Monday, June 7, 2010

Recent news about the North Reach, Portland Harbor

Below are a string of recent articles on the North Reach plan (mostly for my own future reference):

Pamela Ake, "Portland River Plan: Another view," Oregonian, March 4, 2010.
    We respect Daniel Rohlf's perspective about the Portland River Plan ("Protecting the Willamette: Critics of Portland's river plan are all wet," March 2), but we must correct the record.

Oregonian Editorial Board, "Finding the right fit for big ships, small fish," Oregonian, March 29, 2010.
    Industries situated along the river's North Reach . . . have decided the city wants too much. And the city, after eight volumes of planning, wants to zoom ahead with morphing environmental standards . . .

Allan Willis, "River regs are enough ," Oregonian, April 10, 2010.
    Based on the article "City's river plan doesn't float with businesses" (April 7), it seems to me the Working Waterfront Coalition is making an eminently reasonable request with its offer of a 1.5 percent fee on the cost of development, rather than the additional layer of city regulation and review proposed in the North Reach portion of the River Plan

Oregonian Editorial Board, "River Plan picks a needless fight," Oregonian, May 16, 2010.
    At a time when the regional economy still faces double-digit unemployment and businesses are only beginning to resume capital projects, the Portland City Council decided to cram a vague but burdensome new set of requirements and regulation onto an area that it used to value as "an industrial sanctuary.

"Letters: Another view of Portland's River Plan," Oregonian, May 18, 2010.
    Three letters: "It is surprising and disappointing that The Oregonian has sided with businesses opposing the city of Portland's recently adopted River Plan"; "The city of Portland's recently adopted River Plan advances . . . wildlife habitat protection and mitigation for harm done"; "This has been a 10-year public process with three years of intensive talks to arrive at a workable solution with industry. How many more hours at taxpayer expense do you feel are needed?"

Sam Adams, "Editorial on Portland River Plan doesn't hold water ," Oregonian, May 23, 2010.
    The Oregonian's editorial on the Portland River Plan was misleading on many levels, but most importantly because it neglected to point out how the plan promotes the long-term growth of our waterfront industries ("River Plan picks a needless fight," May 17).


No comments:

Post a Comment