RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
PDXOutdoors's comments:
on Wage Woes
Most of the discrepancy you're talking about is rural vs. urban or suburban costs of living.
You're also not counting the value of living in a place like Oregon vs. a place like Phoenix or Kansas. If you don't see this value, then perhaps you'd like it better in those places anyway?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
This is right on the money.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
There is also a reason that those places aren't as nice to live as Oregon is. Not ALL business and growth is friendly to the long-term interests of the residents. There have to be choices, incentives, penalties. Private enterprise has private interests, which are sometimes at complete odds with public interests. West Virginia is a great example of this. One of the richest corporations (and man running it) in the country there, but the average resident is poor and sick.
I agree, very much, that impediments to small business and sustainable (sourced with local resources) manufacturing need to be lowered. It's not a matter of simply 'getting out of the way.' Have you heard of The Tragedy of the Commons? If you let individuals and corporations run amok, they will each use up as much as they can, get away with what they can, and there will be nothing left.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
I think that this is a cultural phenomenon. Culture drives economy. It informs folks what they want to buy, what they want to spend their time doing (working or playing) and what they value (their time, or more money?). In Oregon, there is a large part of the population that, given a choice, would prefer a job with a lower wage but a living wage, that allows the flexibility they desire to enjoy their non-work life.
Perhaps the MOST impactful component is migration fueled population growth. The people that are moving to Oregon fall into to main categories, one is young professionals and families who are moving here because they didn't like where they were before, want a higher quality of life, and who bring their skilled labor with them. Before the economic downturn, a lot of these imports came to Oregon (Portland) without a job, and then started looking, creating more supply, driving down prices.
The other group is the fundamental group that formed Oregon in the first place, which are people with libertarian (in the purest sense, they want a big bubble to live in) sensibilities who expect to have a low cost of living, and aren't really interested in being part of the community they're joining, or paying taxes to support it.
All of this is on top of a HUGE economic downturn, the effects of which are increased supply of workers and additional downward pressure on wages.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Missoula Floods Revisited
Last summer, on our way back from a semi-annual trip to Glacier Park, I was amazed to notice (now) obvious evidence of this flood in the shape of huge ripples all along the floor of a glacial valley as we were driving Westbound from the lake basin. We drove up and over a huge glacial moraine fairly close to the West of Flathead lake, and then sometime later were heading West'ish and over a series of low rolling ridges that I realized were ripples. I've yet to find the exact spot on a map/satellite, but here's a link to similar features:
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM8AGN_Giant_Current_Ripples_along_Washtucna_Coulee_Washington
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Kitzhaber Wins
When the minority and the majority (or any two groups of citizens) disagree fundamentally about how an issue is to be solved, then the majority gets the better end of any possible compromise. Sometimes compromise simply isn't possible by the nature of the issue (it's either one way or another) and sometimes both sides are unwilling to consider any compromise as anything other than defeat.
This is the nature of human politics. It always has been and always will be. It isn't a new thing or a city vs. rural thing, it's the nature of any system designed to make decisions based on the input of many and the power of the majority.
That said, I agree that often, people who live in different ways and view the world in different terms often don't take the time or make an effort to really consider the viewpoints of the 'other.' That, also, is a human trait and shows up in political dealings as a result. The best way to be listened to, is first to listen. It'll take some pride-swallowing and ego-shucking on both sides, but I think there are some examples of where this has started to happen. One is the cooperation by conservationists and ranchers to preserve open grazing lands by protecting relatively small but fragile habitats in exchange for guaranteed access and in some cases even new ownership of grazing lands. Similar work is being attempted in finding ways to have our forests continue to provide material and work for our state, without destroying the soils, watersheds and systems that support those forests in the long term.
The solution to most of these seemingly intractable issues is to step back, step back, and look and really be honest about what our goals are in each area. Are we interested in long-term viability of a given economy or resource? Are we interested in short-term gain despite possible long-term reprecussions? Are we interested in determining, through study and analysis of facts and evidence, what has worked in the past and what the outcomes of various methods have been? Once we've done these things, and really only once we've done these things, we then can step forward from a solid, common, understanding with rational discourse and solutions.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Kitzhaber Wins
You mentioned the benefit of having more than just two candidates available to the voters for a given position. Folks talk about this, and even try to place a third or fourth candidate into races, but the outcome is always predictable, and always binary (liberal vs. conservative).
A viable third-party candidate will always be a spoiler in our two-party-dominated winner-takes-all system.
The solution is some variation of Instant Runoff Voting. Rather than casting a static vote, each voter ranks his or her preference (but still only gets one vote). If I choose a third-party candidate as my first choice and the final tally shows that candidate receiving less than 50 percent of the vote, that candidate would be eliminated and my vote would shift to my second choice.
