So, a random thought about Portland police presence (specifically, the number of full precincts the City has, given they're sort of "one stop shopping centers" for full service levels of police, including detectives and the like) crossed my mind just now.
Specifically, I wondered why, in a city of around (now) 600,000 citizens (590K in 2010) has only THREE full service precincts, NONE of which are located east of SE 106th Ave (Mall 205), nor west of North MLK Blvd, nor anywhere on the west side, other than downtown (Police HQ).
You'd think Portland leaders, specifically Mayor Hales (who, as Mayor, per City Charter, automatically is the head of the Portland Police Bureau, with complete control vested in him as Police Commissioner per se), given their emphasis on how great they're doing in transforming our "City That Works" according to Mayor Vera Katz's vision (which I'm assuming involved some planning, rather than just being dreamed into being like answers from the Delphi Oracle), would want good police presence throughout the city - particularly in the former Mid County area east of 205. Given, per Mayor Hales, the City raised East Portland "out of the cesspool" (his words, not mine) there would be corresponding police presence - in the form of full service precincts, perhaps. However, its odd that 165K residents (or so) in this area have only one precinct, which also handles everything south of Burnside and east of the Willamette. I mean, there's plenty for them to do, and you'd think the first thing City leaders would want to do in order to transform Mid-County into a land of milk and honey (as it were) would be to make residents feel safe.
There is the Multnomah County Sheriff's Bureau, at 122nd and NE Glisan. I don't believe, however, under Measure A consolidation/distribution of city/county services since the 1970s (saving both city and county money, it seems) they have any sort of patrol/arrest responsibilities within Portland city limits - rather, they (as I understand it, and please, correct me) do traffic patrol and provide safe libraries for all. As it were.
This all seems odd to me, and will become odd to you when we do a quick comparison with other metro area cities. Vancouver, for instance, added an East Precinct (in Cascade Park, at 155th and Mill Plain SE) when it doubled in size 15 years ago (to 170K people today). So two full service police centers, each serving around 85K residents, plus a separate admin HQ. Gresham (100K population), when "forced" (Mayor Hales' word) by Salem and Multnomah County to annex Rockwood, decided to provide a "Public Safety Facility" (a half-sized precinct, maybe?) to ensure residents' safety needs were met. And indeed, one does see Gresham police being quite active in Rockwood, especially around 162nd at the city line (maybe stepping up where the Portland Police cant get to?).
Seattle (YES, I know Portlanders dislike comparing ourselves with our northerly neighbor), with around 700K population, has five full service precincts. One for every 130K residents (or so). Hillsboro, with just over 100K residents, also has two full service precincts. Pretty darn good.
But wait, you say, Portland can't afford to put full service precincts just any old place, especially in parts of the city that can't pull their budget weight. Well, other cities do it, and in doing so they provide better policing to fewer residents. For instance, other cities charge developers and business interests (yes, there I go again with my "populist demagoguing" (Mayor Hales' phrase) higher fees and taxes to pay for said services. King County, when it forced its suburban areas to incorporate (with city-specific police departments) subsidized said police departments for a bit. As I've said before, not sure why Multnomah County can't do that. Or why Salem couldn't sweeten the pot.
Portland, at the very least, should provide enhanced police services (a "Public Safety Center" maybe, ala Rockwood?) to underserved areas. For instance, putting a precinct-like thing in, say, Parkrose (around 122nd NE maybe), and another at, say, Division/148th SE. Put one down around Foster/82nd SE. Re-open the Saint Johns precinct (now Traffic Division HQ). Add another precinct out Barbur Blvd, at maybe where it crosses SW Capitol Hwy.
It seems dangerous to me to have only 3 full service police precincts, each one serving around 200K people. I don't know, perhaps this is why we have so many visible "quality of life" issues going on here. I do realize Portland has come a LONG ways since 1985. I think, however, if we are committed to the vision Vera Katz created, we need to step it up. I'd ask Mayor Hales to rise to the occasion, but it seems to me at this time that he'd prefer I not give him a heads up when I blog about issues that involve him.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
Quick Thought on Downtown's Largesse to the Rest
Mayor Hales claims that downtown wealth, in the form of property values, gives much more to, say, east Portland, than downtown receives. Sure, on paper within a year's city budget, yes.
