Article: "Debunking Portland..." (Dallas, White City: credit, lawyers, house)

[ukiyo-e]

A friend of mine who's an urban planner in another state posted this link on his Facebook page; the article is from a journal called Policy Analysis and is titled: "Debunking Portland - The City That Doesn't Work."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf

It has some interesting insights, or opinions, depending on your viewpoint, I guess, as to how the focus on light rail and public transportation caused the city a lot of problems like high priced housing, high unemployment, school deterioration, etc., and how other cities without urban growth boundaries are actually managing growth better.

[philwithbeard]

I did not read that article fully, I just scanned over it.

The author is from the CATO institute. Anything that comes from the CATO Institute is suspect in my mind. That think tank has an agenda to push. Specifically, any public policy that includes making policy for anyone else to follow is BAD and must be discredited.

IMHO, that think-tank will use any and every trickery of language, verbal ambiguity, or debating technique, or just out-right propaganda flim-flam to promote their agenda's goals. Wikipedia them; Google them! Too many of the papers from CATO have strong social-Darwinism or economic-success Darwinism embedded in their social (or economic) winners-take-all libertarian attitude; no social safety net, no consideration for those who don't want to have a large carbon-footprint, no consumer product safety commission alerts, no Government consumer credit watch dog agency, no urban planning, and mostly very limited taxing by any level of government.

These guys (and gals) are the intellectual equivalent of the high priced scum-bag lawyers that get a rich guy off of a criminal court charge that everyone else would get life for. I really question everything they say, how they draw their arguments, use false argumentative logic, inappropriate (or not relevant) emotional examples to their debating point, yada, yada, yada. These guys are very good at what they do, which is to offer intellectual propaganda to their agenda.,,,,,

Oh, sorry, I got distracted there.. Should I just leave the soap box over against the wall where I got it from....?

Oh, yes one last thing.....
I don't like the CATO institute.

Phil

[subsound]

I think there is a great deal of propaganda in there, and a great deal of political slander about under age sex and collusion.

I don't think Portland is "The City That Works" either, but this is not that answer. The only thing I think that seems true in there is that if you contain urban sprawl, housing gets more expensive in the area controlled (and spills into surrounding communities)...kind of a no brainier.

[karlsch]

Another interesting read:

Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.......

The whole story here: The White City | Newgeography.com

[cdelena]

Rather than review the institute that wrote the paper... read the paper; it contains a lot of impartial observations. After spending a great deal of time in cities where city/regional planners drive much spending (primarily Portland, Dallas and Austin) I find the theory of responsible development is better served than the citizens.

[nick614]

(I've been lurking on these boards for about a year but this post made me come out of the shadows) -- (I hate Cato as much as you apparently Phil!)

This Cato article is pretty old. It was amazingly and thoroughly destroyed in a response paper here: http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org...unkingCato.pdf

[philwithbeard]

Originally Posted by cdelena

Rather than review the institute that wrote the paper... read the paper; it contains a lot of impartial observations....

Why??
After reading the second fallacy argument in that paper, why continue? The conclusions are nonsense and his solutions to the nonsense conclusion are emphatically opposed to so much of my view point.

Bottom line, not every city in the USA must be a manufactured cookie like every other city. There has to be room for diversion and local uniqueness. It is impractical to apply a solution to urban life which works in Pittsburgh and try to that impose that solution onto Dubuque, Iowa. (Trust me, the hills of Pittsburgh make roads a different breed.) The author's suggestion that the urban life solutions don't work are based on the view point of suburban life. That isn't the only view point.

If someone wants to compose an article on the fallacy of taking urban solutions from the cities mentioned, and imposing them where these solutions won't work, I will be glad to read the article.

That article, like other articles from the CATO Institute, is contrived and, IMHO, a useless waste of time.

Phil

[philwithbeard]

Originally Posted by nick614

(I've been lurking on these boards for about a year but this post made me come out of the shadows) -- (I hate Cato as much as you apparently Phil!)

This Cato article is pretty old. It was amazingly and thoroughly destroyed in a response paper here: http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org...unkingCato.pdf

Welcome Nick.

[ukiyo-e]

Originally Posted by philwithbeard

I did not read that article fully, I just scanned over it.

The author is from the CATO institute. Anything that comes from the CATO Institute is suspect in my mind. That think tank has an agenda to push. Specifically, any public policy that includes making policy for anyone else to follow is BAD and must be discredited....I don't like the CATO institute.

Phil

Cato is quite libertarian, so I can understand their dislike of any policy that is too government-run.

I only posted the article because I thought it made some interesting statistical points, and also mentioned some specific actions, such as not allowing parking for a company headquarters that wasn't located right by a light rail station, as being an example of planning run amok. I didn't mean to upset anyone, and I wasn't insulting Portland.

[ukiyo-e]

Originally Posted by cdelena

Rather than review the institute that wrote the paper... read the paper; it contains a lot of impartial observations. After spending a great deal of time in cities where city/regional planners drive much spending (primarily Portland, Dallas and Austin) I find the theory of responsible development is better served than the citizens.

You don't understand...there is no discourse left in this country. People only read and accept information that already fits their currently held, preconceived notions. It's the reason this country is so polarized right now. One side listens to the right and the other takes everything in Huff Post as gospel, and the wedge is driven in further and further. The idea that both sides might have something to offer and something to discard is a forgotten concept anymore.

The response to this also points up one of the reasons I decided against relocating to Portland (though there were many). Portlanders seem to turn a blind eye to their city's problems. When I told my friends there that I was moving somewhere else, they asked why. I said, "The housing prices are lower, the weather is better, my property taxes will be half, there is no state income tax, it's close to a huge National Park, there's no traffic, it's an artsy community, I have friends there, my house will back up to 250 acres of wooded trails, the CSA farm is right down the street, it's quiet, and the town is right on the ocean." "But what's there? Won't you have to (gasp!!!) DRIVE to the grocery store?" Ok, I get that they think Portland is God's gift to cities, and if I had to live in one, it's the one I would choose - I like the city a lot. But like parents who refuse to see their children's faults, too many Portlanders seem to have almost a defensive posture in defending the place against any observation that it's not perfect.