South Waterfront News

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

personally, I don't like the idea of putting 'poor' people into 'nice places' to make them feel better, or whatever.

Part of the reason is to reduce demands on other infrastructure, like the MAX lines that are so hated that people complain how overcrowded they are. Or the roads that are so filled with traffic that people complain about (after driving miles to get to and from work.)

There's also something that I'm not sure has been studied, but wouldn't you think that people would have a chance at better economic opportunity if they have neighbors who are going well for themselves? I can tell you that I've gotten several jobs by just knowing the right person.

I'm sure I'm missing other benefits of making sure that we make sure we don't end up pricing out the people who work at jobs that don't pay enough to buy a $350,000 condo.

[WestCoast]

I think the personal snipes are funny because they're so predictable, so you might as well not waste your time.


--
I think Dave at least is looking at it a bit objectively.

Manufacturing density increases by forcing rich neighborhoods to have poor people in them *does* allow for more transit. So that is good for all.
But I don't think the rich folks really care - they drive.
Transit might increase property values near your condo, but, well, I'm not sure rich people are riding mass transit anyway. And you pay for it with your property taxes.

--
Dave, your other point is quite good. I tell people a lot, 'you are the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with'
So, having people who are hard working and moving up in the world around other even more successful people certainly has a knock on affect, even if just aspirational. Totally agree.

--
Again, I think most of you are missing the point entirely. I'm not making a human judgement. That would be mean and cruel.
I'm making a simple economic one. And it's interesting to see the mob come out instead of critically thinking. I guess this is an anonymous internet forum, but it's still interesting that the reaction is so predictable.
And I'm not trolling, I've been on this forum for years and really appreciate the input of a number of posters.

--
What we are talking about, is how easily everyone agrees: 'those who can't afford a condo in the southwaterfront should get to live there anyway!'
And it's so important to the neighborhood feel that the city will subsidize it.

It's interesting to see a situation where poor people have more rights/priority than the people who paid their money fair and square to live somewhere nicer than average.


Finally, I don't think any hard working family expects the right to live where they can't afford. At least, no one that I am friends with would expect that handed to them. If they work hard and save, they'll get there.

Lazy, entitled people who general don't contribute much *economically* to society sure want the free handouts of subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood. But, again, does that suddenly make the SW *better* because we're paying poor people to be there?

Does the fact that there are poor people in posh neighborhoods make everyone nod their heads and smile that Portland is 'progressive'?


I still think we should fix the actual economic aspects of what causes poverty instead of this window dressing. And I'm still not convinced moving poor people into a rich neighborhood suddenly validates the entire neighborhood.

[WestCoast]

I think the personal snipes are funny because they're so predictable, so you might as well not waste your time.


--
I think Dave at least is looking at it a bit objectively.

Manufacturing density increases by forcing rich neighborhoods to have poor people in them *does* allow for more transit. So that is good for all.
But I don't think the rich folks really care - they drive.
Transit might increase property values near your condo, but, well, I'm not sure rich people are riding mass transit anyway. And you pay for it with your property taxes.

--
Dave, your other point is quite good. I tell people a lot, 'you are the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with'
So, having people who are hard working and moving up in the world around other even more successful people certainly has a knock on affect, even if just aspirational. Totally agree.

--
Again, I think most of you are missing the point entierly. I'm not making a human judgement. That would be mean and cruel.
I'm making a simple economic one. And it's interesting to see the mob come out instead of critically thinking at all. I guess this is an anonymous internet forum, but it's still interesting that the reaction is so predictable.
And I'm not trolling, I've been on this forum for years and really appreciate the input of a number of posters.


--
What we are talking about, is how easily everyone agrees: 'those you can't afford a condo in the southwaterfront should get to live there anyway!'
And it's so important to the neighborhood feel that the city will subsidize it.

I'm not sure that is rational or makes economic sense.


