Gentrification in NE Portland

[Sekkle]

If there's a more appropriate section of the forum for this, mods can move it...

An article from the New York Times about Portland's gentrifying Northeast...

Racial Shift in a Progressive City Spurs Talks
By WILLIAM YARDLEY

PORTLAND, Ore. — Not every neighborhood in this city is one of those Northwest destinations where passion for espresso, the environment and plenty of exercise define the cultural common ground. A few places are still described as frontiers, where pioneers move because prices are relatively reasonable, the location is convenient and, they say, they “want the diversity.”

Yet one person’s frontier, it turns out, is often another’s front porch. It has been true across the country: gentrification, which increases housing prices and tension, sometimes has racial overtones and can seem like a dirty word. Now Portland is encouraging black and white residents to talk about it, but even here in Sincere City, the conversation has been difficult.

“I’ve been really upset by what I perceive to be Portland’s blind spot in its progressivism,” said Khaela Maricich, a local artist and musician. “They think they live in the best city in the country, but it’s all about saving the environment and things like that. It’s not really about social issues. It’s upper-middle-class progressivism, really.”

Ms. Maricich, 33, who is white, spoke after attending this month’s meeting of Portland’s Restorative Listening Project.

The goal of the project, which is sponsored by the city’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement, is to have white people better understand the effect gentrification can have on the city’s longtime black and other-minority neighborhoods by having minority residents tell what it is like to be on the receiving end.

Once armed with a broader perspective, said Judith Mowry, the project’s leader, whites should “make the commitment that the harm stops with us.” That might mean that whites appeal to the city to help black businesses or complain to companies that put fliers on the doors of black property owners encouraging them to sell.

Yet what has been clear from the meetings this month and last is that talking about the impact of gentrification is easier than finding ways to reduce it. For some minority residents, the notion that white Portland now says it feels their pain is cold comfort.

“That’s been our history,” Norma Trimble, who is Native American, said during the question-and-answer session this month. “They take all you’ve got. They take your land. Now they want your stories.”

Oregon has always had a complicated relationship with race. When Oregon became a state in 1859, its Constitution specifically prevented blacks from becoming residents, a law that remained on the books for more than 60 years.

Today, Oregon is just 2 percent black, and Portland is about 7 percent black. On May 18, an estimated 75,000 people turned out to hear Senator Barack Obama at a rally, and most were white. For some, that was evidence that Portland’s liberal mind-set transcends race. For others, it just meant Portland prefers its diversity in fresh packaging.

Portland’s black population grew significantly during World War II, when blacks surged in to work the shipyards. At the time, real estate restrictions largely confined black families to a neighborhood called Vanport. But when the Columbia River flooded 60 years ago, the residents of Vanport were dispersed, and many blacks moved to the city’s Northeast neighborhood. Freeway construction later leveled other black areas. A new hospital took out still more. Now, in the name of economic development, Portland has been improving streets, sidewalks and transportation and offered grants and loans in minority neighborhoods. While the improvements are welcome, many blacks said in interviews that they do not seem designed for them, but more to raise housing prices and lure in newcomers. Blacks who have lived in the Northeast most of their lives say they no longer recognize their old neighborhood, much less feel comfortable there.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue in Northeast, white cyclists in sleek helmets pedal past groups of young black men whose faces are hidden beneath hoodies. Buses rumble by, too, the only transportation alternative for some residents, not just a green alternative.

“It’s not drug infested, but then you say, ‘Well, what happened to all the black people that were in this area?’ ” said Margaret Solomon, 84, who is black and has lived in the neighborhood for more than 40 years. “You don’t see any.”

It is a white world now, Ms. Solomon said: “They’re sitting around with their bikes and out on the sidewalks and all that. It’s rough to imagine.”

Though the black population has declined in some black areas, including Northeast, it has increased somewhat in the city as a whole. Some blacks have left Northeast by choice, moving to other neighborhoods or the suburbs, and some bought and sold property in the area to their advantage. Neighborhoods change for many reasons, and Northeast was white before the Vanport flood. Still, many black residents said they felt they were not the preferred demographic.

