SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to move to the Portland Metro area in the next twenty years. According to a new report by the Metro Regional Government, the region's urban growth boundary (or UGB) does not need to expand to accommodate these residents. (Here's a current PDF of the boundary.) Land use debates are old hat in Oregon, but this new development does raise the question: What will the Metro region look like in twenty years if we don't expand the UGB? What precedent does this set for other UGBs in the state?
While the UGB has moved about three dozen times over the last thirty years, virtually all growth in the Portland Metro region in that time has taken place within the UGB set in 1979. Obviously many people, especially developers and home-owners just outside the boundary, want to build past the current line. But on this round Metro says it just isn't necessary.
Every five years Metro is required by law to update the region's Urban Growth Report and recommend whether or not the UGB needs to expand. It is intended to spur a regional debate about how to prepare for forecasted growth. (One which we want to have right here!) The official report will be released on March 31, but the gist of it is out already.
Based on their projections (PDF), Metro expects 224,000 to 301,500 new housing units will be needed by 2030. They say these should all be built within the current UGB. Where do you think these units should be built? Can you imagine infill housing in your neighborhood? Or a new condo next door? Would you like the region to grow past the growth boundary or within it? If you live outside the Metro region, do you want your regional UGB to change as population increases?
GUESTS:
- Carl Hosticka: Metro regional government councilor from district 3
- Joe Keizur: Vice president for government and legislative affairs for the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and former Hillsboro City Council president
- Sam Adams: Mayor of Portland and a member of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee
- Richard Kidd: Mayor of Forest Grove and a member of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee
Tagged as: development · metro · urban growth boundary
Photo credit: Aaron Dan / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
The City of Portland conducted a visioning program for 1.5 years to determine public opinion about what Portland should be in 30 years. Several subjects relate to population growth and related issues. There are summaries of this information and extensive reports on over 100 issues on-line at: http://www.visionpdx.com/reading/inputsummary/
This information will be used to form The Portland Plan which will plan the future of Portland over the next 30 years. There will be much public discussion about this plan.
The various subjects in the VisionPDX work would make good subjects for future "Think Out Loud" programs. More public exposure and thought about these subjects would be timely and useful. Many changes must be made and it can only happen if the public understands and is willing to help implement them.
Best wishes, Don MacGillivray
-
We need to re-examine these growth projections. These projections (self fulfilling prophesies) are being made by urban planners and government agencies with a vested interest in growth. Their jobs are funded by increased taxes and fees on new developements. They push subsidizies for growth with "urban renewal" and other scemes. They allow or encourage growth knowing that it decreases quaility of life and creates the need for new taxes to fund the increased demand on roads, sewers, schools, etc...
It's not just the planners though....Too much of our economy is based on growth for growth sake. Builders, realators, lenders, architects, planners, and construction workers are all dependent on unennding growth "smart", sprawl, or whatever.
Luckilly, all this unchecked and unsustainable growth has finally slowed. The worst, most speculative actors are going bankrupt or are moving on to other scemes. Now is the time to reorganize our economy on a more sustainable basis. We need to abandon growth for growth's sake. We need to ask ourselves how big is big enough.
We need to employ construction workers rebuilding crumbling infrastructure (Selwood bridge for example) before we build more souless sprawl or souless and overpriced condo towers. We need to spend money on health care and education, not subsidies for condo builders, flashy streetcars, and sports franchises.
-
I think these growth projections are the product of self interested planners (see above).
So for the sake of this where should we build show....I think we should not expand the UGB. We should focus new construction in already developed areas. We should redevelop underused land (parking lots, strip malls, brown fields, on top of existing commercial property, etc...) along transit routes where possible. We should build as dense as possible where it will not impact already existing neighborhoods. We should not "upzone" established neighborhoods and fill them with towering, crappy "skinny houses" or other light blocking, soul destroying, exercises in modern arcitecture.
My personal experience with condos in my backyard continues to be negative. A wannabe developer/investor got control (for way below market value) of his aunt's house when she had a stroke. He built condos (which now overlook my backyard) on top of her vegtable garden and fruit trees. My only consolation was the realestate/credit meltdown which left his new condos unsellable.
-
I have been involved in this issue for over ten years!
I do not know where to start, It is a major mess.
