Splendid Cycles

Troutdale follows Gresham and now a 40-Mile Loop trail extension is dead

Posted by on March 15th, 2017 at 11:10 am

They said no.
(Photo: Metro)

Fears of crime and of “undesirables doing bad things” have fueled another city in the eastern part of our region to say no to a major multi-use path project.

After tallying public feedback from an open house late last month, Metro has decided to suspend all planning efforts for the Troutdale section of their 40-Mile Loop Master Plan because of local opposition. This is a carbon copy of concerns that fueled opposition from the City of Gresham to the same project back in January.

Now, after a year of planning, public events and committee meetings, Metro will pull the plug and put this project on the shelf.

The gap will remain for now.

Metro Chief Operating Officer Martha Bennett wrote Troutdale City Manager Ray Young on March 9th to explain her decision. Below is an excerpt:

“Many residents raised security concerns related to illegal camping along trails. Given this feedback, we understand and respect that it would be difficult for the City to move forward with the project at this time. That’s why I have directed Metro staff to suspend the project, honoring our commitment to listen to community input and work collaboratively with local partners whenever we plan trails. We will package up the research and input we have gathered and pass it along to you to inform any future efforts. While this isn’t the result we envvisioned, I am proud that our open and inclusive engagement process allowed us to make the best decision for the community.”

This key expansion of the 40-Mile Loop would have provided a high-quality, (mostly) separated path for biking and walking in a six-mile corridor from Troutdale (near I-84) south to the existing Springwater Corridor Trail. Last month’s open house focused on a three-mile section from downtown Troutdale to Mt. Hood Community College. According to Metro, a majority of residents that have weighed in are opposed to the project. In documents shown at the February 22nd event, Metro listed some of the concerns: “I would like to see the trail, but not until you can ensure the public we will be safe from undesirable people doing bad things,” read one of them. “I’m really concerned about riff raff traffic being in our neighborhood. Yet, I welcome the improvements — not sure how to find a balance,” read another.

Metro has been aware of the opposition to this project for several months and they tried to allay them. But emotions tend to trump facts on these matters.

This exchange from a Metro news story captures emotions on both sides of the issue:


Likely adding to the frustration for Metro is that local residents and city governments clearly want a new biking and walking path between Troutdale and the Springwater Corridor. In 2012, such a path was the highest ranked biking and walking priority in the East Metro Connections Plan adopted by Troutdale, Gresham, Multnomah County, and other local governments.

It’s clear now that the issue of people camping on the Springwater path last summer has left a major legacy that regional trail planners will have to address in every project going forward.

A section of the proposed route along Buxton Road.

Metro clearly points the finger at former Portland Mayor Charlie Hales for putting them in this position. A Metro trails staffer told us in January that Hales’ decision to not enforce the city’s illegal camping laws was “a horribly failed experiment.” Metro says that decision led to more than 500 people camping along the Springwater.

In their announcement about Troutdale’s decision, Metro again referenced the Springwater homelessness crisis: “Many critics [of the 40-Mile Loop plan] said they were worried by a camping crisis along the Springwater Corridor trail last year, which was sparked by a temporary change to Portland’s illegal camping rules enforcement.”

It’s unclear what happens now. There seems to be agreement that this project can get started again once crime and homelessness issues are solved. But that’s easier said than done. It’s also unfortunate that Metro and its local government partners each seem to think that it’s the other ones’ responsibility to come up with a plan to “solve” this complex issue. As we reported in January, Gresham’s city manager said he requires a “regional plan of action to solve current concerns” before he can support the project. But Metro feels road and path safety plans are up to local jurisdictions to fund and plan. “Just as it would be up to the local cities to decide when to move forward on a trail project, it is also up to the cities to decide how they manage their own trails,” says Metro communications specialist Yuxing Zheng.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • dwk March 15, 2017 at 11:17 am

    “Metro clearly points the finger at former Portland Mayor Charlie Hales for putting them in this position.”

    While Hales was clearly a disaster, Wheeler seems no better. The camping and trash seems worse than ever. Wheeler had months to come up with something…..

