Portland's fascist Liberal Government

[Wild Cobra]

Not long ago, Schumacker Fur's was run out of town with the help of the City. Liberals don't like people wearing dead animals. Now, Peterson's Morrison street location is being forced out by the city for no good reason. The reasons given are completely false, and the activities are because he is at the last stop of the public rail system downtown. Something else is going on. Someone in City Hall must have plans for his location.

Peterson's (http://www.savepetersons.com/)

[ChumpDumper]

Do they sell furs?

[Don Quixote]

But Portland is a paradise, no?

[RandomGuy]

Not long ago, Schumacker Fur's was run out of town with the help of the City. Liberals don't like people wearing dead animals. Now, Peterson's Morrison street location is being forced out by the city for no good reason. The reasons given are completely false, and the activities are because he is at the last stop of the public rail system downtown. Something else is going on. Someone in City Hall must have plans for his location.

Peterson's (http://www.savepetersons.com/)

??

Meh. A link to one side of the issue, and no background.

I should care because...?

[RandomGuy]

Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?

[shelshor]

Any idea how many businesses fled PDX & Multnomah County during that fiasco of a County Income Tax a few years ago?


Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?

??The lists are put together by staffs that are predominately liberal??

I've also seen lists that show that Lubbock & Salt Lake City are in the top 10 places to live--seems they were in conservative publications

[2centsworth]

I'm suspecting we will continue to see this trend. The words we speak and write must not offend anyone or else get labled a hate monger and lose your job, or even worse go to jail.

[clambake]

:lmao lubbock :lmao

[ElNono]

Not long ago, Schumacker Fur's was run out of town with the help of the City. Liberals don't like people wearing dead animals. Now, Peterson's Morrison street location is being forced out by the city for no good reason. The reasons given are completely false, and the activities are because he is at the last stop of the public rail system downtown. Something else is going on. Someone in City Hall must have plans for his location.

Peterson's (http://www.savepetersons.com/)

I don't know what's worse. The protesters at Schumacher Fur's or the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act". Looks like Protester = Terrorist these days?

[101A]

Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?

D.C.
Philly
Baltimore
Detroit


tell me when to stop.

[ElNono]

D.C.
Philly
Baltimore
Detroit


tell me when to stop.

You can add northern NJ to the list...

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still curious -- what's "fascist" about what the local government is doing in Portland? It might be "socialist" or some other "ism," but this certainly wouldn't seem to fit the definition of "fascism," except to the extent that "fascist" is incorrectly used on an increasingly-frequent basis as a synonym for liberal.

[2centsworth]

I'm still curious -- what's "fascist" about what the local government is doing in Portland? It might be "socialist" or some other "ism," but this certainly wouldn't seem to fit the definition of "fascism," except to the extent that "fascist" is incorrectly used on an increasingly-frequent basis as a synonym for liberal.

Big Brother taking away your business because they don't like the way you look.

[clambake]

Big Brother taking away your business because they don't like the way you look.

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract. just cleaning up an eye sore.

big brother is an over-the-top label.

[FromWayDowntown]

Big Brother taking away your business because they don't like the way you look.

That might be authoritarian, but it's not fascist. All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian are fascists.

To use a Wild Cobra cliche, I suspect there's more to the story than we're getting and it's difficult to know precisely what the impetus is for the local government in seeking to run out an established business. But it's not as if Portland's is the only local government that has ever sought to close out businesses for the purpose of achieving some governmental end -- local governments are possessed of eminent domain power and can certainly condemn properties in certain circumstances in an effort to achieve public ends. Standing alone, the fact that the local authorities in Portland might wish to shut down a business from operating in a particular location is hardly indicative of a Big Brother mentality. Undoubtedly, if the place was a long-standing headshop or was a purveyor of pornography, there would be many who would laud the City's action.