Ask Mr. Adams how selling the Idea that more green space (Taking buildable land and rezoining it as green space) makes (His boss was for this also) the city more desireable or livable?
Ask some one from planning why they took over 1400 (That is 1,400 acres or 63,000 buildable lots out of the UGB) to protect the "Endangered Speceis" I have the letter from planning that confirms this in 1999! This affected my property even though it does not have any water on it and Salmon have never been found in S.W. Pdx (The hills are clay Salmon need gravel bed to spawn) These are just minor factors when it comes to planning!
These 14,000 acres have not been returned to the UGB in S.W. Portland.
My property was rezoned in 1999 by planning from R-10 ( the zoning was reversed from smaller lots to larger lots to give you example a R-10 lot you could put four(4) R-2,500) to R-20 (8 R-2,500) ( Taking it out of Portlands Comp plan and also not conforming to Metros goals of 4.5 lots per acre (Portland 2 lots per acre now),also violating Portland City Charter
If you want to ask a very valid question to Adams and counsil ask them If they are for infill then why have they voted down every Measure 37 and 49 claim down except 2-3 (One was nine) I have sat in council meetings and watch them vote against every property owner trying to get to the point so thier property will conform the the neighborhood ( This is where the press stops listnig) .
If you are in favor for infill then why do you and couincil constantly vote for against any infill to conform to neighborhoods (Short answer is "Newbees do not want anymore development! Close the door I'M in!! One of them just got on city council)
We are not asking for special rights we are trying to have the exact same rights as our neighbors (Not special just the same! Read this over and slower!)
Alot of this Infill is controled by special interest groups (Compare S.E with S.W where you have 20,000 sqt lots compared to 2,500sqt l
503-936-3774
Nothing personal but in the past you have not done your homework and have not asked the important questions.
-
A huge percentage of the land base inside our urban growth boundary- as much as half by some estimates- consists of roads and parking: space used up by all our cars and trucks. Moreover most our roads and parking lots sit idle most of the time because we build them for peak hours of usage.
What if we took more of the land base in the UGB that is currently taken up as car-space and dedicated it to people and green space. In other words, for more housing, employment land, and parks and open space?
We could have more livable communities inside the UGB, limit UGB expansions, and save precious farm, forest, and natural areas inside and outside the UGB. We'd also have cleaner air and water.
We'd need a more diverse transportation system so more people could get around without cars, but that would mean more transportation choices!
Jim Labbe
North Portland
-
This has merit (Converting Car Space to green and people space).
Intelligent, purposeful planning will create higher density, walkable 'town-centers' at transit hubs. The transit hubs will have satelitte bus service with smaller alternative energy buses.MAX will be taken off street level, so it can actually move people fast and safely.
You can easily visualize the crud of poor planning by driving near the Vista House (Portland Womens overlook) and looking across to Clark County's ridiculous sprawl. From the air, you can see the Portand metro joke (Happy Valley, Damascus, Clackamas, West Linn...).
Having lived in Europe and Asia it is obvious the USA has some learning to do. Having built many homes and commercial developments, the reactive, rather than proactive stance of Gov and residents is not a viable way to effectively plan.
Time for a system 're-boot'. Don't be so 'restrictive' in your vision... look beyond the USA. (1st) As mentioned on the program and these posts, the development dollar and greed for future revenues drives this growth vehicle down the wrong path.
-
The UGB should stay where it is. To continually expand the UGB makes a farce of the growth-containment process.
Nevertheless, we cannot accommodate a population increase of hundreds of thousands more people in the metro area without a decreased quality of life for all of us. We have to address the overpopulation problem, not try to adapt to it. We must discourage net migration and the local birthrate.
-
This is mostly directed at Mayor Adams,
Metro has done an outstanding job of managing urban growth, and the system works. The city of Portland's primary concern always seems to be packing more people into a tighter area, Managing sprawl was never a concern to Mayor Katz or currently Mayor Adams, they simply want more people for thier tax rolls.
I encourage Metro not to deal with Mayor Adams on this subject as he has proven not to be a reliable advocate of honest open managment of the city.
