Metro has indicated that the 30-day comment period on the Regional Transportation Plan update will begin on October 15. They have also announced the dates of a series of hearings:
Regional Transportation Plan seeks public review
Metro is preparing to release a draft of the updated federal component of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for a 30-day public review and comment period. The comment period will begin on October 15, and end on November 15, 2007.The RTP is the long-range blueprint to guide major transportation investments in the Portland metropolitan region. The federal component of the RTP was prepared in response to changes to federal law and regulations contained in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
During the 30-day comment period, residents and businesses are encouraged to study the draft document and other information from the 2035 RTP project web page (www.metro-region.org/rtp), and provide feedback on the recommended direction of the RTP as reflected in the policy framework and goals, major transportation investments, and proposed strategies.
Comments may be submitted via a comment form on the project web page, by email to rtp@metro-region.org, or by US mail to RTP Comments, Metro Planning Department, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97232. Hard copies of the draft plan will also be available from the Planning Department upon request
Four public open houses and hearings are scheduled to provide information, answer questions and offer an opportunity to submit testimony in person.
Oct 25
Clackamas County Chamber
Public Service Building
2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City 97045
Open house starts at 4; hearing starts at 5 pmNov 1
Metro Regional Center
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland 97232
Open house starts at 1; hearing starts at 2 pmNov 8
Hillsboro Civic Center Auditorium
150 E. Main Street
Hillsboro 97123
Open house starts at 4; hearing starts at 5 pmNov 15
Metro Central Open house
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland 97232
Open house starts at 1; hearing starts at 2 pmThe public comments will be compiled into a report and considered by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and the Metro Council before taking action on the updated federal component on December 13, 2007.
With approval of the updated federal component, Metro will begin work on the state component of the RTP to address state and regional goals. The state component will be integrated with the federal component to create a final 2035 RTP later in 2008. A second public comment period will precede consideration of the final RTP.
For technical questions about the transportation priorities process, programs or projects, call Kim Ellis, RTP project manager, 503-797-1617. For questions about public involvement, call Pat Emmerson, 503-797-1551.
72 responses to “Heads Up – RTP Comment Period Scheduled”
Why do they bother with these public comments anyway? It’s already decided what will happen. Window dressing I guess, its required by law. Nothing the ‘public’ thinks will make any difference.
Hell, the voters voted ‘no’ on the yellow line, and look what happened. Par for the course.
Al –
People are going to argue about the Yellow Line vote or non-vote for generations, it seems.
For what it’s worth, the public voted on a funding mechanism for a project on a different alignment and with a different scope.
People will also argue back and forth about the fact that within the districts in which the final Yellow Line was actually constructed, votes had come out in favor of light rail again and again.
What wound up being constructed was done so with funding packages which did not require another public vote, and the project was promoted by elected officials, many of whom were re-elected or are still in office.
Thus far, I don’t recall ballot votes on the widening of I-205 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes (now almost complete), the widening of 217 (still getting up to speed), or the I-5 Delta Park widening project.
I don’t oppose any of those projects, and they are being constructed with funding mechanisms which don’t require a public vote, but it seems strange to me just how many things get done without being subject to repeated votes but light rail is apparently a sin unless everyone, everywhere votes for it multiple times.
– Bob R.
Bob R-
I only used the yellow line as an example of the folly of the ‘public hearing’, or even the public vote!
The decisions have been made, I see this all the time with zoning public hearings around my property in NW Portland.
Going to these hearings is nothing but a waste of time. (unless of course you enjoy these sorts of things as sport or entertainment.)
Why don’t they just have the ‘hearing’ right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT blog! Think of the money they would save!
The voters of the Tri-Met service district voted “yes” by about 60-40 for a project that included the Yellow line in 1994. Voters state-wide voted against it when the state funding component was referred to state-wide ballot, but Portland-area voters approved it. Then in 1998 (I believe) Tri-Met sent the voters a shorter line from downtown Portland to Milwaukie, which was passed by voters in Portland and defeated by opposition in the suburbs.
After that vote, Tri-Met took light rail off the table and Metro held public hearings. I attended them. And person after person stood up and asked Metro to find a way to make light rail happen anyway. In the southeast corridor, Tri-Met started off with proposals to run intensified bus service, and citizens in the corridor pushed to get light rail back on the table. (That’s not just Tri-Met spin; I followed the process as it happened.)
Like it or not, light rail is very popular here in Portland. Portland voters voted “yes” three times to fund the downtown-to-Milwaukie segment, and two of those votes included funding what is now the Interstate MAX line. The segments that are getting built are those segments that are mostly (Milwaukie light rail) or entirely (Interstate MAX) within Portland City limits.
