Craigslist say:

Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal - please flag discriminatory posts as "prohibited"

Does $1.1 million discrimate based on income?

Your tax dollars at work!

A base high rise apartment building would cost about $180/sq-ft (some Gateway condos are selling for this) If you consider these condos are "tricked out" lavishly for another $55K.then that still leaves $400/sq-ft for profit. It begs the queston as to why we are subsidizing this and why as in other municipalities including Washington County, the developer isn't picking up the tab for infrastructure.

This looks like one of those speculator / flippers. This won't be the last one. Not bad for a $10K (amount you need to put down to hold it if the unit is

Really too bad, the ex-Mrs Kitzhaber won't be able to bring them a welcome basket.

Why is there a picture on the craigslist post of the football stadium towers at OSU?

One comment above sort of echoed a question that's been bothering me: We're told that one million more people are coming to Portland by early next week. We're told they are coming whether we do anything or not. Why isn't that a perfect free market scenario for building places to live? The City Council is spending money as if we were in a population shortage and we had better subsidize new places or we won't be able to attract people here, assuming we wanted them here in the first place. If anything we are in a desperate race against time to provide infrastructure for a million new people, but a place for them to live should be taken care of by market forces in the private sector - not by pumping tax money into it. This just smacks of individuals trying to profit or clean-up and get rich on the famous million new arrivals by using their influence at City Hall. Warning: Analogy Alert. Let's say this was New York in the glory days of immigration. Instead of building Ellis Island to handle and process the new arrivals, our politicians would be giving money to rich ship builders to give them an incentive to build ships to carry the people here. That part is already going to happen.

One million more people are coming to Portland by early next week?

Better get Officer Tony up in the traffic 'copter stat!

I would like to point out that the projected million person increase is for the entire Metro area, not just Portland. If the city itself had to absorb one million new residents, it would almost triple the population, If this happened, we would not only have a housing problem, but every inch of retail space in the city would be turned over to coffee houses and nail salons.

Come on, Jack. You didn't count the 75 square foot storage space "near by for the rest of your toys". It really comes out to $609/sq ft. - what a bargain.

Upon further consideration, I want to withdraw the part about a million people coming to Portland by next week. It's the entire Portland Metro Area and it won't be for at least a month. I also now see the Ellis Island analogy as ridiculous. Portlandia is nice, but it is no Statue of Liberty.

Lets tell them how nice Beaverton, Gresham and Hillsboro are. The ad campaign could keep our creative class well fed and on spiffy new bikes.

But of course Portland will want double its fair share of them, just like when Metro was divvying up the new residents last time (Charlie & Vera).

Thanks
JK

I suspect many of those "million new residents" are coming to "work" from across our southern border...are they buying in the Pearl or SoWhat? Doubtful. I bet they are not even buying homes, let alone condos. They are moving to the suburbs to live in the "cheap rent 'hood", like the one I live in. And if they do get homes, they are built by Habitat for Humanity, not Homer Williams.

Something that seems presumptuous to me is the idea that there ia a never ending supply of "gentry" to feed gentrification, that there is a "chosen" that is on an ever-upward financial path, and that those who are not part of this have no value and don't count. It seems to me a shallow presumption, something planners ought to be dissecting instead of promoting. And I think it is pretty funny that "progressives" are promoting this; it sounds like Reganesque "trickle down' economics to me.

"something planners ought to be dissecting instead of promoting"

The problem is planning has, for some time, been something other than planning for growth.

In fact it long ago became an agenda which chooses to disregard the true needs of growth while attempting to the substitute for those needs, a model which is primarily a pipe dream of theories.

Having no real world connectivity to the bulk of growth's needs, it most often worsens that which is said to be benefiting.

All wrapped up in daily lies from multiple public agencies, our gullible and unethical press and planning groupies feeling important just being part of it.

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]