Debunking Squared


Earlier this year the Cato Institute published a “Debunking Portland” report by Randall O’Toole. The Congress for New Urbanism has now published a “Debunking Cato” report that refutes many of the assertions of O’Toole’s report.

While I’m glad someone has our back, I’d rather just keep putting energy into making Portland better.


86 responses to “Debunking Squared”

  1. Is O’Toole also working for the Thereau Institute? I remember seeing something they did Post-Katrina blaming NORTA for the people who died after the hurricane because they spent so much on the streetcar system, mainly the Riverfront, Canal, and the proposed(at the time) Desire line. Saying they were more interested in moving tourists, and the money spent on the streetcars could have been used to buy low-income people a car so they could get out of town. They ignored that Canal St was a Light Rail line in Streetcar Skin(Except for Old Desire, the old streetcars of New Orleans were entirely within the Neutral Grounds). Some times people try to spin a disaster to go for their own theories, and that is going way too far trying to criticize something they don’t like.

  2. ETF– THere is some truth to O’Toole’s claims:

    Most of the victims during hurricane Katrina were over-reliant on government handouts. They didn’t own their own car/transportation so they relied on the government to provide it. They didn’t have jobs and were on food stamps and financial assistance.

    When time came to evacuate, the government split too… so you had this huge group of people to fend for themselves but couldn’t because they relied on the government for everything. I kind of felt sorry for them until I saw this guy using a stolen inflatable raft to loot an electronics store. Oh, and there was a woman who used her red cross debit card to buy a designer purse.

    So maybe it wasn’t the streetcar that cause all of the deaths during Katrina– but it did play a small role.

  3. Re: New Orleans.

    Anthony, your callousness knows no bounds and is matched only by your ignorance. I can’t believe you would seriously use the “welfare queen” stereotype to somehow blame those who died and who were stranded and abandoned.

    As for cars being some source of salvation: A friend of mine is a New Orleans resident who did flee by car. She had to walk 10 miles when the 10 lane freeway became a giant parking lot. Even with the whole thing made one-way north.

    Shame on you.

  4. There is some truth to O’Toole’s claims

    No doubt. There was some truth in Goebbels’ claims too. There usually is some truth in any propaganda no matter how packed with mistruths.

  5. SOrry to start that debate.

    Now, I read an article in TRAINS Magazine on the New Orleans RTA a few months ago. They suffered too. The brand new replicas were flooded at Randolph Station, and they barely got some of the people left their to hold down the fort, including their PR Team out. The cars that are running until the Red Cars are back up and running, on all lines, are the same ones that were used on St. Charles line. Now, the City of New Orleans the year before was used as an evacuation train, and Amtrak had the consist of the Crescent coupled to it, all Coach Space was filled, and the sleepers on the Crescent, which could have been used as Day Rooms and seated at least 2 people in each room, were not used, because they were short on sleeper attendents. Now thanks to the Metroliner being retired, and a FEMA Grant, Amtrak has about 2 Dozen Amfleet Coaches on stand-by.

    Now I bet there are some that are saying make I-10 a 12 lane freeway. Texas is selling the TTC as a means to evacuate cities, and I bet some are saying the Rail Component would only get in the way, even though some conceptual designs call for 6 highway lanes, and 6 Tracks, which could efficiently be used for evacuation. Use the Berlin Airlift example of how we efficiently used the three air corridors alloted by the treaty. Two were for inbound traffic, the other was for outbound.

  6. Cato is a corporate-funded, right-wing propaganda shop masquerading as a libertarian think tank. Big Tobacco provides much of its funding, it’s allied with disinformation king Rupert Murdoch, and its studies have been widely discredited by reputable scholars and scientists. Yet mainstream media give it equal prominence as objective, disinterested policy analysts and planners who have actual evidence to back up their plans and recommendations. See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1409, http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html and many other studies cited there. Its claims should not be taken seriously, but since so many lazy or conservative media outlets seem to cite it so often, it’s good to have these reality based rebuttals out there.

    My favorite line in the new report: “When government favors cars, O’Toole is a fervent believer in the wisdom of Big Brother. Only when government seeks to comfort pedestrians and transit users does O’Toole’s libertarian side emerge from hiding.”

    Anyone advocating for the tremendous amount of government spending (and inefficient spending at that) on highways and the other publicly funded costs of sprawl (power hookups, sewer extensions etc.) can hardly be a libertarian. Cato is a paid-off shill for its backers who profit from sprawl — the highway lobby, oil companies et al.

  7. Believe it or not, this right wing vs left wing argument has been going on since the founding of this country.

    Remember the pro slave states? I would imagine that O’Toole and these phony “libertarians” would fall completely on the side of slavery, since of course slavery was good for making money, at least for the owners of the slaves.

    This blind addiction to the profit motive and anti government is what has made this country “great”. I use the term loosely.

    (Of course it didn’t hurt that the rest of the world was completely destroyed by WW2 which also contributed to making the USA ‘great’)

  8. One thing that some of O’Toole and his cohorts do is challenge the assumption that car use is going down, with their myth of the vanishing American Automobile. I myself am undivided on an upcoming Roads and Transit issue, but the American Dream Coalition has supported a group that wants to trash the transit portion, and put in freeways that are either unaffordable(adding more lanes through Downtown Seattle on I-5 where there is not enough room, and the property values are high), or ones that are politically unpopular, such as the often proposed I-605. They also think that an 8-lane SR520 Bridge across Lake Washington is the way to go, because that would require more lanes on I-5.

    Now, I wonder, would the TI, ADC, and others go after a dead man? Sorry to phrase it that way, but this Op-Ed by a local historian up here just got published by the Seattle Times. Walt Crowley passed on last week, after a stroke, but he had wrote this final column, describing the end of the ICE Age, as in Internal Combustion Engine.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003913066_sundaycrowley30.html

    Now, during the I-912 debate, a local talk show host, Dave Ross, who calls himself the Crusader for Common Sense actually asked the DOT how much it would take to do what some call for to address congestion on I-5. Two new GP lanes, in each direction. They said about $25 Billion, and that would be just from SPokane Street to Northgate. THe gas tax would have been unbearable to fund just that project. How many new commuter trips on the freeway? About 10,000. They are the same ones that say just 4 times that on Light Rail is bad. (The I-5 in Seattle is the last project listed on the page)

    [link]http://www.letsgetwashingtonmoving.com/pages/projects.htm[/link]

  9. Although as a non-driver and heavy transit user I am not really in O’Toole’s camp, many of the things he says about the light rail system here in Portland ring true. We would have been much better off if it had never been built at all.

