New Blog:

Peter bray
Peter Bray, who recently contributed a guest column ("Kulongoski's plan to make Measure 37 worse"), has launched a new blog -

Best known for his satirical arguments in the Voter's Pamphlet and his website, Bray's new blog will cover local, state, and federal activity as it relates to land use, growth, sprawl, Measure 37, and more.

A recent sample:

Sigh, poor Cascade Locks… you can’t help but feel sorry for them.

First, they blackened their name by convincing so-called Democratic governor Kulongoski to allow them to build an off-reservation casino in their tiny community (which will result not only in severe environmental damage to the beautiful Columbia Gorge, but also a precedent that will be used around the country).

Next, they are outsmarted by a bunch of white supremacists. ...

Check it out.

  • Leon Horren (unverified)

    I don't understand how someone could oppose measure 37?

    What if somebody has their life savings in a parcel of land, then all of a sudden the government comes along and passes a regulation that makes that person's land valueless? How could society not compensate such a person?

    I would really appreciate an explanation here.

  • (Show?)

    If someone put their life savings buying stock in cold medicine companies, and then the government outlaws selling it over the counter because you can make meth out of it, why shouldn't they reimburse the owner of that stock? This is not too far-fetched: Oregonians In Action once testified that the government should reimburse Napster when they passed laws limiting Napster's downloads of music.

    Leon, both the U.S. and Oregon constitutions require that governments reimburse landowners when laws make land valueless.

    The practical question is can the government ever do anything for the common good that may impact the speculative value of land, without paying folks to do so? For example, can it protect other people's property values by limiting nearby uses? Farmland is worth more for farming if there aren't nearby residences. If we limit residences, we're limiting one person's profit but increasing others'. It's a much more complicated fairness question than it may appear on the face.

    I guess some of it depends on whether you think property investment carries risk or should be guaranteed by the government like bonds. A longer discussion of fairness and these issues can be found here. and here.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    What is someone had their life savings in Merck, and suddenly the FDA withdrew Vioxx and the stock tanked? Is that fair? After all, you bought the stock when Vioxx was legal...

    Private property is regulated, plain and simple. When I was borne, there were no drinking age laws in Oregon -- does that mean that I could have legally started drinking whenever I wanted? Similarly, my friend bought his car when there was no such thing as smog controls and DEQ -- does that mean he can ignore these newly passed emission requirements?

    Real estate, just like any other private property, is regulated by governments. When you buy property, the current regulations, and the possibility for future regulations, are reflected in the price. Buying land in Zimbabwe is probably pretty cheap right now, as the likelihood of government action are great. Conversely, buying land on the border of any Urban Growth Boundary in Oregon is relatively high, as the chances of rezoning are also great. This is what we call the free market system.

    It is naïve to think that real estate is somehow different from other property -- that once you buy it, all laws are frozen from that point on.

    If that was the case, well, you will end up with a pretty outrageous society. Some people would be treated differently under the law then others. Some people could build giant castles with casinos and adult bookstores, while others can only build a normal house. While you might not find such unfairness perverse, fortunately the Oregon Constitution does (and will).

  • Leon Horren (unverified)

    5th amendment, US Constitution:

    "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

  • (Show?)

    That's right Leon, the 5th Amendment already protects you. That's precisely why Measure 37 is completely unnecesary.

  • Besty (unverified)

    "Measure 37 is completely unnecesary"

    for Homer Willaims, Trammel Crow, Gerding-Edlen, Joe Weston, Bechtel, Walsh Construction, OHSU, Goldscmidt Imeson & Carter, and all the friends of the Portland Development Commission.

    For all the blue & red little people it's vital.

    Of course I guess all the little people could just buy their local policiticans too.

  • 1001st Friend (unverified)

    Kari, Evan and Peter-

    Could any of you be more wrong?

    Kari- The 5th amendment DOESN'T protect property owners. Under the 5th amendment and Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution the courts have said that the government can regulate away up to 97% of a property's value without being required to pay just compensation. 97 cents out of every dollar!!!! That is why Measure 37 was needed.

    Evan- "Farmland is worth more for farming if there aren't nearby residences. If we limit residences, we're limiting one person's profit but increasing others'. It's a much more complicated fairness question than it may appear on the face." That is right, if we limit residences, we are increasing the farmer's profit. And yet, you bash people who want to make a profit selling their land. So, it is ok to make a profit if you are farming, but not if you are selling your land to developers.