However...lets be clear. Both the PSU area and the Pearl only became as such because they were declared urban renewal areas (PSU in the 1970s, the Pearl in the late 1980s), and thus eligible for federal funding to buy "derelict" properties and redevelop them, into, say, condos. Or the lovely Keller Fountain. I seem to recall, from Jewel Lansing's great history of Portland city government, that $400M was eventually invested by public dollars (state and federal) into the PSU area alone.
Said urban renewal areas (including the South Waterfront) are often exempt from, or are assessed, greatly reduced property taxes every year for a great while - anywhere from 20 to 50 years to a lifetime. I believe in these cases in Portland, said renewal areas were exempt for 20 years. State taxes are also often reduced. This is, of course, to encourage development into the kind of high-value properties Mayor Hales extolls as the savior of our city.
I'm not certain what the total dollar amount, in tax breaks and outright subsidies, comes to. But I'm sure its above a billion. Consider that the current City budget is $49M (and was probably less than half that when urban renewal first started). This means that, basically, the City has given away and/or procured for corporate gentrification interests way more than those folks, who are the main donors to city elections, give back.
And not all is coming up roses, either. Lents, an urban renewal area now for 20 years, isn't anywhere near glitzy. The South Waterfront went near bankrupt during the housing crisis, with condos selling at auction starting prices of $199. That's one hundred and ninety nine dollars, not $199K. Even today, the place looks gap-toothed. Meanwhile, PSU and OHSU, two vital and excellent institutions we should be proud to have, have thankfully stepped up and filled in otherwise still-derelict spaces. Even the Pearl is still infilling, after 30 years of "renewal".
Finally, I'm not real sure what developers downtown pay in city fees and annual taxes. I am fairly sure that they receive pretty good tax breaks for little minimal effort. I sure do hope 8th and Hassalo fills in real soon so we can get a good return on our giant giveaway (oops, investment).
However...lets be clear. Both the PSU area and the Pearl only became as such because they were declared urban renewal areas (PSU in the 1970s, the Pearl in the late 1980s), and thus eligible for federal funding to buy "derelict" properties and redevelop them, into, say, condos. Or the lovely Keller Fountain. I seem to recall, from Jewel Lansing's great history of Portland city government, that $400M was eventually invested by public dollars (state and federal) into the PSU area alone.
Said urban renewal areas (including the South Waterfront) are often exempt from, or are assessed, greatly reduced property taxes every year for a great while - anywhere from 20 to 50 years to a lifetime. I believe in these cases in Portland, said renewal areas were exempt for 20 years. State taxes are also often reduced. This is, of course, to encourage development into the kind of high-value properties Mayor Hales extolls as the savior of our city.
I'm not certain what the total dollar amount, in tax breaks and outright subsidies, comes to. But I'm sure its above a billion. Consider that the current City budget is $49M (and was probably less than half that when urban renewal first started). This means that, basically, the City has given away and/or procured for corporate gentrification interests way more than those folks, who are the main donors to city elections, give back.
And not all is coming up roses, either. Lents, an urban renewal area now for 20 years, isn't anywhere near glitzy. The South Waterfront went near bankrupt during the housing crisis, with condos selling at auction starting prices of $199. That's one hundred and ninety nine dollars, not $199K. Even today, the place looks gap-toothed. Meanwhile, PSU and OHSU, two vital and excellent institutions we should be proud to have, have thankfully stepped up and filled in otherwise still-derelict spaces. Even the Pearl is still infilling, after 30 years of "renewal".
Finally, I'm not real sure what developers downtown pay in city fees and annual taxes. I am fairly sure that they receive pretty good tax breaks for little minimal effort. I sure do hope 8th and Hassalo fills in real soon so we can get a good return on our giant giveaway (oops, investment).
My Response to Mayor Hales
|
9:27 PM (18 hours ago)
 | | ||
Shea - I hardly know where to start, since both this email and the blog post you attached are so full of errors. At the risk of sounding snarky, I'd advise that if you want to be a journalist, you actually do have to do the work of finding out what the facts are. And maybe not ask elected officials to be your fact-checkers.