  10. Up here, most of ST LINK is almost finished on the initial segment, as far as trackway construction. THe Tukwilla ELevated just got finished, and now it is down to the Beacon Hill Tunnel, with one bore finished, the other underway. That was the second milestone completed within a month, the other was the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel retrofit, finished and re-opened, and since they got it done on time, safety was the biggest complaint, as the tunnel floor was dropped to accomodate Low-Floor Buses and LRVs. The mirrors were a danger, but Metro solved that, strobe lights on the mirrors of the buses. Now there is better lighting, although I have not checked to see if that relic of Seattle’s Transportation Past in Pioneer Square Station was moved. It was a Cable Car Terminal Sheath wheel found when they excavated the station site in the late 1980s.

    http://www.soundtransit.org/x6448.xml

    My main concern is that it is too late, and that maybe they went too much for grade seperated. Now there are a few spots in the Puget Sound area that Light Rail will not work, and that is on Aurora/SR99 because of the Aurora Bridge. It was built by the city in the 1930s, without provision for the city-owned street railway to use it. Now the geography of that area would probably make a new bridge there too costly, and the old Interuban Route would go through the neighborhood, probably not a good idea today. That was part of an active assault against their own asset the city was doing at the time. The rebuild of the Dravus St Bridge cut the Magnolia routes off from the system. The system was losing money due to the fact Puget Power inflated the purchase price by three times. If they had sold it for what it was worth, around $5 million, they would have had it paid off pretty soon. The system cost $15 million(1919 dollars). Things might have turned out differently if it had not been for the crippling mortage payments, which meant that the employees were being paid in IOUs, and when the banks did not honor them, Nickels and Dimes from the fareboxes.

  11. We would have been much better off if it had never been built at all.

    That may be true for a few people in Portland, but it is not true for most people. The old urbanism tore down neighborhoods for freeways to serve suburban development. The decision to build light rail instead of the Mount Hood freeway was a milestone in the preservation of Portland as a high-quality urban environment. It is difficult to see how the city would be better off without it.

  12. “We would have been much better off if it had never been built at all.”

    THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD! IMAGINE ALL THOSE PEOPLE ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC ON THE ALREADY JAMMED HIGHWAYS!

  13. Portland was a much better city before the LRT and Streetcars were built. You used to be able to drive around downtown unimpeded and the trains have really attracted an undesirable element to downtown and chased away a lot of downtown businesses.

  14. That may be true for a few people in Portland, but it is not true for most people. The old urbanism tore down neighborhoods for freeways to serve suburban development.

    That’s an exaggeration at best.

    The “old urbanism” would seem to suggest that all of Portland would have become paved over by a freeway – you and I know that is FLAT OUT WRONG. (If Portland were paved over, we wouldn’t have a city.)

    Who are the “most” (definition of most: majority; which means for the Portland MSA it is 1,068,783 according to the 2006 U.S Census Bureau estimate) people that would have been impacted by “old urbanism” freeway construction?

    Good luck finding them. Maybe, 20,000 people might have been impacted by that old 1960s era freeway map for Portland. Meanwhile – what is the population of Portland’s metro area that is served by QUALITY public transportation in Portland (within 1/4 mile walking distance), versus the population of Portland’s metro area that is not?

    While I would agree that MAX vs. the Mt. Hood Freeway was a good decision, just how is the Powell Blvd. corridor doing today? The City of Portland has seemed to completely forgotten about that corridor, that it despirately had to have within city limits in the 1980s, but has no desire to improve. (Fortunately, Gresham has improved their stretch of Powell – even taking over the street from ODOT, widening it, adding bike lanes and sidewalks, and promoted lots of development – including truly affordable housing – along the road.)

  15. “The decision to build light rail instead of the Mount Hood freeway was a milestone in the preservation of Portland as a high-quality urban environment. It is difficult to see how the city would be better off without it.”

    >>>> Well, I can see how the city would have been MUCH better off without LRT. If we had invested the money in the bus system instead (including building the Banfield portion as a non-stop busway, as originally planned).

    Instead of a flexible system of BRT and busways, we are stuck with a relatively slow, all-stop, inflexible MAX. With buses, you could have offered more direct service to many more areas.

    So yes, we would have been much better off if MAX had never been built.

  16. You used to be able to drive around downtown unimpeded and the trains have really attracted an undesirable element to downtown and chased away a lot of downtown businesses.

    I don’t know about that, downtown Portland is much more “alive” now (or really, since the late 1970s/early 1980s) than in several decades prior.

    Of course, much of this had to do with:

    1. Government subsidies to downtown businesses and developers,

    2. The original Transit Mall (gulp, government spending on BUSSES!! And it was SUCCESSFUL!!!)

    MAX came later, but didn’t really contribute to any great success. Old Town was (and still is) a magnet for “undesirable” elements. (There’s a reason that the Transit Police station is located at that MAX stop.) The ODS and the Army Corps of Engineers buildings are near MAX but doesn’t generate a lot of transit-use except at 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Mon-Fri. The Galleria stop is…um…a magnet for drunks (thanks to the Peterson’s Market) and that the Galleria lost its significance years ago. (Meanwhile, Seattle has three downtown “malls” – and without light rail. Portland has one – Pioneer Place.)

    And Saturday Market existed before MAX – 12 years before MAX, to be exact. MAX might have promoted more visitors to Saturday Market (in fact I’m probably sure of it, but there’s no way to count) but that success never translated to daily success in the Skidmore Fountain building, or other neighboring buildings.

    It is also worth mentioning that at the same time, the City of Portland spent millions of dollars on parking garages too. Clearly, the mere existance of MAX hardly suggests success (note that we were sold the Convention Center, and then an expansion, and now because there’s “not enough business” we have to have a hotel; the Expo Center is often quiet on weekends, and it took several years for Cascade Station to become anything (and it isn’t a transit-oriented development, but the parking lots are sure busy!).

    What it did take for these properties to develop was political action. Which means we are all paying taxes for the government to come up with some great idea, whether or not it’s truly warranted. But hey, our schools suck, our fire departments are understaffed, our streets have potholes, our sewer system dumps into the Willamette River, and crime is up. No big deal, let’s build a golf course next.

