Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius
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.
Threaded Mode