Floyd Booker, who spoke during the April meeting of the Restorative Listening Project, was one of several black residents who told of being unable to get bank loans or city grants even as whites, in their view, seemed to have no trouble. Mr. Booker’s business, Courtesy Janitorial Service, is one of the few black-owned businesses left on Alberta Street, now a collage of trendy shops and strollers more likely being pushed by white mothers.

“Where’s this meeting going?” Mr. Booker, 85, said in an interview days later. “No place. People get there and vent their frustrations, but who hears it?”

Several blacks echoed that concern in interviews after the meetings, while many whites — and the audiences were overwhelmingly white — said the meetings had been invaluable in helping them see another point of view. Whites often nodded sympathetically, even gasping at times, as they heard blacks tell stories of discrimination and of feeling betrayed by the city in its quest for economic development.

Ms. Mowry, the project’s leader, describes it as being rooted in restorative justice, similar to the type applied in the truth and reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid in South Africa.

The meetings have had awkward and tense moments, too. Last month, Joan Laufer, who is white and who moved into a house in Northeast in 2006, stood up to express gratitude to a black minister for describing how hard it was for blacks to get home improvement loans and for addressing some sensitive stereotypes.

“I’ve learned two things about all you guys already — why the houses aren’t fixed up and why you guys are riding around in all these big flashy cars,” Ms. Laufer, 55, a nurse practitioner, said.

At one point, she also asked blacks what she should call them — blacks or African-Americans.

An older black woman in the front replied, “People.”

Another black woman, toward the back, said, “Donna.”

Ms. Laufer offended some, but she said in an interview a few days later that she had meant well, that she felt enlightened by what she heard at the meeting and hoped to be able to discuss her feelings about race honestly with blacks. Unlike some other whites new to the area, she was not aware of the city’s history when she moved there. The price was right, that is all, and Mrs. Laufer loved the front porch.

“I’ve chewed on that meeting like I’ve never chewed on a church sermon or anything my entire life,“ she said. “I just want to be in a nice neighborhood, and so do all these other people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us...+A&oref=slogin

[urbanlife]

I always hate racially geared topics, just one of the reasons why I agreed with Michelle Obama when she said it was the first time she was proud of her country. When it comes to race, I usually find myself disappointed.

This is the reason why there needs to be a larger push for affordable housing in the city, which is why I voted for the people I voted for. I would love to see the PDC take on that in the way of development, that would be a huge move forward for our city.

In this country I have always hated the idea of a "black neighborhood." Not because of who lives there, but because we treat those areas as if they are "ghettos."

Now I am a student at Portland State University which has a population of about 25,000 students, which is full of all sorts of races and religious and cultural backgrounds. In my opinion this country could learn from its diverse colleges, in that at the end of the day we are all still people. I dont think races should be forced to live in specific neighborhoods and I think everyone should have a space to live, which means more affordable housing and places for the homeless to get back on their feet.

The way I have seen north portland and ne portland since I have moved here is as portland's working class neighborhoods.

[Encolpius]

Thought I'd share a link to a short video produced by Ifanyi Bell about the displacement of black communities from N and NE Portland. It's inspired by an essay Bell wrote for Oregon Humanities magazine, which addresses the same subject from a more personal and individual perspective. Bell doesn't use the word 'gentrification', but it's worth noting here that Portland was recently deemed by Governing magazine to have gentrified more rapidly in this century than any other major city in the country.

[As a housekeeping matter, I'd suggest a moderator merge this thread with this one.]

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Thought I'd share a link to a short video produced by Ifanyi Bell about the displacement of black communities from N and NE Portland. It's inspired by an essay Bell wrote for Oregon Humanities magazine, which addresses the same subject from a more personal and individual perspective. Bell doesn't use the word 'gentrification', but it's worth noting here that Portland was recently deemed by Governing magazine to have gentrified more rapidly in this century than any other major city in the country.

[As a housekeeping matter, I'd suggest a moderator merge this thread with this one.]

The gentrification debate necessarily occurs in a broader kind of cognitive dissonance. That is, we are taught that all people are equal, that integration is good, that exclusion is wrong. The Ifyani Bell video, on the other hand, explicitly states that "community" trumps those broader ideals, that feeling comfortable with people like yourself matters more than a society that memorializes equality and justice as abstract ideals. You can see how this becomes a briar patch. Discrimination was wrong when it forced blacks into certain areas. It's still wrong when it's used as a justification to preserve an area's racial demographics.

