That "fop" link is priceless.

"Dear Portland: Please tell your mayor to quit pooping in my garden."

Judging by my neighborhood, they're all living five to a house.

"AN EVENING OF CONVERSATION ON PORTLAND'S BUILT ENVIRONMENT"

I find all these planning "conversations" and "seminars" interesting, because they all know what's going to be said, and everyone there will already be in agreement, or else they wouldn't be there.

Agenda:
Sustainability = good
Suburbs = bad
Transit = good
Bikes = good
Transit oriented development = good
"Twenty minute neighborhoods blah blah"
What can we do to have more of these things?
Take questions from the like-minded audience

Rinse, repeat.

This information shines a brighter light on the recently approved (by Council) HAP proposal for Hillsdale Terrace redevelopment. (Nov 4 Agenda item #36751)

I have built and owned numerous multi family units.

If those 63 units were sold in this depressed market they might bring between $3 and $3.5 Million.

The HAP proposal is for $41 Million.

Does anyone else see the concern?

The existing site is problematic so why redevelop there?

If they simply gave them away for the tax credit, and relocated the families into existing units at a cost of $70-90,000 per, it would only cost $6-7 Million and the admin cost would remain about the same.

Who gets the remaining $35 Million and for what?

Why do we have to continue to ask this question?

To anyone looking at this critically it would seem that perpetuating the dependence on subsidies and manipulating families to that end, in order to maintain the lifestyles of those administering the program has a higher priority than breaking that dependency on federal subsidies and incorporating those families into mainstream society.

While not all families would be able, I'm certain that some could make it on their own, and contribute to our collective
benefit.

Q: Has any of the FOPS ever had a real job???
A: NO
Result: economic and social disaster

Ran into a young "cultural creative" in a decadent (aka "affordable") eastern city recently. They had just moved "back east" after two-and-a-half years in Portland ("a fun place") -- left because "there were no jobs."

Suburbs = bad
Transit oriented development = good
"Twenty minute neighborhoods blah blah"

Judging by the average rents quoted in the article for the different parts of the metro region, apartment residents' patterns of voting with their feet agree with these concepts. And, as most of you know, so do I.

But that being said, I don't agree with how it's been implemented here, and the fops certainly don't speak for me. Mark this day - I agree with Snards, mark, and portland native: we don't need the developer subsidies for this kind of development.

As I've posted before, why do we have our own government competing against property owners that have rental units? That also applies to health clubs, why are we using tax payer money to subsidize the OHSU Health Club and now the future PGE Park Health Club, while many local clubs are financially hurting?

I'm surprised Multiple-Family Housing Council, Home Builders Association, and other organizations haven't been more vocal in voicing their objections to having their and other peoples tax dollars used to create unfair competition. Same goes for the health club association.

It doesn't take a genious to figure out why the Portland downtown rental market suffers from such high vacancy. Former condo towers such as the Cyan, Ladd, Ardea (SoWa), Riva (SoWa), or course the Wyatt and others were all ruthlessly dumped on to the market as apartment projects after it became clear that the real estate market was in the toilet. In total, these condo "reversions" total well over 3,500 "luxury" rental units.

In my mind, this not only speaks to failed development and master-planned areas such as SoWa, but it spells long long term trouble for the downtown markets. Because these were "luxury" units with a higher cost structure out of the gate, there will be upward pressure on downtown rents across the board as the economy hopefully improves. Compare this to having the market flooded with product that was supposed to be reasonably priced housing to begin with.

This is another failure on behalf of our fine city leadership. They ignored a balanced approach in housing policy and wined and dined high-end condo developers. "The City that Works".

PD -

You've got it backwards. Our fine elected officials and PDC staff and BPS and BDS staff were wined and dined by the fat cats seeking free tax dollars and other favors, not the other way around.

I was at a meeting last night where Eric Engstrom, head thinker on the Portland Plan silliness, where Eric denied that the SoWhat and Pearl stuff was essential empty.

So out of touch. Scary.

"Portland, the City that Works You Over and Over and Over"

I realize that I'm building dream castles and measuring for drapes, but had anyone considered that vacancies will remain high unless someone wants to lower prices? Say, by lowering rents in exchange for putting in sweat equity, and something approximating a guarantee that residents won't be kicked out without warning if the owner decides to sell out?

Oh, that's just silly: pardon me for bringing that up. We all know that the current outrageous rents in Portland will be met by the million new hipsters rushing to move into downtown any day now. Yep, any...day...now.

Here is a report released locally to apartment owners.
http://northwestapartmentinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/01/appraiser-mark-d-barry-releases-2010.html

for one opinion on market trends see:
"the landlord times" real estate market trends for 2010.

Right Nonny, I meant to say: "wined and dined with"...

Weren't those luxury condos that got dumped on the rental market originally intended to target culture-hungry retirees and status-conscious medical professionals? No way would any creative person take a Cyan condo.