Without belaboring that point, however, I'm just struck by the misuse of the term fascist. It's undoubtedly a highly-charged term, but to quote one of my favorite movies -- " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[2centsworth]

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract. just cleaning up an eye sore.

big brother is an over-the-top label.

not going to say this is the greatest example of fascism, but who makes those moral decisions like "kind of character" or "eye sore". I'm in favor of the citizens voting, but not the politicians doing as they desire.

[xrayzebra]

Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?

Ever look at who makes up these list? Question answered.

You want to live in Austin. I damn sure don't. The place sucks. Try driving there during rush hour. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Especillay on I-35.

[clambake]

not going to say this is the greatest example of fascism, but who makes those moral decisions like "kind of character" or "eye sore".
apparently those in and outside of political circles.

I'm in favor of the citizens voting, but not the politicians doing as they desire.
this is the era of politicians doing whatever they desire. to clean it up, this time, you have to start at the top.

[2centsworth]

That might be authoritarian, but it's not fascist. All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian are fascists.

To use a Wild Cobra cliche, I suspect there's more to the story than we're getting and it's difficult to know precisely what the impetus is for local government in seeking to run out an established business.

the information reads that way.



But it's not as if Portland's is the only local government that has ever sought to close out businesses for the purpose of achieving some governmental end -- local governments are possessed of eminent domain power and can certainly condemn properties in certain circumstances in an effort to achieve public ends.

the property doesn't have to be dondemned, it can just be seized.



Standing alone, the fact that the local authorities in Portland might wish to shut down a business from operating in a particular location is hardly indicative of a Big Brother mentality.
agree, we need more info.


Undoubtedly, if the place was a long-standing headshop or was a purveyor of pornography, there would be many who would laud the City's action. but the headshop would have the support of the ACLU in that case.


Without belaboring that point, however, I'm just struck by the misuse of the term fascist. It's undoubtedly a highly-charged term, but to quote one of my favorite movies -- " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

from my point of view, liberalism is a religion that seeks authoritarian control.

[FromWayDowntown]

not going to say this is the greatest example of fascism, but who makes those moral decisions like "kind of character" or "eye sore". I'm in favor of the citizens voting, but not the politicians doing as they desire.

What if the citizens of Portland are telling their politicians that they want this place closed?

Would you have the same quarrel if the politicians were acting to shut down a sexually-oriented business whose activities are perfectly legal but whose clientele bring an undesirable element to an area?

[FromWayDowntown]

the property doesn't have to be dondemned, it can just be seized.

Not without providing compensation to the owner, which is the essence of condemnation -- a public taking of property justified by affording the owner just compensation.


but the headshop would have the support of the ACLU in that case.

What difference does that make? It's not as if there aren't those who support this business and wish to see it remain open -- see Wild Cobra's initial post.


from my point of view, liberalism is a religion that seeks authoritarian control.

But conservatism seeks no such thing, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Ever look at who makes up these list? Question answered.

You want to live in Austin. I damn sure don't. The place sucks. Try driving there during rush hour. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Especillay on I-35.Why the hell would a retired person drive anywhere during rush hour? That's just stupid.

Working nonstandard hours is the way to go.

[2centsworth]

What if the citizens of Portland are telling their politicians that they want this place closed? If they vote it out, then that's ok in my eyes.


Would you have the same quarrel if the politicians were acting to shut down a sexually-oriented business whose activities are perfectly legal but whose clientele bring an undesirable element to an area? we're acting like we have complete information about this shop and we don't, so it's hard to say it's equivalent to a porn shop. I do agree with you 100% that fascism is inappropriate in this case from what I can see. I'm just extra sensitive to these types of cases now that the liberals will most certainly be in charge.

[FromWayDowntown]

If they vote it out, then that's ok in my eyes.

So, you think that government should call for a vote before it takes any action and ensure that the action it takes is approved by the majority of those who vote?

There's a reason that we elect representatives -- and there's a reason that those representatives are forced to run for re-election after relatively short terms.


