Discussion:
Forget the bridges, Sam Adams wants street cars
(too old to reply)
Paul Berg
2007-08-15 13:34:06 UTC
Permalink
~

news article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 15, 2007

Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the $27
million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.

Mayor Tom Potter and Commissioner Randy Leonard, the only other council
members present for the work session, didn't say where they stood on the
plan, but Potter, in particular, seemed skeptical.

He sought assurances that the city wasn't heading for another debacle
such as the aerial tram, in which poor council oversight led to large
cost overruns.

"I am responsible to the voters for this project," Adams said.

The city money represents the last piece of the financing puzzle for the
$147 million project, which would take the streetcar from Northwest
Portland, over the Broadway Bridge to the Lloyd District, and then on
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue to the Oregon Museum
of Science and Industry.

If approved, construction would begin in September 2008, with service
beginning February 2011. The line could be extended across the
Willamette River to the South Waterfront area in the future.

Adams said the project could spark the kind of development boom on the
east side that has accompanied the westside line through the Pearl, the
west end of downtown, the River District and South Waterfront.

The route is expected to attract 2.4 million square feet of development
and 15,000 new jobs, while reducing congestion and global warming, Adams
said.

But it may come at the cost of delaying other important city priorities,
such as redevelopment of the Centennial Mills site or building
affordable housing in the central east side. And a proposed operating
subsidy also features controversial elements such as reducing bus
service and installing parking meters in the central east side.

"It's a good but tough project," Adams said.

The council will have little time to absorb the complex financing plan
before it must vote on the proposal Sept. 6, one day before a deadline
to apply for $75 million in federal money for the project.

The city doesn't have to work out all the details now, but it has to
make a firm commitment to the Federal Transit Administration, said
Michael Powell, chairman of Portland Streetcar Inc., the nonprofit board
that operates the service.

"They have to come up with a believable story," Powell said.

The federal money comes from the Small Starts program, created by
Congress with heavy lifting from Oregon's delegation.

Federal Transit Administrator Jim Simpson, in Portland earlier this
summer, said the agency is following the streetcar project closely and
is awaiting the application.

Other sources include $20 million in state lottery bonds to buy
vehicles, $15 million from property owners along the route in the form
of a local improvement district, $3.7 million from a separate pot of
federal money controlled by regional officials, and $6 million from
system development charges.

The City Council will hold a hearing today on the local improvement
district, but officials don't expect significant objections from
property owners.

The city contribution would come from three urban-renewal districts: $17
million from the River District, $4 million from Convention Center and
$6.2 million from the Central Eastside.

Keith Witcosky of the Portland Development Commission explained that
each of the these districts has money budgeted for the streetcar
extension but at much smaller amounts than Adams is asking for.

That may require the city to raise debt limits, put off other projects,
and take out short-term loans backed by the city's general fund.

These problems are most acute in the Central Eastside district, which
has not seen the kind of growth in property values that has generated
tax revenues in westside urban renewal districts.

Ken Rust, the city's top finance official, said that almost all the
project costs would occur in the next five years, while most of the
potential growth in the Central Eastside sparked by the streetcar and
other investments won't emerge until well beyond five years. The plan
for operating money also poses problems.

The streetcar will require a public subsidy of $5.2 million a year, to
be split equally between the city and TriMet under Adams' plan.

But this assumes creation of a central city fare district with streetcar
fares set at $2.25 and also assumes savings from service cuts on TriMet
Line No. 6.

TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen said the subsidy plan will require
public involvement and negotiations with the city.

Hansen was also surprised to see the transit agency down for a $1.1
million subsidy, noting that he had only discussed $1 million.

"I don't like surprises," he told the council.

Hansen also mentioned that TriMet board President George Passadore would
like to see zoning changes to allow more residential development in the
central east side, a suggestion opposed by Adams and businesses in the
district.

~
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-15 20:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the $27
million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for the new
I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.

On a separate issue, the city also wants some sort of memorial included.
Not a plaque, a memorial. We are becoming Ancient Egypt.
Bolwerk
2007-08-15 20:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the $27
million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for the new
I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the future,
should it ever make sense?
Post by Lobby Dosser
On a separate issue, the city also wants some sort of memorial included.
Not a plaque, a memorial. We are becoming Ancient Egypt.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-15 20:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the
$27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the
future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
On a separate issue, the city also wants some sort of memorial
included. Not a plaque, a memorial. We are becoming Ancient Egypt.
lein
2007-08-15 20:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the
$27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the
future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of traffic
lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the city's
transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of their
pocket)
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 21:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the
$27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the
future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of traffic
lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge.
The new bridge design is set to carry Ten lanes of traffic, rather
than the original 8. Feel better now?
Post by lein
(unless the city's
transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of their
pocket)
Federal aid will replace the utility of the current bridge. That's
supposed to be about $250m or so. There's another reported $50m in
the pot to deal with the removal problem.

