Buses still a problem in Waluga neighborhood

The Oregonian reports about the dangers of tailpipe pollution from diesel school buses that harm the students they carry.  They did not say anything about the neighbors of the lots where buses are stored, and where they start, warm their engines, and drive in and out of every weekday morning and afternoon during the school year. 

In Lake Oswego, school buses are operated by First Student, a private company that contracts with the Lake Oswego School District for its bus service.  The lot for the buses has always been behind Lake Grove Elementary School on school district property.  As the district has grown over the years, the number of buses added to the fleet has grown also.  

Unfortunately, the bus lot is in a residential neighborhood and next door to an elementary school.  Besides the perils mentioned in the Oregonian article for kids who are merely riding the buses, imagine the problems for neighbors, and kids at Lake Grove School who must tolerate a polluted environment every day.   

The school district and the city are aware of the problem, but they say they have no other option for housing the buses.  There is an industrial zone by the freeway (and in Foothills) that can house buses, or does the lot have to be in Lake Oswego?  Why hasn't there been a serious plan developed to get the buses, pollution, traffic and noise out of the Waluga neighborhood? Along with deferred maintenance on elementary and Jr.High schools and educational needs, the expenses for state-required transportation are costly. This does not mean the problem shouldn't be dealt with.

Aging school buses haul perils and kids
The Oregonian/Oregonlive, February 8, 2015 By Rob Davis

Almost half of Oregon's school buses spew unhealthy amounts of diesel fumes into the air, exposing tens of thousands of children to cancer-causing exhaust in every ride.

A review by The Oregonian/OregonLive of state data Found that 3,300 of Oregon's school buses were build before 2007, when federal rules for emissions tightened.

The state has equipped only 600 of those with tailpipe filters that eliminate most pollution.

"From a policy standpoint, it boils down to economics - as much as I don't like it," said Michael Wiltfing, the Oregon Department of Education's transportation director.  "Choosing between a teacher and a bus, the bus is often the one that is postponed."

State law doesn't require taking the old buses out of commission until 2015.  A kindergartener will be in high school by then.

Read the entire article including data on regulatory policies, chemical pollutants and specific health hazards (cancer, asthma) at OregonLive.com.

OregonLive has a link to a state database of information for each school district's buses.  Here is where LO stands:

• Lake Oswego has 51 buses total.  
• 40 buses are pre-2007 when stricter pollution regulations were enacted for school diesel buses.
• 16 buses are 2007 or newer.
• 40% of old buses (16) have been retrofitted with diesel particulate filters.
• 23 old buses (about half of the LO fleet of 51 buses) do not meet current pollution standards. 

What needs to be done now

It doesn't take a genius to see what is happening.

Here is a roadway we are watching on Lakeview Blvd. near the RR tracks between Summit and Iron Mt. Rd.  The road is slowly falling into Springwater Creek 
ravine. 

You can see that the cracks in the asphalt have progressed halfway into the right lane in the last 15 months.  Someone put something to ease the erosion under the guardrail, but it isn't doing much to hold the posts into place.

How long will this road last without substantial repairs?  What will it look like when it finally gives way?  It's like watching a train wreck in very slow motion - it's hard not to look.    

In the first version of the Transportation System Plan, this project didn't make the CIP list at all, but new roadways in the Foothills district were given top priority.  The TSP was changed for its adopted version, but the city needs asphalt on the ground to preserve our infrastructure.  Our roads should be given top priority before anyone considers new bikeways or sidewalks - after all, people and bikes use the roads too!  

October 2, 2013                                          January 2015

January 2015

Pavement has slumped more since 10/2013 (15 months); 
old, rusted guardrail is breaking on uphill end and is falling into ravine.  

Please be careful driving on this curve and stay on the road!  

The latest from Sydney

Looks like Australians have the same ideologues and true believers we have here.  Notice the one-sided view of the suburban-urban divide:  suburbs are all bad and urban areas are all good.  That should be a huge red flag that this is propaganda, not fact.   

