News Apr 19, 2010 at 5:09 pm

Comments

1
"the economic climate makes it too difficult to successfully move forward with a bond measure at this time."

Isn't the whole point that you can put it forward to be voted on to find out? If it doesn't pass, there's nothing stopping them from trying again. What a shame.
2
Nothing stopping? How about the massive amounts of money these campaigns spend to get measures out there in the public eye? If it doesn't pass, the likelihood that they'll be able to raise the cash (again) for the next round will be minimal.
3
This is horseshit! Goddamn it Davis! Why can't you get off your soap box and see that things are actually connected and that life doesn't revolve around you. Do you actually think that ignoring and underfunding our parks (like you mentioned in December) like we have done for so long, will actually be beneficial to our fair city in the coming decades as it bursts at its seams? Should we really pave over everything so that our children today can grow up to never know what nature is? And that by not knowing that connection to Earth, they too will end up homeless and broken, having had part of their soul stolen from them? Will your affordable housing numbers account for them?

Let me tell you something... they won't. You can't quick fix homelessness. Yes, we need to address it. But address it with a firm foundation. The headline grabbing (campaign winning) insta-fix never lasts.
4
@Saypdx - You lost him at "get off your soap box."
5
Matt, Those of us who have worked--------successfully I might add---------on park levies and bond measures have heard "it's not the right time." "The economy is a deal breaker" "There are more important priorities." for the past 30 years. There is never a "good"time and there are always other "priorities."

As you know, I adamantly disagree with your ongoing argument that parks are a "frill" that we simply cannot afford until we deal with our other "priorities." There is a reason City Council designated parks as an "infrastructure" bureau. The rationale, as you know, was that parks, trails, and natural areas--------"greenery" as you so derisively put it----are an essential urban service.

It is particularly galling that you fail to note that park advocates have, since the founding of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994, also been strong housing advocates. It was park advocates like myself and others in the "greenery" coalition that worked hand in glove with the then Community Development Network, the region's housing umbrella organization, to get affordable housing on Metro's regional growth management agenda. It was also a coalition of park and housing interests that succeeded getting City Council to establish the 30% set aside for affordable housing in Urban Renewal Areas.

Why do you persist in your parks vs housing rhetoric? It is nonsense. Those who are in need of affordable housing need parks even more than the more affluent in our society, who have access to more recreational opportunities. A livable city needs parks and affordable housing. They go hand in hand.

Mike Houck,
Urban Greenspaces Institute

6
Matt, Those of us who have worked--------successfully I might
add---------on park levies and bond measures have heard "it's not the
right time." "The economy is a deal breaker" "There are more important
priorities." for the past 30 years. There is never a "good"time and
there are always other "priorities."

As you know, I adamantly disagree with your ongoing argument that parks
are a "frill" that we simply cannot afford until we deal with our other
"priorities." There is a reason City Council designated parks as an
"infrastructure" bureau. The rationale, as you know, was that parks,
trails, and natural areas--------"greenery" as you so derisively put
it----are an essential urban service.

It is particularly galling that you fail to note that park advocates
have, since the founding of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994,
also been strong housing advocates. It was park advocates like myself
and others in the "greenery" coalition that worked hand in glove with
the then Community Development Network, the region's housing umbrella
organization, to get affordable housing on Metro's regional growth
management agenda. It was also a coalition of park and housing
interests that succeeded getting City Council to establish the 30% set
aside for affordable housing in Urban Renewal Areas.

Why do you persist in your parks vs housing rhetoric? It is nonsense.
Those who are in need of affordable housing need parks even more than
the more affluent in our society, who have access to more recreational
opportunities. A livable city needs parks and affordable housing. They
go hand in hand.

Mike Houck,
Urban Greenspaces Institute
--

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.