Anticipated cost of the new bridge, under Any design currently being
considered, will run closer to $400-$500 million, when everything is
sorted out. Feel better now?
Ockham's Razor
2007-08-15 22:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
The new bridge design is set to carry Ten lanes of traffic, rather
than the original 8. Feel better now?
How many lanes enter and leave the bridge? Could be the Vista Ridge
Tunnels in reverse.
--
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tatige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 23:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ockham's Razor
Post by Don Homuth
The new bridge design is set to carry Ten lanes of traffic, rather
than the original 8. Feel better now?
How many lanes enter and leave the bridge? Could be the Vista Ridge
Tunnels in reverse.
Dunno. It was reported in the paper in Minnehopeless. I didn't see
the picture or the traffic plan.
lein
2007-08-15 23:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the
$27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the
future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of traffic
lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge.
The new bridge design is set to carry Ten lanes of traffic, rather
than the original 8. Feel better now?
Post by lein
(unless the city's
transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of their
pocket)
Federal aid will replace the utility of the current bridge. That's
supposed to be about $250m or so. There's another reported $50m in
the pot to deal with the removal problem.
Anticipated cost of the new bridge, under Any design currently being
considered, will run closer to $400-$500 million, when everything is
sorted out. Feel better now?
with or without a light rail line?
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 23:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Anticipated cost of the new bridge, under Any design currently being
considered, will run closer to $400-$500 million, when everything is
sorted out. Feel better now?
with or without a light rail line?
The report wasn't explicit on that. There's sufficient room within
the range specified to handle it, I suspect. The incremental cost of
adding sufficient room and strength to handle a light rail line would
probably fit nicely within $100m or so.

Their call to make.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 00:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the
City Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal
districts for the $27 million needed to complete financing for
the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan
for the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light
rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis,
is that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light
rail in the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic,
it might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge.
The new bridge design is set to carry Ten lanes of traffic, rather
than the original 8. Feel better now?
Post by lein
(unless the city's
transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of their
pocket)
Federal aid will replace the utility of the current bridge. That's
supposed to be about $250m or so. There's another reported $50m in
the pot to deal with the removal problem.
Anticipated cost of the new bridge, under Any design currently being
considered, will run closer to $400-$500 million, when everything is
sorted out. Feel better now?
with or without a light rail line?
With Fries and a Medium drink.
Bolwerk
2007-08-15 21:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the
$27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is that
such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in the
future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of traffic
lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the city's
transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of their
pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-15 21:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolwerk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for
the $27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside
streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is
that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in
the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the
city's transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of
their pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
Bolwerk
2007-08-15 21:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for
the $27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside
streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is
that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in
the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the
city's transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of
their pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision for
a potential future light rail line*?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-15 22:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the
City Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts
for the $27 million needed to complete financing for the
eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan
for the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light
rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is
that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in
the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic,
it might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the
city's transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of
their pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build
a road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that
purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision
for a potential future light rail line*?
You may get it.
lein
2007-08-15 23:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for
the $27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside
streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is
that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in
the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the
city's transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of
their pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision for
a potential future light rail line*?
As long as that provision is not paid with road dollars being used to
rebuild the bridge, so be it.

It was a road bridge to begin with, so if the Feds are paying for it's
replacement, it should still be a road bridge. It's not appropriate
to expect a light rail line, a bicycle lane, a pedestrian esplanade,
and a restaurant be tacked on at cost of the generosity of the U.S.
taxpayers.

If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 23:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision for
a potential future light rail line*?
As long as that provision is not paid with road dollars being used to
rebuild the bridge, so be it.
It is not clear that it would be, though one Could possibly argue that
adding light rail would thereby comingle the dollars, and (gasp!) Some
"road money" would support light rail.

Does it Really matter?
Post by lein
It was a road bridge to begin with, so if the Feds are paying for it's
replacement, it should still be a road bridge.
The feds are paying for Part of A replacement.
Post by lein
It's not appropriate
to expect a light rail line, a bicycle lane, a pedestrian esplanade,
and a restaurant be tacked on at cost of the generosity of the U.S.
taxpayers.
Why not, even in part?
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"

What universe do You live in?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 00:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to
build a road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for
that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision
for a potential future light rail line*?
As long as that provision is not paid with road dollars being used to
rebuild the bridge, so be it.
It is not clear that it would be, though one Could possibly argue that
adding light rail would thereby comingle the dollars, and (gasp!) Some
"road money" would support light rail.
Does it Really matter?
Post by lein
It was a road bridge to begin with, so if the Feds are paying for it's
replacement, it should still be a road bridge.
The feds are paying for Part of A replacement.
Post by lein
It's not appropriate
to expect a light rail line, a bicycle lane, a pedestrian esplanade,
and a restaurant be tacked on at cost of the generosity of the U.S.
taxpayers.
Why not, even in part?
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
50' by 20' is doable. Small, but doable. Or 60' by about 17'.
lein
2007-08-16 00:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision for
a potential future light rail line*?
As long as that provision is not paid with road dollars being used to
rebuild the bridge, so be it.
It is not clear that it would be, though one Could possibly argue that
adding light rail would thereby comingle the dollars, and (gasp!) Some
"road money" would support light rail.
Does it Really matter?
Post by lein
It was a road bridge to begin with, so if the Feds are paying for it's
replacement, it should still be a road bridge.
The feds are paying for Part of A replacement.
Post by lein
It's not appropriate
to expect a light rail line, a bicycle lane, a pedestrian esplanade,
and a restaurant be tacked on at cost of the generosity of the U.S.
taxpayers.
Why not, even in part?
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 00:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
4,000 sq ft "McMansion?"

What universe do you live in?
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-16 03:32:21 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".

Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.

Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.

Peace and justice,
Niobrara
2007-08-16 03:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.

Bricks and mortar,
Steven
2007-08-16 14:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Niobrara
2007-08-16 16:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Shitzer has an outhouse.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-16 18:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Steven
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Shitzer has an outhouse.
If it's DOWNSTAIRS that's a SEPTIC SYSTEM.-Fergie
Niobrara
2007-08-16 21:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Steven
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Shitzer has an outhouse.
If it's DOWNSTAIRS that's a SEPTIC SYSTEM.-Fergie
slab on grade..
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Steven
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions
and, while a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give
a whole new meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Shitzer has an outhouse.
If it's DOWNSTAIRS that's a SEPTIC SYSTEM.-Fergie
slab on grade..
Oddest damn thing, is I've got a Crawl Space about eight foot high. And
the only way to access it is the trap door cleverly hidden in the MB
closet. It doesn't extend under the garage, or it would have been a
basement years ago.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:44:54 UTC
Permalink
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Steven
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions
and, while a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give
a whole new meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Who's got a basement?
Shitzer has an outhouse.
If it's DOWNSTAIRS that's a SEPTIC SYSTEM.-Fergie
Tornado Shelter.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 14:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.

Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.

We like it.
lein
2007-08-16 15:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Post by Don Homuth
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
Which simply means there are a few good things, and as many bad things
with that.
Post by Don Homuth
We like it.
That's good since you have to live with it.
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-16 18:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Oak is not renewable?

In any event, if the floor is already there, it's hardly ecologically
sound to replace it with anything at all, at least not until it reaches
the end of its useful life.

Peace and justice,
lein
2007-08-16 18:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Oak is not renewable?
In any event, if the floor is already there, it's hardly ecologically
sound to replace it with anything at all, at least not until it reaches
the end of its useful life.
Peace and justice,
Sure oak is renewable, so is old growth forests. Of course it takes
centuries to renew, where as something like bamboo grows in as little
as two years and produces a floor that is as hard or harder than oak.

Don bought a house that didn't use sound environmental practices.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 03:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees
and used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Oak is not renewable?
In any event, if the floor is already there, it's hardly ecologically
sound to replace it with anything at all, at least not until it
reaches the end of its useful life.
Peace and justice,
Sure oak is renewable, so is old growth forests. Of course it takes
centuries to renew, where as something like bamboo grows in as little
as two years and produces a floor that is as hard or harder than oak.
Don bought a house that didn't use sound environmental practices.
Built in 1948.
Don Homuth
2007-08-17 15:23:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:00:08 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
Don bought a house that didn't use sound environmental practices.
Built in 1948.
In 1948, a discussion of "environmental practices" would not have been
held. It took another decade for environmental awareness to start to
catch on.

Much of the remodeling and upgrading I did over six years was
specifically to Reduce the environmental footprint of the house as it
was when I bought it.

* Vastly improved insulation in walls and ceiling
* White roof
* Complete replacement of All the single-pane aluminum-framed windows
with double-pane, low E, argon-filled, vinyl-clad, kryptonite-powered
windows
* Underfloor insulation
* Greatly improved air infiltration control
* Replacement of all doors and faulty doorframes with new units]
* Rebuild of the previous attached greenhouse with a newer, far better
greenhouse which also functions as a good solar collector on sunny
days
* Replacement of earlier electrical appliances and lights with
Energy-Star rated appliances and flourescents

End result -- Total yearly utilities bill for heat, water, lights,
electronics and everything else still, even after the rate increases
of the past several years, runs to about $1500/year.

Compared to that, I have no particular interest in discussing tearing
up the pre-existing hard oak flooring to replace with bamboo. It's
just not even in the same environmental ballpark.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-17 15:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees
and used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Oak is not renewable?
In any event, if the floor is already there, it's hardly ecologically
sound to replace it with anything at all, at least not until it
reaches the end of its useful life.
Peace and justice,
Sure oak is renewable, so is old growth forests. Of course it takes
centuries to renew, where as something like bamboo grows in as little
as two years and produces a floor that is as hard or harder than oak.
Don bought a house that didn't use sound environmental practices.
Built in 1948.
There was no environment in 1948.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 23:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part
Built that way in 1948.
Post by lein
... and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Only by tearing up the flooring and replacing it -- which just somehow
doesn't seem like all that good an idea.
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
Which simply means there are a few good things, and as many bad things
with that.
There are a fair number of good things, and whatever bad things there
might have been I've fixed long since. When I did the updating over
about 6 years or so, the idiocies done by the previous Demented
Do-It-Yourself owner are now properly in place and inspected and
signed off.
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
We like it.
That's good since you have to live with it.
We like it. We live with it. It's a real nice home.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-17 01:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part
Built that way in 1948.
Post by lein
... and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
Only by tearing up the flooring and replacing it -- which just somehow
doesn't seem like all that good an idea.
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
Which simply means there are a few good things, and as many bad things
with that.
There are a fair number of good things, and whatever bad things there
might have been I've fixed long since. When I did the updating over
about 6 years or so, the idiocies done by the previous Demented
Do-It-Yourself owner are now properly in place and inspected and
signed off.
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
We like it.
That's good since you have to live with it.
We like it. We live with it. It's a real nice home.
If it's dead already, try not to dig it up?
Jack May
2007-08-17 02:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
My floors are oak, marble, and granite (zero carpet) so I don't have any
experience with bamboo, but I thought bamboo is not very rugged especially
compared to oak. Wouldn't bamboo wear out quicker and need to be replaced
more often than other wood floors?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole
new meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
My floors are oak, marble, and granite (zero carpet) so I don't have
any experience with bamboo, but I thought bamboo is not very rugged
especially compared to oak. Wouldn't bamboo wear out quicker and
need to be replaced more often than other wood floors?
Maybe 20-30 years. But bamboo grows way faster than oak. Probably 50X or
more. Bamboo is a grass and if you plant some near your property line,
your neighbors will love you. It has the same desire to rule the world as
english ivy.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-17 04:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Jack May
My floors are oak, marble, and granite (zero carpet) so I don't have
any experience with bamboo, but I thought bamboo is not very rugged
especially compared to oak. Wouldn't bamboo wear out quicker and
need to be replaced more often than other wood floors?
Maybe 20-30 years. But bamboo grows way faster than oak. Probably 50X or
more. Bamboo is a grass and if you plant some near your property line,
your neighbors will love you. It has the same desire to rule the world as
english ivy.
I put bamboo in my hallway and living room when I moved in (what was there
the previous owner had painted black - shame because it was at one time a
beautiful traditional Portland hard wood floor).

