UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
Up or Out?
- LATEST COMMENTS
- You say the land isn't suitable for farming, yet ... - streamside
- The problem with Gainesvillle that you are citing has to ... - streamside
- "Cities like Cornelius and Forest Grove need more land to ... - streamside
Tom Brian, chair of the Washington County Board, says "You can't stack companies like Intel in Big Pink." Meanwhile Sam Adams, Portland's mayor, says "Expecting development in the outlying areas is fanciful at best." How should Metro Portland grow: Up or out? Join Think Out Loud, in partnership with Community Newspapers, for a discussion about how we will work, and live, and play as the population of the region grows.
This show will be recorded in front of a live audience (we hope you'll come!) at the Hillsboro Civic Center on Monday, December 14th. Seating is first-come, first-seated and the event is free. Doors open at 6:30 pm and the hour-long show begins at 7:00 pm sharp. (The program will air the following morning at 9:00 am.)
As usual, of course, we want to begin the conversation now. How do you think the region should grow: up or out? What stands in the way of the change you want to see?
GUESTS:
- Tom Brian: Chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners
- Sam Adams: Mayor of the City of Portland
Tagged as: development · portland · rural · rural-urban divide
Photo credit: Whateverthing / Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (41 total)
-
blown entry
-
I would also advocate growing up instead of out. However, we have some issues to address:
1) Crime - as population densities grow, so does urban crime. THis has always been the pattern in america. How will the police/sheriffs handle this.
2) Diversity - increased density increases diversity. It also generates "White Flight" to the suburbs. With the PPD already challenged by the diverse communities it must serve, how will it respond? How will we reduce the inevitable conflicts of culture and lifestyle in a dense population environment?
3) Transportation - The one person, one car model doesn't work (just ask NYC or Wshington DC). But out public transportation infrastructur is already stressed. MAX isn't the answer - you have to get to a MAX Station. And cutting bus routes to support MAX just makes the problems worse.
4) Housing - as density increases, Housing prices go up. NYC has rent control, which has lead to run down appartement buildings because the owners cant afford to keep them up. Without rent control, rents soon eliminate lower income families.
5) Business Growth - Manufauturing becomes problematic in an up not out scenario. Cost of facilities to all business will rise. This rise can cause jobs to leave the area.
How we respond to these challenges will determine the success and viability of the urban area we call Portland.
-
Veritcal yet innovative and community friendly urban development guarantees efficient use of resources, affordable expansion of public transit and other services without necessarily forfeiting green spaces or isolating the individual in the midst of a growing population. More can be done for the community and the individual as well as the environment through focus on upward growth rather than expanding urban sprawl.
-
Up, not out, without doubt!
I'd like to think that suburbanites are just cads (it would help boost my self-respect), but many live in the burbs because it is often more economical. How do you make a city affordable if there is more demand? Or if the location and proximity dictates the price? Low-income housing can't be the only solution, plus it is full of train wrecks and cheap cologne. What to do about people who live in the burbs because of ideological reasons---do we even want them in the city if they came? They can't parallel park! Kidding... . But, seriously, how do you get people to do what 'we' want and have them enjoy doing it? Have them not resenting us? Have them liking the community that the strong arm forced them into? It would be great if we could make everyone live in a dense city, but if we turn them into monsters in the process, then everyone will hate living there.
I guess what I am saying, besides what I said, is, it would be nice if we could find a way to make people want to live in the city rather then manipulating them into it. Unrealistic? Maybe so.
-
I know you won't read this, but give me a break Mr. Adams, I respect you, but at least be honest, I love living in the city---but on average no matter how you manipulate the statistics it is obviously more expensive for most people to live in the city. I know because I tried to get my friend who is a single mother to live closer-in and she couldn't afford it. I took her to a zillion places in the process. I suppose if she got a studio, she could have, but she has a son. And, that is a variable you are not including in your argument---that people would have to sacrifice something to do so. Perhaps, the size of their home and the quality for starters. As much as I hate the burbs it is understandable why many live there, because they can often get larger places for lower prices.
