Dave Hunnicutt gives thanks and final words on M49 campaign

Friends and Allies:

Thank you to all of you who worked so hard to defeat Measure 49. Although we were not successful, it was not for lack of effort. The support and effort from so many of you is truly appreciated, and is the key to future success.

We now enter a new phase – trying to figure out what Measure 49 means. Over the next few weeks, I will be traveling across the state, meeting with Measure 37 claimants to talk about Measure 49, how it affects Measure 37 claimants, and what you can do to continue with your claim or make a claim under Measure 49.

It’s time to regroup, get whatever relief we can from Measure 49, make sure that all of the property rights protections promised by the Yes on 49 campaign to Measure 37 claimants and to property owners subject to future regulations are delivered, and demand that the legislature provide the funding for the Big Look Task Force to make the changes that need to be made to our broken land use system. Here’s a link to an editorial from this morning’s Salem Statesman Journal talking about the Big Look Task Force and Measure 49:

Don’t get down – remember, ten years ago the same groups that just spent $5,000,000 to pass Measure 49 would have spent $5,000,000 to defeat it. But because of our combined efforts and the success of Measure 56 (landowner notification), Measure 7, Measure 37, and Measure 39 (eminent domain reform), the battle is now being fought on our terms, and we have universal recognition that property owners should be compensated when their property is taken, and that our land use system needs immediate repair and major adjustment. We lost a battle last night, but we are winning the war.

Thanks again everyone. I’ll see you soon.

Dave Hunnicutt
Oregonians In Action

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:37 | Posted in Measure 37 | 36 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Alan

    Tuoghest most lopsided battle I have seen in years. But we run a marathon, not a sprint.

    Thank you Mr. Hunnicutt and Mr. Day for your hard work.

    Must I say that all the seven million to spent on 49 could have been spent to compensate landowners.

  • John Fairplay

    One outcome of Measure 49 is that EFU landowners should be petitioning the Department of Revenue or their local county tax assessor for a dramatic decrease of the Real Market Value of their land for property tax purposes. The value of farm land in Oregon can now only be based on what it can produce as agricultural property, not what it’s imputed value might be should it be developed. An aggressive program of revaluing this land could cost schools and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars. Not a bad “unintended consequence.”

    • dean


      Taxes that reflect farm and forestry value have been in place since the state land use system was first created. But the farm has to be actually used for farming in most cases. it can’t just grow weeds.

      Alan, the $7 million spent would not have been enough to provide compensation to more than a handful of landowners, with respect to what many were asking for.

      Dave, from “the left,” I agree further reform of the land use system is badly needed. I hope you and others across the board can find a way to sit down and put positive proposals on the table, get away from demonizing the oppoition (both sides,) and improve on the system we already have. For my money, needed reforms include:

      1) recognition that some folks want to live in the countryside but are not interested in farming. Make some new options available in appropriate areas and preserve rural hamlets already in existence.

      2) Adjust farm conservation policies to make space for small, local market oriented farms near cities.

      3) Create a transferable development rights program for farms and forests near cities, funded by windfall land value gains in new UGB additions.

      4) Create a “new towns” goal within the LCDC framework to allow, & help finance entirely new towns and cities in appropriate locations to talke some pressure off of existing urban areas.

      5) Provide tax breaks and other incentives for private land habitat management equal to farm and commercial forest tax breaks and incentives.

      • carol

        Well, well, well. Now I hope you have enough chutzpah and clout to back up what you say. And I mean this in the nicest way. I haven’t a clue where to begin, but I believe that you may know where to start. Onward and upward, I hopr that there is some hope left.

        • dean

          Lack of chutzpah has never been my problem. Lack of energy, commitment, atetntion to detail….these are seriopus problems.

          But…I made a promise to you and I’ll keep it. I’ll see if I can get some traction on the above ideas. Don’t give up hope Carol…but also don’t quit your day job.

