To the BWNA Board:
As a European-born American, I have much sympathy for Portland’s residential preservation movement, finding it a pleasure to see familiar landmarks in my county of birth preserved over many decades. The property rights philosophy so powerful in the US is not as strong there.
As a four-decade Oregonian, I value Oregon’s land use planning, including its affordable housing goal. A challenge for policy makers for sure, given the market forces toward gentrification. The City’s development process is a handmaiden here when a “starter” home can triple in size and price under a remodel permit as long as one wall remains standing.
To all NIMBYs—the redevelopment in your neighborhood may be your personal nightmare but could be your neighbor’s retirement plan. Gentrification is a fact here and elsewhere—e.g., NoPo, the formerly light-industrial area that is now the Pearl, near Belmont/Hawthorne, even Portland Heights.
As for total demolition—either for gentrification or infill with increasing density—the fact is, we cannot control property we do not own. The only genuine protection for significant structures is a historic preservation district.
The imperative for policymakers and residents alike is how to modify our development standards and approval process sufficiently to protect a neighborhood’s character. This can be done outside the comprehensive plan, but only if there is sufficient political will.
(See Jane Jacobs: The Death and Life of Great American Cities)
—Inga Fisher Williams