OT MLB to PDX: We're talking baseball to PDX

You obviously didn't read this.

 

Read a bit further.
-The adjustments, approved by the City Council on Wednesday, will require a land use review. The amendment does not guarantee a height increase, said Erica Thompson, vice chair of the Planning Commission. It simply provides project teams with a pathway to ask for a height increase during design review and make a case for how the increase is compatible with applicable design standards.

This gives everyone a chance to litigate against the height increase. Yes it is a step that way but as i said they will not be doing this on the west side. It will have to be on the east side.

 

That's fine. I don't care which side it is on.

 

Such as?

 

Something isn't adding up here...

 

New housing construction in Portland, Oregon is limited primarily due to a complex permitting process, strict land use regulations, high development costs associated with infrastructure requirements, and a combination of factors like limited available land, which together make it difficult and less profitable for developers to build new housing compared to other cities; this results in a significant barrier to increasing the housing supply in the city

 

The problem isn't just Portland. There is a housing shortage in all of Oregon.

 

Its lack of inventory not buyers or sellers.

 

Which leads to higher prices.

 

About there:

 

Yes, we need more affordable housing. No question.

But when I hear someone say it is the #1 reason for the homelessness problem I have to roll my eyes.
Total different discussion. I would be surprised if over 20 % of the "un-housed" can afford any rent.

For those who can not hold a job, we still need to take care of them and build quality shelters, but they need to be on the cheapest land possible. Certainly nowhere downtown with riverfront views. Higher prices mean higher property taxes.....and we need that income to offset the cost of "affordable housing". Home builders need to be compensated for building cheaper homes, or they won't do it. It is hard enough to get them to finish high-end projects on time.

 

Nobody is suggesting we build skyscrapers to move homeless people into them.

If you build out housing people who can afford to live there will move in, easing upward pressure on the price of housing.

 

So when you said "10 of those buildings (Big Pink) would free up enough housing for all of the homeless in Oregon" what were you suggesting?

 

That people would move into them. Leaving other housing vacant, then other people, likey with somewhat less means, would move in to that vacant housing. This would increase the supply of housing , thereby lowering barriers to entry at the lowest end and applying less financial pressure on those flirting with poverty.

 

So the taxpayers supplement the cost of these skyscrapers so they are affordable for some to afford. Not a bad idea as long as it goes to people who have lived in the state for a certain number of years.

However, I am still skeptical that the homeless problem in Oregon would be positively affected. Maybe the homeless are different in CA than in Oregon, but the ones I encountered do not work and can't because of drugs or mental health issues. They can not afford any rent. Those people need to be transferred to a safe environment where they can be treated and off the streets.