Urban Planning in Portland, Oregon

[Paul J. Berg]

~

Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.

In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

O'Toole uncovers the vested interests responsible for Portland's bloated
and unused transportation infrastructure. The "light-rail mafia," as
O'Toole calls it, centered upon former Portland mayor Neil Goldschmidt
and a network of cronies who profited from favorable zoning regulations
and subsidies. This political machine has held influence and power in
Portland for over thirty years. Among the planning racket's
beneficiaries is Bechtel Corporation, which received a no-bid contract
to build a light-rail line.

Planning has resulted in skyrocketing housing costs and traffic
congestion -- the outcomes it was supposed to alleviate. "Planners made
housing unaffordable to force more people to live in multifamily housing
or in homes on tiny lots ... and allowed congestion to increase to
near-gridlock levels to force more people to ride the region's expensive
transit lines," writes O'Toole. In fact, the high cost of living has
forced families to move out of Portland proper, resulting in longer
commutes and higher taxes from those who remained in the city to
maintain the costly public transit infrastructure.

The costs of public investments in mass transit greatly outweigh the
benefits. O'Toole shows that despite spending billions of dollars on
light- rail and other transit systems in Portland since 1980, the
percentage of commuters who ride transit has actually declined. Even
Portland's planners acknowledged that congestion would increase despite
all the region's land-use and transit plans, but rather than increase
roadway capacity, they have actively reduced it.

Even ostensible successes in moving families into dense housing units
are questionable. While "high-density, mixed-use developments are
supposed to herald a new lifestyle that uses less land and resources ...
these developments are heavily subsidized, frequently vacant and have
not shown any affect on people's travel habits." Subsidies to
transportation development projects have led to budget cuts in
education, public health, police and other essential services..

O'Toole concludes: "People who want to see their cities remain
affordable, uncongested, and livable should look at Portland only as an
example of how not to plan."

~

[george conklin]

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.
O'Toole uncovers the vested interests responsible for Portland's bloated
and unused transportation infrastructure. The "light-rail mafia," as
O'Toole calls it, centered upon former Portland mayor Neil Goldschmidt
and a network of cronies who profited from favorable zoning regulations
and subsidies. This political machine has held influence and power in
Portland for over thirty years. Among the planning racket's
beneficiaries is Bechtel Corporation, which received a no-bid contract
to build a light-rail line.
Planning has resulted in skyrocketing housing costs and traffic
congestion -- the outcomes it was supposed to alleviate. "Planners made
housing unaffordable to force more people to live in multifamily housing
or in homes on tiny lots ... and allowed congestion to increase to
near-gridlock levels to force more people to ride the region's expensive
transit lines," writes O'Toole. In fact, the high cost of living has
forced families to move out of Portland proper, resulting in longer
commutes and higher taxes from those who remained in the city to
maintain the costly public transit infrastructure.
The costs of public investments in mass transit greatly outweigh the
benefits. O'Toole shows that despite spending billions of dollars on
light- rail and other transit systems in Portland since 1980, the
percentage of commuters who ride transit has actually declined. Even
Portland's planners acknowledged that congestion would increase despite
all the region's land-use and transit plans, but rather than increase
roadway capacity, they have actively reduced it.
Even ostensible successes in moving families into dense housing units
are questionable. While "high-density, mixed-use developments are
supposed to herald a new lifestyle that uses less land and resources ...
these developments are heavily subsidized, frequently vacant and have
not shown any affect on people's travel habits." Subsidies to
transportation development projects have led to budget cuts in
education, public health, police and other essential services..
O'Toole concludes: "People who want to see their cities remain
affordable, uncongested, and livable should look at Portland only as an
example of how not to plan."
~

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes. And
city corruption? Think New York.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes.
And city corruption? Think New York.

Ah, yes - the self-proclaimed expert knows far more than anyone who has
actually worked as a planner - or even as a developer. I guess being a
Forester qualifies you for all sorts of Transportation, Transit and Urban
Planning issues.

[Paul J. Berg]

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes.
And city corruption? Think New York.

Ah, yes - the self-proclaimed expert knows far more than anyone who has
actually worked as a planner - or even as a developer. I guess being a
Forester qualifies you for all sorts of Transportation, Transit and Urban
Planning issues.

Randal O'Toole is an economist not a forester. He has held the
position of director at the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute since 1975.
The majority of O'Toole's work has focused on environmental policy,
particularly public land use and regional and urban development.

