Portland's Houseless Thread

[2oh1]

From a news story from KGW:

The city's emergency response to this homeless crisis will result in city workers losing their jobs [due to strained budgets], and every neighborhood in Portland now asked to find a spot to put a homeless camp.

Here's a link to the story, with video (http://www.kgw.com/videos/news/local/2015/11/20/fritz-homeless-problem-worse-than-we-thought/76141792/).

"Where's the best place for people to camp in your neighborhood, where we could provide services, where we could get people signed up to be on waiting lists? And we're going to ask every single neighborhood to tell us that."

-- Amanda Fritz

[downtownpdx]

Saw a story on the local news about Salt Lake City's success with this issue. They've seen a 72 percent drop in homelessness over the last several years by simply building housing for the homeless. Once they're situated with a real, stable place to live, it's much easier and cheaper to provide the mental health/drug addiction services that most suffer from. Of course it's cheaper there to build housing there, I think by about 25 percent. Not a big fan of just putting camps all over the city -- they'd have to be seriously monitored or they just become crime/filth magnets.

http://www.thenation.com/article/city-came-simple-solution-homelessness-housing/

[urbanlife]

So when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

[zilfondel]

so when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

[2oh1]

So when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

The first one that needs to go is Amanda Fritz. The problem is... how do we find someone to run against her? ...someone who can win?

vote vote vote!

We need candidates to vote FOR though. We need someone to run against Amanda Fritz, and maybe against a few others too.

[urbanlife]

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

It is one of the things I hate and love about not living in Portland anymore. I don't get to vote for who is running the city, but I do get to vote for who is running Milwaukie. :tup:

[65MAX]

The first one that needs to go is Amanda Fritz. The problem is... how do we find someone to run against her? ...someone who can win?

We need candidates to vote FOR though. We need someone to run against Amanda Fritz, and maybe against a few others too.

Mary Nolan was a great candidate who ran against Fritz last time, and would have been much more competent than Fritz. But unfortunately more people voted for Fritz. If Nolan ran against her again, she'd win this time.

[cityscapes]

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

Maybe because the idea is terrible, half-assed, and doesn't address any long term issues regarding our homeless population, not to mention that it's bound to piss off every neighborhood in the city. If you think infill without parking is going to bring out the NIMBYs of Portland just wait until they try and decide to pick an empty lot in every neighborhood to house a bunch of homeless people. I'm sure that will go smoothly. We deserve a city council that can come up with more visionary ideas than what I've been hearing lately and this has been the worst one yet. I don't want to speak for another member but that's what I think the correlation is between homeless camps and the need to vote in a better city council. If I were getting paid to do their job, and had access to the Mayor's office, City Attorney, and CFO and PDC and contacts with all the social services in the city I'm pretty sure I could come up with a more viable solution.

The problems leading to the large homeless population in Portland are beyond the ability of the city council to tackle. It's going to take a federal and state level change in the way of doing things, and cultural shifts that would move society towards being more receptive to building a stronger social safety net, drug treatment, mental health care, and department of veterans affairs. After all those areas I mentioned are strengthened I think we would see a reduction in homeless populations nationwide.

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't the City of Portland or Metro buy a warehouse and a ton of bunkbeds to house all of the homeless people in the city, give them some shelter and slowly start addressing their individual issues in order to get them back on their feet.

[eric cantona]

Maybe because the idea is terrible, half-assed, and doesn't address any long term issues regarding our homeless population, not to mention that it's bound to piss off every neighborhood in the city. If you think infill without parking is going to bring out the NIMBYs of Portland just wait until they try and decide to pick an empty lot in every neighborhood to house a bunch of homeless people. I'm sure that will go smoothly. We deserve a city council that can come up with more visionary ideas than what I've been hearing lately and this has been the worst one yet. I don't want to speak for another member but that's what I think the correlation is between homeless camps and the need to vote in a better city council. If I were getting paid to do their job, and had access to the Mayor's office, City Attorney, and CFO and PDC and contacts with all the social services in the city I'm pretty sure I could come up with a more viable solution.

The problems leading to the large homeless population in Portland are beyond the ability of the city council to tackle. It's going to take a federal and state level change in the way of doing things, and cultural shifts that would move society towards being more receptive to building a stronger social safety net, drug treatment, mental health care, and department of veterans affairs. After all those areas I mentioned are strengthened I think we would see a reduction in homeless populations nationwide.

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't the City of Portland or Metro buy a warehouse and a ton of bunkbeds to house all of the homeless people in the city, give them some shelter and slowly start addressing their individual issues in order to get them back on their feet.

look at Salt Lake City for a long term solution to much of the issue. One that actually cost less long term than most of the proposals to "end homelessness":

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/282352-158344-more-emergency-beds-needed-for-homeless

[innovativethinking]

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

[Encolpius]

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

This thread is in the Business, Economy and Politics subforum. If you feel that business, the economy and politics have nothing to do with skyscrapers, just ignore things posted in this subforum.

I'm glad that multiple forumers have suggested emulating SLC in addressing chronic homelessness with permanent housing. What I'm confused about is why -- though I know Fritz-bashing is a popular pastime on this forum -- why exactly are we blaming Amanda Fritz for the city's failure to come up with such a solution? The mayor is Charlie Hales. The housing commissioner is Dan Saltzman. Fritz has Parks, and in that capacity the scandal is evidently that she's shown the homeless some compassion by leaving the water on for them (the mayor's office provided porta-potties, for which any nearby homeowners with front lawns ought to be grateful, I imagine).

What should she have done? If we criminalize homelessness, does that solve the problem?

[downtownpdx]

I'm glad that multiple forumers have suggested emulating SLC in addressing chronic homelessness with permanent housing.

I really hope the city looks seriously at this. I know capitalism has its flaws, but not one person in the world's wealthiest nation should be without a roof over their head. It's inexcusable and whatever we're doing right now clearly isn't working. SLC certainly seems to be on the right track. Not only is it working well but it's also the right thing to do. .. go figure!

[downtownpdx]

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

I would argue that the homeless problem holds back some investment in the central city, so fewer skyscrapers get built as a result.

[zilfondel]

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

You are browsing the "politics" subforum.

[2oh1]

What I'm confused about is why -- though I know Fritz-bashing is a popular pastime on this forum -- why exactly are we blaming Amanda Fritz for the city's failure to come up with such a solution?

I'm bothered by the fact that she steps in front of the cameras to talk about Portland's financial crisis, yet when she rammed through huge increases in fees on developers, she did so to raise money for......... parks. She's on KGW talking about how the homeless crisis is so bad that the city is going to ask every single neighborhood to find a place for homeless camps, and that the cost of providing services for the homeless has escalated so far out of control that the city is going to fire city workers (wtf?) but when she pushed through a huge increase on developers to raise money, she used the money for....?

Parks.

You're going to have to cut back!
And YOU'RE going to have to cut back!
And you, and you and you!
Oh, but I just rammed through a huge increase for my budget for parks.

If the city is hurting and cutbacks need to be made for emergency measures, why is she exempt? Her fees are expected to generate an additional 500 million dollars over 20 years. I must have missed the great Portland parks crisis - the one that outweighs Portland's other needs.

I love our city parks, but we're not talking about funding. We're talking about additional funding.

So, we'll have homeless camps opening up across the city, but our parks will be prettier than ever. And I didn't even touch on the fact that we've got a housing crisis, yet she fights against proposed height increases because she's not in favor of increased density.

Amanda Fritz has misplaced priorities.

[maccoinnich]

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't ...

While I'm not disagreeing with you, I do think it's worth pointing out that the Post Office redevelopment will result in somewhere around 700 units of affordable housing that would not be built otherwise.

[Encolpius]

[W]hen she rammed through huge increases in fees on developers, she did so to raise money for......... parks.

Again, her portfolio is Parks. Portland's parks and community centers will require more resources to maintain as neighborhoods densify; by adjusting the SDCs that developers pay, Fritz was able to avert a situation where these become a drain on the General Fund. You may disagree with its fairness, but Fritz's proposal exempts affordable rentals and homes for households making up to 100% of the medium income and reduces development charges on the smaller units that developers should be building more of. So you can't in any way argue that Fritz is pushing parks at the expense of housing.

She's looking out for Parks because that's what she's commissioner of. The commissioner in charge of housing is Salzman. Fritz thinks neighborhoods should be involved in deciding where homeless services will be provided because she thinks neighborhoods should be involved in everything.

As for bemoaning her fight against height increases, can you even name any highrise projects within the last couple decades that contained primarily affordable housing? What have 500-ft towers of luxury condos got to do with housing Portland's homeless?

[2oh1]

Again, her portfolio is Parks

Last time I checked, she also gets to vote on things that aren't parks. And, quite frankly, unless the woman has no conscience at all... unless she is so greedy and cold hearted that the only part of Portland she cares about are parks, not even people, just parks... if she found a way to raise half a billion dollars of additional revenue over 20 years (she did) she should have passed the idea on to someone else in city council rather than use the money on parks.

There is absolutely no way to convince me that parks is where that additional money should be going right now. There is absolutely no way to convince me that if the city can find an additional half billion dollars of additional revenue over a 20 year period, the money should be going to parks.

Yes, increasing population means increasing needs for parks, but increasing population already means increasing revenue for parks through fees.

Frankly, I don't think now is the time to be substantially jacking up fees on developers, but if that's what the city is going to do, the additional revenue should NOT be going to PARKS. Not when we have a housing crisis. Not when we have a homeless crisis so bad that we're asking neighborhoods to find space for homeless camps! PARKS? There is absolutely positively no reason she couldn't have passed the idea for raising additional revenue on to someone else on city council to make sure the money is spent in ways that meet Portland's most urgent needs. But... no. Parks. She wants half a BILLION dollars of additional revenue -- additional revenue -- for parks.

As for bemoaning her fight against height increases, can you even name any highrise projects within the last couple decades that contained primarily affordable housing? What have 500-ft towers of luxury condos got to do with housing Portland's homeless?

As I said, that's a separate issue. But if Portland is not going to grow outward, it needs to grow upward. I'm glad we're not expanding our urban growth boundary. I support increasing height, regardless of whether it's for housing or offices.

[mhays]

Market rate rents matter too. Affordability isn't just about designated-affordable housing. A big factor in market rates (and project cost at every level) is land cost. Portland's relative lack of capacity is the culprit behind its expensive land. Upzone in key areas at least, and land prices will relax, with the amount being relative to the extent of the upzones. And please do it by adding infill capacity, not sprawl capacity.

(In a few very central spots land prices would probably rise because they'd be worthy of larger towers, but generally it's about a plentiful resource vs. a scarce one.)

[Encolpius]

PARKS? There is absolutely positively no reason she couldn't have passed the idea for raising additional revenue on to someone else on city council to make sure the money is spent in ways that meet Portland's most urgent needs. But... no. Parks.

Here's one reason: state law (ORS 223.297 to 223.314) stipulates SDCs may only be used to fund capital improvements to water, wastewater, storm drain, transportation and park systems.

Market rate rents matter too. Affordability isn't just about designated-affordable housing. A big factor in market rates (and project cost at every level) is land cost. Portland's relative lack of capacity is the culprit behind its expensive land. Upzone in key areas at least, and land prices will relax, with the amount being relative to the extent of the upzones. And please do it by adding infill capacity, not sprawl capacity.

(In a few very central spots land prices would probably rise because they'd be worthy of larger towers, but generally it's about a plentiful resource vs. a scarce one.)

That's funny, and here I thought all these years more housing wasn't built because land prices in Portland were still too low to generate development.

Regardless, I don't know where you're getting that Portland currently lacks development capacity: after all, Metro just voted unanimously earlier this month not to expand the Urban Growth Boundary on the grounds that lack of capacity is not the culprit behind expensive rents. Plenty of parking lots we can still build on. And if we're going to upzone, we could debate whether upzoning in neighborhoods of detached single-family homes (where upzoning would permit things like duplexes and midrise apartments) or upzoning in the central core (where the extra height can almost only mean more high-end offices and luxury condos) is more likely to lead to additional affordable housing.

But to keep this discussion focused on homelessness and the extent of Commissioner Fritz's alleged personal culpability, with respect to the charge of callousness in opposing an increase in downtown building heights in the midst of a housing shortage, can we at least agree that developers are not currently clamoring for more height so they can build affordable penthouses to accommodate Portland's homeless?

[2oh1]

Here's one reason: state law (ORS 223.297 to 223.314) stipulates SDCs may only be used to fund capital improvements to water, wastewater, storm drain, transportation and park systems.

Does transportation include our bridges, several of which aren't prepared to withstand a major quake? ...especially the Burnside and Marquam, which is deteriorating particularly quickly. But, whew, thank god we've got a windfall for parks. Come to think of it... does transportation include streets? How many times has the city tried and failed to find money for repairing and maintaining our streets? Ah, but Amanda pulls half a billion in additional funding out of thin air for PARKS.

To be crystal clear here, I'm not complaining about funding parks. I'm complaining about misplaced priorities for additional funding created by Fritz through higher fees that will drive up the cost of development.