Certainly, if you drag sharp metal objects acoss it, it will scratch. It
won't last anything like the traditional hard wood Portland floors.
However, those old floors were put in when very tight grain (and therefore
very hard) wood was able to be found here. I honestly don't think there
is much out there that will survive like those floors do (Go into one of
the old warehouse buildings in Portland and see how well they have stood
up to 100+ years of having heavy objects dragged across them and men with
steel boot parts walk across them - its astonishing. Not even our 1950s
concrete warehouse floor has lasted as well as most of those *hard* wood
floors have.).

First of all, the way the bamboo planks are put in, it isn't that
difficult to replace sections that wear out or get damaged.

Second, for the places that are somewhat high traffic, you can always put
down throw rugs, which is how people have handled that with wood floors
for over 100 years.

Marble is, of course, well suited to high traffic areas which is why it
was so popular for so long in the commercial buildings. It does wear
away, but it isn't very obvious that it has worn away because when it
wears away it is still the same stone.

Take a look at old train stations, bank buildings, libraries, etc. You
can tell the marble has worn away if you look closely. This is
particularly true with staircases, where the edge and center of the step
is far more worn than the back and sides of the step.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Don Homuth
2007-08-17 15:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
I put bamboo in my hallway and living room when I moved in (what was there
the previous owner had painted black - shame because it was at one time a
beautiful traditional Portland hard wood floor).
When I got to that phase in the remodel/upgrade, I discovered that
when previous owners had installed wall-to-wall carpeting, they had
apparently painted walls without the bother of putting down proper
floor coverings. As a result, when I took out the carpet (Harvest
Gold and Avocado Green - which will give you an idea of the
approximate time this was done), the floor was heavily blotched with
paints of various colors.

Took me about 2-3 weeks to re-do the floors -- all 1800 sq ft of them.
Removing the paint Very carefully, sanding the floors (at least 6
times for every square inch of surface), removing the splashboards and
moulding on the interface of the flooors and walls, staining and
giving the floors two coats of oil-based polyurethane.

The effort was enormous, but worth it. The floors have now been
restored to nearly -- not quite, but close - their original color and
lustre, and they should outlast my lifetime.

Regardless of the work involved, restoring those beautiful old floors
is generally a better call than replacing them.

Sheesh -- I know a couple over in South Salem who decided to cover
their old floor with one of those plastic composite floors that just
look like wood. Now that's an environmental monstrosity, all the way
round.
lein
2007-08-17 04:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
My floors are oak, marble, and granite (zero carpet) so I don't have any
experience with bamboo, but I thought bamboo is not very rugged especially
compared to oak. Wouldn't bamboo wear out quicker and need to be replaced
more often than other wood floors?
Testing seems to show it's harder and more durable than oak. Of
course it's gonna depend on the quality of the manufacture's process,
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-17 05:00:11 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by Jack May
Post by lein
More over consumption on your part and your contribution to
deforestation is duly noted, . You could have saved a few trees and
used a renewable resource like bamboo flooring
My floors are oak, marble, and granite (zero carpet) so I don't have any
experience with bamboo, but I thought bamboo is not very rugged especially
compared to oak. Wouldn't bamboo wear out quicker and need to be replaced
more often than other wood floors?
Not only that but bamboo flooring is manufactured with formaldahyde, not
exactly an environmently-friendly substance.

Peace and justice,
Niobrara
2007-08-16 16:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
We like it.
Who fucking cares?
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-16 18:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
We like it.
Who fucking cares?
If they didn't they'd rent it.
Niobrara
2007-08-16 21:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
2492, all told. But well built.
Post by Niobrara
What a shithole.
Bricks and mortar,
Lath and Plater, ekshually, along with #1 Hard Oak flooring that's
more than an inch thick.
Last of the homes in the subdivision built to pre-WW2 standards of
construction.
We like it.
Who fucking cares?
If they didn't they'd rent it.
Make a nifty meth lab...
lein
2007-08-16 04:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more

http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingDetail_r4.aspx?LID=34346343#aTop

"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
Peace and justice,
Which is way excessive and unenvironmental for just two people.
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-16 05:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingDetail_r4.aspx?LID=34346343#aTop
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
"Ranch-style"! And a bit more than 1,000 sq. ft. in any event.
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
Which is way excessive and unenvironmental for just two people.
Not at all.

'Sides, the house is already there and will remain there quite
regardless of who occupies it. The environmental impact remains the same.

Peace and justice,
Niobrara
2007-08-16 05:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Peace and justice,
Piss and vinegar,
lein
2007-08-16 06:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingD...
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
"Ranch-style"! And a bit more than 1,000 sq. ft. in any event.
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and, while
a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole new
meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
Which is way excessive and unenvironmental for just two people.
Not at all.
'Sides, the house is already there and will remain there quite
regardless of who occupies it. The environmental impact remains the same.
Depends on whether or not more than 2 people occupy it.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 06:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:30:13 -0700, lein
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the
insurance company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you.
Ditto for this bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingDet
ail_r4.aspx?LID=34346343#aTop
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Post by Bill Shatzer
Incidently, I've been in Homuth's house on several occassions and,
while a nice enough place, calling it a McMansion would give a whole
new meaning to that term.
Maybe what, 1800 square feet and a half basement.
Peace and justice,
Which is way excessive and unenvironmental for just two people.
Piss Off! I've also got three birds, a cat and a dog.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 14:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingDetail_r4.aspx?LID=34346343#aTop
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.

