Unsustainable growth: Bravo to "It's the overpopulation" by Richard Thompson, (Letters, Jan. 1). We do "need a new paradigm." The answer is not more roads and more growth: the answer is the removal of barriers to contraception, population education in our schools, increased monetary contributions to the United Nations Population Fund and Title X funds for Planned Parenthood. We must realize that the earth's resources are limited. The current growth rate in the United States and worldwide is not sustainable and it only exacerbates the serious problems we face in regard to food supply, energy production, vehicular use, availability of land, air and water pollution, and species extinction.
Greg Jacob, Hillsboro
McMansions and mega development: I keep hearing lots of people say we need to tear up the urban growth boundaries and build everywhere. What is overlooked is that this works great for mega development companies but not for everyone.
I look at what is being built in subdivisions now compared to what was built 50 to 60 years ago along the Portland/Gresham boundary. Back then, most of the houses were not huge and gaudy. They were built by local people and companies. Around my house, there are still small vacant lots, but they remain vacant because of the cost of the property and the cost to build. Banks are not willing to do anything for anyone not wanting to make maximum profit.
Now all I see are new subdivisions filled with McMansions on the edges of the metro area or half decent, semi-affordable houses being ripped down for something bigger and fancier. Where is the money coming from to buy these places? When I look at the majority of what is advertised for employment I don't see that many high paying jobs.
Bill Hall, Northeast Portland
Measure 97 was the right solution: I find it interesting - actually amusing - that The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board is crying out for businesses to pay more taxes to fund education and other social services just a few weeks after they did their part to scuttle the solution to Oregon's inability to fund education, health care and senior services. The editorial board vociferously sent out the alarms about the $3 billion per year that would have been generated per year had the Measure 97 corporate tax passed. Their argument was that lawmakers should simply do their job to create tax policy that would tax businesses more fairly. Lawmakers simply have to go to work to make this happen.
This is not a small feat for Democrats to get Republican lawmakers to go along to impose any kind of tax on corporations. Of course the board then brings back the bad old obligation the state has to PERS. Thwarted by the the Oregon Supreme Court ruling that it's unconstitutional to roll back public employee retirement benefits, the board is now saying that elected officials now have the opportunity to make changes that will merely "blunt the burden" that PERS contractual obligations imposed. What does that mean?
It means the board should have supported Measure 97. But Republican ideology was ascendent thus ensuring, that we would have a $1.7 billion budget deficit, not the needed $3 billion annual revenue to go a long way to fix education and social services. Too bad, Measure 97 was the solution!
Cliff Goldman, Northeast Portland