I'm just extra sensitive to these types of cases now that the liberals will most certainly be in charge.

My point is that the exact same "concerns" could exist if this was a porn shop and it was conservatives in charge. If you disfavor government acting to condemn businesses in an effort to ensure the public good, then I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the nature of the targeted business has some bearing on the propriety of the government's action.

[2centsworth]

My point is that the exact same "concerns" could exist if this was a porn shop and it was conservatives in charge. If you disfavor government acting to condemn businesses in an effort to ensure the public good, then I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the nature of the targeted business has some bearing on the propriety of the government's action.

the point is, you're fighting for a porn shop and I'm fighting for a convenience store that has done nothing wrong according to this article. Porn exploits women and contributes largely to rapes, violent crime, and child molestation.

[clambake]

the point is, you're fighting for a porn shop and I'm fighting for a convenience store that has done nothing wrong according to this article. Porn exploits women and contributes largely to rapes, violent crime, and child molestation.

read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.

[FromWayDowntown]

the point is, you're fighting for a porn shop and I'm fighting for a convenience store that has done nothing wrong according to this article. Porn exploits women and contributes largely to rapes, violent crime, and child molestation.

Porn is legal, if objectionable to some. Convenience stores are legal, too, even if objectionable to some.

I'm not fighting for a porn shop by any stretch -- I'm testing your argument. If you wouldn't be concerned with government condemning property occupied by a porn shop, then your stance on the government's approach to this business is motivated entirely by your perception about the nature of the business. That is, your argument isn't an objection to this type of governmental action; it's an objection to this type of governmental action in this particular case.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't see any indication that the city was seizing the property.

My reading was merely that they were likely going to revoke the permits that allow the type of business to run there.

It is far easier to simply not renew a liquor license than it is to seize property.

If not renewing a license is "fascism" these days, I think the term is either being mis-used or too diluted to be meaningful.

[2centsworth]

read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.

The undesirables were already there. Point is do they contributr to making the undesirables more problematic. (Snet from balckberry)

[2centsworth]

Porn is legal, if objectionable to some. Convenience stores are legal, too, even if objectionable to some.

I'm not fighting for a porn shop by any stretch -- I'm testing your argument. If you wouldn't be concerned with government condemning property occupied by a porn shop, then your stance on the government's approach to this business is motivated entirely by your perception about the nature of the business. That is, your argument isn't an objection to this type of governmental action; it's an objection to this type of governmental action in this particular case.

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.

[FromWayDowntown]

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.

I'd be interested to see an example of me being outspoken about smut.

And thanks for admitting that your concern isn't for the governmental action but for taking that action against a business like this one. For someone who claims concern for governmental siezures of property, your arguments are certainly idiosyncratic.

And LOL at the suggestion that I'm siding with anyone in this discussion; I don't know enough about this case to take a side. I just know that I'm not the one who's upset at the prospect of Big Brother government seizing property except when that government is seizing properties that are being used for things that I disagree with.

[boutons_]

WC, are seizures of private and commercial properties along the TX border to build The Fence OK with you?

There was a judicial ruling in the last few days saying it was OK.

[2centsworth]

I'd be interested to see an example of me being outspoken about smut.

Instead of talking about what you admittedly said was an authoritarian action, you shifted the focus to how conservatives would be outraged if this was a porno shop. First, I don't see how a porno shop and convenience store can be compared, but somehow you're trying to make the comparison. This is what I interpet as being outspoken about smut.



And thanks for admitting that your concern isn't for the governmental action but for taking that action against a business like this one. I am absolutely concerned about governmental seizure with the absence of some type of ordience granting the goveronment express authority to do sol


For someone who claims concern for governmental siezures of property, your arguments are certainly idiosyncratic. no, I prefer letter of the law rulings.


