I just finished the absorbing book "Our Lot: How real estate came to own us" by Alyssa Katz -- a detailed rundown, with both exemplar stories and details on the big picture of the horror show that is nowhere near "over" (as the govt. attempts to restart the party by empowering precisely the SOBs that drove the bubble ever higher).

Although it doesn't spend a lot of time on housing in inner city, it does remind the reader who knows the history of "urban renewal" -- or "negro removal" as it was called in its first iteration in the post-war era -- that most of it was really nothing but speculators at work. Nobody was interested in making better neighborhoods for the current residents -- it was about moving them out so a better class of folks could move in.

It's kind of like the way our wacky compensation schemes for bankers playing with insured money led them to take insane risks with no skin in the game of their own -- a whole lot of urban renewal con artists and condo builders get paid (well) even if "renewal" turns out to be nothing but a renewed decline with a much bigger price tag. Many times the only metric for success -- rising property values -- is the one that would have happened anyway, due to factors that have nothing to do with the projects.

The power structure in Portland is liberal, not progressive -- only too happy to funnel money to corporate bastards (see, Paulson, Henry, v. II and III or see biofuel subsidies) if they bow down to Portland's reigning orthodoxy and very uncomfortable with real progressives who question whether being screwed over by a gay-friendly, pro-choice real estate or sports scammer is any better than being screwed over by a rabid Republican.

As such, liberal elites in Portland really dislike populists and progressives, because folks like that won't do as they're told and insist that evil is still evil when Obama does it, just as when Bush the Lesser did it.

What I fail to understand is why don't people who think urban renewal is just a masked term for removing undersirables, become the change they want to see and move into those neighborhoods that upwardly mobile people have traditionally stayed away from.

And do it without help from the urban renewal folks or demanding extra policing efforts.. because wouldnt that be an effort to remove lower class people to bring in a better class of people?

Shouldn't people who claim to be progressive become the change they want to see in the community?

And then they can tell us how it worked out for them?

Hey George,

"gay friendly" as opposed to what, gay hostile? Just curious what would you prefer?

Myopic?
Portland?
I'm shocked!

Robert -
Let me see if I can answer your question.

I had a friend who lived in a SE neighborhood. The neighborhood wasn't really even all THAT bad, although it seemed to be on the downhill swing. He was proud of his house and really wanted the neighborhood to improve. So when he got the chance he bought the house next to his (which was in in bad shape at the time). His idea was to revitalize it, then either move in and rent or sell his present house.

He is working on his new house when he can. Weekends and nights; one morning he heads over and finds someone in the house. It was a crackhead stealing all the brass and copper that he could find. He stops the man, talks with him and tells him that rather than steal this metal, come tomorrow he has a ton of little handyman things that an extra body would be great to have. He told him that he would be happy to pay him $10 an hour under the table just to come and help and it would certainly be more than what he could get for the scrap metal.

The next day he went over and not only did the crackhead not show up, but he had come back during the night and finished pulling out the metal. As time continued, he had various supplies stold, his own house got broke into several times. In the end he sold both houses and just moved out of the neighborhood.

So without the extra money for policing, without the extra precautions needed to keep a place secure it's a risky venture. Further, if you are the only one to do it in your neighborhood, what do you end up with? A nice house that you dropped several tens of thousands of dollars into that will never get even close to your investment back due to the condition of neighboring homes. Plus your home is now the target of all crackheads and burglars in the surrounding area.

I dislike urban renewal and in fact dislike living in an urban setting (but I realize some people like it). I understand and acknowledge that it takes time, money and is a gamble to try to do that 'revitalization' on your own.

Just for the record, Im not against urban renewal efforts... I choose my place to live based on what I can afford that offers the most safe environment.. Safety is a big issue for most I think..

When I bought my home in inner SE PDX the common thought I heard when buying was nothing W of 39th.. Its all I could afford so I took a chance.. The Belmont Dairy at that time looked like a decaying prison.. that was in the early 90s.. Skinheads and Crips were living in the neighborhood too.. Mulgetta Seraw, the African National was murdered by skinheads just a few blocks from my house several years before I bought my home and after I bought there were 2 murders on Belmont in the first year. One at a bar and the other still unsolved murder was at a video rental, both just a few blocks away..

Then someone came up with a plan for the Belmont Dairy.. I think it would come under the category of urban renewal.. The building was renvoated and new condo's were built in the associated parking lot that was barricaded with razor wire.. Zupans moved into the commercial spot on the corner of the Belmont Dairy.. My neighborhood is now one of the most appealing in the PDX area.. and all because of urban renewal efforts, stepped up police efforts and a strong desire by residents to get the riff raff out... Ive got nothing against poor people.. but I cared about my neighborhood, renovated my house along with others and was greatful that Zupans took a chance because it is the social center of the neighborhood now.. I credit urban renewal efforts and the desire by many residents to make Sunnyside Neighborhood a better place to be. So Im all for urban renewal efforts because Ive seen what failed efforts to regenerate neighborhood interest can look like.. It can look like the west side of my home town, Rockford, IL...and that decay is now seeping in the east side.. there are some areas in that town that people take their lives into their hands going through as stray bullets are not uncommon...

