Port of Portland deliberately contaminating West Hayden Island
And their greasy friends at the state DEQ are playing right along. Screw the bald eagles -- the Goldschmidt boys smell money.
Meanwhile, in addition to Isaac Laquedem's excellent piece of the other day regarding Multnomah County's role in the West Hayden Island saga -- and the connection to the new interstate bridge project -- a reader sends along some additional fuel for thought:
Most people miss the point of the business community about West Hayden Island. Metro has carried the whole 800+ acres on the books as entirely open for industrial or employment development. (This kind of use never gets urban renewal subsidies in PDX.) Metro has denied urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion for employment lands on the basis that there are plenty of available acres inside the UGB, including this parcel. WHI was intended to be a deep water port, until the area was left undeveloped for a number of years and trees, etc. grew back on it (it had been stripped), making it "habitat," and starting the current struggle over its future. The struggle started about 20 years ago, but most people don't follow this kind of news, and the city keeps dragging out the date to make a decision.So, the Metro/city politicians have kept it labeled as industrial land to satisfy the industrial developers and industries themselves, and as habitat to keep their environmental supporters happy, and have called it both to keep the 1000 Friends happy (they want no UGB expansion), thereby lying to everybody by trying to keep everybody happy. Now that the day to make a real decision about it keeps approaching, the city keeps trying to postpone the day it has to confess that it and Metro haven't really meant what they said by their multiple designations and promises.
Add to this that the unions want the kind of industries associated with a port terminal, because they provide good paying jobs that can be organized. That is another reason the city keeps dragging its feet. Many local politicians are supported by these unions, and they have made promises they can't deliver on without crossing the environmentalists they have made opposing promises to. I f they satisfy the environmentalists, the industrial users will want more industrial land, which will make the 1000 Friends unhappy. The only thing that keeps everybody from complaining is to make no decision.
| Posted at 6:42 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (9)
As with all things, money talks. Expect for the local political hacks to side with the Labor Unions on this one - the Stevedores can outspend the enviros.
Posted by MachineShedFred | August 5, 2010 8:17 AM
The dots get connected. Thanks Jack for providing this forum for reliable information and discussion. I don't think this thing is over by any means.
Posted by Old Shep | August 5, 2010 9:00 AM
This issue will be resolved by a judge.
Posted by jimbo | August 5, 2010 10:08 AM
Where the hell is the EPA in all of this?
Posted by LucsAdvo | August 5, 2010 10:34 AM
Mugwumps! No wonder everybody thinks their goal was the done deal 20 years ago. We need a new planning code "RJ" for regional jewel and turn out any mugwump who won't go there.
Posted by dyspeptic | August 5, 2010 10:56 AM
The mantra of the UGB has outlived its usefulness.
It is time to readdress this plan.
It is time to sort out what is myth and what is reality.
I will give it this, this may have sounded good and began with good intentions.
Save Farm land and forests and no sprawl.
Plus it was quite easy to sell this plan to the people of Portland.
In my opinion, greed stepped in then as the driving factor.
Then there are those who think the UGB is a great plan as long as the “ugly” densities are not in their neighborhoods. Other factors and there are many, such as in this thread of West Hayden Island, are coming to a head now.
What is the reality of what has happened?
We have incrementally destroyed the best fertile farm land within the UGB.
In my opinion, this turned out to be financially beneficial for some, but for many of us, our quality of life in this area has greatly suffered. We have people who are warehoused in cell like structures, not even a deck to step out for fresh air or to grow a little food.
Just to question this does not make one pro-sprawl. There are other options.
But open eyes and take a look – the UGB gets extended anyway and the strip development continues. Does that not look like sprawl? Also, why are we so contained in here and see little farm land growing food for us, but instead peppered with McMansions?? Our beautiful mountains around us with trees have been stripped for developments. Why did we not keep those in tact and do developments on the other side if need be? Instead we have erosion, huge tracts of trees destroyed, visual blight but I guess that doesn’t count.
There is much more one can write about this.
Lets just end with:
Sprawl carried to lengths - Horizontal Negative
Density carried to lengths - Vertical Negative
This community has been reduced down to having to work with Negatives.
There are options and were, but essentially were not foreseen or were not allowed on the table for discussion. Why?
Posted by clinamen | August 5, 2010 11:30 AM
"This community has been reduced down to having to work with Negatives.
There are options and were, but essentially were not foreseen or were not allowed on the table for discussion. Why?"
Because every time you suggest that people stop breeding people turn purple with rage.
Posted by George Anonymuncule Seldes | August 5, 2010 1:54 PM
Because every time you suggest that people stop breeding people turn purple with rage.
Or they call you a racist.
Posted by ex-cabbie | August 5, 2010 8:15 PM
George wrote "Because every time you suggest that people stop breeding people turn purple with rage." Just the breeders turn purple, George. The rest of us are fine with it.
Posted by LucsAdvo | August 6, 2010 10:30 PM