The wishes of the voters have been respected. Clackamas County voters didn’t want light rail, so they’re getting only a couple miles of track and a few stations. Portland voters wanted light rail, so they’re getting miles of additional lines and a couple of dozen stations (counting Yellow, Green, and “Orange” lines) in Portland.
The Yellow and Orange lines are the result of an open public process and input from citizens and businesses, and both segments have been approved repeatedly by voters in Portland. We voted “yes” twice in the 1990s to fund the Yellow line, and we finally got it. That’s how good government is supposed to work.
I am not against light rail. I am against the process that pretends to want public participation when in fact the opposite is true!
Table Two
Election History for Light-Rail Measures
1990 Westside 75% 25%
1994 South-North 65% 35%
1996 South-North 55% 45%
1998 South-North 47% 53%
(All results for the Portland area only)
Light-rail advocates claim that the fact that Portlanders voted for three out of four light-rail ballot measures shows they support it. But, as usual, planning advocates conveniently ignore the clear and probably irreversible trend of increasing opposition to rail transit boondoggles
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate62.html
Portlanders voted for four out of four light rail measures. That was my point. The 1998 measure passed in Multnomah County.
And my point was, the process of creating these light rail projects has been heavy in public participation from the beginning. Even after Tri-Met (not “Portland”) voters voted down funding for the S/N light rail project, there was still significant community support — and real, meaningful “public participation” — that resulted in the project being resurrected in segments.
The fact of the matter is that Portanders’
DID SUPPORT IT IN THE PAST, NOT ANY LONGER, and the trend as noted in the above comment makes note of the change of public opinion.
Tax payers are sick and tired of these boondoggles at our expense.
Then they have the nerve to say “we don’t have any money to fix the roads so now we have to raise taxes”
Hi Bob C… I have a few questions regarding your strong comments:
1. What polling data or election return results do you have to provide proof for the claim that Portlanders do not support light rail any longer?
2. How much local money would be legally available to fix roads if Interstate MAX were not built?
3. How much local money would be legally available to fix roads if the Green Line project were not built?
4. Over how many years would those dollar amounts be spread?
5. How much would overall tax revenues be increased or decreased due to property values affected differently by the lack of these light rail projects?
6. What is the current annual budget for fixing roads?
7. What would the impact be to transit operating costs by relying on buses to carry a similar amount of ridership in those corridors, and how much of that difference would be diverted to/from funds to fix roads?
8. Given 1-7, what percentage difference would these funds identified from cancelling light rail projects (offset by the variances in property tax revenue and operating costs) make to the overall road fixing budget?
9. Given your answer to #8, by what criteria do you claim that percentage difference to represent a “boondoggle”?
I ask these questions because you apparently feel quite strongly about these issues and seem to be quite certain in your assertions. I’m confident, therefore, that your answers to these questions will enhance and illuminate this discussion.
Thanks,
Bob R.
Because of this article with dash of Google, I found http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=422 .
It was very interesting to see the two new freeways on the east side as well as the 99 Connector options on a comprehensive map. I didn’t expect 3 new freeways in the Portland area in the next 33 years. That’s more than LA, Orange, and San Diego counties are planning combined.
“Then they have the nerve to say ‘we don’t have any money to fix the roads so now we have to raise taxes’”
Voters voted against raising the gas tax to fix the roads the last time that was on the ballot by something like 7-1. If you want to talk about the will of the people, I think it is very clear: Nobody cares about the roads. It isn’t like the people near roads voted for roads, but other voters didn’t or anything like that, pretty much universally: Nobody cares about the roads.
Why do we continue to waste money on these stupid roads? Almost everyone already owns an SUV, the roads can deteriorate to 3rd world standards and it isn’t going to hurt our society. Fixing the roads is clearly just an expensive boondoggle designed to keep unionized city employees in jobs.
Voters voted against raising the gas tax to fix the roads the last time that was on the ballot by something like 7-1.
Matt, that isn’t really true. The last gas tax was proposed specifically with a list of new projects it would fund. They told people exactly how it would be spent and it wasn’t on fixing existing roads.
I am against the process that pretends to want public participation when in fact the opposite is true!
As Matt points out, the Yellow Line and light rail to Milwaukie are both examples where public participation was critical to their going forward. If you look at the public testimony, it was overwhelmingly in favor.
Speaking of public process and fixing roads, Sam Adams is currently holding open houses about the city’s plans to work on Portland’s streets. Those of you who live in Portland and are concerned about the condition of our public roads, you’ve got a chance to show up, talk directly to transportation staff, and provide input about maintenance priorities in your neighborhood.
