Good for them!
We should all support these folks as the condo bunker weasels will go anyplace, except the west hills, to deposit their housing guano.

I wish them the best of luck, but I believe the bureaucrats at the City of Portland would just as soon that they leave and make room for new residents who will aqueous to their dictatorial directives and planned outcomes for how they should live, rather than trusting residents to live as they wish in their own neighborhood.

I'll bet they don't even realize that the real cause of the trashing of Portland's neighborhoods (and our unaffordable housing) is the State land use policy enforced by Metro's artificial shortage of land.

see:
http://www.debunkingportland.com/housing.html

Thanks
JK

Coyote developers will always exist, better to give them broad pastures away from established neighborhoods.

You can't have it both ways.

If land for residential development is limited by regional land-use planning, then the pressure is for infill development.

One item of which is apartment buildings.

I include Coyote developers sub-dividing existing single family home lots into additional houses.

A house (in a neighborhood) is the biggest investment most individuals and families make. The character of the neighborhood is part of that investment.

A city council which is in the Coyote developers' hands is a reason for allowing more development in outlying regions.

** "allow" is the wrong word given the economy, 'encouraging' should be the right word, unless you don't depend on economic growth for your livelyhood.

Most of us don't have that luxury.

This idea that economic growth through individual inititive is a privilege and that "government/private partnerhsips" are required for economic development is wrong. All it does is ensure political graft and crony capitalism.

I want to make clear that I am not supportive of this type of housing in any neighborhood. It would be interesting though to find out how many of those folks have been supportive of the UGB and the mantra until....
and perhaps still are into the UGB as long as it isn't in their neighborhood.
Family and friends in the East Portland area have been complaining for years about the rezoning that allowed huge density housing developments, some looking like ghetto housing brought into their area. It seemed it was OK with citizens in other parts of the city as long as this type of development wasn't in their neighborhood.
Now those neighborhoods that were thought to have been protected from losing their character and property investment are being devalued as well. Where is one to go when the city doesn't care about the livability and character of neighborhoods?

Car clutter and neighborhood parking poaching are just two of the major problems that adversely affect livability that these rapidly rising installations cause.

Infilling isn't the problem -- it's how it's being done and allowed to be done that is so bad. These kinds of cr-apartments infesting once-liveable neighborhoods have to be stopped now.

The City of Portland's parking ordinance amendment of the 90's that enables this cramming by externalizing the reality of renters' and retailers' cars without providing adequate space for those ubiquitous and necessary vehicles is a starting point that needs immediate amendment.

More important than our lame-duck councilites and mayerr sneaking in an out-of-left-field involuntary fluoride-dosing fiat.

Mojo: Infilling isn't the problem -- it's how it's being done and allowed to be done that is so bad.
JK: Infill increases the number of cars and the city refuses to increase road capacity. Thus it increases congestion on our streets.

Since most of it is on skinny lots (or giant bunkers) it also loads up the neighborhood with parked cars which makes the streets more dangerous by providing hiding places for children to pop out from.

But city planners don’t care about us as they have their deluded vision of utopia to create.

Thanks
JK

That's right, JK. Thanks.

BUT, it's not "road capacity" that's the problem -- it's the failure to provide parking capacity off-street and under, on, or around those apartment/ground floor "retail" installations.

Jack, I’ve been following your blog for a few months now, and remain confused by your antagonism towards apartment buildings. Now, if you’re arguing that the local government is unfairly subsidizing these apartment developers (I have no idea if this is true) or that the UGB forces apartment buildings where there otherwise wouldn’t be any, then I’m on the same page as you.

But most of your recent criticism harps on this parking issue (although to be fair, I also recall reading you complain about traffic issues as well). I wonder if you really believe that 1) the reduction in parking availability will have a significant impact on the current residents’ quality of life; 2) even if it did have such an impact, that would be a valid reason not to build an apartment complex.

In an Oregonian article today about infill in Eastmoreland, the author writes, “One person called it a ‘disturbing trend’ and residents ‘risk losing the beauty of our unique neighborhood and incur the drop in our property values caused by this type of irresponsible development.’” I submit to you that this is the real reason people on Division oppose apartments.

While I’m ready to believe that a new apartment complex might have a minor negative impact on current residents’ quality of life, I find it hard to empathize with these residents over parking: surely 90% of the current homes have driveways. Does it suck to have to start parking in the driveway after enjoying on-street parking for years? Sure, but I find it hard to accept that as a legitimate reason not to build new apartments.

From my perspective, these apartments are good news. For the past year, I’ve read article after article about how Portland’s rental vacancy rate keeps dropping. An increase in new units should help alleviate this problem and lead to lower prices and a higher quality apartment unit. While I’m willing to accept that current residents will be mildly inconvenienced by the new buildings, I don’t think that’s a valid reason to deny the new units, just as I don't agree with residents who oppose new 7-11's or other convenience stores.

Noah, you're talking without knowing what you're talking about. As you admited -- driveways for example. And, it's not merely "people on Division" -- it's actually the people who live inside the neighborhoods two to four blocks deep off of Division, on both sides!