From: | lifsey@lclark.edu |
Date: | Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:50:58 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | Re: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries |
Hi Tony, I live in Portland, Oregon, and I would like to respond to the Reason Public Policy Institute article regarding Portland's land use laws. Yes, there is a need for low-income housing in Portland, like other urban areas in the US. And, yes, I agree that Portland has some of the strictist land use laws in the country. However, Portland's land use laws do not restrict developers from building low-income housing. In fact, Portland's land use laws are designed to encourage developers to build in urban areas, where the housing is needed, and not in over-developed suburban areas. Like Alan, I have doubts about the source of RPPI's information. These are quotes from the Oregonian article published 10/13/99 regarding developers and housing availability in Portland [Metro is Portland's elected regional government that makes land use decisions for the Portland Metro area:] "Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton said he has no evidence that Portland will fail to meet its housing goals, which are critical to the region's success in containing growth. But he said tensions are mounting." "Metro's land inventory shows more than 13,000 vacant acres inside the urban growth boundary, enough in theory to last 15 years and hold 187,000 new homes." Portland, like many cities in the US, has plenty of room for development--there are vacant lots, brownfields, and old buildings that need to be remodled. The issue is not whether Portland's land use laws are over-restrictive to the point that housing is not available. Rather, the issue is whether developers are willing to invest their money urban areas, and whether the federal, state, and local governments are willing to provide incentives for developers to do so. This is clearly an environmental and social justice problem. Developers should not be able to evade the question of why low-income areas in Portland are not being redeveloped by pointing their fingers at the local government. Portland was one of the first cities in the nation to recognize the problem of urban sprawl and the importance of urban renewal. Developers in Portland need to aknowledge that we cannot continue to build in suburban areas without adversely affecting the urban area it surrounds. Portland's land use laws and its unique regional government are an effective means of controlling surburban sprawl, and are only a starting point to addressing the social justice and environmental justice issues in downtown Portland. Margi Lifsey Lewis & Clark College, Northwestern School of Law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________________________________________________ Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss? Start a List at Topica. http://www.topica.com/t/4 | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] "UB Group Proposes Regional Nonprofit Organization To Develop Brown | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries Next by Thread: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries |