I think we need the disaster that is coming. It's time for a reboot.

Did you read this?

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/04/02/blood-in-the-bike-lanes

What's worse is that from the Oregonian to the Mercury, a huge portion of Portland's media are members of the bicycle mafia.

That's why they slurp up and spit out Scam Adam's drivel that more bike paths will actually reduce sewer costs.

I buttonholed him after he gave a plea for his vote at a Hollywood Boosters meeting last week. He is very sure of himself and looks you right in the eye, gets real close as he reiterates his bureaucratic double speak. I really love the way he all of the sudden added economic and job development to his repertoire. He is another political hack that has done nothing but BS his last eight years at Metro. We can do so much better than him. Sadly enough he doesn’t get it and with his name familiarity he will probably get elected to the position.

Yeah, Matt, I did read that -- here:

https://bojack.org/2010/03/blood_on_the_streetcar_tracks.html

We'll have a lot of bike paths and less traffic as we pass by the vacant houses and decaying Portland neighborhoods. With another housing decline on the horizon and + 200,000 foreclosure filings a month nationwide, the elected officials will have served their masters well. Thanks Rex, job well done. Make sure you put plenty of bike paths on the billion dollar Columbia River bridge to nowhere.

"Blood in the bike lanes!" Great speech, Matt. I stand mildly corrected.

Well, he's also claiming credit for bringing Genentech to Hillsboro. So it might be unfair to say he doesn't care AT ALL about the regional economy, but we can definitely question whether he cares ENOUGH about it.

Then, I see this clap trap from Sam the Tram:

"RT @katjatweets: Bike to Blazers tonight! #pdx Salmon st fountain @ 5:30 pm. Join @Mayorsamadams, @Rexburkholder, @BikePortland, @BTA"

More of the same:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/04/more_bioswale_bikeway_blowback.html

Blood in the bike lanes!
Blood on the streetcar tracks

Very good reads.

Don't forget to remember those few Law enforcement officers that need help too. You will find them plying their trade behind "policies..."

Folks talk a lot about bike-lanes as waste, and they are and I hate to distract from that, but they aren't even good resources for bicycle-riders. On this I am an expert. The placement of the bicycle-lane on SW 14th killed Tracy Sparling just as if PBOT put a gun to her head. Any fool, let alone an expert of my caliber, can sit atop that little hill, and facing north, can see that that bike-lane is the LAST place you want to be on a bike under any circumstance. As we will soon witness backlash directed towards pushy, grabby, cyclists almost inevitably manifests as an attempt to make bike-lanes the ONLY place bikes are allowed on the highway. That would be my fellow bicycle-riders providing 'them' the rope to hang us with.

Bicycle-lanes provide a false sense of security. They inherently force bicycle-riders to ride too close to parked cars which increases the likelihood of getting 'doored'. The implementation of most bike-lanes in P-town force bicycle-riders to ride past the right-hand-side of right-turning motorists. On multiple-lane, one-way highways, like SW Broadway for instance, left-turning cyclists must find a way to safely exit that stupid buffered bike-lane, make it across two lanes of motorist traffic in the space of less than 500ft.; and all without breaking Oregon's 'Lane-sweep' law.

I've seen figures as high as $60,000,000 for BES's stupid Sustainability Center. How many state-of-the-art housing and medical facilities for the poor could that money build?

I've been operating a bicycle on Portland streets for over 25 years - carfree every day of that. I haven't had a car titled in my name in over two-decades. Additionally 12 of those years I made a living on Portland streets as a professional bicycle operator. In my expert opinion bike-lanes, bike-boulevards - oh wait we're not calling them that anymore, are an affectation. A completely useless tool.

Don't even get me started on curb-extensions.

Our regional economy is "dying"?

Check this out: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/why-humanity-loves-and-needs-cities/

Check out the graph. Look at how much more productive the Portland area on a per-capita basis than most other cities. Yes, this is 2008 data, but you were saying essentially the same thing in '08, '07, '06, '05...

The data do not support your assertion, Mr. Bog. While Portland is surely down off its highs compared to the boom, so is everywhere else. While more fiscal austerity is welcome in Metro and Portland city government, to go with hyperbole such as "the regional economy is dying" just isn't supported by the data that are out there. It could be a lot lot worse. (Hello, Yuma!)

Right or left politically - I do not want to be controlled by those as to how I should live. I am particularly annoyed by the "smart growth" ones promoting how we should live.

I do not see how their policies are smart. This isn’t just about the bikes, it is about the housing agenda as well. The horrendous infill density in areas of our city are destroying the character and the livability of those neighborhoods. In some places creating future ghettos. It is well and good for the smart growth folks to advocate for infill as long as "the problems of the ugly housing" go into areas other than where they live. I am thinking the promoters of those policies do not live in those areas.

Gardens are "green", how green then is it to have people living in high density units without even a patio to put a tomato plant? How green is it to destroy groves of huge firs and cedars to make room for developments? How green is it to take the best fertile farmland in our valley and fill that land with development?

I wrote some time ago about a conversation I had years ago on the steps of the Central Library after a meeting there with Rex Burkholder. I had a talk with Burkholder about my dismay regarding some “affordable housing units and density”. He said to me that this is not just about housing for low income, but will be for my children and grandchildren. I answered that I did not think that this is what we had in mind for the American dream! Apparently though, it must have been be on the mind of some. I remember this as it was jolting for me to hear this especially years ago. It now makes me wonder how far ahead some were planning and deciding how and where we should all live.

Please do not label me as a sprawl advocate either. As I have explained before, sprawl is a negative horizontal and density is a negative vertical, so it is time we have a conversation of options and an update to evaluate these policies instead of just repeat and lock step of the smart growth policies. In the mix of conversation, we need to take a very close look at livability of citizens and who benefits financially from these policies?

Eric...
Rex can dishonestly take all of the credit for Genentech he wants, but he is late to the party. Wyden, Merkley, and Wu, could not get in front of the cameras fast enough to take credit at the initial opening. Just one more example of the 'Rex the hack' trying to spin something out of his woeful incompetency.

I would add that in the same vein we should also not do a repeat and lock step of development as usual on sprawl such as strip malls, etc when the UGB is extended.

I stand by my statement that Portland's economy is dying. The fact that other areas' economies are also in dire straits doesn't change the reality:

Oregon's unemployment rate remained at 10.6% in March, the state's fifth consecutive month of stagnation. Oregon's rate is still almost a percentage point above the national average.

Yes, this is 2008 data, but you were saying essentially the same thing in '08, '07, '06, '05...

Great argument.

Roger,
If you have to quote 2008 data you must work as a 'public servant' to be able to spin that information as substance. Jack is right, and the downward trend for the City of Portland has been happening for years despite the data/ variables you cite. The point being the long-held corrupted processes of Portland city government are not sustainable at any level. We are dying as a community much faster than you think, and drastic changes are needed...now.

clinamen, you have some very good thoughts, especially about future ghettos. I'll get off my soap box in a minute, but the huge problem with Portland's policies isn't just about the arrogant concept of "smart growth": density, transit, etc...it is that these policies have been so terribly void of actual economic developemnt. If you engineer a city to be as dense and as transit oriented as Portland planners have, it will be terribly unsuccessful without job growth in those urban centers you are planning.

What our beloved City Council doesn't understand, led by our uneducated Mayor, is that a city can plan for "smart growth" through density and transit all they want, but if they are unwilling to court job growth it all means nothing and actually becomes less sustainable and inefficient. How much sense does it make to have an expensive dense neighborhood like the Pearl District that provides has services (like Safeway, Starbucks, restaurants, bars, etc.) but all the job growth is in outlying suburban areas outside the City? No sense at all. The residents of the Pearl must commute (likely by car) to their jobs elsewhere, and the workers at Safeway in the Pearl must commute in from Gresham because they can't afford the housing nearby.

If Portland is going to embark on these wet dreams of density and transit -- as they've been doing for decades -- they MUST also go all-in and encourage large employers to locate to the City for all those planning efforts to pay off. Otherwise, you'll continue to see massive failure on the scale of the SoWa district.

SoWhat would have been the perfect place for blue-collar jobs. But no -- we get failed condo towers. What stupidity.

Yes, tell Rex that oil is going to last forever, and we don't need to think about alternative transportation models.

oil is going to last forever

PEAK OIL! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

That is so 2006...