  17. “The old urbanism tore down neighborhoods for freeways to serve suburban development.”

    No, wrong. “Old urbanism” applies to the typical pre-WW2 city, like along Hawthorne and Division, etc. After the war, cities began cutting themselves up with freeways, helping destroy the old urbanist fabric.

    Also note that streetcars were replacing buses well before WW2. So don’t give me the spurious argument that street cars are integral to an old urbanist style city.

  18. The “old urbanism” would seem to suggest that all of Portland would have become paved over by a freeway

    You don’t need to pave the whole city if you divide it up into enclaves surrounded by freeways. The freeway plan for Portland called for north-south freeways along 20th and 50th and east west freeways along Killingsworth and Marine Drive in addition to the Mount Hood Freeway. Its hard to imagine people wanting to live in what remained and if you look at the rest of the country, they generally didn’t.

    Who are the “most”

    Virtually everyone who lives in Portland or the surrounding areas.

    Saturday Market existed before MAX

    So what? Portland existed before MAX. No one is saying the city wouldn’t be here without it.

    we were sold the Convention Center, and then an expansion,

    Who is “we” Erik? I thought you said you lived in Tualatin.

    Old urbanism” applies to the typical pre-WW2 city,

    That isn’t just “old”, its practically pre-historic. Nostaligia is fine, but it isn’t the basis for a modern city. Pre-WW2 Portland was a very quiet backwater. It was hardly a city at all.

    Anyone on this list who is open-minded enough

    To pay attention to that stuff you have to be so open-minded your brains fall out. O’Toole and Cato have absolutely nothing to offer. They are engaged in propaganda.

  19. With buses, you could have offered more direct service to many more areas.

    I don’t think that is true. To the contrary, because of the cost of operating buses is higher, you can provide service to fewer areas. I think there is an illusion that Trimet would be running local buses all the way downtown and that isn’t the way it would work. Instead you would transfer to a bus at your local transit center instead of to light rail.

  20. “Anyone on this list who is open-minded enough”

    Or anyone who is bought and paid for?

    List your funders and maybe I’ll listen…

  21. Virtually everyone who lives in Portland or the surrounding areas.

    Hmm, it seems that you can’t back up your statement with a fact. You seem to conveniently believe that freeways are just 100% bad but MAX is good.

    Maybe we should eliminate Portland’s freeway system and see how many jobs get eliminated by it. Remember, even Intel needs the freeway system to ship out its chips.

    Who is “we” Erik? I thought you said you lived in Tualatin.

    Who owns the Convention Center? METRO.

    Is Tualatin within Metro’s service boundaries? Yes. Does Metro collect taxes to pay for the Convention Center in Tualatin? Yes.

    Who built the Convention Center addition? Metro. Who paid for it? Metro residents.

    Who is wanting to build the hotel? Metro. Who is Metro going to ask to pay for it? Metro residents.

    Oh, by the way, I don’t live in Tualatin.

    I don’t think that is true. To the contrary, because of the cost of operating buses is higher, you can provide service to fewer areas. I think there is an illusion that Trimet would be running local buses all the way downtown and that isn’t the way it would work. Instead you would transfer to a bus at your local transit center instead of to light rail.

    So what you’re saying is that before MAX, Portland served far less service area with its bus fleet? I don’t think so.

    In fact, prior to MAX, more busses ran downtown, and ran straight to destination (without a transfer). Now I don’t necessarily think this is a good idea, it’s just how it was. There are still some local service routes to this day that run downtown – the 1-Vermont, 45-Garden Home, and 36-South Shore are good examples.

    Remember before Westside MAX? Let’s see what busses went from the Westside to downtown: 54, 57, 58 (the Sunset Highway Express), 60, 88, 94. Today, the 57 terms at Beaverton, the old 58 was discontinued and a new 58 bus runs between Portland and Beaverton. The 60 became a shuttle route, and the 88 only travels west of Willow Creek. The 94 was discontinued (and the route number re-used for a new route that serves Tigard/Sherwood.) The 54 is the only route that remains “as is”.

    That meant someone that needed to get from downtown Portland to Intel Aloha used to have a one-bus trip; now it requires MAX plus a bus.

    Look at TriMet’s system map. Take a good, long look at it. And tell me, how much area is served by bus service versus MAX.

    Now, tell me: What would it take to start a new bus route? What would it take to start a new MAX line?

    I’ll give you a hint: a bus route, that needs only two or three busses at peak hour, costs about $1 million. Maybe $1.5M, if you add lots of bus shelters and other amenities.

    That same line, built as a MAX/Streetcar line, would cost at least 20 times that amount.

    Now, you argue that busses are more expensive to operate than Streetcars. OK, now multiply that cost for each of TriMet’s bus lines. There’s 91 of them. Figure it will cost $100 million to upgrade each line (obiviously some will cost more, and some will cost less.) That’s $9.1 BILLION dollars that this region doesn’t have; and doesn’t include the impact that the construction of all of these lines would have on immediate transportation needs.

    The bottom line, as is proven by TriMet’s own actions and financial statements, is that since the construction of the Red and Yellow Lines, TriMet has CUT BACK bus service, both in the schedule and in terms of service reliability. TriMet refuses to follow its bus replacement guidelines and the average coach age has increased. Capacity has not been increased (and in fact has decreased with the elimination of the articulated busses). TriMet is spending hundreds of millions in the Green Line and the Mall project, but is spending nothing to improve bus service to those areas who need it – i.e. Southeast Portland, Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Tigard, Forest Grove, Cornelius.

    The only reason TriMet can’t afford more bus service, is because it has overspent on MAX service, causing its financial condition to deteroriate and wiping out financial reserves. It is not because busses are expensive to operate. And there are ways that TriMet could cut the bus operating costs significantly, but TriMet refuses to do so because it involves an investment in bus service.

    I.E. – Purchasing Hybrid Busses (drops fuel consumption)
    I.E. – Articulated Busses (some routes could cut from four to three busses an hour, and still have an increase in capacity while cutting fuel, maintenance and labor cost by 25%)
    I.E. – Dropping interlined routes such as the 12-Barbur/12-Sandy (reduces late busses, which reduces overtime cost and improves customer satisfaction – which means more riders and more revneue)

  22. Remember, even Intel needs the freeway system to ship out its chips.

    What makes you think the “need” a freeway for their chips.