Not anywhere.
lein
2007-08-16 15:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingD...
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.
Not anywhere.
How would you describe it's architectural style?
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-16 18:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingD...
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.
Not anywhere.
How would you describe it's architectural style?
A bunch of stuff nailed and glued into some form a Portlander would
live in.-Fergie
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 23:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.
Not anywhere.
How would you describe it's architectural style?
Nondescript. It was a standard T-form when it was built. It's now
more like a skewed H-form.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:30:13 -0700, lein
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the
insurance company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you.
Ditto for this bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingD
...
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.
Not anywhere.
How would you describe it's architectural style?
House.
lein
2007-08-17 04:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:30:13 -0700, lein
-snip-
Post by lein
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the
insurance company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you.
Ditto for this bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
What universe do You live in?
Not everybody lives in a mcmansion, like you.
Heh! But those that don't don't call their dwelling a "ranch house".
Perhaps you should get out more
http://equitygroupsuburbanswoffice.oregon.remax.com/listings/ListingD
...
"Charming, Updated Ranch Style Home"
Heh! Real Estate Ads != Real World descriptions.
Not anywhere.
How would you describe it's architectural style?
House.
Back in Pennsy, it would be a ranch. "House" would describe the
majority of homes as they were two stories, tended to have metal
roofs, front porches, no two have the same floorplan, pretty non-
descript but would make a nice backdrop for a civil war era movie.
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-16 03:22:59 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
Post by Don Homuth
What universe do You live in?
Not this one, apparently.

Peace and justice,
lein
2007-08-16 04:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-16 05:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.

I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.

But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".

Not even in the '40s and '50s.

Peace and justice,
Baxter
2007-08-16 06:01:37 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.
I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.
But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".
Not even in the '40s and '50s.
Ranch *house* or Ranch *style"?
--------------
Newly Remodeled 3 Bedroom Ranch!
960 sq ft
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rfs/398002301.html

And plenty more like it.
lein
2007-08-16 06:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.
I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.
But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".
Not even in the '40s and '50s.
Ranch *house* or Ranch *style"?
depends on which part of the country you are from (see "pop" vs
"soda").
Steven
2007-08-16 14:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.
I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.
But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".
Not even in the '40s and '50s.
Ranch *house* or Ranch *style"?
depends on which part of the country you are from (see "pop" vs
"soda").- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Soda pop--root beer or die, 54-40 or the Canadians own the Blazers.
lein
2007-08-16 06:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.
I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.
But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".
Not even in the '40s and '50s.
Peace and justice,
No, they might have given them names like "Cape Cod", "Victorian",
"Queen Ann", "Tudor", "Craftsman", "Colonial", etc. Ranch houses are
a bit newer style that came in the first half of the 20th century,
they really didn't become popular until after WW2

The silliest name I've found is the progressive term "town house" that
is given to "row houses". It's like the car dealers going from
"used" to "pre owned".
Steven
2007-08-16 14:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Your mind twists in strange ways.
I've no idea what "most Americans" lived in in the '40s and '50s.
But iffen they were 1,000 ft^2, they didn't call 'em "ranch houses".
Not even in the '40s and '50s.
Peace and justice,
No, they might have given them names like "Cape Cod", "Victorian",
"Queen Ann", "Tudor", "Craftsman", "Colonial", etc. Ranch houses are
a bit newer style that came in the first half of the 20th century,
they really didn't become popular until after WW2
The silliest name I've found is the progressive term "town house" that
is given to "row houses". It's like the car dealers going from
"used" to "pre owned".
OR from "Here's an application" to "You are PRE-APPROVED"
Niobrara
2007-08-16 16:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
But iffen
You fucking illiterate hick.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-16 18:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
But iffen
You fucking illiterate hick.
As long as they keep hicking...
Niobrara
2007-08-16 21:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
But iffen
You fucking illiterate hick.
As long as they keep hicking...
iffen?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Post by Niobrara
Post by Bill Shatzer
But iffen
You fucking illiterate hick.
As long as they keep hicking...
iffen?
Jed?
Steven
2007-08-16 14:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
And many were built before WWII plus they are still standing and used
for renatl properties.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 14:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Many of them did. The "bungalow" style was widely adopted during the
1920's, and remained popular thereafter for quite a while.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Many of them did. The "bungalow" style was widely adopted during the
1920's, and remained popular thereafter for quite a while.
And you could buy one in a Kit from Sears!
Don Homuth
2007-08-17 15:32:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:55:47 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
So most Americans in the 40s and 50s lived in bungalows?
Many of them did. The "bungalow" style was widely adopted during the
1920's, and remained popular thereafter for quite a while.
And you could buy one in a Kit from Sears!
You could, though even then that practice was fast disappering.

It was much in vogue earlier, though.
Paul Berg
2007-08-16 05:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
`
"Bungalows" and "ranch houses" are not the same thing. The square
footage may be comparable, but they are of different architectural
style and time period.

In Portland you'll find that "bungalows" were built from about 1910
thru the 30's. Ranch houses were the tract style homes built from the
late 1940's to mid-70's.