    Recommended Thumb up 25

    • dan March 15, 2017 at 11:26 am

      I must be getting old, but I really don’t see why Wapato as the regional shelter is not a viable option. Can run a shuttle out there for access to social services (or move services to the facility). No more camping.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Ben March 15, 2017 at 11:49 am

        Everyone I’ve talked to in homeless services says it would be extremely expensive to operate—much more expensive than getting people into proper housing.

        And bicycle access out there is terrible.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • dan March 15, 2017 at 1:02 pm

          But it’s not a choice between proper housing and Wapato, is it? As far as I can tell, it’s a choice between camping and Wapato.

          Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Annag March 17, 2017 at 11:32 am

        there is a petition on change.org for this, has anyone contacted wheeler and gotten a response ?
        btw bike access via Marine drive is excellent, nearly all on the MUP (this to Ben))

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 11:49 am

      Hales got a lot of flak for his decision, but I believe it was the right one. I’d rather have people irrationally fearing homeless camps, than have the houseless population be systematically oppressed and mistreated.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • dwk March 15, 2017 at 11:58 am

        So the piles of garbage that people are living in is OK with you?
        There is a huge heroin problem going on if you have not noticed. Needles at the camps are everywhere. This “vulnerable” group that is literally trashing this city….
        At the very least they should clean up the garbage they are leaving everywhere.
        I am all out of sympathy.

        Recommended Thumb up 77

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

          Then let’s all organize a community-based clean-up effort, rather than demonizing groups of people based on their economic or health situation.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • dwk March 15, 2017 at 12:05 pm

            How about the people who are dumping the garbage all over clean it up?
            Why is that a problem for you?

            Recommended Thumb up 69

            • George Dorn March 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

              As I recall, some 500 used needles were cleaned up from the springwater camp. This sounds like a big number, sure, but consider that heroin users are encouraged to use a clean needle every time, and most use heroin daily. Then do the math. That’s not a huge heroin problem, it is a couple of daily users over a year.

              It’s not a heroin problem, it’s a waste disposal problem.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 11:03 pm

                It’s a couple of users, assuming they used fresh needles, assuming none were disposed of properly, assuming all discarded needles were located, assuming people shot up rather than smoked or otherwise ingested their heroin, assuming…

                Recommended Thumb up 5

            • Greg Spencer March 21, 2017 at 5:41 pm

              I wonder how tidy your own neighborhood would be if it had no sewage or sanitation?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 21, 2017 at 5:44 pm

                It is illegal live in a structure without sewage or sanitation. Not for reasons of “tidiness”, but for reasons of basic public health.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Doug March 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm

            ***Portion of comment deleted. Doug, please feel free to disagree with Adam, but do no make disrespectful and insensitive comments to him or the subject of our stories. Thank you. – Jonathan**** The possibility of homeless occupation is making opposing bike infrastructure reasonable, heck even sensible.

            Hales failed for allowing the homeless to camp on the Springwater in the first place not for evicting them.

            Recommended Thumb up 12

          • Wells March 15, 2017 at 2:07 pm

            Have another look at Mark Lakeman’s encampment proposal for R2D2; all necessary facilities – portapots, trashbin, lockers, kitchen. People come expecting to camp. Only a few are addict though most smoke weed and those I don’t blame. Living homeless can drive anyone nuts. Build models of Lakeman’s design where needed. Most campers will appreciate it, and, the safer environs lead to solutions beyond camping. Oh, that trail is going to be built all right, one of these days.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

      • MaxD March 15, 2017 at 12:23 pm

        don’t fall for Hales’ false justification of this. He claimed that allowing camping and creating shanty towns on forlorn pieces of land was the only alternative to the violent oppression or terrorization of the homeless population. He basically basically sacrificed public openspace and created homeless ghettos under the false guise of compassion. The fact is, Hales simply refused to give up anything that affected business interests. Instead of sacrificing our openspaces (and the mainly the openspaces adjacent to neighborhoods with lower incomes) which are used by everyone, he could have set up temporary housing in one or more of the City-owned parking garages. This would allow the City to directly provide services to those who need it. It would make it far easier to control the drug dealing and theft that is a part of these camps, and it would be a clean, dry place for people to sleep. The City could provide dumpsters and port-a-potties. Of course, this is not a permanent solution, nor is it the only solution. It does offer an alternative that shows some compassion, provides more equal protection under the law than shanty towns, and better protects the most vulnerable while excluding the criminal element