Ross, am I correct in recalling that the last proposed gas tax increase was bundled with the elimination of the weight-mile tax and a general shift of the tax burden from freight traffic to private cars? I vaguely remember something like that being a point against the proposal, but the details are fuzzy now.
Ross, am I correct in recalling that the last proposed gas tax increase was bundled with the elimination of the weight-mile tax and a general shift of the tax burden from freight traffic to private cars? I vaguely remember something like that being a point against the proposal, but the details are fuzzy now.
Yes, I think you got that right. Which is part of the difficulty with just pointing at the results as strictly against an increase in the gas tax. The opposition campaign was lead by AAA because of the weight-mile issue. I suspect, however, that for the voters it was mostly the tax increase,
Bob R: I can’t answer your questions. However, what I “see” is that huge strides are being made in the transit infrastructure, while the road infrastructure is going backwards. I see the politicians coming up with money for transit but they can’t come up with money for roads. I see them coming up with money for things like the tram but no money for roads.
Bob R, I ask you sir, how is it that the powers that be can find money for all these transit related projects but not one nickel to fix the roads. Why is that sir?
Bob R, I ask you sir, how is it that the powers that be can find money for all these transit related projects but not one nickel to fix the roads. Why is that sir?
Because investments in transit provide real economic returns to many stakeholders, while deferred maintenance causes no pain until the actual point of failure is reached.
It’s the difference between buying a new car and buying life insurance. The former offers immediate gratification. The latter requires a different decision process that doesn’t involve many positive emotions.
Bob C. — The problem isn’t a matter of of “just one nickel” — many nickels are being spent to maintain roads, it’s just that there’s not currently enough nickels being generated by local funding sources (Oregon gas taxes are constitutionally dedicated to road projects).
Some of the local funds which are being used to match specific federal dollars for new transit projects, but these are not gas tax dollars, nor is it clear that all of those funds would be sufficient to make up the difference.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m in favor of dedicating more funds to maintaining our existing roadway infrastructure, including new capital projects to relieve bottlenecks and improve safety — we spend too little on all of our infrastructure at this point.
But even for road projects, new mega-projects tend to dominate the planning process. For example, rather than seriously examining augmenting the I-5 Columbia River bridges with new local crossings while maintaining and upgrading the existing structures, a far more expensive option (currently pegged at $4 billion and counting for the non-transit portions) is being given the most attention. That $4 billion is more than we’ve spent to date on light rail and streetcar construction in the past 20 years, all for one project.
– Bob R.
how is it that the powers that be can find money for all these transit related projects but not one nickel to fix the roads
That’s weird. I could have sworn that Naito Parkway was torn up and resurfaced just this past year. Every time I tried to get to Waterfront Park I thought I had to walk through a construction zone. I guess I was hallucinating or something.
I’ve had similar hallucinations walking along Sandy Boulevard in the past year. For months, I imagined I was seeing all these street repair projects.
And didn’t the City do all kinds of work on the streets in Chinatown last year? Or did I imagine that too?
Remarkable, isn’t it, how much gets done around here without spending a nickel?
Oops, I omitted some key words from a paragraph, above, which should read:
– Bob R.
Because investments in transit provide real economic returns to many stakeholders, while deferred maintenance causes no pain until the actual point of failure is reached.
So, it’s OK to defer investments in bus service, until TriMet is left with a fleet of worthless busses?
Your statement contradicts itself, because bus service is an investment in transit; but at the same time you support Metro’s and TriMet’s policy of not investing in quality bus service instead focusing on a discriminatory investment of selected rail-based investments geared towards a certain number of well-to-do neighborhoods.
To re-use your analogy, a new bus on the road today (that costs our region $60,000, because the FTA covers 80% of the cost of the bus) provides immediate gratification (which potentially thinking about rail in the future), but planning a rail line without interim transit benefits now doesn’t involve many positive emotions – well, except for the planners that get their $85,000/year paycheck to dream about these projects (which is $85,000 that isn’t going towards providing transit NOW.) But for the people that still have to wake up in the morning and commute to work, there’s no positive emotion over a plan that is 10-20 years down the road.
So, it’s OK to defer investments in bus service, until TriMet is left with a fleet of worthless busses?
Of course it is. Why would you replace buses that still have worth? I think there is a case that at some point older buses detract enough from the quality of service that they should be replaced. But when many buses are in service for only a portion of the day during peak periods of transit use, it is not unreasonable to delay replacing them. Especially if the alternative is failing to invest in a light rail line that will provide higher quality service with lower operating costs while freeing up buses for service elsewhere.