Finally, I don't think any hard working family expects the right to live where they can't afford. At least, no one that I am friends with would expect that handed to them. If they work hard and save, they'll get there.
Lazy, entitled people who general don't contribute much *economically* to society sure want the free handouts of subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood. But, again, does that suddenly make the SW *better* because we're paying poor people to be there?
Does the fact that there are poor people in posh neighborhoods make everyone nod their heads and smile that Portland is 'progressive'?


I still think we should fix the actual economic aspects of what causes poverty instead of this window dressing. And I'm still not convinced moving poor people into a rich neighborhood suddenly validates the entire neighborhood.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I think the personal snipes are funny because they're so predictable, so you might as well not waste your time.

Lazy, entitled people who general don't contribute much *economically* to society sure want the free handouts of subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood. But, again, does that suddenly make the SW *better* because we're paying poor people to be there?

Does the fact that there are poor people in posh neighborhoods make everyone nod their heads and smile that Portland is 'progressive'?


I still think we should fix the actual economic aspects of what causes poverty instead of this window dressing. And I'm still not convinced moving poor people into a rich neighborhood suddenly validates the entire neighborhood.

Fixing the actual causes of poverty would mean voting for just enough wealth redistribution that America no longer had the highest income inequality among economically advanced nations. Somehow, I don't think you mean that. Since the poor are "lazy" and economically unproductive, it sounds as if they deserve to be poor. On the other hand, the rich definitely deserve all the corporate welfare and favored tax status they buy from Congress.

We need to have enough perspective that we understand just how lucky we are. We don't need to be perfect. We do need to be aware.

[2oh1]

Here's what you see:

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Lazy, entitled people who general don't contribute much *economically* to society

Here's what *I* see:

People working hard to pay the rent and put food on the table. They're working in our grocery stores, in our pubs and restaurants, our schools and libraries, etc etc etc.

The way each of us sees these same people tells anyone who looks a lot about each of us.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

It's just taken for granted that anyone has the right to live wherever they please, whether they have the means or not. And the city demands that developers make that possible so they can build bigger and more fancy buildings.

The Pearl, South Waterfront and several other neighborhoods have been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer money. I see nothing wrong with requiring a developer to include affordable housing since the city has made possible the ability to develop prime real estate. Developers are making bucket loads of cash from their condo and apartment and creative office buildings. Most affordable housing is also subsidized with additional money, on top of the infrastructure already provided, from public sources. Developers are still profiting from the affordable housing they are building too.

With the incredible investment already made by the city, why should the housing be exclusively for the wealthy?

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

The Pearl, South Waterfront and several other neighborhoods have been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer money. I see nothing wrong with requiring a developer to include affordable housing since the city has made possible the ability to develop prime real estate. Developers are making bucket loads of cash from their condo and apartment and creative office buildings. Most affordable housing is also subsidized with additional money, on top of the infrastructure already provided, from public sources. Developers are still profiting from the affordable housing they are building too.

With the incredible investment already made by the city, why should the housing be exclusively for the wealthy?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I think the personal snipes are funny because they're so predictable, so you might as well not waste your time.

These tired arguments have been going around and around on the internet for the last 20 years. So is bringing them up again going to contribute anything to the conversation? I doubt it.

Again, I think most of you are missing the point entierly. I'm not making a human judgement. That would be mean and cruel.
I'm making a simple economic one. And it's interesting to see the mob come out instead of critically thinking at all. I guess this is an anonymous internet forum, but it's still interesting that the reaction is so predictable.
And I'm not trolling, I've been on this forum for years and really appreciate the input of a number of posters.
[...]
Lazy, entitled people who general don't contribute much *economically* to society sure want the free handouts of subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood.

It certainly sounds like you're making a human judgment, given that, first of all, you stereotype all non-rich people as "lazy" and "entitled" and secondly, that you seem to think that a person's economic contribution is the measure of a person's worth. I'm glad I'm not that judgmental.

OK, let's get back to skyscrapers.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I'm not making a human judgement. That would be mean and cruel.
I'm making a simple economic one.

