The line that began forming at noon was, an hour later, stretching from hallway to hallway, posing a bit of a hassle for passersby. Such was the congested scene on second floor at City Hall last November as activists waited patiently to sign up for the opportunity to present two-to-three minutes of testimony before the Mayor and City Commissioners regarding an infill reform policy that would have ramifications for Portland neighborhoods for years to come. In contention was a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) proposal to decrease size limits for new homes and expand density capacity (via increased housing options) within residential neighborhoods.
Predictably, developers and contractors advanced the case for unfettered construction in all parts of the city, arguing that the greater the number of new dwellings, the better Portland’s ability to accommodate the population influx in decades to come. Not so predictably, though, was the dichotomy of opinion on display by liberal activists—heretofore comrades-in-arms in opposition to residential demolitions that lead to construction of million-dollar “monster homes,” according to Commissioner Nick Fish, that are conspicuously out-of-scale. But there they were, former allies divided into adversarial camps—one side touting the benefits of preservation, restoration, and compatibility, the other inclusivity, eco-friendly location, and housing choices—and both claiming “affordability” as a selling point.
Leading the charge for the “preservationists” was United Neighborhoods for Reform, the Beaumont-Wilshire-inspired grassroots upstart that had succeeded over a three-year period in garnering support from more than 40 neighborhood associations as well as established preservationist groups like Restore Oregon and Portland Coalition for Historic Resources. Galvanizing “housing choice” advocates was Portland for Everyone, a more recent grassroots upstart formed expressly to promote the BPS proposal, with support from the influential 1000 Friends of Oregon. Testimony overflowed into a second session a week later, lasting into the evening.
In the end, 119 testified verbally, with an additional 300 sending e-mails and letters.
United Neighborhoods for Reform supporters stressed the importance to the community of preserving neighborhood character and compatibility-of-scale via restoration—not demolition—of viable homes, thus retaining housing stock most affordable for entry-level buyers. In contrast, Portland For Everyone supporters extolled the proposal’s goal of expanding housing choices within residential areas adjacent to public transportation corridors via construction of density-increasing smaller housing types (e.g., duplexes and triplexes)—arguing that these would be more affordable for lower-income residents and attractive to eco-urban minimalists. The elephant in the room is the scarcity of empty lots requires demolitions to build anew.
Historical undercurrents notwithstanding, December 7 was chosen as the day of reckoning for the proposal, when Council would debate and make its decisions. But a day of infamy it was not, with cordial compromise bridging divisions. In the end, the Council voted to accept the proposal “in concept” (i.e., preservation + choice), while also passing amendments directing BPS staff to research additional options on specifics for presentation to a newly-constituted Council early next year. Stay tuned.