Hi SOS Members and Friends

Chris Johnson, chief executive of the Urban Taskforce (see below), had an opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald in which he looks forward to half the dwellings in Sydney being units.   He quotes a reference which compares home owners to locusts, “being clearly predatory and maximising individual gain”.

Of course this is not the predominant motive for people purchasing single-residential homes.  Home ownership provides security and the preferred environment for people trying to carve out a decent life for themselves and bring up a young family. They can enjoy the benefits of Australia being blessed with a sunny climate and enough space to enable people to enjoy a relaxed free lifestyle.

.

Today the paper printed the attached letter from me in reply.

Regards

Tony Recsei

President

City of two halves: how Sydneysiders will split into house or apartment living

Date

February 5, 2015

Chris Johnson

 Sydney has sprawled close to its natural limits and must now look up. Photo: Jessica Shapiro

Sydney is in an apartment boom that is restructuring the form and character of the city. At the 2011 census, 25.8 per cent of Sydney's 1,660,000 homes were urban apartments according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The swing to apartment living has increased since the census, with 70 per cent of housing approvals being for apartments. At this rate Sydney will become half apartments and half suburban houses in the next 40 years or so. There will be two characters to Sydney's built form and there will be two different ways of living.

Sydney leads the country in density according to another ABS survey. The Australian Population Grid divided the whole of Australia into one kilometre squares and measured the density of each square. The densest level measured by the survey is land with more than 8000 people per square kilometre.  In Sydney, 21 square kilometres of the city fitted this category. Melbourne had only one square kilometre in the densest category, and nowhere else rated. We still have a fair way to go by global standards, as London has 327 square kilometres at this density.

The obvious solution to housing this increasing population is to increase densities where people want to live and this is generally around railway stations and close to work opportunities.  

So Sydney, as Australia's global city, leads the way on density - as it does with the move to apartments. But why is this happening? The city is reaching the limits of its horizontal spread as the distant suburbs reach the ring of national parks that contain the Sydney basin. The city can't keep spreading as this forces longer and longer travel times, yet our population continues to increase.

The two different lifestyles that are evolving in Sydney relate to the type of dwelling you live in. One dwelling type, the suburban house, represents the Australian dream of a self-contained house with its own front and back garden,  garage, swimming pool, a home cinema and an exercise room. The State of Australian Cities Report 2012 said the average size of the Australian house was 240 square metres. You own everything you and your family could possibly want (well ownership may be a exaggeration - it is highly likely that the bank with its mortgage will share your ownership).

The other dwelling type is the apartment, with an average size half that of the house (120 square metres), where you share the gardens, swimming pools, cinemas and gymnasiums. The facilities consumers want are still there but it is access rather than ownership that drives this group. A good example is the Central Park apartments on Broadway - recently named the best high-rise building in the world. Here there are a number of shared swimming pools, there is a shared car pool in the basement with 50 cars, so you can choose a different car each week and of course there are restaurants, supermarkets, art galleries, and health centres all within a few minutes walk.

Read more at:  City of two halves

Letter to Editor

Developer the locust

Chris Johnson insults home owners with his reference likening them to locusts ("City of two halves: how Sydneysiders will split into house or apartment living", February 6).

This tag applies much more appropriately to swarms of developers striving to eat their way into single-residential suburbs.  Developers, whom he represents, strip communities of attractive homes with their flowers and foliage, replacing them with grey skeletons of concrete and asphalt.  Rather than home owners it is these developers that warrant the description of "being clearly predatory and maximizing individual gain".

World-wide evidence shows that high-density results in stifling traffic congestion, longer travel times to work, overloaded infrastructure, environmental unsustainability, unaffordable housing, lack of housing choice and destruction of heritage.  Why do we need to endure these deprivations for the benefit of locusts?

Tony Recsel, Warrawee

Sim City LO

Impressions of the January 31, 
North Anchor Community Forum:

It was hands down, the best community "planning" forum I have ever been to.  Congratulations to the organizers for all the work they put into this.