Oh, but you ARE making human judgments. You are judging people's worth in terms of dollars. And that is among the meanest of the mean and the cruelest of the cruel. When you discuss the rich versus the rest in terms of debating whether, and I quote, "people with low value should get the same deal as people with high value." It is mean. And it is cruel. The idea that affordable housing equates to, and I quote "forcing 'rich people' to tolerate 'less rich people' just for the sake of inclusivity " is also mean. And it is also cruel.

[WestCoast]

Last few posts have been really good. Glad to see some new views.

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

The Pearl, South Waterfront and several other neighborhoods have been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer money. I see nothing wrong with requiring a developer to include affordable housing since the city has made possible the ability to develop prime real estate. Developers are making bucket loads of cash from their condo and apartment and creative office buildings. Most affordable housing is also subsidized with additional money, on top of the infrastructure already provided, from public sources. Developers are still profiting from the affordable housing they are building too.

With the incredible investment already made by the city, why should the housing be exclusively for the wealthy?

As much as I disagree with public subsidizes for private investment at all, if the city hands out money for developers to build rich people stuff, then it's fair to require some balance for them to build a mix of housing options.
That seems like a reasonable position for the city to take. I'm still unclear how putting people in parts of town they could never afford to live in, benefits them or the people who paid good honest money to own homes there.

--
soleri: 'wealth redistribution' I don't think means what you think it means.

If you put a gun to a rich person's head and take their money and give it to people with less money, that's a *very* short term fix. What do you think happens to the motivation for the rich person to keep making money?
There is already a lot of wealth redistribution. It just goes to the people who create value and more profit in our economy. Which I assume is the opposite of how you wished it flowed?

I'm for removing barriers so everyone can do better. Opportunities for people to start their own businesses. Get educated, have good jobs.
I'm not about just spreading money around randomly thinking that fixes the entire reasons that make people poor.

I guess, perhaps, this is the heart of my comment. I'd rather see barriers removed, than artificially forcing rich people to tolerate living with poor people in the same neighborhood all in the name of equality and social progress.

--
It's curious to me, under what pretense, subsidized housing trumps the housing that people have paid for?

Where's the line?

In fancy SW condos, everyone seems to think those rich bastards should have to have poor housing across the street. Damn straight people say!
Yet, what about a normal Single Family Home type neighborhood. NE Simpson and 57th? Does everyone have the same furor that we MUST put in poor housing right in the middle of that neighborhood as well!
Make those working class snobs deal with the Section 8 neighbors just like the SWaterfront people!


I'm still unclear if people think the homeless have more rights than people who bought and paid for their homes in whatever neighborhood they chose.

--
2oh1 - The world is full of different opinions, calling someone 'mean' doesn't advance your supposedly more enlightened viewpoint.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

--
soleri: 'wealth redistribution' I don't think means what you think it means.

If you put a gun to a rich person's head and take their money and give it to people with less money, that's a *very* short term fix. What do you think happens to the motivation for the rich person to keep making money?
There is already a lot of wealth redistribution. It just goes to the people who create value and more profit in our economy. Which I assume is the opposite of how you wished it flowed?

We have the best political economy rich people can buy, which is why 95% of new wealth since the Great Recession began has gone to the top 1%. So, not only do we have the advanced world's greatest income inequality, we also have its lowest amount of social mobility, lower even that Turkey. Great land of opportunity you Randians have devised! As an example, America's richest family, the Waltons, five individuals, own more of this nation's wealth than the lower 42% of the population. This has happened in part because they externalized business expenses onto the rest of taxpayers - food stamps, Medicaid, e.g. - in order to keep their labor costs low. Increasingly, the rich invest their money in low-tax hedge funds, offshore tax havens, and various shelters that K Street creates with their paid help in Congress.

Your Amway economic values aside, why do we love cities? So we can rub elbows with rich philistines? No. Portland wouldn't be Portland if it only looked like NW 23rd Ave. or the West Hills. Money is a great thing to have but it can't be the only value. A city needs diversity and if there's not enough wealth redistribution, you start looking like Mexico or some other nation where an engrained kleptocracy keeps most people immiserated in slums. The heyday of the American middle-class was from 1945 to 1980, when the upper marginal tax rate was 70%. Taxes in Oregon are high but they keep this state from scraping the bottom of the barrel like the average red state. Sadly, Oregon cannot fight this battle alone, so growing inequality is a fact of life here, too.