        Recommended Thumb up 16

        • Wells March 15, 2017 at 2:30 pm

          Parking garages are probably out, but I like your thinking. Remember Hale’s “Ice House” 2-story suggestion? It was a good one I doubted at the time but am now reconsidering – the Ice House bldg at 4th & Glisan.
          Hales was obviously right on that one though no follow up produced results.
          Charlie, I believe you did your best. I’m not backing down from that.
          Some jobs are meant for different faces, meaning, personalities match
          situations. I’m hoping Wheeler will help us older younger people.
          Cut him some slack, good grief, we’re in the middle of a national nightmare.
          (if you wanna call mister trump that) at the same time a Statewide meeting of congresspersons having the same nightmare. The Odds are Wheeler’s all right, and fighting for his/our common interests, probably against fast talkers, vacationing professionals, jerks, dweebs, suited wannabes and riders of bicycles.
          Hales was a true EV promoter and did that ever make GM mad! Streetcars!
          We need a new Low-floor hybrid paratransit van for even GM’s seniors and disabled.
          The Donald will not finish his 4-year term; Pence will suffice and run in 2020.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Todd Hudson March 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm

        There is a reason Charlie went sailing for 18 months – he knows his name is mud.

        It’s easy for you to cast stones from Mt Olympus when you didn’t have the Springwater in your neighborhood isn’t it?

        It would behoove you to defer Lents residents as to whether not enforcing the law on the Springwater was the right choice.

        Recommended Thumb up 25

        • paikiala March 15, 2017 at 1:43 pm

          let’s change a couple words…

          “It would behoove you to defer to Lents residents as to whether not enabling bike use was the right choice.”

          Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Bjorn March 15, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Thefts garbage rapes assaults, there is nothing irrational about not wanting a gales style linear campground in your town. Gales screwed the pooch big time by intentionally allowing it to get completely out of hand.

        Recommended Thumb up 23

  • Huey Lewis March 15, 2017 at 11:25 am

    If they’re worried about this trail someone should let them know about Halsey. I saw some bad guys on Halsey one time, driving fast and smoking cigarettes. They pulled up next to me at a light and they cussed to each other in conversation. They were headed east and I don’t know that they were gonna stop in Gresham. I fear for our neighbors out there.

    Recommended Thumb up 23

  • Bjorn March 15, 2017 at 11:26 am

    Pittsburgh has a similar metro population, I have heard comparing homeless counts across cities can be tough due to differences in how they count but the numbers I am seeing seem somewhat similar. When I have ridden trails like the Greater Alleghany Passage though I didn’t see any of the type of garbage and destructive entrenched camping that we see here. Perhaps there are some other cities that could share with Wheeler how they keep their trails usable. Thanks to Hales we clearly know what does not work.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • rick March 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

      I rode a mountain bike on many of the trails and new bike lanes in Pittsburgh last year. Very nice time. The worst problem was of invasive Tree of Heaven thriving.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Sigma March 15, 2017 at 12:26 pm

      I spent a few days in Pittsburgh 2 summers ago, most of it waking around the downtown area. I didn’t get hit up for money once- not at all. I saw maybe 3 people who appeared to be homeless the entire time I was there. It was shocking, mainly because I realized that Portland is not normal and the situation here has made me extremely jaded.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

    • Jon March 15, 2017 at 3:14 pm

      We had a guy visit our company from Pennsylvania for training. The one comment he had about Portland was regarding all the homeless camping in and around the city. He had never seen anything like that before in Pennsylvania. Our city has become an embarrassment. Nobody in government appears to care about tax paying citizens yet they bend over backwards to enable homeless folks that abuse drugs, camp on public right of ways, operate bicycle chop shops, and leave piles of garbage all over the place. Based on the unemployment rate the only people who don’t have a job are people that don’t want one, are mentally ill, or a substance abuser.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