    Evan's shocking revelation demonstrates why Measure 37 passed and why Evan's feeble attempts to defeat the measure failed. Thousands of years of property common law is predicated on the concept of "first in time, first in right." That is, if I purchased my property first, my rights prevail. Measure 37 is nothing more than an extension of this age old principle.

    You see, you like farming - not because of farming but because of the pretty green spaces farming provides -- and you have no problem limiting a person's ability to develop their property if it benefits the farmer, thereby accomplishing your political goal of artificially creating greenspaces. Your position flies in the face of basic property law, at the expense of thousands of Oregonians. And you don't give a damn about that.

    Peter - thanks for the voters pamphlet statements. I think they helped us as much anything. Why? Because you and the rest of the anti-property rights crowd have taken such extreme positions (opposing such controversial ideas as golf course snack shacks, springwater bottling plants and model airplane clubs on farmland) that your ridiculous statements only reminded people why MEasure 37 was so badly needed -- because the land use zealots would never stand to let a person put even one home on their property.

    And before any of you nutjobs say that OIA and their supporters are the extremists, I give you this: OIA has passed three ballot measures in the last six years. The worst showing at the polls was MEsaure 7's 53%. The land use extremists spent 4 million against MEasure 37 and it got 61% of the vote. Measure 56 passed with 81% of the vote.

    Sounds like the overwhelming majority of Oregonians agree with Oregonians In Action.

  • Ouch (unverified)

    On top of that why is it that these same Blue bretheren are missing in action when it comes to government agencies handing out millions and zoning variances to Neil Goldschmidt or Homer Williams developers? No concern about basic services budgets at all. They are no where to be found.
    Must be some kind of a sickness. These same public services advocates only show up to oppose something when the small guy might get a land use or tax break.

    They nerve miss a chance to rally against initiatives or policies for the small guys because they are "worried" about the advesre effect on basic services budgets.

    I've noticed they are missing and silent every single time millions in tax dollars are diverted my Metro and the cities for schemes which fail more often than succeed.

    Heck they don't even acknowledge general fund basic services (schools) dollars are being diverted.

    It appears they give it a pass when their people burn through tax money on crazy boondoggles. Not a single blue advocacy group has opposed ANY boongoggle that I can think of. Not even the rediculous Tram.

    How is it that not a single one of the many busy groups opposed this blatant disregard for the taxayers hard earned dollars or the public services it shoud be headed to?

    Not a sinlge blue group has ever opposed CIM/CAM. Not one.

    What a pack of hypocrits.

  • Labor D (unverified)

    It's no wonder they don't gripe about Homer Williams. He gives to their political campaigns. So let's slap ol Homer on the back, while thousands of average Portlanders pay to provide police, fire, and schools for the chardonnay sippers paying $200 a year in property taxes on their $800,000 "loft" in the Pearl.

    But what the hell, that's "smart growth" and the little people should just take it and shut up, if they know what's good for em.

    And what I don't get is why the progressives shed crocodile tears about saving the "farmland" (most of which ain't really farmland anyway), and then look the other way when the farmer sprays pesticides on the crop, hires 25 workers with the same social security number at $7.00 an hour and houses them in places that a dog shouldn't live, not because they are producing food, but because we need those wine grapes for our vintage chardonnay, that last potted plant for the Lake Oswegon backyard (but only if it's small enough to stuff into the Range Rover), or that grass seed for the golf course.

    I voted for Measure 37 not because it's the main issue for me, but because I know a hypocrite when I see one, and the greenies are it.

    Last time I checked, screwing the average Joe to help Homer Williams build another project, treating your employees like dog crap, dumping pesticides on the ground, and employing illegals weren't very "progressive" ideas. But I'm not enlightened, so what do I know?

  • (Show?)

    OIA lost Measure 65, 47-53%, and Measure 2, 45-55%, and Measure 26-11, I believe around 40-60% (the measure was defeated in all three counties it appeared on the ballot.) They also lost Measure 26-29, 67-33%. They also managed to pass the unconstitutional Measure 7, and then fritter away a legislative deal that would have kept a modified version alive, only to see their Measure be thrown out by the courts.

    If courts throw out Measure 37, OIA hasn't managed to pass a legal ballot measure besides Measure 56, which was referred to the voters by the legislature, and which had no funded opposition campaign, and which has subsequently been modified by the Legislature. Big whoop.

    Despite OIA claiming it dotted every I and crossed every T, Measure 37 isn't working like OIA wants it to because they screwed up the legal language.