    Who owns the Convention Center? METRO.

    They do? Since when?

    So what you’re saying is that before MAX, Portland served far less service area with its bus fleet?

    No. Why would you go from service to service area?

    In fact, prior to MAX, more busses ran downtown

    Is that true? What were the bus counts on the transit mall in 1985? And again what does that have to do with anything? obviously MAX replaced some bus service downtown.

    ince the construction of the Red and Yellow Lines, TriMet has CUT BACK bus service

    Again, is that true? They recently cut some service, but is there actually less bus service than there was before either of those lines were built? And if you combine both bus and MAX service, isn’t there still far more combined service?

    nothing to improve bus service to those areas who need it

    More whining about the small part of the glass that is empty. The reality is that most of those communities lack transit because they lack the pedestrian facilities and mixed development that attract transit use.

    Dropping interlined routes such as the 12-Barbur/12-Sandy

    As someone who used that route regularly, I would be opposed to dropping it. People don’t just travel to downtown Portland, they travel through downtown, and there need to be more direct connections like the 12 that allow them to do that.

  23. “Or anyone who is bought and paid for?”

    So what? The whole rail construction thing here in Portland is one corrupt scheme, between crony contractors, other corpations (e.g. Bechtel) and politicians. No better then Cheney and the energy companies.

    Meanwhile, riders like me have to suffer with an inferior transit system, at least in some regards.

  24. “That isn’t just “old”, its practically pre-historic. Nostaligia is fine, but it isn’t the basis for a modern city.”

    >>>>> Isn’t this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black! Sam the Tram and railfans like you want to put Portland back to 1920 with anarchronistic streetcars! Sam even mentioned that particular year.

  25. “So what? The whole rail construction thing here in Portland is one corrupt scheme, between crony contractors, other corpations (e.g. Bechtel) and politicians. No better then Cheney and the energy companies.”

    That’s a big charge (on a number of fronts). Do you have anything to back it up other than a recent WW story that did not, in fact, prove corruption?

    “Meanwhile, riders like me have to suffer with an inferior transit system, at least in some regards.”

    Other than a few commentators on this blog and some national “consultants” with an ax to grind, you won’t find many people who agree with your statement. Maybe you should get out more and check out other transportation systems…

    Room for improvement? Sure. Inferior? Give me a break. Your rhetoric over reaches and undermines your post.

  26. Meanwhile, riders like me have to suffer with an inferior transit system, at least in some regards.

    But in fact, the number of miles of transit service is dramatically higher now than it was in 1986 when the first MAX line was built as this report shows.

    Isn’t this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!

    I don’t know. The color of the pot doesn’t change the color of the kettle one way or another. The fact is there is no real relationship between light rail and 1920’s street cars. And dreaming of a time when there was no traffic on downtown Portland streets won’t recreate that era.

    Who owns the Convention Center? METRO.

    They do? Since when?

    To answer my own question, since 1996 according to this History of MERC.

  27. I want to remind everyone that our rules assume that everyone is sincere in their participation here and we DON’T question their motives.

    Chris – I don’t think anyone has questioned the motives of the participants here. Is it your intent that people are not allowed to question the motives of local elected officials or national think tanks?

  28. If this forum was hooked up to an electrical generator, we could probabaly power the Portland metro area and then some.

    Whats past is past. Instead of focusing on what could have been, let’s channel our energy into making transit in the metro area better.

    Please end this bickering.

  29. But hey, our schools suck, our fire departments are understaffed, our streets have potholes, our sewer system dumps into the Willamette River, and crime is up.

    Yeah, seems to be a “Portland” problem though. Nice shiny skodas but poop, fleeing families and businesses! Oh well at least the vagrants are happy and have a way to bring their dripping gargage bags and can easily transport them and they have a place to pee thanks to Tom Potter. I saw a report on bojack.org that Portland is drowning in debt, too. Sounds like they are really taking their sustainable practices to heart. And yet they have the arrogance to dictate how the rest of the state can live by waltzing out and urging people to vote Yes on 49?

    Who owns the Convention Center? METRO.

    Yes, they do.. And they also own the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, the ZOO and the Expo. Center. Metro is nothing more than Portland’s string puppet. Since Portland came to the realization they cannot control everyone who lives in their city limits they took the garbage agency (Metro) and gave it more power and control over outlying areas. In doing so, now Portland can exert its control over Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, etc. not just downtown Portland! Now you have a bureaucratic behemoth that is more powerful than the State of Oregon!

    other corpations (e.g. Bechtel) and politicians

    I find it interesting that a lot of liberals blast Bechtel and their involvement in Iraq but their liberal politicans here in Portland are in bed with Bechtel.

  30. Chris – I don’t think anyone has questioned the motives of the participants here.

    To the extent that the suggestion is being made that some participants are expressing views because they are paid to do so, rather than because they believe them, we are going beyond the rules.

  31. Chris,

    Fair enough and my guess is that you are calling me out. Having watched the forum over the past few days and not participated, however, I would like to point out these two rules:

    “Constructive disagreement is welcome, but simply repeating your disagreement is not. If your disagreement is simply to protest our point of view, you should find another outlet for your views.”

    “While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home.”?
    It feels a bit arbitrary to have this called out when I think that we can all point to numerous posts over the past few days that have not complied with the above.

  32. It feels a bit arbitrary to have this called out when I think that we can all point to numerous posts over the past few days that have not complied with the above.

    A fair point. As I’ve mentioned recently, my time is being diverted for the next year or so :-)

    Anyone who wants to help with contributor/moderator duties, just raise your hand!

  33. Anyone who wants to help with contributor/moderator duties, just raise your hand!

    JK: HAND RAISED.

    Just joking

    But don’t miss the Antiplanner’s first return shot at the highly paid planners who run the Congress for the New Urbanism to make lots of money sucking in gulliable cities to their planning madness.

    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=253

    A few samples:
    Another CNU co-founder, Peter Calthorpe, has not taken a stand against coercive zoning. After Laguna West, a New Urban development he designed near Sacramento, bankrupted its developer and was redesigned in more conventional patterns by a subsequent developer, Calthorpe went into the business of helping cities write coercive zoning codes that would require New Urban patterns of development whether there was a market for them or not.

