The states mandates that all energy used in the state of Oregon must be from clean sources by 2040. At the same time there is pressure to have all electric vehicles and homes. The only way to meet these goals and the dramatic increase in electrical use is to build expensive new infrastructure. There is no way to avoid it just as there is no way to avoid dramatic increases in the cost of electricity.
What evidence do you have for our "disappearing tree canopy?" The real problem with our urban trees is that many of them were planted in the wrong place and/or they are old, sick and dangerous and need to be removed. The narcissistic bully who runs the division of urban forestry will not grant the permits to remove dangerous trees because she does not care about the people of Portland. My neighbor's house was damaged during a storm when one of these dangerous trees came down on his roof.
Note the narcissistic use of woke buzzwords: "a problem that reportedly mainly impacts low canopy, low-income areas and communities of color." The psychologist Rob Henderson calls this "luxury belief systems." You use these words to show off your affluence, but you are actually hurting low income people by causing dramatic increases to the cost of electricity. It also hurts low-income home owners who can't get the permits to remove dangerous trees to save their homes. It is really about showing people how wonderful you are, not about helping low income people. And by "low canopy" and "communities of color" areas I assume you mean the outer east-side, which if far from Forest Park. How many people from those communities are actually concerned about about a small amount of logging in Forest Park to build needed electrical infrastructure?
this is interesting. i’ve long assumed that there are zero true old-growth trees remaining anywhere in/near portland… simply due to 150 years of timber demand and proximity to the city. i’m not questioning the point of the letter… and i concur that logging in forest park, for whatever reason, should be avoided at essentially all costs. but… just a matter of of historical record and accuracy… -are- there any true genuine, actual, old-growth stands in forest park? ie. forest that has -never- been logged? or… are these trees that have grown back since the first years of logging in the 1850’s?
Thank you Darcie and NW Examiner for continuing to speak out on this critical threat to our beloved Forest Park! Please keep the pressure on in the public eye as the appeal moves forward!!
Here’s the other side of the story. We need reliable power and PGE is providing remediation for the impact. I’m guessing Darcie doesn’t live without electricity…..
The states mandates that all energy used in the state of Oregon must be from clean sources by 2040. At the same time there is pressure to have all electric vehicles and homes. The only way to meet these goals and the dramatic increase in electrical use is to build expensive new infrastructure. There is no way to avoid it just as there is no way to avoid dramatic increases in the cost of electricity.
What evidence do you have for our "disappearing tree canopy?" The real problem with our urban trees is that many of them were planted in the wrong place and/or they are old, sick and dangerous and need to be removed. The narcissistic bully who runs the division of urban forestry will not grant the permits to remove dangerous trees because she does not care about the people of Portland. My neighbor's house was damaged during a storm when one of these dangerous trees came down on his roof.
Note the narcissistic use of woke buzzwords: "a problem that reportedly mainly impacts low canopy, low-income areas and communities of color." The psychologist Rob Henderson calls this "luxury belief systems." You use these words to show off your affluence, but you are actually hurting low income people by causing dramatic increases to the cost of electricity. It also hurts low-income home owners who can't get the permits to remove dangerous trees to save their homes. It is really about showing people how wonderful you are, not about helping low income people. And by "low canopy" and "communities of color" areas I assume you mean the outer east-side, which if far from Forest Park. How many people from those communities are actually concerned about about a small amount of logging in Forest Park to build needed electrical infrastructure?
this is interesting. i’ve long assumed that there are zero true old-growth trees remaining anywhere in/near portland… simply due to 150 years of timber demand and proximity to the city. i’m not questioning the point of the letter… and i concur that logging in forest park, for whatever reason, should be avoided at essentially all costs. but… just a matter of of historical record and accuracy… -are- there any true genuine, actual, old-growth stands in forest park? ie. forest that has -never- been logged? or… are these trees that have grown back since the first years of logging in the 1850’s?
It’s not old growth according to PG&E informational statement. I suspect they are correct.
well tho i, too, suspect PGE is correct—based on nothing more than common sense—i’d like to hear that from a disinterested third party)
Thank you Darcie and NW Examiner for continuing to speak out on this critical threat to our beloved Forest Park! Please keep the pressure on in the public eye as the appeal moves forward!!
Here’s the other side of the story. We need reliable power and PGE is providing remediation for the impact. I’m guessing Darcie doesn’t live without electricity…..
https://portlandgeneralprojects.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PGE_Harborton_GetTheFacts_Doc_V6.pdf