|
Accretionist posted:I used to be a security guard. I've talked my way through situations where police have killed for less and I am an anxiety-prone nerd. For sure. I assume you also read about the homeless guy they shot the same day as Hayes? By all accounts the guy was in crisis and needed to be slowly talked down. They shot him instead. At least he survived to tell his story, I guess. Guy I work with was really taking the cop's side yesterday. He kept making a big deal about how Hayes had held someone at gunpoint during an earlier robbery. No matter how many times I explained it, he didn't seem to get that using a gun to rob a soft target is a very situation than actually pulling a gun and opening fire on a target that already has a rifle pointed at you. "Robbed someone at gunpoint = willing to shoot a police officer" doesn't work logically, no matter how hard you beat that drum.
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
SyHopeful posted:http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/wednesday_council_protest.html Olive is such trash. The tone of that article is about what I expect from them. They also published a list of all the scary crimes recently detained immigrants have committed! http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/03/23_arrested_in_portland_area_i.html My favorites: "Marijuana possession," "Illegal entry," and "Traffic offense other." The same article
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:The housing crisis is not going away. Even if new homes are built. The solution is the one thing nobody wants to talk about. Too much demand. Overpopulation is a far less serious problem than how we live. The future is only doom and gloom because the massive demographic that is American suburbanites are unwilling to make changes. Some want to bury their head in the sand and pretend they can prevent change by willing it out of existence. Other people throw up their hands and say "well, too many people, the solution is not to change how I live, it's to educate future generations in a way that leads to long term population declines." Either way, you're abandoning your culpability and excusing yourself from being part of the solution. "It's overpopulation" is an easy cop out because that's a problem for the next generation to figure out. HEY NONG MAN posted:
I see this all the time in Portland too. It absolutely infuriates me. I work hard to try to advocate for density to my NIMBY neighborhood character friends and colleagues. But when you tear down a single family home to replace it with a yard destroying, tree eliminating bigger single family home then you're playing right into the NIMBY argument. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The problem is people who live in Vancouver tend to be tax cheats in that they use Portland for services but dont want to pay taxes and use an artificial line created by governments to avoid them. This is such an important issue and the arbitrary lines are so established people can't even conceive of how ludicrous they are. Remember the Sellwood Bridge funding disaster? "We refuse to pay for this major piece of regional infrastructure that needs to be replaced because we're on the Clackamas side of the line and so it's not our bridge" was tossed around like it was the most reasonable and logical argument ever conceived. Last fall there was a push to use a local vote in Tigard to kill the proposed SW MAX expansion, as if one community should have the power to kill an entire regional transportation project (granted, it failed, but they aren't going away).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If WA adopted an income tax and ditched the sales tax, would Vancouver collapse upon itself like a neutron star? I doubt it. Vancouver is riding high off of the Portland boom and the income tax thing is far less important than cheaper housing costs and the like. I mean, you should replace your sales tax with an income tax, but I don't think it would hurt the 'couv much in the short-term or long-term. Error 404 posted:Yeah, gently caress those bikes and gently caress you too Eh. They seem popular enough, and I've been able to put them to good use when friends/relatives have visited from out-of-town. The complaints are over the sponsorship (which was just the most practical way of making it happen in the world we live in today), the fact that they eat up street parking (which I have no sympathy for), the fact that they're ugly (which I get but they aren't that ugly, and what else? That they're for tourists? Okay. Sometimes places do things for tourists. They're part of the ongoing gentrification of the city? They're completely gentrification neutral - sure, they wouldn't be here but for the gentrification, but they're really nothing more than an expression of it and I highly doubt they actively contribute to it at all. I don't know, maybe I'm missing stuff because I haven't followed the biketown outrage all that closely. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:A public facility installed undemocratically, using public funds for what is essentially an advertisement for a gigantic lovely corporation I don't understand this complaint. Nike advertising is already ubiquitous so branded or not, it's not likely you're seeing much more Nike advertising than before. The whole thing also didn't seem particularly undemocratic to me, unless you think these kinds of programs should be on the ballot and not handled by the city government, which I don't agree with. But I also didn't pay a lot of attention to the whole thing so I'm open to to evidence that some seriously shady poo poo went down. SyHopeful posted:For the people who can afford to live in the neighborhoods these bike stations are in. Hint: they aren't poor neighborhoods. Congrats I guess, you got Lance McTechworker to leave his Audi at his half million dollar condo for his half mile commute across the Willamette. Glad my tax dollars go to help somebody!! This one I understand a bit more. As far as factoring in displacement to gauge the environmental impact, I don't really think that makes sense. The bikes aren't a factor in why displacement is happening and I doubt they contribute in a measurable way at all. Nobody is buying a new condo on Division because it's close to a bike share set-up. I guess they're a very visible expression of the change and displacement though, so I can see why they'd become easy targets of peoples' frustration. SyHopeful posted:lol Nike stomped out other locally owned bike rental and sharing programs and steamrolled this garbage through. Sorry you're unable to differentiate between a real community bike share program and this Brand Portland (TM) bourgeois garbage. This one is really compelling to me if it's true. I guess I haven't paid enough attention to the whole thing. Do you have examples? Shifty Nipples posted:I don't like having to gimp further because I couldn't find an open spot to lock up my bike, having to pass by a bunch of unused rental bikes taking up space is just an additional "gently caress you". This I don't get at all. As far as I can tell, if they weren't there, they'd be street parking, at least the ones I've seen. It seems like this is getting pissed off just to be pissed off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:It is basically a non-profit that provides services to the dis-advantaged and also provides a homeless camp, from what I understand. Yep. Lots of people totally ready to pull up stakes and move to Portland so they can cash in on that sweet, sweet homeless camp government cheese!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Oh boy I hope it goes to helping the needy property developers how else will Portland compete with Seattle in bad decisions! Dude. If they don't build cheaply constructed high end 'luxury' condos than where will people live? We're in a housing crisis and really the only way out is to build housing for rich people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I don't feel bad for Wheeler: he was pretty much just granted the position, doesn't really seem to have new ideas, and will leave after one term without even trying to run for a second term (just like the last 3 mayors before him). I guess being State Treasury wasn't good enough for his career path. Yeah. He wants to be governor, but in a mind-boggling miscalculation he somehow didn't notice that Portland mayor is political suicide. I have a question for the more informed in this thread: I keep seeing references to the city planning to start enforcing tow orders even if vehicles are occupied. Now, clearly, this means they have to get the person in the vehicle to get out first. That doesn't seem like a great use for law enforcement time and knowing PPB it also seems like a great way to wind up with some dead people. Is this bluster or is there really going to be a huge escalation of police harassment of the homeless in the near future?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:I would imagine that has to do with RVs that are camped out in places where people don't want there to be RVs. Yeah. I get that, because unlike cars I guess RVs don't need to have expired licenses/be disabled for the city to issue a tow notice. What I'm curious about is whether it's bluster or if they're actually planning to follow through on it. It seems like a pretty drastic escalation of police harassment. It seems like it would be really likely to end up with people beaten up/shot when they don't exit the vehicle prior to a tow.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Remember when people were saying they were going to throw the book at him, since he was waving his gun at undercover cops And least he got time. Plenty who have done worse get less. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/crisis_intervention_officer_pl.html#incart_river_mobile_home quote:Both he and Clark acknowledged that it wasn't ideal to have Clark serving as the crisis communicator while providing rifle cover, according to their grand jury testimony.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Tax revenues from weed are projected to raise $3m for the city of Portland, and the mayor wants to spend almost all of it on cops: http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2017/05/10/19003564/hall-monitor-from-the-pot-shop-to-the-cop-shop As of today, PPB only has three confirmed kills this year. Not gonna hit a triple double (three unarmed and black) unless we have some money to lure away a free agent from Chicago or another elite city.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
http://katu.com/news/local/man-shot-killed-by-portland-police-officer-was-struggling-with-drug-addictionquote:Officer Ajir was closing in on Johnson when the man displayed a utility knife, police said. https://www.google.com/search?q=uti...iw=1600&bih=805 Good job, PPB! It's really difficult to take in a man with a box cutter. Firearms are probably the only effective response to one inch blades!