I was't expecting much, and I wasn't alone, but I was curious and hopeful nonetheless.  Despite everything, I remain an optimist about the native intelligence of our community and its desire not to screw things up.

 I arrived at the start time of 9:00 am, fully expecting this to be another "Open House" format - come any time and leave any time.  Wrong.

I thought I'd see the usual array of conceptual planning ideas, lists of planning concepts (walkability,  mixed use, vibrancy, yada, yada), and the hosts - "stakeholders," electeds and planning staff with name tags, manning stations.  And then there would be the required "citizen input" comment card at the exit.  Wrong. Except for the comment card.

In short, I was expecting another agenda-driven event that was a waste of the public's time.

I don't know what will become of the ideas and responses given and received at the forum, but it was a good start as a way to re-think how the whole community wants to see downtown redeveloped.

Follow the North Anchor Project Updates on the project webpage.  Results of the January 31 Forum will be posted on the page during the week of Feb. 2.

Forum Day:  The assembly of about 75 community members was randomly divided up into groups of about 4-5 and trundled off with a City Council member or one of the event host organization members (Chamber of Commerce, EVergreen and First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood
Associations).  The task was to come up with a list of ideas of what DID WANT to be included on the two parcels.  The process was repeated later with remixed groupings to list the things we DID NOT WANT to see on the properties.

When the entire group reassembled each time, the items were consolidated into broad topic areas and the attendees voted via electronic counters about how we felt about this or that item.  Sme of the questions were too broad to answer well or at all, such as whether or not housing was acceptable.  Attendees were reluctant to answer unless they knew if the housing was condos or apartments, how many units, how high, how many parking spaces, etc.  If not done right, some felt no housing was better than any.  In the end, there were some issues like this that were not well answered because there wasn't enough time to dove into specifics.  This is a pity, as there are some big holes in what was otherwise a great exercise in community planning.

Some solid WANTS (or preferences) were first floor retail and/or office; enough parking to service the building uses, sustainable building practices, height restrictions, etc..

The DO NOT wants included adult stores, marijuana establishments, use of public funds or non-tax-paying uses, automobile service/repair, single-store retailer, etc.

The big surprise for me was the general support for market-driven commercial use rather than having the city strongly suggest specific retail or commercial options.

Another big surprise for me was how intoxicating was the experience of planning a part of downtown - a Sim-City form of play using Lake Oswego as the template.  It was very easy - too easy, and too fun - to get caught up in one's own ideas of how the city "should" evolve.

The great thing was how many minds came up with so many great ideas, and that there were so many areas of philosophical agreement.  Of course, what eventually gets built will be a reflection of whatever a developer thinks will be economically productive.  And the city will most likely take a bath on the sale price of the land as it was purchased at a premium to begin with.  Perhaps the city should not be in the real estate business at all - politicians should leave business to the professionals.  But the city should establish its authority to dictate development be compatible with community values.  It is only through exercises such as this that these values can be known.  We should do this more often!

The headiness of the morning forum evaporated when the exercises were done and I had to get back to my Saturday chores.  It is now up to every one of us to follow up on the project as it moves forward to see that our collective values are being heard.  And to do that, we must all be involved in code development so that when a private parcel is developed, there are limits in place we can ALL
live with rather than face another Wizer Block upheaval.  (I keep hoping that monster thing will be downsized.,.. )

Creating and preserving more humane cities

This article explains exactly why this blog was created - to save the suburbs as a humane place to live, create a community, be healthy and raise a family.  It seems crazy that people should be arguing about the need for and value of such places, but we are now part of a world-wide rebellion against density, and against becoming a city that has lost its uniqueness and human scale.  This is worth fighting for.

Urbanization: Protest against gigantism
By Joel Kotkin
Mandan.org

Excerpts from a longer article.  See website for full version.