So Im all for urban renewal and I happen to like TRIMET and the train system.. Id rather see money from the fed go into that system than to fight a wars against nations that did nothing to us.. If were going to attack nations that harbor terrorists, then all nations are affected, unless they arent strategically located where oil and natural gas reserves are, then they can harbor all they want apparently... with no threat of attack...

George-- What is pro-choice real estate? Does that language run with the deed? If so, can you provide a copy so I may have it added to my Property Title? Thank you in advance.

IF the market supports urban renewal it will succeed in the long term. Government entities should not be directly investing the real estate business, IMHO.
The days of rapidly skyrocketing real estate values in residential or commercial real estate are over for now.
The spousal unit and I have re-done 4 very old commercial buildings in the inner city. It takes a lot of hard work, some risk, some money and time. You also cannot be too greedy or you and your tenants will fail.
I think the key is the "F" word...flexibility, especially in these financially troubled and uncertain times.

When I was dropping off to sleep last night I realized that what we need is a book called "What's the Matter with Portland," a tribute to and an extension of Thomas Frank's great book "What's the Matter with Kansas," in which he shows how right wing corporate criminals persuade the poor and middle classes to vote against their interests by getting them to concentrate on social issues, obscuring the fact that people you agree with on social issues may still not have your best interests at heart (or in their agenda).

So, Robert and Brian, that's the point -- that liberal sheep in Portland can be persuaded to vote against their own interests by elites using social issues, just like conservative sheep in Kansas can be. So my preference, since you ask, is that everybody be gay-friendly and pro-choice -- but that we don't forget that people who aren't either of those things can still be right about economic issues and about needing to distrust parasitic elites who try to use their socially liberal views to hide a reactionary, illiberal agenda.

The reason I was so angry that John Edwards turned out to be such a douche is that he was the only candidate to have an explicitly progressive populist message. When he decided his appetites were more important than the presidency he vaporized an important take on issues and left us with the mush of fine rhetoric and corporate toadying of Obama.

Yes what is progressive?

I'd like a straight answer as to how the progressives can be supporting what this gentleman is critiquing.
Listen closely and think about how this scam can be progressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9WFVQIpJZM&feature=player_embedded#

Geez, talk about synchronicity--after writing the above, I go find that Edwards has admitted fathering the kid that everyone knew he fathered and that the fascist five on the US Supreme Court has decided that corporations and unions have a constitutional right to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. I know folks around here hate them some public financing for elections but my guess is that such a plan is our only hope now, if the remnant pols elected before this only have some intelligence and spine ... what am I saying?! We are so screwed.

Damn - I missed this show. I saw Steve Earle at Farm Aid in Auburn, WA a few years ago. He played solo w/ his accoustic guitar and was probably the best performer there. He did Copperhead Road solo and it still rocked - pretty impressive.

Portland is like "boutique progressive." Fancy condos and townhouses in the Pearl are great for those who can afford them but they don't make Portland progressive.

You don't have to be a dittohead, or a teabagger, or whatever this year's word is for selfishness, to think that local government is spending too much money on things that working people neither need nor want.

Do you?

nope

George: Know that there is one person you spoke for. I happily contributed to John Edwards, thinking he was moving political thought to some point of reasoned populism. He was seemingly intelligent and very articulate. I should have known. Shame on me for not being my cynical self.

I now realize that all we can do is distrust what is hyped and watch in total disgust as all of the corporate criminals and shills use every opportunity to entrance most of us. Even a massive natural disaster will be milked as long as possible to distract and manipulate. How sad.

Then someone came up with a plan for the Belmont Dairy.

I don't know who came up with the original plan, but the person who promoted it at the city government level was one of Jack's favorite whipping boys: Eric Sten aka "Opie". I've lived in the neighborhood for over twenty years, since the days when it was an actual working dairy.

The shooting outside the Belmont Inn was actually after the residential project's first phase was completed. A friend of mine had moved into the loft apartments above Zupan's, the store had already opened, and the Inn was running live music shows when some of the patrons yanked out their gats.

Good post, Jack.

We just have to remember the difference between progressivism, and Progressive Inc.

There is plenty of money to be made, comfy govt posts to hold, esteem to be had, in Progressive Inc. It's not to say that these people are all closet conservatives, just that they develop quite a bit of self-interest in these causes.

Eric Hoffer: 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'

He just turned 55 on Sunday. He reminds me of what 55 year olds looked like back in the 70's when I was a kid.