So, it’s OK to defer investments in bus service
Erik, you’re missing Chris’s point entirely. He wasn’t saying that the current state of affairs is OK, he was explaining a reason why funding for maintenance and upkeep don’t get much attention.
Once again you’re complaining to potential allies who generally agree with you, rather than engaging with them to find solutions.
– Bob R.
So, it’s OK to defer investments in bus service, until TriMet is left with a fleet of worthless busses?
Erik, you are taking me ENTIRELY out of context. I responded to a question about roadway maintenance and you applied it to vehicles. A complete non-sequiter.
My main point, that deferred maintenance has little pain, is NOT applicable to buses. Roads and buses have entirely different wear characteristics. Roads tend to work just fine until the base erodes, and then you have an expensive mess. Buses decline in different and more less silent way :-)
Gentlemen, your all very good at the written word, and trying to debate some of you folks is pointless.
Regarding Nato parkway, they do work on that road, every year! They pave roads over and over and ignore other roads that have needed re-paving for decades. Yes, they keep some of the roads in repair. Isn’t that what we pay gas tax for?
But what is being done to improve ‘capacity’?
Look at Eastbound sunset highway at the tunnel, look at I 5 between Vancouver and Portland and between Portland and Tigard, I 84 between Portland and I 205.
Gentlemen, we need increased capacity on these roadways BEFORE we need more transit. It’s clear that Transit DOES NOT affect commuter vehicle traffic to any significant factor.
At the rate this city is going we will be just like Los Angeles in another 20 years.
It’s clear that Transit DOES NOT affect commuter vehicle traffic to any significant factor.
You should read today’s “O”.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1190174115275910.xml&coll=7
I’ll sum up: “Take away our mass transit, and the region’s congestion delay would be 21 percent longer.”
and later: “Transit use helps ease the rush-hour headache — significantly in the Portland area, the Texas study said.
Buses, MAX trains and streetcars saved the region 6.7 million hours of rush-hour delay — placing Portland 13th in the nation in savings because of public transportation use.”
But what is being done to improve ‘capacity’?
I-205 was just widened to 6 lanes over a 3 mile stretch between I-5 and Stafford Rd.
An I-217 widening project south of Hwy 26 is now getting underway.
An I-5 widening project at Delta Park (to remove the “squeeze”) is getting underway as well. This will also replace the Denver Ave. Viaduct.
A long-term Hwy 26 widening project, including new interchanges and some tunneling, which was part of the Westside MAX package, has just been completed.
Sunnybrook Rd., a new major arterial in Clackamas County, opened a couple of years ago.
Look at Eastbound sunset highway at the tunnel,
Which tunnels would you widen, or where would you put a new tunnel, and how much would that cost?
look at I 5 between Vancouver and Portland
Like their plans or not, that’s what the $6 billion CRC project is doing.
and between Portland and Tigard,
Widening I-5 through Portland will require $billions and the reconstruction of literally dozens of overpasses, interchanges, and viaducts. That’s why it hasn’t been done. It may turn out to be more do-able to relocate the whole freeway into a trench or tunnel. That’s one reason why people have brought up that idea in the past.
Widening I-5 through the curves could prove quite expensive, as well.
I 84 between Portland and I 205.
How would you widen this? Pave over MAX? Knock down dozens of existing homes and businesses? (Hint: MAX carries many people through the I-84 corridor at peak hour. Replacing MAX with pavement won’t buy you much people-moving capacity, and may even move less people in the long run.)
It’s clear that Transit DOES NOT affect commuter vehicle traffic to any significant factor.
As Ross has stated, it is a demonstrated fact that highways fill to the level of congestion that the users of those highways are willing to tolerate.
If you build more capacity, you facilitate more trips of a certain type and more economic activity of a certain type, but the same level of congestion will return. Widening roads purely in the name of congestion reduction is not productive, unless the impacts of those widened roads are desirable to the community (more highway commuters living further and further out may have some advantages, but pollution and congestion relief aren’t among those advantages.)
However, constructing alternatives which are attractive to some portion of potential road users means that the level of congestion that people are willing to tolerate before switching to the alternative is reduced, which relieves pressure on those roadways. Westside MAX, for example, takes pressure off of Hwy 26.
At the rate this city is going we will be just like Los Angeles in another 20 years.
The cities and counties of the Los Angeles Metro Area maintained an aggressive freeway building and arterial widening program for decades, and is only recently involved in providing significant transit alternatives. If you want to look like the Los Angeles Metro Area, build more freeways.