Here are a few:
Here are a few:
1. East Portland lacks infrastructure because for decades, when the area was unincorporated Multnomah County, County government issued building permits for houses, etc. without requiring the construction of streets, sidewalks, and sewers. Dumb idea, but not the City's idea.
Mayor Hales, I do realize that developers built willy-nilly all through Mid-County once they started coming in after World War II. I see this everywhere I go east of 205. Some streets have lovely sidewalks, drains, medians, etc. Others are dirt. Many streets curve strangely, and some (most in some areas) dead-end. It's also clear that Multnomah County in the 1950s and going forward did nothing to impose any coherent zoning on Mid-County, leaving property owners to do as they pleased (some wanted sidewalks, others dirt; some developments have small sewer systems, others just septic).
However, given Portland city leaders have had 30 years to improve things east of 82nd, why haven't they done so? Why can't Commissioners require new developers to, say, fund a infrastructure account that can make up for deficits, or require payment into said fund at time of sale or transfer of property? Why couldn't the City at the time press the County, and the State, to provide mechanisms at the city level for improving the area? Why just leave things as they are? I mean, Seattle didn't incorporate north of N 85th Street until the 1920s, and some parts (like Lake City) until 1945 or so. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a dirt street in any Seattle 'hood.
2. It wasn't Portland's idea to annex Mid-County, nor Gresham's. Both cities were ORDERED to annex the area by the state Environmental Quality Commission, since IT WAS THE LARGEST UNSEWERED URBAN AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WITH 65,000 HOUSES ON CESSPOOLS.
I am WELL aware, per Jewel Lansing's thorough history of Portland city government, that Salem rdered Portland and Gresham to annex. I'm assuming, from your cesspools remark, that there was some sort of Superfund-like disaster in the making? Also, why wasn't Salem willing, or Portland willing to fight for, funding to improve the area or funding mechanisms to do so? I mean, King County (which forced most suburban areas to incorporate over the last 30 years) subsidized (and still does, in some cases) services and improvements. I can't bring myself to believe that Commissioners are tiptoeing around Multnomah County powers that be (or quaking before the Metro Council), instead of insisting that those who impose unfunded mandates like annexing Mid-County cough up funds to pay for needs.
Furthermore, I'm aware that most houses east of 82nd do, in fact, still poop in "cesspools" (or septic tanks, rather). I'm also aware, from experience, that the City charges folks around 40K to hook up to the sewer, and requires these fees in some cases, like when sewer mainline pipes are laid in. As far as I know, those lines are not along most residential streets out here yet. Given y'all (meaning City leaders) have had 30 years to do something about this, why are you blaming actors and agents from 1985 for current woes? Oh, wait - first the Pearl needed building, then, oh yes, an underage gay sex scandal at City Hall, then a 3-way catfight during our last election, followed by constant reassembling of a streets improvement package that is now seemingly DOA.
Again, Mayor Hales, why are you referring to the historical fact of the annexation to mean that the City's hands are tied in the present day? Seems a bit of passing the buck and learned helplessness, to me. But I suppose other priorities to create the "sustainable city" beckoned.
3. East Portland produces far less city tax revenue that it consumes. That's why the David Douglas School District is up against it for passing bond measures, since DDSD does not contain all the high-value/low-services real estate of downtown Portland. (Yes, downtown subsidizes East Portland, as dissonant as that sounds with populist rhetoric).
So, David Douglas should merge (and yes, it should merge) with Portland Schools. I'm not sure why you're referring to DDSD and Mid-County as one and the same, however. Did you forget Parkrose Schools, and Centennial?
As far as I know, and your own stats indicate, Mid-County, as of 2010, had 164K residents - 28% of city population. From what I recall (and I make no claims, either here or in my original assertion, to complete accuracy, but rather to "ballpark", having first read these numbers in a Willamette Week article about the budget mess of 2-3 years ago), said 28% of residents paid 21% of Portland's annual budget, and received around 8% of the budget back. Overall service levels and funding, of course, include County (under Measure A consolidation requirements) funding, state and federal monies. Thus its likely that, on paper, East Portland residents consume more than they fund.
Of course, any consideration of what areas of the city consume versus pay more must take East Portland's large industrial tax base (Airport Way), large commercial tax base (Cascade Commons, Gateway, all the arterials) into consideration. As you yourself note regarding your claim that downtown property values subsidize East Portland needs.
