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.
You want to get rid of regulations in an area that could get a major earthquake? Why?
Not get rid of all regulations, and okay keep the current seismic standards. But Portland has NO plan for the thousands of residents who are marginally housed, or who are intermittently homeless.
The "10-Year Plan to End Homelessness" quietly abandoned that goal, and now seeks to end chronic homelessness; those who are marginally housed, cost-burdened, and/or intermittently homeless should move somewhere else, as there is no help from the City in sight.
Just to address the original purpose of this thread, rents have gone up shockingly in Beaverton and Hillsboro over the last three years. I've seen a level of landlord greed that amazes me - 50% rent increases over three years on most rental properties. This applies to where I rent and many other apartment complexes. I know as I have a bit of a hobby studying the trends. The effect on the property hasn't been good - it forces more adults per unit to meet the rent even people with good "professional" jobs are having to get roommates to get by. This creates more noise and more crowding. Is there a ceiling, how high will it go?
Not get rid of all regulations, and okay keep the current seismic standards. But Portland has NO plan for the thousands of residents who are marginally housed, or who are intermittently homeless.
The "10-Year Plan to End Homelessness" quietly abandoned that goal, and now seeks to end chronic homelessness; those who are marginally housed, cost-burdened, and/or intermittently homeless should move somewhere else, as there is no help from the City in sight.
That makes sense, not everywhere can be cheap rents for you. Getting rid of most regulations wouldn't create more housing for the "marginally housed." Things like that would only happen through regulations.
One should live within their means and if that means living at 120th and Burnside rather than 15th and Belmont then that is what it means. One can still find apartments for under $1000 in Portland, so I don't know how much cheaper you want things to go and still expect landlords and developers to still make a profit.
07-02-2014, 07:18 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprightly
Just to address the original purpose of this thread, rents have gone up shockingly in Beaverton and Hillsboro over the last three years. I've seen a level of landlord greed that amazes me - 50% rent increases over three years on most rental properties. This applies to where I rent and many other apartment complexes. I know as I have a bit of a hobby studying the trends. The effect on the property hasn't been good - it forces more adults per unit to meet the rent even people with good "professional" jobs are having to get roommates to get by. This creates more noise and more crowding. Is there a ceiling, how high will it go?
I think we're edging up against the ceiling now.
While there are certainly a lot of people with high incomes in the area, that number is in fact finite and salaries are still nowhere near what would one find in places like SF. Even the top can only justify spending so much.
I've already started noticing that the availability of apartments and the aggressiveness of the people who are trying to rent them out are considerably higher than even a year ago and are directly related to how inflated the rent is. I've even noticed a few places lowering the rent to try to get bodies in the building.
If rent in highly desirable locations levels off, then it would stand to reason that rent in less desirable locations like the extended strip mall/car dealership that is Beaverton/Hillsboro will also have to stabilize.
That makes sense, not everywhere can be cheap rents for you. Getting rid of most regulations wouldn't create more housing for the "marginally housed." Things like that would only happen through regulations.
One should live within their means and if that means living at 120th and Burnside rather than 15th and Belmont then that is what it means. One can still find apartments for under $1000 in Portland, so I don't know how much cheaper you want things to go and still expect landlords and developers to still make a profit.
Removing the UGB and dramatically increasing the housing supply would help a lot. Allowing transportation not centered around Portland would too. Since all of the transit focuses through downtown it makes commute times from one outer metro area to another via transit not feasible. No new highways have been built either and existing ones funnel everybody through downtown. Without the UGB we could be seeing Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and Clackamas as even stronger employment and housing areas. There would be less demand for inner Portland housing stock making it cheaper to live there. The alternate centers have more room to build inexpensive profitably for developers. You then could see living on near minimum wage and still being very close to employment opportunities. While that is still possible, a person has to work for it much harder. If each of these centers had grown then you could have direct links with transit to each with a ring pattern like most freeway systems instead of our hub/spoke pattern.
UGB and metro have created the artificially high prices. Cities like New York or San Francisco have strong natural boundaries creating their layouts. Portland is not built to the point where natural boundaries create housing shortages.
Removing the UGB and dramatically increasing the housing supply would help a lot. Allowing transportation not centered around Portland would too. Since all of the transit focuses through downtown it makes commute times from one outer metro area to another via transit not feasible. No new highways have been built either and existing ones funnel everybody through downtown. Without the UGB we could be seeing Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and Clackamas as even stronger employment and housing areas. There would be less demand for inner Portland housing stock making it cheaper to live there. The alternate centers have more room to build inexpensive profitably for developers. You then could see living on near minimum wage and still being very close to employment opportunities. While that is still possible, a person has to work for it much harder. If each of these centers had grown then you could have direct links with transit to each with a ring pattern like most freeway systems instead of our hub/spoke pattern.
UGB and metro have created the artificially high prices. Cities like New York or San Francisco have strong natural boundaries creating their layouts. Portland is not built to the point where natural boundaries create housing shortages.
Prices could be much lower.
That would be a horrible idea. Nothing like having sprawl stretch for miles and miles, and stretching thin infrastructure dollars. The current boundary is designed to hand the growth of the region, no need to undermine good planning so someone can make money on subdevelopments in the exurbs.
If one wants to live that far out, they can get a house in Kiezer.
The cost of housing doesn't go down in the center when you build further out. If that were true, Manhattan would be cheap to live in because the metro is expansive.
That makes sense, not everywhere can be cheap rents for you. Getting rid of most regulations wouldn't create more housing for the "marginally housed." Things like that would only happen through regulations.
One should live within their means and if that means living at 120th and Burnside rather than 15th and Belmont then that is what it means. One can still find apartments for under $1000 in Portland, so I don't know how much cheaper you want things to go and still expect landlords and developers to still make a profit.
Since I live on $1000 a month, I'd need something cheaper than that. I've lived a couple blocks from 120th and Burnside, as well as 136th and Foster (which is about as far SE you can get and have bus access, at least until about 7 pm six days a week) and St Johns, so I have experience with crappy inconvenient so-called 'cheap' areas. To give you an idea how crappy the location, I once worked off TV Hwy and it literally took me 100+ minutes by bus EACH WAY. The last place i lived was in a 4BR house that rented for $900 but I was renting a room and not directly from the landlord so I was paying over $500 a month.
Since I live on $1000 a month, I'd need something cheaper than that. I've lived a couple blocks from 120th and Burnside, as well as 136th and Foster (which is about as far SE you can get and have bus access, at least until about 7 pm six days a week) and St Johns, so I have experience with crappy inconvenient so-called 'cheap' areas. To give you an idea how crappy the location, I once worked off TV Hwy and it literally took me 100+ minutes by bus EACH WAY. The last place i lived was in a 4BR house that rented for $900 but I was renting a room and not directly from the landlord so I was paying over $500 a month.
A 4 bedroom house for $900 and you were paying $500 for a room? Sounds like a crappy person to rent from. I would find a better roommate. Or you could look into income restricted apartments. I had buddies making minimum wage that lived in income restricted apartments in the Pearl and at the Civic Building.
Sounds like you would qualify for places like the Sitka Apartments in the Pearl. The Sitka | Income Limits
So their are places out there for you with your income restrictions if you tried hard enough. Craigslist has people looking for roommates as low as $300.
That would be a horrible idea. Nothing like having sprawl stretch for miles and miles, and stretching thin infrastructure dollars. The current boundary is designed to hand the growth of the region, no need to undermine good planning so someone can make money on subdevelopments in the exurbs.
Agreed - the post you're responding to is also largely an unsubstantiated guess on what 'would likely' happen, which somehow assumes if you just removed the reins entirely things would blossom in a desirable and predictable fashion.
And there's really little reason to think, even if there were a boom in industry around the fringes, that it would grow in any smooth, logical way. Most urban areas have significant pockets of congestion, and adding new pockets farther out generally doesn't ease congestion farther in. For example, adding new industry between Wilsonville and Tualatin sounds great until you realize how congested that area already can be.
Or look at the impact Nike/Intel have had on congestion on the west side. No question they've been good for the economy, but all that new development has not led to smoother transportation.
Part of the lack of new highway route development isn't the UGB, it's that it would be a major undertaking and expense, and it's not really clear where the funding to do it would come from. AFAIK, for example, the UGB isn't preventing a westside bypass - the bypass isn't happening because the other obstacles to doing it are significant. The geography is a big, big part of why the region's transport generally funnels through downtown.
Agreed - the post you're responding to is also largely an unsubstantiated guess on what 'would likely' happen, which somehow assumes if you just removed the reins entirely things would blossom in a desirable and predictable fashion.
And there's really little reason to think, even if there were a boom in industry around the fringes, that it would grow in any smooth, logical way. Most urban areas have significant pockets of congestion, and adding new pockets farther out generally doesn't ease congestion farther in. For example, adding new industry between Wilsonville and Tualatin sounds great until you realize how congested that area already can be.
Or look at the impact Nike/Intel have had on congestion on the west side. No question they've been good for the economy, but all that new development has not led to smoother transportation.
Part of the lack of new highway route development isn't the UGB, it's that it would be a major undertaking and expense, and it's not really clear where the funding to do it would come from. AFAIK, for example, the UGB isn't preventing a westside bypass - the bypass isn't happening because the other obstacles to doing it are significant. The geography is a big, big part of why the region's transport generally funnels through downtown.
True, a westside highway (which I think would actually be a good idea) would require tunneling though Forest Park followed by two bridges that can allow ships to pass under them to connect to Vancouver. That would be very expensive.
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.
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.
I've lived a couple blocks from 120th and Burnside, as well as 136th and Foster (which is about as far SE you can get and have bus access, at least until about 7 pm six days a week) and St Johns, so I have experience with crappy inconvenient so-called 'cheap' areas. To give you an idea how crappy the location, I once worked off TV Hwy and it literally took me 100+ minutes by bus EACH WAY. The last place i lived was in a 4BR house that rented for $900 but I was renting a room and not directly from the landlord so I was paying over $500 a month.
