U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Portland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2013, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
10,554 posts, read 11,107,251 times
Reputation: 16230

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
My neighborhood didn't need upgrading in the sense that any retrofitting like those you mentioned. These were already in place for decades and worked just fine. I was thinking about upgrading there as far as new people buying up apartment buildings and raising rent so that people had to move. A different story. While some of the buildings needed some fixing up, not that they were always made, the neighborhood "amenities" did not. Sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants were all there.

As far as retrofits, I can see what you are saying regarding upgrading in that sense but does that apply everywhere? In the neighborhood where the little five year old girl Morgan Maynard-Cook was struck by a car and killed trying to cross 136th st. where there was no sidewalk but people know there was a dangerous problem for years. Mayor Hale promised a sidewalk but rescinded the promise before the little girl was killed. The sidewalk apparently was doable but city hall decided to put its money elsewhere.
Sidewalks are not paid for by city hall, they are paid for by the property owner. Somewhere on file is a paper signed by a past owner of that property agreeing to pay for sidewalks and such, probably as a condition of getting city water service. Sidewalks, curbs and storm sewers are not cheap. They cost the typical property owner thousands of dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2013, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
10,554 posts, read 11,107,251 times
Reputation: 16230
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Affordable housing can only really be done when high priced units are used to offset the losses in the affordable housing units.
Have patience. 50 years from now, those new units will be affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,055 posts, read 27,751,273 times
Reputation: 7822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Have patience. 50 years from now, those new units will be affordable.
Haha, that is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Houston
1,257 posts, read 2,111,905 times
Reputation: 1213
AS long as the market remains tight, pets will be a problem. I have had a dog(s) for most of my life. Finding a place to live involved negotiating with the dog present and still hefty fees and deposits. The prime locations will be picky no doubt. I imagine rents will soar with demand. The price of popularity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 9,907,282 times
Reputation: 5772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Sidewalks are not paid for by city hall, they are paid for by the property owner. Somewhere on file is a paper signed by a past owner of that property agreeing to pay for sidewalks and such, probably as a condition of getting city water service. Sidewalks, curbs and storm sewers are not cheap. They cost the typical property owner thousands of dollars.
As can having the existing sidewalks repaired. Just ask my bank account about it! One of the real downsides to living on a corner. Twice the sidewalk.

As for the sad situation of the girl killed crossing the street ... how would sidewalks would have changed anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
241 posts, read 398,407 times
Reputation: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidlo View Post
AS long as the market remains tight, pets will be a problem. I have had a dog(s) for most of my life. Finding a place to live involved negotiating with the dog present and still hefty fees and deposits. The prime locations will be picky no doubt. I imagine rents will soar with demand. The price of popularity.
Yes; I've been spoiled here, as where I currently live is very pet friendly. If they had smaller apartments here I would stay, but a two-bedroom townhouse will be too big (and expensive) for just me, and at this point I don't want to have a roommate.

Well, I'm keeping my expectations low; the only two must-haves are a place where I can have my small dog and a good bus line reasonably close by. Any other positives will be gravy. I expect to pay fees (as I did and do here) and that I will likely be edged out in the competition for apartments by those without pets. But I still feel sure this will all work out some way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
20,595 posts, read 22,022,678 times
Reputation: 31898
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
As can having the existing sidewalks repaired. Just ask my bank account about it! One of the real downsides to living on a corner. Twice the sidewalk.

As for the sad situation of the girl killed crossing the street ... how would sidewalks would have changed anything?
It was not just crossing the street. There are no sidewalks to walk on besides. The kids had to walk on the road. If city hall had nothing to do with sidewalks, why did Hales get involved in the first place?

Here are the articles to which I was referring.


Oregon Legislature Passes $3.6 Million in Sidewalk Funding for East Portland Road Where Child Was Killed

Interview: Oregon State Representative Shemia Fagan

In the second article a few paragraphs down, it states the funding for the sidewalk project was cancelled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 9,907,282 times
Reputation: 5772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
It was not just crossing the street. There are no sidewalks to walk on besides. The kids had to walk on the road. If city hall had nothing to do with sidewalks, why did Hales get involved in the first place?
I'm sorry, but it was. I went and looked it up, because I was unfamiliar with the situation.

