increases in housing costs. Many of the places that have seen increases way beyond anything that has happened in Portland are vile auto slums (sorry, fine examples of libertarian paradises). The housing bubble, which is rapidly deflating in many parts of the US, was caused by cheap credit and good old fashioned greed. Portland will soon join in this decline, although I suspect the pain here will be less as this town has become such a great place to live.

"Many of the places that have seen increases way beyond anything that has happened in Portland are vile auto slums"

Oh please, that's such BS. With the exception of a few heavily subsidized planners so-called "communities of distinction" the Portland region resembles any of a 100 "vile auto slum" cities.

Beyond the notions and theories where in our region is this utopia you seem to refer to? The Pearl? The little enclave of eastside bike commuters?
I get arond our whole chaotic region including Vancouver where it is less chaotic.
You must think because we have a few light rail lines we have less auto slums. How foolish can you be?

Where and how are "we doing it better"?

Spending millions on delusional adventures subsidizing private development schemes doesn't = utopia or fewer autos.
Get a grip.

Here's a potential fix for both measures: Pass State Legislation which requires real property tax assessed value match the stated property devaluation contained in the claim for relief. Even better, make it an automatic increase upon filing of the claim. Federal and State income tax fix: Immediate recognition of capital gain upon receipt of the development benefit from the County. Think aboutit?

my 78 year old mother with alzheimers was forced to start a christmas tree farm in order to place a home for her to live in for the last few years of her life. she had to empty out her bank account to plant 30 thousand trees in order to satisy the $80k income standard. land use laws have to change in Oregon. M49 is not the answer. NO on 49.

This is a lessen in public fraud and deceit by M37 opponents who inflate and fabricate the benfits of our land use planning system while misrepresenting the otherwise mild effects of M37.

We watch daily the effects of our planning system as development is stuck haphazardly anywhere it can be crammed in without any regard for the neighborhood or region. Usually at enormnous public cost and without any plan for traffic or affordable housing.
In stark contrast the vast majority of M37 parcels amount to next to zero impact and zero public subsidy just as Dorothy English's few houses would have by now had she not been obstructed by public officials.
But the deceitful M37 opponets want to halt M37 before the truth in the little impact unfolds with actual real M37 construction being completed.

No, there's no M37 pig farms, smelters or destructive runoffs on the way to ruin Oregon but that doesn't stop M37 opponents from trying every trick in the book to stop M37 construction before it
shows the whole state how harmless and indeed beneficial it will be.

No on 49, yes for Oregon.

Ben, superb reasoning. Portland has some crappy areas that would look perfectly at home in Phoenix or Vegas, therefore, anything we do to make things better is worthless.

Actually, it would be great if these magazine folks would spend more time in Gresham and Tigard rather than DT and NE. Getting off those “best places to live” lists would dramatically slow the population growth.

Jack,

I am sorry someone falsely claimed you were against measure 49 when you aren't. But I am more sorry that you are for it. It may not say so in the ballot title, but Measure 49 is all about condos, transit-oriented developments, and rail/aerial tram boondoggles -- things that you have criticized.

How are you going to get people to live in all those condos Sam Adams, Homer Williams, and Joe Weston want to build if single-family housing is affordable? How are going to promote streetcars and trams if people can drive in uncongested suburbs? Measure 49 is about maintaining urban densities and urban congestion and controlling the rural rubes who might be too stupid to see that their land should be preserved (at the landowner's expense) as scenic vistas for everyone else.

"Ben, superb reasoning. Portland has some crappy areas that would look perfectly at home in Phoenix or Vegas"

"parts"?

Yeah like the whole of the westside, Gresham, most of urban Clackamas County and Tigard Tualatin Wilsonville.

I don't think you can figure out if you are talking about the city of Portland or our region. But there's no way one can take Portland out of the region and claim success.
Unless you are a public agency falsly claiming your policies have reduced CO2 emissions in the city.