That's funny, and here I thought all these years more housing wasn't built because land prices in Portland were still too low to generate development.

So jacking up development costs with these additional fees is a GOOD THING? Surely not.


Regardless, I don't know where you're getting that Portland currently lacks development capacity

I didn't say that it does. I'm just saying that height, which Fritz is against, makes sense.


can we at least agree that developers are not currently clamoring for more height so they can build affordable penthouses to accommodate Portland's homeless?

I agree... but that doesn't mean PARKS are where money needs to go right now. Come on. That's ridiculous. We've got a housing crisis and a homeless crisis (related, but different topics), but we're finding half a billion dollars for PARKS? Thanks Amanda.

Please, dear god, let someone run against her.

[Encolpius]

Does transportation include our bridges, several of which aren't prepared to withstand a major quake? ...especially the Burnside and Marquam, which is deteriorating particularly quickly. But, whew, thank god we've got a windfall for parks. Come to think of it... does transportation include streets? How many times has the city tried and failed to find money for repairing and maintaining our streets?

As per state law, as I mentioned, SDCs can only fund capital improvements, not repair and maintenance of streets. They could only fund bridge improvements if those improvements added capacity. Making bridges earthquake-proof is certainly imperative and worth doing, but SDCs cannot be used for that.

...

2oh1, in the second half of my last post I was responding to mhays' comments. Sorry if that created confusion.

[soleri]

Regardless, I don't know where you're getting that Portland currently lacks development capacity: after all, Metro just voted unanimously earlier this month not to expand the Urban Growth Boundary on the grounds that lack of capacity is not the culprit behind expensive rents. Plenty of parking lots we can still build on. And if we're going to upzone, we could debate whether upzoning in neighborhoods of detached single-family homes (where upzoning would permit things like duplexes and midrise apartments) or upzoning in the central core (where the extra height can almost only mean more high-end offices and luxury condos) is more likely to lead to additional affordable housing.

But to keep this discussion focused on homelessness and the extent of Commissioner Fritz's alleged personal culpability, with respect to the charge of callousness in opposing an increase in downtown building heights in the midst of a housing shortage, can we at least agree that developers are not currently clamoring for more height so they can build affordable penthouses to accommodate Portland's homeless?

While I always appreciate reading MHays perceptive and knowledgeable comments, I will agree with you that upzoning in and around downtown is not the cure to any real-world problem. On the other hand, upzoning in established residential areas comes with its own set of political risks that I doubt many politicians are willing to subject themselves to. Portland actually does affordable housing fairly well. What it can't do - and probably shouldn't do - is try to solve homelessness with zoning policy. There are simply too many factors and variables at play here, ranging from mental health issues to a political economy that increasingly focuses on making the rich richer at the expense of this thing called "society". The solution, if there is one, will be national, not local. Until then, Portland is bearing a disproportionate burden in caring for the marginal and distressed. And the more it does, the greater that burden becomes. It's the paradox of social conscience - we care enough to make ourselves attractive to people in genuine need. Props to cityscape's excellent post above, too. Thanksgiving is an appropriate day to think about problems like these.

[mhays]

So we agree that sprawl is not the answer. But you're misreading other factors.

For land availability, look at land prices. Buildable land in Portland isn't terribly plentiful and prices reflect that. Land values don't wait for most parking lots to go away before rising. Equilibrium is a complicated topic, but to keep prices from rising there needs to be a lot more capacity than you'd think. One reason is that a lot of properties will do nothing regardless of price, so what's truly "available" is only a subset of what looks underused.

Cheap land is helpful for development. What's no helpful is when the periphery is kept artificially cheap by opening up new areas for sprawl. Public policy should help development supply where growth is desired, not where it isn't desired.

[mhays]

Zoning isn't the only solution, of course.

You need a sizeable subsidy program. In Seattle we have a publicly-approved levy of $16,000,000 per year I believe. There's also tax abatements. Reducing or eliminating parking requirements is a big one assuming there's transit nearby. But policies that add cost to development are counterproductive because they make everyone else's rents higher (even existing units, because fees reduce construction which affects supply/demand). Locally I advocate for expanding our levy, and everyone sharing the burden.

I'm a big fan of micro units as an option for low-income singles especially. At the bottom end they're like dorm rooms, maybe 150 sf (but for one, not for two). Or they're more like 250 sf. This is the only way to build new housing in core neighborhoods that's affordable to the average barista or retiree equivalent.

Accessory units are pretty obvious. These can help both the house owner and the new resident, as well as the nearby business street. The complaints seem to be entirely about classism (maybe a little racism?) and parking.

[2oh1]

Zoning isn't the only solution, of course.

You need a sizeable subsidy program.

Y'know what else would help? Not adding nearly half a billion dollars in additional developer fees over the next 20 years.

I'm not ready to give that up because there was a question raised about why people badmouth Amanda Fritz. I'm telling you why. We've got a housing crisis. Costs are increasing. Rents are spiraling. Yet Amanda Fritz wants half a billion - that's billion, with a capital B - in additional developer fees that will further drive up the cost of building housing for at least two decades.

And what does she want the money for?

Parks.

Not for funding parks. No. She wants it for additional funding for parks.

How do we find someone to run against Amanda Fritz? There has to be a better option.

[RED_PDXer]

Y'know what else would help? Not adding nearly half a billion dollars in additional developer fees over the next 20 years.

I'm not ready to give that up because there was a question raised about why people badmouth Amanda Fritz. I'm telling you why. We've got a housing crisis. Costs are increasing. Rents are spiraling. Yet Amanda Fritz wants half a billion - that's billion, with a capital B - in additional developer fees that will further drive up the cost of building housing for at least two decades.

And what does she want the money for?

Parks.

Not for funding parks. No. She wants it for additional funding for parks.

How do we find someone to run against Amanda Fritz? There has to be a better option.

I'm far from being a fan of Amanda. I voted for her in the last election because she frequently responded to my emails on issues and actually changed a proposal (in favor of more density and less parking) in response to my comments. however, since she's been elected, I've disagreed with her any many things. Regardless, I do think we need investments in parks, as well as transportation, ending homelessness, etc.

I applaud her for going after funding for her department to provide more and better services (ie. parks) to Portland, particularly for east Portland which is severely underserved. The $500 million (I haven't researched this number, just accepting it for purposes of this argument) over 20 years isn't being raised at the expense of more affordable housing. Large residential units (the unaffordable type) are primarily paying the increase in SDCs, as are commercial developments, which appear to be unaffected by the modest increase.