(And I was just in Los Angeles three weeks ago.)
– Bob R.
We don’t “need” to increase road capacity. That’s one option, and I don’t believe it’s the best one. Reducing peak-hour demand also is an option. There are many tools to do that, and they cost significantly less than trying to add additional lanes.
Also, your statement that “It’s clear that Transit DOES NOT affect commuter vehicle traffic to any significant factor” is simply absurd. I challenge you to present ANY factual support for it. At peak hour, MAX is standing room only, as are many of the numerous bus lines, including some crosstown routes (try to find a seat on the #72 near the middle of its route). Put all those people into cars, add them to already crowded roads, do you genuinely think it will make NO difference in the commute?
Hey Bob C- You may wanna take a peak at this article:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/20698
I was just going over the Oregonian,and guess what?
This article appears there, it seems to say that the planners for our metro area are doing a pretty good job.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1190174115275910.xml&coll=7
“Hey Bob C- You may wanna take a peak at this article:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/20698“
Yeah, I think we need to be more creative. If the bottom line is somehow just to get more prople to use mass transit why not have $500 Instant Winners each and every week? discount ITunes? Free coffee?
“You may wanna take a peak at this article:”
So instead of posting things like that, (because that is exactly what a lot of the SPAM e-mail that I get says, so I sort of involuntarily tense up,) can you post a quote from the article or a summary or something, in other words, why would I want to take a peak at that article…
(I mean, it is a good article, don’t get me wrong, but…)
>why would I want to take a peak at that article…
The cities and counties of the Los Angeles Metro Area maintained an aggressive freeway building and arterial widening program for decades, and is only recently involved in providing significant transit alternatives. If you want to look like the Los Angeles Metro Area, build more freeways.
The Portland Metro Region has more freeways planned for the next 35 years than the entire LA basin. They’ve built out their freeways and housing, now they’re aiming at transit and building up, and have been for over a decade. They also, according to the recently published study, have the worst congestion in the nation, even with multiple light rail lines and many active bus routes, not the mention the highest density you’ll find in the US outside NYC.
Density, while great for the right areas, isn’t for everywhere. At the same time freeways, while great, aren’t for everywhere. I take mass transit whenever I can, as long as the trip won’t be 3x more difficult. It’s not for everything, especially my daily commute.
I wish it was, and I support it to make my commute better, but it’s still 5+ years out unless I change jobs.
They also, according to the recently published study, have the worst congestion in the nation, even with multiple light rail lines and many active bus routes,
Dave – Bob C.’s assertion was that if Portland continued on the transit development course and did not improve road capacity, we’d wind up looking like Los Angeles in 20 years.
The Los Angeles metro area has far less route-miles of transit compared to freeway and arterial lane-miles than the Portland metro area, and it will take them a long time to catch up.
– Bob R.
Density and congestion cause these problems. Move out of the city and say no to 49! Problem solved!
Density and congestion cause these problems.
I think there is some truth in that. But the reality is that density also creates jobs. Which is why there continues to be a migration from small towns and rural areas to cities. That has been going on since the start of the industrial revolution and it hasn’t stopped.
Ironically, density is also the solution, when coupled with improvements to public transportation. And, the added benefit of increasing the density is that you have the opportunity to improve the quality of the time people spend outside of a vehicle as well. And, you get to keep acres and acres of farmland, as well as other natural areas and green space.
If farmer’s want to be real estate developers, they should sell their farmland to another farmer and purchase land inside the UGB.
Ironically, density is also the solution, when coupled with improvements to public transportation. And, the added benefit of increasing the density is that you have the opportunity to improve the quality of the time people spend outside of a vehicle as well. And, you get to keep acres and acres of farmland, as well as other natural areas and green space.
If farmers want to be real estate developers, they should sell their farmland to another farmer and purchase land inside the UGB.
Al: Thank you for that link. That really was a great article!
Move out of the city and say no to 49! Problem solved!
Well, jeez, if it’s that easy… Why should I care that it would cost me thousands of dollars more each year to drive and maintain a vehicle to commute dozens of miles each way to the office when my employer – who is located on the bus mall downtown – pays for half of my bus pass? And how much more time would I have to invest in my commute, sitting in traffic on the freeways to get downtown, compare to now, living on Hawthorne, where it takes all of fifteen minutes via bus each way?
Seriously Greg, your one-size-fits-all comments don’t work for everybody. I wish you’d realize that and think about that before you post policy recommendations that are so succinct and completely one-sided. You do realize the disaster that would ensue if EVERYBODY heeded your suggestion, do you not?