          And Jared…go easy. Both sides overstated their cases. Now is not the time to gloat or taunt. Now is the time to sit down and see if some common ground can be found.

          • carol

            I’m RETIRED, thank God, but I won’t suffer monetarily under measure 49, however my sense of fair play is badly bruised, I can’t understand how so many could fall for the blarney, or BS, if you will. Present company excepted, I think you went with your principles, however misguided they are. Misguided in my opinion, anyway. I’m curious to see how you look back on this in your 70s. I won’t live to see all of what state control means, but you will. Betcha $50.00 that there are gonna be lawsuits, and no one will get rich but the attys. And where is the state gonna get the $$ to play this out?

            Go for it, see what you can do, and check back w/me in a year.

  • Jared

    Aren’t you going to uphold OIA’s own promises about Measure 49? That it repeals Measure 37?

    Or was all that a pack of lies that you’re going to go back on?

    In fact, you’re going to ignore all your campaign rhetoric about Measure 49. Sheesh. What duplicitous baloney.

    You’re losing the war, now. The tide has turned when people saw the theory of property chaos play out across the state. It’s no longer just a nice concept, it has consequences. And voters have rejected you.

  • Neal


    You are on a comittee Designing Metro’s Damascus, Your write for the local paper touting the Damascus design decisions, the paper is being paid by the new city (for what), and you parrot the entire Metro agenda.

    The last thing we need is yet another biased, cronnie of the planning cabal telling us what is needed.
    Your hypocrisy is also very problematic.
    M37 was “further reform of the land use system” you say is “badly needed”.
    But you opposed M37 because it wasn’t from the planning regime, in their model, granted by politicians.

    It’s truly laughable for you to suggest “sitting down and improve on the system we already have.”
    The immovable status quo you find so worthy is not interested in changing a thing. Many people have been “sitting down” for years attempting to get improvement.

    1)M37 would have been the perfect and least cotly way for some folks want to live in the countryside while not farming.
    But you want only Metro-like bureaus to deside any and all “new options”. Metro and other planning agencies already decide “appropriate areas”. That’s the problem. They suck at it.
    That’s why Damascus is stuck in a quagmire, North Bethany and other UGB expansions same and the infill continues to be the focus.

    2) We already have space for as many small, local market oriented farms near cities needed. And this is a wholy exagerated and concoted need anyway. Besides the fact that the way we are being forced to grow density is the primary mission.

    3) You really get loony with your rhetoric about “windfall land value gains in new UGB additions”. All that means is the planning bureacracies tax more and continue their mission creep.
    Missions they ar every bad at.

    4) You are completely delusional if you think our land use planning system is capable of creating “new towns”. Our government planning regime is dysfunctional. Hobbled by deluded extremists like you. Damascus, past UGB expansions and all the rail transit/TOD crap is more than enough proof.
    What suggest is exactly what is happening now. Our land use planners decide what is approporiate, then they suck up BILLIONS for light rail, TODs, Villebois, SoWa, Beaverton Round etc. while Damascus, North Bethany and other UGB expansions await BILLION more.
    No thanks pal.
    Your ideas suck. They don’t work, you misrepresent them and Oregon is worse because of them.
    You and yours need to be defeated, pure and simple.
    You are screwing up every urban and suburban area in Oregon while neglecting rural Oregon.

    We certainbly don’t need anything like “5) Provide tax breaks and other incentives for private land habitat management”.

    With the legislature approving $250 million in lottery backed bonds for Milwaukie light rail, Metro handing over millions for expanding the Beaverton Round and our cities and counties dominated by similar decisions the situation is nearly hopeless, until we get rid of YOU et al.
    You are not reasonable people. You are not people who sit down and find mutual improvement.
    You are tyrannical in nature and don’t tell the truth about what has been happening or what is coming.
    The last thing we need is “traction for your ideas.”
    Your idea of sitting down and finding common ground is repealing M37 with M49.