While I will not likely vote for Amanda again, I don't think she's to blame for all of our problems. Also, I find the particular claim that raising parks SDCs is at the expense of other services, or are leading to less development are completely unfounded. If anything, they may contribute ever so slightly to more smaller, affordable units being developed - though I doubt they'd even have that much effect.

[Encolpius]

I applaud her for going after funding for her department to provide more and better services (ie. parks) to Portland, particularly for east Portland which is severely underserved. The [$$] isn't being raised at the expense of more affordable housing. Large residential units (the unaffordable type) are primarily paying the increase in SDCs, as are commercial developments, which appear to be unaffected by the modest increase

Well said.

So we agree that sprawl is not the answer. But you're misreading other factors.

For land availability, look at land prices. Buildable land in Portland isn't terribly plentiful and prices reflect that.

Land prices ought to be indicative of current availability to an extent, but they also reflect factors like the influx of wealth since the beginning of the tech boom (see the dramatic rise in Portland's GDP over the past decade) and the expectation that this will continue. They go up and down. They're largely speculative. On a global scale, the inflation of land values reflects the function of financial markets and real estate speculation as outlets for surplus capital and credit.

To the extent that land values are speculative -- not faithful instruments for measuring reality -- it can be asked whether high-rise luxury development doesn't have a greater inflationary effect on land values (by pushing the top end of the market, and developers' profit expectations, ever higher) than deflationary (by adding marginally to the total number of housing units on the market).

Height, and the kinds of amenities that are only possible in very large buildings, are a critical way in which developers inflate the price of luxury housing and offices at the upper end of the spectrum. What we want to avoid is a situation like in Manhattan, where as the architect of 432 Park Avenue has explained, "There are only two markets, ultraluxury and subsidized housing." The majority will get squeezed out. Seattle's affordable housing strategy as you describe it, while certainly more coherent than Portland's under Mayor Hales, seems headed in this direction.

Therefore I modestly propose that Portland should do NOTHING to encourage high-end luxury development: the city should not raise height limits along our waterfront and in historically valuable parts of Old Town, it should not allow unlimited heights in downtown or the North Pearl or on the redeveloped Post Office site. We should upzone to medium densities in many parts of the city. I certainly recognize that we need to build up if we're not going to sprawl out, and I don't have a solution to the unprecedented phenomenon of developers refusing to build unsubsidized apartments for middle-income earners -- other than replacing the developers (or rather the banks who finance them) by constructing public housing for people of all incomes.

[maccoinnich]

The North Pearl has unlimited heights since 2008. Since then there's been a pretty broad mix of buildings built or under construction: the Cosmopolitan is the one—one!—high rise luxury condo; the Ramona and the Abigail are mid rise subsidized housing; the NV and Block 17 are high rise, high end market rate housing; the Freedom center is mid rise, low end market rate housing; the Parker and the Modera Pearl are mid rise, high end market rate housing; Planet Granite is a low rise climbing gym. I am genuinely not seeing the harm produced by having a zoning code that allows for a range of typologies.

[Encolpius]

Well, the financial markets crashed in 2008 and it was a while, obviously, before developers began to take advantage of those height allowances. The Cosmopolitan and NV are the most recent. Just wait.

[maccoinnich]

How long should I wait?

The 1988 Central City plan upzoned the area north of Burnside along Broadway, to take advantage of the extension of the bus mall to Union Station. The allowable heights along NW Broadway and NW 6th are 350' or 460'. This code went into effect in 1991. There haven't been any buildings that come anywhere near maxing out the height limits built since.

[Encolpius]

maccoinnich, you're right: the River District is not yet Manhattan (the comparison was hyperbolic, but it was for the sake of making a point). You know better than anyone else what has and hasn't been built so far. The most recent additions include the NV (a 26 story urban oasis like no other), the Cosmo ($525/sq ft condos, $1200/sq ft penthouses), and Block 17, which advertises itself as a 'luxury gated community' with a rooftop clubhouse and deck and 24-hour on-site security. Each of these buildings also demonstrates that developers are increasingly conscious of the importance of views, amenities and ego. In order to have more of all three, future buildings in this district will eventually have to go taller.

mhays proposed that greater building heights 'in key areas at least' will cause the market to improve for those of modest income, whereas I believe the opposite. Recent developments in the Pearl, where the luxury/subsidized dichotomy of new development is extraordinarily evident, I think reinforce my point. Despite the hundreds of millions in public money that helped to build it, the Pearl is not a neighborhood for middle-class Portlanders to feel welcome. The Oregonian reports, 'Even developers share foreboding that the central city is becoming a playground for the affluent while the young and the old and the people in the service economy no longer can afford to live there.' And, despite adding over 11,000 new apartments since 2013, rents in Portland are still headed in the same direction, which ought by now to cause a rethink in strategy.

[maccoinnich]

I am far more concerned about the effects under zoning than I am of the effects over zoning. Whether it's South Waterfront, the Lloyd District, the West End of Downtown or Gateway, there are plenty of places where the zoning allows for much more intense development than has or is occurring. You cite the figure of 11,000 new apartments as if that's a lot, and yet as BikePortland pointed out (http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/21/portlands-housing-supply-still-isnt-keeping-population-falling-behind-slowly-143414) the cumulative growth in Portland's housing stock has consistently lagged its cumulative population growth. There is the short and simple reason for why rents and house prices in Portland are skyrocketing.

And if you really want to attack a neighborhood for being exclusively for the wealthy, why choose the Pearl? Here's a redfin map of homes for sale under $350,000 (a depressingly high number to choose as the cutoff, but still...) There are homes for sale in the Pearl, but none in Boise, Buckman, Kerns, Sunnyside, Richmond, Laurelhurst, Grant Park, Alameda Ridge or Irvington. But sure, it's the Pearl we need to attack as a gated community, and not Laurelhurst which literally has gates.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b112/maccoinnich/skyscraperpage/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-28%20at%209.04.13%20AM_zpsn2ioo0sm.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/maccoinnich/media/skyscraperpage/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-28%20at%209.04.13%20AM_zpsn2ioo0sm.jpg.html)

And yes, developers will market their buildings as being luxury housing. Given the tight rental market, they can get away with it. But lets have a look at the amenity package (http://www.block17apartments.com/amenities/) offered at Block 17. WiFi in common areas. Open Courtyard. On-site management. "Fully functional" bike storage. (My god, when will the excesses of global capitalism stop?) Parking. Package receiving. Close proximity to other things. 24 hour fitness center. If that list doesn't sound like something out a Tom Wolfe novel, it might be because every one of those amenities is also included at the Sitka, the low income apartment complex across the street. About the only thing that is even a bit indulgent is the rooftop clubhouse and deck, which takes up roughly the same amount of space (http://www.nextportland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/block_17_plan_03.jpg) as three units. Given that the project includes 281 units, the cost per resident of building that space is relatively low.