    Portland’s plans also depend heavily on tax subsidies to get the kind of development New Urbanists favor. Any plan that says, “We are going to take billions of dollars from taxpayers and give it to a much smaller group of developers who also happen to be campaign contributors” has to be considered coercive.

    By combining the urban-growth boundary to drive up the cost of single-family homes with subsidies to reduce the cost of multifamily housing, Portland is attempting to force a larger percentage of people to choose multifamily than would do so in an unregulated market. Portland taxpayers are also forced to pay for light rail and streetcars even though they voted against any further taxes for light rail in 1998. These are just some of the forms of coercion that Portland-area residents face every day.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. Anyone who wants to help with contributor/moderator duties, just raise your hand!

    JK: HAND RAISED.

    Just joking

    But don’t miss the Antiplanner’s first return shot at the highly paid planners who run the Congress for the New Urbanism to make lots of money sucking in gulliable cities to their planning madness.

    ti.org/antiplanner/?p=253

    A few samples:
    Another CNU co-founder, Peter Calthorpe, has not taken a stand against coercive zoning. After Laguna West, a New Urban development he designed near Sacramento, bankrupted its developer and was redesigned in more conventional patterns by a subsequent developer, Calthorpe went into the business of helping cities write coercive zoning codes that would require New Urban patterns of development whether there was a market for them or not.

    Portland’s plans also depend heavily on tax subsidies to get the kind of development New Urbanists favor. Any plan that says, “We are going to take billions of dollars from taxpayers and give it to a much smaller group of developers who also happen to be campaign contributors” has to be considered coercive.

    By combining the urban-growth boundary to drive up the cost of single-family homes with subsidies to reduce the cost of multifamily housing, Portland is attempting to force a larger percentage of people to choose multifamily than would do so in an unregulated market. Portland taxpayers are also forced to pay for light rail and streetcars even though they voted against any further taxes for light rail in 1998. These are just some of the forms of coercion that Portland-area residents face every day.

    Thanks
    JK

  35. Portland taxpayers are also forced to pay for light rail and streetcars even though they voted against any further taxes for light rail in 1998.

  36. These are just some of the forms of coercion that Portland-area residents face every day

    It’s not just the Portland area – they want to dominate and control the entire state. Jim, remember Macpherson’s meeting in L.O. when he tried to shut you down from filming the town hall? They are elitist power snobs and will stop at nothing. All for them, none for you!

  37. “Portland taxpayers are also forced to pay for light rail and streetcars even though they voted against any further taxes for light rail in 1998.”

    This is untrue, no such vote was ever taken. Like much of what O’Toole and Cato write, you have look hard for even a glimmer of factual accuracy.

  38. Further, the majority of Portland voters approved light rail funding in 1998. The measure was defeated by opposition in the suburbs. So O’Toole not only mischaracterizes the vote, he’s misleading about the result.

  39. JK, I don’t understand why you haven’t moved out of Portland yet. You should come down here to Salem, there are better (and cheaper) shopping options, wide streets downtown and ample parking everywhere. Did I mention the new Airport with several Delta and Horizon Air flights daily and FREE parking? Traffic is non-existant because as you know, density causes traffic problems. Density itself is a big problem and Salemites will never go down the path Portland has chosen for itself. Salem is also the fastest appreciating home market in the U.S. for the last 3 years! Also, you wouldn’t have to live under the Metro oppression any more if you relocated. The Portland area is a sinking ship – get out while you still can!

  40. Did anyone read O’Toole’s response to the “Debunking” piece? It was pretty weak, mainly an attack on other members of CNU (but not the author of the piece) and a lengthy discussion of if admitting to statutory rape but not being charged with the crime made the crime “alleged” or “actually committed.”
    He also took issue with Lewyn’s description of him as a “neo-libertarian”, but then in the following paragraphs admitted that he supports government subsidies through freeway building and expansion.

    Hopefully the other rebuttals will be more substantive…

  41. Did anyone read O’Toole’s response to the “Debunking” piece?

    No.

    It was pretty weak

    Which anyone who has followed O’Toole’s career could have told you without reading it. Cato and O’Toole rely on two things, ideological sou-lmates who require no persuasion because they already agree with their conclusions and ignorance on the part of non-ideological readers.

  42. O’Toole and his friends here are just on the wrong side of history. Its clear they don’t like what Portland has become in the last 30 years, so naturally, they don’t like how its citizens have chosen to invest their transportation dollars. And it is “its citizens,” not some cabal…who elected Bud Clark, who elected Vera Katz, who elected Rex, Brian, Sam, Charlie, even Gorden Smith for God’s sake, etc., etc., etc?
    So in honor of Chris’ run for City Council, it would be fitting for us to take Portland Transport back to its mission…figuring out how to make Portland the most accessible, sustainable and livable city we can with transportation options for all.
    Now who can make the argument for BRT out Barbur instead of MAX?

  43. “Now who can make the argument for BRT out Barbur instead of MAX?”

    >>>> No way are they going to take out two lanes on Burbur to put in MAX. Ditto for a bus ROW. The best that one could do there is limited/express bus operation with signal priority/preemption.

  44. Mr. Antiplanner,

    Can you also explain why you are squatting on portlandtransport.org and redirecting traffic from that url to your own site?

  45. “Cato and O’Toole rely on two things, ideological soulmates who require no persuasion because they already agree with their conclusions and ignorance on the part of non-ideological readers.”

    >>>> Well Ross, I am no ideological soulmate of Cato and O’Toole, as I am a political independent. Yet a lot of things that were said in that report pretaining to light rail in Portland happen to be true.

    As for my “ignorance,” you should know that I have ridden a lot of transit systems in my lifetime (it’s a life-long hobby of mine), and consider myself extremely transit savvy. I know good or bad transit when I see it.

    Now you seem to give the impression that MAX here in Portland walks on water and can do no wrong. Is that not ideological?

  46. Evergreen Transit Fan said:

    Some times people try to spin a disaster to go for their own theories

    Bob T Reply:

    Yup, like saying that racist Republicans knew
    this would happen and decided to let a bunch
    of black people drown.

    Bob Tiernan

  47. Yet a lot of things that were said in that report pretaining to light rail in Portland happen to be true.

    A lot of what they apparently said about Neil Goldschmidt is true too.

    I know good or bad transit when I see it.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think that is true if you consider MAX “bad transit”.

  48. Here is a sample from the latest debunking of the CNU garbage:
    Yes, transit ridership has grown since 1986, but it still hasn’t recovered the market share it had in 1980. Then, transit carried well over 2.6 percent of regional travel and 9.8 percent of commuters to work. Today, it carries 2.2 percent of all travel and 7.6 percent of commuters. That is hardly a success story. Portland transit riders would have been much better off if TriMet had continued to steadily improve bus service throughout the region rather than spend billions of dollars on rail service to a few narrow corridors. From ti.org/antiplanner/?p=254#more-254

    JK: Randal left out the obvious conclusion – lets do the math:
    2007 – 1986 = 21 years
    2.2% – 1.8% = 0.4%
    50% / 0.4% = 125; 21 x 125 = 2625

    That is a clear trend! The planners are succeeding!!
    If this continues, the planners will have succeeded in getting 50% of out of our cars in only 2600 years!!
    What a success.

    Thanks
    JK

  49. Ross Williams Says: (in response to: Did anyone read O’Toole’s response to the “Debunking” piece?)
    No.
    JK: And that is part of why you are so poorly informed. You really need to read both sides of these issues.

    I’ll bet you never looked at actual cost data for rails, bus and cars.

    Have you ever thought about Trimet’s claim that MAX caries the equalvalent of 1 1/3 lanes of I84 and of US26? Then discount that by 2/3 because that is the number that used to be in buses. Westside MAX carries less than ½ of one lane of freeway, but it cost ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

    Thanks
    JK

  50. You really need to read both sides of these issues.

    I do read things on all sides. I just don’t bother to read stuff that is completely unreliable. You don’t learn anything from that.

    Like this, “(In 1980) transit carried well over 2.6 percent of regional travel and 9.8 percent of commuters to work.” Do you really believe that is true? Or, if it is, it is for comparable data. I don’t. And I am not willing to spend several hours fact-checking it, so why would I bother to read it.

  51. Ross Williams Says: I do read things on all sides. I just don’t bother to read stuff that is completely unreliable. You don’t learn anything from that.
    Like this, “(In 1980) transit carried well over 2.6 percent of regional travel and 9.8 percent of commuters to work.” Do you really believe that is true? Or, if it is, it is for comparable data. I don’t. And I am not willing to spend several hours fact-checking it, so why would I bother to read it.
    JK: Without specifically checking that item, it rings true because Trimet’s market share increased by only ½ of 1% from 1990-2000. I went to the sources for that one.

    At that rate Trimet will have ½ of us out of our cars in ONLY 500 years.

    PS: Have you noticed that European transit lost about 20% market of its, already small, share from 1980-2000?
    see the EU publication: ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/44/en-3.pdf

    Transit is a looser in most first world places, why do you keep trying to ignore the facts?

    Thanks
    JK

  52. JK: Today’s Debunking of of CNU’s lies:
    AntiPlanner: My paper also points out that Portland’s urban-growth boundary drove up housing prices, forcing many people to flee well beyond that boundary to places like Vancouver, Washington and Salem Oregon. As evidence, I cited the low percentage of people under the age of 18 in Portland in 2000. In response, Lewyn says that the number of people under age 18 actually grew between 1990 and 2000. “Thus,” he claims, “it is no longer the case that Portland is losing children to the suburbs.” But the growth of under-18s in the period he cited was only 16 percent, while the city’s population grew by 22 percent and the region’s by 40 percent. So the percentage of Portlanders under 18 declined, just as my paper stated.

    When I was growing up in Portland in the 1960s, I went to two different high schools. One, Grant, had 3,000 students when I attended. Today it has less than 1,700. The other, Jackson, had 1,300 high-school students. Today it has none.

    Lewyn claims that California’s housing prices are higher despite that state having a weaker land-use planning system. In fact, that state’s land-use rules are far stricter than Oregon’s; they are just enforced on a county-wide level, not regionwide as they are in Oregon.

    From: ti.org/antiplanner/?p=255#more-255

    Thanks
    JK

  53. Jim, it is still significant that the actual population of children is growing. At this point, using percentages is a dubious practice, because the population as a whole is graying everywhere in the US.

    My neighborhood, well within the boundaries of Portland has no short supply of children. In fact, the schools here are facing a population crisis. We also happen to have the demographics to support higher density because many of the immigrants that live and have children in our neighborhood are from places that include the idea of owning apartments in their definition of home ownership.

  54. Psymonetta Isnoful: My neighborhood, well within the boundaries of Portland has no short supply of children. In fact, the schools here are facing a population crisis.
    JK: That’s because the lower income are being driven out of closer in Portland by artificially high prices caused by the artificial shortage of land cause by government. That is also why our neighborhoods are being over-run by skinny houses, row houses etc.

    Psymonetta Isnoful: We also happen to have the demographics to support higher density because many of the immigrants that live and have children in our neighborhood are from places that include the idea of owning apartments in their definition of home ownership.
    JK: Owning apartments? They still won’t have a decent place for the kids to play. Why do you want high density anyway?

    Thanks
    JK

  55. JK,

    You should take an informal survey sometime. Just walk around downtown and casually ask people – “so, I’m thinking of moving to Portland and understand its a great place to live and am curious, do you LIKE it here?” I did that a few weeks before I left and almost always the answer was “I HATE PORTLAND”. One gentleman from my complex said he couldn’t wait to move back where he came from. I asked him where that was …. Atlanta! I don’t know where this myth that Portland is a “desirable” utopia came from. The L.A. and N.Y. times seem to be giving it a lot of good press. Maybe that’s because those cities have even worse density and congestion?

  56. Actually, we have plenty of “decent” places for kids to play, in parks and in facilities that have been included in the site designs for family housing.

    Why do I want high(er)density? Because I want to live in a neighborhood where I’m not isolated from my neighbors, with plenty of activity in the streets and access to shops, restaurants, groceries and other amenities. I want to provide housing and amenities for the people that are moving to Portland, and to my neighborhood. I want a variety of housing choices, and lifestyle choices within walking distance. That’s why I choose to live in an URBAN area, and anything inside the UGB is URBAN. The area I live in specifically designated as a town center. I bought my house because of that, and access to light rail. If I wanted isolation and long drives to access anything, I would have moved to Timber or Welches.