-
Often governments present us with false choices. Instead of assuming (and thus encouraging) people moving to the region, we have a third choice: look at ways to discourage growth. One growth-control mechanism that hasn't been discussed is systems development charges (SDCs) that require new residents to pay for the incremental services they need. Today, current residents shoulder most of the financial burden of growth.
The main issue preventing SDCs is that developers lobby against them in Salem. We need to shut down this lobby and give this idea, and others that control growth, a fair public debate.
-
For sure increase SDCs. Also, we need to stop blindly handing out subsidies and tax breaks to industries and employers "to encourage job growth." What ends up happening is a race to the bottom with other regions resulting in underfunded schools, roads, parks, etc... We need to pay as we go on all development.
-
I can see both sides of the issue, but from my experience I would strongly advocate for maintaining a tight control on the UGB. I am from Douglas County, Georgia, where, in the seventies, there were still creeks and cow pastures and woods to romp around in. When Atlanta's population exploded in the mid/late eighties and early nineties, there were virtually no controls set on development, and the suburbs quickly became some of the ugliest sprawl in the nation. Unregulated growth all too often means large areas prepared for development - trees razed, ground leveled, parking lots put in - that remain empty because expected population centers located elsewhere. Now there are empty and half-empty strip malls for miles in every direction, acres and acres of deforested but undeveloped land, five lane roads where the two lane would have been fine, hastily and cheaply erected subdivisions that seem to sag and rot after only twenty years. Developers rush in to make a fortune, build fast food franchises and cheap housing, and leave with their money. It does not always translate to the population. Please don't let this happen to Portland. Develop up and in, not down and out.
-
This is rediculous. Who is going to be buying these newly constructed homes(outside the current growth boundary) when no one can get a loan anyway? You'll just be creating blight for years to come.
-
I've lived in Michigan, North Carolina, California, Utah and Arizona. When I travel back to these places I am shocked and dismayed by the sprawl encoutered, the endless strip malls, traffic jams and smog this type of growth generates. The UGB, while not perfect, represents a far better alternative to unbridled growth (just look at Clark County). Every choice has a trade-off, and I'll take this one. We need to continue planning for the day when oil is no longer a viable option - either because of cost, availability or our climate, and density is the best option to achieve this.
Jeff R.
-
I chose to live in the Orenco area of Hillsboro because I wanted a walkable neighborhood. As a result, my husband can take the MAX to work each day and can walk to shop at New Seasons, to a great Library and parks. I chose NOT to live in Beaverton because there were no walkable neighborhoods. We had lived in the Chicago area and enjoyed walking to two downtowns.
My favorite neighborhoods are ones built in the early 20th century along train/street car lines. I think this is what we need to do in the future NOT more sprawl. Carbon emissions must be reduced and walkability will decrease obesity and diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle.
-
It seems we just can't have a discussion like this that is really rational, in my mind. For me we have enough human habitat in the world, surely we do in Oregon.
We hear all the time that people are developing in to animal habitats and cause conflicts with animals. My point of view is in Oregon we should be leaders and set our urban growth boundries for the next 500 to 1000 years and see if we can reduce our global impacts and live in harmony with the other life in the world.
I for one think if we consider the urban growth boundries human habitats and considered set. We should also consider increasing the limitations on growth outside of UGB.
Thanks
-
I've lived in various parts of Washington County (Aloha, Hillsboro, Bethany and now central Beaverton). I've also lived in denser (average four-story bldgs) downtown areas.
Done well, with intentional focus on livability and walkability, the denser downtown is my preference. Unfortunately, the city centers of the metro area outside of Portland have failed to build livable city cores. Beaverton is particularly dead in this sense.
I would like to see more of the city centers that surround Portland, like central Beaverton become denser and more vertical. However, it doesn't have to become as tall or dense as Portland itself.
Portland can offer the super-dense city while surrounding city center build to a 4-story cap and try to hit a FAR of 2.5. Re-focus the streets in the area on walking, street car and bicycles. This wouldn't be all of the suburbs, but building a better core for a city like this would take pressure off Portland without expanding the UGB.
I think the Portland metro-area needs to become a cluster of denser cities (than they are now) and continue to improve our non-automobile transit options.
-
Do not enlarge the Growth Boundary. It is long past time to deal with the serious problem of overpopulation.