Meanwhile the fact that the zoning in the Pearl is intense enough to get 281 units on a single block (at the R5 densities of Portland's single family neighborhoods you would get 8 houses on the same site) means that the tax revenues can be used to fund useful things like the traffic signals that were just turned on this week outside Powell's. Or, to bring this back on topic, homeless shelters. Bud Clark Commons was partially financed with $29.5 million in River District TIF money, which would have not existed in the absence of all the condos and apartments built in the 2000s.

The City is currently getting ready to adopt its new Comprehensive Plan. Given that Portland won't be annexing any new land in the next 20 years, with the possible exception of West Hayden Island, all the growth has to occur within its existing boundaries. The growth scenario laid out is that 40% will occur in the Central City, 40% in the "Centers and Corridors" and 20% in other neighborhoods. Given that the Central City is a pretty small geographic area, for it to absorb 40% of the growth means that there needs to be a lot of development capacity there. To downzone and turn back on the strategy of housing growth downtown (which really dates back to the 1972 Downtown Plan) would be a terrible idea, that would have massive implications for the affordability of Portland.

[Encolpius]

So 11,000 new units are not enough to keep up with population growth? What about the growth of the population of fancy people? Are we keeping up with that? Because that's the question that matters rather more to developers. Who else can afford to live in what they're building? According to HUD, a family of three making the median income in Portland can afford to pay $1,662 for a two-bedroom apartment, all utilities included. Rent alone for two-bedrooms at Block 17 runs between double and triple that.

Where are middle-class Portlanders supposed to live? Can you explain the logic of how this is supposed to work? Does everyone play musical chairs, so I end up living in the apartment lately vacated by the fancy person in Block 17, some less-fortunate person takes up residence in my home, etc., etc.? Let's assume for the sake of argument that for every fancy person who needs housing (here defined as someone who can afford to pay Block 17's $3.74/sq ft*), five people needing housing are not fancy. Then for trickle-down housing to work, every fancy person would have to vacate their five other apartments upon taking up residence in Block 17.

*(Btw, does the Sitka have a Rooftop Demonstration Kitchen for Classes/Events inside its Rooftop Clubhouse? Wall Scrabble in the High Rise Commons Game Room? Am I just too easily impressed?)

Does that happen? No: if anything, the number of apartments fancy people vacate when they buy a condo or rent a luxury apartment is < 1, since these are often just pieds-à-terre or investments. So once the luxury market is sated (i.e. all the fancy people are satisfied, at which point developers' profitability, we can assume, is optimized), everyone who's not fancy still faces a dire housing shortage.

Of course, if the ratio of people who could live in Block 17 to people who couldn't were more like 1:1, then developers building only luxury apartments and taxing that to subsidize some amount of affordable housing might even work to solve the housing shortage. Maybe this model wouldn't be quite so problematic, then, if this wasn't a time when income inequality is the highest it's been since the 1920s.

You make its excuses resourcefully, maccoinnich, but it's the wrong strategy. The rules of the game are rigged: in order for the banks and developers, abetted by City Hall, to win, most of us will have to lose. So yes, the city's strategy for housing growth downtown (that is, making enormous public investments to facilitate the financing and construction of luxury highrises) should be revised or abandoned.

[Encolpius]

http://i.imgur.com/N4jp65z.png

[fig. 1. The city's growth strategy in the North Pearl: not a 'range of typologies' but, ultimately, a forest of highrises. The few midrises are presumably affordable housing: one is in fact The Abigail. This view doesn't include the Post Office site.]

http://i.imgur.com/Qif8VxF.png

[fig. 2. Ditto, South Waterfront. Growth strategy courtesy of Vancouver, BC, which is a paragon of affordability.]

[mhays]

Y'know what else would help? Not adding nearly half a billion dollars in additional developer fees over the next 20 years.



I agree completely. Fees like this are one of the big reasons why market-rate housing is so expensive. We have them too up north, which I've argued against.

(PS, my biases are in both directions -- as a die-hard urbanist and contractor with developer clients I want infill development to be easy, and as a homeowner who also has property-owner clients I should want development to be harder so values rise. Also as a contractor, I probably shouldn't be so hard on sprawl. My urbanist and environmentalist side takes precedence on all of this.)

Edit: There's so much to reply to in this thread. I'll keep to a couple points for now.

1. What counts as luxury housing? Is a $2,000/mo one-bedroom luxury? It's not cheap, but I bet the average resident is close to the median Portland metro household income, or not that much higher. That would include lots of 28-year-old young professionals and 60-year-old empty nesters (singles and couples) making $70,000. Without kids and possibly without cars, the 30% metric isn't relevant in many cases. (It's not that you "should" pay that much, it's that people do pay that much, because living in a great neighborhood and/or close to work is often worth it.)

2. Housing goes downmarket over the years. Today's moderate-price housing was often far higher in the food chain in 1970 or 1920...or even 1990.

3. Every new unit is part of the same stew. Portland is growing, and the people with money will get their housing...the trick is to have enough housing that this doesn't push everyone else aside, like it's doing in San Francisco, Manhattan, etc.

[2oh1]

This thread has strayed so far from the topic that the topic of opening homeless camps in every neighborhood in the city isn't even part of the conversation anymore, but then again, that topic didn't seem to interest anyone, being that it died almost immediately. Instead, this thread has turned into The Affordable Housing Thread, Part 2. And we're falling into the same trap The Affordable Housing Thread fell into, which is that Affordable Housing isn't housing that's affordable. Instead, it's a euphemism for housing for the poor, as if to suggest everyone in Portland is either deep into six figures or homeless. Middle class? Working class? ...in Portland? It's a taboo topic I guess.

In 2010, I had a neighbor renting a 1 bedroom in my building for $995 a month. Today, that same apartment rents for a hair over $1800. It's unreal.

One by one, everybody I know who lived in the city but didn't buy a house at least a decade ago has moved further out, displacing people who were already calling those further out neighborhoods home, so those people move further out too.

2. Housing goes downmarket over the years. Today's moderate-price housing was often far higher in the food chain in 1970 or 1920...or even 1990.

Yes, in theory, new housing is built, making older housing less desirable and thus more affordable. That theory stopped working in Portland around 2005. All you have to do is track the prices of renting in NYC in 1965 vs 1990 vs 2015. Or, hell, track the prices in Portland between 1995, 2005 and 2015. 1995 to 2005 was relatively stable. 2005 through 2015 (especially 2010 to 2015) has been meteoric. Today's prices aren't even the new normal because they're still climbing at rates that, a decade ago, were unfathomable. Even after adjusting for inflation, apartments in most buildings today are renting for more than they did when the buildings were brand new. It's insane.

