Supporters of Portland’s authoritarian planning have responded to Portland State University professor Gerard Mildner’s critique of that planning in the spirit of the Christmas season. They welcomed his report, “Density at Any Cost, with open arms, agreeing to have a free and open discussion of the issues.
Just kidding. Instead, they responded like little children, calling Mildner names. “UGB denier.” “Libertarian activist.” “An outlier, unrepresentative of most of our relevant experts.” And that’s just what his fellow academics at Portland State University called him.
Mildner in fact agreed that his views were unrepresentative of others at PSU’s urban planning school. “Hiring in the School of Urban Studies and Planning self-selects for people sympathetic with Oregon’s urban planning system,” he suggests, so it’s clear his views aren’t going to align with others in that school. An economist himself, Mildner works at PSU’s Center for Real Estate, which has one foot in the urban planning school and one foot in the business school–and the Antiplanner suspects Mildner’s views have more support at the latter.
Acid change in the bile is also order cheap levitra dangerous. It makes a person so helpless cialis free samples that he is unable to do anything at that point of time. My belief is that it all begins with saying “yes” and saying “no” first to oneself. best price on levitra Cardio exercises like treadmill, secretworldchronicle.com cialis online swimming, cycling, jumping rope, playing a sport, dancing and aerobics are pretty beneficial.
Anyone who thinks that Mildner’s views are unrepresentative of a large number of residents of the Portland area is fooling themselves. Mildner’s past critiques of Portland’s light-rail plans are not much different from the recent report from the City of Portland’s own auditor, who wrote that the Portland Bureau of Transportation “and its streetcar partners don’t know where they are, and they don’t know where they’re going.” The editorial staff of The Oregonian, which once uncritically supported the city’s transportation and land-use plans, endorsed the city auditor’s report.
Debates about transit and urban planning are happening all over the Portland area, and when voters get a chance to express their views, they have generally opposed the light-rail/pack-em-and-stack-em paradigm. Unfortunately, voters don’t get to express their views often enough, so Portland is being run by a bunch of children who call their opponents names but won’t engage with them on a level playing field.
We can always count on the Portland/Metro New Urban ,Smart Growth Community to look to discredit the other side, while they refuse to debate the issue one on one.
“Portland is being run by a bunch of children who call their opponents names”
“Name calling” is par for the course all over the country, in almost any public policy debate. During the light rail referendum we had here in Pinellas County, FL, in 2014, the chairman of the St. Petersburg NAACP Criminal Justice Committee wrote this in a Facebook post directed at me:
I live here and consider your crusade to kill public transit RACIST.
Just like that: “RACIST” in all caps. The gentleman who made the remark is named Kurt Donley, and is the former president of something called CONA (Council of Neighborhood Associations). When I told Mr. Donley that I objected to his remark, he doubled down on his misguided name calling.
My experience is nothing compared to what others have had to endure around the country. So my advice to anyone getting involved in a public policy debate: do not take anything personally. View these kinds of personal attacks from the other side as merely a tactic.
Blogger laments name-calling, refers to transit supporters as “authoritarian” and “children.”
This Gerald Mildner sounds like a reasonable fellow. Wonder how he ended up at a place like Portland State?
Blogger laments name-calling, refers to transit supporters as “authoritarian” and “children.”
This isn’t name-calling. It’s a accurate description of the transit boondoggle fiefdom that has seized Portland and its captive gullible liberal populace. While dirt streets exist in the city and potholes are becoming big enough to swallow cars, “leaders” (sic) saw fit to spend 1.5 billion on a worthless Lionel train set that will be slower and carry fewer riders than the perfectly decent buses before it. Politicians lecture us that improving the dirt street in front of our houses is our responsibility, but apparently throwing billion dollar bailouts to corrupt companies like Stacy & Witbeck is, oddly enough, the civic responsibility of all US taxpayers. The shenanigans used to ram through this corrupt piece of work couldn’t be more accurately described than as “childish” and “authoritarian”.
When an academic department “self-selects” for a certain view of the world and the future, then that department is not a science. It probably isn’t academic either. It is much like “environmental study” programs that are more religious than professional.
The fantasy world that transit fanatics live in has to almost be admired, in the way you would admire a dangerous animal’s viciousness. They have managed to create a feverish dream that cannot be toppled by mere reason, the same way the government has created the “support the troops” mythology, in which we must stand behind our government badged and equipped murderers regardless of the atrocities they commit in the field, and the toxic politics their violence backs up.