-
I lived in high density for 30 years and hated every minute of it. Noisey neighbors, nasty managers, worrying every month about finding rent money or be homeless.
I don't like urban sprawl, but I don't like high density either. I feel like I'm between a rock and hard place!
-
Building up reduces runoff. Runoff carries pollution, causes erostion and flooding and kills salmon. Up not out. Save our streams. Save Cooper Mountain.
-
Up or out, the answer is obvious based on years of evidence that nobody gains from sprawl except the land speculators who have lobbied and made contributions to elected officials in order to have their rural land declared urban. And in Washington, D.C. the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties can add another square to their national checkerboard.
The taxpayers lose when property taxes are used to provide new infrastructure in the countryside rather than fix and redevelop what already exists within the urban growth boundary. The farmers lose when their landbase shrinks making farming less profitable and farming infrastructure supplying seeds, equipment, repairs, fertilizer, etc. goes out of business. City residents lose when they have to drive so many more miles or forego trips to visit the open space provided by the orchards, Christmas tree farms, CSA's, u-picks, vineyards, wineries and other rural uses that provide direct farm marketing. Wildlife loses when habitat is paved over and streams are made to run through pipes. Commuters lose when their daily worktrip is extended by traffic that can't be alleviated in an efficient way by mass transit.
Going up still employs the electricians, plumbers, framers, even excavators, who build industrial plants and dwelling units. But going up requires that the counties develop policies that value rural lands as a part of the county economy rather than as a land bank for new, sprawling development and multi-acre paved parking lots.
-
Washington County already has in place a great tool for controled exspansion. That would be the wide network of rail lines built for smaller railroads and the hauling of lumber. A prime example is the area betweeen Forest Grove and North Plains. There are already rail routes leading into North Plains and Banks which are largely cut off from mass transit. The other advantage this region has is parts of this rail network is owned by the very company that owns the track and runs the trains on the new WES commuter line. Forest Grove's mayor has been trying for months to have the line extended to his city. These valuable rght of ways should not be lost to indifference.
-
When I ran for Washington County Commissioner in 1990, I coined the phrase "Smart Growth" to label a set of planning ideas When planning for growth, it's smart to:
*Learn from--and avoid-- the mistakes of other cities that grew by expanding: ugly sprawl, blighted cores and inner suburbs, congested freeways, polluted air and water; loss of natural and rural resources, etc.
*Use good data, creativity, and collaboration to redesign more functional, compact urban forms--grow up before out.
*Involve citizens, local governments, business leaders and design professionals to guide plans for infill and redevelopment: create safe, attractive places where people DO want to live and work, with densities that support convenient transit and nearby parks and services.
*Adopt transportation, land use, and economic development policies that encourage sustainable, compact growth, attracting good jobs and green, energy-efficient businesses.
*Craft "livability" policies and investment strategies so that essential goods and services--housing, transportation, schools, health care, markets, parks, etc.--are accessible, and affordable to local employees.
*Protect the rural lands that give both country and city folks healthy local food, clean water and air, beautiful scenery, recreation, cultural attractions, and our historic sense of place.
*Use public funds prudently, rather than burdening taxpayers and future generations to build expensive new infrastructure out from the urban edge.
Since 1990, we've done a lot of these things, and done some of them well. But the Reserves process is our big test. Will we build on our successes, or give in to 40-50 years of staged sprawl?
It's NOT smart to plan on paving over farmland and watersheds, whatever the "aspirations" of current city leaders. It IS smart to make better use of the land we've already urbanized, and save our natural resources to meet future needs.
We're at the 11th hour of a fateful process. At 11am and 11pm each day left in the Reserves decision process, I am pausing to imagine what I'd want to see here in 40-50 years. I invite you, if you're so inclined, to please join me in this little exercise.
Linda Peters
Chair, Washington County Board of Commissioners (1995-1999)
-
So out at the intersection of Vadis and Milne roads, just there on the south side of HWY 26, one finds 33 full sized mobile homes on an acre of land. Ugly, no grass, no trees, no privacy and what a beautiful adornment to the side of a main highway. Whose operation is that, might I ask; and why is that okay and it isn't okay for a family to place a manufactured home on their farmland near the big house for their kids or a second source of income?