The Portland Mercury recently ran an article on this subject, which was about the the $20 million PDC hoped to ameliorate the problem of gentrification (or perhaps buy off the complainers). http://www.portlandmercury.com/portl...t?oid=15109659. The marketplace, however, is calling the shots here. It's doing similar things elsewhere, from Harlem to Brooklyn to Adams Morgan to Roxbury to Baldwin Hills. Is it possible to say that old injustices require new injustices? Not if we value the rule of law over the rule of feeling comfortable with people like yourself.

As a liberal, I believe in a color-blind social democracy. That is, we need much greater income redistribution. We need more social mobility, equal education access, a tightly woven safety net, and a society that values everyone regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or place of birth. I want these things not because I feel guilty about our checkered history but because it's the only way to make a decent society that is not mesmerized by old prejudices and traditions. I want black people especially to get ahead, to make a decent income, to be treated with dignity by society at large and by the police in particular. But there is simply no way to legally attack gentrification without damaging basic freedom and justice. If law rather than feelings are to define our society, we have to behave as if these are the facts of our nationhood, not just lofty ideals we quickly forget when we start to feel uncomfortable.

[cab]

We just need to get on with the humping. Erase the black white BS lines already. Joking aside, I wouldn't downplay the importance of nature/environment. We live in one of the most incredible nature places in the world. Its something that we all can come together around. Its something everyone can share. A sense of place beyond the stereotypes in our heads. Every aspect of our culture should emphasis this unique place, especially our built environment. Let that be our unifying principle.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by soleri

The gentrification debate necessarily occurs in a broader kind of cognitive dissonance. That is, we are taught that all people are equal, that integration is good, that exclusion is wrong. The Ifyani Bell video, on the other hand, explicitly states that "community" trumps those broader ideals, that feeling comfortable with people like yourself matters more than a society that memorializes equality and justice as abstract ideals. You can see how this becomes a briar patch. Discrimination was wrong when it forced blacks into certain areas. It's still wrong when it's used as a justification to preserve an area's racial demographics.

I'm definitely for integration, but that's not what's happening. The concern here is about exclusion, not about integration.

I hope this doesn't provoke defensive responses. Neither Bell nor any of the affordable housing groups in Portland are arguing that 'discrimination' should be used as a tool to preserve any area's racial demographics. Actually, gentrification isn't just an influx of white people displacing communities of color -- that's too broad a description, since this influx is itself (as you yourself pointed out in another thread) 'mostly a phenomenon of DINKs, gays, unmarried millenials, and retired professionals'. Or to put it another way, mostly a phenomenon of people with few liabilities and/or lots of disposable income. So we're seeing increasing segregation of various kinds, not just racial segregation (although the fact of Portland's extreme degree of racial segregation is significant). The issue is how to go about articulating that 'tightly woven safety net' you're talking about, soleri.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I'm definitely for integration, but that's not what's happening. The concern here is about exclusion, not about integration.

I hope this doesn't provoke defensive responses. Neither Bell nor any of the affordable housing groups in Portland are arguing that 'discrimination' should be used as a tool to preserve any area's racial demographics. Actually, gentrification isn't just an influx of white people displacing communities of color -- that's too broad a description, since this influx is itself (as you yourself pointed out in another thread) 'mostly a phenomenon of DINKs, gays, unmarried millenials, and retired professionals'. Or to put it another way, mostly a phenomenon of people with few liabilities and/or lots of disposable income. So we're seeing increasing segregation of various kinds, not just racial segregation (although the fact of Portland's extreme degree of racial segregation is significant). The issue is how to go about articulating that 'tightly woven safety net' you're talking about, soleri.

This problem plagues all people of conscience because it pits two value systems against one another. One is for cultural (including racial) unity in the context of physical community. The other is for the values of the Englightenment in a multicultural society. It cannot escape your attention that the one argument being deployed by Bell is the same argument that whites used to oppose civil rights and "race mixing".