And LOL at the suggestion that I'm siding with anyone in this discussion; I don't know enough about this case to take a side. I just know that I'm not the one who's upset at the prospect of Big Brother government seizing property except when that government is seizing properties that are being used for things that I disagree with.

this distorts my position. You interjecting Porno where vicitims of child abuse who are now adults have people defecating on them in the name of profit for the porno peddler is where I draw the line. You couldn't use liquor store or casino as an example? Instead, you are set on equivacating a covenience store to rapist, child molestors, and wife beaters. So yes, I take a stand against that type of business and you don't.

[xrayzebra]

Good gosh WC, everyone knows that Mother knows best.
I mean even the Supremes say Mother can take your property because she needs the money. Heck, it is only you home/livelyhood. Even if it is legal.

Boy you expect a lot.

[FromWayDowntown]

Instead of talking about what you admittedly said was an authoritarian action, you shifted the focus to how conservatives would be outraged if this was a porno shop. First, I don't see how a porno shop and convenience store can be compared, but somehow you're trying to make the comparison. This is what I interpet as being outspoken about smut.

They're both legal businesses. One is something that you agree with; the other is something that you don't. Hence the basis for the comparison. It wouldn't be much of a comparison if my examples were two businesses that you're completely comfortable with -- would it?


I am absolutely concerned about governmental seizure with the absence of some type of ordience granting the goveronment express authority to do sol

How about constitutional authority for seizing property? If there's constitutional authority for the taking, regardless of the nature of the business, are you concerned?


no, I prefer letter of the law rulings.

How would seizure in this case violate the letter of the law? The letter of the law says that a local government can seize property for public purposes if it reasonably compensates the owner for the seizure. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the violation comes from, other than your philosophical disagreement with the acting body.


this distorts my position. You interjecting Porno where vicitims of child abuse who are now adults have people defecating on them in the name of profit for the porno peddler is where I draw the line. You couldn't use liquor store or casino as an example? Instead, you are set on equivacating a covenience store to rapist, child molestors, and wife beaters. So yes, I take a stand against that type of business and you don't.

Again, why use an example that makes things easy on you? The point of my involvement in this discussion is to demonstrate that your position depends entirely on the subject of the government's action and not on the fact of the government's action. A business that complies with all existing state and local laws, but happens to sell pornography (again, a legal enterprise) is functionally no different than a convenience store if the concern is government acting to seize private property. If your concern was just the action of the government, it wouldn't matter what the nature of the business was -- you'd find the action in seizing the property to be objectionable. But by admitting that you'd be okay with the government closing down a legal porn shop while objecting to the seizure of a convenience store, you've demonstrated that your objection isn't to the action itself, but to the target of the action. That makes your position idiosyncratic. That's fine, but just admit to it. Just admit that your discomfort stems from the ideology of the acting government.

My position on the relative merits of convenience stores and porn shops is irrelevant to that discussion.

I'll say that given what I know of the story, I don't have any quarrel with the local government acting in conformity with its grants of constitutional power. If there's something else afoot -- if this is just a question of pressuring a business to close or move, I'd question the government's justification for undertaking that action; and my argument would be the same whether it was a convenience store or a porn shop, since I think perfectly legal businesses should be allowed to operate without being pressured out of business by government.

[xrayzebra]

WC, are seizures of private and commercial properties along the TX border to build The Fence OK with you?

There was a judicial ruling in the last few days saying it was OK.

It's okay with me. It is for the good of the country. And not increased taxes for the State.
Was seizing property for increase taxes okay with you.

[Wild Cobra]

But Portland is a paradise, no?

It used to be, about 20 years ago. Before the libtards and demonrats took it over.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know what's worse. The protesters at Schumacher Fur's or the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act". Looks like Protester = Terrorist these days?

That's exactly what they were. A form of terrorists. They terrorized the costomers, there is video evidence, the police watched and took no action. Public complaints about the lack of action, but the three or more groups of activists had lawyers behind them. The city lost big last time they took actions against protesters. Now the city just sits back and watches, only concerned of real violence. The city aided the destruction of a family owned business by doing nothing. Worse than that, they failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.

