Portland's fascist Liberal Government

[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 subs uting 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 subs uting 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.