    And the vast majority of County Farm Bureaus that took a stand on Measure 37 opposed it (15 of them, I believe) because it would hurt farming. So don't listen to me, listen to the farmers.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    a few thoughts from my blackberry from national forest...

    the silly rightists arguments here are like the bush-cheney juijitsu in re the inheritance tax.

    they say its for the working man, cause, after all, all them rich folk got them fancy lawyers and accountants to get out of the tax.

    in reality, as we all know, its indeed for the rich, not working farmers. the marketing plays to the fooled masses. after all, the tax wouldnt even apply to you if you have under two million.

    its the same with these oia types. they say that homer and pdc and ohsu got them lawyers to do what they want with their property. 37 is just the working mans way to get his fair shake.

    wrong wrong wrong.

    for every dorothy english (a shrill pawn in their game), you have a dozen welloff folk looking for quick money. hood river guy needs to subdivide his lot for his future... perhaps he doesnt realize he can sell his orchards wout subdivision for serious cash? or perhaps he just wants more more more.

    perhaps it all comes down to expectations... rightists want as much as they can get, regardless of what it does to the public at large... look at the average 37 claimant and, on sum, find some folks sitting pretty regardless of whether it existed or not... land is not cheap, and anyone w the acreage to consider 37 is on average far far far richer than the average american.

    one must also look at this reductio ad absudem. do the rightists indeed think that property should have no regulations? do they not realize that the value of their property now is precisely because of the edifice of rules and regulations? take that property out to zoneless texas and watch its value drop like a rock...

  • 1001st Fiend (unverified)

    Peter, Peter, Peter:

    First of all, be careful using that Blackberry of yours in the forest. I am quite certain that the use of electronic devices is not a permitted use in forest zones. 1000 Friends may bring an enforcement order against you for your unpermitted use.

    Oh wait. No they won't. They like you. They'll leave you alone.

    The claims you make are not based in fact, by any means. You obviously equate owning land with being wealthy. That is simply not the case. The farmer in Hood River is hardly wealthy. In fact, his farming operation is losing money, he has to tear out pear trees from his orchard because he can't afford to care for them. They are on their last legs, hardly wealthy at all.

    In fact, because of Oregon's land use system, most (if not all) Measure 37 claimants are cash poor. just ask Dorothy English. Or eugene and barbara prete. Or Helen Garner. Or Mary holton. Or Opal Burkhard. Or Ollie Wilcox. You are simply wrong.

    In fact, the statements made by Labor D are exactly right. The developer types like Homer Williams et al profit from our land use system because our land use system keeps the market for developable land artifically inflated. That is why the Homer Williams of the world support 1000 Friends, because the "friends" are the ones who actually help the developers.

    Don't believe me? Look at which side old Homer gave to. That is right, he gave to the No on 37 committee. Then go check out how many developers gave to the yes on 37 committee. I think you will be shocked to find out Peter and his ilk are nothing but dupes for the development crowd.

    Peter, Evan and others of their crowd just don't get it. The facts don't match their rhetoric. Everytime Peter makes a factually incorrect claim like "in reality, as we all know, its indeed for the rich, not working farmers." they lose credibility in the public. When the Bentons hear these lies, they say "we are working farmers, and Measure 37 is helping us. These guys are nuts."

    And as one of the authors of the measure, I think I am somewhat of an authority on who Measure 37 was intended to help. I can assure you it was meant to help the Dorothy Englishes of the world.

    Will it help other well heeled individuals? Of course. There is no getting around that. But Measure 37 was intended (and is) to help people who are land rich and cash poor. People who have had everything taken from them by a ruthless system designed to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

    A system that benefits Homer Williams at the expense of Dorothy English.

    Who in their right mind could support a system like that.

    Oh. Peter and Evan.

  • John Q (unverified)


    Did you poll the farmers? Countless farmers supported M37 because they are getting screwed by Oregon land use laws. Many Oregonians have parcels unsuitable or too small for profitable farming but their land is labeled farming.

    Were you running to their rescue?

    The kind of farmer oppositon you are referring to is the winery owner clown who claimed all of our winery country would havfe been paved over if not for out land use laws. You sure have some craxy fanstasies.

    Oh yeah Peter you are amoung the well duped. You have absolutely no grasp of land, land ownership, orchards,wealth or even our high property costs. After listening to your camp repeatedly claim our land use "planning" and UGB have nothing to do with the lack of affordable housing and high price of land it is quite something to see you write "that the value of our property now is precisely because of the edifice of rules and regulations" Thank for your unintended honesty. Perhaps your peers will get you straightened out and back on the worn out message you drifted from.