  • Neal

    Another note for Dean,
    Metro is the perfect example of your disingenous cabal. The council is 100% of one mindset and they keep it that way. The recent addition is of course a clone who supports fully every Metro line. Just like you.
    These people have zero interest in doing anything but beating down any opposition and maintaining their domination.
    There is no “New Look”, “Big Look” or “Re-thinking”.
    You could not be more phony.
    The status quo which spewed out M49 is perfectly happy having no contributions or consideration of differing views.
    Every piece of reality demonstrates this.
    The legislature: 100% of democrats oppposed M37 and delivered M49 with 0 opposing Republicans.
    Metro: Same with 100% opposed to M37 and in favor of M49
    Cities and counties for the most part same.
    It’s all about domination and crushing the opposition with you people.

    So enough already with the nice.

    The only thing we get from your regime is the middle finger.
    When enough people on the side of genuine reason and fairness wake up we’ll crush you.

    • dean


      So nice to hear from you again. And I am encouraged by your reasonable response to my proposal.

      Fact check for Neal:
      1) I am not on any committee “designing Metro’s Damascus.” I was on a committee formed by clackamas county that oversaw development of a concept plan that was rejected by the city council of Damascus. That committee finished its work in 2005.
      2) There is a committee of damascus citizens (called the C3) working on the city comprehensive plan. I ain’t on it.
      3) I do write as a semi-volunteer for the local paper, the Damascus Observer. We report, analyze, and sometimes opinionate on all things Damascus, including the effort to plan a new city. http://www.damascusobserver.org for those interested in back issues.
      4) The city of Damascus chooses to include its newsletter within the Observer as the most economically efficient way to distribute it to local citizens. The city pays the Observer for graphic layout and distribution services.
      4) I don’t parrot anyone’s agenda. There are issues that I agree with Metro on, and issues where I disagree, But that is too complex for your brain…I know. Its either “with us or agin us” right?
      5) Damascus is going to cost a lot in public infrastructure to be transformed into a city. Some or most of that cost will be on the backs of private land developers. Some will be from local, regional, state, and federal taxpayers, in particular a new freeway/parkway. the Sunrise Corridor (if it is ever financed and built).

      If your objective is to “defeat” or “get rid of” the likes of me and my ilk, whatever my ilk is, then go for it. But I don’t think you have the political support for that, do you? At least it hasn’t there in the past several elections.

      And Neal…go back on your meds okay?

  • Jim Labbe

    Neal you are misrepresenting Dean. No one argued harder, louder, or smarter against Metro’s decision to expand the UGB into Damascus in 2002 than Dean. Dean is no shill for Metro, not by a long shot. I see him trying to make the best of a decision by the region that he did not agree with (and may in the end have been right about) while working to give greater community voice to decisions about how Damascus will urbanize.

  • Neal

    I don’t care what dribble you reply with, you are a Metro clone.
    Your whole M49 spiel was Metro speak.
    And big damn deal Dean didn’t want the UGB expanded where he lives in Damascus. Wow what a surprize. His reasons are probably
    ridiculous while he fully supports the UGB .
    The UGB as hijacked and distorted by your people doesn’t work anywhere. It’s a fraud. M37 would have allowed a measured amount of relief from the fraud.
    Labbe you’re a Metro clone too, so here’s to you pal. How you see Dean is worthless.
    Dean, and you too are full of crap period. Buying into every Metro TOD, rail transit, centers, corridors bullsh-t they push.
    And it’s haphazard chaos they produce. Despite your twisted and foolish impressions.

    • dean

      Meds Neil…..take the meds. You’ll feel better.

  • RRStubbs

    Expose Nature Conservancy and the millions they spent to pass BM49. Thank you David and Ross for your effort!

    • carol

      That is a neccessity, what is their program?

      • dean


        You mean the Nature Conservancy? If so, their “program” is conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems and biological diversity.

