South Waterfront News

[WestCoast]

^^^^^^
can you stop posting in this thread if you're not going to add anything?

You're killing a thread that has some decent back and forth exchange of opinion with your nonsense.


--
maccoinnich: good find. I'll look that over.


eeldip: Portland is also pushing very hard to permit and build more ADUs, which is pretty interesting. It's not directly pointed at low-income housing (as far as I can tell), but at building up densities in neighborhoods in general.

I hadn't heard of the rental program for S8 housing, that's interesting.


My question, if poorly worded, was understanding the dynamic of a neighborhood.

I'm of the personal opinion, that any neighborhood is made of up the owners and renters who chose to live there.
They make the neighborhood whatever it is (good, bad, family oriented, college student focused, whatever).

I disagree with the concept that the city and state should just drop in S8 or low income housing into any neighborhood. Everyone seems to think it's wonderful and beneficial to society at large, but I'm curious what it does to the neighborhood environment that owners and renters had previously created.

Perhaps South Waterfront was a bad example, as it seems it's part of the city charter to put low-income housing in brand new developments like SW.

But I still wonder what the existing home owners and renters think when this housing is dropped in on them without them having much say.

[urbanbydesign]

I follow this page because I like to keep up on the development news of the city and I pretty much never post but I can't let this conversation go on without saying something.

Firstly, positing discriminatory and inflammatory remarks as just a good old intellectual exercise is ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no intellectual rigor in asking "tough" questions like "why won't we just do something about poverty". I'd love world peace tomorrow, but recognize it's unrealistic. The same goes for poverty, since the dawn of history we've had rich people and poor people. It's just how it is.

However, some countries and societies have chosen to mitigate the affects of poverty through various economic and social instruments, such as subsidized housing. With the goal of creating a more equitable and egalitarian society for the "have nots" among us. Shocking and abhorrent as it may seem to some.

The idea behind plopping down subsidized housing alongside "market rate" housing is exactly what another person posted earlier in this thread. After decades of cramming the poor in housing projects with other poor people governments found that they became breeding grounds for crime and ever more poverty. There was almost zero upward mobility in these communities. The newer mixed income approach is grounded in the idea that it provides more opportunity, better examples, and greater access to the benefits of society. Like all social policies, the results are mixed so far and still being studied. That being said....

Let's also not forget that "hand outs" exist for every single unit that's been built in South Waterfront. Just because you've paid "full price" for a unit doesn't mean that we haven't all collectively paid for that unit through tax breaks and infrastructure improvements. Your 400k condo should actually cost more like $1m if you let the market exist on its own and bore the costs of your new riverfront footpath and tram yourselves. Those buildings wouldn't exist without the taxpayer. So you're welcome, and enjoy the amenities. I have no problem paying for them because we have a social contract with one another, rich and poor. It's a city. Not an experiment in economic apartheid.

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

I follow this page because I like to keep up on the development news of the city and I pretty much never post but I can't let this conversation go on without saying something.

Firstly, positing discriminatory and inflammatory remarks as just a good old intellectual exercise is ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no intellectual rigor in asking "tough" questions like "why won't we just do something about poverty". I'd love world peace tomorrow, but recognize it's unrealistic. The same goes for poverty, since the dawn of history we've had rich people and poor people. It's just how it is.

However, some countries and societies have chosen to mitigate the affects of poverty through various economic and social instruments, such as subsidized housing. With the goal of creating a more equitable and egalitarian society for the "have nots" among us. Shocking and abhorrent as it may seem to some.

The idea behind plopping down subsidized housing alongside "market rate" housing is exactly what another person posted earlier in this thread. After decades of cramming the poor in housing projects with other poor people governments found that they became breeding grounds for crime and ever more poverty. There was almost zero upward mobility in these communities. The newer mixed income approach is grounded in the idea that it provides more opportunity, better examples, and greater access to the benefits of society. Like all social policies, the results are mixed so far and still being studied. That being said....

Let's also not forget that "hand outs" exist for every single unit that's been built in South Waterfront. Just because you've paid "full price" for a unit doesn't mean that we haven't all collectively paid for that unit through tax breaks and infrastructure improvements. Your 400k condo should actually cost more like $1m if you let the market exist on its own and bore the costs of your new riverfront footpath and tram yourselves. Those buildings wouldn't exist without the taxpayer. So you're welcome, and enjoy the amenities. I have no problem paying for them because we have a social contract with one another, rich and poor. It's a city. Not an experiment in economic apartheid.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

^^^^^^
can you stop posting in this thread if you're not going to add anything?

