<<  <  >  >>

Far from

only question left is how Portlanders will

their density plans, they would simply

overturn the dominant paradigm.

have opposed the original anti-density

representing

measure.

direct democracy

· In 2004 property-rights activists put

Problems with

in action,

measure 37 on the ballot, allowing any-

Portland's Plans

one whose property values had been

Portland's

reduced by planning and zoning to ask

programs are a

for either compensation or to have the

The previous discussion has already hinted

rules waived. Planning advocates spent

at some of the major drawbacks of Portland's

classic example

$2.7 million to argue that this would

integrated land-use and transportation plan-

of arrogant

destroy Oregon's land-use planning

ning. These include the following:

government

system. Though measure 37's support-

ers spent barely a third of that amount

1. Increasingly unaffordable housing

planners doing

promoting it, the measure passed by 61

prices.

their best to

percent, winning a majority of the votes

2. Increased traffic congestion.

sidestep the

in every county in the Portland area.

3. Higher taxes or reduced urban services

· In 2005 Portland's incoming mayor,

as tax revenues are diverted to rail tran-

public's wishes.

sit and transit-oriented development.

Tom Potter, announced a "VisionPDX"

4. A reputation for having an unfriendly

process that would allow Portland resi-

business environment, leading to

dents to "create a vision for Portland

for the next 20 years and beyond."59

higher unemployment.

After collecting people's opinions for

more than a year, a draft report revealed

Problem #1:

significant  uneasiness  with  the

Unaffordable Housing

Portland's plans. Respondents "worry

about  a  growing  gap  between

Portland's haves and have-nots--in

During the 1990s, housing affordability

schools, health care and the priorities

declined by more in Portland than in any other

of city government," says the draft. In

urban area in the United States. Today, Portland

particular, many people think "the

remains more affordable than most California

tram/South Waterfront/North Macadam

housing markets, but it is far less affordable

development (not to mention the Pearl,

than many less-regulated housing markets,

which seems to have become a verb, as

such as Atlanta, Raleigh, and Houston.

in `to Pearlize') was a total waste of

A standard measure of a region's affordabil-

money."60

ity is median home price divided by median

family income. A price-to-income ratio of 2 or

less is very affordable, whereas markets with

Far from representing direct democracy in

ratios above 3 verge on unaffordable. At cur-

action, Portland's programs are a classic

rent interest rates and a price-to-income ratio

example of arrogant government planners

of 3, a family devoting a quarter of its income

doing their best to sidestep the public's wish-

to mortgage payments would need 17 years to

es. "Portland-area residents have not know-

pay it off. At a ratio of 4, it would need 32 years,

ingly consented to be willing research sub-

and at a ratio of 5, it could never pay it off.

jects in a radical experiment," warned a

The decennial census estimates both medi-

Portland State University professor of urban

studies in 1995.61 The Goldschmidt affair

an family income and median home value for

the year prior to each census. Census data reveal

revealed that, not only was Portland's plan a

that almost all U.S. regions outside of Hawaii

radical experiment, it was manipulated by

(which passed growth-management planning

special interests to maximize the profits of

legislation in 1960) had affordable housing in

selected developers and rail contractors. The

11