[Wild Cobra]

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract. just cleaning up an eye sore.

big brother is an over-the-top label.
That's just it. It's not the business attracting the low life scum in the area. It's the last stop of the public transportation in the "fare free zone" and this is a 24 hr. business. People complain about the problems with public transportation, and this becomes a city solution. It's not going to help one bit. The City can say they did something though.

My God man. It's a convenience store. Their cliental are from the nearby hotels at night. There would likely be more trouble in this part of town if someone wasn't open!

[ElNono]

That's exactly what they were. A form of terrorists. They terrorized the costomers, there is video evidence, the police watched and took no action. Public complaints about the lack of action, but the three or more groups of activists had lawyers behind them. The city lost big last time they took actions against protesters. Now the city just sits back and watches, only concerned of real violence. The city aided the destruction of a family owned business by doing nothing. Worse than that, they failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.

Either you're utterly exaggerating, or you really don't know what a terrorist is.
Whatever the activists did, I'm sure broke no law, otherwise, with video evidence and all, they could have gotten a restraining order from a judge in no time. I mean, this wasn't an overnight thing. It went on for a year.
And the Schumacher's don't need to wait for the city. They can seek justice themselves.
I gather these days they're suing the city, and not the protesters?

[Wild Cobra]

That might be authoritarian, but it's not fascist. All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian are fascists.


You are right. I'll tell you what. You get the others here to stop using improper terminology to describe someone and I will to.

Funny how you will do it to, let others do it, and only point it out when a conservative says something against demonrats...

[Wild Cobra]

Either you're utterly exaggerating, or you really don't know what a terrorist is.
Whatever the activists did, I'm sure broke no law, otherwise, with video evidence and all, they could have gotten a restraining order from a judge in no time. I mean, this wasn't an overnight thing. It went on for a year.
And the Schumacher's don't need to wait for the city. They can seek justice themselves.
I gather these days they're suing the city, and not the protesters?
That's just it. They actually did break laws. They were given free passes because of fear.

They did us fear. They did terrorize costomers. It's not terrorism like international terorists use, but terror is their tool. Death threats and arsons have occured, but of course, no witnesses. This is undisputed and documentd fact in the area. There is even an FBI investigation against the city because of this. Looks like it's getting sweapt under the rug.

This was not the point of the tread. I am not up to the current info on the subject. This is an old story now.

[Wild Cobra]

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.
Funny. It was once said that Portland has more porn shops and strip clubs than any other place in the USA per capita. I believe this. Lat I looked, we had more than 50 strip clubs alone. People constantly complain about them, but the only thing that ever happens is if the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) finds them serving a minor. Funny though, they do stings in regular daytime bars, but not the strip clubs.

[ElNono]

That's just it. They actually did break laws. They were given free passes because of fear.

They did us fear. They did terrorize costomers. It's not terrorism like international terorists use, but terror is their tool. Death threats and arsons have occured, but of course, no witnesses. This is undisputed and documentd fact in the area. There is even an FBI investigation against the city because of this. Looks like it's getting sweapt under the rug.

This was not the point of the tread. I am not up to the current info on the subject. This is an old story now.

For the record, I actually dislike the intolerant protesters.

[FromWayDowntown]

You are right. I'll tell you what. You get the others here to stop using improper terminology to describe someone and I will to.

Funny how you will do it to, let others do it, and only point it out when a conservative says something against demonrats...

Yeah, I'd be very interested in seeing any example of my misusing terminology in the manner that you have with your repeated use of the word "fascist" in this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a link concerning Schumacher's. Check out the .mov links to the left.

Schumacher's Press Release (http://www.schumacherfurs.com/press.html)

added:

Funny how Peterson's is at 10th and Morrison, and Schumacher's was at 9th and Morrison.

[Wild Cobra]

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract.
If anything, they do what they can to keep the beggers out of their doorway. If anyone is complaining about the business, it's them.


read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.
It does not say that at all.