Why not just put a high rise apartment there. It would look better.
All of this high talk of uban growth boundaries to save farm land is really just a bunch of claptrap invented when it became clear that the hippies were coming to stay and there had to be a way to stop them from creating a bunch of commune clusters on the road to the coast. We couldn't have that. A bunch of mellow people getting together and buying up farmland communally, growing them funky organic vegetables and raising goats, all without pesticides or herbicides. No sir. NIMBY. Next thing you know they are going to want to home school their kids.
Far better to condense that land under the control of a few wealthy land owners and let them rent out 33 mobile homes on an acre to transient farm labor. Now that is the way to get 'er done.
-
It really is amazing how foggy we can all get when it comes to continual local overpopulation and overconsumption. So let's get some basic facts out of the way:
• In an already overpopulated and overconsumed bioregion, such as is the Columbia-Willamette Watershed, where we live, there is no such thing as "smart" growth. All growth is dumb, dumb as can be. No matter how we may try to slice it, it is not possible for any person to have no negative impact on the environment. Thus, more people always means more conversion of Earth energy and matter into waste sinks, more stress on and destruction of local habitats and species, increased pressure to grow both UP and OUT, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
• So long as our population continues to grow, we will continue to grow both UP and OUT, as we have been doing for the past 25 years, despite the vast majority of residents stating in poll after poll that they don't want either. Growing both up and out also worsens livability for inner city, suburb, rural areas, and wilderness, with absolutely nothing that "mitigation" can do to reverse it.
• It is not inevitable that one million more people will live in the area than now, any more than it was inevitable that the area's population has grown in the past twenty-five years. Our population has grown, and will continue to grow, only as a result of direct policy and money spent to ensure that it happens. A lot of policy, and vast sums of money. Do you really expect to see one million more people sleeping in doorways, cars and under bridges in the region if we don't spend vast sums of public money on the new jobs, houses, roads and infrastructure that the increased population requires? I didn't think so!
-
I agree. The earth isn't supporting 7 billion people now (famine, disease, war are becoming normal).
As much as I fear Communist China, I have to applaud their foresightedness in seeing the coming famine in China and limiting growth by "one child per couple". It's a sad thing to do, but it's more sad when a couple has 10 kids and 5 of them starve to death.
-
• Representative of big businesses and the new construction industry's biggest fear is that our population WON'T grow, and that's why they're scrambling so hard to get us to pay for it. Why after the UGB expansion into Damascus years ago hasn't anything been built there yet, and why else are Metro's Michael Jordan and others pushing for $10-30 billion in subsidies so that it can happen?
• Growth doesn't improve the economy, but only worsens it. The growth we have suffered from is the cause of our economic collapse, not a coincidence. Growth happens as the result of the draining away of wealth from the Earth and its people and into the hands of an ever-shrinking minority. As wealth grows more scarce, more people and more consumption are required to keep us all from falling into total poverty. But since all wealth comes from local natural resources, as we deplete these to keep priming the pump, eventually our wealth will dry up to the point where we will not be able to survive.
• When the swine flu virus was becoming an epidemic, did we just lay back and wait for it to come? Of course not! So why, when we know that growth is the world's worst killer disease, do we just lay back and accept it as inevitable? Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to stop this epidemic before it wipes out all that we need to survive? Where's our environmental and social justice ethic?
• End the growth subsidies, end the subsidies to global trade, level the playing field for locally-owned, employee-owned businesses to thrive, and growth will come to a screeching halt. We will restore our local natural capital, we will restore our forests, wildland habitats, and farmland, and we will all prosper equitably. No need to grow either up or out. That simple. That smart.