People care deeply about where they live. If you ever doubt that, remember this: they staged massive protests over a park in Istanbul. Gezi Park near Taksim Square is one of that ancient city’s most beloved spots. So in June, when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to demolish the park to make room for his grandiose vision of the city as “the financial center of the world,” the park’s neighbors and supporters took to the streets. The protests were directed against what has been described as “authoritarian building”—the demolition of older, more-human-scaled neighborhoods in favor of denser high-rise construction, massive malls, and other iconic projects.

There’s just one problem with this brave new condensed world: most urban residents aren’t crazy about it. In the United States and elsewhere, people, when asked, generally say they prefer less dense, less congested places to live. The grandiose vision of high-rise, high-density cities manifestly does not respond to the actual needs and desires of most people, who continue to migrate to the usually less congested, and often less expensive, periphery. And as the people’s desires continue to run counter to what those in power dictate, the urban future is likely to become increasingly contentious.

The growing disconnect between people and planners is illustrated by the oft-ignored fact that around the world the great majority of growth continues to occur on the suburban and exurban frontier, including the fringes of 23 out of 28 of the world’s megacities. This, notes NYU professor Shlomo Angel in his landmark book A Planet of Cities, is true both in developing and developed countries.

All of this flies in the face of the argument, made by a well-funded density-boosting industry, that people want more density, not less. Lobbies to force people back into cities enjoy generous funding provided by urban land interests and powerful multinationals that build subways and other city infrastructure to bolster the cause of ever greater density.

Yet rather than re-think density, planners and powerful urban land interests continue to force ever higher-density development down the throats of urban dwellers. In the already pricey San Francisco Bay Area, for example, municipal planners have embraced what is known as a “pack and stack” strategy that will essentially prohibit construction of all but the most expensive single-family homes, prompting one Bay Area blogger to charge that “suburb hating is anti-child,” because it seeks to undermine single-family neighborhoods.

Rather than concocting sophisticated odes to misery, perhaps we might consider a different approach to urban growth. Perhaps we factor in what exactly we are inflicting on people with “pack and stack” strategies. Planners often link density with community, notes British social critic James Heartfield, but maintaining that “physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilization.” When University of California at Irvine’s Jan Brueckner and Ann Largey conducted 15,000 interviews across the country, they found that for every 10 percent drop in population density, the likelihood of people talking to their neighbors once a week goes up 10 percent, regardless of race, income, education, marital status, or age. In 2009, Pew recently issued a report that found suburbanites to be the group far more engaged with their communities than those living in core cities.

A market—or simply human—approach would permit a natural shift towards smaller, less dense cities and, yes, the suburbs, where more people end up wanting to live. Those who prefer high-density living would still have their opportunity if they so desire. 

The primary goal of a city should not be to make wealthy landlords and construction companies ever richer, or politicians more powerful. Instead, we should look for alternatives that conform to human needs and desires, particularly those of families. Urbanism should not be defined by the egos of planners, architects, politicians, or the über-rich, who can cherry-pick the best locales in gigantic cities. Urbanism should be driven above all by what works best for the most people.

North Anchor Project - tall or wide?

How big will it be?

This is a good question since the size of the lots determine what gets built there.  The city owns 3 tax lots at the north corners of 1st St. and B Ave.  the lots are not huge, so just how big can buildings be? If the footprint is small, the building might go higher than if the lots were larger.

A reader commented on how small the footprints of the lots are.  The city had hoped to include the gas station property on 1st and State St., but could not make a deal with the owner.  Below are maps to show the actual parcel sizes for you to compare to nearby lots and buildings.

Will the city sell the lots independently to different developers, or are they being sold as a package deal?  Could the city remodel the existing buildings to retain the low density, or sell the property at a low cost so the development "pencils out?"

 

Are public meetings public?

UPDATE:

The most recent meeting notice emailed to all registrants says that there will 
be a breakfast at this event.  I assume this is the reason for the head count.  
Still unusual to me.  Anyone else?  


Meeting on Saturday!

There is a Community Forum on the North Anchor Project on Saturday (9:00 am to 1:00 pm) at the Adult Community Center on G Ave..  The LORA Board, made up of City Council members, is hosting the event.  The City is requesting that attendees register in advance.

