BLOG: Portland can help fight to implement Oregon's domestic partnership law

You write, "...Oregon's domestic partnership law is a good thing. Attempts to block it, especially by outsider-groups, is horrendous..."

"Vance," please, many of use see through your political trickery.

You always include in your posts a few words to try and establish your credibility with progressives but you really are just a Portland-hating conservative.

Sam is one of the few who has actually stood up to out-of-state big box stores behalf of neighborhoods and local businesses.

I am glad Sam is continuing his work on behalf of LGBT Portlanders to be able to register their domestic partnerships.

JT

"...Finally, planners caved in to developers who insisted that small-box retail made no sense at the site. Instead, the city has persuaded Ikea to build a 280,000-square-foot store on the site and hopes to attract at least one other big-box store (though not one headquartered in Bentonville). Apparently, cheap Asian-made goods sold by a Scandanavian retailer are more politically correct than cheap Asianmade goods sold by an Arkansas retailer. Though Ikea will deliver purchases to any customers who arrive by light rail or stow their bikes in one of the mandated 75 bike racks, the store expects most of its customers to use one of its 1,200 parking spaces. 39 garage. ... "

I peeled this out of a Policy Analysis, written by Randal O'Toole, titled, "Debunking Portland, The City That Doesn't Work", dated July, '07. Would this be one of the, 'box stores', that Councilman Adams, 'stood up to'? JT, would you care to site a specific statement in my comment that you don't agree with, or that you would like to argue? No? Not one? Just name calling? That's it, that's all?

Bush league, holmes. I mean, I'm working on my blog this morning, and I still found time to dig up something relevant, here. Off of the top of my head. Just like that. AND it addresses a SPECIFIC issue in your post. See how it works?

What, I can't have an opinion different than yours, AND, support the LGBT&Q (The, 'Q', added is the updated parlance. Show some sensitivity to the issues, would ya?) community? According to the extension of your own logic, I should just hurl insults, is that it? Puhleeze.

The LGBT&Q community has support coming out of the woodwork. I'm simply suggesting that investing tax-payer resources in an attempt to use the City Attorney's office as a monkey-wrench is irresponsible. Furthermore, why the militant stance on this particular issue? I applaud Councilman Adams' candor regarding his lifestyle. That does not mean that I won't be inclined to point out a possible conflicts of interest. "He said it, I didn't.", comes immediately to mind.

Stick to the issues please. If you would care to join the burgeoning ranks of the dedicated, 'Vance-haters', in town and call names, feel free to visit my blog to do it (There is a link right there). That way we're not wasting valuable space on Councilman Adams' blog, k?

I think this last blog posting of yours says it all...

The Portland City Council takes positions on state and federal issues all the time and directs staff to pursue those policy positions. I checked online: the Portland City Council supported HB 2007.

The fact that you object to using staff to work on just this one issue speaks volumes about your true feelings about the LGBTQ community.

The fact that you also try and related HB 2007 to an Ikea store also speaks volumes about how you value basic human rights for all Portlanders and Oregonians.

Nice try, "Vance," but I suspect Portland is not the only thing you truly hate.

That is right wing "dog whistle" politics "holmes". You should go back to working on your "blog", I'm sure it's a terrific read.

Actually, as a voter I'm quite pleased with Sam's approach to issues and protecting Portlanders interests. And by the way, what the hell is a "Oregon Native"? And are Oregon natives the only ones being gentrified? Sam's job is to represent the interests of Portlanders not native Oregonians who may hail from Bend or Prineville or Tribal areas. Oh, and I'm sure there are plenty of gay or lesbian native Portlanders for Sam to represent. We are after all a very diverse community.

JK said: “Sorry Sam, the ruling was NOT about the domestic partnership law; it was about initiative petition rules. Are you seriously saying that Portland should oppose restoring people’s right to initiative petition?...”

Sam, strictly in context of what Jim said, are you seriously going to spend City taxpayer dollars to oppose not only the people’s right to initiative petition, but also freedom of speech like it or not, especially when this is a statewide issue rather than a city issue? Instead the City Attorney could better utilize his time by sticking to City business looking into why “age” is absent from the language in City of Portland anti-discrimination policies; and then recommend an update to include age in those policies.

You say you want basic fairness to all Portlanders and Oregonians in this arena, but then use your transport pulpit to discriminate against motorists when proposing transportation taxes that promote extreme motor vehicle user fees (often economically regressive to small businesses and used to subsidize other modes of travel) as a socialistic means to dictate how people should travel. Maybe the City Attorney can be used equalize transport user fees, fight off and directly tax/license all the freeloading of out-of-town bicyclists that have been locating here and are not paying transportation taxes for the costly specialized infrastructure they use and want expanded. The latter would also include an equality requirement eliminating the discrimination for any mode related discounts that you suggest be applied to proposed residential street maintenance fees. Furthermore, maybe the City Attorney can also be used to insure/guarantee there are no more transportation related stacked deck citizen committees that have been arranged with back room politics instead requiring and mandating a cross section of citizens in numbers that are a “quantitative representation” of actual mode of transport split. And then maybe the City Attorney can stop the proliferation of red light cameras that discriminate against motorists because they currently can not be triggered by bicycles, or even identify a bicyclist if they could be triggered when a bicyclist blows through against the same red light.

Since the prolific Mr. Parker has conveniently hijacked this discussion to rail about bikes not triggering red light cameras, can we also fix traffic lights in general, so that they change on a timed schedule whether bikes are there or not? Frequently the loop detectors don't detect a bike, and many of those intersections have no pedestrian button, forcing cyclists and pedestrians to "run" the red light in order to cross, expecially at night.

I don't find that to be a safe situation, for cyclists, pedestrians OR motorists.

Thanks! Good luck with Safe, Sound & Green Streets!

The only insults being thrown around here is Elaine suggesting that if opinions vary from hers, Freedom of Speech is BS and no longer a constitutional right. Providing specialized bicycle infrastructure however is NOT a right. Using the tax codes in an attempt to dictate how a person travels by providing taxpayer funded rather than user funded pathways for freeloading bicyclists (along with subsidizing streetcars mostly for affluent neighborhoods) negatively impacts a person’s "basic right" to earn a reasonable living without excessive taxation, put food on the table and make the individual lifestyle/transport choices that fit an their own needs. How would Elaine feel if she was specifically taxed to directly promote heterosexuality over other lifestyles?

The connection here is about Sam’s credibility when using city taxpayer funds to contest a legal process that questions a state issue/process about discrimination (rather than accepting the premise the State Attorney General and the courts will objectively handle it) in one arena, while promoting tax discrimination in different arena closer to home - in other words; trumping another person’s rights when using taxpayer funds to advance a personal agenda.

She already is, Terry - look at all the marriage benefits that heteros get that GLBT couples do not. It't not fair, and "straight" people are the majority just as motorists are, and a democracy is "tyrrany of the majority".

Your own arguments give the best example of exactly why such measures are needed. Keep up the great work!