Fortunately for your tribe, most of America looks like your ideal. That is, sharp socio-economic segregation as defined by well-to-do white suburbs and poorer cities. Portland is an exception, perhaps the most important exception in America today. Good transit, affordable housing set asides, access to college, and a high minimum wage have helped maintain the urban vitality that is Portland's most obvious civic emblem. Not even the the city's rich are complaining about this since they overpay for condos close to some of the city's most wretchedly poor "takers". If Portland were merely their playground, this city would be less vibrant and exciting. The trade-off means you pay more to live here but you get a good city in the bargain. A city like Phoenix has the kind of trade-off you seem to be arguing for: low taxes, little social conscience, and a city not worth caring about.

[bvpcvm]

than artificially forcing rich people to tolerate living with poor people in the same neighborhood

Oh, the HUMANITY. Imagine, having to TOLERATE living near people of a different tax bracket. Practically arbeit macht frei level oppression of your saintly job creators. I mean, the smell alone, ugh.

Look, following the link in your signature, it looks like you've spent the last year jetting around the world - safaris in Kenya, trips to Dubai, Morocco, Wales, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Mexico - all in 2014. Must be nice. Just wondering, do you realize that many of the people you encounter - airline employees, baristas, whatever - are actually *not* rich? How do you tolerate them? Yikes, that's rough.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Look, following the link in your signature, it looks like you've spent the last year jetting around the world - safaris in Kenya, trips to Dubai, Morocco, Wales, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Mexico - all in 2014. Must be nice. Just wondering, do you realize that many of the people you encounter - airline employees, baristas, whatever - are actually *not* rich? How do you tolerate them? Yikes, that's rough.

While an ad hominem attack is a great way to try to confuse an issue, I think this crosses a line on this forum, personally.

You have no clue what I do professionally, why I travel, what I am doing when I travel.

--
You can assume I'm rich if you wish, but I'm a working dude, 6 days a week busting my tail. I'm not rich by any stretch (but check back in ~20 years maybe...)
So this has nothing to do with me. I live downtown, I'm surrounded by homeless people and people talking to themselves. I don't love it, but I don't care, it's part of modern America I guess.


My entire point has been simple. It's interesting that 'poor people' (with no judgement being made on their quality or character) are built nice subsidized homes in the South Waterfront. So, you can live in subsidize housing / or buy a condo there.

I am asking the question of, when do we prioritize 'handouts' vs. people who paid for something fairly. The people that traded their hard earned money for a condo, get the same neighborhood as the subsidized housing person.

And whether you like it or not, NORMALLY, rich people live in rich neighborhoods to be around people like them. Likely for the same reason you live where you live and not in the ghettos of Portland.
You decided to pay more money to live in a place that you like and is comfortable instead of a shanty.


I'm just asking the question, and everyone is says I'm crazy instead of answering the question with facts.

--
Does subsidized housing carry more importance than respecting the free will of working class families who buy homes in neighborhoods they like?

That's all I want to know, particularly in the South Waterfront where the example is the most stark.

[eeldip]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Does subsidized housing carry more importance than respecting the free will of working class families who buy homes in neighborhoods they like?

That's all I want to know, particularly in the South Waterfront where the example is the most stark.

the requirement to build affordable units is on the developers. the city has a duty through create a functioning/healthy city, and uses its basic powers; zoning, subsidies to realize this. also (i assume you know this... but just in case) the neighborhood is a special case in that its a former brownfield, and a combination of public and private money has gone into preparing the land and infrastructure to make development possible at all.

i don't understand how the "free will" of market rate renters/home owners enters into this at all. they are free to buy/rent where they want for market rate...

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Does subsidized housing carry more importance than respecting the free will of working class families who buy homes in neighborhoods they like?

I dare you - no, seriously, I dare you - to define working class. Who do you think lives in those affordable housing units? You're under some mistaken impression that homeless people are being walked into luxury housing.