"Please register for the Forum below so that we can best plan for the event".

I have never seen this request before.  For the City Council Town Hall on January 10, no registration was required and there were a lot of cookies to keep people happy.  What is different about this meeting?  Unless there is some absolutely necessary reason why pre-event registration is needed, this is still a public meeting that follows the same rules the public meeting law spell out: The meeting should be open to all.  If you have questions, call the City Manager's office or the City Attorney. I hope to see you there!  To register, call: 503-534-4225.

Selected ommonts from the comments on Open Hall:
There were a few people who wanted a new library or public uses, and others that did not.  Some don't trust City Hall to get public sentiment right. Quite a few wanted a project that fits into the fabric of the downtown and not another Wizer's.

*  * * * * 

Let's have first, a City-wide VERY open, public series of meetings to fully explore the nature or kind of city (e.g. more PORTLANDIZATION vs. single family homes as merely 1 example) we the residents want to develop from this point forward, to include all projects Council is already eyeing (& NOT shaping opinion by the City or CONTROLLING the outcome) in a way truly to encourage and bring out what the public really wants to do with LO, not Council, not the STAFF! 
Do this NOW instead of, on the heels of COUNCIL'S POLITICIZED WIZER OVERRIDE, disingenuously ask for opinions one at a time to control and shape them and kick to the curb grassroots PUBLIC OPINION and WISHES one by one like target practice with a gun. 

*

I recall the voters rejected a new library. Please honor their vote...no new library. Provide services at the west end where the majority of LO citizens live and where the major source of LO taxes come from. Very very tired of the east end expansion and use of taxpayer funds to assist with private development that benefits the few with no services at all in the west end.

*

This site seems most appropriate for a true mixed use development; no more than three stories in height; street level-retail complemented by two levels of residential owner-occupied condominiums.
Oh, yes, and NO public subsidies!

*

Do not incur any additional debt. Sell off the site to private developers such as Gramor and allow them to develop the site within the parameters of the East End Redevelopment plan. A project developed by a committee will not prove attractive to developers. Do not handcuff the experts (developers) with concepts that are not workable.

*

I would love to see a great family friendly brewpub style restaurant. Something along the lines of the old Rams Head brewery. And maybe a Grand Central Bakery. A wine bar? LO needs some new, upscale, hip places!

*

More small businesses and restaurants. People want to support their local businesses. Build them and they will come. Also small affordable apartments or condos for the aging demographics of our city who would love to stay in LO but downsize from their large homes. Thank you for the opportunity to 
provide input.

Stopping sprawl forcefully

By restricting land supply, government makes housing unaffordable.  It is astounding that so many places all over the world have chosen governments that are pushing the middle class into a lower standard of living.  Just like here.  

Middle Income Housing: International Situation 
Huffington Post, January 22, 2015  
By Wendell Cox, Principal, Demographia

Excerpts:
Hong Kong, Sydney, Vancouver and the San Francisco Bay Area have the worst middle-income housing affordability in 9 nations, according to 11th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Median house prices in Hong Kong were 17 times the median household income, a measure called the "median multiple." Vancouver had a median multiple of 10.6, Sydney 9.8, while San Francisco and San Jose were each at 9.2. Other cities (metropolitan areas) with especially high median multiples included Melbourne (8.7), London (8.5), San Diego (8.3) Auckland (8.2), and Los Angeles (8.0). 

Why are there such large differences in housing affordability? Put in layman's terms, the problem is land shortages created by planning policies. Cities have drawn urban growth boundaries, beyond which middle-income housing construction is virtually prohibited. Consistent with economic axiom, restrictions on supply lead to higher prices, other things being equal. These "urban containment" policies drive up land prices, which also drives up house prices. House construction costs are little different, for example, between the Atlanta and San Francisco metropolitan areas. But the land in San Francisco drives prices to more than three times that of Atlanta, income adjusted.