  • J Locke (unverified)


    As one of the authors of M37, perhaps you can help me out. My grandfather invested in a parcel of land in Washington County in 1914. Pappy was a simple man, but he could see which way the wind was blowing: he knew that one day in the distant future, Portland would leap over the West hills and expand into Washington County. Now, Pappy worked hard, and he lived hard as well. He lived for the drink, for cards, and for women. Thus it was his dream that one day, “Pappy’s Playhouse” would open its doors and provide high-class adult entertainment, libations, and gambling to the fine people of Washington County.

    I have grown up knowing that when I was old enough to wield a hammer and pour a stiff drink, I would be called to build and operate Pappy’s Playhouse. Just last year, I closed out my bank accounts, dug out Pappy’s original sketches of the Playhouse, and started construction. I had just finished assembling the neon marquee when a strange car pulled up in front of Pappy’s property. Out stepped a man from the County, demanding to see my building permit. I shrugged, and he asked, “Just what do you think you’re building here?” I pointed to Pappy’s sketches of the Playhouse. The man picked up the blueprints, then promptly fell to the ground in hysterics. “You poor idiot, you can’t build a strip club here! There’s an elementary school just around the corner! Besides, this building doesn’t even comply with basic code…”

    The County man proceeded to list a dozen ways in which Pappy’s plans were now illegal: the sketches showed no setback from the road, no fire escapes, no sprinkler system, no handrail on the stairs,, and on and on. As the County man spewed his vile regulations, the vision of Pappy’s Playhouse crumbled before my eyes. “Not to mention,” said the County man, “this land is zoned residential. Doesn’t matter how you build it, you can’t put a bar here, and certainly not a casino!”

    I got angry. I hired a lawyer. She tells me that Pappy’s Playhouse is in violation of regulations at every level of legal jurisdiction: federal building codes, state limitations on gambling, and local zoning all prohibit the Playhouse as Pappy had envisioned it. “But,” I protest, “none of these regulations were in place when Pappy bought the land!” It seems clear to me that the government has taken value from my land, and that I am owed just compensation. But my good-for-nothing lawyer informs me that theses regulations don’t constitute “takings” under the 5th Amendment.

    Mr. Day, OIA is my only hope. The government is running roughshod over my rights as a landowner, and all in the name of visual amenity! The Volvo-driving, Zinfandel-sipping suburban elitists that live around my property simply want to preserve the “wholesome aesthetic” of their precious neighborhoods. Pappy’s Playhouse is my birthright, and I’ll be damned if the suburban elite and a thieving government will keep me from realizing Pappy’s dream! Won’t you help me protect my basic property rights?


    -J. Locke
  • peter bray (unverified)

    if all it took to win an argument was a list of sob stories, well, you would do well. (although the fact that someone is "cash poor' with a high net worth doesnt really strike my heartstrings). on the flip, of course, are those neighbors of 37ers and their externalities... not to mention the cost to taxpayers, and the frankensteinian unfairness of inequally applied laws.

    in re funding... oias glib daggerthrust at land use safeguards was funded by small landowners? hm... what about those southern oregon timber corporations?

    and was it land use regulations responsible for hood river guys failing orchards? or was his backup plan always to chunk off 100s of mega mansions?

    if oia was solely concerned with small landowners burdened by subsequently passed laws, why not stop now? why pursue more measures allowing suburban builders to have larger lot sizes? who does that benefit? perhaps that is your stab at affordable housing? or is that yet one more notchmark on your rightist agenda?

    more on my blog when i return.

  • oh brother (unverified)

    Peter, think before you write.

    Here's an idea. Instead of bashing everything and never having an original idea of your own, why don't you figure out how to take away oia's sob stories. If what oia says is true, then you'll put them out of business, and they won't mind.

    For example, can't you see that the public sympathizes with Mrs. English? Who wouldn't? I know she lives somewhere near Skyline on land that isn't farmland (regardless of what you call it that area is not a farm area), but Multnomah County in all its infinite wisdom keeps trying to screw her. For God's sake, how about letting her create a few lots on her 20 acres and leave her alone?

    Why don't you figure out what is truly worth protecting from development (sorry not the whole state), and if it involves private property, figure out a way to accomplish your goal without demanding that the property owner suck it up and take it because its what you want. It seems to me that what you fear is that the majority doesn't agree with you.