When you shop for groceries, who do you think stocks the shelves with the products you're there to buy? Who rings you out at the register? Who works behind the deli counter? When you go to the movies, who makes sure the theater is clean? Who works behind the concessions counter? Who oversees the equipment that puts the film on the screen? When you go to a restaurant, who serves your table? Who cooks your food?

Do you think these are a bunch of homeless people killing time for your benefit? Or do you think these people are banking six figures?

I dare you - no, seriously, I dare you - to define working class. Where do you think working class people live? How do you think they afford it?

You're the one defining a person's value based on their income.

[WestCoast]

(via the first result on google)

Working Class:
the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work.
"the housing needs of the working classes"

adjective
adjective: working-class; adjective: working class
1.
relating to people belonging to the working class.
"a working-class community"

Do I get a prize for accepting your dare

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

You're the one defining a person's value based on their income.

And I would add, I never defined it based on income. But on what people could afford.


--
eeldip: Maybe you nailed it. It's just a city redevelopment and you're going to get all types of buildings for all types of people if you get city/state money.


--
I was trying to equate it to a neighborhood where Sec 8 housing was added randomly. Take that property owners, we're putting it in whether you like it or not! And I guess since it's fancy condos and a former brownsfield, every wants to see all types of people jammed in there, regardless of income or ability to pay for it.

--
I'm still curious if people think homeless/subsidized housing belongs in every neighborhood. And the follow on is, does the opinion of the local home owners matter, or not at all?


I think it does, but it seems I am in the minority here. (which I am, frankly a bit surprised by considering this is a development/architecture forum)

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I'm still curious if people think homeless/subsidized housing belongs in every neighborhood. And the follow on is, does the opinion of the local home owners matter, or not at all?

Well here's the opinion of the chair of the Pearl District neighborhood association, in an article published last year:

"Just because buildings are new doesn't mean everyone is rich," says Patricia Gardner, chair of the Pearl District Neighborhood Association's planning committee since 2000. "Some of the earliest buildings in the neighborhood were low-income."

....

"It's not altruistic; we believe an urban existence should fit everyone," Gardner says. "Maybe because we've always had affordable buildings, they've never been an issue."

...

The elegant design, with a formal submission to the Portland Design Commission planned for mid-summer, is typical for the Pearl's affordable buildings, Gardner says.

She likes to take people to an area with a concentration of affordable buildings and ask them to identify low-income versus condominium.

"You can't tell," she says.

[eeldip]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I was trying to equate it to a neighborhood where Sec 8 housing was added randomly. Take that property owners, we're putting it in whether you like it or not!

--

That exists. If you are a homeowner, you can rent out your house to section 8 tenants.

http://www.homeforward.org/landlords/what-is-section-8

Its a pretty popular program in neighborhoods where landlords have trouble collecting stable rents, most of the rent is guaranteed by the state. Section 8 renters tend to stay for a long time, etc.

Back when home forward was HAP, they owned a lot of SFHs in existing neighborhoods, but they have liquidated those because the federal funding got pulled (some great deals for buying).

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I'm still curious if people think homeless/subsidized housing belongs in every neighborhood. And the follow on is, does the opinion of the local home owners matter, or not at all?


I think it does, but it seems I am in the minority here. (which I am, frankly a bit surprised by considering this is a development/architecture forum)

i don't know what you mean by your questions. in that, they don't make any real world sense. what do you mean by "belongs"? meaning are they out of place? or that all development should be required to include some component of subsidized housing? or that the city should build dedicated public housing in all neighborhoods?

and what do you mean by "does the opinion of the local home owners matter". meaning, beyond the existing channels? like should there be a new dedicated process where homeowners should be informed and give approval for all changes and new development that includes subsidized housing/public housing or services?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

(via the first result on google)

Holy cow. YOU HAD TO LOOK IT UP?

Originally Posted by WestCoast

And I would add, I never defined it based on income. But on what people could afford.

So, you define a person's value based on access to old money if he or she doesn't make six figures? Wow. You do realize that's prejudice at best if not discrimination, right?