Early in his career, O'Toole worked with environmental groups to
oppose the United States Forest Service's subsidized sales of public
forest timber to the logging industry. His book "Reforming the Forest
Service" built on his experience during this effort, and proposed a
number of free-market solutions to management of U.S. public land and
timber. He has written analyses of the usage and development plans of
a number of U.S. national forests, working with state environmental
agencies and other groups.

In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist
design and smart growth strategies. O'Toole contends that these
development strategies "in which regulatory measures and tax
incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more
efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation" ignore
the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately
waste public funds. His 1996 book "The Vanishing Automobile and Other
Urban Myths" was written as a detailed critique of these styles of
planning. He continues to advocate for free market solutions to urban
planning and design in his writing and teaching. He has campaigned
against smart growth policies and light rail systems.

O'Toole has held fellowships at Yale University, and served as a
visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is an
avid cyclist who always rides a bicycle to and from work, and
advocates alternative means of transportation where possible. He lives
in Bandon, Oregon.

[george conklin]

Post by Paul J. Berg

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes.
And city corruption? Think New York.

Ah, yes - the self-proclaimed expert knows far more than anyone who has
actually worked as a planner - or even as a developer. I guess being a
Forester qualifies you for all sorts of Transportation, Transit and Urban
Planning issues.

Randal O'Toole is an economist not a forester. He has held the
position of director at the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute since 1975.
The majority of O'Toole's work has focused on environmental policy,
particularly public land use and regional and urban development.
Early in his career, O'Toole worked with environmental groups to
oppose the United States Forest Service's subsidized sales of public
forest timber to the logging industry. His book "Reforming the Forest
Service" built on his experience during this effort, and proposed a
number of free-market solutions to management of U.S. public land and
timber. He has written analyses of the usage and development plans of
a number of U.S. national forests, working with state environmental
agencies and other groups.
In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist
design and smart growth strategies. O'Toole contends that these
development strategies "in which regulatory measures and tax
incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more
efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation" ignore
the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately
waste public funds. His 1996 book "The Vanishing Automobile and Other
Urban Myths" was written as a detailed critique of these styles of
planning. He continues to advocate for free market solutions to urban
planning and design in his writing and teaching. He has campaigned
against smart growth policies and light rail systems.
O'Toole has held fellowships at Yale University, and served as a
visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is an
avid cyclist who always rides a bicycle to and from work, and
advocates alternative means of transportation where possible. He lives
in Bandon, Oregon.

Ok, but anything he publishes is instantly rejected simply because of who
he is, not because he is not right.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Paul J. Berg

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes.
And city corruption? Think New York.

Ah, yes - the self-proclaimed expert knows far more than anyone who has
actually worked as a planner - or even as a developer. I guess being a
Forester qualifies you for all sorts of Transportation, Transit and Urban
Planning issues.

Randal O'Toole is an economist not a forester. He has held the
position of director at the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute since 1975.
The majority of O'Toole's work has focused on environmental policy,
particularly public land use and regional and urban development.
Early in his career, O'Toole worked with environmental groups to
oppose the United States Forest Service's subsidized sales of public
forest timber to the logging industry. His book "Reforming the Forest
Service" built on his experience during this effort, and proposed a
number of free-market solutions to management of U.S. public land and
timber. He has written analyses of the usage and development plans of
a number of U.S. national forests, working with state environmental
agencies and other groups.
In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist
design and smart growth strategies. O'Toole contends that these
development strategies "in which regulatory measures and tax
incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more
efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation" ignore
the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately
waste public funds.

I think that's interesting. Why doesn't he object to the other regulatory
measures and tax incentives that shape those desires and preferences so that
people don't even realized they've been quietly coerced into "wanting" less
efficient land use?

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Paul J. Berg

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Portland long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash
in corruption, government waste and public discontent.
In "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work," Randal O'Toole
catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions
to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes.

Well, simply because O'Toole wrote it, everyone here will say it is a lie
and quote some city-based web site to prove it too. But industry does
support billions for construction projects regardless of the outcomes.
And city corruption? Think New York.

Ah, yes - the self-proclaimed expert knows far more than anyone who has
actually worked as a planner - or even as a developer. I guess being a
Forester qualifies you for all sorts of Transportation, Transit and Urban
Planning issues.