Our country is rapidly becoming a place that cannot even feed itself. When I was growing up in the Portland area 50 years ago, It was surrounded by small farms and orchards. The fertile land around the airport, Gresham, Beaverton, Tigard, Canby, Sherwood, and so on were farm towns. It is heartbreaking to see how fast this important aspect of survival is disappearing. California and Florida are being paved over. The US now gets garlic from CHINA. This example indicates how shortsighted and foolish people are.
We need to face the fact of overpopulation and change our behavior, now, before we destroy the fragile environment that sustains us.
-
The idea that "growth equals jobs" is a fallacy. Growth may create construction jobs, but the current crash in the construction industry is clear proof of this fallacy. I know plenty of people who moved to Portland without a job, just to be in the area and try to find employment with the hope of staying here. Some left, a few stayed. Job creation is more complex. Job creation requires an educated work force, infrastructure for commerce, good transportation, resources for industry or services, an economy and tax structure that encourages business creativity, and many other factors. If we want jobs, we have a harder task ahead of us. Don't expand the UGB to increase employment; it won't work.
-
Oregon in general, and (metro) Portland in particular, is recognized as a model for development and planning the world over. The reason our system is not duplicated is because we chose reason over greed...not an easy (or popular) choice.
As your speakers have noted, "sprawl" growth costs more. It costs more to serve it, and it costs more to live in it. Low density development virtually mandates auto-dependent living, which makes all of us subject to the whims of the market when energy costs skyrocket (doesn't matter what fuels our cars if we can't afford it).
High density development can be just as, if not more, pleasant to live in, than low density development, but ONLY if land use and transportation are highly integrated. Portland does well in this area, but could still do better.
Our system is not perfect, but it is better than just about any other system in the U.S. Growing up rather than growing out is more sustainable, and in the long run we will be proven right.
Now if we only had an appropriate transportation system, with taxes and direct costs that truly reflected the cost of driving single-occupant vehicles for virtually every trip, we might not have to have this discussion. But it's unlikely the U.S. system will stop subsidizing driving anytime soon. My tax dollars just bought a new GM and Chrysler, and I don't even drive the cars I have! (Because I choose to live close to work and services, so I don't have to use a gallon of gas to get a quart of milk.)
-
May I offer a strong and resounding voice in support of NOT EXPANDING the urban growth boundary. In my 42 years of observation, expanding the urban growth boundary in an age of unenlightened commercial architecture results in the horror that is Gresham.
Yes, yes, yes to infill and REDEVELOPMENT of established residential and commercial areas that need some economic support and vitality. We have plenty of homes and land devoted to living.
Yes, grow up. I lived in NYC for years in a wonderfully vertical environment that had a greater sense of community than any suburb will ever offer.
Please, please start to think outside of the outdated box of growing wide. Prioritize sustainability, consider greeen and garden space planning, environmental health.
And, as a resident of North Plains who visits Forest Grove often, I see a huge opportunity for redevelopment in this community. Please consider creatively re-crafting the space that is, before spreading half-heartedly into the blandness of Starbucks and McDonalds and McMansion.
There may be figures about how many people will come. Why not limit that growth by limiting development and keep our beautiful home beautiful. We can say "no" to communities that echo Pheonix and Las Vegas. It's exciting to see areas like downtown Hillsboro come back to life - let's continue to support this inner rebirth.
Managable, sustainable, healthy. Please keep your focus on primary values and away from the dollar sign.
thanks,
-
To Sam Adams: How can you expect Portlanders to believe a word you say or respect your opinion any more? You've proven your low character, you lied for personal gain, and you betrayed the confidence and trust of the people. You should resign. Or you could wait in office for further embarrassment when you're removed in July.
-
It must really bother you that people still believe the Sam Adams is an intelligent, talented and capable man who will be an excellent mayor. My guess is that you didn't vote for him in the first place and would not have supported him under any circumstances.
-
I agree wlhvlh mayor Adams is intelligent, talented, and capable.
He has shown a great deal of intelligence when he groomed and "made out" (sexually assaulted) a 17 year old in a public bathroom. I'm no prude, but that is NOT o.k. I just hope the metro's UGB report include the urban growth that was taking place at city hall.