I'll cut to the chase here: there is no legal basis for using race to codify demographic desires. It's blatantly illegal just as much as deed restrictions and covenants are. So, what do you propose? A softer, kinder version of bigotry? Make no mistake: I am sympathetic to Bell and the anti-gentrifiers. I think that their very real desire for their own culture is deeply felt. The problem here is that it is completely at odds with our laws when it comes to the buying, renting, and selling of houses.

My "tightly woven safety net" is not a cultural argument. It's a plea for social democracy in which everyone, including poor blacks AND poor whites, are afforded a decent standard of living. We need a society of stakeholders in which everyone feels a part of a larger enterprise.

I say all this as a cosmopolitan with urban values. If you're a white person who cannot abide black people (I'd guesstimate about a quarter of the nation belongs to this group), you'll seek outer-ring suburbs and rural areas in which to live. Republicans make their political arguments to these people with dog whistles and cultural grievance-mongering. While it's tempting to turn the table on these bigots, it harms the very core of our efforts to make this one nation. We need to keep focused on this crucial ideal. The worst thing that can happen to us is that we cede the moral high ground to segregationists.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by soleri

It cannot escape your attention that the one argument being deployed by Bell is the same argument that whites used to oppose civil rights and "race mixing".

What argument is that?

Originally Posted by soleri

I'll cut to the chase here: there is no legal basis for using race to codify demographic desires. It's blatantly illegal just as much as deed restrictions and covenants are.

Again, I'm not sure what you're responding to.

I certainly wouldn't have posted this video if I thought it represented some kind of diatribe against civil rights and race mixing. That would be quite inflammatory. I really don't think that's the message Bell intends you to take home, or the message that Oregon Humanities and the James F. and Marion L. Miller Foundation wanted to reinforce by supporting and helping to publicize Bell's work. The 'argument' that I took away from watching this video is summed up by Avel Gordly:

If you're looking at how a community will grow, will prosper, and in a way that benefits everyone, if you continue on a trajectory or on a path that continues to exclude people based on race, ethnicity, income -- that becomes an Achilles heal. It will cripple and weaken all the other so-called opportunities that people are envisioning.

So I think the video is above all a plea to address the continuing displacement that's happening in Portland and create opportunities for a more diverse and inclusive city. How would I go about doing this? I'd start with housing policy: that $20 million in PDC money you mentioned will help to establish some elements of a rudimentary safety net for people facing pressure to abandon their gentrifying neighborhoods. But it's a drop in the bucket, given the scale of the problem and especially compared to the millions the PDC and other city agencies are spending to subsidize development in the South Waterfront or to build a new, privately-owned convention center hotel. I think gentrification also needs to be addressed at a more systemic level: one idea I'd favor, for example, is a law requiring that any amenities included in new development (courtyards, rooftop gardens, sauna and exercise rooms, swimming pools, etc.) be made public and available to anybody to use. The purpose of these amenities is to inflate the price that developers can charge for the housing they build on a given parcel. Banning the provision of such private amenities would either lower the cost of housing in these developments or help them to contribute more to their neighborhoods and communities.

Note that the solution is not to reintroduce deed restrictions and covenants or to pioneer or codify any new form of racial exclusion. People of color, and minorities generally, don't tend to be the advocates of those kind of policies. And anyway, lots of black families and white families are in the same boat.

All of this being said, I understand that you're very uncomfortable with the claim voiced by some people in the video that a 'black community' needs to exist in a physical location, in a neighborhood such as what used to exist in places like Albina. You're correct that the emotional experiences that people share about feeling culturally excluded from racially homogenous parts of Portland, of growing up 'merely tolerated and continually underestimated' in Bell's words, cannot easily be translated into some kind of normative ideal that would accord seamlessly with 'the values of the Enlightenment'. Then again, the values of the Enlightenment were not articulated at the time in order to get us to a multicultural society. You describe yourself as a liberal who advocates social democracy: well, Americans who have attempted to update and faithfully develop Enlightenment values (beginning with Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction era and continuing through to modern US liberals and socialists) have consistently recognized that the state must take some sort of 'affirmative action' to correct historical injustices and promote diversity and inclusivity in order for us to make tangible progress towards the multicultural society you cite as an ideal.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

one idea I'd favor, for example, is a law requiring that any amenities included in new development (courtyards, rooftop gardens, sauna and exercise rooms, swimming pools, etc.) be made public and available to anybody to use. The purpose of these amenities is to inflate the price that developers can charge for the housing they build on a given parcel. Banning the provision of such private amenities would either lower the cost of housing in these developments or help them to contribute more to their neighborhoods and communities.