-
Responsible growth is possible and important for us to accomodate the many hundreds of thousands of people expected to move to our area over the next twenty years. It will not all happen by growing up. If I wanted to live in an urban area with small children I would, but I would like to have a home with a backyard and have room to breathe. With new design concepts and green building techniques we can and will be able to make a minimal inpact on our region if we do so responsibly. Out is a viable option and needs to be done in a way that maintains the beauty and livability of our region. Up is not the only way.
-
I agree whole-heartedly with "4ResponsibleGrowth". I am a resident of Cornelius, one of the areas of heated discussion tonight. I'm not surprised to hear the opponents of growing OUT. More of the same arguments and/or NOISE. I'll take a different approach though. If the recession has taught us anything, that is, we live in very uncertain times. Most all of us are asking ourselves, how will we pay for this or that? That includes just about everyone, cities, states, and the US as a whole. Now, what we do know is, we all love Portland - bc we care enough to write comments on this page... :) .... we also know that its forecasted that as many as 1 million more ppl will be coming to this region of the US. Now they won't all be independently wealthy, right? They need good high-paying jobs to sustain themselves here. My story is exactly that...5 years fresh out of college...came here PRIMARILY because of a JOB - to work for Intel and SECONDLY attracted by the coast/Mt. Hood/Downtown Portland/The Gorge/Wineries/Breweries you name it...and viola...2 years later I bought my home...how is this possible? Some intelligent ppl 30 years ago decided for me that Intel should make their home here and expand over the years ... and some other intelligent ppl decided that the buildings or areas where I eat/sleep/work/shop and play in should be developed...at one time or another they were someones farmland, backyard, or vista. Let's live in this reality and make 'smart' choices...and welcome our future/fellow neighbors, commuters, and coworkers. God Bless & Happy Holidays.
-
Please see comments above -- The only reason our population will grow is because of billions of dollars in public subsidies.
The land that has not already been occupied or degraded is needed for our survival -- you know, food, water purification, habitat for plant and animal species that we depend upon to provide for all else that keeps us alive.
So you're saying we should be spending more billions on making sure that growth happens. Aren't we having shortages of funding for basic services and schools? Why are the billions in subsidies to growth sacrosanct, but not providing for the indigent, the sick, and children?
-
I don't want more growth in Oregon. I hope people leave Oregon because it's too crowded already. I tire of greedy and short-sighted developers who destroy land to build inefficient and ugly strip [mauls] and Streets of Dreams affordable to the few.
I don't want to see more big family homes in Portland condensed into row houses and apartments. I like big yards, green spaces, parks, and the near-deafening thunder of clattering bike gears. Let's limit Portland metro area's population. Foreigners can only move here when previous residents leave.
MLK (Martin Luther King Boulevard), Mississippi and Interstate avenues are becoming canyons of ugly multi-use buildings. I understand the reasoning behind this development, but there is no soul or aesthetics built into these drab new structures.
I say neither up nor out. Moreover, those of you who have doubts about staying in Oregon, please give in to your gut feelings and leave. You don't want to be here when the 9.0 earthquake sifts Portland into rubble within the next 30 years. Run for your lives. You'll be happier in Texas, Iowa or Arkansas.
My Ouija board channels Tom McCall, one of Oregon's preeminent governers of yore: Foreigners and gaijin, please visit Oregon but don't stay. Thank you.
-
Emily's question to Chair Brian about a lawyer's financial connection with the Bethany development was met by his response: "I don't understand your question", as his face reddened. Truth is in short supply with the two people who got to speak the most tonight at this show. And therein lies the problem.
Several years ago, I was the chair of the Aloha citizen involvement committee when Intel wanted their tax break. So, we all filed into Washington County's hearing room for a staff presentation on the issues. There followed a slick 'show and tell' slide presentation on why this tax break was a good deal for the good citizens of Washington County. But, I smelled a Rat -- and found out the slide show had been prepared by Intel, but no body from Washington County, who made the pitch, told us that unpleasant fact. Truth is in short supply with our current crop of politicians. Thank you, Lauren Paulson bulletinsfromaloha.org
-
"Sprawl" used to mean disorganized growth on the edge of a city, but lately "no sprawl" has become synonymous with "no growth". Sprawl was and is bad for an economy because it does not use our money efficiently--especially the money we invest in transportation.