  57. That’s why I choose to live in an URBAN area, and anything inside the UGB is URBAN. The area I live in specifically designated as a town center. I bought my house because of that, and access to light rail. If I wanted isolation and long drives to access anything, I would have moved to Timber or Welches.

    The obly problem, Psymonetta, is that you want to implement policies that forbid people from living outside the UGB. Shouldn’t people in Oregon have the choice to build or live where they want? VOTE NO ON 49!!

  58. Greg, if you were paying attention, voting yes on 49 means that farmers who want to sub divide to add 3-4 additional homes to their land can have their requests fast-tracked.

    I think it’s a reasonable compromise. I allows family farmers to build homes for their children, but prevents real-estate developers from converting farm land to sprawl.

    And, as far as I can tell, there are still plenty of rural homes. Why would I want to encourage policies that turn rural areas into exurban sprawl and endless cookie-cutter sub divisions? That would eliminate the rural living choice for many Oregonians. Urban growth boundaries preserve that choice. Getting rid of them would prevent people from being able to have rural lifestyles.

  59. Greg, if you were paying attention, voting yes on 49 means that farmers who want to sub divide to add 3-4 additional homes to their land can have their requests fast-tracked.

    OOOOH, a whole 3-4 additional homes. Should I worship the government for trying to be so gratious? What if my parents want to subdivide and give my 2 brothers and 4 sisters lots? This measly pittance “3 – 4 additional homes” allowance is utter B.S. and is going to bring lawsuits and divide families. If someone OWNS their property, it’s THEIRS not the states! I don’t care if you’re a 90 year old wrinkled up old woman or a megabillion $$ corporation. This is a country where property rights are enshrined in the constitution. Unless you’re in the socialist republic of Oregon.

  60. Well, traditional farmers would have extended family living in their homes rather than adhering to the unrealistic ideal of each member of the family owning their own detached home.

    So, you can what if in one hand…

    The concept of property ownership is an abstract agreement not a “right”. There’s no enshrinement involved. It exists because our society allows it to exist. Society can also impose any guidelines to that abstract that they prefer, and the vehicle for the agreement is government. That’s why it’s a social contract, not a mine mine mine contract.

  61. Is Oregon immune from this?

    “The Fifth Amendment states:

    Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    The Fourteenth Amendment states:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

  62. Greg, when you purchase a property, you’re also purchasing the existing land use agreements. You can’t decide that they don’t suit your interests and then just do what you want or demand compensation.

    Oregon does provide compensation when properties are condemned, and none of our land use regulations actually “deprive” the owner of the ownership agreement surrounding the property, unless of course “due process of law” (ie condemnation, or legislation and legislative review) is performed.

    Of course, the definition of “property” is completely left open by the fifth amendment. Property is the social agreement I refer to. If we, as a society, come to the conclusion that land is not and can not be held as “property” then the fifth amendment ceases to apply to land holdings. This agreement is/would be altered through due process of law.

    Likewise, one could argue that if property is moved into the commons, the former “owner” is not deprived of the property, since he is also a member of the commons.

    And, one could go on and on…

  63. Greg, when you purchase a property, you’re also purchasing the existing land use agreements.

    What if you owned the property since prior to 1973 and had certain plans for it only for your hopes to be torn to pieces 30 years later?

  64. Well, any use changes were part of a due process of law. And, you always have the option of selling the property and purchasing property that is appropriate for your “certain plans”. Because I can assure you that the State’s plans are more certain, and well documented.

    Be like Caine on Kung-fu and bend like a reed in the wind.

  65. Psymonetta, maybe their plans weren’t to live in the urban ghetto. You make it sound so easy for everyone to live in the slum. Not everyone wants to or should be FORCED to. I tried it and I was miserable all the time there.

  66. And not everyone should be forced to live in a sprawling inaccessible suburb. That’s why land use regulations exist, to provide a variety of housing as well as easy access to farmland and recreation for the bulk of the population, that does choose to live in urban areas.

  67. Good, then let people have the choice to live in either a sprawling inaccessible suburb or in the urban slum. I would prefer the inaccessible sprawling suburb any day over the shoebox where I can hear and smell my neighbors all the time.

  68. Let me understand you, Psymonetta, you believe that the bulk of the population have more rights to the land than the actual owners?

  69. I think that land owners are afforded as many “rights” (what I call uses) to their land as society will allow, and none that society will not allow.

    A person is named “owner” of a property only by the consent of society, through the vehicle of contract law. It’s the same with any contract…including marriage and business contracts. Contracts are just very verbose documents laden with social obligations and permissions. The nature of the language has been defined by years of legislation and judicial review, but the source of the language is still society.

  70. Individual rights should never be sacrificed, and certainly not to promote some alleged and indefinable good of “society”.

    “Society” as such does not exist. Only individuals exist. Whenever governments act to promote the good of “society”, or to advance a “societal” purpose, or to satisfy a “societal” need–beware. For what invariably happens in such cases is that some individuals are forced by the govenrment to sacrifice for other individuals.

    It is no coincidence that appeals good of society have been used by dictatorships throughout history to justify tyranny over the individual.

  71. As an anthropologist, I’ll have to heartily disagree. The fact that individuals exist in groups and which then leads to clans, tribes, city-states and civilization as we know it is all based on social agreements of why and how the individual can behave and use resources.

    What you are objecting to is the codification of these social agreements and expectations into law. Removing the law does not remove the agreements. What it does is create a situation where certain individuals, that are inclined to ignore these agreements, break the agreements until the society takes action against them, which is usually an act of violence and/or expulsion from the group.

    I’ll cede that if the individual wants to remove their person from society as a whole, and find a place (at this point it would have to be another planet) where their actions are not subject to the judgment of their effect on others, they can do whatever they like with whatever resources are available to them.

    In the case of a dictator, you have the needs and opinions of one individual controlling a social group. So, while they may use the social good as a rhetorical tactic, it is not the actual “real” purpose. So, what you actually have is the tyranny of the individual over society (or in some cases, society agrees to that state structure and benefits in some ways, like you see in Cuba). It’s important to distinguish between rhetoric (the statement of ideology that may or may not be supported by a hegemonic response) and actual culture.