    • David Hampsten March 16, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      Growing up in North Dakota, we had a saying that “40 below keeps the riff-raff away.” So when I moved out here to Greensboro NC (pop 288,000) from Portland with a climate even more mild than Portland, you can imagine my surprise at seeing so few homeless and never once being panhandled. Except within a few blocks of a homeless shelter (we have several), I can lock my bike and not worry about accessories being stolen, unlike the 18 years I lived in Portland. I have in fact met several homeless or nearly-homeless who hope to move one day to the west coast. They prefer either SF or Portland overwhelmingly – they say the areas have plenty of jobs, low rent, clean water, and places to camp. I try to tell them otherwise, but they never believe me.

      And yes, before you ask, I am officially now “riff-raff”, as the 40 below in ND has certainly kept me away since 1997.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • dwk March 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm

        This is exactly why the city needs to ban camping….

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Lester Burnham March 15, 2017 at 11:47 am

    It’s all Portland’s fault with their abysmal management of the Springwater homeless problem. Thanks Hales.

    Recommended Thumb up 22

    • Todd Hudson March 15, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      He can’t hear you. He’s literally out to sea for the next 16+ months. Which is shrewd, because he’s disappearing long enough to take advantage our short attention spa….hey look that dog has a puffy tail!

      Recommended Thumb up 14

  • MaxD March 15, 2017 at 11:47 am

    Hales made a terrible mistake by sanctioning camping in public openspaces and supporting shanty towns. Hazelnut Grove is an absolute failure of compassion, regardless of what its residents may say. Our openspaces are a critical support to the values of our CIty: Dense living, active transportation, active recreation and healthy citizens, even having a an attractive image to support our tourism industry. Having our openspaces taken over by campers, covered with litter, made unsafe by illegal activity is not a trivial matter at all. I hope Wheeler grasps that this is not merely an inconvenience, it is a dangerous undermining of the fundamental supports of our society. That sounds hyperbolic, but it shouldn’t.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

  • drew March 15, 2017 at 11:47 am

    How about a regular police presence on bikes? The community clearly wants the trail. During the springwater camping disaster, when I entered Gresham, the mood changed to a very safe place, and I saw cops on bikes. I bet a lot of them would like a break from driving around in the cruiser all the time.
    Would be nice to see some cops on bikes on the Springwater in Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 33

  • Adam H.
    Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 11:53 am

    Sad to see irrational fear kill a good project.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • rick March 15, 2017 at 12:00 pm

      Yes. It is real threat versus perceived. Police presence is needed on the trails. The eastside needs more trails.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • MaxD March 15, 2017 at 12:12 pm

      it is not an irrational fear. People are actively camping along public trails. They are creating mountains of garbage, human waste is everywhere. Hazardous materials like needles are strewn about. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of restoration planting has been destroyed. This happened and is continue to happen, it is a legitimate concern that costs all of us. This is a classic tragedy of the commons.

      Recommended Thumb up 63

      • Mike 2 March 15, 2017 at 12:20 pm

        Wrong. If Adam does not fear it, then it is an irrational fear.

        I love emotional invalidation.

        Recommended Thumb up 31

      • Wells March 15, 2017 at 2:32 pm

        Remember Hale’s “Ice House” 3-story suggestion? It was a good one I doubted at the time but am now reconsidering – the Ice House bldg at 4th & Glisan.
        Hales was obviously right on that one though no follow up produced results.
        Charlie, I believe you did your best. I’m not backing down from that.
        Some jobs are meant for different faces, meaning, personalities match
        situations. I’m hoping Wheeler will help us older younger people.
        Cut him some slack, good grief, we’re in the middle of a national nightmare.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Wells March 15, 2017 at 2:39 pm

          Yeah, that’s for Charlie our mayor, not the worst nor least productive.
          The turmoil comes with the territory. If you want an official to seriously complain about I suggest the Port Directors around these hereaways. I AM SO GLAD
          that Billy Bryant didn’t become the Governor.
          We have a fighting champion with Inslee who could have lost.
          What happened? The rigging of that election didn’t wurk good enuf.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dwk March 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

      Maybe you can tell the women that was raped a few months ago on the Springwater trail how “irrational” her fear is.
      She and others like her are the vulnerable ones here, not the campers…

      Recommended Thumb up 45

      • Gary B March 15, 2017 at 1:44 pm

        Honest and most sincere regards to the victim you reference. But the use of an anecdote to justify your opposition is, in fact, the definition of irrational.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • J_R March 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm

          No. The rape is just the most extreme example. Many people, myself included, abandoned the Springwater except when riding in a group because of our fear. Your refusal to accept any offered example as an indicator of a real problem is irrational.

          Recommended Thumb up 20

    • Sigma March 15, 2017 at 12:29 pm

      Tell that to the woman who was raped on the springwater last summer.

      Recommended Thumb up 22

    • Todd Hudson March 15, 2017 at 12:41 pm

      Fears are still feelings. Kinda invalidating to disregard perspectives of others because it’s counter to your worldview. There’s a word for doing that….

      Perhaps you should put yourself in the shoes of someone with a home on SE Lambert St., or near Beggar’s Tick, regarding what they had to go through last year.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

    • adam Cornell March 15, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      Not to pile on, Adam H, but a good friend of mine (big and athletic) was jumped and beaten while riding the Springwater last summer. Up to that point I thought the fear was mostly irrational. Now, I have a lot more sympathy for people who have this in their backyards. You seem like a thoughtful person, may want to reconsider your own position as a first step to imagining real solutions.

      Recommended Thumb up 35

    • Middle of the Road Guy March 16, 2017 at 8:52 am

      I say the same thing to women who walk alone at night. I mean, it’s highly unlikely anything is going to happen to them…so their fear of assault is obviously irrational.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 12:16 pm

        “their fear of assault is irrational.”

        You are being sarcastic, right?

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Middle of the Road Guy March 17, 2017 at 9:45 am

          Yes, I am.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • John Liu
            John Liu March 18, 2017 at 1:04 am

            I ride the Springwater with a gun in my jersey.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike March 17, 2017 at 11:20 am

      Who are you to say someone’s fear is irrational? Just because you want to put up a big top and house all the homeless in your front yard doesn’t mean someone is wrong if they don’t. You really, really need to stop thinking you are right and everyone is wrong. It got old a long time ago

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • m March 15, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Really can’t blame them when you see what happened on the Springwater. There’s nothing irrational about it.

    Recommended Thumb up 28

  • RH March 15, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    I just don’t see this problem going away anytime soon. Transients found out about Portland and are coming here in droves. Livability has nosed dived since, along with my empathy.

    Recommended Thumb up 19

    • dwk March 15, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      I rode over 75 miles around Seattle a couple of weeks ago.
      I did not see ONE tent. Not one.
      They have homeless folks and there are a few infamous camps in Seattle but their problem is nothing like ours.
      Maybe we could ask them?

      Recommended Thumb up 13

      • Al Dimond March 17, 2017 at 3:02 am

        From Seattle: my commute is not much over two miles each way and I see tents every day. I haven’t had a problem with anyone or seen giant open-air chop shops, though I have seen a few piles of bike parts around. There are a few places along major bike routes where people seek shelter, including the inside of the Mount Baker Tunnel (along the I-90 Trail, just west of the floating bridge), under the Ballard Bridge (north approach along Leary, south approach near the Ship Canal Trail), along various parts of the Elliot Bay Trail… and many places along more obscure paths and cut-throughs (one, near an elementary school, was closed over parent concerns about the needles littered along it). My commute includes a stretch along the Burke-Gilman, and though I do see a few scattered people camping there, there just isn’t a whole lot of open, flat land near that trail. The I-90 Trail and Elliot Bay Trail have more, in addition to some of the suburban trails.

