Rose City vs. Sprawl City (?) I'm going to be in Houston probably at the end of the month for a few weeks. So this article in The American Prospect got my attention. It notes that Measure 7 passed in 2000 could cause a roll-back of Imbler's wide-ranging urban planning laws [1]. Seeing Houston up-close-and-personal might allow me to ascertain the virtues of central planning vs. the free market. I like Portland's "smallness." It is a city, but also a town (I'm a small town boy, though born in Dhaka, which today is a megalopolis, Portland is the largest city I've lived in since then, and I've spent 7 years in towns with fewer than 20,000 people). I am skeptical about our light rail, the Max, which bleeds money. And the The American Prospect smiling upon the fact that the Metro government doesn't plan to do much highway construction despite projected population increases is scary (I live in the city so it's not a big concern for me personally, but I have sympathy for those who live in the burbs). I'm a beneficiary of "controlled growth," but look at the property values in the city of Portland and you'll see the flip-side of high density living (rent isn't too expensive compared to NYC or San Francisco, but jobs can be hard to come by). As a libertarian-of sorts the planning irks me though. On the other hand, no one is forcing me to live in Portland, if I wanted to experience the bliss of unincorporated subdivisions galore I suppose I could move to Houston or some other Sprawl City. Diversity is the spice of life, and certainly this country. One reason I support the right of each individual state to have more control in setting the tone for its own way of life. Also, compare Portland to Houston. Doesn't seem like Houston is that bad-but I guess I'll see. [1] In my opinion the best thing about Imbler is our direct democracy via ballot measures. So easy to say "fuck you" to the legislature that way....