Just pre- bedtime thoughts...Portland is on a near-identical track to the Seattle of the early 2000s, pre- dot crash. Rents in desirable inner city 'hoods are spiraling upwards, gentrification is reaching deep tendrils into pockets once thought beyond the pale (St Johns/Lombard corridor, inner Division, Parkrose Heights, now likely Milwaukie), following to some degree the tracks MAX has carved all over the Rose City. The poor and have-nots have been pretty much pushed out, east of 82nd and west of Beaverton, into Aloha/Hillsboro east, and south into Clackamas, southwest to outer Barbur Blvd.
Rents, however (just as in Seattle) in these "undesirable" areas are also spiraling out of control - for instance, a one-bedroom along Powell in SW Gresham (181st) is averaging $900. Not quite Emerald City heights, but definitely on par with the Seattle of 2001.
Unfortunately, what this means is that tunnel-vision is all too likely (and is clearly happening with City priorities, thanks to our over-centralized system of government that clusters power in the hands of a few, and encourages unwieldy bureaucratic mire). Basically, the miracle of "sustainable Portlandia" relies upon feedback from those who benefit from unchecked gentrification - folks with disposable income, often younger, who were attracted to Portland by the dream Vera Katz brought into being in the first place (and don't get me wrong, Mayor Katz did the Portland of the late 1990s a GREAT service in doing so). Hence, continuing services and improvements to enrich the sustainable city go to specific groups in specific areas (as has been proven in Portland since Katz resurrected Stumptown).
What happened, in Seattle, since 2001, is an exponential rent increase (Washington, like Oregon, outlaws rent control in the state constitution due to protection of property rights). Hence, in places like Capitol Hill and Fremont, a studio apartment is, on average, $2K a month. The have-nots are not even in the inner suburbs/outer city 'hoods anymore, thanks to these drastic rent hikes - rather, the new slum is Renton Highlands, Puyallup, and Maple Valley. Or south Everett, if you prefer.
Of course, Seattle doesn't have Metro's "wise" regional urban planning, you say. Metro will save us and keep city services, and amenities, within reach of all. Folks rich and poor will prosper under Metro, you cry. So...what is Metro planning? Well, for starters, NO increases to the urban growth boundary for the next 20 years, at least. Then, packing 150K more dwellings into Portland proper (the lions share). You see this already in the constant condo conversions west of Tabor, and the narrow teeny townhome developments popping up on every empty lot east of 205. Meanwhile, single family homes in the suburbs (especially Gresham and Sunset, also Willow/Rock Creek) are being transformed overnight into two-bedroom beige apartment dwelling monstrosities.
Also, strangely enough, Metro's strict boundaries on urban growth (and this squeezing of the "have-nots" already happening within said boundary) means the poorest are leapfrogging said boundary entirely - have you been to Salem, or Saint Helens, or Longview lately? Woodland got a giant Wal-Mart out of this economic migration. Those in the most need of social services that only organized urban areas (like Portland) can provide are left bereft in exurban places where bus service, if youre lucky, is maybe 5 times a day.
I don't know what the solution here is, folks. I do know that what happened in Seattle is frightening, and I believe the same process is already steamrolling here right under our eyes. I do believe that, with Oregon's state constitutional emphasis on the public greater good (for instance, our beaches are entirely public right of way, unlike Washington's) that changes can be made at the state level that allow for subsidized housing in much greater numbers, as well as possible rent controls that are flexible in nature and allow for some profit to landlords. I do think raising the minimum wage to $15 will help. Drastically increasing shelter options for homeless folks will help.
However, and this is the truth, this projected continued and increased jamming of "dwelling units" (condos and apartments) into Portland is NOT going to solve the problem. Rather (as what is happening at 127th and Market, my 'hood), folks are going to pay much more for less space, and for lesser quality space. Single family homes on 127th and Market are mostly already carved into rooming houses - I've got around 12 people in my home. These aren't the poorest of the poor, but folks in my predicament are definitely not far above minimum wage earners, working full-time.
I remember as a little boy watching the Weinhardt's brewery come down, signaling the start of the Pearl District - pretty cool that Portland transformed that smelly oyster 'hood into fabulous fierce wealth and glitz. What isn't cool is transforming our perfectly decent existing housing stock into teeny tiny dwelling units affordable only to those same "disposable income" folks, and expecting the rest of us to flit off elsewhere (Woodburn, maybe?), commuting in Soweto-like contraptions to and from our service jobs in the glitzy city (like what is now happening in Seattle).
I'm not sure that Metro can be guided (forced) to share the growth, and expand their growth boundaries, rather than simply get all Mao Five Year Plan on Portland. When Metro muscles, folks say good-bye (Damascus leaving Metro, etc). Although I'm not even sure Metro is really necessary, or capable, these days. Its clear, given the glaring deficiencies that are oozing out of Portland's smooth creamy sustainable hide, that centralized absolute power in the hands of a few, believing themselves beholden to certain groups of citizens and not others, is not working. I certainly don't think Seattle's city government style, where nine equally powerful councilmembers and an equally powerful mayor constantly butt heads to smoosh together into a bland "consensus", works either. I do know that the only time things get done in Seattle is when the state forces things (like the viaduct replacement, and the stadiums). I doubt Salem (already solidly controlled by Metro powers-that-be, thanks to population density and numbers) is all that willing or able to enforce decisions from upon high.
Maybe a government for the city that leaves decision making at an extremely local level - decentralized power in the hands of neighborhoods, perhaps (like what Vancouver is trying, poorly) might be a thought.
I pray we avoid this nightmare. I at least hope we quit, given what's going on, pretending everything is hunky dory in the "City That Works".
No comments:
Post a Comment