2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

For sure increase SDCs. Also, we need to stop blindly handing out subsidies and tax breaks to industries and employers "to encourage job growth."  What ends up happening is a race to the bottom with other regions resulting in underfunded schools, roads, parks, etc... We need to pay as we go on all development.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I think these growth projections are the product of self interested planners (see above).

So for the sake of this where should we build show....I think we should not expand the UGB. We should focus new construction in already developed areas. We should redevelop underused land (parking lots, strip malls, brown fields, on top of existing commercial property, etc...) along transit routes where possible. We should build as dense as possible where it will not impact already existing neighborhoods. We should not "upzone" established neighborhoods and fill them with towering, crappy "skinny houses" or other light blocking, soul destroying, exercises in modern arcitecture.

My personal experience with condos in my backyard continues to be negative. A wannabe developer/investor got control (for way below market value) of his aunt's house when she had a stroke. He built condos (which now overlook my backyard) on top of her vegtable garden and fruit trees. My only consolation was the realestate/credit meltdown which left his new condos unsellable.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

We need to re-examine these growth projections.  These projections (self fulfilling prophesies) are being made by urban planners and government agencies with a vested interest in growth.  Their jobs are funded by increased taxes and fees on new developements. They push subsidizies for growth with "urban renewal" and other scemes. They allow or encourage growth knowing that it decreases quaility of life and creates the need for new taxes to fund the increased demand on roads, sewers, schools, etc...

It's not just the planners though....Too much of our economy is based on growth for growth sake. Builders, realators, lenders, architects, planners, and construction workers are all dependent on unennding growth "smart", sprawl, or whatever.

Luckilly, all this unchecked and unsustainable growth has finally slowed.  The worst, most speculative actors are going bankrupt or are moving on to other scemes. Now is the time to reorganize our economy on a more sustainable basis. We need to abandon growth for growth's sake. We need to ask ourselves how big is big enough.

We need to employ construction workers rebuilding crumbling infrastructure (Selwood bridge for example)  before we build more souless sprawl or souless and overpriced condo towers.  We need to spend money on health care and education, not subsidies for condo builders, flashy streetcars, and sports franchises.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Much of the land being given to developers in Govy is pristine (no roads, old growth, wetlands) while the land at cooper spur has been cut over. There are existing trails on the Govy swap land too. The land at government camp is far more valuble than the land at cooper spur. Let's at least have an equal trade or scale back the land lost to developers at Govy.

If this swap is such a good deal, why can't it stand alone? Because it would be recognized as a give away to developers.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

As for 2.
Why pollute a somewhat decent wilderness bill with give awaways for developers? The proposed development of Cooper Spur is an entirely different problem. Buying off Mt. Hood Meadows and other developers by giving them 120 acres of our land at Govt. Camp is a bad idea. Why is this give away being included in the bill? I have never heard a credible argument for it? The proposed development at Cooper Spur is just a threat and can be stopped by other means. Do you really want to see Govy turned into a wannabe Vail or Park City or whatever condo/spa/golf "playground."? Govy is big enough right now. A good deal of that 120 acres around Govy is old growth fir/cedar/hemlock---a very beautiful forest. Do you want to see it turned into condos? Stop the Swap! At the very least make it an entirely seperate issue. At the second very least lets assess the Govy land for what it will be worth as developable land----probably close to $100 million when the economy picks back up. So we trade 5 or 10 million worth of land for 100?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I realize it's a long shot to stop the swap...I don't even think that many people know about it...I hope you guys on OPB at least recognize there is opposition to it and mention it on your show.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

A couple things:

1st. The current Mt. Hood wilderness bill contains a land swap (give away to developers) which will result in doubling the size of Government Camp and the loss of beautiful old growth forest. This land swap should not be included in the bill, it should be an entirely separate issue.

2nd. This and other wilderness bills should either include increased funding for trails maintenance or waivers to allow chainsaws for trail work (it is more difficult to maintain trails without chainsaws).

It seems to me that conservationists are interested in preserving certain public lands from large scale and destructive commercial/industrial use, hence wilderness designation. It would be better from a land management perspective if these protections could be achieved without the monolithic Wilderness designation. There needs to be a middle ground that allows for some mechanized entry for management purposes (like trail maintenance) and mountain bikes in some areas, but still prohibits industrial use abd ATVs

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I think we ought to be preserving the fragments of old growth left on our public lands. More importantly, we should be preserving roadless forests. Timber production should be a secondary goal or purpose of our public lands.

We should be managing older second growth forests to recreate old growth characteristics, especially where we can reconnect old growth fragments. It is obvious that active timber management to protect old growth and roadless areas is necessary given the threat of wildfire.

The problem we face with regard to timber management is poor management, where industry and managers take the biggest, most valuable trees in the name of "fire hazard reduction". Worse are management policies that place timber production above all other uses or values.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

It sounds like the Frazier River fish are in real trouble too.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context