South Waterfront News

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I can't believe I'm responding. But it's like watching a car crash.



And 2 oh 1 took it 'dumber' than that.

(I assume by your self-righteousness that you have opened your own warm house to the less fortunate tonight. So the homeless can get out of the cold Mr. Equality?

--

I never said anyone had to 'tolerate' anyone.
(Which, by the way, legally or morally, they don't)


I was curious about the rights of homeowners vs. the rights of those given free or subsidized housing.

Somehow a few of you turned this into rich vs. poor, or that I didn't like poor people or thought I was better. None of which was germain to the discussion at all.

--

The group think here is 10,000% sure that everyone has equal rights to live wherever they want. Or at least wherever the government decides to put them.


In SoWa in particular, the theory is the government subsidized the development, therefore, the rich and poor should co-exist and no one get preferential treatment.
That seems, perhaps a reasonable trade off, and a home buyer should understand and have that disclosed before they chose to buy.
Fair enough if the developer is using government money.

My point remains bolded above, and the discussion got way away from that.

--
In short: you could almost compare my comment to discussion of the merits of eminent domain.

That would be less emotional I guess, and you guys couldn't make a mess of the discussion.

Instead, people without cognitive skills created a witch hunt to stifle conversation and scare off anyone who could dare(!) challenge their great tax payer supported utopian vision.
By assuming your moral high ground was relevant here, it makes it hard to have a fair exchange of ideas.

I am reminded of trying to discuss science with overtly religious people.
Nothing accomplished and everyone is just angry at everyone else.
Maybe I should have known better than to try to have some discourse on an open forum. I guess I hoped it wouldn't just be a reddit type barrage of *dumb*

--
Kudos to the few select posters that gave good insight.
To the rest of you, way to lower the bar.

If you are still interested:
I remain curious if those that bought and own homes/property, have the same, less, or more rights than those who are given property.

Speaking of lowering the bar...

I'm curious who these fictional people are that are "given" property. And where do I sign up to get myself some of this free property?

You're talking about rentals, and regardless of what price point they're being rented out, the only rights a renter has is whatever is spelled out in their lease agreement. What property owners are allowed to do with their properties is governed by zoning and building codes, and/or CC&R's if there is a local Home Owner's Association. If there's a development agreement for a particular area where public money is involved, i.e. SoWa, then they're obligated to abide by that agreement. It doesn't matter what surrounding property owners want once the agreement has been settled upon. I can't tell my neighbor he or she can't build something as long as it's appropriately zoned, permitted, and it's built to code.

So the answer to your ill-conceived question is "No". One property owner doesn't have any more or less rights than any of the neighboring property owners. Also, "No", I, as a property owner, cannot tell my neighbor who they can or can't rent to. And "Hell No", I, as a property owner, can't tell a renter they can't rent the apartment down the street because I don't think they're paying enough. That's completely absurd.

Just like your question.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Zihua

Does anyone know the amount of subsidies for south waterfront? I know the tram was partially paid by the City of Portland.

The maximum indebtedness for the North Macadam Urban Renewal Area (which includes South Waterfront) is $289 million dollars. I can't find how much of that debt has already been issued, and how much is left to spend before 2020. However, here are some of the things that URA money has been spent on so far:

• Portland Aerial Tram - $8.5 million
• Portland Streetcar - Riverplace extensions - $8.4 million
• Portland Streetcar - Gibbs extension - $3.8 million
• Portland Streetcar - Lowell extension - $1.8 million
• Central District Streets - $3.8 million
• Portland-Milwaukie Lightrail - $10 million
• OHSU Center for Health & Healing - $5 million
• Gray's Landing affordable housing - $29 million
• South Waterfront Greenway Phase I - $4 million

Note that most, if not all, of these will have leveraged other public or private funds. i.e., the Aerial Tram cost $57 million to build, however OHSU paid for most of it.

[Derek]

Does anybody know when the waterfront park is supposed to be open? I thought it was supposed to open last month. It certainly looks like the work is complete but the fences have been up for weeks with seemingly no activity occurring.

[maccoinnich]

They're letting the landscaping bed in.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I never said anyone had to 'tolerate' anyone.
(Which, by the way, legally or morally, they don't)

You did say precisely that. Here's the quote:

Originally Posted by WestCoast

forcing 'rich people' to tolerate 'less rich people' just for the sake of inclusivity seems a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...

You're advocating for discrimination based on class (or, as you like to call it, a person's "economic value"). Discrimination is wrong. Period. That sort of thing shouldn't even need to be explained.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

this is an *economic value* question, if people with low value should get the same deal as people with high value.

I don't care if you favor discriminating based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or as you like to refer to it, "economic value." Discrimination is wrong.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

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?

What about the handouts to OHSU? What about the handouts to developers who built million dollar condos? I don't see you complaining about those.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I'm still not convinced moving poor people into a rich neighborhood suddenly validates the entire neighborhood.

Moving them IN? They're already there, and they're already part of the neighborhood. Working class people work in the shops that the neighborhood wouldn't be the same without. You keep equating everyone who can't afford $400,000 condos as being homeless. Can't you see how wide the chasm is between the rich and the rest?

Originally Posted by WestCoast

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.

