The neighbors should not play nice with this guy.

The city played the scene very nicely by having this contentious meeting in a sacred setting, in a church. People are most respectful in a church, not a good meeting location for the neighbors.

Why the hostility to the developer? He isn't asking for a subsidy and is just doing what the City actively encourages. The City planners should attend these meetings and take the heat.

What a horrible, irresponsible idea to add this many residences without parking. It is completely feasible to do so (just look at the condos with above ground parking in the building on 49th that houses Jim and Patty's Coffee and YoChoice Yogurt as the ground retail tenants). However, that would cut into the profit margin for the builder, which is probably even fatter than usual since the plan is for "low income/affordable" units. This project is the intersection between greed and stupidity.

The city planners or those the planners have to work for?
Who pushed to change those city codes?
When were the codes changed to allow these complexes without parking?

The planners, the city council and the condo weasels, ALL deserve to be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail!

"Why the hostility to the developer?"

I suppose you also believe burglars shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if the homeowner left the door unlocked.

Reemers builds the cheapest, ugliest schlock around. And he's doing it on an unprecedented scale- two projects in Hollywood and another on 30th and Burnside- none with parking and with a density no other developer is even contemplating. It's designed to maximize profit without any consideration for the communities he's destroying.

Oh, and don't bet on the current businesses who will be kicked out, being able to afford the new high rents this creep will be asking.

"burglars should not be held responsible"

That is a deeply flawed analogy. This isn't a case of the homeowner leaving the door unlocked, it is a case of the government legalizing burglary. No laws are being broken, and no subsidies being provided.

"Big swede", you're a "deeply flawed" human being if you believe individuals shouldn't be held responsible for the destruction they cause to communities, so long as they're not breaking any laws.

That's the type of rationale that caused our economy to collapse.

Mike. I am just trying to keep the discussion rational. Your analogy was nonsensical.

The issue of building housing without parking should be put on the ballot for November and if passed, be retroactive to any building not yet started. No one wants this unrealistic and out of scale shlock in their neighborhood. Since it's a presidential election, more citizens will be voting. Personally, I willingly pay more for a parking space, and always plan to do so. I see it as adding value to a home. Most residents in this city have cars. Someday, when things as we know it come to an end, these parking places can be converted into more tiny studio apartments or horse stalls and root cellars.

Gee Big Swede, it was, and still is in some places, "the law" to put people into death camps, gulags, and prison for speaking out against "the laws". It was "the law" in the United States that slavery was OK.
Don't go there. Just because you are big, doesn't make you right.

It's the city council and Metro that have no consideration for the communities that will be destroyed, not the builder who's merely conducting business as he's encouraged to. If it weren't him there'd be others.

How long will it take for Portlanders to figure out that they've been sold out by planners who are determined to destroy the old and build the new, or is it beyond their ability to comprehend and accept?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

To do something just because one can, no matter what, does not fit with the Golden Rule.
Don't know who pays attention to that rule these days.

In this case, we need to look behind the curtain to see who exactly rules and who has been behind the destruction of our once beloved City of Roses and has wanted our once good planning codes changed and changed until we no longer recognize our neighborhoods.

Who is responsible and has made it possible that this type of building can be built so that the people can be told, it is OK by city policy?

People have invested in their city and in neighborhoods, it seems only to find out too late that behind the curtain, much has and is being dismantled and degraded.

Quite frankly, it is almost impossible to keep up with all the changes, who has the time to do that and why should citizens have to double up and then have to fight our own city when unfortunately they do not work for neighborhood interests/livability?

....not the builder who's merely conducting business as he's encouraged to.

The other side of this as I have been told by some who wanted to build a nicer complex, less density, less height so it would fit in better with the surrounding neighborhood, they were either discouraged by the city or were told more density was required. That was in another area and a few years ago. I can only surmise codes have been changed even more since then and not in favor of those living in neighborhoods close to corridors.

"Wally the Weasel" underestimated more than just his "retail opportunity."

Absolutely the truth clinamen! One cannot buy 2 lots and put one house on them in the city of Portlandia.

Video of last night's Fremont Developer meeting is at:
http://vimeo.com/43703927

thanks
jk

The developer stated he was specifically looking for properties where he was not required to supply parking. What a sleaze ball. He doesn't seem to care what happens to the rest of the neighborhood as long as he plays Sammyboy's game and makes a profit.