        • carol

          I guess that I worded that poorly. What I meant was, what was their reason for pungling up $1,000,000 to defeat M49. I firmly believe that the reason for such spending was because the campaign $$ were cheap at the price. As I have said before, I, and many like me would put our land in a conservancy, however in OR, because of the land use laws which make it impossible to develop, the conservancy finds it unneccessary to spend. In most other states, where wildlife/ agriculture is threatened, various conservancies find them selves streched thin to meet the need.

          Isn’t this the same NC that sold land somewhere in the Hood area for development shortly before the campaign started?

  • Neal

    You’ll be parroting planner’s nonsense forever while never recognizing or aknowledging any of the shortcomings or detriments.
    As long as you can trumpet the theoretical you’ll be delusional and misrepresenting land use planning around here.

    With Metro, 1000 Friends and people like you dominating the Damascus planning the outcome will be the worst possible.
    The slowest possible process, the highest possible cost, the Sunrise corridor ruined by a Metro traffic calming streetscape and affordable housing nonexistent . Yet it’ll be declared a success no matter what.

    “Meds”? That was typical.

    • dean

      But seriously Neal, does it ever occur to you that you simply repeat the same angry nonsense in every post that you make? Is there a point you are trying to make that you have not already made? Is there a name you can think up that you have not called me yet?

      If you actually read any of what I have written, you would find multiple occasions where I point out failings and shortcomings in our planning system. Unlike yourself, I have actually proposed constructive changes, and most unlike yourself, I spend real time with my neighbors trying to find common ground.

      Your intelectual arsenal with respect to planning and development is empty Neal. You spout off crap as if it were some truth handed to you from on high. The Sunrise Corridor “ruined?” Now you don’t like traffic calming? What is your alternative? Racing cars down neighborhood streets? Have you any idea at all what you are ranting about? Get a life Neal. Or read a book. Anything.

  • Neal

    But seriously Dean,
    Does it ever occur to you that you simply repeat Metro speak?
    The same ridiculous smart growth theories while basically advocating more of the same TOD/Smart growth nonsense for all of our urban cores and suburbs.
    I’ve made plenty of points. But just like the rest of the Liberty/ Burkholder/Adams 1000 Friends of each other you can’t stand the criticism and having your religion attacked.
    I read every word you wrote and your haven’t pointed out anything more than the usual token rhetoric without any real movement away from the status quo. Why would you, you think it works swell.
    You’re delusional.
    Some of what you call “constructive changes’ ( as I pointed out) does exactly what M37 would have done.
    Your condescending pretense that you spend more real time than I with people is another typical move by your kind.

    I’ve memorized far more about development, transportation, land use, Urban Renewal Smart Growth and more, than the narrow Metro platitudes you echo out.
    You are stuck and hobbled in planning theoryland.

    And of course it is you who spouts of planner speak you DID get handed from on high-Metro-New Urbanism-anti-sprawl, car hating socialists.
    Yes The Sunrise Corridor “ruined” is what your pals will be doing. No I don’t like traffic calming in corridor?
    It should be an expressway at the least.
    And it’s NOT “neighborhood streets”.

    See how you can’t help yourself and twisted the corridor into “neighborhood streets”?
    That’s what you do pal.
    I know exactly what you are spewing.
    It’s all BS. You can’t stick to the truth and specifics on any of these issues.
    If you keep bringing it here I’ll keep slapping.
    And no thanks on your juvenile attempt at psycho analyzing me.

    Perhaps you are having trouble staying collected?

    • dean

      Well Neal…if it seems that way it is only because I am trying to communicate with a sad lunatic. But there I go again, psychoanalyzing you.

      You seem to have mixed up “traffic calming,” which is commonly applied to local streets, with the Sunrise Corridor, which is a proposed freeway or “parkway.” To my knowledge, no one has proposed “traffic calming” for the Sunrise Parkway, which in any event has not been designed yet.

      The problem with the Parkway, or freeway if you prefer, is that there are not sufficient funds to build it. Nor even funds to buy all the private property that will need to be adversley condemned to make way for it. And if it is ever built, 20 years or more into the future, perhaps gas prices will be so high there won’t be much need for it.

