Greater density can have positive effects
I just read the article about the Portland Development Commission (PDC applies the brakes, examines court ruling, Jan. 1) and expanding the areas of urban renewal. The legal issues surrounding the financing of the PDC need to be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.
But the idea of urban renewal is not a bad one, especially as a means for financing our growing infrastructure needs. Creating greater densities in certain areas of the city is not only good sense but is also good geography and good urban planning. This is a city, after all, and with about 3,000 people per square mile, it has only half the density of, for example, Seattle, and a quarter of the density of San Francisco (based on the 2000 census).
There's plenty of reason and room for increasing densities, especially along rail alignments and in district commercial centers such as Gateway, Hollywood and the Interstate corridor in North Portland. If left to the will of the voters, would these reasonable development measures be voted down? I doubt it. I'm a voter and property owner in the Interstate area, and I'm excited about the renewal projects, the greater densities and the continued prosperity of the neighborhood and city.
Craig Flynn, the quoted critic of urban renewal, simply doesn't have my vote of confidence for the prosperous future of my neighborhood or the city. You can't ignore growth, but you can effectively manage it.
The Tribune's pictures
capture Portland at its best
Kudos to the photography staff and picture editor of the Portland Tribune.
The combined efforts are outstanding in each and every issue.
Looking at the striking and detailed pictures in the Dec. 28 issue reminded me of Life magazine in its prime, with National Geographic quality and People magazine zest.
Portland is everything your photographers have captured with their sharp eyes and camera equipment.
I eagerly await the results of their talents in 2002.
Our children deserve better
leaders than Derry Jackson
Having dealt with the Portland school board regarding a local community issue in Southwest Portland last year, I learned very quickly that Derry Jackson was a liability to the district. He was ill informed and uninterested
in listening to our neighborhood concerns (Recall seeks Jackson's ouster, Jan. 4).
He admitted at a public meeting that his own child attends a private high school in Portland, rather than attending a high school in the very district he represents. Now I learn that he owes more than $5,500 in property taxes. Those taxes fund the schools. How dare he choose to fund a private school education for his child if he cannot pay his property taxes.
I support any effort to remove this person from the board. The children of Portland and their taxpaying parents deserve better.
If he had any integrity, he would immediately resign.
Does the right to bear arms
sound vaguely familiar?
On Nov. 26, the city of Portland publicly announced that a city-sponsored New Year's Eve party would be held in downtown Portland. Everybody was invited with one exception Ñ concealed handgun licensees!
Is there any disagreement that what Mayor Vera Katz is doing doesn't show faces?
On one hand, Katz is protecting people from being questioned by the FBI in connection with Sept. 11 attack on America. On the other, she is demonizing Oregon CHL holders and American citizens who have been fingerprinted and photographed and had background checks done.
In Point One, she is protecting people in this country from being profiled by not cooperating with the FBI and the Department of Justice. How many of the people who are on the FBI's list have had all the background checks and fingerprinting?
The Oregon State Constitution, Section 27, reads as follows: 'Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.'
So my question is this: If the city of Portland doesn't have the authority to change or affect firearm laws in Oregon, then who is going to take action on this blatant violation? The FBI?
Timothy W. Dunn