He has shown exactly how capable a mayor he is when he hired the inexperienced mercury reporter Amy Ruiz to be his sustainability and strategic planning adviser in a city that farts out city planners. Who sings that song, "silence is golden?" He is also quite capable of violating the cities code of ethics ordinances.
I know it's nothing you haven't heard before, but I suggest replace mayor with pedophile and people might take your factless and inference filled comments with more seriousness.
...now where did I put those see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys.
-
I am sure we all can agree Mayor Adams is piece of crap, not really up for debate... However I feel he is completley irrelevant to Metro, they need bring portland city government down a notch, Portland doesn't share a border with the UGB, and inside the UGB Portland will soon be outnumbered in population by the beaverton, hillsboros.....
Portland's "Good Ideas" about density are a cheap grab at tax rolls, drive through the old nieghborhoods in Southeast, Northeast, Then tell me the Pearl District is a good place to live. It is all a part of the Katz/Adams dream of making portland a little manhattan full of affluent upwardly mobile whites.
Metro needs to take over, they seem to be an organization that doesn't molest children
-
Portland infill is not really a UGB issue, rather a strong desire to live closer to the city core for it's services, arts, culture etc. Nearly the entire city has been encompassed by the UGB (sans Forest Park) for some time now.
The core UGB issue is the construction of cities like Sherwood, Wilsonville Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Damascus, Happy Valley etc. To date these cities have developed and produced sprawl within the UGB. Smart growth would occur with public transportation systems, water/waste treatment/supply, availability of green spaces and bike lanes/sidewalks being available. The communities being developed in these new areas are generally unsustainable and tax the natural resources of the region in a negative way. If we were smart about future development the metro area, sustainable building would be REQUIRED (ie permeable pavement in neighborhoods, greywater systems, high insulation requirements, green space corridors, encourage large tree plantings to eliminate the heat sink phenomena, recharge the groundwater with neighborhood swales and ban building in high fire/flood risk areas). Building a region willy-nilly will never lead to a prosperous community, it will simply mandate the need for future redevelopment and constant investment in public infrastructure.
-
My name is Linda, pardon the silly username, I was having a hard time finding one that woudl work.
I live in SW Portland, a modest, somewhat countryfied area--Maplewood. Most homes are small, cute, have enough land for a small garden, a number of which have been devastated by McMansions planted on lots next door. These are HUGE houses, whose footprints cover nearly the entire lot, casting such shadows on their neighbors' homes that they can no longer grow tomatoes or have sunshine coming in their kitchen windows. Luckily I don't live in one of the now-dwarfed-and-shadowed homes, but it is terribly sad to see a cozy home destroyed in this way. Please take existing homes into account when deciding what kinds of homes can be built in an area.
-
A little bit of all approaches should be taken to accommodate the growth of the metro area in coming decades. A little bit of UGB expansion is in order, but when we build out we must build real towns will significant density and civic focus. When we infill within the UGB we must also rebuild in the Greyfields (suburban parking lots) and Brownfields (industrial clean-up sites). Portland is a seriously underbuild region when compared to the greatest cities of the world. We can become a much more urban, concentrated, mixed, diverse and rich region of cities and towns.
-
I'm not answering this specific comment...but your site wouldn't let me enter a comment any other way...???
My comment is in reply to something that Joe Keizur VP of the Home Builders Assoc said regarding the need for jobs: construction jobs centered on home construction are a kind of ponzi scheme...witness what's happening right now...those jobs were among the first to disappear.
-
Mayor Adams,
In limiting sprawl many cities and have melted together, would you support Metro taking over a substantial amount of the governance on a regional level? Portland's government is becoming more outdated and unnessary.
-
I agree. Perhaps we should be thinking about a regional UGB rather than a cities UGB.
-
You should go back to the basics and re-look at the idea of constant economic growth. Who demands it, who benefits from it, and who constantly loses from it.
Who demands ever more increasing profits to take out of your city? Isn't that demand for profit just like the tribute that empires have always demanded from their subjects?
Is it possible to change to a stable economy wherein the money just recycles back through the community instead of being sucked out by some wealthy people outside the community?
History teaches us that every civilation has grown itself to economic death and we ought to change that now because we have outgrown our planet and are endangering ourselves through economic growth.