Urban containment seeks to stop urban expansion ("urban sprawl"). Yet, as The Economist indicates, sprawl can only be stopped "forcefully. But the consequences of doing that are severe." These include higher house prices and, according to Chief financial writer of The Financial Times Martin Wolf, "...ultimately force people to live in more cramped conditions than would occur without limits on supply."

There is increasing international concern about the declining fortunes of middle-income households. At the Brisbane G-20 Summit in November, governments around the world declared "better living standards" to be the highest priority and indicated a commitment to reduce poverty. This requires not only higher incomes, but avoiding policies that unnecessarily raise the cost of living, such as the cost of housing. Middle-Income housing affordability relies on a "plentiful and affordable" supply of land for development on the urban fringe, as urbanist New York University Professor Shlomo Angel indicates in his introduction to this year's Demographia Survey. 

Big Brother is in your car with you

From The Antiplanner blog - my comments in red.  There are quite a few breadcrumbs leading up to a future that is more restrictive, more controlling than should be allowed.  It will happen unless the public starts voting for, and demanding people who understand how real people live, and what personal freedom and liberty is and what it is worth.  Once it is gone, liberty is impossible to get back. 

Why do we allow government so much control? 

Big Brother Wants to Watch You Drive

In 2008, the Washington legislature passed a law mandating a 50 percent reduction in per capita driving by 2050. California and Oregon have similar but somewhat less draconian laws or regulations.

 Does anyone have an idea how government can mandate - require and enforce - a 50% reduction in per capita driving?  What would it take to get you to drive half the amount you do now?  

The Obama administration wants to mandate that all new cars come equipped with vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, so the car can send signals to and receive messages from street lights and other infrastructure.

There is also the recent discovery of cameras that read license plates and record time and locational information that is kept by government agencies for an indeterminate time frame.   

Now the California Air Resources Board is considering regulations requiring that all new cars monitor their owners’ driving habits, including, among other things, how many miles they drive, how much fuel they use, and how much pollution or greenhouse gases they emit.

All manner of misdeeds are being done under the guise of reducing GHG, mostly demonizing and reducing automobile use.  Never mind the fact that even the EPA has proven that carbon emissions from autos is going down while the number of autos and vehicle miles traveled are going up!  Clean automobile technology is getting better and will continue to get better.  

The climate change, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions excuse is just that - an excuse for government to control public mobility and individual independence.  Why?  Why should government know where we go and how much we drive?  There are better ways to reduce GHG, but planner-government-activists keep trying to control you.  Why?  

Now the California Air Resources Board is considering regulations requiring that all new cars monitor their owners’ driving habits, including, among other things, how many miles they drive, how much fuel they use, and how much pollution or greenhouse gases they emit.

Continue reading this log post at The Antiplanner.

Is Lake Oswego protected?

There is a phrase in the text of this story from The Oregonian that explains how the micro-apartment cancer is spread, and how it can be stopped:

 "Micro-apartments — typically studio apartments around 300 square feet, and often less — have become popular in big cities that don't put a minimum on the size of housing units. They're positioned as an affordable urban option for singles and couples."

Is Lake Oswego inoculated against this disease, or are we vulnerable too?  Our Community Development Codes should be evaluated not only for what they have, but for what they don't!

In the photo you can see that the streets are already lined with parked cars.  When the current apartments are chopped up into sleeping units with shared kitchens, and NO parking, where will the tenants' and shoppers' cars go?  There's only one place to go - into the residential neighborhoods.  Another Portland neighborhood wrecked by Portland's density codes.  

Micro-apartments proposed in SE Portland's Mt. Tabor neighborhood
The Oregonian, January 16, 2015  By Elliot Njus

 

The building at 6012 S.E. Yamhill St. in Portland, where a developer is proposing redeveloping a former group living center for international seminary students as micro-apartments. (Elliot Njus/The Oregonian)

A Portland development firm has proposed turning a former nursing school dormitory on Mt. Tabor into a 75-unit micro-apartment building.