In the end, the results are the same as if there were multiple runoff rounds of voting (hence the name "Instant Runoff Voting"). The result is that the candidate who wins has the support of the majority, and the will of the voters is most accurately expressed.
There are several organizations around the country struggling to bring this simple idea to the people in an effort to provide a more representative democracy for us all. Locally, the Green Party is a champion of the cause, but you can imagine that all the other small parties, such as the Libertarians, would benefit from such a system.
Can we have a show to discuss this important idea?
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#irv
http://www.pacificgreens.org/issues/instant-runoff-voting-irv/
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/better_and_cheaper_elections_f.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/making_more_sense_of_our_elect.html
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Election 2010: The Morning After
It's not in their interest to debate intelligently, because the majority of the public gets bored with facts. They want emotion, namecalling, and belief. Facts, boring.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Election 2010: The Morning After
TURN DOWN BILL LUNCH'S MICROPHONE! I had to turn off the radio due to his constant smacking, gulping, and other gross mouthsounds. Ugh!
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
It's perfectly legal and safe to drive on the streetcar tracks. STREET-car. Max tracks, however, are off limits everywhere (big huge bumps separating the lane).
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
This is hillarious. Thanks for giving voice to my inner dialogue. It'll only ever be vicarious, I hope.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
Based on years of witnessing driver, rider, and pedestrian behavior, in myself and others, I'd say the fundamental problems are people being oblivious to their surroundings (my friend calls these folks bear-snacks), and people being belligerent about their rights/path/position on the road.
Five times in the last month I've seen pedestrians jaywalking and impeding traffic on BUSY streets (Powell and Foster), two of those persons were mothers with children. I'm fine with jaywalking if you are crossing with enough alacrity and space to allow for traffic to flow normally, but if you're expecting traffic to slow for you, and you're not at a crosswalk or intersection with signals in your favor, then you're not only belligerent, you're suicidal. Whether or not you have the right of way, you really shouldn't escalate the argument to a contest between your body and a hurtling pile of steel. You'll lose. It's really not about who's right. Pay attention, because you can't assume anyone else is.
I see bicycles doing the same type of thing. There are GREAT, safe, peaceful and often convenient routes through Portland that are designed and reserved for bicycles, but I still see cyclists impeding traffic on busy, dangerous streets just a few blocks from said bike boulevards/routes. Now, they have a right to be there and take the lane, but really, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, you're putting yourself in danger, and you're also angering motorists who are impeded by your presence, who may take that anger out, later, on other riders. This is also not about who's right and who has the right, it's about what actually happens when you ride your bike up Hawthorne at 8 mph and cause a minor traffic jam because you don't want to ride one block over to be safe and considerate.
Please, consider your actions and your position in the thoroughfare, both for your own safety, as well as for your impact on others around you. All pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers are people, and all are trying to get somewhere safely and quickly. Consider that.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Rebroadcast: The Selling of Oregon
I just had to turn it off, because although I loved hearing from the folks who had interesting things to say about their perspective on Oregon, that one woman who complained about how Portland is insensitive because they call a building the World Trade Center. She was so annoyingly self-pitying that I had to turn off the radio. Yuck!
posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Cops, Laws and Videotape
posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on 72 Far Superior Topics
posted 5 years ago
view in context
on Where Bikes and Cars Intersect
That said, I think that a MAJOR solution to the problems with bikes and cars is the same solution that would help drivers move better with each other. [b]It's being aware of what you are doing and how it affects others.[/b] For drivers, this is using your signals to communicate, and being aware of when you are impeding or disrupting the flow of traffic. I think it should be the same for bikes. On bike boulevards such as Salmon and Clinton, bikes can ride at leisurely paces and not worry too much about traffic impedence, but when you're on a street that's shared by other modes, you should be aware of where you are in the road, and who you're affecting.
There are some streets on which 95% of cyclists just should not ride. Busy, narrow streets such as Hawthorne and busy main streets such as MLK are not a safe place for a bike, unless that cyclist is able to take the lane and keep up with traffic. If you can't then please please go over a block or two to a perfectly safe side street. You'll be safer, you'll anger less drivers, and you'll enjoy your ride more.
posted 5 years ago
view in context
on An Internet Speed Limit?
posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Governor of Washington Takes Your Questions
A large source of the congestion on the current I-5 bridge is due to freight shipped in trucks. A MUCH larger percentage of the total wear and tear on any bridge is this same usage. I'm wondering if, included with your talks with Oregon regarding plans for the bridge, expanding the use of rail for freight shipment across the river has been addressed. Moving more freight by rail (and less by road) is considered vastly superior in overall cost and energy efficiency by experts in transportation. It's also in line with the Northwest's goals of achieving regional goals of reducing our carbon and energy footprints per capita.
posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context