Roger comments: . . . While more fiscal austerity is welcome in Metro and Portland city government, to go with hyperbole such as "the regional economy is dying" just isn't supported by the data that are out there. It could be a lot lot worse. (Hello, Yuma!)

I believe some are looking at financial problems that may be coming down the pike as elected officials are carrying on as though there is no accountability needed. You add all these up and it does not look good. . and just because it is worse elsewhere doesn't make it more acceptable. Again, are the plans being promoted going to have to be paid for dearly by us and future generations?

Are you aware of future water rates?
Double according to PWB proposals and what will this increase have on the impact of our business community and economy?

All -

Quoted 2008 data because that's the latest available on GMP. The next update will be out in Feb 2011, according to the BEA. Let's check back then and see how we're doing in terms of productivity, which is the ultimate in terms of determining living standards.

Just because we have an excess of available labor (unemployment rate) doesn't mean those who are working (including myself, at a PRIVATE SECTOR CONSULTING FIRM - chew on it, haters!) aren't contributing to that productivity.

Portland's unemployment rate is still lower than Clark County's 14.8%, which is supposedly doing the "right" thing in terms of development and business friendliness. Also, suburban office vacancy rates are higher than downtown's, according to data from the O today.

You guys don't have any data to back you up in terms of the local economy dying RELATIVE TO OTHER PLACES. I win.

Yes, and now you get to retire. Give my love to Rex (if you aren't Rex).

Roger, what percentage of the business that the PRIVATE SECTOR CONSULTING FIRM you work for comes from contracts with government agencies? Just asking.

Have I told you lately that I heart you?

Roger,
2011? The house of cards may have fallen by then.

I heard no response about the impact our double water rates will have on our economy. When will the data be out on that - in 2014 after the increases? We don't know what the rates will be after 2014.

The Portland Water Bureau proposed rate increases:
FY 2009-10 17.9%
FY 2010-11 18.9%
FY 2011-12 19.0%
FY 2012-13 18.8%
FY 2013-14 19.0%
In addition to the above proposed water usage charge, the base charge will
also be increased.

"The direction of our local government is so juvenile right now. It's really stunning."

As frustrating as this is, it's heartening to see that so many people get it.

Watching the two left-most Metro candidates fall all over themselves to talk green while revealing a complete lack of knowledge about economic development sums up our problem very well. Vote for Tom Hughes. Even if you don't know much about him, how could he possibly be worse?

Jack banned me so I can't respond to any of you. (Jack, if you want to, leave this up as an explanation of why I can't respond. Otherwise, I understand why you don't want me responding to arguments. Rex says hi btw.)

Roger's NY Times citation presents data at the metropolitan area level. In the Portland metro area, the City of Portland has suffered a net loss of jobs which was offset by suburban growth in areas such as Hillsboro. If density is correlated with prosperity, why has economic growth been in our less dense areas, despite massive subsidies to support the core?

I love it - the newest trend in Portland will be "green ghettos"

Just a note in this discussion. Roger says there is no evidence that the suburbs are doing better than downtown. Try this:

http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/appendix_11_hovee_products.pdf

It is a study done for Metro. Take a look at Figure 4 on page 21. Check out employment trends in Portland relative to the remainder of the region. It is categorized as Central and Inner North & East.

Roger,
Data and statistics can be maniplulated to return the conclusion the person presenting them wants to advance. Being the smug "private sector consulting firm" person you are, you should know that. (Even if you really are Rex or maybe Randy.)
What big or small companies do you see seeking Portland as headquarters? Freightliner was out the door because of Portland government policies and costs until they got an 11th hour direction from their headquaters to stay put for other business reasons. Saks, out the door, Steinfelds pickles, out the door, Lufthansa, out the door...etc. Real jobs...REALlY GONE, FOREVER.... not just some data points. Add to that the water /sewer, systems developement fees, all increasing with no benefits. Good place to start a business.

Yeh, you win... being misguided, out of touch, and misinformed. Hope that PERS package works out ok.

I love it - the newest trend in Portland will be "green ghettos"

This sounds like a smart-ass comment, but it's already happening in those LEED bunkers in the Pearl and other close-in properties...high vacancy, dumpy looking "green" properties like the hipster ASA building are everywhere. It's very sad...all those buildings might be 50% vacant, but at least they're LEED certified. How "sustainable" is that?