        Seattle’s most notorious camps have been on state highway land, under or around freeway ramps, out of sight and mind for a lot of people. These tend to get “swept” at some point after they get bad reputations, or when the state needs access to do maintenance, and the city tries to get people in touch with services when they do “sweeps”… of course, some people don’t want that and flee, and of course a lot of people fall out of touch with services, and anyway there aren’t enough beds in enough places, so new camps pop up. Camps in more noticeable areas also get swept, often before they develop much of a center of gravity, in response to local complaints, which seems a little different than Portland. Most of the trails in the city don’t have much flat land along them… and those that do go through parks that regularly feature programmed events (like Hempfest in Myrtle Edwards Park, which disrupts the Elliot Bay Trail every year) that would uproot campers. Then there are camps that are sponsored by specific organizations and allowed by private land owners; these seem to get shut down and moved pretty regularly, too, sometimes due to regulations and other times due to private disputes. The result seems to be that nobody ends up being able to stay anywhere for very long. That lack of stability is hard on people, but then even when they do stay in the same place for years (as some people had in the Jungle before it was swept) they get nowhere near the full benefits of having homes — these areas have real safety, security, and health problems (of course there’s a spectrum, and freeway ramp camps are a lot worse than the sponsored lots). Surely some people that are moved get more of a chance to build a good life out of contact (perhaps renewed contact) with service organizations that they’d get out of the stability of continuing to stay where they were! I don’t know that that constantly uprooting people is an intentional strategy — I don’t think our leaders would admit to it if it was — but the city is not shy about kicking people out of places if there are complaints.

        I haven’t talked with any homeless people (including people staying in shelters) for very long, but I have talked with some people that seemed to be at risk. One guy I talked to on a late-evening express bus trip was receiving care from some kind of agency in Lynnwood but had only been able to find housing with the vouchers he had in Tacoma, so he regularly had to make the 50-mile trip to the other side of the region. I don’t remember whether it was the Lynnwood agency that helped him find the Tacoma housing. It seemed like a pretty fragile situation, and he seemed like he was just barely keeping it together.

        Just recently a woman was attacked in a public bathroom at Golden Gardens Park, and news stories conspicuously pointed out that the attacker was homeless. The attacker was a sex offender and it was a sneak attack in a hidden area of a public park, I believe during the day — it’s a horrible attack, but it’s not clear that either tougher anti-camping laws or getting more people housed would make this sort of thing less likely.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • q March 17, 2017 at 10:22 am

          Lots of good info in your comment. One thing–anti-camping laws or more housing might not reduce the likelihood of attacks like the Golden Gardens one from happening, from the stance of getting the specific attackers out of the park or off the streets. After all, Ted Bundy always lived in nice places.

          But where it matters is that the general public already is avoiding places due to feeling places like Golden Gardens are less safe due to homelessness. If that wasn’t true, it could have been that restroom where the attack took place may have been too busy with other runners and park users for the attacker to have risked being there.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Al Dimond March 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm

            Golden Gardens is mostly known for its beach and is located in a physically isolated part of town (between the water and a steep ridge). It’s very popular in the summer, but it’s just not a very active place in the winter. It happens to be at the end of the Burke-Gilman Trail, but it truly is at the end of it, as the park proper is cul-de-sac shaped (technically when the tide is out you can continue along the rocky beach all the way to the sandy beach at Carkeek, and people do, but mostly in the summer). This is different from, say, Green Lake, which is in the center of the north end and is as popular as ever, though people do camp in the wooded areas and picnic shelters of adjacent Woodland Park.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam March 15, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Thanks Charlie Hales!! This is all your fault. Your s**tty handling of homeless tent cities caused this. So livid I can hardly type right now.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 12:59 pm

      I’m no fan of Hales, good riddance as far as I’m concerned… but while he certainly didn’t fix the problem, he hardly created it. I am growing convinced that we are a landing spot for people from around the country (along with other west coast cities). (I have no evidence to support that assertion, but anecdotally, I believe it to be true.) In other words, we are dealing with a national problem, not a Portland problem.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 1:08 pm

        I agree. Houselessness is a merely a symptom of a greater problem. Our country is facing growing inequality, reduced social services, growing health care costs, growing drug abuse problems perpetuated by pharmaceutical companies, etc. All problems that our current administration wishes to exacerbate.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Middle of the Road Guy March 16, 2017 at 8:55 am

          Some people manage to become addicts without help from Big Pharma.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

      • dwk March 15, 2017 at 1:14 pm

        We are a landing spot so why not just outlaw camping on public property in the city limits?
        Pretty simple solution. The city opens up a couple of parking garages for anyone who needs shelter. Anyone refusing our compassion can leave town.