How fairly was the land converted from a brownfield and placed in developers' hands? I'm not complaining about that, nor the handouts to OHSU, because these things have, for the most part, been a benefit to the city far beyond the boundaries of South Waterfront. Public resources were used to build it. I think it's reasonable to expect that the neighborhood should be fair and inclusive rather than an enclave for the rich.

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?

Here, you're referring to people who can afford $400,000 condos as working class?!? Earlier in this thread, I asked you to define what working class means, and you had to google it.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

It's unpopular to talk about this (clearly), but what people say in public is different than what they think in private. So, I've raised the issue.
Lots of group think evident here, which I guess is expected from a development minded forum, but still I'm a bit surprised.

If standing up against classism and discrimination is groupthink, then this is a group I can be proud to be part of.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Derek

Does anybody know when the waterfront park is supposed to be open? I thought it was supposed to open last month. It certainly looks like the work is complete but the fences have been up for weeks with seemingly no activity occurring.

I was there about 10 days ago. Looked like the workers were still finishing up some punchlist items, like fence railing for the ped water access ramp.

[Zihua]

So between SDC's paid by new development and taxes to pay the URA funds back by the new development, is it likely that the City will still be out of pocket?

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Hmm, that response makes me even more curious. I live downtown, and take a lot of interest in the urban environment. And I would never attend a meeting or raise my opinion, as I know it is meaningless.
(I also don't vote anymore, under the exact same philosophy)

--
It's unpopular to talk about this (clearly), but what people say in public is different than what they think in private. So, I've raised the issue.
Lots of group think evident here, which I guess is expected from a development minded forum, but still I'm a bit surprised.

--
I guess the issue is a bit over the top for this forum. I don't usually do academic or philosophical talks, so maybe it's my own fault for trying to bring it up an interesting issue here.

wow. I've been on vacation for the last two weeks and was catching up on this forum and just wasted a half hour on this overwrought topic. one person versus pretty much everyone else here. fascinating. and tedious.

I think the above post should've ended the discussion. there will be no light entering a brain with that level of fortification, my friends.

[cronked]

Maybe this will lighten the conversation a little. I found this article inside OHSU's Extra magazine that I got in the mail today. Early renderings of the new buildings to be built in SOWA!

In other updates, the new high end restaurant being built in the Ardea still isn't open and it looks like the walls aren't even finished. It was supposed to open in December. The new growler place is making progress. The South Waterfront Neighborhood Association leased space in the Ardea sidecar. The Groaning Board seems to be doing good business. I had the burger and fries there and they were yummy. The Greenway is partially open and looks fantastic.

[bvpcvm]

As far as how these will actually look, these are essentially just massing studies at most, right? I think I heard a little bit ago that actual architects would be chosen soon.

[cronked]

In the full page view, the location of buildings on the map on the right doesn't match the location of buildings on the renderings. Odd.

[Abide]

Yeah. The conceptual rendering of the Schnitzer campus is mislabeled. Shoulda fact checked that before publishing, haha.

[cronked]

Got a cool shot of SoWa last night with the fog.

[ORNative]

Thanks Cronked for sharing your picture - very cool photo!

[maccoinnich]

Plans move forward for Zidells' next South Waterfront phases



Jon Bell
Staff Reporter-

The logistics of a new public park and affordable housing options are among the remaining details that the Portland Development Commission is finalizing with ZRZ Realty Company for South Waterfront's next major development phase.

Since early December, PDC has worked with representatives from ZRZ, the real estate arm of the Zidell family that owns 30 acres in the district, and the Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation to come up with terms for what is currently being referred to as Ross Island Bridge Park.

The parties are identifying the size, location and conceptual design for the new park, which would be part of the multiphase development that ZRZ is planning for the next 10 years. PDC would likely contribute up to $5 million to acquire property for the park.

...continues at the Portland Business Journal.

[pdxtraveler]

Great news, but disappointingly undetailed.

[babs]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Portland Business Journal.

Why don't the Zidells donate parkland to the city in return for the development agreement. I'm sure they would get nice tax deduction. But why offer that up if the city is willing to hand out some cash for your land.

[maccoinnich]

Does Zidell family have 'no desire' to develop affordable housing in Portland's South Waterfront? Draft city memo said so



A rendering of the proposed master plan for the Zidell family-owned property in Portland's South Waterfront. Negotiations over affordable housing have delayed a final development deal for city money. (Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects/ZRZ Realty Co.)

Print Brad Schmidt | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Brad Schmidt | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Portland's decade long struggle to build affordable housing in the South Waterfront District isn't getting any easier, in part because city officials bowed to perceived pressure from key property owners, public documents show.

On Wednesday, city leaders will review highlights of a deal to spend about $27.4 million to subsidize redevelopment of the Zidell family's 30 acres, the largest open canvass in the central city.

Zidell is expected to "negotiate in good faith" to develop affordable housing on the land if the city provides additional subsidies.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[WestCoast]

^^^^^^^

tehehe. How germane after the whole argument we had over the last month.


--
Anyway, glad to see Block 37 getting started. With a couple more buildings, maybe the whole neighborhood will come together.

I ride my bike through SoWa regularly, eat down there, use the Umpqua branch... and.... still... can't quite get into it.

Hopefully more density solves it, but ingrees/egress still suck.

[RED_PDXer]

The development agreement should require a park to be dedicated by Zidell. PDC is failing big time if they can't get a park out of them. They already spent $10s of millions on the new Moody Avenue. Zidell is getting a windfall.