2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have been involved for years now in the struggle against LNG on the Columbia River and I have not met your "opponents of every conceivable project." That characterization is a cheap and easy ploy to dismiss people without fact or any effort at making a reasoned argument.

As for myself, I have actively opposed two things. One is LNG.  The other was shipbreaking at Tongue Point in Astoria.  Both arrived with the same set of promises.  Both were speculator-driven schemes that would have been destructive to the community and to the Columbia River.  

Your comment also ignores all of the positive development that has occurred in the Astoria area in the past 15 years.  Economic development doesn't have to trample Oregon values or quality of life.

posted 3 years ago
view in context