If you are interested in the history of economic growth and how it has affected civilizations, I recommend the book "Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and The Transformation of Nature", by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Oxford Historian.
-
Mayor Adams,
If we can't don't have enough transportation money to encompass communities existing within the UGB, how do we have enough money to build a 4 billion dollar bridge? You seem enjoy passing debt to our children through bonds on sports teams and tramways...How are they more important than filling potholes and connecting communities?
-
The only obvious solution is this: We build a giant wall around the greater Portland area and hang a sign on the outside that simply says, "No." We'll have to strike the city from the maps and keep a low profile, and maybe we'll have to consider "selective reproduction" policies somewhere down the road, but it's really for the best.
P.S. Say hi to the mayor for me!
-
I believe that the UGB should not be expanded.
The question then becomes one of accomodation. How and where will people go?
The issue of cost is important as well. The region has an investment in infrastsructure within the UGB that can be capitalized upon... to create greater efficiencies than can be realized by extending the infrastructure into the surrounding landscape.
I have studied the issue in depth, and presented a proposal at PNCA in the pdXplore Exhibit of July 08, for accomondating growth of up to 1.5M people WITHIN the existing Portland city limits.
One model for this growth exists here in Portland: the King's Hill and Sullivan's Gulch neighborhoods achieve the needed densities, while keeping the neighborhood character that Portlanders and the region desire. The central block of King's Hill has a density of 90-100 units per acre, with extensive areas dedicated to gardens and courtyards. This density exceeds the average density of the Pearl District; is comparable to the densities of the South Waterfront, but with a much more enjoyable character.
Sullivan's Gulch ( and areas north of Hawthorne around 30th) achieve densities of 20 units per acre.
In all these cases, the height of buildings generally does not exceed 3-4 stories, with many at 2 stories.
Importantly, in addition to these low buildings, there are towers ranging from 10-24 stories interspersed. These are widely spaced, but integrated within the lower building fabric.
The result is that the towers can boost density, yet be buffered by trees and spaced widely so that the overall effect is one of an intimate garden like neighborhood.
With this uniquely Portland model of development, we can create a "garden city" that keeps the best qualities of Portland intact.
By providing 1500 units in a three block radius around each city park, we can add 300,000 to 400,000 new residents to our city, without major disruption. Further, our parks and schools, now in disrepair or being abandoned, can become the green commons and institutions at the center of the community.
By increasing density along our major transportation corridors, around our parks, on our parking lots, on our brown fields, and carefully integrated within our existing neighborhoods, we can accomodate the projected growth, and create a beautiful, sustainable, and exciting city.
-
The area surrounding Portland has some of the richest agricultural land in the country. Of course builders want to build but we NEED to keep this land available for farmers. Without this land we lose the ability to grow our own food. This is so much more important than the developers realize. Once agricultural land is gone, it is very difficult to get it back.
-
The caller who noted that the discussion is always steered by developers and government was absolutely correct. Enough.
The taxes to support infrastructure for expansion are squarely on the property tax payers back-mine. I am a native and love it here as it was and as it is. A city evolves, there is no doubt. However, all those things that make this place wonderful will be gone with sprawl and over population. We are NOT obligated to build for people who may come. Why is planning not considering making the urban areas better? Why are we not insuring low income housing mixed with more expensive?
I am so sick of developers and their greedy arguments. Anyone visited California lately?
I think infill is fine. But my question is why are we obligated to build for people who may come? What about our environment? Isn't Portland the perfect place to really be an example of what a city can do that isn't just the same old thing?
I have more to say, but it doesn't make a difference. Money always wins.
-
Also,
Go METRO! Your doing a great job. Please continue limiting the power of development interests. I know they have a strong hold on most local governments. There are greater priorities to consider (environmental, health, sustainable living) than the increased income of developers.
It is important to remember that the machine of development is run by the motivation of increased income (not necessarily a bad thing but usually bad when not tempered by larger human values) and not on conscious, sustainable values. I feel strongly that these values have to be imposed and protected by those who actually care about future generations.
thanks
-
Does Metro and Builders consider school capacity when they talk about infrastructure when growing a community? Our public schools (Bethany area or the Bvtn school district) have been busting at the seams with no releif for years. Bonds for building new schools have been passed and the school district is still falling further behind in keeping up with the need. Even after the builders agreed to a minimal SDC charge to be applied to schools, this would probably only raise enough money to get a few portable classrooms for already overcrowded schools. I am actually relieved that the new home building has slowed down to give our schools some to catch up.