People who live in apartments don't have the luxury of having a yard. Even in the highest end luxury buildings the amount of private outdoor space per resident is tiny when compared to a single family house sitting on a 5,000 sq ft lot. I don't think forcing these to be accessible to the public is either equitable or practical.

Banning private outdoor spaces would do very little to bring down housing costs. These spaces are typically located in areas that the building and/or zoning codes would not allow to be developed as habitable space. The cost of adding some pavers and a firepit instead of just a torch down roof is pretty marginal when compared with the overall project costs.

[soleri]

I supported Affirmative Action at the outset, but given its politicization by the White Political Party it's harder to justify in today's polarized nation. The same would go for the even less politically palatable reparations. What would work? Social democracy. Every American deserves a good education, job training, health care, and decent housing. It's what they do in Europe, Australia, the Pacific Rim nations, Canada, and every other nation that call itself 1st World. It's only controversial in this country. And the reason is race. Republicans use racial and cultural resentment to divide and conquer the electorate. The result is a nation riven with injustices and inequities. It's tearing us apart for no better reason than to ensure that the rich always become richer. It sickens me.

I think affordable housing set asides are a great idea. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to the reasons its not practiced in Portland.

Cultural codes and racial quotas are unworkable. North Portland has already transitioned to a majority white area (just as it had transitioned to a majority black area circa 1990). Is it unjust that cultures, economies, and demographics change? No. It's simply reality. I'm going to miss the hippies when they finally get priced out of Buckman, Kerns, Sunnyside, and Montavilla. Should we put them on an endangered list? No. It would offend our sense of proportionality. I miss the San Francisco and Seattle of the 1980s and '90s but there's no way to encase those cities in aspic. In the end, we can mourn the passing of an era without having to injure time itself. Change is the only constant. Our battles should be fought on behalf of attainable goals. Freezing North Portland demographically is not attainable because, in truth, it's impossible.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

People who live in apartments don't have the luxury of having a yard. Even in the highest end luxury buildings the amount of private outdoor space per resident is tiny when compared to a single family house sitting on a 5,000 sq ft lot. I don't think forcing these to be accessible to the public is either equitable or practical.

Banning private outdoor spaces would do very little to bring down housing costs. These spaces are typically located in areas that the building and/or zoning codes would not allow to be developed as habitable space. The cost of adding some pavers and a firepit instead of just a torch down roof is pretty marginal when compared with the overall project costs.

Fair enough, I'd make an exception for very small courtyard spaces designed to provide light and bike storage -- they're necessary, after all, to increase the amount of decently habitable space. I don't think that very large courtyard spaces are either strictly necessary or that making them publicly accessible (provided appropriate design and policing to discourage criminal activity) would seriously degrade the quality of life they provide to residents. I've lived in many apartment buildings and never found that having access to a large, privately gated courtyard was integral to my happiness or provided significant emotional compensation for the yard I had in the suburbs growing up.

In any case, do you have any objections to applying my ordinance to exercise rooms, saunas and swimming pools?

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by soleri

I supported Affirmative Action at the outset, but given its politicization by the White Political Party it's harder to justify in today's polarized nation. The same would go for the even less politically palatable reparations. What would work? Social democracy. Every American deserves a good education, job training, health care, and decent housing. It's what they do in Europe, Australia, the Pacific Rim nations, Canada, and every other nation that call itself 1st World. It's only controversial in this country. And the reason is race. Republicans use racial and cultural resentment to divide and conquer the electorate. The result is a nation riven with injustices and inequities. It's tearing us apart for no better reason than to ensure that the rich always become richer. It sickens me.

I think affordable housing set asides are a great idea. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to the reasons its not practiced in Portland.