Roger, do you work at COC or John Frego's shop?

Roger and the rest of you City of Portland truthers read Metro's recent draft urban growth report economic section. The Portland city area bled jobs over the last 8 years while outer Westside saved the region's bacon.

That's Rex's staff's document, reviewed by all jurisdictions throughout the region, and their myriad attorneys and stakeholders.

If you want to reject the evidence, great, but then you aren't entitled to the discussion.

I've noted that most of the bankrupt and failing developments, builders and developers were those who embraced "green building". Those that have survived post 2008 have, by in large, given up the LEED and Earth Advantage certifications.

I was so happy to land back in Austin, I kissed the very ground.

Yes, Texas is full of many stupid, bigoted Republican troglodytes, and Austin is CHOCK full of many stupid bike nazis and skill-less government goldbrickers, but still.

At. Least. They. Let. You. Earn. A. Living. Here.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/03/22/daily45.html

7.2 percent Unemployment. Lowest in America. About what it was during the *good* years in Portland.

Jack, I'll buy you the $50 scotch of your choice if you ever get out of that dying sewer of a once beautiful industrial city. Such a shame, it has, well, had so much potential. It really could be a great seaport with a roaring economy. Towards the end of my tour of duty, the few tourists left would ask me what the main economic base in Portland was.

"Government," I replied, each and every time.

I am extremely familiar with the history of the CCCP. This is the road you are on, Portland.

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

It is comical to see Burkholder and Stacy falling all over each other trying now to be the "economic expert", when just six months ago they wouldn't even attach the word to their names. They just talked Bikes, Green and Density. Now each claim they brought Genentech to Hillsboro. How could they even know it is out there, there isn't even a bike trail to it?

You would think with all the taxpayer incentives and taxpayer paid infrastructure that SoWhat would be the "logical" choice for Genentech to move to-isn't that the Green, Density way? B and S's urban model didn't work even with all the gimmies.

Stacy even spearheaded LUBA appeals through his 1000 Friends of Oregon to stop Genentech. But he claims in the WW article today that "we wanted to define conditions specific to the need for the property. We wanted to make sure, for example, that it wouldn't just be 'big-box' retail." Is time consuming legal action the best way to encourage a company to come to this metro region, Stacy? What right does 1000 Friends have to put conditions on property besides that of the underlying zoning and all the other "conditions" of WA Co. and City of Hillsboro?

This is like Sam Adams and the rest of the pols dictating no "big boxes" for Cascade Station, only transit orient development. Then five years later the biggest box of the world moves in, IKEA, with Sam's blessing. We have too many politician meddling where they should sit down and stop using their god-like obstructions. By the way, Stacy and 1000 Friends advocated for no 'big-box' for Cascade too, beside Burkholder.

Now Stacy and Burkholder are the economic experts that want to run METRO.

Peak Oil was indeed so 2006 -- even the military is noticing: no slack in oil by 12, 10Mbpd short by 15. That means vertical price curve for a while, until our economy folds into a tiny spitball.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

ex-cabbie:

Austin = Capital of Texas and with a huge public university. You can't just look at the percentage alone.

I agree, it's doing better than most cities, but government has not contracted as much as private industries.

ex-cabbie:"Towards the end of my tour of duty, the few tourists left would ask me what the main economic base in Portland was.

"Government," I replied, each and every time.

I am extremely familiar with the history of the CCCP. This is the road you are on, Portland.

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

ws: Guess what the biggest employer of Austin's economy is: Government.

Portland's economy is way less dependent on government:

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Austin-Economy.html

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Portland-Economy.html

Your argument makes no sense, in fact you just admitted you didn't like Portland because of "government employers" but moved to Austin instead which has way more of its economy based on government.

Can you please explain this?

PD:"If Portland is going to embark on these wet dreams of density and transit -- as they've been doing for decades -- they MUST also go all-in and encourage large employers to locate to the City for all those planning efforts to pay off."

ws:I agree 100% with this statement. It's like building a house, you need the foundation first before you put up the walls, and I think that's a pertinent analogy to jobs and transit.