`
Steven
2007-08-16 14:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
1000 sq ft "ranch house?"
In the real world, they're called "bungalows".
Post by Don Homuth
What universe do You live in?
Not this one, apparently.
Peace and justice,
5 on the lot and a dog that never shuts up.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-16 14:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Bolwerk
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for
the $27 million needed to complete financing for the eastside
streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for
the new I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't know a lot about Minneapolis, is
that such a bad idea? Or at least, a provision for light rail in
the future, should it ever make sense?
If designed so that it could carry light rail Or regular traffic, it
might make sense.
And as long as it adds zero additional costs including loss of
traffic lanes as a comparable non-light rail bridge. (unless the
city's transportation dept. pays for the additional costs out of
their pocket)
What, federal aid can be used for roads, but not for rail planning?
Federal Aid comes with restrictions. If you ask for dollars to build a
road bridge, you get dollars that can only be spent for that purpose.
What if you ask for dollars to build a *road bridge with a provision for
a potential future light rail line*?
As long as that provision is not paid with road dollars being used to
rebuild the bridge, so be it.
It was a road bridge to begin with, so if the Feds are paying for it's
replacement, it should still be a road bridge. It's not appropriate
to expect a light rail line, a bicycle lane, a pedestrian esplanade,
and a restaurant be tacked on at cost of the generosity of the U.S.
taxpayers.
If the provision of light rail facility means that more people can use the
bridge in a way that burns less fossil fuel, reducing dependency on foreign
oil while at the same time generating economic activity, the expense might
be justified.
Post by lein
If your 1000 sq ft ranch house burns down, don't expect the insurance
company to rebuild a 4000 sq ft McMansion for you. Ditto for this
bridge.
For one thing, Federal funds are not the same as insurance. They are an
investment in infrastructure that will need to function for at least decades
in the future. If the bridge is built in a way that it at least does not
preclude the addition of rail later, the investment is probably justified,
since adding rail capability if that is _not_ done would probably entail
building a different bridge from scratch.

For another thing, a McMansion is an energy sink. It has no potential to
return the money put into it.

-Amy
Jack May
2007-08-17 02:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
If the provision of light rail facility means that more people can use the
bridge in a way that burns less fossil fuel, reducing dependency on
foreign oil while at the same time generating economic activity, the
expense might be justified.
Technology never goes back to the past. If you dump money into light rail
on the bridge, it will be dumped into something that will not get people out
of their cars. It will only get some people that are already using
transit. No fuel savings, nothing but wasted money by people that can't
deal with a progressing society.
Post by Amy Blankenship
For one thing, Federal funds are not the same as insurance. They are an
investment in infrastructure that will need to function for at least
decades in the future. If the bridge is built in a way that it at least
does not preclude the addition of rail later, the investment is probably
justified, since adding rail capability if that is _not_ done would
probably entail building a different bridge from scratch.
Build it why? I repeat, technology does not reverse direction and return to
the past. Light rail will fail just as bad if not worse in the future. You
are just wanting lots of money poured into nothingness (or a rat hole as it
is often labeled). You still don't understand how our present technological
society functions.
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 21:00:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:30:49 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul Berg
Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams pitched his plan to the City
Council on Monday to squeeze three urban-renewal districts for the $27
million needed to complete financing for the eastside streetcar.
On a similar note, Minneapolis is whining about the State plan for the new
I35 bridge. Seems the State didn't include a light rail line.
An entirely reasonable suggestion, given that (a) the Twin Cities are
in the process of expanding their light rail system, to general public
approval, and (b) that the Best time to deal with such a future
possibility is now -- Before the replacement bridge is built.
Post by Lobby Dosser
On a separate issue, the city also wants some sort of memorial included.
Not a plaque, a memorial. We are becoming Ancient Egypt.
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-15 21:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.

I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which local
tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial Pile -
the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got to
wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't recall
when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.

Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash site.
And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that they will
have a say in everything related to it. Then there are Entire
Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their battlefields, damn
little living space would remain. And the naming and renaming of streets
and other public places ...

And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for the
families of victims and the survivors.
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 23:06:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:27:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.
I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which local
tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial Pile -
the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got to
wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't recall
when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.
Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash site.
And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that they will
have a say in everything related to it. Then there are Entire
Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their battlefields, damn
little living space would remain. And the naming and renaming of streets
and other public places ...
And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for the
families of victims and the survivors.
And down here in Salem, we Already have a memorial to the Honored Dead
of the Iraq War too. First time in my knowledge that it's been done
Before the war is over.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-15 23:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:27:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.
I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which local
tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial Pile -
the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got to
wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't recall
when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.
Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash site.
And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that they will
have a say in everything related to it. Then there are Entire
Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their battlefields, damn
little living space would remain. And the naming and renaming of streets
and other public places ...
And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for the
families of victims and the survivors.
And down here in Salem, we Already have a memorial to the Honored Dead
of the Iraq War too. First time in my knowledge that it's been done
Before the war is over.
We can put Starbucks everywhere but memorials are a bad idea? I like
memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
Don Homuth
2007-08-15 23:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
We can put Starbucks everywhere
"We" don't do that. Starbucks corporate does that.
Post by Joe the Aroma
... but memorials are a bad idea?
We are now Memorializing things that haven't yet stopped happening.
Maybe that's part of the general acceleration that society is
undergoing. Not only must things happen Instantly, but perhaps even
Before they stop.
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.