You're killing a thread that has some decent back and forth exchange of opinion with your nonsense.

There is no way to have a decent back and forth exchange about whether or not non-rich people have value, because discrimination is indecent. It's like discussing whether or not non-male people have value or non-white people have value, or whether non-Christian people have value. Discrimination based on income is dead wrong, period. I'm sorry that you feel you have to, and I quote, "tolerate" people you view as having "low value," but those people work in our shops, in our restaurants, in our schools and libraries. They work for our police and fire department. These non-rich people aren't just working in our neighborhoods. In many ways, our neighborhoods couldn't exist without them. These people ARE our neighborhoods. It offends me that anyone in a forum such as this would justify or advocate for discriminating against working class people.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

I follow this page because I like to keep up on the development news of the city and I pretty much never post but I can't let this conversation go on without saying something.

Firstly, positing discriminatory and inflammatory remarks as just a good old intellectual exercise is ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no intellectual rigor in asking "tough" questions like "why won't we just do something about poverty". I'd love world peace tomorrow, but recognize it's unrealistic. The same goes for poverty, since the dawn of history we've had rich people and poor people. It's just how it is.

However, some countries and societies have chosen to mitigate the affects of poverty through various economic and social instruments, such as subsidized housing. With the goal of creating a more equitable and egalitarian society for the "have nots" among us. Shocking and abhorrent as it may seem to some.

The idea behind plopping down subsidized housing alongside "market rate" housing is exactly what another person posted earlier in this thread. After decades of cramming the poor in housing projects with other poor people governments found that they became breeding grounds for crime and ever more poverty. There was almost zero upward mobility in these communities. The newer mixed income approach is grounded in the idea that it provides more opportunity, better examples, and greater access to the benefits of society. Like all social policies, the results are mixed so far and still being studied. That being said....

Let's also not forget that "hand outs" exist for every single unit that's been built in South Waterfront. Just because you've paid "full price" for a unit doesn't mean that we haven't all collectively paid for that unit through tax breaks and infrastructure improvements. Your 400k condo should actually cost more like $1m if you let the market exist on its own and bore the costs of your new riverfront footpath and tram yourselves. Those buildings wouldn't exist without the taxpayer. So you're welcome, and enjoy the amenities. I have no problem paying for them because we have a social contract with one another, rich and poor. It's a city. Not an experiment in economic apartheid.

This makes sense in the social construct. For better or for worse, we all chose to live in the US, in Oregon, and in Portland.
There are social norms that we all like or don't like, but we agree to (generally) abide by them as part of our greater society.
No argument there.

--
I've been (and still am) asking about neighborhoods.
The comment that a $400k house should cost $1M is strange to me, as without people willing to buy a home, (or buy and rent out a place), there would be no homes constructed at all....

While the real cost of something might be higher than what you think someone paid.... the reality is that until someone is interested in buying, or agrees to buy a home, or buy an apartment and rent it out, there is no reason to make any improvements to a piece of land at all.

It's sort of chicken and egg, which is the genius of my question.

Everyone is so quick to say: of course subsidizing housing makes sense, let's put it in the posh neighborhoods and make it blend in.
How could *anyone* be opposed to that??

And what I'm saying is a) I'm not sure this is how poverty is fixed by just continuously expanding housing capacity.
b) if the neighborhood didn't exist in the first place, would you still build S8 housing there.

I'm curious what the homeowners in the neighborhood (that they own or rent in), think about this.
Is it what UrbanByDesign said? Just part of their social contract to be ok with it?
Or are they mad about it but just not saying anything.

I'm genuinely intrigued at the concept.



--
2of1 - listen, I get it. You disagree with. That's terrific.

However, the personal tripe is just needless.

EVERYONE else has posted intelligent (if snippy) comments, to at least further the dialogue.
It seems most people disagree with my thesis, but they haven't just said 'Yur an idi0t... lol' They've taken some time to add to the discourse (even if they think I'm very wrong).

I brought up a touchy issue about neighborhoods.
Deal with it instead of slagging mud at me like this is a mindless political debate. Think upwards, not downwards.


And also, since it's personal. I bet I've seen more poverty this year alone than you've seen in your lifetime. So get over yourself. I spend many hours a week trying to get disadvantaged kids access to the water that previously only 'rich' people had access to. What have you done today to make the world a better place for our city?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

It seems most people disagree with my thesis, but they haven't just said 'Yur an idi0t... lol'

Neither have I. You don't get to define people as having low value and then tell someone else to bring the conversation upward.

As for seeing brutal poverty firsthand, I've lived in the third world. Not just travelled, but lived.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

But I still wonder what the existing home owners and renters think when this housing is dropped in on them without them having much say.

Well, whatever the neighbors in South Waterfront think, they didn't care enough about it one way or another to raise the issue back in 2011. Here is an extract from the decision to approve [PDF] the Design Review for Gray's Landing:

Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on July 14, 2011. No written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.

I think you are seeing controversy where none exists.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I think you are seeing controversy where none exists.

Hmm, that response makes me even more curious. I live downtown, and take a lot of interest in the urban environment. And I would never attend a meeting or raise my opinion, as I know it is meaningless.
(I also don't vote anymore, under the exact same philosophy)

--
It's unpopular to talk about this (clearly), but what people say in public is different than what they think in private. So, I've raised the issue.
Lots of group think evident here, which I guess is expected from a development minded forum, but still I'm a bit surprised.

--
I guess the issue is a bit over the top for this forum. I don't usually do academic or philosophical talks, so maybe it's my own fault for trying to bring it up an interesting issue here.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Neither have I. You don't get to define people as having low value and then tell someone else to bring the conversation upward.

I can't tell what your issue is, but you clearly don't read good </s>


My - very - first post on the subject was pretty clear:

"I would never debate the *personal* value of someone else. We're all equal no matter if homeless or the president. But, this is an *economic value* question, if people with low value should get the same deal as people with high value. It's just interesting to think about."


Maybe I should have said low [economic] value - so you would have understood more, but context is a part of writing, and no one else seemed to have been confused by this but you.

I'm asking about neighborhoods and economics of subsidized housing in nice neighborhoods. It has little to do with the value of the people in either home. Can you get over yourself now?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

However, the personal tripe is just needless.

I think you have to admit you've made some pretty inflammatory comments when you complain about the rich having to "tolerate" everyone else. I'm not sure what your goal is - you deny trolling - but we've been through these arguments time and again, and they never go anywhere. I did attack you personally, but as far as I'm concerned you left yourself open to it by putting that link in your signature. You clearly wanted people to know that about you. In any case, you seem to have such disdain for people of lower station that I don't feel too bad about it.

but they haven't just said 'Yur an idi0t... lol'

You're completely mischaracterizing 2oh1's comments.

Deal with it instead of slagging mud at me like this is a mindless political debate. Think upwards, not downwards.

It IS a political question, and you brought it up, so don't complain when people gang up on your silly ideas.

And also, since it's personal. I bet I've seen more poverty this year alone than you've seen in your lifetime. So get over yourself. I spend many hours a week trying to get disadvantaged kids access to the water that previously only 'rich' people had access to. What have you done today to make the world a better place for our city?

So, given the questions your posing, why do you do that? Didn't the rich people earn the right to clean water that poor (lazy?) kids haven't bothered to work toward? I'm serious. How can you claim to not merely understand the plight of the disadvantaged and even work toward alleviating their problems in one breath and then turn around and complain about people in rich neighborhoods having to "tolerate" the less advantaged? I don't get it, there's a disconnect. (And BTW, I too have lived in - not just visited - the 3rd world)

Moreover, you've, several times, indicated that subsidized housing is put in any neighborhood at all. But it's not. I don't think there's any subsidized housing on Westover Terrace, or past the Vista bridge, or up on Council Crest. None of those rich neighborhoods have to put up with the shame of having a mere barista live on their street. Subsidized housing doesn't go just anywhere.

But let's take a different example. Forget Portland, let's look at SFO or SJC for a minute. As you probably know, housing prices there are completely out of control. In SFO, lawyers have roommates. In a situation like that, without any subsidized housing, where would you put the teachers, baristas, firefighters, etc? Do you just condemn them to a commute to Antioch? Isn't it healthier for any city to have the people that teach the children or police the streets actually live there too? So that they have a stake in how things turn out? A city is made up of people of all kinds and all incomes.

In any case, Mark's answer upstream answers your question. SOWA was built with city subsidies and one of the strings attached were that low-income housing be included. I don't think too many rich people moved to SOWA unaware that there would be low-income housing. And if they did? Too bad, they should have worked a little harder to understand where they were moving to. Wouldn't you agree?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

My - very - first post on the subject was pretty clear:

"I would never debate the *personal* value of someone else. We're all equal no matter if homeless or the president. But, this is an *economic value* question, if people with low value should get the same deal as people with high value. It's just interesting to think about."


Maybe I should have said low [economic] value - so you would have understood more, but context is a part of writing, and no one else seemed to have been confused by this but you.

Look, words are important. Context is too, but I'm not sure how anyone was supposed to understand that you DIDN'T mean "low-value people", when that's exactly what you said.

[bvpcvm]

Locations of subsidized housing in Portland and Gresham

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

This makes sense in the social construct. For better or for worse, we all chose to live in the US, in Oregon, and in Portland.
There are social norms that we all like or don't like, but we agree to (generally) abide by them as part of our greater society.
No argument there.

--
I've been (and still am) asking about neighborhoods.
The comment that a $400k house should cost $1M is strange to me, as without people willing to buy a home, (or buy and rent out a place), there would be no homes constructed at all....

While the real cost of something might be higher than what you think someone paid.... the reality is that until someone is interested in buying, or agrees to buy a home, or buy an apartment and rent it out, there is no reason to make any improvements to a piece of land at all.

It's sort of chicken and egg, which is the genius of my question.

Everyone is so quick to say: of course subsidizing housing makes sense, let's put it in the posh neighborhoods and make it blend in.
How could *anyone* be opposed to that??

And what I'm saying is a) I'm not sure this is how poverty is fixed by just continuously expanding housing capacity.
b) if the neighborhood didn't exist in the first place, would you still build S8 housing there.

I'm curious what the homeowners in the neighborhood (that they own or rent in), think about this.
Is it what UrbanByDesign said? Just part of their social contract to be ok with it?
Or are they mad about it but just not saying anything.

I'm genuinely intrigued at the concept.



--
2of1 - listen, I get it. You disagree with. That's terrific.

However, the personal tripe is just needless.

EVERYONE else has posted intelligent (if snippy) comments, to at least further the dialogue.
It seems most people disagree with my thesis, but they haven't just said 'Yur an idi0t... lol' They've taken some time to add to the discourse (even if they think I'm very wrong).

I brought up a touchy issue about neighborhoods.
Deal with it instead of slagging mud at me like this is a mindless political debate. Think upwards, not downwards.


And also, since it's personal. I bet I've seen more poverty this year alone than you've seen in your lifetime. So get over yourself. I spend many hours a week trying to get disadvantaged kids access to the water that previously only 'rich' people had access to. What have you done today to make the world a better place for our city?

There's a big difference between subsidizing a house and a high-rise condo. And I don't believe the terms are interchangeable. The point I was making is that while you are focusing on the handouts for the poor in terms of sec 8 and housing subsidies you seem to ignore the handouts and subsidies on the upper end of the spectrum in the same neighborhood that makes those luxury condos much more in reach thanks to the taxpayer. That whole development is subsidized housing. All of it.
I'm not sure how long you've lived in Portland, but the entire development was engineered to be a specific way with a city-desired outcome. It was a blank canvas, there wasn't a neighborhood to begin with - not much of one, anyway. With the idea being we will give you cheap land, parks, footpaths, a streetcar, a light-rail, and a tram and in exchange you meet our desired density goals and set aside a certain number of units for affordable housing. That's the neighborhood you were buying into. That was the quid pro quo. Which, is not being upheld by the developers, I might add.
While it may be inconvenient to witness the unfortunate victims in our neo-liberal economic fantasy land we've created, I fail to understand why providing affordable housing in "posh" neighborhoods is somehow detrimental. You can't really separate the economic and social construct points of view. Neighborhoods are social constructs. This line of thinking used to exist in many property covenants around the turn of the 20th century - Ladd's addition didn't allow black people, Jews, renters, or any other undesirable-du-jour for that time. Luckily, we decided as a society that stuff like that was illegal and wrong.
While things like zoning dictate land uses and how we may use our property, I would agree that maybe putting in a six story homeless shelter in the middle of a quiet single family neighborhood street wouldn't be a great fit. But that's why we have zoning rules. So that 6 story homeless shelter goes somewhere appropriate like the central city so that residents have access to transportation, job training, education, social services, and health care.
There's no magic wand that exists to lift people out of poverty, but housing programs are just one tool used to provide relief to those who struggle. I find the idea that the poor don't deserve to live in a nice neighborhood with access to the amenities of living and working in the city because they can't pony up the full price to be in incredibly poor taste morally, and a completely illusory concept in the first place as we all benefit from some kind of subsidy in some way shape or form everyday - whether it's fuel, food, clothing, or housing. It sets the marginalized in our society to a completely unfair standard just because they're recieving something that's much more visible.