Cultural codes and racial quotas are unworkable. North Portland has already transitioned to a majority white area (just as it had transitioned to a majority black area circa 1990). Is it unjust that cultures, economies, and demographics change? No. It's simply reality. I'm going to miss the hippies when they finally get priced out of Buckman, Kerns, Sunnyside, and Montavilla. Should we put them on an endangered list? No. It would offend our sense of proportionality. I miss the San Francisco and Seattle of the 1980s and '90s but there's no way to encase those cities in aspic. In the end, we can mourn the passing of an era without having to injure time itself. Change is the only constant. Our battles should be fought on behalf of attainable goals. Freezing North Portland demographically is not attainable because, in truth, it's impossible.

I agree with you that polarized identity politics help nobody. But I hope we can talk about gentrification and racial inclusivity without falling into this trap.

I think we should strive for a city in which longtime residents are not displaced because they can't compete financially with people with high incomes and no families. We should strive for a city in which our black, Latino and Asian communities can afford to live this side of 82nd. Are those unattainable goals?

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I think we should strive for a city in which longtime residents are not displaced because they can't compete financially with people with high incomes and no families. We should strive for a city in which our black, Latino and Asian communities can afford to live this side of 82nd.

Also perhaps poor white communities?

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by RainDog

Also perhaps poor and working class white folks?

Indeed.

[soleri]

The $20 million that PDC is targeting for north Portland includes low-income housing but probably not enough to stem the tide of transformation. I agree with the ideas of inclusivity, affordable housing, and socioeconomic integration. Now, let me give three cheers for the taboo concept itself - gentrification. Portland's success is founded on it. Cities that don't gentrify, that don't upgrade and renovate their housing stock, languish, sometimes to the point of near collapse as Detroit shows. You need a citizenry with the economic assets in hand to do this work. Government itself can only move the ball a few inches in one direction or another. Moreover, you need a broad political consensus that this is a good thing. They vote for a liberal mayor and council precisely because they understand Portland is improving. If you want to collapse this consensus, play divisive racial politics.

I notice in the rhetoric of the Portland Mercury and some of the Albina old-timers a disdain for the newbies that is striking. They're called "liberal bourgeoisie", which translated means something like inauthentic or shallow. But it's Portland's liberalism which makes compromise and amelioration possible. If those people were conservative, chances are there would be no $20 million or even a PDC. If those people never moved to north Portland, the area would be a net drain on the city's resources instead of contributing to its overall health. This is what every city craves - a dynamic transformation instead of stasis and decline.

We can work around the edges when it comes to these nebulous cultural identity issues but you can't legislate happiness. There will be winners and losers in every socioeconomic transformation. The middle and working classes - mostly white - are largely shut out of central Portland because of its stunning success. 90% of people working in San Francisco cannot afford to live there. The same thing is happening in Seattle despite the affordable housing carrots in new development. Denver, which is Portland's closest peer city in terms of housing costs and income levels, is showing the same stresses. So, what should we do? Stop growing in order to curtail this transformation? This Luddite temptation is what we're really confronting here.

America needs more Portlands. That is, it needs compact, walkable cities with good transit, strong cores, and the density to make it all work. But urban policy in this country hasn't really changed in the last 60 years. It's still about single-family houses, freeways, cars, and "cities" that could be anywhere - the whole catastrophe of post-war America. We're told all the time this is what people really want. But given a choice, people will pay a premium to live in a decent city. This is why Portland's success comes at a high cost. There are only so many good cities in America and their values are skyrocketing.

When I was a young man, I could have afforded to live in places like Greenwich Village, Pacific Heights, Lincoln Park, Aspen, La Jolla, Dupont Circle, or Santa Monica. That's all changed dramatically. I just barely got into Portland as it was. In ten years, it will be even more expensive. You're witnessing a tectonic event that disregards our finger-wagging and tsk-tsking. Portland is one of America's great cities now. You don't tell people not to come here. You just get out of their way.

[zilfondel]

Another aspect to this issue is that people throughout the city, of all races are being priced out of their neighborhoods. At least from what I've read.

Also, for the residents who are able to stay, some have commented they are benefitting from positive changes - economic growth, city investments, lower crime rates, etc.

Gentrification poses a mixed bag. Its really hard to imagine being able to buy a house in NE Portland 20 years ago for less than $10k tho.