[65MAX]

I am far more concerned about the effects under zoning than I am of the effects over zoning. Whether it's South Waterfront, the Lloyd District, the West End of Downtown or Gateway, there are plenty of places where the zoning allows for much more intense development than has or is occurring. You cite the figure of 11,000 new apartments as if that's a lot, and yet as BikePortland pointed out (http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/21/portlands-housing-supply-still-isnt-keeping-population-falling-behind-slowly-143414) the cumulative growth in Portland's housing stock has consistently lagged its cumulative population growth. There is the short and simple reason for why rents and house prices in Portland are skyrocketing.

And if you really want to attack a neighborhood for being exclusively for the wealthy, why choose the Pearl? Here's a redfin map of homes for sale under $350,000 (a depressingly high number to choose as the cutoff, but still...) There are homes for sale in the Pearl, but none in Boise, Buckman, Kerns, Sunnyside, Richmond, Laurelhurst, Grant Park, Alameda Ridge or Irvington. But sure, it's the Pearl we need to attack as a gated community, and not Laurelhurst which literally has gates.

And yes, developers will market their buildings as being luxury housing. Given the tight rental market, they can get away with it. But lets have a look at the amenity package (http://www.block17apartments.com/amenities/) offered at Block 17. WiFi in common areas. Open Courtyard. On-site management. "Fully functional" bike storage. (My god, when will the excesses of global capitalism stop?) Parking. Package receiving. Close proximity to other things. 24 hour fitness center. If that list doesn't sound like something out a Tom Wolfe novel, it might be because every one of those amenities is also included at the Sitka, the low income apartment complex across the street. About the only thing that is even a bit indulgent is the rooftop clubhouse and deck, which takes up roughly the same amount of space (http://www.nextportland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/block_17_plan_03.jpg) as three units. Given that the project includes 281 units, the cost per resident of building that space is relatively low.

Meanwhile the fact that the zoning in the Pearl is intense enough to get 281 units on a single block (at the R5 densities of Portland's single family neighborhoods you would get 8 houses on the same site) means that the tax revenues can be used to fund useful things like the traffic signals that were just turned on this week outside Powell's. Or, to bring this back on topic, homeless shelters. Bud Clark Commons was partially financed with $29.5 million in River District TIF money, which would have not existed in the absence of all the condos and apartments built in the 2000s.

The City is currently getting ready to adopt its new Comprehensive Plan. Given that Portland won't be annexing any new land in the next 20 years, with the possible exception of West Hayden Island, all the growth has to occur within its existing boundaries. The growth scenario laid out is that 40% will occur in the Central City, 40% in the "Centers and Corridors" and 20% in other neighborhoods. Given that the Central City is a pretty small geographic area, for it to absorb 40% of the growth means that there needs to be a lot of development capacity there. To downzone and turn back on the strategy of housing growth downtown (which really dates back to the 1972 Downtown Plan) would be a terrible idea, that would have massive implications for the affordability of Portland.

Very well said, Mac. I don't understand how some people can claim that upzoning exacerbates the skyrocketing cost of housing. The market here has been well below our larger west coast siblings for decades, so the rapid rise in housing costs has more to do with Portland's new found popularity. And prices here are starting to approach an equilibrium with those more expensive cities. If anything, upzoning helps relieve the pressure by allowing more units to be built in a smaller area. Why is it problematic to have a few very expensive and very tall enclaves concentrated on a few blocks within the Central City? That just means there are more blocks available elsewhere for more moderately priced housing. High rise high end condos are not the cause of the skyrocketing prices, they are a symptom of it. These wouldn't be built at all if our market wasn't this hot.

[ceb426]

Came across a post on Devmap (http://devmap.io/developments/100m-campus-for-the-homeless) about this. Anyone know where it'd be built?

[RainDog]

Well the link you posted is a map with the location highlighted....

[ceb426]

Well the link you posted is a map with the location highlighted....

Oops!! I meant "when"

[pdxtraveler]

This sounds very interesting. Curious to know more, of course the article was behind the paywall. Too bad I am cheap.

[petcarpdx]

Here's an OLive article on the same topic - no paywall! (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/portland_developers_pitch_100.html)

Williams hopes to nail down construction estimates, operating costs and a financing plan by March 2017.

Not enough info from that to nail down a construction timeline, but it sounds like we'll have a better idea in a year.

[Derek]

I doubt it'll come to fruition, that land is way too valuable to be a homeless camp. It'll only encourage more homeless people to come to Portland, which is the exact opposite of what we need. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but it's the truth.

[eric cantona]

I doubt it'll come to fruition, that land is way too valuable to be a homeless camp. It'll only encourage more homeless people to come to Portland, which is the exact opposite of what we need. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but it's the truth.

so you have some data to share? because without any, I'd argue that you are being ENTIRELY insensitive. I'd even go as far to say you're being insensitive even if your assumption is correct.

[pdxtraveler]

I am so happy Williams & Dame took it upon themselves to really try to find a solution. I hope they are taken more seriously than this article suggests. So far all we have heard are pronouncements and hand ringing, about time someone offered actual actionable ideas.

[Derek]

so you have some data to share? because without any, I'd argue that you are being ENTIRELY insensitive. I'd even go as far to say you're being insensitive even if your assumption is correct.


Taken a walk around downtown lately? Seen all the tents under freeway overpasses? Our parks littered with feces and needles? Please. :rolleyes:

[eric cantona]

Taken a walk around downtown lately? Seen all the tents under freeway overpasses? Our parks littered with feces and needles? Please. :rolleyes:

every day. know what I see? fellow humans reduced to living in fucking squalor. you say that a camp is "the exact opposite of what we need". do you have an alternate proposal? should the homeless just fuck off and get out of your way?

I'm not the one to say if more coordinated camping options will be an answer to this crisis. certainly in the short term they'll relieve some of the pressures the city is facing. I have my doubts that it would be any more than a band aid on a tumor, at this point. but doing nothing is most definitely not an option, in my book.

this is not a Portland issue, either. it's all across the country, even globally. it's the direct result of a couple of decades of wealth accumulation of a very small percentage of the population. nothing we do here will stem the tide of homeless in the near term. but we can have compassion and do the right thing and treat these people (yes, even the junkies) like fellow humans. reducing them to shit and needles does nothing to advance the discussion.

[Derek]

All I'm saying is Portland doesn't need a homeless "destination". Obviously I know there's a problem, we all do, but this proposal just gives homeless from around the country even more reason to come here. They're flocking here in droves already, this will only make the problem worse, in my opinion.