The point, however, is that said property values all over the City are a symptom of increasing gentrification and haphazard infill that drives "have-nots" out. I'm not saying this has already happened, but it will happen much more often if said high value/low services real estate continues its spread. Sure, a rising tide of property values lift many boats (but not all). Rising property values mean more dollars (as you note), but also higher rents, and less inclination on the part of property owners to fund improvements and ensure amenities or standards. My home, for instance, has a current value of $245K, assessed. I'm pretty sure the 7-bedroom home I share with others would probably go for triple that on the market, and in the meantime, my landlord gets income from mortgages that assume said probable market value. For 3/4M dollars, any prospective buyer sure is getting a pig in a poke.
So, while downtown may "fund" part of East Portland's budget share (when talking strictly within city monies raised within city), the effects of this shift from sustainable living to gentrified craziness (which is what I refer to originally) basically cause East Portland resident needs to increase (due to higher cost of living), while benefiting a select class (property owners and corporate business). I'm also unclear why you're valuing East Portland's contribution to the budget on a strictly residential basis, while including all of downtown as your counterweight. Apples/oranges?
Its clear to me (and maybe this was the City's reasoning behind fighting it) that de-annexation would likely hurt Portland far worse than how a new Mid-County city would fare.
4. Over the past twenty years, East Portland has received a disproportionately large amount of capital investment for community centers and parks and more recently, streets, compared to the rest of the city.
OK then, where are sidewalks the entire length of outer Division? Why aren't all homes on the sewer system? Why are parks few and far between, and usually adjuncted to schools? Why are there large gaping empty lots on major arterials, and dozens of townhomes crammed into teeny tiny lots, without adequate access/road improvements to them? Its nice that East Portland has been blessed with good community centers (such as the one by Floyd Light Middle School, and the David Douglas High resources). Parks...ehhh...not so much. I suppose the City did close off its part of Rocky Butte, and was required by the EPA to cap the Powell and Kelly Butte reservoirs. I dont think those count as parks improvements, though.
As far as streets investments and improvements, I'm going to respond by looking out my front window at SE 127th Avenue's dirt expanse, and compare it with the oodles of money the City spent sparkling up SW Moody Ave, for instance. Nice lime green squiggles, BTW.
I do see y'all are spending $275K on a East Portland "fact finding" function...I'm hoping said findings wont be more promotional pats on the back verbiage, but I'm doubtful. I suppose the $175K y'all are spending to define "infill" also helps Mid-County.
These are actual facts. They are inconvenient truths for some who like to feast on public disgruntlement. Hope you will be the courageous journalist who researches and reveals them.
I do see y'all are spending $275K on a East Portland "fact finding" function...I'm hoping said findings wont be more promotional pats on the back verbiage, but I'm doubtful. I suppose the $175K y'all are spending to define "infill" also helps Mid-County.
These are actual facts. They are inconvenient truths for some who like to feast on public disgruntlement. Hope you will be the courageous journalist who researches and reveals them.
I'm not sure that your points are indeed actual facts, or points of view that have some basis in selected facts that make your case. I'm going to go with the latter, since I too, as a blogger with professional grounding in urban fieldwork, also use facts to bolster my conclusions. However, I do in fact change my conclusions, and opinions, upon receipt of new evidence, on an ongoing basis. You seem, in your email, to be stuck in the Portland of 30 years ago, and place your current-day facts on the past.
I'm also not "feasting on public disgruntlement" here (nice turn of phrase, BTW). I don't appreciate you insinuating that my motives rest in stirring the pot, as it were. Yes, I am somewhat of a populist (a small "l" libertarian, actually). However, I'm not just smearing stink around like monkeys at the zoo for the heck of it, and I'm a bit taken aback that a public official like yourself would indicate I might be. I am not, however, surprised at your assumptions - and believe you me, I've heard far worse from Clark County officials (I published a blog on local government workings up there for some time).