        Recommended Thumb up 19

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 1:20 pm

          Because I disagree with the idea of allowing the state to strong-arm the less fortunate into submission. That is not how we should be solving problems.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • dan March 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm

            Some homeless people are “less fortunate,” others simply drift into town (usually in the summer) to hang out and make trouble. I don’t see why we should bend over backwards for anyone just because they are homeless. I’m all for dwk’s suggestion, with the minor addition that anyone who has camped long-term in a parking garage should be fast-tracked for permanent housing, and those who just drift through for the summer just get a bed in the garage, period.

            Recommended Thumb up 14

            • dan March 15, 2017 at 1:33 pm

              And by the way, where is Dignity Village in all this? They were granted some city land to squat on and now that they’re housed, their activism has ceased. No opening their doors to help others this winter, no helping clone their solution for other homeless, just gone. Is it wrong to expect more from them? What do we as a city get for allowing them to squat on public property?

              Recommended Thumb up 7

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 1:48 pm

              Some people make their misfortune, some are just dealt a losing hand.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

          • dwk March 15, 2017 at 1:32 pm

            You disagree with giving people real shelter?
            So you really have no solution except to feel good about yourself.
            Nice compassion.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • Adam H.
              Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 1:37 pm

              No. People who want shelter should get it. But the state has no right to decide where one can be homeless. Put another way, the housed have no right to tell the houseless where they can live. Doing so comes from a highly privelaged and powerful place. Our country is experiencing many problems and those problems are disproportionately being experienced by those less fortunate. Now suddenly the privelaged are sharing some of the burden and they can’t handle it, so they decide to excersize their power. That is what I fundamentally disagree with.

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 1:43 pm

                Oh come on….
                Public property is public property and we certainly have the right to tell people they cannot camp wherever they want.
                You have completely jumped the shark….

                Recommended Thumb up 43

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 1:52 pm

                Does the public have a right to enforce littering laws or is that the “man” crushing the “vulnerable”?
                You still have not answered why able bodied people (even if homeless), cannot pick up their own garbage?

                Recommended Thumb up 35

              • dan March 15, 2017 at 2:14 pm

                By that logic, the state has no right to decide what kind of effluent one may release into a stream, or at what age one can consume alcohol, or where in the city specific types of businesses can operate. I’m not sure why you think this is so different. The majority of residents think the situation on the Springwater last summer was unacceptable and are motivated to prevent a recurrence. No different from moving other unpopular land uses out of residential areas.

                Recommended Thumb up 24

              • Shawn March 15, 2017 at 2:14 pm

                I totally disagree with this.

                There’s a big difference between providing basic human rights and giving everyone the same access to everything, regardless of self-sufficiency, mental health, addiction, or any other factors. I don’t feel society has any responsibility to do that, nor do I think it would be fair to those who do not rely on state assistance.

                I believe very strongly that shelter is a basic human right, and that we have a responsibility to help provide it to those unable to provide it for themselves. However, in my opinion, living on public land in the middle of one of the most desirable cities in the world is absolutely NOT a human right. If a person is unable to house themselves without state assistance in a manner that doesn’t detract from the quality of life of others, then in my opinion the state definitely DOES have a right to tell that person where they can live, at least within reason.

                Recommended Thumb up 21

              • MaxD March 15, 2017 at 2:40 pm

                The state has no right to tell people where to be homeless? So the State can’t people off sensitive natural areas or away from nesting sites? The State can’t prevent campers from dumping waste directly into a river or having open fires at the base of a hillside covered in dry grass? That strikes me as absurd! We collectively pay our taxes to hire the state to purchase these lands and manage them for the greater good. Allowing a small group of disenfranchised to undermine that seems very foolhardy. These people need support, but the nature and extent of the support must be managed.

