Currently
Latest Review
No reviews yet!
Recent Comments
Re: “Robert Moses Predicted Portland's Future”
Umm Sarah you do know there has been tolling for the interstate bridge twice in it's history right?
Re: “"Railroaded" Politicians Demand Debate on CRC Bridge, Adams Suggests Cutting Lanes”
So I'm unclear. Are folks like Bragdon, Bailey etc for the new bridge but only 10 lanes or are they in the "leave it as it is" camp?
I also fear that if they start cutting things to reduce the costs the first thing that goes is the Light Rail line.
Re: “City Staffers Telling Public Tomorrow's Sit/Lie Meeting Is Closed”
Matt if you are a stakeholder than by definition you forfeit any semblance of journalistic independence. The term alone implies you have a stake in the outcome.
Real journalists never have a stake in the outcome of the things they are reporting on (unless you are Fox News but are they really journalists?)
If you fancy yourself a journalist than my definition your role is to report and most certainly are not a stakeholder.
Which is it?
Re: “Council Questions $1.12 Million Tax Break for North Williams Apartments”
Couple of thoughts. As a resident of the neighborhood I have no opinion at this point about this development as I have not studied it carefully but for Amanda to suggest it is an "unwanted impact" without asking anyone beyond a few NIMBY's who showed up to testify is pretty rich.
Also Williams is a bike highway. The 4 and 44 run up (4 turns at Freemont). I think there is plenty of transit around it and I consider bikes alternative transit.
Thirdly, it's pretty ironic that these same guidelines were used for dozens of buildings in the ultra rich Pearl and other core downtown buildings but suddenly when there is a development in North Portland utilizing the tax breaks it becomes a "controversy".
I'm no planner but it seems rather unfair to ask a developer to submit to a set of guidelines drawn up by the City and then suddenly come down on the developer for following the guidelines you wrote!
Re: “Mayor Contemplating New Sit/Lie Law: Office Declines Bet That New Law Will Be Unconstitutional”
I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that cops under Sit/Lie used it as a tool to get folks moving or not sit in front of a store directly or to chill on aggressive panhandling (and let's be honest there isn't a more aggressive panhandler on the streets than those Merycorps/Greenpeace folks, those are the folks I actively keep an eye out for and avoid) and issued verbal warnings. Do they also issue tickets that folks have to go to court for? Whats the charge? I guess it's moot since the law was struck down but curious.
Re: “Mayor Contemplating New Sit/Lie Law: Office Declines Bet That New Law Will Be Unconstitutional”
There are many laws cops don't enforce to the letter of because it is both impractical and nonsensical. It seems to me that getting rid of sit/lie has resulted in criminalizing homelessness even more by forcing cops to arrest individuals after they cross the line to criminality rather than use common sense and diffuse situations.
At the same time I also understand the slippery slope that sit/lie ordinance represents in terms of constitutional rights. And criminalizing homelessness is plain wrong.
There has to be a middle ground here that gives law enforcement a tool to diffuse situations but also protects everyones rights.
Previous poster brought up an intersting question. If it is legal to restrict smoking withing 10 feet of a bulding entrance why not panhandling?
Re: “Police Account of Road Rage: "No Indication that Bicyclist Was Dragged."”
Yeah but backing a car up to have a verbal altercation and leaning into a car to confront someone is the difference. One is verbal jousting the other crosses the line to assault. Now what the driver did, depending on what happened in the car, could be both assault and battery.
But it appears neither party is innocent here.
Collections
About Portland Mercury
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Ironing.