-
Speaking as a farmer, the area around Portland in the Willamette Valley has some of the richest agricultural land in the whole country. Builders, of course, want to build everywhere but once lost, this land is gone forever. We NEED agricultural land for food security. Any area that can't grow its own food isn't viable. Unfortunately farmers often aren't as politically active as those who develop land are and this issue doesn't come forward as much as it should. Save farmland, it's what feeds us.
-
I agree that a business plan for paying for infrastructure is key to allowing a UGB to expand. We have had too many laws and initiatives go unfunded, and it's time we hold ourselves accountable to paying the price of growth.
I understand that infill is a tough issue for some. We need to do more to collaborate on what "infill" looks like, and the associated lifestyle changes that come with it, before implementation.
-
Thirty years ago PDX was a great place to raise our children.
Then there was the mass in-migration, not uncontrolled but STUPID growth.
Nail the UGB down hard and STOP the spread of the stupidity that is the Portland Metro area! IF and when the various governments figure it out then and only then... LEAVE IT NAILED DOWN!
ME? Like so many Natives, I took my business and thus my tax dollars and I relocated far away!
-
No more Bethanies! Beaverton has done a terrible job. I noticed no one from there participated in this conversation. For good reason!
Hillsboro, between Orenco Station development and downtown has much more potential.
-
The idea of providing jobs is always used like an extortion by developers to get their way.
New developments are temporary jobs and developers tend to bring in low wage workers like illegal Mexicans to undercut the local carpenters and other construction people. When the development is built out the developers and their Cheap-Labor move somewhere else and undercut those locals.
In a sustainable economy you would have local skilled construction people who live in your community, do the work and do it well because they are your neighbors and they depend on you just as you depend on them.
-
Growth is fundamental to traditional capitalism. It is also completely unsustainable. The idea that we must grow to progress is based on 18th century ideas of unlimited frontiers and "manifest destiny" that anything "primitive" must be civilized.
We know now that these ideas are based on false assumptions. Ever since we saw that blue ball floating in space, we have been struggling with the reality of our finite planet.
Time to explore new ways to think about economy and progress. Ever higher profits must be at the expense of the environment and future generations, at least until we begin to colonize Mars!
-
The conversation is finally going in a reasonable direction!. The choice shouldn't be: expand and devour the agricultural lands that we need to feed us and the green space that makes us all want to live here, or: in-fill and tear out the trees and yards that make a neighborhood livable, build in the back yard and cram in as many people as possible. Why can't we limit the in-migration of the one million new people we are "expecting"? I may sound like an old hippie, but what happened to Zero Population Growth?
-
"I may sound like an old hippie, but what happened to Zero Population Growth?'
Yep! Us old hippies were and still are right!
Birth control by humans because if that is left to nature she is unmerciless in her ways. And let's remember, nature always bats last.
-
Comments are now closed.
If I have to pick a lousy option I'd say densify Portland within its existing UGB. Don't increase the boundary's size.
Oregon's population was about right 50 years ago. It rained all the time and the sun was seldom seen. Then we chopped down the trees and vomited ugly urban housing developments in all directions. Have we no soul? Is everything dollar signs in our greedy eyes?
As a native Portlander I don't want the urban growth boundary to expand. I don't want people to move here unless there are vacancies. As a lifelong resident of Northeast Portland I'm deeply disappointed by infill. Much of it is ugly and the increased density creates congestion and pollution.
I don't want Portland to be like New York City 50 years from now or ever. Megalopolis is stupid considering the decrease in livability. Those who want to live in crowded exciting places - fine by me - bye bye!
When do we stop paving everything over so thoughtlessly? If the glaciers that provide Portland drinking water are shrinking due to global warming then I suppose you'd be happy drinking water from the Willamette?
Let's consider the true costs of expanding our region's population. It's time to get serious about rolling back Earth's population through natural attrition (not Soylent Green or genocide) to about two billion over the next several hundred years. If we don't do in ourselves I'm sure nature will find a way to get the job done.
Enough already! Stop!