[philopdx]

I want to live in Malibu, because... justice and stuff. And not just a broom closet: I mean vaulted ceilings, marble countertops, a home theater and a jacuzzi.

Certainly, as a human being, I'm worth as much as Mel Gibson. Can someone hook a brotha up?

[WestCoast]

ok ok, people who can't afford homes have more rights than people who can, roger that.

I get it, lesson learned!


We should all pay even more so those that don't work have nice homes in any neighborhood. (Especially if it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy.)
More houses fixes it all, who could be so heartless to be against that?!!

--

This reminds me of the George Carlin routine:
Turn golf courses into housing for the homeless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk



{edit - I didn't see Philo's comments when I was posting, he nailed it.}

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

ok ok, people who can't afford homes have more rights than people who can, roger that.

I get it, lesson learned!


We should all pay even more so those that don't work have nice homes in any neighborhood. (Especially if it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy.)
More houses fixes it all, who could be so heartless to be against that?!!

--

This reminds me of the George Carlin routine:
Turn golf courses into housing for the homeless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk



{edit - I didn't see Philo's comments when I was posting, he nailed it.}

You're right, let's just turn the entire central city into one affluent gated community and let the peasants exist in squalor in our exurban ghettos. It's their fault they're poor anyway. Dollar bills, y'all!

[urbanbydesign]

What happened to the desire for a reasonable discussion west coast? You seemed so genuinely intrigued just a little bit ago. Who said anything about anyone having more rights than anyone else?

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

I find the idea that the poor don't deserve to live in a nice neighborhood with access to the amenities of living and working in the city because they can't pony up the full price to be in incredibly poor taste morally, and a completely illusory concept in the first place as we all benefit from some kind of subsidy in some way shape or form everyday - whether it's fuel, food, clothing, or housing. It sets the marginalized in our society to a completely unfair standard just because they're recieving something that's much more visible.

This is where, morally, I completely disagree.

If everyone lives in the nice hood, what's the incentive to work harder and save money and rise up?? It completely distorts reality.

When you live in a crappy room (I started in this town ~11 years ago renting a room in a mess of a house in North Portland for $300/month). I wanted OUT, so I worked my tail off, and 5 years had saved enough scratch to buy a a house.

Now, if I was living in a fancy nice place for below market rent.... why would I work hard to leave again?? What would be my incentive?

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

What happened to the desire for a reasonable discussion west coast? You seemed so genuinely intrigued just a little bit ago. Who said anything about anyone having more rights than anyone else?

I got sick of the group think sadly.

A couple people have brought up good points, but, it's mostly just turned into a lecture by the morally proud that any viewpoint other than theirs is ghastly and clearly wrong.

Hard to be interested in the face of that.

--
For the record, I was never trolling. Genuinely interested in the discussion.

[2oh1]

You keep going back to the homeless, as if there's no middle ground between the rich and the homeless. Time after time, I've pointed out that the people who work in the neighborhood, in many ways, are the neighborhood. South Waterfront has retail. Who works there? Those shops couldn't exist without the people who work there. Those people are working class folks. Nobody is saying everybody deserves a condo in the John Ross, but the neighborhood needs workers. Investing in affordable housing is investing in the neighborhood.

You're advocating for discrimination based on economic status.