"Hey dude! Did you hear about that riverfront homeless camp that just opened in Portland?! Let's go! Oh yeah, drugs are super easy to come by, and the mayor let's you sleep in the parks if we don't get into the camp!"


I don't have a solution unfortunately, I just don't feel like this is it.

[maccoinnich]

News from last week:

After A Fraught Hearing, Terminal 1 Might Be Portland's Largest Homeless Shelter Within Months

http://media2.fdncms.com/portmerc/imager/u/original/18468028/1470870429-screen_shot_2016-08-10_at_4.06.03_pm.png

For all the remarkable things about the debate over Northwest Portland's Terminal 1, the most striking may be how it's scrambled the long-drawn battle lines we're used to when it comes to Portland's homeless.

It's partly the lack of certitude or concrete specifics inherent in the proposal to put a 400-person temporary shelter on the 14.5-acre plot of city-owned land. And it's the immensity of a 1,000-plus person "campus" that could follow in coming years.

For some people, it's the provenance of the plan to begin with: big-time Portland developer Homer Williams, who just three years ago was cutting deals to get homeless people far away from his property.

Whatever the varied reasons, the debate this morning—as a sharply divided Portland City Council approved a resolution that sets the table for a temporary shelter and more at 2400 NW Front—was different than past ones.



...continues at the Portland Mercury (http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2016/08/10/18467704/after-a-fraught-hearing-terminal-1-might-be-portlands-largest-homeless-shelter-within-months).

[WestCoast]

Portland is whoefully short on industrial land like this. If we want to grow our economy and bring in good paying jobs for average working families... it would be better to encourage businesses to come here and create jobs. I guess we live in pretty weird times though - as Eric said, the public prefers band aids to change.

--
And without trying to be too political here, totally agree with Derek on this one in general.

The more we give free stuff away, the more people won't have any motivation to work for anything.

After decades of enabling people to just hang out like this, a further burden falls on the rest of us who work every day to subsidize the behavior of the lazy.
There will be a point where people in society stop wanting to fund free rides for folks who just want to camp, smoke dope and hang out downtown with their dogs.

While there is certainly income inequality in the US (and I'm not sure why anyone considered that fundamentally a bad thing). Giving stuff away doesn't fix the problems.

[bvpcvm]

Portland is whoefully short on industrial land like this. If we want to grow our economy and bring in good paying jobs for average working families... it would be better to encourage businesses to come here and create jobs. I guess we live in pretty weird times though - as Eric said, the public prefers band aids to change.

--
And without trying to be too political here, totally agree with Derek on this one in general.

The more we give free stuff away, the more people won't have any motivation to work for anything.

After decades of enabling people to just hang out like this, a further burden falls on the rest of us who work every day to subsidize the behavior of the lazy.
There will be a point where people in society stop wanting to fund free rides for folks who just want to camp, smoke dope and hang out downtown with their dogs.

While there is certainly income inequality in the US (and I'm not sure why anyone considered that fundamentally a bad thing). Giving stuff away doesn't fix the problems.

What an interesting post.

[Mr. Walch]

All I'm saying is Portland doesn't need a homeless "destination". Obviously I know there's a problem, we all do, but this proposal just gives homeless from around the country even more reason to come here. They're flocking here in droves already, this will only make the problem worse, in my opinion.

"Hey dude! Did you hear about that riverfront homeless camp that just opened in Portland?! Let's go! Oh yeah, drugs are super easy to come by, and the mayor let's you sleep in the parks if we don't get into the camp!"


I don't have a solution unfortunately, I just don't feel like this is it.

I live in Seattle and the epidemic of homelessness is very similar and people love to blame outsiders coming to the city. Service providers record data about where people are from and the truth (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/king-countys-homeless-are-overwhelmingly-from-here-service-providers-say/) is that almost all homeless people are local. Homeless people don't have resources to move and juts like everyone else tent to stay where they have community. Maybe the explosion of homelessness has some thing to do with the spike in rents?

[eric cantona]

Portland is whoefully short on industrial land like this. If we want to grow our economy and bring in good paying jobs for average working families... it would be better to encourage businesses to come here and create jobs. I guess we live in pretty weird times though - as Eric said, the public prefers band aids to change.

--
And without trying to be too political here, totally agree with Derek on this one in general.

The more we give free stuff away, the more people won't have any motivation to work for anything.

After decades of enabling people to just hang out like this, a further burden falls on the rest of us who work every day to subsidize the behavior of the lazy.
There will be a point where people in society stop wanting to fund free rides for folks who just want to camp, smoke dope and hang out downtown with their dogs.

While there is certainly income inequality in the US (and I'm not sure why anyone considered that fundamentally a bad thing). Giving stuff away doesn't fix the problems.

lovely.

/s

[tworivers]

Haha. If anyone is "lazy", it's the folks at the top milking the system by feeding at the public trough while selling us on the "free market" system and trickle-down economics. I'd like to talk to a few of them about bootstraps and a willingness to actually work for a change instead of being dependent on Mommy and Daddy and the nanny-capitalism state. I could go on about empathy and "family values", too...

Having worked with homeless people for a decade I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of them are essentially refugees in their own city and region. The idea that a significant number of homeless people are encouraged to move to a city based on an increased level of resources is specious and has been shown time and time again to be a myth. It reminds me of the "crime train" line of thinking regarding mass transit.

[58rhodes]

This problem is not an easy fix-that's for sure--but Im not sure I like moving it to port facilities:shrug:

[maccoinnich]

The last time a ship called at Terminal 1 was in 1989....

[eric cantona]

PICA's last Dada Ball was held there in 2001.

[bvpcvm]

WestCoast, I'd be curious to know your thought process behind this. What steps get you from "poor" to "lazy"?

[cailes]

Portland is the opposite of some places.

For instance, I lived in Indiana in a former life. There, taxes have been cut so low to encourage "job growth" that it has hamstrung social services and the jobs that DO some, usually locate in population centers with the resulting small town fall out being drugs, theft, etc.

Im not sure which is worse. A booming economy with a demographic that is pigeon holed as being a drag or a depressed economy where nobody has great jobs and the competition for what exists is fierce and those who don't succeed are still scratching it out.

[maccoinnich]

Is Terminal 1 safe for homeless shelter? Depends, says DEQ

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2016/08/09/-45e63f68c027cf27.jpg

Oregon environmental regulators have offered words of warning to Portland's plan to convert a warehouse into a temporary homeless shelter.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality now says the city's property is safe -- so long as a layer of asphalt serves as a protective cap between people and contaminated dirt.

But if development plans disturb that cap? Different story.