If farmers want to be real estate developers, they should sell their farmland to another farmer and purchase land inside the UGB.
You are so clueless. The government should let people do whatever the hell they want with their own property – if the government wants control over the land then they need to buy out the farmers’ land! Over the last twenty years or so small (50-100 acre size) farming operations that had homesteads on them have been sold out to larger entities and the homesteads have been removed. What we’re seeing now is the emergence of California style corporate farming in the valley. So now you have commuters living in town and commuting to work on these corporate farms and nurseries, creating lots of traffic in the rural environs. That combined with the Californians coming here and recreating Napa Valley and their hoity toity outings to the “quaint” countryside. Go home foreigners! That’s how you improve the area’s “livability” and make it like it once was. But I get the impression most of the posters here are Californians or Massachussetites or New Yorkers.
“Go home foreigners!”
I agree. Your land probably belongs to the Atfalati, (look it up,) and until you can produce the deeds of sale from them to you, you really have no business living on it…
Or do you mean the government should let white men do what they want with their own land?
The Atfalati and Calapooians and Tualatins all came here from somewhere else, too (ever heard of the Bering Bridge?) They just couldn’t sustain themselves due to Darwinian law.
I am starting to think that smart growth advocates are morons. They can’t brag about how great the area is and invite people to come here in masses and then not allow for the growth that extra people brings. If they want to control growth then why not just ban people from moving to Oregon? I don’t understand this idiotic mentality. They talk about farmland like it’s a “public resource”. It isn’t a public resource any more than someone’s private residence is!
There is plenty of room to provide adequate housing for the current residents of the state and the projected residents within the UGB. There’s no need to carpet the local farmland that should be feeding these new residents with overscale McMansions just to make a few unscrupulous and undedicated farmers wealthy.
Also, Greg, you really need to actually read and understand the theory of evolution before you start using the name of Darwin in vain.
unscrupulous and undedicated farmers wealthy
Undedicated? Excuse me? Farmers work their @—s off and many have for several generations all the while the yuppies flock here and demand they keep their “open spaces”. The farmers have to abide by asinine and draconian regulations like the 80/80 rule. The farmers should just all go on strike and quit feeding the yuppies. The yuppies would probably then resort to some other comumunist tactic and have Metro condemn all the “public resource” land and run it to the ground like they do everything else. As for the “McMansion” argument – do you consider the ghetto at Bethany, the ghetto at Damascus or the ghetto on MurrayHill where people are crammed in like rats in rat holes to be these McMansions you’re speaking of?
It’s reasonable to assume they’re not dedicated to being farmers if they’d rather develop their land and sell the result to the “yuppies” you seem to abhor so much.
The unattractiveness of housing developments in Bethany, Happy Valley etc has more to do with the housing design than the density of the housing. Part of that is due to developers and suburbanites clinging to the ideal of the detached single family home.
Maybe they would rather retire and live off their nest egg instead of having to abide by ridiculous rules put forth by the elitist urban politicans. The whole Portland metro area is unattractive as far as I’m concerned. If I wanted to live in L.A. I would move to California. I never envisioned it coming to my state! I hope Salem doesn’t to go downhill as fast as cookie cutter Portland has. I say cookie cutter because Portland looks just like any other big American city.
I say cookie cutter because Portland looks just like any other big American city.
Greg – you need to get around more.
Maybe they would rather retire and live off their nest egg instead of having to abide by ridiculous rules put forth by the elitist urban politicans.
They are free to do that. They can sell their farm and live off the proceeds of the nest egg.
No, Ross.
You need to get around more. I was born in this state and have seen it rapidly deteriorate. Where were you born? As for this ridiculous argument that we need to somehow “preserve open farmland”. I have news for you – unless your diet consists of nursery plants and grass seed you shouldn’t be too worried because they hardly grow any food as it is in the valley. Farmers are selling out to larger corporate interests, mainly California based nursery operations. Let me know when you want a tour of Yamhill County. I can show you many many places that used to be small family owned farms that are now paved over by thousands of acres of gravel and asphalt so they can grow plants in pots. And I don’t dare mention how many chemicals are involved in such an operation. I would rahter see subdivisions than plant nurseries or wino wineries from California!
Greg –
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but as a descendant of a pioneer family that were friends with Sam Barlow and have lived in Clackamas County since 1876, I think I can credibly say that Oregon hasn’t deteriorated. It’s changed, but all in all, Oregonians (both native and new) have done a pretty good job of keeping our state both unique and livable.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but as a descendant of a pioneer family that were friends with Sam Barlow and have lived in Clackamas County since 1876
hehe, I got you beat! I am a descendent of a pioneer family of 1847 that were next door neighbors to McLoughlin. See history of Bolton, West Linn, Tompkins Street, etc. They owned the entire stretch that is now Marylhurst, Mary S. Young State Park, etc. My patriarch is buried in Riverview Cemetery :)
Tompkins St. in West Linn (my hometown)! It all clicks now.