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Steve Jorbs posted:I think you're reaching a bit on this. They're the ones who specified it was a "utility knife" after nearly 24 hours to get their statement ready. Should we not take them at their word that it was a utility knife (aka a box cutter)? Granted, even if it was a long blade I'd like to believe that our local police are trained to deescalate a situation where somebody is brandishing a loving knife and ignoring commands (note that they didn't say he lunged towards them or pointed the knife at them or whatnot). Police are pretty good at the word game and making the situation sound as dangerous as possible when there has been a shooting. The language they've chosen is pretty suspect. The Unlife Aquatic posted:Well, I guess Portland is about to start protesting again. That would be an objectively good thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Steve Jorbs posted:You have a fair point on the language issue. I believe they would play up the situation as much as they could if the man was making a move against them. Sure. But you're also presupposing that the inevitable outcome of brandishing a knife is attacking with that knife. I would counter by suggesting that when a man on the railroad tracks brandishes a knife, it may be more appropriate to back away to a safe distance and use the deescalation techniques that I'm sure our officers receive plenty of training on and take to heart. Many, if not all, of the arguments I've read turn on how quickly an armed assailant can get the drop on an officer, but there never seems to be any discussion on whether it's appropriate to assume that every single suspect that brandishes a weapon will actually use that weapon. It seems to be presupposed. Shoot as quickly as possible because otherwise that crazed guy with the boxcutter will surely charge and murder you! Accretionist posted:Literally yes. Literally wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:If their description of events is even close to accurate -- displayed a UTILITY KNIFE Seriously. There are other ways to handle a guy who is holding a loving box cutter. Edit to remove a rather inappropriate sentence.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Oh look, king county cops being dick bags yet again. At least this one got fired but as the article notes - he'd already had many compliants. It literally took poisoning the water of the homeless to get this poo poo head off the force. How's your Police Union? Down here he'd be back on patrol next week.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Steve Jorbs posted:You seem fixated on downplaying the potential hazard of [just] a utility knife. Have you ever used one? What are your feelings on #2 screwdrivers? What is immediate danger? Is it the same for a civilian as it is for a police officer? Would you be okay with a police officer shooting a man holding a #2 screwdriver? Should the standard different than a panicked civilian? What standard do you hold police officers to? Are they supposed to target and eliminate all threats? Do they have a duty to evaluate a threat and attempt to deescalate a situation, defaulting to the least deadly option if at all possible? Police default immediately to deadly force because they're trained to default immediately to deadly force. There are consultants that come in and tell them that they don't stand a chance against a desperate and deadly criminal underclass who wants nothing more than to go on an action movie/video game style rampage. The public seems to excuse this behavior. I'll tell you what. I expect the police to respond differently than I expect a panicked civilian to respond. I hold them to a much higher standard when it comes to evaluating threats. I also hold them to a much higher standard as to what actually is a threat. You put on that badge and swear that oath to serve and protect and talk a big game about how you're willing to lay your life down to defend the community, but the instant the tiniest threat pops up you unload the chamber in your service pistol. Sorry. Unacceptable. I'd call an officer a hero if he put himself in harm's way to save a civilian being attacked on the street. Similarly, I'd call an officer a hero if he put himself in harms way to talk down an individual having a mental health crisis who might be a danger to himself or the community. I'd call an officer a coward if he gunned down an individual having a mental health crisis because he was a little bit worried that individual might harm him. Sorry. It's his job to go into danger. I'm not saying I expect an officer to rush into gunfire to execute a physical take-down of an active shooter. But I expect a lot more when the officer is dealing with somebody holding a small knife. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 02:16 on May 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:it isn't dangerous if it's waaaay the gently caress over there in some dudes hand. Seriously. Why do people have such a hard time with "Brandishing is not the same thing as attacking with..." It's such a basic concept. Also this: anthonypants posted:Yes, an individual in imminent danger should be able to defend themselves. But, get this:
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Steve Jorbs posted:I think it would be unreasonable to murder them if they made a verbal threat towards you, but if they picked up a baseball bat and postured threateningly towards you with it that is a completely different situation. If the police officer had pulled out his gun first I would think that the man would have been justified in defending himself, but I don't think that being chased by an officer makes the officer an aggressor to the degree they need to be killed. Brandishing was a very bad choice of words on my part. The police statement actually uses "displayed a knife". Even then, waving a knife around is not the same thing as using a knife. Those are very different actions and the later is an escalation that doesn't necessarily flow from the former.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Reene posted:And in the specific case of a guy brandishing a box cutter, acting like it's impossible or even very difficult to disarm them without sustaining serious injury is absurd, particularly considering other countries' police forces seem to manage it all the time, against people with larger and more dangerous weapons. Well, highly trained grocery store clerks are apparently better at this than the police. So there's that. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/05/one_person_dead_another_injure_1.html