YMMV
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 00:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
We can put Starbucks everywhere
"We" don't do that. Starbucks corporate does that.
Post by Joe the Aroma
... but memorials are a bad idea?
We are now Memorializing things that haven't yet stopped happening.
Maybe that's part of the general acceleration that society is
undergoing. Not only must things happen Instantly, but perhaps even
Before they stop.
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.
And with only 13 dead and 5 or so seriously injured, no more injurious to
people than some 20-50 car pileups.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 00:54:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:36:48 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.
And with only 13 dead and 5 or so seriously injured, no more injurious to
people than some 20-50 car pileups.
We do get those tacky "memorials" of plastic flowers and crosses by
the side of the road, though.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 01:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:36:48 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:45:32 -0400, "Joe the Aroma"
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.
And with only 13 dead and 5 or so seriously injured, no more injurious
to people than some 20-50 car pileups.
We do get those tacky "memorials" of plastic flowers and crosses by
the side of the road, though.
The crosses and flowers are plastic? I thought the crosses might be,
since they never seem to weather. But plastic flowers? How tacky!
Steven
2007-08-16 14:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:36:48 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:45:32 -0400, "Joe the Aroma"
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.
And with only 13 dead and 5 or so seriously injured, no more injurious
to people than some 20-50 car pileups.
We do get those tacky "memorials" of plastic flowers and crosses by
the side of the road, though.
The crosses and flowers are plastic? I thought the crosses might be,
since they never seem to weather. But plastic flowers? How tacky!
i can't get some flowers to last 4 days even with a preservative.
Plastic isn't that tacky. I figure that many of those families don't
even live around the crash scene and it would be pretty expensive to
keep up. These memorials are an idea taken from the Europeans from
what I gather, where they've had a lot of carnage on some of those
roads over the years.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 14:25:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:03:39 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
We do get those tacky "memorials" of plastic flowers and crosses by
the side of the road, though.
The crosses and flowers are plastic? I thought the crosses might be,
since they never seem to weather. But plastic flowers? How tacky!
The whole idea is tacky.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-17 02:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:03:39 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
We do get those tacky "memorials" of plastic flowers and crosses by
the side of the road, though.
The crosses and flowers are plastic? I thought the crosses might be,
since they never seem to weather. But plastic flowers? How tacky!
The whole idea is tacky.
Well, that's a given. The plastic flowers just make it tacky**2.
lein
2007-08-16 01:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
We can put Starbucks everywhere
"We" don't do that. Starbucks corporate does that.
Post by Joe the Aroma
... but memorials are a bad idea?
We are now Memorializing things that haven't yet stopped happening.
Maybe that's part of the general acceleration that society is
undergoing. Not only must things happen Instantly, but perhaps even
Before they stop.
As in the case with the VaTech shooting. The dead weren't even
burried before the school held a memorial service for "closure".
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
I like memorials, they give us something sacred in life.
I find it difficult to think of a bridge collapse as Sacred, as the
term is correctly used.
And with only 13 dead and 5 or so seriously injured, no more injurious to
people than some 20-50 car pileups.
So maybe a cross and some flowers along side the road then.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-16 00:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:27:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.
I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which
local tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial
Pile - the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got
to wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't
recall when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.
Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash
site. And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that
they will have a say in everything related to it. Then there are
Entire Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their
battlefields, damn little living space would remain. And the naming
and renaming of streets and other public places ...
And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for
the families of victims and the survivors.
And down here in Salem, we Already have a memorial to the Honored Dead
of the Iraq War too. First time in my knowledge that it's been done
Before the war is over.
FUTURAMA!
lein
2007-08-16 00:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:27:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.
I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which local
tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial Pile -
the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got to
wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't recall
when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.
Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash site.
And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that they will
have a say in everything related to it. Then there are Entire
Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their battlefields, damn
little living space would remain. And the naming and renaming of streets
and other public places ...
And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for the
families of victims and the survivors.
And down here in Salem, we Already have a memorial to the Honored Dead
of the Iraq War too. First time in my knowledge that it's been done
Before the war is over.
So you finally understand that the "mission accomplished" banner was
indeed for the USS Abe Lincoln.
Don Homuth
2007-08-16 00:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
So you finally understand that the "mission accomplished" banner was
indeed for the USS Abe Lincoln.
The White House ordered it, delivered it and it was Never meant to
only point to the CVN.

Sorry -- but even the WH folks have now copped to that.
Baxter
2007-08-16 02:18:41 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
So you finally understand that the "mission accomplished" banner was
indeed for the USS Abe Lincoln.
The White House ordered it, delivered it and it was Never meant to
only point to the CVN.
Sorry -- but even the WH folks have now copped to that.
And now that same group is writing the Iraq status report on the results of
the Surge.
Steven
2007-08-16 14:06:07 UTC
Permalink
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------
Post by Don Homuth
Post by lein
So you finally understand that the "mission accomplished" banner was
indeed for the USS Abe Lincoln.
The White House ordered it, delivered it and it was Never meant to
only point to the CVN.
Sorry -- but even the WH folks have now copped to that.
And now that same group is writing the Iraq status report on the results of
the Surge.
Look at all the Harold Robbins novels out there...is that such news?
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-16 04:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
And down here in Salem, we Already have a memorial to the Honored Dead
of the Iraq War too. First time in my knowledge that it's been done
Before the war is over.
And the thing is huge compared to the other war memorials that occupy the
same park block.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Clark F Morris
2007-08-16 02:14:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:27:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Yeah -- we do tend to memorialize much more than we need to pretty
much everywhere. Especially this soon.
Good Lord! Something we agree on.
I've been sort of wondering about this lately. I forget just which local
tragedy it was, but the news channels all featured the Memorial Pile -
the childrens toys, flowers, candles, pictures, etc. and I got to
wondering where all this stuff goes and why it appears. I don't recall
when it started, but it seems to have spread worldwide.
Then there are the Memorials. IIRC, there is a memorial in Nova Scotia
for TWA 800 because it is the closests point of land to the crash site.
And the relatives now Assume there will be a memorial and that they will
have a say in everything related to it. Then there are Entire
Battlfields. If the Europeans memorialized all their battlefields, damn
little living space would remain. And the naming and renaming of streets
and other public places ...
The memorial in Nova Scotia is to the victims of Swissair flight 111.
This was a case where the fishermen (among the first on the scene
originally hoping that there would be survivors) and those involved in
the recovery and identification efforts as well as those working with
families of the victims all seemed to do the job right.
Post by Lobby Dosser
And - since 9/11 - we have added the expectation of compensation for the
families of victims and the survivors.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-16 04:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Berg
Other sources include $20 million in state lottery bonds to buy
vehicles, $15 million from property owners along the route in the form
of a local improvement district, $3.7 million from a separate pot of
federal money controlled by regional officials, and $6 million from
system development charges.
The streetcar will require a public subsidy of $5.2 million a year, to
be split equally between the city and TriMet under Adams' plan.
But this assumes creation of a central city fare district with streetcar
fares set at $2.25 and also assumes savings from service cuts on TriMet
Line No. 6.
It should be pointed out that in Oregon, no state or local gasoline taxes
are allowed to go to support rail projects, or anything other than roads.