    And as for who benefits from large lot sizes in the suburbs, I don't think that's the homebuilders. In fact, don't they like this high density development? It allows them to create more homes on smaller lots, and as long as the state or Metro or lawsuits from the NIMBY's or whatever keeps them from building larger lots, then there will be a forced market for their schlock. I bet you that if given a choice, people with young families would like to live on a larger lot. I know I would. I live in a new subdivision. Where the hell are my kids supposed to play? We don't have a backyard. Should I send them down to the park by themselves? They're the ones who benefit from choice, not the homebuilders.

    I thought planning was supposed to be about choices, but it seems like the only choices you're interested in are the ones you like but don't want to pay for, and screw everyone else and their "sob stories" By my definition, that makes you the selfish one.

  • peter bray (unverified)

    for any argument one can always trot out a few sob stories, manufactured (e.g., harry and louis ads defeating 92 clinton health plan), inflated (e.g., inheritance tax hurting the small farmer... problem was, they couldn't even find one!), real, or whatever. it's an effective albeit fallacious tactic. (should we outlaw cars because billy's mother was killed in an accident?) of course one should keep an eye on specifics, but its far better to look on the bigger picture, and how we as communities develop, safeguard ourselves, and smartly grow.

    after all, just as easily, i could trot out stories of real imminent damage to property and its value from M37 claimants neighbours. but what's the point? (youll just mislabel them as zinfandelers who wish to preserve their views.)

    the real sob story is the invisible victim: death by a 1000 tiny cuts to taxpayers and small communities who must contend with uneven sprawling mess that taxes services/resources and abides by no rules.

    and, to your point, given a choice, i bet most people would like a 200 acre mini-ranch for their vacation home. fortunately, oregonians decided decades ago to preclude such micro-fragmentation.

    if you have such a problem with oregon's decades of landuse safeguards, which oregonians time and again voice their support for, might i suggest you consider atlanta or pheonix? i am sure you can get a great backyard there.

  • oh brother (unverified)

    Well once again you avoid the point and fail to convince someone who was willing to listen.

    Instead your answer is that I should move to atlanta or "pheonix" (it's actually phoenix).

    Further, after accusing the righties who respond to you of "sob stories," you rely on undefinable anectdotes to try to defend your position. What is an "uneven sprawling mess?" Is a neighborhood of 10,000 square foot lots an "uneven sprawling mess?" How about 15,000 square foot lots? 5 acre lots? I believe most Oregon towns developed before we had land use planning. Are they "uneven sprawling messes," or could people figure things out without being coddled?

    So it seems to me that instead of trotting out the "Oregonians have voiced their support for land use regulations time and again" argument, consider that Oregonians just voted by a large majority for a measure that you contend will ruin everything we know.

    Deal with the reality, and instead of bitching about it and having no solutions, figure out a way that you can accomplish your goals and still figure out a way to "keep an eye on the specifics" without insulting everyone that disagrees with you. It seems to me that if you don't deal with the "specifics" you will continue to get beat. Flexibility and a dose of common sense are the key, which means you should stop listening to the enviro types, who aren't known for either. If that remains your tactic, you will remain in the minority, and are worse than the mirror image of what you seem to dislike, because they seem smart enough to figure out what people like and provide it to them.

    Respond if you like for someone else's reading pleasure. I've had enough.

  • Paul (unverified)

    Peter you are the sob story Your fantasy "the real sob story is the invisible victim: death by a 1000 tiny cuts to taxpayers and small communities who must contend with uneven sprawling mess that taxes services/resources and abides by no rules.'

    Is absurd as it gets. Or more likely dishonest. M37 did not abolish all zoning. Enough with the sprawl drama. And some reasonable sprawl is far better than the chaos mess from the haphazard, infilling, high density without a shred of planning to deal with it. The cost in dollars you pretend is being saved by stopping sprawl is being spent many times over by your left wing agenda of TOD's, light rail, centers, and the endless planners crap which no one voted for.

    There is abundant land all over the placfe yet people like you demand no one use it. A middle finger to you would be appropriate but you wouldn't get the message. Hopefully your song is wearing out the patience of the region's D's and R's as your planner struggle to dig us out of the mess they have created.

  • peter bray (unverified)

    what's the point of having a left web site if is simply invaded and populated by rightists, and anonymous ones at that? didnt another left leaning blog shut down for this exact reason? to be sure, debating back and forth with these nutjobs is hardly productive... it produces nothing but their tiresome bile and factless dramalogues, and does nothing to advance the lefts thinking on these issues.

    the rightwing sites rampantly weed out any left messages, as does dailykos on the flip. i can see why. "oh brother" is just a rube, anonymously posting about speling erors and the like... post your real name if you want a respond. and paul and his ilk just don't even read the prior conversation... must we repeat it. all. for. you. plain. and. simple. like? if he cannot understand that zoning under M37 is demolished piece by piece, well... enough said.

    why not ban these guys and their fetish for property "rights"?