The best thing Portland can do for transit and density is to have a high job concentration. Work on that first, and the rest will follow easier.

But that's not to say Portland's doing bad things. In fact, office vacancies are higher in the suburbs -- way higher:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/04/top_5_downtown_portland_office.html

People won't believe this, but the issue is in the suburbs you can't see what's vacant and not vacant as it's an anonymous landscape of driving by in your car.

In the city, at least at street level, people can see inside storefronts and buildings (foot, bike, car, transit) and know what's going on (or not going on) inside.

Not so much by driving down Kruse Way. The only relative indication of what's inside might be the amount of cars parked out front. Just some observations.

I think the issue is, if these numbers were reversed in their locations, Jack Bog would have an article post saying how bad Portland is performing compared to the suburbs in regards to vacancies, and the typical ditto heads would nod along in agreement.

How about some praise, for once? People need to be more objective about things.

clinaman:"Gardens are "green", how green then is it to have people living in high density units without even a patio to put a tomato plant? How green is it to destroy groves of huge firs and cedars to make room for developments? How green is it to take the best fertile farmland in our valley and fill that land with development?"

ws:Your statements are actually contradicting themselves.

1) There's good and bad density, and there's good and bad infill. I've seen it all in Portland.

2) You need to have a set criteria for what density means. Building height often has nothing to do with density. Density is an expression of population or units over land area.

3) If you want more farmland and natural areas to be paved over, then building @ low densities will consume more of it. That is how you are contradicting yourself.

You can't have low density and save natural farm areas whilst maintaining "economic growth". It just does not work that way.

That does not mean that ugly skinny homes in nice neighborhoods are a solution to sprawl. I am not advocating for that.

There is another option, however: Stop any and all development (which will ration the housing supply and increase housing costs more and it will reduce jobs so nobody else moves here, because so much job growth is on the development/constructions side of things.

Let's see:

I have a great answer for being Green, Smart growth and feeding the population.

It's called "Soylent Green"

WS, you missed my sense of humor and irony, I guess. Here, I'll hold your hand and explain it to you.

This is my hometown...I'm well aware of why it is here and what it's economy is based on. It's the capital of a very large, very important State with the second highest population after California, not some silly irrelevant backwater like Portland, and a large private enterprise hub to boot, with very favorable tax incentives for businesses to start up here.

There are more people in the suburbs of the DFW Metroplex or the suburbs of Houston than there are in the entire state of Oregon.

This is partly why Texas has a large state capitol and governmental apparatus in Austin, in addition to several huge, very important, world renowned University systems. As opposed to ridiculous PC indoctrination camps like PSU and Reed which pump out failures unfit to even drive cabs or pour coffee.

Portland was built to be an industrial seaport, and at one time imported/ exported lots of goods. That is why it was built in the first place.

Port-land. The potential of which it has stupidly thrown away in favor of an endlessly growing government apparatus that serves no visible purpose, other than to drain the pitiful amount of free enterprise left and feed itself on that lifeblood of the citizenry.

That was my point. It makes sense to have what Austin has in Austin, because of what it is and why it was created.

There, that didn't hurt so bad, did it ?

I still don't understand your logic, Austin's economy is mostly government.

ex-cabbie:"There are more people in the suburbs of the DFW Metroplex or the suburbs of Houston than there are in the entire state of Oregon."

ws:I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Really I don't.

Great, NYC metro area is the same size as Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia combined...since size matter apparently.

The population of Texas in relation to Austin's government size is really not any different than the fact that Portland constitutes about 2/3rds of Oregon's total population. It is only natural that certain federal and state government agencies/boards/departments be located in Portland that have nothing to do with Multnomah Co. or even the city of Portland. It's just their home base of operations.

Transportation dynamics have changed greatly in the last 50 years. It probably makes little sense that Portland remain a true "port" town as you say as it's not very close to the sea, technically speaking, not to mention the US exports very few materials.

You make it sounds like someone has been scheming on how to not make Portland a true port town. Get real.

Have you ever spent a month or two exploring Austin, WS, as opposed to looking up cooked statistics that support your worldview ? The private sector economy here is ROARING compared to Portland. It's a killer town, check it out some day. Very tolerant, very liberal. And there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs, many of which have nothing to do with UT or the Government.