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:The Mercury has an article where they interview an anarchist: http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2017/05/17/19017371/get-to-know-an-anarchist Is blue fragility a thing people say? Cause that would be Mr. Lobe levels of mean. Just kinda asking on behalf of a Police department I know with a nazi in its senior leadership.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
One thing that deserves attention is the fact that Christian was taken alive after stabbing three people. This just a few weeks after a man holding a box cutter was executed on some railroad tracks. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/man_saw_teenagers_one_with_hij.html#incart_big-photo quote:The officer told the suspect to get down, Blackwood said, and the man told police to shoot him. Also... the poor train operator wants to know why aren't we focusing on the real problem... which is immigrants and not white supremacists http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2017/05/facebook_page_claiming_to_be_t.html#incart_big-photo
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
So there's been one thing that's been bothering me about the coverage following the events of last Friday, and I think I've figured it out. Less than a year ago, a black teenager was run down by a white supremacist in a pickup truck in one of the less affluent suburbs of Portland. There was some media coverage and some discussion, but it mostly got ignored - it happened in a bad part of town and the victim was No Angeltm. Incidentally, it was this post (which I haven't really seen any discussion of or national media attention on) that jogged that recollection: Doorknob Slobber posted:More racist poo poo in the PNW yesterday. I've seen lots of celebration of the lives of the men on the MAX and I've seen lots of coverage about how they were heroes. The main narrative I've picked up on is basically "Brave white men give their lives to mentally ill!!! (that part seems to be very important to mention) racist in defense of non-white teenagers." Maybe this is looking too hard, but it almost feels like the main narrative is essentially "Brave white men give thier lives to mentally ill!!! racist thereby absolving Portland of racial animosity forever." The "Trimet Heroes" talk and the loving coverage almost seems like it's a reflection of the victims being from the same tribe as the majority of this very white city. I'm honestly unsure that the coverage would be so dramatic and overwhelming if the victims had been the two women, or people of color.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:If it were two women there would almost certainly be more coverage, especially if they were white ladies. But they very decidedly were not white women? Otherwise, I'm not sure how this counters my point?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:The soda tax sounded like a good idea, then I found out it also will tax bubble tea, and I'm a little sad Is it because of the milk? I know that's why a lot of the prepackaged Starbucks drinks don't get sales taxed while other prepackaged sweetened drinks do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 20:13
|
|
somehow lattes aren't taxed though.
|
Peachfart posted:Are you saying minorities disproportionately drive slowly in the left lane? In my experience it has almost always been old white people, driving slowly in the left lane because they are afraid of merging. Moving violations have a long and well-documented history as a pretext to pull over/hassle/search cars belonging to minorities. In some cases, moving violations are even used as a justification for summary execution. Assholes who drive slowly in the left lane suck. But really with how law enforcement handles routine traffic stops it doesn't suck enough for me to support a push to increase enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:First, that's what the center lane is for. And second, the law doesn't literally mean 'unless you are passing you can't be in the left lane'. It is saying that you can't hold up traffic by going the same speed in the left lane as the other lanes, as the left lane is literally the passing lane. In heavier traffic situations, the left lane will fill up. That is normal. But the left lane should be going faster than other lanes, and if you are causing that slow down, move over. Most highways are only two lanes, though. I mean, yeah, the interstate and some bigger ones have a center lane, but in my experience left lane camping is mostly a problem on two lane roads.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:I also just did some driving, and it turns out that Washington drivers are extremely bad at it He's probably stuck doing 15mph by an rear end in a top hat bicyclist camping that lane.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The was so loving stupid to discuss that topic like that. When they were talking about public service poo poo like "how to drive in the snow" it's nbd, but this was monumentally stupid. The 500 employees thing is pretty brutal but it's better than nothing and it could set a useful precedent. It's easier to change the threshold than it is to get it enacted in the first place. Plus, don't some really big companies set things like breaks/lunches based on the state with the strictest rules so that the can have a uniform policy? So this might have benefits for workers nationwide (I'm being way too hopeful, aren't I?).