      I’m wondering, how does your head handle $100 per barrel oil?

      Slap away Neil.

  • Neal

    The problem with the Parkway, or freeway if you prefer, is that there are not sufficient interest in funding to build it when light rail, streetcars, commuter rail and countless millions for Metro’s Smart plans are a blind and fanatical priority. You watch Metro will push to spend 100s of millions on development but not the major roads.

    Same at North Bethany and every other plan.

    The fix is happening right now in SoWa. The planned and needed I-5 interchange and new ramp to SoWa is about to be dropped and the $20 million earmarked diverted to the development and OHSU campus. The scheme as already surfaced.

    Get real. You every hear any of your comrades say
    “The problem with the light rail expansions is that there are not sufficient funds to build it”????? Of course not becasue they just fund them.

    Your legislature just gave $250 million for Milwaukie light rail.
    I’m sure you approve of that while playing your no funding for roads game. You sure paly the usual songs.

    “I’m wondering, how does your head handle $100 per barrel oil?”

    Hey you already established yourself as a nutjob.

    You think foolishly just like Sam Adams, that “gas prices will be so high (and/or peak oil ) there won’t be much need for it” and automoble use will be rapidly declining.

    That’s one of the loony reasons they are deliberately not funding and building roads.
    Like I said over and over again and you keep proving it, you are a Metro clone.

    There’s not going to be a Sunrise Corridor, or a Dundee-Newberg Bypass, or a I-5/99 connector or a Columbia Crossing that isn’t primarily a MAX extension to Vancouver, or a Sellwood Bridge replacement (which should be four lanes).

    One of your biggest problems Dean is you have no grasp of how much money the planning establish has been and is devouring.
    Just like you mistakenly thought Belmont Dairy/TOD was all privately funded when in fact it was heavily subsidized.

    Of course the usual response from your pals when this subsidizing is raised is to ignore it entirely and launch into the canned reply about roads being subsidized too.

    Face it, you are all canned.
    And by the way I too have spoken to YOUR neighbors.
    Some of your neighbors who signed the intitiatives that you no doubt object to. Let’s hear it. I know you know exactly what I am talking about.
    I also know you are aware the Damascus city council attempted to stop the signature gathering by a retroactive ordinance. Nice Hugo or Fidel approach.
    There, you’re slapped.

  • Jared

    $250 million light rail is compared to $3.5 BILLION for ODOT.

    • dean

      Neal, as Jared points out, if you take all the money going to light rail and bicycling and shift it to roads you will hardly make a dent in the unfunded projects. I pointed that out to you a long time ago and you failed to acknowledge or refute this, but it remains the case.

      I lived in Sellwood for years. Its a great example of new (old) urbanism by the way. Moderate density, mixed use, no snout houses, and in very high demand, including the new rowhouses. THe reason the bridge won’t be built as 4 lanes for cars is that neighborhood residents don’t want all that traffic from the burbs blasting through their traffic calmed streets. And why should they? One consequence of your favored approach to land development, low density, car dependent homes built far from downtown with zero transit, is a lot of traffic going through inner city neighborhoods. Why should they sacrifice their neighborhoods for your retro ex-urban vision?

      In fact, yes I have heard rail advocates say there are insufficient funds to build all they want to see built. The Milwaukee light rail extension was delayed for years due to lack of funds, as was the proposed extension to Vancouver.

      Who is “not funding roads” Neil? Metro? The Democrats in the legislature? Do you really believe that? After Kulongowski pushed through a multi-billion dollar HIGHWAY bridge repair and replacement project as one of his first acts? Have you driven down I-5 lately? Have you tried to cross the Burnside Bridge? I would say a few road projects are indeed getting funded.

      Roads are “subsidized” by taxes. But more importantly it is the roads themselves that subsidize suburban development, in exactly the same way transit funding subsidizes urban development. Transportation improvements make land development economical, whether along a streetcar line or at a freeway interchange.