  72. i gotta say, i never understand people who think that just cause they own title to a piece of land, its their own country or something.

    its some crazy selective amnesia. like suddenly they pretend that all of human history and law don’t exist, and that government has “taken something away from them”. YOU NEVER HAD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  73. OK, GEORGE. I’ll use the same logic next time the schools need a T.V. I’ll just come into your house and take it and give it to the schools. That wouldn’t bother you, would it?

  74. if you think that real property is the same as personal property, i think thats where you are confused. you might want to do some reading on the differences, on the history of property rights and so on.

  75. “OK, GEORGE. I’ll use the same logic next time the schools need a T.V. I’ll just come into your house and take it and give it to the schools. That wouldn’t bother you, would it?”

    Reminds me of how we took the land from the Native Americans…

  76. Reminds me of how we took the land from the Native Americans…

    nuovorecord,

    1. The Indians didn’t have a legal system and a clear title to their land.
    2. The Indians migrated here, too (from China and Siberia) so the argument that we somehow “TOOK” it from them is false.

  77. Reminds me of how we took the land from the Native Americans…

    nuovorecord,

    1. The Indians didn’t have a legal system and a clear title to their land.
    2. The Indians migrated here, too (from China and Siberia) so the argument that we somehow “TOOK” it from them is false.

  78. The Indians didn’t have a legal system and a clear title to their land.

    Thank you, Greg, for admitting that property rights come from social consensus and not from some God-sanctioned natural order, as you had previously been arguing.

    Put another way: If you want to claim that the Native Americans had no property rights, then you cannot claim that property rights are an inherent right not subject to government regulation.

    – Bob R.

  79. Well said: …or nearly four decades, Oregon voters, legislators and courts have promulgated and defined what powers property owners have with respect to holding and using private land. In recent years, Measure 37, Measure 7, Senate Bill 100, lawsuits, Supreme Court decisions, and political campaigns and power plays have dominated Oregon politics. This November, Oregonians once again will vote on property rights by means of Measure 49.

    Unfortunately, courts, legislators and many voters rarely seem to appreciate the relationship of private property to freedom and civilization. With roots as far back as the thought of Plato and Aristotle, discussions of property rights (including the ownership of land) and the rule of law have been at the basis of Western Civilization. Laws affecting a person’s right to have and control private property have had enormous personal and economic repercussions.

    “‘The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.’”
    Since John Locke and Adam Smith, economic and political thinkers have proposed that political jurisdictions that protect people and their property prosper economically. Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the other American Founders were strongly influenced by Locke’s statement: “Government has no other end than the preservation of property.” The protection of people and their property was the overarching concern behind the Declaration of Independence. The right to property was eventually codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Throughout history there has also been strong opposition to private property, with Plato being most influential. In the 19th century Karl Marx espoused the abolishment of private property, and the socialist and communist countries inspired by him abolished or severely restricted private ownership and use of property.

    For most of the 20th century the United States and the Soviet Union were juxtaposed as to property rights. Generally, America protected private property; the U.S.S.R. abolished it. Attempting a third way, Western Europe restricted the use of private property, particularly by taxing wages and creating welfare states. Only a few intellectuals appreciated the fact that taxing income diminished a person’s property rights. The intellectual elites and the politicians of the Western World advocated for the European “third way,” and America incrementally followed Western Europe.

    During the 20th century, many political thinkers and economists began to dismiss the Founders’ philosophy as antiquated. Lost were the thoughts of John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”

    The 20th century was dominated by the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States and Western Europe. The great bulk of academic and political thought favored central economic and social planning. Politicians and academics mostly debated the optimal mix of taxes and government programs. Very few people in government or academia emphasized the benefits of private property.

    “‘What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.’”
    Fortunately, a small group of intellectuals appreciated the importance of property and freedom. Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek feared the worldwide political and intellectual movement to socialism: “What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” In 1947 Hayek invited thirty-six people to a meeting at Mont Pelerin, Switzerland to discuss freedom and the benefits of private property. Hayek and his associates were a tiny minority against a worldwide rush to centrally planned economies.

    A solitary American champion of property rights was Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, who said: “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”

    At the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Empire collapsed and Western Europe stagnated. The American economic system, with diminished property rights but with the best protection of property in the world, prevailed over the communist and socialist systems of Western Europe. The intellectual and political world noticed, and there has been a renewed appreciation of private property and its relationship to freedom, peace and security. Private property promotes peace and security because property owners recognize that a coercive force (individuals, corporations or governments) against any person and their property can also be used against them. Private property owners naturally strive for peace and security, protecting their own and their neighbors’ property.

    In the grand scheme of Western Civilization, it is obvious that knowing and appreciating the benefits of private property is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, Oregon’s legislature and governor seem to value power over reason. Using their political power, they did not invite or participate in a free and open debate. Instead, in the hectic closing days of the 2007 legislative session they rammed through a referendum and concocted a misleading ballot title, circumventing the normal ballot title process.

    It is important is to have an open and honest discussion of private property rights, including all citizens willing to participate. Unfortunately, the voters of Oregon were denied an open debate and now will be bombarded with demagoguery. Oregonians deserve better.

    http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2007/10/03/the-most-important-guarantee-of-freedom/

  80. Bob R said:

    Thank you, Greg, for admitting that property rights come from social consensus and not from some God-sanctioned natural order, as you had previously been arguing.

    Does this “social consensus” weaken property
    rights? After all, the consensus is for the
    protection of these rights, not the
    watering down of them.

    An example of what I’m getting at are the drug war raids. Recall the USSC case dealing with
    a Florence, Oregon man who had a grow operation in his house. The drug police tried to get
    around the search warrant requirement by using
    using a heat sensor which revealed abnormal heat insde the home. They raided it once they had
    this information because it meant only one
    thing to them.

    The USSC threw this out in a 5-4 decision (thanks
    to those big, bad “conservative” justices like
    Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist etc, while lefty hero
    Stevens said it was a “good public policy to
    use those sensors”), claiming (thanks to Scalia
    insisting on a proper definition for “search”)
    that it violated the homeowner’s property
    rights.

    Pro-drug war people argue that the property
    rights need to be watere down for drug war
    reinforcement, just to cite one example.
    Property rights defenders say otherwise.
    What do you think, Bob R ? Are you
    trying to replace property rights with
    “privacy” rights? It won’t work.

    The consensus regarding property rights had
    everything to do with safety etc, not with
    aesthetics.

    Bob Tiernan

Leave a Reply to EvergreenTransitFan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *