The party who sold the property should also bear part of the cost of keeping the trees. Obvs the developer paid value for the land (and maybe the lumber). I wouldn't mind pitching in something as a taxpayer. These kinds of problems don't just solve themselves we need policies that address the competing interests and some plan for who should have to pay what.
Guess it would be cool to have a backyard that's shrouded in regal, majestic darkness. Or the city could just buy the lots and establish "Three Sequoias Planted In A Straight Line Long Ago City Park."
Yeah, I'm usually on the side of more development, but I just can't wrap my head around this. It just seems cartoonishly evil. And I can't see how cutting them down even makes financial sense, even if you were a cartoon villain.
What a joke this has turned into.
That the Mayors Office has felt the need to get involved is beyond reason.
C'mon folks, we live in a city that is grappling with an expanding population and a Urban Growth Boundary.
Charlie, shit like this makes me think more about Ted.
So, while the deal between Remmers of Everett Homes (the evil developer) and the neighbors (who include friends of Matt Stone) was being negotiated, the city sent somewhere between 32 and 50 policemen, including the CERT team, to protect Remmer's land from one tree-sitter, some middle-aged East Moreland neighbors, a few Reedies, some KBOO staff. and a whole bunch of little kids with Lorax signs. It was kind of sickening to have 3 or 4 dozen armed goons there. And I couldn't help but wonder what the city was paying out in cop wages.
http://www.portlandchronicle.com
My question is why the hell aren't they protected under the Endangered Species Act?
That the Mayors Office has felt the need to get involved is beyond reason.
C'mon folks, we live in a city that is grappling with an expanding population and a Urban Growth Boundary.
Charlie, shit like this makes me think more about Ted.
Source: My Girlfriend over text message. So, you know JOURNALISM IT FOR US.