Where did you learn to read?

[RandomGuy]

[the city of Portland]failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.


... and what rights/laws exactly did the city fail to uphold?

[RandomGuy]

For the record, I actually dislike the intolerant protesters.

...ask him about the tactics of abortion rights protesters... :stirpot:

[Extra Stout]

Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?
Well, primarily because the people who define what makes a "good place to live" do so based upon things white liberals like. There is some self-selection against "conservative" cities like Dallas and Houston (btw, the central cities lean liberal).

There are a lot of liberal cities that aren't considered "good places to live." These include places where liberals actually have to live around nonwhites who aren't wealthy Asians or doctors. Tolerance for the liberal works better as an abstract concept used to buttress one's sense of self-righteousness than as an actual way of life.

Liberals love to use Portland as an example of how liberal ideas like "smart growth" can lead to an affluent, comfortable, vibrant, yet sustainable city. This works by parading "smart growth" as it looks on PowerPoint slides, and ignoring that the actual implementation in Portland failed miserably.

Liberals also like to use Austin, since it has lots of things that appeal to left-wing hipsters, and because ten years ago it had a vibrant economy. In reality, the city today is an infrastructure mess.

So, congratulations for once again fulfilling the stereotype of the self-righteous liberal dilettante substituting conventional wisdom for facts. Enjoy your latte.

[RandomGuy]

Well, primarily because the people who define what makes a "good place to live" do so based upon things white liberals like.

To some extent sure. I will fully acknowledge that the majority of lists may indeed be written by white liberals, as you, ray, and others have appropriately pointed out.

But I don't think that nice park systems, low crime rates, and community centers are "things white liberals like" that others don't.

[RandomGuy]

Well, primarily because the people who define what makes a "good place to live" do so based upon things white liberals like. There is some self-selection against "conservative" cities like Dallas and Houston (btw, the central cities lean liberal).

There are a lot of liberal cities that aren't considered "good places to live." These include places where liberals actually have to live around nonwhites who aren't wealthy Asians or doctors. Tolerance for the liberal works better as an abstract concept used to buttress one's sense of self-righteousness than as an actual way of life.

Liberals love to use Portland as an example of how liberal ideas like "smart growth" can lead to an affluent, comfortable, vibrant, yet sustainable city. This works by parading "smart growth" as it looks on PowerPoint slides, and ignoring that the actual implementation in Portland failed miserably.

Liberals also like to use Austin, since it has lots of things that appeal to left-wing hipsters, and because ten years ago it had a vibrant economy. In reality, the city today is an infrastructure mess.

So, congratulations for once again fulfilling the stereotype of the self-righteous liberal dilettante substituting conventional wisdom for facts. Enjoy your latte.

Indeed. Both Portland and Austin have their drawbacks.

Please prove that Austin's infrastructure mess are due to "liberal" policies, and not plausibly caused by other factors.

[RandomGuy]

So, congratulations for once again fulfilling the stereotype of the self-righteous liberal dilettante substituting conventional wisdom for facts. Enjoy your latte.

Here is one case where I may indeed be guilty as charged, although lattes are not my thing. ;)

Aren't you just being as illogical by assuming what I think by my asking a pointed question though?

The intent was to poke a stick in the eye of conservative assumptions about what works and what doesn't. If "liberal" ideas are so unworkable as a lot of conservatives claim, then "liberal" cities should therefore be unattractive places to live. There is a fair case to be made that this is not the reality. There are some very liberal places that can be fairly agreed to be nice places to live and work.

In the end, I am about what works. In Austin, a lot of the "sustainable" development is pretty new, and we will get to see if it plays out the way its proponents claim.

As these things go, I would bet on mixed results, but if energy gets more expensive, I definitely see the mixed-use developments panning out better than sprawl. In this case, the "liberal" idea of sustainability and trying to take cars out of the equation will pan out.