That is the most tin-foil hat theory I have ever heard. “Covert P4P posters” posting their propaganda on a community ran bike forum? Ahaha you’ve made my night that’s hilarious.
It’s all a load of crap and P4P is nonexistent on these forums, there’s simply no evidence of them which is why you are saying they are “covert” and in hiding. Stop trying to stir up drama over something that’s simply not true or applicable here.
Could you link me to a thread that you suspect is posted by a “covert” P4P member? Just one thread, one.
Well, the evidence of astroturfing would be a pattern of people raising or responding to an ostensible bike issue on a bike forum and then quickly springboarding it into charged politics — which you have already implied that you hate. Examples abound. You would have seen them even in the short time you’ve been around. One way to review just a few recent ones would be to search on the string “ideolog” (to pick up both “ideology” and “ideologue.”) Thus: https://forums.bikeportland.org/search?q=ideolog
But let’s say you’re right that someone astroturfing would explicitly name-drop who’s paying them. Just look upthread, right here. Someone has lavishly promoted P4P twice already.
Wow one person promoted P4P on these forums. Suddenly it’s an entire operation and they are being “paid per-post” and are setting up a sting on these forums? No, you guys have taken it too far, it’s one misinformed person who brought it up on their own will, theres no planning here, take off your tinfoil hats.
So, you have one person who talked about P4P? I can’t even find the post myself, and after searching for “p4p” all I found was one response to this thread. I thought you said there were “examples abound” and that I should have seen them in my short time here? There’s not one example anywhere and you still haven’t linked me to a post lol. I’m not sure what searching ideology has to do with this either.
I think you and Raysco are the ones trying to push the propaganda/“covert” motives on the forums by trying to tell us something that is entirely not true at all with literally 0 evidence, just gaslighting and taking tiny things way too far.
The link takes me to search results for “ideology”, and after reviewing the posts I didn’t see any mention of P4P. Thus I asked a 2nd time for a link to a post, and you have still failed to provide that, so that’s on you.
Alright, that’s more like it. He definitely seems suspicious, and his account did get suspended so his situation from about 3-4 months ago ended. There’s at least an ounce of proof which I’ll give you credit for, but at the same time it’s not as big a deal as this thread makes it out to be.
It didn’t seem like you really took the time to read what people were posting, and you tried to have the ENTIRE thread closed, because of what appears to be your own idea of what fits for you.
You misquoted me a few times in your jittery haste to type something up. It really isn’t that hard on this site to research info, it’s set up really well.
I’ve made small contributions to BikePortland over the years and recently to People for Portland. So what? I find BikePortland an indispensable resource for news, ideas and discussion around cycling and mobility in Portland. I find People for Portland as a group stepping up and adding urgency around addressing the deep and pressing problems that directly affect cycling in Portland. After my bike ride along 33rd to Marine Dr yesterday I’ll be making another contribution to People for Portland. Thanks for the reminder. I really don’t understand the suggestion that there can’t be an overlap in the ideas and goals driving both entities. Both are worthy of support and I encourage everyone to consider chipping in.
More tin foil conspiracy theories from Bryan. Maybe you are the one astroturfing for some well funded non-profit that is part of Portland’s homeless industrial complex. Wouldn’t want P4P to improve homelessness as that would stop the taxpayer gravy train?
When did I misquote you multiple times? Actually, when did I misquote you even once? I’m appalled that there are sheep liking your comments and falling for your fearmongering about an issue that is simply, not an issue on these forums at all. And here you are twisting the facts and my words, by saying I’m misquoting you multiple times when, if you read through my comments, I’ve only directly quoted you word-for-word. Sounds like you are the one who hasn’t taken the time to read what others are posting. It really isn’t that hard you know, it’s set up really well!
Similar to how you twist my word, you also twist that P4P is likely being paid per post on these forums when you have no basis or even a shred of proof of this.
I took plenty of time to read what people were posting, and simply asked for some evidence of these posters, and after my 3rd request, I finally got a small snippet of one person who said they supported P4P on BikePortland.
So I have flagged for this thread to be closed as it is off-topic, gaslighting, fearmongering about an issue that is nonexistent if not close to nonexistent. Take your tinfoil hats off already, there are no secret “covert” P4P agents posting on these forums lmao.
So to start with, in your last post your typed: “When did I misquote multiple times?” What I really typed was You misquoted me a few times.
“raysco asked if BikePortland forum posters are paid per post, and was calling out everyone here in the forums.” The title of the thread is: Some ? To the People for Portland posters. So unless that includes you, I wasn’t calling you or any others out.
trying to push the propaganda/“covert” never mentioned either of those words
Inre: to off-topic, gaslighting, fearmongering…that is pretty much why I started this thread; after reading tfcandiit comments in multiple threads.
Here’s another one: A gravel casualty
You have just misquoted me by quoting that I said “When did I misquote multiple times?” when I actually said, “When did I misquote you multiple times?”. Therefore you have just made me look illiterate and like an idiot and that is, therefore, defamation of character. /s
Joking, but you have a point and you are right I did not read over the thread properly in the beginning and this more or less initially felt like an attack from a brand new user/fake account to these forums based on the fact you have barely any evidence for your claim. This still applies and the thread is still just a rumor circulating drama on an unfound basis. Also for your latest point about why it was flagged, that was me who flagged it since its doing nothing but stirring the pot over a point that does not apply here, and I’m tired of reading useless crap.
I agree with that and the rest of your post, raysco. That the same crisis continues to play out all across the US (not to mention the rest of the world) supports that it’s not just a few ineffective civic leaders to blame.
I wonder, though, if there’s some milestone that makes 2010 special?
Studying and working in urban design in Portland in the mid-90s my colleagues and I noticed many symptoms of increasing home/houselessness: not yet the big encampments but tents in fringe areas, people living in cars on many streets, and house squatting in some neighborhoods (NE in particular). I never saw it get better, only worse as time went by.
Public awareness of it as a problem came about in the 1870s. In the mid-20th century even rooming house boarders and SRO tenants were often counted as homeless, so comparisons and studies of it are difficult. (The last SROs were razed in PDX in the ‘90s.)
My recollections were supported by the Modern Era section of the essay, so I’m just going to quote its intro:
“The early 1980s marked the emergence of what now may be considered the modern era of homelessness. Major forces that changed the complexion of homelessness in the modern era include gentrification of the inner city, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, high unemployment rate, the emergence of HIV/AIDS, an inadequate supply of affordable housing options, and deep budget cuts to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and social service agencies in response to what was then the country’s worst recession since the Great Depression…”
It’s a very entrenched problem. It’s not coincidence that wealth distribution during that timeframe increasingly flowed to the richest, away from lower brackets, and that US taxes and social spending and policy supported that trend. I don’t expect it will be easy, if it’s even attempted, to reconstruct the housing and all related civic society lost in the past 40 years - especially not on the backs of those who’ve been losing wealth.