I'm not looking to cause a populist uprising, or create mayhem. I'm looking to pinpointing issues as I see them from Felony Heights, and muse about ways in which the City's responses (or lack thereof) are helping, or hurting. I'm interested in shining a light on problems that seem avoided by City leaders, and above all I'm interested in bearing witness to how the structural violence imposed by said problems impact peoples' everyday lives in the Rose City, particularly within an area that, from many appearances, has been ill-used since 1985's annexation. If everything was hunky dory east of 205, why would enough signatures be gathered to force a de-annexation vote, and why would the State rule said petition ballot issue invalid? Why not let folks have their say, if, as you insist, things are just fine (and yes, this year budget wise, they are)?
Finally, wont you be the "courageous mayor" who sends his replies to a lone blogger's findings via a private email, rather than responding publicly, and online in the light of day? Let the sun shine in, Mayor Hales! Its "fragrance free"!
My Specific Response to Commissioner Fritz, Who Reminds Me About Using Possibly Bigoted Language
|
12:21 PM (3 hours ago)
| | ||
In addition to concurring with Mayor Hales’ comments, I encourage you to talk with your neighbors and think about your framing. Many residents and business owners in East Portland are very concerned about use of terms such as “Felony Flats” or now “Felony Heights” to describe their community. They believe, and I agree, that it perpetuates a negative stereotype of an area that as many times more wonderful, hardworking people than felons.
Amanda
Amanda Fritz
My response:
Commissioner Fritz, while I'm thinking about it....not using descriptions such as "Felony Flats" gives said descriptions MORE power and connotation. Rather than trying to rename a large swath of East/SE Portland with a moniker sellable by real estate interests in order to hide unsavory business and promote specific points, I specifically use "Felony Flats" as a very convenient and easy catch-all label for encapsulating problems in this area in one fell swoop.
In fact, most of my neighbors (yes, I do know them, and chitchat with them) also use the term "Felony Flats" - although there's alot of disagreement over just where the flats are. Many, for instance, think of the Flats as being south of Foster/east of 52nd, out to 136th or so. Others, like myself, include Powell and Division, all the way out the the Gresham city line. Market, as you know, looks down on this area - hence my use of "Felony Heights" as another useful catchall. Most Portlanders use the term "Felony Flats", as far as I know.
I'm sorry that you think (and declaim to me) that I'm demeaning and degrading others' lives,dreams, and aspirations in my use of these terms. This is not, in fact, the case. I do wonder, however, why you come within inches of accusing me of bigotry and slander by warning me about my cavalier use of these terms, and reminding me that I'm "harming" others. I certainly hope you aren't so personally accusatory with other citizens who email your office.
And I'd like to go on in my response to Commissioner Fritz:
Please don't take it literally that I'm accusing everyone who lives in Felony Flats of being a felon. To do so is being deliberately asinine, in my opinion. Or completely naive and woolheaded - which in that case I do wonder what other issues and situations, and words, you take too literally. Which I'm sure are few, if any.
If the City is so adamant that Felony Flats "dare not speak its name", why not put up signs announcing the specific 'hoods on major roads, like Beaverton and Vancouver, and Seattle, do? That way folks can refer to, say, Powellhurst-Gilbert, or Hazelwood, or Battin - rather than a catch-all you and others in city government find so unsavory. Of course, this would mean finding money and spending it on perhaps what is, after all, more window dressing.
It seems to me, and I'll address this more as I go on, that because you five Commissioners are equal in power (and each completely dominate entire areas of city government to the exclusion of the other four) that y'all rarely agree on anything of significance (like fixing the roads, perhaps). Hence, in order to show folks that "something" is getting done, y'all nitpick everything and focus intense stares on teency issues (fluoridation, bike boxes, bioswales, sequoia trees, who can drive a taxi, or - in this case - my possible causing of harm by actively using the term "Felony Flats") in order to drive your "constituents" (the people you see most often in front of you, or who squawk at you, like me) to tizzies over "serious" crises - which in turn leaves many residents focused on the wrong trees, as it were.
I don't think y'all do this deliberately, though I do worry about how personal yours and Mayor Hales' messages were. Rather, I think you all do this as part of a function of a City government structure that doesn't work anymore (but was great in 1905 or so, when saloons, brothels, and slots gambling needed strong responses, and the city was a stumpy grubby mishmash outside of downtown, and issues needed a strong hand). Step back, and get some perspective. It could be possible that part of the problems (and the solutions) lie within city government itself.