The basic problem with our local bridges (the Hawthorne, Ross Island,
Marquam, St. Johns, I-205 in Oregon City, Burnside and Sauvie's Island
bridges all have upgrades finished or in progress) is that the state
hasn't increased its gasoline tax since the very early 1990s. That is the
dedicated source for funds for highway bridges and other road projects.

The purpose of having local funds that can be used for various other
non-road projects is just that: the ability to use those funds for various
non-road projects. This is because the roads already have a dedicated
source of funds that come from auto users.

If anyone has a problem with the state of Portland's bridges, they need to
get on the bandwagon to get the gasonline tax increased to pay for the
required road projects.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Steven
2007-08-16 14:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul Berg
Other sources include $20 million in state lottery bonds to buy
vehicles, $15 million from property owners along the route in the form
of a local improvement district, $3.7 million from a separate pot of
federal money controlled by regional officials, and $6 million from
system development charges.
The streetcar will require a public subsidy of $5.2 million a year, to
be split equally between the city and TriMet under Adams' plan.
But this assumes creation of a central city fare district with streetcar
fares set at $2.25 and also assumes savings from service cuts on TriMet
Line No. 6.
It should be pointed out that in Oregon, no state or local gasoline taxes
are allowed to go to support rail projects, or anything other than roads.
The basic problem with our local bridges (the Hawthorne, Ross Island,
Marquam, St. Johns, I-205 in Oregon City, Burnside and Sauvie's Island
bridges all have upgrades finished or in progress) is that the state
hasn't increased its gasoline tax since the very early 1990s. That is the
dedicated source for funds for highway bridges and other road projects.
The purpose of having local funds that can be used for various other
non-road projects is just that: the ability to use those funds for various
non-road projects. This is because the roads already have a dedicated
source of funds that come from auto users.
If anyone has a problem with the state of Portland's bridges, they need to
get on the bandwagon to get the gasonline tax increased to pay for the
required road projects.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Only if the retail price drops below a buck sixty-nine. Believe that's
the 2nd-third X I've said that.
Paul Berg
2007-08-17 14:23:07 UTC
Permalink
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 17, 2007

No one mentioned it at the hearing Wednesday, but Holy Rosary Church
near the Lloyd Center Mall was the largest opponent -- by far -- of a
local improvement district to help pay for an eastside streetcar
extension.

Property owners in the district will pony up $15 million toward the $147
million project if the Portland City Council approves the district next
month, which appears likely.

The city received formal objections, or "remonstrances," from property
owners representing about $300,000 in assessments, or 2 percent of the
$15 million bill.

Many were industrial property owners who failed to see how the streetcar
would benefit them. The largest of these was grain elevator operator
Cargill, Inc., with an estimated assessment of $47,800.

But the church, which owns 12 pieces of commercially zoned property in
the district, faces a $125,621 bill for building the streetcar line.

In objecting to the district, the church said the assessment was
inequitable because it imposed an assessment on non-business property
owners for the benefit of business owners.

City officials responded that the assessment is based on the benefit the
property derives from the streetcar, now and in the future -- not on
benefits to any business currently operating on the property.

Most property owners testified that they expected the streetcar to
significantly boost their property values.

The contribution by the property owners is considered one of the least
controversial aspects of the plan to finance the streetcar line, which
also includes $27 million in urban renewal money. The council is
scheduled to vote on the LID formation and the urban renewal proposal
Sept. 6.

`
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-17 15:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Berg
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 17, 2007
No one mentioned it at the hearing Wednesday, but Holy Rosary Church
near the Lloyd Center Mall was the largest opponent -- by far -- of a
local improvement district to help pay for an eastside streetcar
extension.
Property owners in the district will pony up $15 million toward the $147
million project if the Portland City Council approves the district next
month, which appears likely.
The city received formal objections, or "remonstrances," from property
owners representing about $300,000 in assessments, or 2 percent of the
$15 million bill.
Many were industrial property owners who failed to see how the streetcar
would benefit them. The largest of these was grain elevator operator
Cargill, Inc., with an estimated assessment of $47,800.
But the church, which owns 12 pieces of commercially zoned property in
the district, faces a $125,621 bill for building the streetcar line.
In objecting to the district, the church said the assessment was
inequitable because it imposed an assessment on non-business property
owners for the benefit of business owners.
City officials responded that the assessment is based on the benefit the
property derives from the streetcar, now and in the future -- not on
benefits to any business currently operating on the property.
Most property owners testified that they expected the streetcar to
significantly boost their property values.
The contribution by the property owners is considered one of the least
controversial aspects of the plan to finance the streetcar line, which
also includes $27 million in urban renewal money. The council is
scheduled to vote on the LID formation and the urban renewal proposal
Sept. 6.
Don't agitate my nuns!

Loading...