Bridgeway Realty Resources has a contract to buy the building, 6012 SE Yamhill St., from its current occupant, a Christian nonprofit.  According to filings with city development officials, the firm wants to renovate the building and create high density "mini-units," with the ground floor used for storefronts and offices. 

UGB is a failure

says Clackamas County Commissioner, 
Paul Savas

Video clip is from a community forum hosted by CIA, Citizens In Action, a citizen-activist group based in Oak Grove.  The forum was held in mid-January.

This short clip is from a 2-hour video of the entire meeting.  The Vimeo website also shows clips of Metro Commissioner, Carlotta Collette, as well as the entire 2-hour forum.  

What does Savas have to say, and how would he solve the bureaucratic problems he describes?

Is the "Climate Smart Communities" effort a program Oregon should be engaging in at all?  What could we be doing that would give us the biggest bang for our buck, and just maybe, it is being done already and we don't have to anything at all?  

vimeo.com/116938522 

North Anchor Project ideas wanted

North Anchor Community Forum

Saturday, January 31

9:00 am to 1:00 pm

Adult Community Center
505 G Ave.

As you think about what you want to see on the city property at 1st. St. and B Ave., it might be fun to see what was proposed in 2010.  At that time the city was planning for a new library, a parking facility, retail and office spaces plus housing units and/or a hotel.

The 2010 plans are off the table, but it will be up to citizens to let the Council and planners know how big, and how high buildings should be, and what should be there.  In the end. It will be up to a developer to deliver a project that will make the investors money, or else get substantial subsidies from the city if not.  What do you think?  You may still write your comments on the Open City Hall forum (follow the link from the city's main web page).

• More dense housing like at Wizers?   
• How big and how tall should any building be?  What will a large developmet do to the downtown?  
• Public parking? How much should the city (taxpayers) pay for parking, and who will be the beneficiary!  Downtown businesses?  Out of town shoppers?  Bus riders? Farmers Market visitors?   Would it be a relief valve for lack of parking at Wizers or other developments that get a break on parking standards? 
• What about public meeting spaces?  What part of the development should be public, and why?  How much would it cost taxpayers? 
• Retail?  Offices?   Would this bring shoppers and or jobs?  
• Is there a developer interested in the property and talking to the city?  If so, what do they want?  
• Will any of the ideas generated on Saturday actually "pencil out" and be used in a significant way?  

Here are images from the 2010 architect's concept plans that included a library as a central component.

Wild life

Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2014

Photos from The Wildlife Photographed of the Year 2014 competition from the London Natural History Museum and the BBC.  There were 50 finalists out of  over 41,000 entries from all over the world, each one a masterpiece.

Galleries of the photos are online on different websites.  Google "Wildlife photographer of the year 2014" for multiple media sources.

Skill, luck and artistry intersect in beautiful images to show us more of the world around us.

Demographics change everything

Pew Research Center: Fact Tank
January 16, 2015 By Richard Fry

This year, Millennials will overtake Baby Boomers

This year, the “Millennial” generation is projected to surpass the

outsized Baby Boom generation as the nation’s largest living generation, according to the population projections released by the U.S. Census Bureau last month. Millennials (whom we define as between ages 18 to 34 in 2015) are projected to number 75.3 million, surpassing the projected 74.9 million Boomers (ages 51 to 69). The Gen X population (ages 35 to 50 in 2015) is projected to outnumber the Boomers by 2028.
  Lighter areas contain newer construction, while darker areas are older. What stands out immediately is the difference between the Sunbelt--areas in the Southeast and Southwest where growth has been booming--and the Rustbelt--an arc stretching around the Great Lakes from North Dakota to New York. Nebraska and Kansas haven't seen much in the way of new construction either. This tracks pretty well with the overall population change in these areas. Over the past 10 years people have migrated to the Sunbelt and away from the Rustbelt. 

• There were a projected 75.4 million Boomers in 2014. By midcentury, the Boomer population will dwindle to 16.6 million.

By 2050, I think I know where the "huge" numbers of people coming to the NW will 

be living.  Just a wild guess.