Quote:
Originally Posted by eric cantona
first of all, governments are not allowed to take abandoned properties as they see fit. SOMEONE presumably owns the property, and there is a process for condemnation, which is not always easy.
one potential problem I see with your approach is that when you are essentially asking for a requirement that land to be developed we will likely end up with a majority of structures that meet a very low bar related to quality and size. this forum is rife with folks complaining about 5 over 2 cookie cutter developments. I'd prefer to wait for something better than the bare minimum.
|
Frankly, considering how common tent cities are in the Portland area, I know I, personally, would welcome any kind of developments that have running water, electricity, windows, walls, and doors. I'm sure I'm not alone in that, and I'd think those of us lucky enough to already have those things wouldn't be so picky about the conditions under which we encourage their provision to others.
Quote:
you'll get no arguments on the downside of status quo as it relates to housing, though. I just bristle at the notion of local governments providing a heavy hand on the whens and hows of development of privately owned properties. it's also a big enough problem that the federal government really needs to step up.
don't get me started on mental health and homeless issues...
|
While mental health is, inarguably, an unadressed aspect to the whole situation, it's beginning to feel like a bit of a cannard. It seems so conveniently irreparable to say that a big part of the problem is literally in people's heads, so why bother trying? In reality, we simply build far less housing than we used to, and people are being paid far less money than they used to be. This is on top of the systemically atomizing effects of our economic system, and a Puritanical culture that says, "thrive and suffer, or at least, suffer".
But once again, I'm getting more than a bit off-topic and ranty.
Quote:
|
Boards & commissions typically side with the staff recommendation presented to them in the staff report. They can approve, deny, or modify the recommendation. Most development codes have sections that define what criteria can be given waivers or variances. It would be a legal issue if a board were to say the code allows for 100’ height maximum but we want it to be 150’ so you can’t build. A good city attorney would step in and correct them.
|
By that do you mean to say that height variances aren't usually granted? If the point is that we can't write a building code for minimum height, I'd ask, why not? We have all kinds of specifications for setbacks, lot sizes, (until recently; yay Portland) parking requirements, even aesthetics. Would a code for minimum height in certain areas really be so outlandish?
Prev
Linear Mode
