Oops, I forgot to mention that Metro is trying to make Portland into Los Angeles, the densest urban area in the country:

From, Metro Measured, page 7, a Metro publication: We could not depart Figures 12 through 14 without pointing out some apparent disparities between perception and measurement, namely, Los Angeles . When we measure the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage and travel times only slightly higher than average . By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion . In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided . By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate. (Bold added) From: portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured-txt.pdf

Thanks JK

Huhhh? Wake Up!! Metro is screwing all of us!!!

The region overwhelmingly rejected density increases the last time it was on the ballot: portlandfacts.com/smart/metrodensityvote.htm

Metro style land use restrictions caused the housing bubble: nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html

We are paying double what we should be paying for housing: americandreamcoalition.org/penalty.html portlandfacts.com/housing.html

Increased density increases congestion: portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycongestion.htm

High density costs more than low density: portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycost.htm

High Density REDUCES social interaction: portlandfacts.com/smart/socialinteractionandurbansprawl.htm

Don’t miss how Metro’s land use policies are lowering our standard of living: blip.tv/file/2648135

More videos on how Metro style policies are screwing up just about everything: portlandfacts.com/video-2007adc.html

Thanks J

Certainly an interesting posting Kari. It helps to understand the news atory published Sunday stating that the general trend for retiring boomers will be away from dense urgan areas like Portland to more rural areas like souther and central Oregon. The published report states that affluent boomers retiring will leave cities for the next 15 years or so, choosing less dense rural areas that have excellent weather and medical care.

The UGB is awesome. It's so awesome that no other region in the world has mimicked it. Even thought politicians and planners travel from around the world to look at our UGB and experience its wonderfulness.

Look at all our UGB has accomplished. It has made our property values rise. So high, in fact, that Portland regularly ranks among the worst metro areas for housing affordability. Why else do politicians campaign so heavily on the issue of affordable housing?

The UGB is awesome for business! It keeps out those dirty manufacturing companies. That's awesome because now we have the worlds largest cluster of sustainability consultants. (The only problem is that their hot air adds to the region's carbon footprint. [... sigh...])

I say we keep the UGB. Build up, not out. Stop expanding our road network. Heck, stop repairing it. Who really needs to trade with the outside world anyway? Buy local! Build more streetcars so we can get from one lookalike TOD to another lookalike TOD to buy a Subway and a Starbucks. Yum!

The UGB is something we should all be proud of. It's what makes us that special snowflake.

Our land use system is just one more example of a "progressive" policy that absolutely screws the low wage earner.

Ironic, isn't it.

While the progressives secure their scenic easement on land owned by others, Oregon's competitiveness continues its long slide.

Hey so sweat! Just work for the government!

Since 2007, private sector jobs in Oregon have gone down by 120,000, while public sector jobs have climbed by almost 20,000.

Sure, THAT's "sustainable!"

Thanks, Progressives!

Ya think that Portland's unemployment rate of 11.8% is a result of the UGB?

http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm

My problem with all this high density talk is that no one connects it to ideal lot sizes. When my wife and I were looking for a new house a few years ago, it was really hard finding something with a decent-sized yard.

Don't we also want to encourage urban-gardening? How do you do that when you squeeze everyone into postage-stamp sized lots?

So who's the troll you were reffering to Kari? Care to name names?

t.a., It's not just vegetable gardens. My wife and I like gardening. We like having a nice big yard where we can have big flower beds, but still have lots of lawn space for the kids to play.

Community gardens are great for some people (particularly those that live near one), but nothing is a silver bullet that works for everyone.

I'm not saying every lot has to be nice and big (to my standards). I was just saying that I never hear lot sizes entered into the equation any time I read about UGB discussions. Shouldn't we have a discussion about what percentage of lots should be at least x# square yards? Especially in new developments.

Disagreement does not a troll make.

Last week, I made a comment about Oregon's taxes stifling business and employment. Someone responded that our taxes are so low that it can't be taxes that are causing Oregon's economy to languish. Therefore, the commenter concluded, it must be Oregon's land use laws.

Now, I post a comment saying that Oregon's land use laws contribute to our languishing economy and commenters scoff at that and call it trolling.

So, if it's not land use and it's not taxes. Why does Oregon's economy suck so bad?

Houston has this really bad rap that I didn't find it deserving of. Admittedly, I only lived there a year, but I found Houston to be easy to around. Granted, the metro area is huge, but I have family the live in East Portland and NEVER venture to the westside, so people tend to stay close to where they live/work anyway.