My family name is Shank (mother’s side). Shank’s Landing is now the southern terminus of the Canby Ferry and my family donated our 300 acre farm (Barlow gave us half his 600 acre claim) to the state in 1921 for Molalla River State Park.
But I should point out that a little bit further down the line, my great-grandfather married a Foster (who arrived in 1845), so technically speaking . . .
Well I got both of you beat!
I am a decedent of Adam and Eve themselves!
You need to get around more. I was born in this state and have seen it rapidly deteriorate
Which was my point – what cities are you comparing Portland to? I agree, Oregon has deteriorated in some respects. It has improved in others. In the early 80’s a lot of natives were leaving the state because there were no jobs. Portland was losing population. On the other hand, if you had a good job, you didn’t have to worry about crowds on your favorite hiking trail.
Farmers are selling out to larger corporate interests, mainly California based nursery operations.
I thought you supported that? Isn’t that a way for people take their nest egg and retire?
As for this ridiculous argument that we need to somehow “preserve open farmland”.
Again, you need to get around more. I think you will find very few states where farmland around large cities isn’t a hodgepodge of development where it is difficult to assemble large contiguos acreage to support modern farming operations. And there are often increasing restrictions on any remaining farm operations that aren’t attractive for suburban homes. Animal manure smells, farm equipment is noisy and gets in the way of local commuters, pesticides are dangerous …
I thought you supported that? Isn’t that a way for people take their nest egg and retire?
Their nest egg would be a lot bigger if they were allowed to subdivide and turn their farms into smaller operations so more people could be allowed their godgiven right to farm. Instead people like you favor communism and central planning.
I support people being allowed to live wherever they want to live. If I want to live out in the country on a 5 acre parcel and raise my family, I should be allowed to! They have stifled this type of operation due to things like their 80/80 rule that make this impossible. Their asinine rules are destroying ma and pa and bringing in large scale wino and corporate farming. You don’t know anything about this obviously since you live in the city. All you understand is the friends of Oregon drivel. They should put before and after pictures of Beaverton, Hillsboro and Portland 20 years ago compared to now to scare everyone.
Greg, Greg, Greg…
The government should let people do whatever the hell they want with their own property
I hope your next door neighbor builds a 7-11 and a strip club on their property.
Go home foreigners!
This country was built by and for immigrants. It is ridiculous to imply that it was okay for our ancestors to move here but nobody else from now on should have that same right. Completely, COMPLETELY hypocritical.
the ghetto at Bethany, the ghetto at Damascus or the ghetto on MurrayHill
Again, back to labeling half-million dollar homes that sell like hotcakes as “ghettos”?
…smart growth advocates are morons
this idiotic mentality
You don’t know anything about this…
When all else fails, start calling people names and challenging their level of intelligence, eh? Doesn’t exactly jive with the establihsed rules of this forum.
Greg, I will never cease to be amazed by your stubborness and apparent ignorance. I am embarassed that you, as myself, are a native Oregonian.
“Greg, I will never cease to be amazed by your stubborness and apparent ignorance. I am embarassed that you, as myself, are a native Oregonian”
LOL!!LOL!!
Don’t stop now, this is enjoyable!!
Tom McCall, our famous governor from Massachusetts, moved here and told people they couldn’t stay. Then he proceeded to concoct a draconian land use system and PAC called 1000 Friends of Oregon and got all his buddies to sign onto the idea and alas we have a huge layer of bureaucracy 30 years later. Foreigners created this asinine system, natives did not.
**Foreigners created this asinine system, natives did not.**
That’s for sure! I wonder how the natives view all this:
* Celilio Village —
Burns-Paiute General Council
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians
* Klamath Reservation —
* Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Tribal Council —
* Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation —
Coquille Indian Tribe
* Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians
* Umatilla Board of Trustees —
* Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Tom McCall, our famous governor from Massachusetts, moved here and told people they couldn’t stay.
I know; I cringe every time people bring that up (and not because I think McCall is the messiah). It is completely hypocritical. At every single federal census except one since Oregon joined the union, greater than 50% of it’s residents had relocated from another state or nation.
IMO, we should understand that people are coming, they want to live here, just like we do, and we should be prepared for them and try to direct the growth where it makes good sense to put it (i.e., in cities). Oregon should strive to be able to sustain itself as best it can through the preservation of farmland and forests by increasing densities in the cities. But maybe that’s just me.
