 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
FEATURE ARTICLES | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memo's | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
Opportunity Gateway’s draft housing policy would direct public assistance where supply doesn’t meet demand
Lee Perlman
The Mid-County MEMO
A shorthand version of Opportunity Gateway’s draft Housing Policy could be called, “Fill in the blanks.” Members of the Opportunity Gateway Program Advisory Committee point out that before you do so, you’d better fill in the blanks on increased essential services in the area, especially schools, to support the new population. The PAC last month began reviewing the draft policy and plan for city agencies, particularly the Portland Development Commission, to promote housing in the Gateway urban renewal district and nearby neighborhoods. The policy consists of five Goals, under which there are, in ascending order of specificity, Objectives, Strategies, and Actions. The five goals are:
1. The area will include “an adequate supply of housing that is available and affordable to people of all income levels.”
2. It will include “housing of diverse types, sizes and styles to accommodate the range of needs of current and future residents.”
3. It will “increase livability...by incorporating quality design, materials and techniques that enhance existing development and achieve the vision for the Regional Center.”
4. It will provide “housing options for home ownership for a range of households and incomes.”
5. The district will be “providing housing opportunities for employees working within the District and surrounding areas.”
Assist the weak areas
Doreen Warner, head of a committee that has been working on the draft for more than a year, led discussions of the first two objectives. “I’m not so optimistic that as to think we can have absolute consensus on everything, but I do want a policy that reflects our vision, and I want to give everyone a chance to be heard,” she said. Warner suggested that the PAC, and Gateway, actively encourage housing types that the private sector is not producing in sufficient quantity. She noted that Gateway seems to have a sufficient supply of rental housing for tenants in the middle income range - 50 to 80 percent of median income - but not for income groups above and below this.
Committee member Duke Shepard put it this way: “I own the land and I can do what I want with it. But if I want PDC’s assistance I need to do community-friendly things.”
City planner Steve Dotterrer asked why the committee hadn’t spelled out numeric goals for the type of housing they wanted to see. Warner replied, “Because this is a 20-year plan, and things change.”
Committee members questioned some of the priorities. Alesia Reese of Woodland Park questioned giving money to developer Ted Gilbert to build relatively expensive housing in exchange for his including features “he’ll probably do anyway.”
Warner replied, “He could build in the Pearl if he wanted to, and we want him to build in Gateway.” Staffer Angela Kremer said that such projects in Gateway would be risky at first, and difficult to get financing for. Sara King of PDC added that the Pearl, now one of the city’s trendiest areas, received urban renewal assistance. “Things were badly needed to get it where it is today,” she said. “There were no roads, a lot of pollution, and major infrastructure improvements that needed to be made. It’s always scary as a developer to be the first to do something.”
Committee chair Dick Cooley, himself a developer, said that housing developers would at least seek tax abatement to help them finance their projects, which means that they would contribute little to urban renewal funding for ten years. East Portland Neighborhood Office coordinator Richard Bixby questioned whether more senior housing is needed, given how much the area already has. Warner and others replied that there will be even more demand as the baby boom generation ages, and for a variety of senior housing types.
Where are the schools?
Committee member David Panichello challenged the idea of creating more family housing. “There’s a problem with funding for schools, and this isn’t likely to change for a long time,” he said. “If we’re to encourage more families into an area where schools are already overcrowded, we need to fund new schools. We need to pay for what we have before we go looking for a new group of people coming in. Would you want your grandchildren to go to a district that was planning all this development? Panichello continued, “I see these students as future taxpayers who will someday pay for our senior services. I want to train them to do it well.”
Frieda Christopher of the David Douglas School District agreed, “This has to be discussed a lot earlier in the process. Land is extremely scarce in David Douglas. We need seven to 10 acres for a grade school, and we don’t have it if we need it for growth in the north end (Gateway).” Warner replied, “We can’t use the housing policy to solve all these problems. It’s PDC’s responsibility to work with Tri-Met and the schools on all aspects of the problem.”
Neighborhood resident Joe Arinella saw the discussion as a moment of vindication. “I brought this up a number of times,” he said. “I said, ‘Do we have the cart before the horse?’ I was told, ‘No, everything’s fine.’ Now, all of a sudden, we have a problem. We don’t just want to hear the good word; we want to hear what’s realistic. Just be honest, and you’ll get the community really joining this group.” “I think we try to be candid,” Cooley replied.
He had occasion to be himself when another resident asked where new housing development was likely to go. “The honest answer is that the single family housing that’s in the district now will slowly disappear,” he said. “When? That’s something we don’t control.” He added, however, that there is a strong policy against condemnation of homes. “Change is always difficult,” he said. “It’s going on now. We’re trying to manage change, not force it. There are a lot of legitimate concerns, and we share them.”
Craig Flynn, one of the urban renewal district’s most diehard critics, let fly against the housing policy in particular and regional goals in general. “You keep referring to the word ‘market,’ and this has nothing to do with the market,” he said. “If it did, Ted Gilbert would build his housing with no help.” He went on, “Do any of you know we have a budget problem?” The problem is compounded by urban renewal, which takes money from the general fund for specific purposes, and policies favoring growth, which “create more congestion and put pressure on social services and schools.” He added, “I’m exactly right, I know I’m exactly right.” Chip Carter of Hazelwood said, “I watched Rockwood go from a rather nice community to a murder capital because of low income housing.”
Another resident, Tom Marlin, said, “If we liked downtown, we’d have darn well moved there.” He said that the crime rate has tripled because of Section Eight low-income housing. “We have so many people who can’t speak English, or say they can’t,” he said. “Bringing in more of these type of people is downgrading the neighborhood.”
To this Cooley said, “The owners of low-priced housing built 20 years ago allowed it to deteriorate. That’s just the opposite of what this is about. We want to set a good standard of housing and diversity.”
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home