Not only that, but since they have a pro smart-growth philosophy, you can get a 2000 sq ft brand new home in the 2nd loop for $110,000.

How much better off would our job situation be if families had the option of a nice home at that price point, because affordable housing for workers IS a factor in business relocation.

mp, I have to agree. I lived in Houston for a year as well. I don't like the expansion of toll roads there, but other than that, the only things I hated were the climate and the summer stench.

I never actually ventured into the inner loop my whole time there. Speaking of which, coming from cities that utilized the "loop" highway system, I always thought that's something Portland was lacking. We have these weird half-loops.

As an aside (and not speaking to Portland's UGB policies), you probably shouldn't be citing Minneapolis-St. Paul's Urban Service Boundary as an example of controlling sprawl. I am a native of the Twin Cities and was astounded when I went back home, after being away a mere five years, by how far out the suburbs extended. It makes Vancouver look like a one horse town.

From "Managing Growth in America's Communities" by Douglas R. Porter: (http://books.google.com/books?id=p7kUenCZrCwC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA231&ots=zKfwVfuWJX&dq=Minneapolis+St.+Paul+Urban+Service+Boundary&output=html_text)

The Urban Service Line has functioned relatively successfully to achieve contiguous urban development but has not promoted higher-density development. By and large, development patterns in the Twin Cities area have maintained the same low-density characteristics common to fringe areas of most American cities.

It is to laugh -- unless you define Clark County out of the Portland Metro area. Metro has capitulated to the pro-sprawl lobby by backing the 12-Lane Catastrophe on the Columbia, the fantasy of the sprawlbuilders from Amboy on down to the river. The UGB has a giant north-facing gap in it, and pretending that Metro is holding the line on sprawl just because it's happening in Ridgefield and Battle Ground is a joke when you're talking about dropping $4+ billion on a boondoggle to promote long-distance auto-commuting.

Jim H: regarding those half-loops

I moved to Oregon from NY back in the 70s. Back then, I-205 was nearing completion, and the debate was withering on the defunct Mt. Hood Freeway. The big debate of the time was the Westside bypass, the I-205 mirror that would link Wilsonville to Hillsboro.

Alas, it never came to be because no one wanted to lose all that farmland, long since paved over by the sprawl of Wilsonville, Sherwood, Tualatin, Tigard, and Aloha (still unincorporated). The only major Westside road construction saw HWY-217 change from the 2-lane byway, to the 4-lane limited access parking lot it has become. I had moved to the edge of the UGB in 1980 to a now-paved gravel road; this road is now part of a favorite shortcut between Tualatin and Aloha/Hillsboro that connects the terminus of Roy Rogers Blvd to Aloha.

So instead of an efficient westside bypass, we have unofficial, inefficient, but well-used secondary roads.

An urban growth plan is not just about where to locate housing. Retail, commercial, and industrial all need to be factored. And more importantly, transportation - whether rail, car/bus highways, or hot-air balloon.

Too bad some of this couldn't have been done better back in the 70s.

I'm now within the UGB, but still very near the edge. Fortunately for me, there is a 400 acre Metro greenspace bordering me that will likely stay that way for the next 100 years or so.

Increasing density seems silly. Don't people in Oregon know that much of Oregon's growth comes from people moving to escape high density jungles of other places?

Sure, develop in-fill areas before spreading out, but affordable single density housing will always attract people, even if they must drive that dreaded, hated car 30 miles to work.

Specious arguments that density saves money etc. and that it facilitates the development of rail clients using TOD seem--well specious--and deserve a deep drawer in the closets of academia instead of muddling brains of young urban planners, who must regurgitate density nonsense in examinations.

So far Portland has wasted tremendous amounts of money building and operating about 70 km of rail routes with about the same number of stops. About 100,000 LRT trips per day? How pathetic can things become when planners lose all perspective?

With a urban area of about 2 million or so people, don't Portland's planners realize that about 1 million people must get to work every morning. One hundred thousand trips by LRT--Sheesh--about 50,000 employees at most. Several cities in North America have better penetration of public transit for the work commute without draconian measures of increasing density. Some of them even welcome freeways and use the roads to stuff their mass transit with people, by using feeder bus systems.

Increasing density sounds good, until one looks at the downsides: higher housing costs, gentrification, congestion, and the flight from the urban area to the freedom of one's own green space.