"However, direct exposure to soil presents a higher risk than we previously determined," Nina DeConcini, DEQ's northwest administrator, wrote to members of the City Council on Thursday morning. "DEQ recommends additional review of the data should any redevelopment of the property occur to ensure that changes to existing site conditions remain protective."



...continues at the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/08/is_terminal_1_safe_for_homeles.html#incart_river_index).

[WestCoast]

WestCoast, I'd be curious to know your thought process behind this. What steps get you from "poor" to "lazy"?

so, again, in simple terms:

1) this isn't a good use of port land. I think most people agree that our remaining industrial land should support industrial causes. Not sure anyone with any sense disagrees on that. Jobs with good wages are better than subsidized housing that costs $10,000/month in just rent....


2) To the social issue: when you give stuff away, it removes the incentive to work for something.

I realize this board is full of utopian dreamers (and I respect that on an architectural and development level).


The simple fact is that a significant portion of the homeless population does it by choice.

It's easy, you put out a box and people give you cash, your drugs are legal, or easily accessible, you get food stamps, or get free food at shelters and a free bed if it's too hot or cold.

It's not glamorous, but, in general, it's totally free.

The 'real' homeless and needy are marginalized by these lazy people. Those that decide living outside of social norms gives them some right to make a mess wherever they want... pitch a tent wherever they wish.... It's disgusting.

Does anyone think that if we forced these people to clean up, move out and limited their handouts, that they would keep hanging out here? No, and if every city took some hard line on it, we'd see these people figure it out and decide to take responsibility for themselves.

Those addicted to drugs, or with mental problems, need the full compassion of a city and society. But, that doesn't mean opening huge warehouses for people to stay for a night.

That kicks the can down the road. Just like letting them sleep wherever, do drugs wherever, beg on the streets wherever.....

Society is failing those less fortunate, no doubt... but not in the way most of you think.

Giving them more and more and more and more free stuff, more and more leniency, doesn't address the problem. Just makes one side happy and the other mad. And no progress is made to help our fellow members of society get it together and make a life for themselves.

[MarkDaMan]

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/pgmain/img/portland_impact/photo/21649557-standard.jpg

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/pgmain/img/portland_impact/photo/21649561-standard.jpg

Designs for homeless 'sleeping pods' on display at City Hall
oregonlive.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/12/designs_for_homeless_sleeping.html#0

In an effort to ease Portland's homeless crisis, the City of Portland sponsored 14 teams of local designers to create tiny "sleeping pods" to house homeless people this winter.

...(continues/slide show)

All designed viewable in above link.

[llamaorama]

To be crystal clear here, I'm not complaining about funding parks. I'm complaining about misplaced priorities for additional funding created by Fritz through higher fees that will drive up the cost of development.


Yeah, agreed.

I think the problem is the proverbial cart is being placed in front of the horse. They want the money first, then they'll decide what to spend it on later. Even as a liberal progressive I see this approach as being fiscally irresponsible.

500 million dollars for parks is also ridiculous, and I have no idea how that much money could even be spent. A big centerpiece park might cost 30 million, a big facility like an indoor sports and aquatics center might cost 20 million. Both things are crown jewel items that most cities only have a few of, and build after years of planning.

Ideally advocates for parks, homeless services, etc, should have their own carefully constructed long term plans and wishlists and then the city has something to go off of when deciding how much revenue they need to raise to spend on which of those projects. That process of deciding what is worthy and when to pursue something helps everyone in coming up with the best ideas.

If they go the other direction, where the city is offering up a bunch of money that must be spent immediately, I fear a lot of it will get wasted because it will go to things that were rushed or whose only merits were being shovel-ready at the time(incidentally, this is how Robert Moses took over NYC). Careful plans could be disrupted when all of a sudden there is a massive change. And then everyone is left with disjointed public services and giant white elephant civic assets that are hard for future generations to maintain.

[mhays]

I wish park building was cheap. In my city, one Portland-sized block of park on the highrise fringe would cost $50,000,000 just for the land and go up from there. It's amazing what $500,000,000 doesn't buy.

[maccoinnich]

Mayor's office, Right 2 Dream Too agree on new location

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2017/03/31/-9ca6f53f2aa0216a.jpg

Mayor Ted Wheeler brokered a last-minute deal with Right 2 Dream Too residents Thursday, finding a new location for the homeless community.

The residents of Right 2 Dream Too will relocate to a triangle-shaped piece of Portland Bureau of Transportation land. The paved parking lot is a right-of-way between the Moda Center and the Willamette River.

Right 2 Dream Too is allowed to stay there for two years while city officials keep working with organizers to find a more permanent location.

"Solutions around locating Right 2 Dream Too have eluded the city for years, and it was unclear if this time would be any different," Wheeler said in a statement. "I want to thank the residents and representatives of R2DToo, Commissioners Fritz and Saltzman, and our respective staffs for sticking with it. Their dedication to collaboration and problem solving made all the difference."



...continues at the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/mayors_office_right_2_dream_to.html).

[NOPO]

We need housing first. It works. Finland has tried it to wide success. They’ve basically eliminated homelessness. Housing should be offered with services, but refusing anything beyond maintenance of housing should not be a barrier for having a home. Mental illness and addiction should not be a barrier to being housed. Housing first has been shown to be cheaper than the triage we currently implement.

Further, I want to address the idea that we need more police in Portland. There’s direct evidence of white supremacy, fascism, racism, and homophobia in the force. These are people who directly interact with our most vulnerable neighbors. We need more of the Portland Street Response, social workers, and mental health workers. Not more cops; they should be put under heavy investigation to clean up shop.

[downtownpdx]

Portland area projected to get $320 million from homeless tax revenue -- $85 million more than the previous forecast


(continues - subscription required)https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2023/08/portland-area-projected-to-get-320-million-from-homeless-tax-revenue-85-million-more-than-the-previous-forecast.html#:~:text=Expires%209%2F5-,Portland%20area%20projected%20to%20get%20%24320%20million%20from%20homeless%20tax,more%20than%20the%20previous%20forecast&text=Published%3A%20Aug.%2029%2C%202023%2C%206%3A33%20p.m.


The tri-county area housed more than 3,310 people in the 2023 fiscal year thanks to the homeless services tax, almost double the number of people housed in the program’s first year.

By Nicole Hayden | The Oregonian/OregonLive

The Metro Supportive Housing Services tax, which bolsters the Portland area’s homeless services, could see an $85 million in unexpected funds next year, according to the latest projections.

The 10-year tax, funded by high-income earners and big businesses in Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties, was approved by voters in May 2020. Counties began receiving the initial money from the tax in July 2021.