Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Chat about non-hiking topics. The least serious of the forums on the site!
Post Reply

Aimless
Posts: 1595
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Post by Aimless » May 19th, 2020, 9:04 am

Haven't read it yet, but the Cascade Policy Institute is an advocacy group for conservative politics, as opposed to a neutral organization. This fact does not invalidate any specific criticisms they may be making of Metro's program, but it does indicate the report will have a bias toward one political perspective. I'll read it in the next few days to see what they have to say.

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3195
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Post by adamschneider » May 19th, 2020, 11:16 am

Cascade Policy Insitute. Barf. I strongly doubt it's worth the pixels it's printed on.

Aimless
Posts: 1595
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Post by Aimless » May 19th, 2020, 4:38 pm

I read it. Most of their complaints seem to center around the fact that Metro has been purchasing undeveloped lands and designating many of them as green spaces, natural areas and nature parks, rather than developing them as playing fields for baseball or soccer, picnic areas and dog parks. It uses the same language we are all familiar with when logging companies discuss wilderness areas, of 'locking away lands from public use'.

I found one place where the report linked above noted that the purchased lands "weren't going to be developed anyway, because Metro controls the Urban Growth Boundary", which is about as disingenuous a statement as I've run across in a while, considering the Cascade Policy Institute regularly complains about the very existence of the UGB, because they deem that not allowing free development of lands outside the growth boundary is a form of illegal 'taking' without compensation. Now, when Metro compensates the landowners by buying their undeveloped land, they complain because Metro doesn't develop it. This isn't startling. The CPI is pro-development in its very essence.

I can't say I was in sympathy with any of their representations of Metro's actions as governmental abuses. The report seemed crafted to appeal to those who already disapprove of government in general, disapprove of taxation, disapprove of regulation, and disapprove of green spaces, unless they are huge swathes of green grass for ball games. That isn't me, and so it failed to accomplish its goal of stirring me up against Metro as the focus for my presumed pre-existing disgruntlement.

P.S. Because this report has almost nothing to do with hiking, but it is intended to promote political controversy, I am moving this thread to Idle Chatter.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1448
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Southeast Portland

Re: Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Post by Charley » May 20th, 2020, 11:42 am

It's funny, to see this kind of ideologically driven libertarian stuff. It's like a passenger in a car with a flat tire. The driver is trying to fix things, while the passenger is screaming at the driver about broken down the car is, while running away with the jack and spare tire.

The authors complain that Metro has yet to build trails at Chehalem Ridge, but Cascade Policy Institute also advocated against the funding measure to maintain existing parks (https://cascadepolicy.org/tag/metro-parks/). . . so how is Metro to pay for the trails again?

Another example, the authors complain that many of the parcels are not accessible by mass transit. But Cascade Policy Institute regularly denigrates and advocates against mass transit, in favor of highway expansion for long-distance commuters in singe occupancy vehicles. (https://cascadepolicy.org/transportation/)

It's a simple plan really: if you can convince people that government is wasting money, then you can convince people to vote against taxes. Then, because the government is starved for funds and operating poorly, you can turn around and say what a bad job the government has done, and convince people that the taxes will be wasted. Circle completed!

A different kind of example: the Metro acquisitions are aimed to preserve habitat, as well as provide recreational amenities. In this paper, CPI complains that some areas didn't create new habitat or improve existing habitat, but in other places in the paper complains when they decommission ball fields, for sake of creating habitat.

My thoughts? CPI speaks out of both sides of its mouth. Don't listen to liars and crooks.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 13101
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Hidden Lands, Unknown Plans: A Quarter Century of Metro’s Natural Areas Program

Post by retired jerry » May 20th, 2020, 12:43 pm

I read an opinion piece (in Willamette Week?) that observed how nice Portland freeways are now

Maybe rather than expand lanes through the middle of the city which actually won't accomplish anything because things will still be clogged up at other choke points, and if the freeways aren't clogged then more people will start using until they do get clogged

instead get people to work from home more.

another thing would be to be more aggressive with metered on ramps. Don't just let a car on every so many seconds. Instead, model the entire freeway system. Don't let cars onto the freeway at a metered ramp until it won't cause the freeway to clog up.

You get the most throughput of traffic when the freeway is just short of critical. If you let more cars on, the freeway will go critical, there'll be a traffic jam, then the throughput will go down.

If you don't let so many cars on at metered onramp, yeah, there will be a traffic jam on the surface street, but if you let more cars on, the freeway will jam up so the onramp will be limited anyway and there will be traffic jams on surface streets even worse

They also offered that if cars were charged more for driving when it's more crowded, that would reduce congestion. They also acknowledged that then rich people would be able to drive but not poor people. That is a problem.

Post Reply