Ironically, the very policies and governments we created to organize growth and prevent sprawl have created one of the largest mega-cities in Oregon and will force entire "cities" into long distance commutes.
Primarily through the formation of special districts, Washington County has become more and more like a large, disorganized city, serving over a quarter million people with no other local government. And Metro's Making the Greatest Place policies will cast several city-sized areas into the role of bedroom with no jobs--dependent on a transportation system that cannot expand.
In any other state, that would be sprawl.
"Up or Out" is the wrong question. We should be asking, "How do we get back on track with our original goals."
-
Why does it matter?
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs050/1102372016498/archive/1102829867737.html
-
Why aren't we asking ourselves.... DO we really need to grow? growth is not always good and will not be good for any part of oregon. we should just tell people from out of the state that sorry we are full there is no room unless you are bringing job then kick rocks. If we absolutely have to grow it should be up and NEVER out- Keep Oregon green.
-
"Growth, for the sake of growth, is the idealogy of the cancer cell"
I grew up in the San Fernando Valley outside of Los Angeles, and watched it change from a lovely place to live w/ homes, farmland and horse ranches to a concrete jungle which is ugly, hot, flat and crowded. Then I moved to the Silicon Valley in San Jose and watched frantic, over-development ruin much of that lovely area, as well. Now I live in Oregon and I am active with groups that protect open space, farmland and wild lands. I do this because I want to give back and because I know how easily and quickly the quality of life is ruined in special places - it all starts with thoughtfuless "growth" projects. Oregon has often been wiser than California in protecting farms, etc. but after watching what has happened to land in Beaverton and elsewhere outside of Portland, and after hearing the plans put forth by certain people in Washington and other counties, I begin to fear for my adopted state.
-
"Growth, for the sake of growth, is the idealogy of the cancer cell"
Yep.
The answer to the question: "Growth, up or out?" is to search out information on the ancient city of Ur.
Ur grew itself to death, it is now a barren wasteland.
So the real question is: "Can human-kind learn from the past and create a no-growth sustainable model of living on the earth?"
Challenge the basic assumption that "Growth is good", because history teaches us that it is not good, just as malignant cancer is not good.
-
Hearing Sam Adams say that he listens to the will of the people as expressed in a survey made me laugh out loud.
Much as I appreciate the dialogue on this important issue, special interests will get their way, citizens be damned.
-
I've lived in North Portland since 1992, and love the fact that I can walk to grocery stores, restaurants, the library, and my favorite bike shop. I can also bike downtown in minutes, to work in 30, or I can Max/bike pretty much anywhere. We have one car that sits much of the time, and I'm happy being emancipated from a motor vehicle. I get exercise each day as part of my bike commute through great neighborhoods. I imagine when my neighborhood was first built it was considered a suburb. Now we're inner city and are seeing high density growth, which I favor. At the same time, I love my single family home with its 50 x 100 foot lot. A smartly designed mix of stand-alone homes and higher density units would be my choice.
-
Who benefits from growth? Mostly just a few: developers, businesses, banks, governments. They get more customers, cheaper labor. Who pays for the growth? All of us in the middle class and the lower middle class. We pay with taxes, inflation, health problems, unemployment, expensive housing, inconvenience.
Growth means the rich get richer (and move out to suburbs), and the poor get poorer (high density inner cities and ghetto neighborhoods). -
I am a rural Washington County resident. My vote for development is for "in" rather than up or out.
I live at minimum 30 minutes from the closest urban area (in rural North Plains) - Hillsboro, Beaverton and 45 to 60 minutes to Portland. I both love my rural wooded home and absolutely love the creative dense environment of Portland. What I deeply wish for is the transformation of our Washington County cities. Because I drive far regardless of where I go, I often head to Portland for my urban experiences because of the quality of the environment - the collection of stores, events, opportunities, architecture, community, etc. Just try to find a hip vegetarian restaurant in Washington County - perhaps they are out there but they sure are hiding.
The cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro seem to have been subsumed by mall culture and design. Let's not even mention Aurora (a nightmare I try to avoid at all costs). I love that the historic city of Hilsboro is making a comeback but to be honest, how do you compete with the streets of Tannisbourne. Even I spend much of my shopping time at Tannisbourne because I know where to go for what I need. Downtown Hillsboro still does not compare to Portland so my current choices are Tannisbourne for effecient shopping and Portland for the urban experience.
Let's advocate for high level of design standards and start REBUILDING our such poorly designed suburban communities. Orenco Station is a shining light in Hillsboro - easy bike access, a friendly accessable comminty, thoughtful creative design both residential and commercial. I admit to driving there just to walk around the beautiful streets filled with vintage style bungalos. It's fantastic.
Preserve the unique, beautiful and highly valuable rural communities and get busy redeveloping the strangled, poorly designed current suburban sprawl.
Redesign, redevelopment, that is my vote. Thank you so much for talking Washington County.
-
I can't fathom the crowd that thinks we should (or can?) stop growth in general. It is so awkward it is hard to comprehend the point---or if there is a point. I can understand saying we shouldn't do anything or give incentives to encourage growth in this area. But if people want to move here, then they will move here. And, if they want to move here, that means they OBVIOUSLY already exist in the flesh---they are alive! Or are people suggesting if we build it then they will have babies? If they are already alive, it means we (the collective population of earth) have already lost the battle on population growth in general. So what this contingent really says is 'don't move here'---grow somewhere else.
-
The sad thing is that if we don't choose to limit growth (somehow) then Nature puts a limit on it with starvation, pandemics, people killing others to gain space to live.
-
Realistically, nature is not putting a limit anytime soon on growth within the Portland metro area. It also doesn't address the issue of population growth in general by forcing them to live elsewhere. Additionally, if the demand was that high and there was no capacity, it would increase the cost of living for the rich and the poor. Eventually this would squeeze out the poor crowd, and we would have a wealthier population in Portland.
-
"Realistically, nature is not putting a limit anytime soon on growth within the Portland metro area."
-- Actually, it is. Our rivers and streams are suffering from new construction.
Bull Run, which is outside of our bioregion, and therefore should not be supplying Portland's water in the first place, cannot even supply us enough water all throughout the year with our current population. Hence, the use of polluted water in late summer months from the wells dug along the Columbia. Climate change due to our increased population and consumption is going to reduce our water supply from the mountain even further.
Then there's the severe decline of plant and animal species in the area that we need for our survival. Salmon is but one example.
"Or are people suggesting if we build it then they will have babies?"
-- yes, actually. There is already more than ample housing for the people who are already alive. We're not seeing children being born and raised in doorways and under bridges, after all! Where there is homelessness, it's due to the poverty created by growth, not lack of housing.
Artificial expansion of carrying capacity for more people, while temporary and dangerous, disconnects people from the signals from natural resources that limits have been exceeded. And so there is no immediate, personal consequence for over-multiplying.
It is only with the advent of dominator-style economies and government that this disconnect is made possible. And in Oregon, this dominator style has the majority footing the bill for more people and more consumption growth, with the fiscal benefits going mostly to only a very slim minority of already-wealthy (and dominant) individuals. If growth is not subsidized by the public, it simply cannot happen.
As I mentioned above, it is the lack of public funds now that is stalling the construction of new roads, houses, and infrastructure in areas where the UGB has already been expanded, and it is this lack of funds that has the developers and big-business interests scrambling to get us to fork out more for them.
After Washington County commissioners, who are all in the pockets of big business and developers, get their UGB expansions, their next step will be to figure out how to get more public money to pay for them. This, in a time when funding for education and other basic services is being severely cut back!
-
I am disappointed that this is even a topic, frankly. This is a no-brainer.
What about ALL those vacant condos and apartments in the Pearl and in other neighborhoods that were built when the economy was strong? Shouldn't we fill those more centrally-located spaces up before we even consider the "up or out" question?