      Neil, what you don’t know about Damascus is a lot. The proposed local initiatives are silly, particularly the one that would put every local fee to a public vote. Talk about cluttered mail-in ballots. The people behind these initiatives are at best misguided. The city council that you assert is communist is actually 5 republicans and 2 democrats (one of which is a former libertarian).

      And they did not “stop” any signature gathering. They voted to place a time limit on signature gathering for petitions once they are filed, something I expect every city in the state has.

      Do your homework before you blindly slap away again Neil.

  • Neal

    Jarod and Dean,
    I laughed at the ease of predicting your BS.
    “$250 million light rail is compared to $3.5 BILLION for ODOT”
    No it’s $250 million in lottery bond $ for light rail and zero for roads.

    The ODOT money is riddled with counltess millions for non road projects. Just look at the Metro region’s lists.
    No you’d rather demoagogue and mislead.

    And Dean you ignorance on the money spent is typical so you must be deliberately obfuscating.
    It’s not just “all the money going to light rail and bicycling”. It’s countless millions going to development as well. Add to that the many millions devoured by endless planning, scheming, report concocting and public relations (propaganda).
    “Hardly make a dent”?
    Now that’s scientific. That’s a completely contrived remark without reality or the real dollars considered.
    You don’t point out squat while it is you who doesn’t respond.
    You lie, distort and diveert. Just as you did with TODs and Belmont dairy.
    I have refuted you over and over again with ease. But you have you Metro wired brain on autopilot.
    I don’t need one of your distorting lectures on Sellwood pal. I am very famillair with Sellwood and it didn’t need your “New Urbanism or Urban Renewal millions to be created. Unlike all of our dysfunctional Metro centers and villages.
    But this is just like you to offer up an old town as evidence of successful planning today. This is what you do. Lie.

    You really are a lost demagogue. The reason the bridge won’t be built as 4 lanes for cars is because of anti car fanatics like you.
    Notice how you aknowledge the fix is in for only two lanes.

    The traffic already runs through Sellwood. It would be best to keep it on the thoroughfare Tacoma.
    The neighborhood concerns are being used as the front for opposition to four lanes even though four lanes would NOT add much more traffic but would help traffic move through the thouroughfare better instead of slugging along with motor idling congestion. I’ll bet the bridge never gets replaced anyway.
    The Milwaukie light rail bridge is being deliberately “adapted” to carry buses and provide and excuse for NOT replacing the Sellwood bridge, as it will then be deemed not needed and too expensive to replace.
    But your rheotirc about “all the traffic from the burbs blasting through their traffic calmed streets” is just so much BS.
    Your ignorance is stunning. The growth in traffic is going to happen.
    Your agenda stupidly ignores it while playing make believe your alternatives are a legitimate substitution. They are not in the slightest as proven over and over again throughout the region..
    But you are delusional and can’t make simple observations and fail to grasp where and how money is actually spent.

    Instead of demagoging “my approach” to some straw man form I never detailed why don’t you do you own homework and discover your approach is complete bunk all over the region.

    Tacoma and the region is not about low density, car dependent homes built far from downtown with zero transit. It’s about close in cars and driving from Milwaukie to downtown and many other components. Your light rail isn’t going serve enough people to make any dent in growing traffic.
    But your fantasy prefers to clog up thoroughfares and force traffic to overflow into neighborhoods for your jack ass urban vision.

    The Milwaukee and Vancouver light rail extensions were not delayed for years due to lack of funds. It was lack of public voting approval and the need to concoct non voter approved schemes to do it anyway. You can’t tell the truth about anything.

    And now here comes your “we don’t need public votes on these, we have a represetative government who decides”

    Your ignorance on road funding, ODOT, Metro, The Democrats in the legislature and Kulongowski is extreme.
    Highlighted by your pitching the bridge repair and replacement project as some big road acheivnment.
    I know exactly what bridges are being fixed. You are again diverting away from road reality. Your pals are putting the fix in to stop any and all new roads.
    But you peddle these bridges as a “few road projects are indeed getting funded.”