Singing the blues must be a tough life.

At least, with today's decision by the Supreme Court, there's no longer the pretense of the government having anything to do with people as such. Fascism is here, probably to stay.

Robert Pace: You stated concerning your home near the Belmont Dairy on SE Belmont, "I think it [the Belmont Neighborhood] would come under the category of urban renewal.", and "So I'm all for urban renewal."

Belmont Dairy neighborhood isn't in an urban renewal area. The closest URA is the Central Eastside URA which is between the Willamette River and SE 12th-over 30 blocks away. Belmont Dairy and environs didn't use any URA TIF dollars. I do believe the Dairy did have some Transit Oriented Development (TOD) tax dollars, but in large part the area's improvements that you speak of is generally a free-enterprise story.

Like so many successful areas of the city, area improvements have been more the natural result of free enterprise than of Urban Renewal. Many times natural changes to a city is more progressive than Urban Renewal and helps involve people like you that wants and will improve a neighborhood.

I'm relatively new to this town, so I'll admit I really don't know the whole story. But it seems to me that the Pearl District is a good example of government urban renewal and private sector development working together to revitalize a central part of the city.

Obviously you can find examples of mismanagement in any large endeavor, government or otherwise. Just like there's a good example above of a failed attempt at personal charity. Neither story should negate the value of continuing to fight the good fight.

At least, with today's decision by the Supreme Court, there's no longer the pretense of the government having anything to do with people as such. Fascism is here, probably to stay

That is such a weak-minded argument which illustrates the core of liberal arrogance. Hey, maybe you all could, I don't know, VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO DIDN'T TAKE THE MONEY??? Would that be so hard? But it doesn't jibe with your patronizing attitudes toward the masses, who, you are convinced, will be led astray from utopia by the heavily financed campaigns.

The rich have always tried to distract and buy off the poor to suppress competition rising from the middle. What else is new? Either deal with it or get enough people to VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T TAKE THE MONEY to protect your middle class interests and causes, which include progressivism, in case you refuse to admit it.

Mark, the question about the Pearl is the (large) expense to the City. Was it necessary? Could that have been used elsewhere?

The South Waterfront is the key example. Should the city be in the business of diverting hundreds of millions from schools, county services and the like in order to build for-profit condo towers?

Urban renewal is largely a snow job. Where it's really needed (Lents, or along MLK) it doesn't work. Where the developers and the gentrification machine are already licking their chops, it "works" just fine - to hand subsidies to the developers, and tax breaks to condo owners.

The first UR projects in Portland tore down the historically Jewish/Italian neighborhood and the black neighborhood.

Steve Earle is a remarkable song writer and a pretty convincing actor as seen in The Wire.

That being said, his real life political and social thinking is juvenile enough to qualify him as a honorary Portlander.

"his real life political and social thinking is juvenile enough to qualify him as a honorary Portlander"

If you think his political and social thinking is juvenile, than you don't understand his songs on anything but the most superficial level.

Bojack:"Wouldn't those heroes connect with our objections to throwing our city's future into real estate speculation?"

ws:The entire city of Portland was built around real estate speculation in the 1800s. There's a reason why we have 200 foot blocks -- it increases the chance that a building be built on a corner lot which is more valuable than a building built in the middle of a block between other buildings (think natural light access).

To those who don't like gentrification:

Any improvement in a neighborhood, whether in the form of renovated houses, new parks, new restaurant commercial development etc. is going naturally increase housing costs. It makes it more desirable.

To say you don't want gentrification is to say you don't want any improvement. I don't think that's a desirable stance to have, and that doesn't necessarily mean all gentrification is good.

While the Pearl and SoWa is a yuppie playground, Portland and its "deals" with developers at least tried to create a positive public/private relationship in regards to building affordable housing units.

Believe it or not, you can find affordable housing in the Pearl and there is expected to be affordable housing in Sowa in the near future.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117373388024001500

"While the Portland City Council is set to enact a new policy requiring 30 percent of spending in urban renewal districts be devoted to affordable housing"

Now, is there enough? Nope, but not enough credit is given for these actions by the city. That is progressive as hell, btw.

Also, let's not conflate natural, market rate urban renewal with TIF urban renewal. There's plenty of natural market based projects in the city. I do not see an issue with developers building condos w/ their own money assuming they are built well and do not create a negative impact on a neighborhood.

A predominantly single-family neighborhood not wanting any density is in effect gentrification too, as that will limit the possibility of rental unit apartments even being built.

One thing I've noticed: Our politicians know some kinds of projects can get federal funds, and that influences their decision making.
Instead of saying, "We need this. Can we get some help from the federal government?", our people view not doing those projects that can get federal funds as money lost.
That's how we end up with bad decisions, and get stuck paying millions for a bunch of stuff we don't need and never would have gone for without the enticement of free money from Washington.
This mind set is not a theory. I've heard politicians say it right out loud: "If we don't build this, we'll lose a chance at the federal funding."