I went to architecture school in Montana, and for our urban design studies we came to Portland. Our instructors hailed the fact that there was this UGB and what that had done for density and preservation of the "farmland" outside of Portland. I wanted to live in a city as great as this, and that's why I'm here now.
I dread the thought that Portland could one day become a modern-day LA with sprawl, pollution and a weak connection to the city's core. Ever seen the film "The End of Suburbia"? Or heard of Peak Oil? We need to stay compact. If we *must* chose one of these two options, "up" is the obvious answer.
-
Mayor Sam Adams and other urbanites are out of touch with what it takes to have a sustainable commuminty in western washington county. Cities like Cornelius and Forest Grove need more land to attract industries that create jobs. Sam Adams would like to condemn Cornelius and Forest Grove to low-income, bedroom communities without potential to attract industries that produce jobs. Does he believe "20 minute communities" should exist outside of Portland, Beaverton and Hillsboro? If so, then Cornelius and Forest Grove need land added to the UGB.
-
"Cities like Cornelius and Forest Grove need more land to attract industries that create jobs. "
-- No, the people in those areas need the leaks of wealth to be plugged so that they can prosper and enjoy the beauty of the natural world without growth.
Spending public money to attract more industry only increases the draining of wealth away from the land and the people, and further impoverishes everyone. This is not theory, this is our history!
An economy that recognizes the land as its source and that therefore protects and restores the life-giving sustenance from that land is one that provides prosperity for all. More jobs means more people and thus less wealth to go around. Better quality jobs means more wealth for everyone, more leisure, more time with family and friends, and more nature for everyone to enjoy.
Plug the leaks by ending the subsidies to big business and developers, and locally-owned and employee-owned businesses based upon the local resources will flourish.
-
Can't listen to the show again today, but...
It's always been my feeling that you can't stop people from doing whatever they want to do. You can come up with growth plans, you can aggressively pursue measures to curb growth, whatever... The fact of the matter is, people are going to move in and people are going to live where they want to.
Some people just do not want to live in dense areas. It is what it is, and you can never setup a "growth" plan that stops people with the necessary means from spreading out.
The most hypocritical and ridiculous case I can think of is my previous home of Gainesville, FL. Gainesville loves the University of Florida and all of the restaurants and supporting businesses it spawned, but it hates people and it hates cars.
So, Gainesville actually deconstructs roads (currently deconstructing a main road into the downtown area it is trying to revitalize. this after removing most of the parking lots downtown) to try to force people to use buses and live closer to where the work, and aggressively tries to annex the "sprawl" areas to limit new housing construction to stop people from moving in. All the while, trying to figure out how to attract new businesses.
Has it worked? Well, the "sprawl" areas happen to be the areas where the well-to-do live, so those areas are, of course, not annexed and continue to grow out. Gainesville proper is a dysfunctional traffic mess where it takes 30-45 minutes to go five miles by car in a town with half the population density of Portland because the roads suck and no one wants to ride the buses. No one wants to ride the buses because they are useless for anyone with an actual schedule. So, the buses are mostly used by the homeless and students making them even less attractive to everyone else.
Even in the face of the most extreme and aggressive measure to curb growth, people still sprawl. That's just what they do.
-
The problem with Gainesvillle that you are citing has to do with the government there trying to straddle two boats. They still support the dominator style economy that spurs growth and thus attracts new residents, while trying to contain it. If they were to stop spending public money on growth, and allow a land-based economy of locally owned businesses to flourish instead then they would not have this problem.
People don't overpopulate if they have to pay directly for doing so.
-
With the exception of San Diego, Portland's density is the lowest of the principal cities on the west coast.
Our central city is riddled with parking lots and under used land.
Industrial sites are wastefull of land. Compare the campuses of employers in Washington Co. to similar campuses in Silicon Valley. Look at a solar panel or silicon chip factory in Germany, China or Japan. One will see far denser, more integrated mixed use environments in the home county/country of parent companies than are implemented here.
Unfortunately this debate has become polarized between sound-bite arguments.