    There you go again with another boiler plate line that roads are subsidized.

    Roads are paid for with gas taxes paid by road users. Your clan are forever calling that subsidizing to draw a false comparison to the direct subsidizing your alternative modes agenda gets.
    And most nonsensical is the often used canard that roads themselves subsidize suburban development, in exactly the same way transit funding subsidizes urban development.

    How contrived is that?

    Suburban development pays for every dime of road improvements (on site and off), while UR and other subsidies pay for infrastructure in your TOD model.

    Calling free infrastucutre and direct subsidies in millions for private developme “economical” is a hoot. Economical for who? The chosen developers such as Gerding Edlen and Homwer Williams?
    Certainly not the taxpayers. And how do the taxpayers benefit by Metro spending Millions to expand the Beavereton Round?

    Dean, what you distort about Damascus is a lot.
    But that’s what you do and why you are on here. To do your part to propagandize and push the agenda along.
    “silly”? Is that what you are calling your neighbors? At least you are doing it somewhat open here instead of the usual backroom ways of public officials and planners as they connive to officially lambast and stop the opposition.
    The people, Metro et al, behind your agenda are far worse than misguided.
    They are dishonest and unethical.
    The Damascus City council is the latest to be formed into the Metro MO. And they’ll use every Metro tool.
    Including their failed attempt to make RETOACTIVE changes to siganture gathering. You left that part out Dean. Was that your brand of honesty?
    Consider your unethical self slapped again.

    Go do your own homework so you don’t have to keep misrepresenting and try and bring something besides the cooked up boiler plate canards you peddle.
    And throw in a little bit of honesty too.

    Jared, stay off the Metro coolaid.

    • dean


      Take yourself away from the safety of your computer, go down to the Sellwood neighborhood meetings, and the meetings over teh bridge, and make your case for a 4 lane auto only bridge. See how far you get, and see if it is Metro making the arguments against you or the property owners of Sellwood.

      You seem rather stuck, as my mom used to say, “like a broken record” on the Belmont Dairy project. Well okay…how much public subsidy money did that project get? Show me the money and your sources.

      You are saying that the routing of a new highway has no impact on where development goes? That is a curious claim. Talk to a realtor. Or any developer and they will set you straight.

      Private developers build their project’s local streets and they pay impact fees. But they don’t pay for the initial ifrastructure they are impacting and taking advantage of. And they don’t pay for maintaining all that infrastructure. The gas tax has been stagnant for years while construction and maintenance costs continue to go up. Do the math. New highways are not getting built because they cost too much and impact too many people along the way…period.

      And Neil, I said my neighbors who support the initiatives you like are MISGUIDED. I said the INITIATIVES were silly. Read more carefully than you write.

  • Neal

    Try google Dean and do homework


    PROJECT COST: $14 million

    FINANCING: Construction Period Financing:

    Bank of America – $4.6 million

    Permanent Financing:

    Network for Oregon Affordable Housing – $4.6 million

    Construction/Permanent (Public) Financing:

    City of Portland Livable City Housing Council Loan – $600,000

    Portland Development Commission Loan through

    Community Development Block Grant Loan Program – $750,000

    State of Oregon Transit-Oriented Development (CMAQ-TOD) Loan – $300,000

    Low-Income Housing Tax Credits/Related Financing:

    FNMA Tax Credit Investment – $8.3 million

    City of Portland Multifamily Housing Tax Credit Bonds (Bridge Loan) – $7.2 million

    • dean

      Okay, loans…not grants. Have they been paid back? Did they get the lower rent rates they wanted? Have you ever actually gone there and looked at the project? Were you there in the years it was a vacant eysore? What would you have done instead of that project on that site?

      And Neil, for the record “google” is not a source. It is a search engine.