  • Jimmy (unverified)


    With all due respect for you and the other "Friends"....

    I have strongly supported you guys over the years, but OIA just toys with you. And you out spend them 10-1 every time.

    1000 Friends has had staff, money, the whole state media, right and left politicians, and all OIA has had is a couple right-wingers stuck in an small hole-in-the-wall office in Washington County and they still beat you guys every time.

    On the Metro measure, I heard Larry George on the radio laughing that they did the whole measure as a joke to send a message to Metro to stay out of rural issues -- and it has worked! Notice Metro being super careful not to make OIA mad lately???

    Think about it -- Metro only beat them by running their own version of " 'density sucks' but not as bad as OIA says it does" measure.

    On their M65 and M2 -- your buddies at the Oregon Farm Bureau ran the same "administrative rules" measure in 1996 (M27 or 28) and got destroyed 70-30 -- OIA runs it with a fraction of the money -- with you guys spending a ton of green's green -- and barely beat them. (53-47). Clearly OIA understands rural Oregon, you have to give them that.

    If you guys at 1000 Friends are going to protect Oregon's land use system you need to respect OIA’s ability to move the public and move around Oregon politics. Acting like they haven't made you guys look foolish, make you look even more so.

    Those guys are really good, give them credit and don't put your head in the sand.

    Maybe its time to try to find some compromise before they take down the whole state land use system...because at this rate, it will happen by 2008!!! Just give them their stupid houses on crappy land – at this point - with what they have done to you so far -- who cares???

    Just my humble advice...


  • Kyle (unverified)

    "Just give them their stupid houses on crappy land – at this point - with what they have done to you so far -- who cares???"

    Good point but if that was there was too the planning/land use problems there would not be an OIA.

    Peter, you haven't even learned that it's not merely "rightists" who object to Oregon's over regulation. You can pretend so along with your pretense that that contingent has only bile to offer.

    "like? if he cannot understand that zoning under M37 is demolished piece by piece, well... enough said."

    There's your fanaticism which separates you from the many democrats who voted for M37.

    You just can't think outside your point of view, then you doctor up reality to fit the extremism you embrace. Oregonians know better. Including countless Democrats. One does not need to be a "rightist" to recognize the failings of Oregon planning. Especially where most of us live.

    Dorothy English is not putting in a pig farm, smelter or firing range. The bulk of our reasonable zoning laws are fully intact. Your sprawl obsessed camp lost the attempt to dominate all land decisions forever and that chapter is history.

    Oregonians, especially our main cities, have been witnessing the results of our system daily for at least 20 years. Many people find it hard to believe the mess we have was actually planned.

    The needless infilling, overcrowding, congesting outcome resembles what one would expect from zero planning. Which is what I suggest is the reality of our system.

    The Metro 2040 plan and UGB are really a non-plan seeking only to blindly stop sprawl at the expense of livability. With no plans to deal with the many detriments of the overcrowding, land shortage creating, property inflating, traffic nightmare making and basic services sacrifices with Urban Renewal Metro hasn't the foggiest idea what to do next. Do you? Share with us the REST of the "plan".

    What is the plan for traffic? More bikes? There is no plan. You know it. What is the plan for land supply? Another UGB expansion that can't be planned or developed? What is the plan for affordable housing? Government housing? There is no plan. Seemingly you do not care. That's what infuriates people wanting fixes. But you keep beating this drum that nothing was or is wrong.

    The worst statewide problem is the labeling of all land. The rush to label all land set in place a constraining, stifling obstructing system which unfairly prohibited otherwise reasonable uses along with the many protections nearly everyone supports. It's all been way to sweeping without regard for the countless punitive effects which are not necessary.

    And with the fanatic stop sprawl mindset nothing else matters.

    Any drive to the beach or mountains is a travel through abundant land of all types suitable for many uses or even a new city or two.

    But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. We are in the "crisis in your mind" so we must prohibit any additional cities and put the squeeze on the ones we have.

    Your foolishness may desire the opposition to shut up and go away but many Democrats and otherwise liberal folks and families know your extreme planning to be failing and not wanted.


connect with blueoregon