I find it curious how many people can see the obvoiuos abuse of the truth by our local public agencies when it comes to SoWa, Trams, Urban Renewal schemes for developers and the convention center hotel but then accept much of the land use planning that pushes this stuff.

The biggest problem with M37 isn't that it frees up land for development, it's that it frees up only some land for development. There ends up a checkerboard effect of eligible property.

That was the essence of Judge Mertens opinion on M37. It creates unequal opportunities. Granted, our Supremes batted her aside but I thought the theory behind her opinion was sound.

If one piece of property can be developed but the piece next to it can't something is out of whack. M37 was simply a meat cleaver approach to a much more complex problem.

Jack-

I apologize for implying that you opposed Measure 49. I did not mean to make that implication, but upon further review, it is clear that is what my Blog seemed to suggest.

I have removed the link to your Blog from the site:

http://measure49.blogspot.com/2007/08/link-removed.html

Again, please accept my apologies.

Right wing Troll logic: if the owner of this blog disagrees with the powers that be in PDX, it stands to reason that he also believes all guvment is a waste of time and money.

Pass State Legislation which requires real property tax assessed value match the stated property devaluation contained in the claim for relief. Even better, make it an automatic increase upon filing of the claim.

The way I understood it, M37 required that the owner pay the back taxes on the new assessed value. That didnt seem to stop anyone from filing.

"If one piece of property can be developed but the piece next to it can't something is out of whack."

It's amazing that M37 have successfully attributed this problem to M37.
Especailly since that is presiscly what the Urban Growth Boundary and other land use laws do. They grant development rights to one while across the street or next door forget about it. And no matter the law, officials find away to simply go around it when they want something developed.

That's part of why Judge James and 1000 friends were full of crap.

jimbo, get a grip.
"guvment" is out of control around here and our land use and transportation planning agencies are as honest as the PDC using premliminary estimates in place of actual costs. Or any number of examples of blatant official misconduct.

Ben,

I'm calling BS on you my man. There is virtually nothing that I can think of on the west side that looks like anything in Phoenix or Las Vegas.

Gresham? You mean (love it or hate it) the Gresham transit center? Nothing like it in either city.

You wrote this: With the exception of a few heavily subsidized planners so-called "communities of distinction" the Portland region resembles any of a 100 "vile auto slum" cities.

which is utter BS. A "few"? Irvington, Alameda, Ladd's, Rose City, Mississippi Avenue, etc etc ad nauseum, non heavily subsidized, none planned, and these neighborhoods, which are common in our fair city, are virtually nonexistent in Vegas or Phoenix or Atlanta or ...

Yes, the fewest outermost ring suburbs (Wilsonville, Tigard, Tualatin) look like 90% of the development in Vegas, Phoenix, etc. Yes. Really fair comparison there, my friend.

What gets left out in all the ranting about unchecked development, sprawl, blight, yadda, yadda, yadda... is the fact that, under 37, no entity is forced to allow these things.

They can pay instead.

If 1000 Friends is right, and 18% or more of the 67% of Oregonians who voted for 37 were hoodwinked and REALLY don't want the sort of development it may bring, then those same Oregonians should be happy to cough up the money to pay off the claimants.

It's just a matter of priorities.

Should we build a tram, more light rail, convention hotel, or preserve some "high-value farmland"?

Of course prioritizing spending is soooo boring.

Paul,
You made me laugh.
Both Phoenix and Las Vegas have suburbs like Beaverton with Tannasborne, Washington square, Tigard, Bridgeport Vilage areas and alike. What are you talking about. Are you Metro councilor?

Yeah Gresham too.
You pick a dot, "the Gresham transit center" and pretend that represents Gresham? You are a Metro councilor arn't you??

Then you list a few old Portland neighborhods which have no relevancy at all as they were all created way before all of the current planning nonsense.

Any number of cities as old as Portland have the same old neighborhoods.
They aren't "virtually nonexistent" and there are plenty of very nice neighborhoods in Phoensx Las Vegas and Atlanta.
Most of the eastside, Gresham, most of the west side from Hillsboro to Wilsonville looks like 90% of the development in Vegas, Phoenix, etc.
Yes. Really fair comparison there, my councilor friend.
Take your councilor head out of the transit station.
Even Cascade (Transit) Station is now becoming just another BID BOX cluster
that can be found in any city.
Big deal.

You pretty showed your Metro BS big time.

And Wilsonville, by the way says they are a model of planning. They aren't of course but then neither is the rest of our region. But I don't think they would appreciate you calling them Phoenix or Vegas. They are too full of themselves and the Metro BS.

Ben,

The difference between properties designated within the UGB and the checkerboard is that then properties that are similarly situated get treated the same. For example, all properties bounded by Germantown Road, 185th, Springville Road, and 158th (these are made up for illustration by the way) are included. Properties outside of those are not. It's not less arbitrary at the end of the day but at least it has arguable merit and equal treatment.

The actual merit is another question but not really germaine to this thread.

For those of you who haven't noticed, low-income renters in Oregon are facing an ongoing and worsening shortage of affordable housing. In 2004, a study estimated that 19 percent of Oregon renters pay at least half their income for rent. As of June of this year, Portland-area rents are projected to increase 8.5 percent this year and an additional 6 percent next year.

Low-income renters literally need all the housing the private sector is willing and able to develop. I eagerly look to proponents of Measure 49 for proposed solutions, but all I have detected from them is silence.

Does anyone out there have anything to say to the low-income renters of Oregon?

Go by streetcar!

Not much affordable housing accessible by streetcar - just a few SROs.

I see an opportunity for a non-profit here.

RENTERS UNITE!!!

Find someone to write a grant, pool money for insurance, weed out tweakers etc., negotiate with landlords, employ some of your clients, build mutual trust...

Kiss Erik's er.... desk.

Voila!

or Presto!

or never mind.

Portland Prole,

You are dragging the proverbial red herring across this argument. The problem of low-income housing in general is a real problem but how do 500 more billboards on the freeway help that? How does allowing used building material dumping on rural property help? How does gold-mining inside the city limits of Jacksonville help? All of these are subjects of M37 claims and have nothing to do with any kind of housing.

Actually, if you think about it, renters get a worse all-around deal (financially, politically, etc) than any other demographic I can think of, except possibly ex-cons.

M37 supporters see 37/49 as a struggle to reclaim their "stolen" property rights. Nobody noticed - or cared - that urban renters lost their property rights 80 years ago and are unlikely to ever get them back.

"but at least it has arguable merit and equal treatment"

Oh hogwash. That's only theoretical.
In reality the unequal treatment is common place as the UGB and various zoning designations place wildly varrying limits on adjacent properties.

I'm not arguing that we should not have any zoning and M37 certainly doesn't negate all zoning, despite all the lies M37 opponents tell, but this ongoing
farce that our land use planning works and M37 destroys it is garbage.

Just look at today's paper and realize how pathetic Metro's planning is and indeed how bad their implementation of the UGB expansions have been.
North Bethany, Damascus, area 64 and 65 etc were all brought into the UGB in 2002. Not one piece of land in those expansions is anywhere near crossing Metro's additional hurdles and made shovel ready.

The increasing congestion and decreasing supplies of affordable housing are directly attributable to the dysfunctional planning Metro keeps insisting is managing growth. It isn't. Our so-called planning is ignoring growth
at the expense of countless millions, worsening congestion, lack of housing in hopes that someday it will all some how gell into utopia.
Look out for a huge money grab to pay for the utopia making.

The idea that M37 has some big checkerboard effect in any way is a total fabrication.
With the bulk of M37 claims being 1 ,2 or a few houses on larges parcles no such "checkerboard" would ever be noticed.
But it sure sounds awful. "Oooo the ugly tainted checkerboard where open space used to be."

Does anyone out there have anything to say to the low-income renters of Oregon?

Yeah, dont let the "powers that be" fool you into thinking that those $800/mo studios they offer in the new condo developments are going to help you.

Oh, Ben. Fabrications? I refer you to this map generated by Portland State:
https://stage.www.pdx.edu/media/i/m/ims_mscape07sumatlasm37.pdf

As you can see, checkerboard is a tame description. If 1, 2, or 3 house developments were really the issue we wouldn't be having this argument.

I haven't heard anyone say that the current method is perfect. It's not. However, deregulation is not either. Calling the Bethany area blight is just the latest outrage in this area.

I repeat what I said earlier. M37 was a total meatcleaver funded by the timber and other resource companies and sold through the face of a cranky old lady. Get us out of this insane mess and then let's talk about the current system and make it better.

Come on Oscar
Yes fabrications. In that the whole map and checkerboard play highlights entire parcles instead of the likely or proposed developemnet, speckles.
That report sites percentages of high value soils in M37 claims as if every acre of every claim removes that amount of soil from the planet.

One house on 10 or 20 acres does no such thing. 1 or 2 houses on 5 acres doesn't
mean that whole 5 acres is lost.

Those maps are intended to inflate the impact of M37.

So yo can refer me to any number of anti-M37 government agency sites where they skew the issue. Not a one of them provide a genuine measure of the real impacts.
But they sure do spend the taxpayers money making thos maps to fool people.
"Portland State"? They think SoWa and all of PDC Urban Renewal is wise investment of public resources. You might as well be referring people to a Metro site.

As you can see, the maps mark whole parcels instead of the tiny footprints the proposed M37 development would produce. Many of them are 1, 2 or a few houses. We asre having this debate becasue the claims have been misrepresented as sweeping obliterations of large parcels. They are not.

No I haven't heard anyone say that the current method is perfect either but they sure do defend it and promote more of the same no matter how much failure occurs.
M37 is not a deregulation and only effects a small portion.
Of course with opponents claiming all zoning is lost because of M37 it's not suprising to keep reading these new mischracterizations, such as "deregulation". Every one of which are meant to disingenuously exagerate the effects of M37.

Calling the Bethany area blight is a method of the status quo officials and planners seeking to do more of the same excessive planning, scheming aand spending without regard for growth.
And what about the neighbors of North Bethany. Is there no problem with Metro erasing 800 acres of farmland with a heavily subsidized plan but it's NOT OK for private developers to do the same with their own money?
Classic hypocricy there.
That blight card is the latest in a long string of officials manipulating land use
and tax revenue to play social engineering games that cost too much and don't work.
The current system has been a meat cleaver. M37 merely softened up the edge a little and provides tremednous benefits to countless Oregon families having noithign to do with any of your so called big money forest interests.
Furthermore the anti-M37 campaign was massive, well funded and aided by every newspaper and government agency in site.
The only insane mess is the pandamonuim concocted by anti-M37 demogouges.
As evidenced by North Bethany "blight" ganme and the on going status quo push for more SoWa/Beaverton Round high density and more light rail/streetcars
those officials and policy makers aren;t interested in talking. Only more of the same.

Sorry for the long delay, Ben. I watched a great win by the Mariners.

We obviously aren't going to agree on this. You want to ball every land use, zoning, urban renewal, transportation, condo, developer grievance into one big ball. If there is any evidence against your position you merely call it biased and dismiss it. On many of your issues, I totally agree with you. Portland, in particular, seems hellbent to screw this great city up.

I'm sorry but M37 is simply not the fix for all those problems. I would say you will continue to be frustrated, at least in the Metro area, since the elections constantly go against you. If Sam Adams isn't elected mayor next time it won't be long. I'm not a resident of Portland so I can only shake my head. I believe, too, that M49 will pass.

'Sorry' is sorry that the small-minded, anti-social, M.37 visigoths against villageness, the naysayers of neighborliness, could NOT READ the proof in this blog plainly written, that unlike them, normal goodfolks think benignly of people, and oppose M.37. The deluded and spiteful misanthropic rightwing ignoramuses have a lot more than their incivility to be sorry for.

Escape From Suburbia: A Documentary Review, By Carolyn Baker

The 2004 documentary, "End Of Suburbia", produced and edited by Barry Silverthorn and written and directed by Greg Greene, was a stunning and chilling cinematic landmark which placed the issue of Peak Oil and its consequences squarely on the world stage and connected the dots between the unsustainable suburban lifestyle and perilous issues of the twenty-first century such as food production, population die-off, and economic meltdown. Recently, Greene and producer, Dara Rowland, have released the sequel, "Escape From Suburbia" which examines the journeys of several individuals who have fled or are in the process of fleeing from civilization.
...
After a brief explanation of Peak Oil, the film opens with the departure of a baby-boomer man and woman from their suburban home in Portland to an ecovillage in Canada, then moves into ...

... in Willits, California, the film highlights a number of its residents engaged in creating a relocalized, sustainable town of 13,000 people who are energy self-sufficient and passionately involved in community building.

"Escape" is refreshing because regardless of what viewers may consider feasible or unfeasible responses to the collapse of civilization, it is a powerful testimony to the reality that we do have options and follows the path of several individuals who are seizing them with remarkable creativity. What is under-emphasized in my opinion is the [ 1.]urgency with which those options must be taken in the face of [ 2.]global warming's rapid progression, the likelihood that we have passed [ 3.]Peak, and the reality of [ 4.]economic meltdown and a burgeoning [ 5.]fascist dictatorship in the United States. ...

At the same time, Greene leaves us with numerous unanswered questions such as: How will newcomers to an ecovillage be received, and how will they integrate into the community? ...

Collapse is axiomatic and inevitable, and-human beings are not powerless in the face of it.

RINO Watch asked... Isn't the photo "from this", on the Yes on M49 website, merely a current depiction of Metro planning?

No, RW, you completely misunderstand the core values of our land-use rules.

The 30-year-old Oregon land use system, including the urban growth boundary, does not say "all density is bad" or "all density is good".

Rather it says, "everything has its place." In downtown Portland, there should be very dense lots. Inside the urban growth boundary, there should be some healthy amounts of density. But outside the UGB, we should protect farm and forest land from sprawl.

So yes, Measure 49 will protect farmland from sprawl development. But what you call "pack and stack" will then be kept inside the UGB - where it belongs.

(Full disclosure: I built YesOn49.com, but I speak only for myself.)

Oscar,
Try and leave my positions my way before debating them.
I don't "ball every land use, zoning, urban renewal, transportation, condo, developer grievance into one big ball."

And I have not dismissed anything simply due to bias.
Quite the contrary is the other side who's entire pitch involves that manouver. Yes, Portland, in particular, seems hellbent to screw this great city up, but the same policy paths are being utilized regionwide in city after city.

Where you really twist things is your notion that "M37 is simply not the fix for all those problems".

Of course it isn't. There's no way it could be. Where did you ever see anyone suggest that?
M37 is simply not the doomsday or worse than all the problems either.

I'm more frustrated over the perpetual misrepresetations of policies by puboic officials and our newspapers than elections.
The M49 campaign will have a whole lot more.
It will be interesting, if M49 fails, to see the next backhanded attempt to gut M37.
Even more interesting would be to see M37 construction completed all over the state and not "scar" the Oregon landscape as M37 opponents have so demagogued.

Kari,
No, you speak for Metro in Metro tongue.
a current depiction of Metro planning?

It is you who misunderstands the implementation of our land-use rules.

The 30-year-old Oregon land use system, including the urban growth boundary, does of course mandate that density at all costs is good.

You idea that it says, "everything has its place" is pure balderdash.
Homes with large yards no longer have any "place".
Growing traffic does not have it's place.
Affordable housing does not have it's place.
Your phony pretense that there is some comprehensive policy making in place to provide a place for everything is rediculous and far from reality.

Whether it's downtown Portland, inside the urban growth boundary, or UGB expansions it's all chaos. Haphazard, poorly planned growth failing miserably to address all of the most fundemental demands of a growing region.
Having a guy like you spew out the propaganda from those public agencies delivering the chaos is just more insult to injury.
Outside the UGB, there is much land labeled farm and forest land which needs no protecting, has no practical use for farming and could easily be used for growth WITHOUT Metro's meddling whioc costs 100s of millions in subsidies.
Metro targets 800 acres of farmland and you roll over in agreement. Countless parcels are spread across area whihc are more suitable and infrastructure ready but Metro has allowed their use.
Even their other UGB expansions are better sites for devlopment with infrastucture avaiable.
Many M37 claims are the same.
But noooooo, that's "sprawl" and Metro's 800 acre scheme is not.
We don't need Measure 49 to protect farmland any more than we need you echoing the standard BS from Metro and alike.
We especailly don't need the heavily subsidized "pack and stack" we see region wide. It's reckless spending on density without any regard for the effects of doing so.
Your "full disclosure" makes you a lobbyist for the government officials doins so.

So yes, Measure 49 will protect farmland from sprawl development.

Until the government takes it from you because they want it for something else.

Why are we protecting it anyway? If the guy cant make it work, why should he not be able to put some houses on his land and sell them?
I mean c'mon about the only viable crop any more is wine grapes for the Arlington Club crowd.

"Why are we protecting it anyway?"

Because most Oregonians -- mainly transplants -- are selfish and arrogant. They can't stand to see anyone else moving into 'their' state and want Oregon off limits to anyone but themselves -- unless you're just visiting.

Meanwhile, folks who've lived and worked in this state for generations are forced to join the welfare roles.

Statewide land use planning is why the beaches and entire coastline is open access to you and me and all of us.

Try getting in the surf in any other State. NOT!

And, of course, the sand is not productive farm land, so developers -- real Oregonians call them 'speculators' -- never stop coming to 'develop' the public beaches.

Gee thanks, skwat, I never realized it was that simplistic.

Oh Tensk,
What happened?
You have such so mush more to give.

"Statewide land use planning is why the beaches and entire coastline is open access to you and me and all of us."

There isn't any of our "planner" handy work involved in that at all.

That decades old achivement can't be hitched to any of our planners handy work.

And M37 does nothing to weaken those beach protections.

What relevance does that have?

Prerserving our beaches for use by all Oregonians was a reasonable thing to do.

Far from the bulk of other restrictions.

Like the $80K farm income requirement to build one house.
PLanners and our land use system sucks.

How about an extreme example of sucking.
We have schools whihch have been built near, (or outside the UGB in some cases) with the immediatley adjacent land remainging restricted from use.
Imagine this assinine situation.
A school with the land next door prohibited from being a neighborhood where student could walk to school from.

How about Intel with land next to it prohibited from being developed with housing so employees could walk to work?

The examples are many of just how stupid out planning and zoning are.

Ben,

“Prerserving our beaches for use by all Oregonians was a reasonable thing to do.”

If you’re going to pretend to believe the scummy shite that comes out of your mouth then at least be consistent. Why are beaches not valuable property owned by god-fearing real Oregonians that was stolen by evil Californian transplants? They have much less value than farmland.

This fear/blaming of outsiders is becoming so old. I have a good mind to take my Volvo, NY Times subscription and wine collection and head back to England or California. On second thoughts, I think I’ll stay and do everything I can to make sure Portland tops even more “most livable” lists, even if it’s just to piss-off the Ben’s of this world.

Oh, Sherwood...

There you go again; brandishing your blindingly obtuse logic without regard to the well-being of innocent lurkers.

At least now your motivations are clear - if "consistently" self-serving and mean-spirited.