I remember that other 5-4 victory moment.

I was nursing my baby, I guess looking very sorrowful or angry or bitter or all of the above. My husband asked- what's wrong?

I replied- it's a pyrrhic victory.

And sure enough, giving George Bush Supreme court nomination power has led to this catastrophic 5-4 decision today.

I think I might go in the studio and do up an effigy of Ralph Nader, under the caption, "democracy apocalypse horse."

The tone here is always "I don't want to spend money on anything that doesn't benefit me."

The term for that isn't "progressive," it's "compassionate conservative."

Speaking of the veiled illiberal BS protected by the concepts of "liberal" and "progressive", let's not forget the original race-card play under George Bush senior- Clarence Thomas.

Or Alberto Gonzalez.

As long as someone had to read by candlelight as a child and made it against all odds, we can get them through the door to do our reactionary bidding under cloak of progressivism.

Sickening.

One thing's for sure: That beard puts those bearded Portland hipsters to shame.

Mark and Robert,in the quest to be "progressive" it's important to know some of the history since you are somewhat new.

Some of the neighborhoods/streets that are generally thought of as being successful (and that is subjective)in Portland are:
SE Division, NE Fremont, SE 82nd around the new ChinaTown, N. Mississippi St., NW 23rd and NW 21st, Multnomah, Hillsdale, SE Milwaukie, Sellwood, Montivilla, SE Burnside (in some places,....
All of these are successes without Urban Renewal.

Neighborhoods that have incurred UR are Lents, Interstate, Gateway, Old Town/ChinaTown, South Auditorium (South downtown). By many standards they are not thought of as being successful. In fact Downtown Portland has had 3 urban renewal districts with modifications, and is on tap by PDC that it needs more with boundary modifications. How many times does a neighborhood need Urban Renewal?

The point is that the neighborhood success ratio is higher without Urban Renewal. Sure, "you can find mismanagement" in anything, but I dislike having to pay $$Millions for it-over and over.

"The tone here is always 'I don't want to spend money on anything that doesn't benefit me.'

The term for that isn't 'progressive,' it's 'compassionate conservative.'"

You're exactly right.

And to bring it back to Steve Earle: what he writes about and what fuels his writing, ultimately, is true human compassion--not the fake kind advertised by Bush et al. Jesus, Walt Whitman, Woody Guthrie, Emma Goldman, Martin Luther King--those who fought for justice and felt deeply for their fellow human beings--are the heroes who inspire Earle.

Politically and economically, that translates into structures and laws that borrow from socialist theory and practice. You know: protect the vulnerable, reward work with decent wages, limit economic exploitation, spread the wealth in good times, share the sacrifice in bad times. That's what progressivism should be about.

Roger sez:

"The tone here is always 'I don't want to spend money on anything that doesn't benefit me.'"

No . . . I don't want to spend money on anything that doesn't benefit ANYONE.

Tram - check.

Streetcars - check.

SoWhat - check.

UR districts - check (okay, these do benefit the developers and speculators).

Idiot neon "O" sign in Old Town - check.

Just one little nit:

One way couplets save lives. Mostly pedestrians.
Reverting back to two way kills people. Mostly pedestrians.

See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/onewaystreets.htm

Thanks
JK

Jim...I'm dubious. Please provide evidence.

Mike...ALL those DO benefit SOMEBODY...usually not me. So far as I can tell, they are the contractor friends and family of those in power.

And Jack...When Emma Goldman was here, Portland threw her in jail, too. And, to your last question: no, we don't have to.

Evidence? Clicky the linky ...

godfry: Jim...I'm dubious. Please provide evidence.
JK: Why would you be dubious?
If you follow the link you will find the reason is basically that the street is simpler. You don't have cars coming from two directions mid block or 4 directions at an intersection. Good for both pedestrians & drivers. Accident rates dropped by almost half is some cases.

Further traffic moves faster, not because speed increases, but because lights can be timed for a constant speed and left turns don't have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. Constant speed also means less pollution from stopping and starting.

(This is just another example of Portland’s planners being wrong about most things.)

Thanks
JK

The UR (urban removal) thing has always been a racket for making big dollars for pols' buddies. Here in Portland, that has been magnified by never sunsetting the districts, but treating them as perpetual slush funds for the latest good old boy schemes.

PS Woody Guthrie lived on SE 39th when he was writing songs for the WPA, including "Roll on Columbia".

"You don't have to be a dittohead, or a teabagger, or whatever this year's word is for selfishness, to think that local government is spending too much money on things that working people neither need nor want."
Nope and there is a huge lack of common sense . Where did it go?

PS Woody Guthrie lived on SE 39th

There is no such street in Portland.