Thanks for sharing your views. I have not been to either Portland, and enjoy hearing your perspective. I am curious to know how you think small business owners will respond to a $14.75 minimum wage, but perhaps we should save that discussion for another time.

It might be most fair to regard the demographic changes you have described as the appearance of an invasive species of scented candlemongers. It is probably an inevitable process, once begun, and in a complex environment like a city there will be many effects on many groups, both positive and negative.

I am trying to express a somewhat narrow and specific point. Your idea appears to be "Look at the beautiful parks and libraries Portland has (but there are costs)" and Hubski's response seems to be "Portland gets it right! (Never mind what you said about the working class families who helped build all this largess up are rapidly getting pushed out of town.)"

I am saying that it is a shame that less affluent, long-time city residents would be forced to contribute resources to construct leisure-class amenities which attract new residents, pushing prices up and the long-time residents out. (I tend to assume that affluent people will get by one way or another, and am more concerned about the effects of policy on the less affluent.)

Is there any doubt that they are forced to contribute? Property taxes are the city's biggest source of revenue; a real estate agent says property taxes are higher in Portland because there is no sales tax. This seems disadvantageous for the poor, who purchase fewer consumable goods than the affluent. If they paid sales tax on a pair of shoes, they could wear the shoes for years without paying again. But tenants have to pay (via rent, which covers the owner's costs) again every year to live in the same building. There are limits to how fast the tax can grow, but it can still grow, whether the owner improves the property or not.

You seem to take some consolation in that many of these measures are the result of ballot initiatives. I agree it might be worse if they were imposed by a dictator, but I suppose it depends on the dictator.

The City of Portland Auditor reports that voter turnout was 48.7% in the May 2016 Primary Election. Is it okay to disregard the preferences of residents who do not find it worthwhile to vote? This election included Measure 26-173 for a new ten-cent gasoline tax dedicated to street repair. It passed with 52.14% of the 48.7%. Is it okay to overrule the expressed preferences of one group because a slightly larger group has different preferences?

You might say this the only way we have to get and maintain roads, regardless of how poorly a "pretty dysfunctional, to some extent corrupt" organization does the job. I might not be able to convince you that there are alternatives, also imperfect, which might have some advantages. I recognize that there are some things people value, like having a credible deterrent to nuclear attack, that General Electric and Walmart are not likely to provide. But libraries? I love libraries, but it is absurd to suggest that the market has failed to provide access to books.

If the goal is to provide access to books in the community, there are already local shops engaged in that pursuit. If the concern is that the poor lack access or can't afford books, the Multnomah County Library absorbs pretty nearly $100 per year per resident on average. How about giving everyone in town the cash, and let them buy books or diapers or whatever they want, instead of building cathedrals to literacy?

What if Portland were to "get it's shit together as far as affordable housing goes" before building another lovely park? I don't imagine the results would be much better than the state of the roads, but at least the priority would be better. The subsidized park benefits you mention appear well-intentioned and beneficial, but do not meet demand. "There is no funding for scholarships, rather registration is simply discounted for qualifying individuals." In other words, day camp and swim class costs are partly subsidized by public funds for everyone, and subsidized completely for those who complete paperwork demonstrating need in time to get the available slots.

I imagine an eviction hearing. "Your honor, my family has lived in the neighborhood for generations, but we just can't afford to pay these increased rents!" "I understand ma'am, but our new parks and libraries have made Portland a beautiful city, and people who can afford the rent are coming from all over. You had your chance to speak up during the elections." "But I always send in my ballot!" "You don't understand, ma'am, you were supposed to vote against the parks and libraries, they were not for you, don't you see? Don't forget to get a free sandwich on your way out."