      I’m still failing to understand your alternative to what you so hate (transit, bicycles, walkable neighborhoods, front porches). Aside from more 4 lane bridges, ignoring the wishes of neighborhoods, more freeways, the dismantling of urban growth boundaries, and retroactve zoning waivers, what is it you really want Neil? A return of the golden age of suburbia?

      If so, I feel bad for you because the earth is shifting under your feet.

      But, there is still Las Vegas, Pheonix, Atlanta, and Houston. Sprawl still rules in those places. All is not lost.

  • Neal

    Dean, I don’t have time right now to slap you again, but your last two posts are just more of your Metro games. Concoctions, distortions and blatant misrepresentations mixed with strawman nonsense and juvenile crap.

    • dean


      I miss my daily slap from you. Its like being hammered by a feather.

  • carol

    If you two go toe-to-toe in the ring, please sell tickets!!

    • dean


      I’m old and getting out of shape. I did box in my youth, golden gloves in Chicago. I was great on the bags and with footwork but got the tar knocked out of me in the ring. Busted nose, fat lip, black eyes…the works.

      Trust me…you would not want to pay to see me back in the ring. Unless you are sadistic. You’re not are you?

      And Neal…I just had to pass this along. Portland (the city, not the region,) took first place out of the 50 largest cities in the US in the Sustainlane ranking, which is considered to be the most comprehensive, objective analysis of sustainability in the U.S. Portland ranked in the top 5 in air quality, water quality, solid waste diversion, planning and land use (a twist of the knife for you there,) innovation, energy policy, local food availability, green economy, and green buildings. Upper 1/2 in transit and congestion (meaning most cities have worse traffic and less transit).

      We ranked in the lower 1/2 in housing affordability, but just barely.

  • carol

    Oh well, scratch that form of enterainment. Sounds as tho your footwork hasn’t suffered too much. I am definitely sadistic, cna’t stand the sight of blood. I guess I will have to settle for watching the verbal fisticuffs.

  • Neal

    No time now for Delusional Dean the Distorter.

    But my next full slapping will be something.

    In the mean time, Dean you distort everything. The Belmont funding a perfect example. Among other subsidizing is an $8 million tax credit. Hardly a loan, Mr. Distorter.

    The sustainability crap? Mega distortion.
    They must not have considered money stolen from basic services, or the near top ranking in toxic sites Portland has, or the 3rd worse air or the River that people can’t swim in when it rains.

    But you distribute the propaganda anyway.

    You might as well go ahead and echo the bogus emissions report the Portland office of Sustainable Development cooked up claiming Portland policies reduced CO2 emissions to 1991 levels.

    Like I said you are among those who distort everything to advance the agenda.

    You can’t tell the truth about anything.

    • dean


      According to the SustainLane report:
      EPA data on average air quality indexes ranked Portland 2nd for cleanest air after Honolulu. Your car/freeway oriented cities: LA was 49th, Phoenix 43rd, Houston 40th, Atlanta 39th, Las Vegas 32nd. I suppose EPA could be “distorting” the data to make Portland look good, but seriously folks.

      I did not see any data or ranking on toxic sites. So assume away.

      On the river, the Willamette is much cleaner than it had been before GOVERNMENT started regulating the industries that were pouring chemicals into it prior to the 70s. And admit that Portland is now spending billions to separate its storm water from its sewage, which was the antiquated way of dealing with water that present leaders inherited from the past. Most older cities have the same problem by the way.

      Money “stolen” from basic services? You’ll have to explain that one Neil.

      What the #1 ranking Portland recieved says to me is that present policies and approaches, taken in the aggregate, are working. Yes, money is sometimes badly spent, errors are made, and some investments might happen anyway in the free market with less government intervention. But you are calling FACTS a distortion simply because they do not support your core thesis, which is that low density sprawl is a better way to go.

      You will need to get your slapper tuned up my friend.

  • carol

    Ischh, I left out a stregic word, not. As in not sadistic, remember, I’m passive aggressive.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)