The "up" vs "out" argument is not going to get us to the answer.
"Beside" and "between" might be a better way to frame the issue.
My study of 11 districts in the region demonstrates that all density is not alike. For example, most new suburban neighborhoods are far denser than most inner city neighborhoods.
However, dense suburban neighborhoods are designed for the auto, so the experience and behavior is still suburban in nature and un-sustainable.
Three of Portland's oldest, greenest neighborhoods are denser than the Pearl District and close to the density of the South Waterfront, but without the uniformity, sterility, and lack of trees/landscaping that characterizes these two districts.
These neighborhoods (Goose Hollow/King's Hill, Sullivan's Gluch, NW Alphabet district) are mixed in building type, housing unit type, and use. Towers, courtyard apartments, apartment blocks, townhomes, and single family houses mingle with each other in a manner that provides for large trees, intensely cared for gardens, and an even blend of offices, retail, and services. Parks and transit, amenities crucial to livabilty are ample.
This mixture of housing options results in a mix of people whose income, culture, interests, activities etc, is more diverse than in districts where housing options are limited and uniform.
These neighborhoods exemplify a model of development that could be described as a "garden city" in which a variety of building types is woven into a landscape of mature trees and gardens.
We should not expand the UGB, but learn to work within it.
-
First I want to say thanks to staff of this terrific new addition to the OPB lineup. Very impressive accomplishments.
We have lived on the very northern boundary of Helvetia for 24 years on our 19 acre parcel. In 1990 we purchased a ten acre piece that abuts our 19 acres. We bought this ten acres as an investment property after we consulted with Washington County Land Use and were assured that it was buildable if we met income standards. Other people were meeting those income standards by planting xmas trees, blueberries, peach trees, etc. We started growing hay on the property which was cut for us by a local farmer and have continued to do this for years. There is no well nor road on this ten acres.
Our properties are surrounded by small parcels, 3-12 acres and there are homes on virtually all of the nearby parcels. When the Measure 37 issue came up we discovered that changes in LCDC rules had made it impossible to build a home on the ten acres. Even though we opposed 37 and voted against it, we filed a claim and were approved by both the County and the State. When 37 was rescinded and 49 approved we thought it was by far the best outcome for the State as a whole and were confident that 49 would be a remedy for people like us. We only wanted to do what we were allowed to do when we bought the property, build one home, on an acreage that is in a highly developed area, and is not suitable for any real farming. Our Measure 49 claim was denied as almost all claims for smaller parcels have been. Washington County Land Use staff wrote letters in support of our appeal (and others) saying that the State is not using the standards that were in place at the time of purchase, to make these decisions. It truly makes NO sense and I would love it if your program looked into this. I'm afraid that the Attorney General's decision on how the apply this Measure is ultimately going to result in another Measure 37 initiative.
This is a huge financial loss for us and even though we are liberal Democrats, we feel that progressives often overlook the issue of personal property rights which have to play some part in decisions reached in these matters. This property is now virtually worthless, we are in our 60's and when we can no longer take care of it, it will become a field of blackberry bushes.
-
You say the land isn't suitable for farming, yet you have been growing hay on it, and thus it could also grow food for people. Many of today's new farmers are profiting from growing on plots of land a fraction of your land's acreage.
Buying open land in a rural area as an investment for anything other than the pleasure and sustenance that land brings is investment in death. It was your unfortunate lack of insight into this that led to your woes.
There are so many healthy enterprises hungry for investment capital out there. Enterprises that focus on doing good for the planet and people. I encourage you to look for those.
-
What sets Portland apart from other desirable cities particularly in the West is the low urban sprawl. You can drive ~10 minutes from anywhere in Beaverton/Hillsboro and be in the middle of agricultural farm lands. Let's keep it that way, so I vote for up not out.
Growing "up" has its consequences too. We should build more parks for our children to play in. The newly developed park on 53rd+Baseline is a good example. Our public transport system (MAX) is effective, but I would like to see a few express trains with very limited stops connecting Beaverton/Hillsboro to downtown and the airport.