Now, I live way down in the Sellwood neighborhood, and from what we've been seeing over the past two years is a very large % of houses going up for sale. Even in this predominantly white neighborhood, rapidly rising property values are causing an exodus of existing residents who appear to be cashing out. This is mostly anecdotal, although there are ~15 houses have gone up for sale on our street over this period.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by soleri

Moreover, you need a broad political consensus that this is a good thing. They vote for a liberal mayor and council precisely because they understand Portland is improving. If you want to collapse this consensus, play divisive racial politics.

Collapse what consensus? Communities of color are your natural allies if you actually want to push for this social democracy stuff. On the other hand, a 'broad political consensus' cannot, by definition, coexist with and tolerate the kinds of displacement that have affected the black community and other communities in Portland. A broad political consensus to exclude poor people and people of color isn't liberal and progressive, it's just old-fashioned right-wing bigotry -- which happens to have a much longer history in Portland than the relatively recent phenomenon of its 'liberalism'. This history is precisely what Portland's so-called liberalism has to address, to define itself in contradistinction to.

I get it: you don't like it when people 'play the race card'. You think it plays into Republican strategies to divide and conquer the electorate. I've already admitted that I find many kinds of identity politics exasperating as well. But let me ask you this: what is the strategy for getting to a less divisive form of politics here in Portland that doesn't involve white progressives actually listening to, struggling to understand and legitimate and empathize with the concerns of black and latino and Asian communities and working class communities of all colors? Instead of dismissing these victims of Portland's 'success' with some platitudes about equal opportunity and the nostrums that 'there will be winners and losers' and 'you can't legislate happiness'?

zilfondel: certainly, affordability issues affect many communities, not just nonwhites -- but it's possible that the black community is affected more acutely than others. I think for white progressives the strategy is to understand this first and then talk about defining 'political consensus'.

It's true that reinvestment in neighborhoods is a good thing -- it ought to be a good thing that benefits everybody, most of all the people who have invested their lives in that neighborhood. But if you don't understand the history then you misunderstand gentrification. Blacks were denied economic assets like homeownership, their neighborhoods deliberately exposed to deterioration and neglect, starved of infrastructure, services or investment until their demographic composition began to whiten. Gentrification isn't a consequence of reinvestment, it's a consequence of racism and disinvestment, of the policies of financial institutions and realtors and speculators and municipal authorities.

I'd recommend Karen Gibson's article 'Bleeding Albina' even if you're well-familiar from US history class with deed restrictions and covenants, redlining and blockbusting, abandonment, predatory lending, etc. The Mercury's Sarah Mirk once said it 'should be required reading for all Portlanders, offered to newcomers in a welcome packet that includes a bike light and a vacuum-sealed Kettleman's bagel'. (I won't link to it in deference to data protection laws, but it's freely available by googling). soleri, the history of how these vicious practices were employed in Portland might (hopefully) shock your Enlightened, humanist sensibilities into clarity on these 'nebulous cultural identity issues'.

[maccoinnich]

I've had a few thoughts about gentrification stewing over in my head today.

1) Given that property taxes in Oregon don't rise with rising house values, no one in N/NE Portland is being pushed out of their home by rising property taxes. At least not any more than anywhere else in the state. And yet most of the $20 million the Portland Housing Bureau is spending in N/NE Portland is going to loans for downpayments and grants for maintenance. Personally, I believe that having a place to live is a human right; but owning a place is not. I can't help but think that $20 million would make a much larger long term impact if it was spent on the construction of new homes.

2) Portland mostly pays for affordable housing with money from Tax Increment Financing in Urban Renewal Areas, and this is a bad idea. In order for that money to exist, there needs to be a lot of development to generate the TIF money. But development lags demand, and there won't be any development unless there's enough demand in the area to support high rents. Compare the River District with Lents. One URA has generated lots of TIF money, and therefore the Housing Bureau has been able to finance lots of low income housing. The latter hasn't. This isn't really a problem in the River District, because no one lived there before and so no one was pushed out. It is a problem in the Interstate Urban Renewal Area though. There's a lot of development going on right now, but that's not what's pushed people out of N/NE (almost all the large buildings are going on vacant land). It was the large increase in demand (and rents) in the 2000s that pushed people out. So inevitably by the time the housing bureau has enough money to pay for new housing, it's already too late. We need a better way to fund low income housing (and inclusionary zoning isn't it). Unfortunately I don't what the answer is.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

[M]ost of the $20 million the Portland Housing Bureau is spending in N/NE Portland is going to loans for downpayments and grants for maintenance. Personally, I believe that having a place to live is a human right; but owning a place is not. I can't help but think that $20 million would make a much larger long term impact if it was spent on the construction of new homes.

