Evanite, the Greenway, and an Editorial all walk into a bar....

A GT editorial:

The deal offers a potentially huge payoff for Corvallis and its residents: The 32- foot-wide, quarter-mile-long strip of land on the Willamette River would allow the city to fill in a missing link in its riverfront trail system. The result would be an uninterrupted 3.5-mile path for pedestrians and cyclists from the north end of downtown to Willamette Landing.

In return, Evanite wants the city’s help in getting out from an extra layer of oversight of development requests on part of its 35-acre site on Crystal Lake Drive.

This has been the basis of the deal since the beginning. I am very much in favor of an unbroken trail from Willamette Landing to Michael's Landing.... but I'm skeptical of Evanite.

Specifically, I want to know exactly what regulations Evanite wants out of - is it really just building near the river? Or is there an environmental component? Is there a chance that the land near the river owned by Evanite contains some nasty pollutants that Evanite doesn't want to deal with? And why does the GT label it "extra"? Is there any basis for that, or is that word in there to give people the impression the regulations are, for some reason, unnecessary?

I can't say I've read every GT story on this issue, but I suspect I've seen most of them, and I can't remember ever hearing about possible environmental impact or about the regulations in any detail.

This editorial, of course, is no different. Given that we're in Corvallis, it would seem like a no-brainer to at least mention the potential environmental impacts, especially if any of the regulations in question deal with them. But no... and here is where I find myself agreeing just the tiniest bit with the incensed commenters: The GT does tend to show a rather strong pro-development/pro-business bias, often in its editorial slant.

But I can't just blame the GT for that and walk away. I'd bet money that the parent corporation, Lee Enterprises, actually has policy directives surrounding editorial stances. It's not unheard of, and Lee has a reputation as a very pro-business company.

I happen to think that the existence of such policies undermines the credibility of journalism, but what do I know? The GT tells me this is a good idea, conveniently omitting even the possibility of downsides, so I guess I should just be happy that I get a trail, right?

[/rant]

Robert Jensen

On the future:

There is no easy route to a different future. In our laziness and greed we have narrowed the range of our choices and eliminated too many options for us to pretend there are easy solutions. I can’t predict the future, but I am relatively certain that the future will be hard. There is sorrow in coming to terms with all of this, but sorrow is not the same thing as despair. Sorrow need not lead to paralysis; sorrow isn’t the end. Sorrow is simply a part of life, which can help us understand where we’ve been and in what direction we must move.

He's baaaaaack!

Of course I'm talking about Hering. How could I not comment on this?

Among the few people in Oregon who care about justice in land use matters, there had been an argument before the last general election about the effect of Measure 49. The proponents said the measure would “modify” Measure 37, the previous law on land use restrictions after someone had acquired a property. The opponents said that Measure 49 in effect canceled Measure 37.

Oh. Wait. He's mostly right, except for that part where he confuses "justice" with his (and only his) point of view on the issue. Never mind.

On the other hand, this part pretty much negates the fact that he took the high road in the rest of the editorial:

Neither the courts nor the lawyers in state government, including candidates now running for office, told voters ahead of time that with that measure, a bunch of people’s rights to divide or build a house on their own rural property were going to go up in smoke.

As the first commenter notes, this is total bullshit. Measure 49 does not completely eliminate that right, and Hering should know better than to confuse restricting and completely removing one's ability to build houses on agricultural land. In fact, he does know better, which means this is intentionally deceptive and dishonest, and better suited to a Heritage Foundation memo than a newspaper.

The other thing Hering's stance on this indicates is that he prioritizes individual choice over the collective good to a dangerous degree. I'd ask whether or not he's heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, but that's probably a little too highbrow for his taste.

Walk Score

Ran across this today. I think it's neat, and it makes me feel really guilty for not walking more.

I am a little wary of all the things it lists as businesses near my house. Many of them I've never heard of.

(My most common rationale for driving: Walking takes too long. Yes, I know.)

Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff

A great, concise, and clear explanation of global capitalism and its effects on the environment (which includes the human body):

The Story of Stuff

Check it out and pass it on.