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:There are similar laws in other cities/states, and as far as I know getting a reliable work schedule within a reasonable timeframe is still a near impossibility everywhere. Ah. I had read this would be a first of its kind pice of legislation. That's what I get for not verifying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Oregon HB 2269 was a bill to raise money to fund air environmental regulators, so that what happened to Portland last year could be dealt with. Well yeah. We all throw a fit about air pollution but really isn't there an individual responsibility to not breath polluted air? Why subsidize lazy breathing on the backs of job creators?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:It is a very well-known place. They even have one in the airport now. You forgot the part where Ken Gorden felt the need to talk about how many cigarettes and how much pot the employee smokes as justification for paying poverty wages.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
George posted:I went to Linfield and it was kinda nice. Drove through McMinnville a few months ago and got real sad when I remembered they forced the Deluxe to shut down. I guess it's going to be a wine bar with upscale vacation rentals above it. Maybe it already is. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
George posted:The Sage changed owners but it's still godlike. Right on! Used to know a guy who refused to eat there because "it's too soft." Whatever dude, plenty of drat good bread for me if your toxic masculinity can't handle it...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
The city that works. https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2017/12/20/19558822/a-new-fee-meant-to-spruce-up-city-streets-has-property-owners-enraged quote:The only disasters that had befallen Willford’s dilapidated home were moisture and the march of time, but officials at PBOT thought they might have a way to change that. If city firefighters were to burn her house down as part of a training exercise, they believed, Willford could be let off the hook under the disaster clause.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:It is a tax on people who are building on a property. It might hit the occasional 'poor' person, but it is a tax that overwhelmingly targets developers and the rich. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I definitely have little to no sympathy for some of the other individuals discussed in the article. The solution is to have some kind of hardship waiver or similar provision. The problem here is that it’s apparently so inflexible that the city considered burning her house down to rules lawyer their way out of assessing it. Of course they did just waive it in the end - which makes me question why they were being so inflexible in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I mean, it sounds like they don't charge you the fee if you don't build a single-family home on the lot. So it seems like there's a pretty simple way around it. The fee is limited to single family zoned lots so that doesn't seem like quite as much of an option as you might think (pretty sure multi-family lots don't get a choice about whether to improve the frontage). That said, it's not hard to find the lot in question with google and it's not at all upscale or in a particularly desirable part of town. I guess my point is that if you don't want a sympathetic face in the media for developers/rich assholes to use to villainize your tax, maybe build some relief into it - waivers or partial discounts for owner-occupied lots under a specific value with needs based screening. The kind of thing lawyers hate because the rules get really fuzzy but that help make sure you're actually taxing the people you want to tax (developers/speculators/rich assholes)... It's more of an administrative burden, but as mentioned above, you maybe don't get the bad press caused by this kind of ridiculous situation where the city apparently really wanted to help her out but felt their hands were tied so tightly they had to be absurdly creative.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think this is a frequent issue with Portland, in particular, you have initiatives that at least sound decent (the Arts Tax) in the beginning, but the end result is actually a relatively abusive flat tax. In this case, it sounds like the fee is also relatively flat and involuntary, which is going to actually hurt people in parts of the cities with little infrastructure more. There are plenty of areas of Portland that still have gravel roads, and they aren't on some type of mountaintop primed for a mega-development, but simply parts of the east side that the city couldn't be motivated to improve because they simply didn't give a poo poo about the people that lived there. Right? This nugget from the article is a bit eyerolly (and go Fritz - even if I'm not normally a fan)... quote:Commissioner Amanda Fritz didn’t believe the bureau had weighed equity appropriately. (The city zeroed in on Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood, Southeast Portland’s Division Midway district, and Tryon-Stephens in Southwest Portland for improvements.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Peachfart posted:Sales taxes are one of the worst taxes in terms of hitting the poor due to sales tax being on all items. While a property tax is flat, it isn't quite as bad since poorer people don't normally own property in the first place. It would be hell to administer and wildly impractical and honestly still regressive because everyone buys high end products occasionally, but I've always chuckled at the thought of a selective sales tax that only applied to a product priced in the top 25% of the average price range. I guess I've only ever heard the "what Oregon needs is a sales tax..." from one guy, who was interestingly enough an income tax attorney who did all kinds of stuff sheltering wealth using trusts and whatnot, so that checks out...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 22:23
|
|