Actually less than half. According to the Mercury article, $11 million goes toward building affordable housing (apartments) or banking land, presumably for the future construction of affordable housing. $4 million goes to loans for home repairs ('one of the most cost-effective but least dramatic options on the city's menu' -- it's really hard to argue against this one imo) and the remaining $5 million toward the purchase of new homes.

I agree with your sentiment, though perhaps for different reasons -- I think the commodification of housing is the core of the problem. In Amsterdam, even after a string of neoliberal administrations nearly half of the housing stock is publicly owned, managed by not-for-profit housing agencies and distributed in accordance with a need-based, pay-what-you-can-afford model. This is the legacy of staunchly left-wing policies enacted in the 70s and early 80s; it offers one possible model for Portland (one I'd love to see, though I'm not holding my breath). Land-banking is another alternative model.

But it's understandable that the public process resulted a high priority put on homeownership for black folks in Albina, given the history and context: given that black homeownership in Portland lags both white homeownership in Portland and black homeownership nationally, which is a legacy of discriminatory policies in Portland that unfairly denied blacks opportunities for homeownership; given that low levels of homeownership exacerbated the earlier problems of neglect and the tragedy of gentrification in Albina; given that the few black homeowners who have tenaciously held on are perhaps seen as struggling not just on their own behalf but on behalf of preserving their communities and their collective history.

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Portland mostly pays for affordable housing with money from Tax Increment Financing in Urban Renewal Areas, and this is a bad idea.... [I]nevitably by the time the housing bureau has enough money to pay for new housing, it's already too late. We need a better way to fund low income housing (and inclusionary zoning isn't it).

I didn't know this was where affordable housing funds come from, but I agree with you, it does seem like a bad strategy if the aim is to prevent displacement. Can't the city just create a single pool of money to fund affordable housing construction anywhere that it's appropriate?

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Collapse what consensus? Communities of color are your natural allies if you actually want to push for this social democracy stuff. On the other hand, a 'broad political consensus' cannot, by definition, coexist with and tolerate the kinds of displacement that have affected the black community and other communities in Portland. A broad political consensus to exclude poor people and people of color isn't liberal and progressive, it's just old-fashioned right-wing bigotry -- which happens to have a much longer history in Portland than the relatively recent phenomenon of its 'liberalism'. This history is precisely what Portland's so-called liberalism has to address, to define itself in contradistinction to..

This poisonous political argument - if you disagree with me about an emotional issue means you're a bigot - actually serves to highlight the problem with this cause. Because if they and you are claiming to occupy a moral high ground, I suspect you need more than casual guilt-tripping to convince Portland's liberal citizenry of its righteousness. For the record, I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat. I loathe from the deepest wellspring of my being the politics of race-baiting and scapegoating. I'm saying this not to invalidate their feelings but to point out that the word "consensus" means more than being morally correct. It means having an argument that appeals to a majority of citizens. If it passes that test, your argument has legs. Since I don't know what specific remedies the Albina group has aside from getting more PDC money, it's simply too nebulous to ponder beyond its own vague sense of grievance.

I make the argument for "social democracy" as a way of getting away from that political dead end. We can make this country fairer but we can't unring the bell of history. Bad things happened but you don't necessarily correct them by making the same mistake but this time from the other side. Rhetoric about "displacement" necessarily evokes a preference for one color, one community, and one set of grievances. This is a can of worms.

We are Americans invested with inalienable rights but not to make our preferences limit the rights of others. If the good black citizens of Albina want a black community because it makes them feel more comfortable, they are making the same argument that segregationists made during the civil rights era. I'm sympathetic to the blacks a lot more than the whites because of history but I'm not persuaded this is either workable or philosophically consistent. Freedom cannot be tailored to reward one set of people over another without ceasing to be freedom. That's the conundrum of this particular challenge. Life may not be fair, but our political instincts should always strive to find their broadest application in color-blind justice.