Yes, it's true there were not sidewalks. But the situation was ... they were crossing the street (""several yards" from, but not at an intersection), the older boy had a hold of the younger girl. The car in the lane nearest them stopped. The girl broke loose and ran across the street, and the car coming the opposite direction hit her.

It's a tragic situation. The only reason that the sidewalk issue even came into it was that the neighborhood used the accident to bring up every and all complaint they have with the city. But none of it had to do with the accident. I fail to see how a sidewalk would have prevented it from happening. Even a crosswalk wouldn't have. It was a tragic accident.

As (one of) the article admonishes:

"If there is a lesson, it seems to be, if you are a driver and notice a vehicle stopped for no apparent reason, slow and be prepared to stop also.

And if you are a pedestrian, don’t assume that if one vehicle stopped, others will too. Look before crossing additional lanes. An avoidable accident like this one will change some lives forever."

That is what caused the accident. Not the sidewalk, crosswalk, or lack thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
20,595 posts, read 22,022,678 times
Reputation: 31898
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
I'm sorry, but it was. I went and looked it up, because I was unfamiliar with the situation.

Yes, it's true there were not sidewalks. But the situation was ... they were crossing the street (""several yards" from, but not at an intersection), the older boy had a hold of the younger girl. The car in the lane nearest them stopped. The girl broke loose and ran across the street, and the car coming the opposite direction hit her.

It's a tragic situation. The only reason that the sidewalk issue even came into it was that the neighborhood used the accident to bring up every and all complaint they have with the city. But none of it had to do with the accident. I fail to see how a sidewalk would have prevented it from happening. Even a crosswalk wouldn't have. It was a tragic accident.

As (one of) the article admonishes:

"If there is a lesson, it seems to be, if you are a driver and notice a vehicle stopped for no apparent reason, slow and be prepared to stop also.

And if you are a pedestrian, donít assume that if one vehicle stopped, others will too. Look before crossing additional lanes. An avoidable accident like this one will change some lives forever."

That is what caused the accident. Not the sidewalk, crosswalk, or lack thereof.
This is but one example of many accidents that have happened along these streets in this area. I was simply using this tragic accident as one of those that happened there. The sad truth is drivers do not slow down and there are places where pedestrians must walk on the roads because there are no sidewalks. It's almost continually on the news where people are hit by cars more often than anyone wants to see it happen along those roads. The council woman has given a history of it as the traffic has increased along with the population.

It's difficult to cross streets due to the lack of enough street lights in that area too. The city's solution has been painted crosswalks which also hasn't worked. This is also being frequently shown on the news. But the neighborhood of which I am speaking in which the little girl got hit, is one in which kids have to walk on the road going to and from school because there are no sidewalks. This may have been the fault of her carelessly running out in the street or not. The fact remains that having no sidewalks are dangerous. And apparently city hall at one point agreed.

To say that the neighborhood brought up the no sidewalk issue and complains about everything because of the little girl getting hit by a car is unfair. It still doesn't negate the fact that kids have to walk in the road to go to and from school. That is simply too dangerous a situation to continue.

There are many Portland neighborhoods without streets including the SW part of town as well. But in places where there is a lot of traffic I think it's understandable the neighborhood is complaining.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 9,907,282 times
Reputation: 5772
Go look at the maps of the area. Kids do not have to "walk in the street." They walk on the shoulder in the blocks where there is no sidewalk.

The fact of the matter is, sidewalks had NOTHING to do with the accident. The resulting publicity was taken as an opportunity to bring up other issues in the neighborhood. But it had nothing to do with the accident.

It was an accident. I don't want to blame the poor child, but I'm sorry, it was 100% a result of her running out in traffic. Nothing more. Speeding wasn't an issue (no citations were issued). Crosswalks weren't an issue (they didn't cross at an intersection). And most assuredly, sidewalks were not an issue (it happened IN THE STREET). Running out in traffic was.

Let the neighborhood complain all they want. Piggybacking on a tragic accident, and acting as though it would have been avoided had all their complaints been corrected before then is simply ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Portland
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top