Randal O'Toole is an economist not a forester. He has held the
position of director at the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute since 1975.
The majority of O'Toole's work has focused on environmental policy,
particularly public land use and regional and urban development.

Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.

With funding sources from the usual suspects.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm

And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree
is a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.

Milton Friedman he is not.

Post by Paul J. Berg
Early in his career, O'Toole worked with environmental groups to
oppose the United States Forest Service's subsidized sales of public
forest timber to the logging industry. His book "Reforming the Forest
Service" built on his experience during this effort, and proposed a
number of free-market solutions to management of U.S. public land and
timber. He has written analyses of the usage and development plans of
a number of U.S. national forests, working with state environmental
agencies and other groups.
In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist
design and smart growth strategies. O'Toole contends that these
development strategies "in which regulatory measures and tax
incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more
efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation" ignore
the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately
waste public funds. His 1996 book "The Vanishing Automobile and Other
Urban Myths" was written as a detailed critique of these styles of
planning. He continues to advocate for free market solutions to urban
planning and design in his writing and teaching. He has campaigned
against smart growth policies and light rail systems.
O'Toole has held fellowships at Yale University, and served as a
visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is an
avid cyclist who always rides a bicycle to and from work, and
advocates alternative means of transportation where possible. He lives
in Bandon, Oregon.

And when quoting wikipedia verbatim, good form requires an appropriate
attribution.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree is
a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the ignorant
students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree is
a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

You should run around them.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only
degree is a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

You should run around them.

LOL!

[george conklin]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree is
a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Tht web site above is another propaganda mill based not on facts, but on who
says them. Pathetic.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree is
a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the ignorant
students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Students are generally students because they recongize their ignorance
and wish to learn and remedy their ignorance. Hopefully, they are no
longer ignorant when they receive their degree.

Still, whatever a degree in economics does not qualify a person for, it
certainly qualifies them to call themselves an "economist".

Peace and justice,

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only degree is
a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Students are generally students because they recongize their ignorance and
wish to learn and remedy their ignorance. Hopefully, they are no longer
ignorant when they receive their degree.
Still, whatever a degree in economics does not qualify a person for, it
certainly qualifies them to call themselves an "economist".

Education just teaches you how to learn, if you're lucky. Most people don't
really have any useful skills until they have held down a job for a few
years.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only
degree is a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Students are generally students because they recongize their
ignorance and wish to learn and remedy their ignorance. Hopefully,
they are no longer ignorant when they receive their degree.
Still, whatever a degree in economics does not qualify a person for,
it certainly qualifies them to call themselves an "economist".

Education just teaches you how to learn, if you're lucky. Most people
don't really have any useful skills until they have held down a job
for a few years.

Shatzer is retired from a job and Still doesn't have any.

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only
degree is a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Students are generally students because they recongize their ignorance
and wish to learn and remedy their ignorance. Hopefully, they are no
longer ignorant when they receive their degree.
Still, whatever a degree in economics does not qualify a person for,
it certainly qualifies them to call themselves an "economist".
Peace and justice,

There is little difference between the number of idiots who have degrees
and the number of idiots who don't.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heh! Little wonder, the so-called Thoreau Institute essentially -is-
O'Toole.
With funding sources from the usual suspects.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
And, while O'Toole may -style- himself an "economist", his only
degree is a bachelor's in Geology and Forest Management.
Milton Friedman he is not.

A degree hardly qualifies anybody for anything. You should see the
ignorant students I run across here in Boston. It's simply pathetic.

Students are generally students because they recongize their
ignorance and wish to learn and remedy their ignorance. Hopefully,
they are no longer ignorant when they receive their degree.
Still, whatever a degree in economics does not qualify a person for,
it certainly qualifies them to call themselves an "economist".
Peace and justice,

There is little difference between the number of idiots who have
degrees and the number of idiots who don't.

I disagree. There are a lot more idiots with degrees and they are far
more dangerous.

"Get Away from that wheelbarrow! You know you don't know nuthin' 'bout
'chinerey!"

[Bill Shatzer]

lein wrote:

-snip-

Post by
There is little difference between the number of idiots who have degrees
and the number of idiots who don't.

Well, were I building a bridge, I'd sure as heck rather that it be
designed by someone with an engineering degree than by someone without one.

Peace and justice,