Thanks!
The City Comissioners, Aroused
Well, that was QUICK. I havent got such quick responses to blog post notifications from public officials since I downdressed David Madore on his public Facebook page and got accused of being a "Portland 5th Element pinko commie".
Seems Mayor Hales and the rest of the Commissioners didn't much like what I had to say, and responded with personal attacks, insinuations, and assumptions about my exaggerated and "untrue" accusations (which weren't accusing anyone of anything in the first place, just stating my view of where things in Felony Heights stood).
Below is the entire email exchange as of today, November 20. I'm going to go through Mayor Hales' and Commissioner Fritz's emails and respond specifically inline to them, in two separate posts.
Mayor Hales starts his response out by accusing me of being pretty much a failed journalist student. I want to remind folks that here at SE Market and 127th, in Felony Heights, is someone (me) with professional graduate ABD training as an anthropologist (study of people as they currently are) who specializes in urban issues, globalization, and the rise of sustainability activism. I've written published works on these issues, and taught college students in numerous classes. Keep in mind that I do have some idea, through ethnographic research of participant observation (as a Portland resident) of what I'm talking about.
Besides, the purpose of this blog is to shake things up a little and throw metaphorical bombs at folks in power in order to move our city towards workable solutions to big problems. I'm supposed to, as an activist (and as part of anthropological research) to take what I observe and participate in and synthesize it into conclusions, based on evidence. I'm pretty sure I'm doing just that. I do wonder, however, why Mayor Hales and the City Commissioners are so jumpy. Could it be that I somewhat hit the nail on the head?
Entire email exchange follows:
Seems Mayor Hales and the rest of the Commissioners didn't much like what I had to say, and responded with personal attacks, insinuations, and assumptions about my exaggerated and "untrue" accusations (which weren't accusing anyone of anything in the first place, just stating my view of where things in Felony Heights stood).
Below is the entire email exchange as of today, November 20. I'm going to go through Mayor Hales' and Commissioner Fritz's emails and respond specifically inline to them, in two separate posts.
Mayor Hales starts his response out by accusing me of being pretty much a failed journalist student. I want to remind folks that here at SE Market and 127th, in Felony Heights, is someone (me) with professional graduate ABD training as an anthropologist (study of people as they currently are) who specializes in urban issues, globalization, and the rise of sustainability activism. I've written published works on these issues, and taught college students in numerous classes. Keep in mind that I do have some idea, through ethnographic research of participant observation (as a Portland resident) of what I'm talking about.
Besides, the purpose of this blog is to shake things up a little and throw metaphorical bombs at folks in power in order to move our city towards workable solutions to big problems. I'm supposed to, as an activist (and as part of anthropological research) to take what I observe and participate in and synthesize it into conclusions, based on evidence. I'm pretty sure I'm doing just that. I do wonder, however, why Mayor Hales and the City Commissioners are so jumpy. Could it be that I somewhat hit the nail on the head?
Entire email exchange follows:
|
7:26 PM (19 hours ago)
| | ||
Mayor Hales, Portland City Commissioners,
Just a heads up email to let you know about a newly published blog post, on The View From Felony Heights, that calls City priorities east of 82nd into question - and places blame for East Portland disarray squarely at City Hall's feet. I figure those I write about at least deserve to know that I'm talking about them in a public forum.
A small question before I close this email: Why on earth did City leaders agree to annex Mid-County east of 82nd back in 1985 when it is now painfully clear City government refuses to provide adequate funding for services, while taking 3x the money? (City budget gives 8% or so, from what I gather, to east of 205, while getting a fifth of its monies from the same place).
I'd like to hear some straight talk about East Portland issues and needs, publicly, on my blog perhaps. I realize the City Commissioners, with near absolute control over your specific city departments, don't have to explain to anyone, particularly little ol' cantankerous me. I just figure that y'all might want to get the chance to comment on how SE 127th and Market views where City government priorities are and aren't.