It is considered bad form to examine transit plans based on their effectiveness. Like the Monty Python buildings, apparently transit’s fake promises become all too apparent if we look too closely, and the entire tower of dominoes collapses in a massive implosion. Instead, buzz words like “sustainability”, “social justice”, and other empty slogans are vomited in corporate sponsored media campaigns, where the unsupported claims of supporters and profiteers are swallowed without question. This is the transit lobby’s greatest claim to fame. Their actual contribution to society is almost zero, their contribution to their own corrupt profits and influence peddling is their foremost goal and claim to fame.
I see Metrosucky is an ideologically-motivated extremist and hater of anyone who dares disagree with his religious belief in libertarian fantasies, engaging in rants and tantrums not even worthy of a three year old. And I guess he only got a lump of coal in his stocking this year.
A rational response goes like this:
If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. – Fred Kent
BTW, calling Mildner a “libertarian activist” and “UGB denier” is not name-calling, but accurate descriptions, and not “vicious” as claimed in the article The Antiplanner referenced. Working for the Manhattan Institute and with the Cascade Institute for over two decades indicates Mildner is an “libertarian activist” since both organizations are well-known libertarian “think tanks” (sic).
While Mildner current has an academic job, his objectivity is suspect, if only because research from either organization that didn’t support their a priori libertarian viewpoint would never see the light of day. I seriously doubt either organization has EVER produced “research” subject to either academic peer review or open review by critics who disagree with libertarianism before being finalized and released. Doing so would endanger the a priori conclusions supporting libertarianism.
BTW, calling Mildner a “libertarian activist” and “UGB denier” is not name-calling, but accurate descriptions, and not “vicious” as claimed in the article The Antiplanner referenced.
What evidence do they have that he actually is a libertarian activist? Because he agreed to help conduct research for a local think tank? Many academic faculty members do that. Just look at the publications form an organization like the Brookings Institution.
By the way, what is a “UGB denier”? What is he supposedly denying? The existence of a UGB in Portland?
The funny thing is that the Portland State academics quoted consider these to be pejorative terms. They wouldn’t use them if they didn’t think those characterizations would affect Mildner and his reputation. To me, that says a lot more about the people making the accusations and the institution they supposedly represent than it does about Mildner himself.
It’s also quite telling that they chose to respond that way. Note that they didn’t both to try to refute any of the claims in the study, they just went straight to the ad hominems. This kind of hit-and-run mode of operation is fairly standard for lefty bloggers and other partisans, but academics are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
While Mildner current has an academic job, his objectivity is suspect, if only because research from either organization that didn’t support their a priori libertarian viewpoint would never see the light of day.
Again, avoiding the content and attacking the messenger by calling into question his objectivity. He has conducted plenty of peer-reviewed research if you care to look.
What do you expect MJ, for them to put together a list of problems they see in Mildner’s work? Who has time for something like that, much easier to just jump to insults.
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/editor/ugr_response_120414.pdf
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/research-paper-regions-growth-draws-criticism
Ohhh poor msetty, did Stacey & Witbeck leave you a piece a coal instead of the phallic object you desired?
What do you expect MJ, for them to put together a list of problems they see in Mildner’s work? Who has time for something like that, much easier to just jump to insults.
How ironic, ahwr can only link to defenses from the very government organization that created the problems in the first place. That’s no conflict of interest at all, right?
”
I seriously doubt either organization has EVER produced “research” subject to either academic peer review or open review by critics who disagree with libertarianism before being finalized and released. Doing so would endanger the a priori conclusions supporting libertarianism.
”
~msetty
So what? Anything that’s published is out there. Any shortcomings, issues with methodology, etc can be shared with the world. In fact, if you know of any, please make sure to do so.
That sounds great prk66, but “peer” review doesn’t work that way. If it did they wouldn’t get their government grant money. The same goes for those looking for grants, in medicine, science, and social services. If enough special interest group, and their peers approve, they become a worthy of spending their money to advertise and lobby for more funds. If these groups attract enough attention, Congress wants a piece of their success, and they provide their backing and money. Then these group achieve political status and and media attention. That is what has happened with Public Transit, Climate Change, Heath Care and Immigration.