What I find interesting about the RTP site Chris linked to in the original post is how far you have to look to find actual information, not just generalities about the policy of having such a document.
Still, I haven’t been able to find anything about what specific projects/programs they’re adding or updating this cycle.
Oregon should strive to be able to sustain itself as best it can through the preservation of farmland and forests by increasing densities in the cities.
Tell me how long you are going to sustain yourself eating grass seed and nursery bushes. That’s all they grow here anyway.
Still, I haven’t been able to find anything about what specific projects/programs they’re adding or updating this cycle.
“Follow the money.” Based on past experience, this is really the critical issue of the RTP. In the end, it is the projects, not the policies, that determine the direction of the transportation system in the Portland region. The reality is that only projects in the RTP are eligible for federal funding. The other issue is to make sure there aren’t “placeholder” projects which will never be built but which help the plan pass air quality standards when included in the air quality models.
What I find interesting about the RTP site Chris linked to in the original post is how far you have to look to find actual information, not just generalities about the policy of having such a document.
Still, I haven’t been able to find anything about what specific projects/programs they’re adding or updating this cycle.
I think that’s because the comment period hasn’t started yet. I believe the project list is still being worked on and will go up at the beginning of the period.
I want to remind everyone that the spirit of this site is to discuss policy not people. Where people were born has nothing to do with policy. Let’s stay focused.
The Atfalati and Calapooians and Tualatins all came here from somewhere else, too (ever heard of the Bering Bridge?)
Indeed, but there is no evidence that they stole the land from anyone when they moved here. Well there were some animals living on it, but we’ve never really believed that animals had a right to own land, although our government does sometimes try to manage the land with the animal’s interests in mind. Hey, maybe that is why they sometimes make laws about what people can do on “their” land, huh? They are trying to help the animals or something like that…
“They just couldn’t sustain themselves due to Darwinian law.”
Darwinian law, huh? Does that stand up in court? I mean, if I brought a gun into a bank and told them I needed a lot of money, they’d probably give it to me, (bank tellers are a bunch of wimps that are afraid of death,) but I’d probably eventually get caught and get charged with bank robbery or something like that. Can I say that I was making a withdraw under Darwinian law, so it was okay? Or would they just think I was stupid and call me a thief?
Well, I’m no genealogist, but I’m sure that I’m at least a 5th generation Oregonian, and I’ve been told that my family established their farm in Baker in the early 1800s. I know that my great-great grandparents are buried in the Portland mausoleum, and that there is a park that carries the name of my maternal family.
So, Greg, I really doubt that Oregon is any more your turf than mine. And, honestly I see the reasonable plan of maintaining density in the urban areas and preserving farmland as the prudent path to maintaining the areas and aspects of Oregon that I love.
Likewise I have farming interests, and my “nest egg” happens to be a small farm. And, I’m extremely happy that it’s not surrounded by a bunch of unattractive suburban style (truly cookie-cutter) housing developments. And, I’d be much happier if my neighbor was a nursery rather than a ranch.
maintaining the areas and aspects of Oregon that I love.
Well that’s great that you want to maintain what YOU love. So why don’t you get a fundraiser together or better yet, get 1000 friends of Oregon or the Sierra Club or PERS to buy out the farmers? Put your money where your mouth is. Instead you are supporting a behemoth to limit people’s choices and a ever growing bureaucracy to justify lazy government incompetence. Whatever is convenient for you and your ilk but limit the choices of those who actually OWN their property. How selfish!
The problem is the farmer’s wouldn’t sell to any of those organizations at the fair market value for their land because they’re all holding it in anticipation of the day that they’ll be able to sell it for far more than it’s (currently) worth to some sprawl-happy developer.
I actually own my own properties, and I’m happy to use them a manner that benefits all…not just myself. And, if I wanted to do something that was outside of the land-use guidelines for my property, I’d sell that property and purchase a property that would allow me to do what I wanted.
As I said before, if farmer’s want to be real-estate developers, they should sell their farmland and purchase developable property inside the UGB.
I actually own my own properties, and I’m happy to use them a manner that benefits all…not just myself.
Well that’s just great. Maybe not everyone agrees with your communist objectives. Quit forcing it upon everyone.
OK, Greg, lighten up:
This is PortlandTransport.com, not ImmigrantBashing or RedBaiting or HomelessStereotyping — please try to keep your comments productive and stop hurling insults.
This site has clear rules about keeping the conversation respectful.
– Bob R.