Cheers and thanks,
Shea Michael Anderson
Publisher, The View From Felony Heights
CC: Willamette Weekly, Portland Mercury, The Oregonian (Oregon Live)
|
9:27 PM (17 hours ago)
| | ||
Shea - I hardly know where to start, since both this email and the blog post you attached are so full of errors. At the risk of sounding snarky, I'd advise that if you want to be a journalist, you actually do have to do the work of finding out what the facts are. And maybe not ask elected officials to be your fact-checkers.
Here are a few:
Here are a few:
1. East Portland lacks infrastructure because for decades, when the area was unincorporated Multnomah County, County government issued building permits for houses, etc. without requiring the construction of streets, sidewalks, and sewers. Dumb idea, but not the City's idea.
2. It wasn't Portland's idea to annex Mid-County, nor Gresham's. Both cities were ORDERED to annex the area by the state Environmental Quality Commission, since IT WAS THE LARGEST UNSEWERED URBAN AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WITH 65,000 HOUSES ON CESSPOOLS.
3. East Portland produces far less city tax revenue that it consumes. That's why the David Douglas School District is up against it for passing bond measures, since DDSD does not contain all the high-value/low-services real estate of downtown Portland. (Yes, downtown subsidizes East Portland, as dissonant as that sounds with populist rhetoric).
4. Over the past twenty years, East Portland has received a disproportionately large amount of capital investment for community centers and parks and more recently, streets, compared to the rest of the city.
These are actual facts. They are inconvenient truths for some who like to feast on public disgruntlement. Hope you will be the courageous journalist who researches and reveals them.
These are actual facts. They are inconvenient truths for some who like to feast on public disgruntlement. Hope you will be the courageous journalist who researches and reveals them.
|
12:21 PM (2 hours ago)
| | ||
In addition to concurring with Mayor Hales’ comments, I encourage you to talk with your neighbors and think about your framing. Many residents and business owners in East Portland are very concerned about use of terms such as “Felony Flats” or now “Felony Heights” to describe their community. They believe, and I agree, that it perpetuates a negative stereotype of an area that as many times more wonderful, hardworking people than felons.
Amanda
Amanda Fritz
Commissioner, City of Portland
Commissioner, City of Portland
The City of Portland is a fragrance free workplace. To help me and others be able to breathe, please avoid using added fragrances when visiting City offices.
To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services to persons with disabilities. Call 503-823-2036, TTY 503-823-6868 with such requests or visit http://www.portlandoregon.gov/
From: Shea Michael Anderson [mailto:sheaside@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:27 PM
To: Shea Michael Anderson <sheaside@gmail.com>
Subject: Heads Up From SE 127th Ave and Market (Mill St Adjacent)
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:27 PM
To: Shea Michael Anderson <sheaside@gmail.com>
Subject: Heads Up From SE 127th Ave and Market (Mill St Adjacent)
|
3:08 PM (0 minutes ago)
| | ||
OK, I refuse (as I said in my email) to discuss the very real issues of East Portland's neglect in a private setting. Mayor Hales, Commissioner Fritz - since you've responded to me from city email addresses, that makes your messages public domain. Look there, and respond there - rather than trying to dress me down privately.
I have nothing against you five personally,and I would assume that you realize that. However, there are serious problems that y'all aren't looking at, and I'm not sure the current structure of Portland government can in fact effectively address goings on. And I'm not the only one who thinks so, as you know from the secession petition that the City Auditor, after consulting with Salem, quashed.
I very, very, very much appreciate your PROMPT (though quite personal, to me) responses. It took me quite some time to get ANY response from Clark County and Vancouver officials - and then only grudgingly. However, going forward, lets not make personal assumptions about eachothers' opinions, particularly in terms of where we base our opinions at and in. Politics is not personal (at least, not where I sit).
I look forward to carrying debate about these serious city issues forward in a public online setting.
Thank you,
Shea Michael Anderson, M.A.
PS - I am not a journalist. I am, however, a professionally trained cultural anthropologist with ABD graduate training, research, and fieldwork specializing in Seattle as a city after the WTO November 1999 protests and the rise there of sustainability as local activism movement (and the death of citizen activism by corporate gentrification and co-opting of neighborhood issues). So, before you take me to task about my grounding, investigation abilities, fieldwork, and historical fact, please bear in mind that I'm not just spouting hot air. (-:
Seattle is NOT a Role Model For How to Keep The Sustainable City That Works Thriving
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)