The problem, WS, is that government does not create wealth. It has to have private enterprise to tax in the first place.

It would seem that you are no doubt one of the bloodsuckers, and not one of the producers, by the tenor of your diatribes on here.

What you are going to learn, is that when the last private enterprise has been driven out of that third tier, irrelevant little hellhole you live in, the government will finally have nothing left to bleed. And that, ultimately, will be a wonderful day for Portland.

Perhaps then someone will finally re-dredge the Columbia, knock down all those ugly condos, and bring in dirty, seedy, water based industrial Port traffic from Asia, with everything that comes along with it.

Haven't you read your Y2Kunstler ? I have. This is one of his key points.

ex-cabbie:

I actually agree completely with fostering private enterprise, as you mention. I have never said anything bad about private industry or even anything remotely negative about Austin...I don't know why you're hinting at such, or trying to explain simple economics that private industry pays for public services. Thanks, you've taught me so much.

I think Austin is doing great. I hope they continue to do well, and I agree they have good business environment and better overall than Portland's, at least depending on your industry.

I am merely questioning your assertion about Portland's economy being mostly government, which is not true. Your next comment was you were glad you left Portland (due to such conditions) and your current city is Austin...which doesn't make any sense because government is their biggest economic base, which was a major reason why you didn't like Portland.

That's called a contradiction.

I should check Austin out sometime. If I come, and ask you personally what Austin's largest economic sector is in similar fashion to your above anecdote regarding Portland, your reply will be what?

Hopefully you'll say "government", because those pesky numbers I presented (a tad old, but still relevant) prove my point.

Once again:

I never said anything bad about Austin and this post is not meant to be a slam on Austin. I'm just trying to wrap my head around your inane logic in comparing the two cities.

Apparently Portland beat you up and took your lunch money. Get over it.

I couldn’t get the link to the August 14, 2005 Oregonian article “Curbing urban sprawl, Canada style” This article was about Abbotsford, B.C.
The heading - Oregon vs British Columbia

Two approaches to protecting farmlands:
Created: Both systems set up in 1973; both lauded as successful
Emphasis: British Columbia drew boundaries around farms; Oregon around cities
Acreage: British Columbia gained 160,000 productive farm acres; Oregon lost 900,000 acres since 1980
Politics: British Columbia’s system is considered untouchable; in Oregon, home builders and environmentalists are entrenched camps.

I called out the hypocrisy of Portland touting how green the city is and showed examples of that hypocrisy by my paragraph on green matters. My perception is and may be wrong about this, is that some did not like what I said and called it contradictory.

Note my words, I said “best fertile farmland” is being developed. I did not use the word “low” density. Where I am going with this is not just a discussion of skinny houses, there is quite a long list of matters to discuss as well. Does quality of life count here? or does economics trump all? What do other cities do that provide jobs without the “negative density plan” we have in Portland? I mentioned there are many who promote some of this here who would not live in the neighborhoods where the agenda has been pushed in a very negative way.

Years ago, we needed to discuss other options such as communities newly built that work well, different concepts. Then there are satellite cities. They differ from suburbs in that they have distinct employment bases, commuter sheds, and cultural offerings from the central metropolis, as well as an independent municipal government. Satellite cities are not bedroom communities.

Other options might have been more livable for all instead of an overlay of density on our city grids. We do have small towns with built in infrastructure and we may need a different mind set to bring jobs to those towns. I think we recognize though that we have a problem with jobs period. Unfortunately, NAFTA changed too much in our country and we may have to grow, (as the thread title) and it may not be in the economic way as we have in the past, but to grow as in maturity. We need to pay attention as to what is important for each of us for our quality of life.

Look, this is a huge topic, and it is good to have the discussion.

My God, ws, you are really dense. Read ex-cabbie with satire in mind, and not so damn literal.

Sheeesh! Pushing your buttons I guess.

Lawrence:

I actually addressed ex-cabbie in an appropriate and truly nice way in my first comments directed towards him inquiring of what he meant.

His very first sentence to me is:

"WS, you missed my sense of humor and irony, I guess. Here, I'll hold your hand and explain it to you."

Would that push your buttons?

The last button in this thread has been pushed.