                Recommended Thumb up 22

              • Alex Reedin March 15, 2017 at 3:53 pm

                I disagree. In some hopeful future Portland where we have a (comfortable, appropriate, if bare-bones) home available for any homeless resident, I would feel completely comfortable saying “No camping in city limits” and enforcing it strictly. If a homeless person didn’t want to be housed in this theoretical future, too bad – he or she could either stay completely under the radar or go somewhere else.

                Although they are small per capita compared to the impacts on the homeless persons themselves, visible homelessness does has a negative impact on the community at large. For one thing, with no bathrooms or trash service, any homeless person camping is likely to impinge on the sanitation and cleanliness of their surroundings.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

                This is actually one of the most reactionary right wing statements I have read outside Breitbart….
                The State, the public (the people) cannot set rules or establish any kind of order according to Adam H.
                No public healthcare, (we cannot set food standards for instance), no environment regulations, no social contracts at all.
                Steve Bannon would be delighted….

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 4:19 pm

                Everyone who opposes state abuse of power is not automatically a “reactionary right wing”.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm

                And yes, I happen to believe that forcing people out of their homes is an abuse of power. What else would you call a homeless camp sweep? People are living there after all.

                Public healthcare, environment regulations, etc. are not abuses of power because they are not causing someone physical harm.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 4:27 pm

                And, if the state was actually providing adequate social safety nets for everyone that needed it (health care, housing, etc.) then you might have a case. However, since the state is not even close to providing support at the level required, then the state has no right to inflict harm on those it is inadequately prepared to help.

                Recommended Thumb up 5

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 4:34 pm

                “Everyone who opposes state abuse of power is not automatically a “reactionary right wing”.”
                Actually, most are. The corporations that fight all regulations for instance.
                The polluters, the health insurance folks, etc, etc….
                Establishing societal norms and having a government that can maintain them is the essence of a progressive.
                This city is being trashed…. It is being polluted, public health is in real danger with 3-4 thousand people having no real sanitation and you are supporting this?
                Really ridiculous….

                Recommended Thumb up 12

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 4:34 pm

                I agree both that the state is not even close to providing support to all who need it, and that it has no right to inflict harm on those who use and live near facilities like the Springwater by permitting a a large group to camp there in perpetuity without providing sanitation and police protection for campers and neighbors alike. Until the city can get its act together, camping should be prohibited. It is, quite simply, too dangerous.

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 4:48 pm

                “And, if the state was actually providing adequate social safety nets for everyone that needed it (health care, housing, etc.) then you might have a case.”

                I am the one supporting this, you do not. You are fine with people sleeping and crapping in the mud all around them.

                I want to get homeless people out of the rain and into a city owned facility.
                You do not.

                You have stated time and time again here that camping in the mud and urine and crap is fine with you because somehow you think this is compassion.
                You are not a nice person…..

                Recommended Thumb up 11

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm

                It depends on your definition of “abuse of power”. I happen to believe that homeless camp sweeps without providing anywhere for them to go are an abuse of power, but regulating corporations (that are themselves abusing their power and influence) is not.

                You seem to be falling into the trap of “right vs. left”. Actual political views are far more nuanced than as simply labelling people as right or left.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. March 15, 2017 at 5:06 pm

                I want to get homeless people out of the rain and into a city owned facility. You do not.

                I have no idea where you are getting this idea from. I have never said that I want “people sleeping and crapping in the mud”. Of course I would want everyone to have shelter. But since there is not enough shelter for everyone, I am okay with leaving the people who are forced to sleep outside alone, and not forcing them to constantly be uprooted and move their belongings once a month. The very least the city could do is provide toilet and garbage facilities (which I have also argued for in the past).

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 5:08 pm

                Should we close the Springwater as a transportation corridor, and declare it a (temporary) camping area?

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm

                “I have no idea where you are getting this idea from. I have never said that I want “people sleeping and crapping in the mud”. Of course I would want everyone to have shelter. ”

                This whole thread is about the homeless and the maybe solutions to the problem.
                I and others have proposed that the city use garages to house people.
                You propose nothing except to leave them sleeping in the mud.
                I am done with this, you are a cartoon of a progressive with no ideas at all….

                Recommended Thumb up 13

              • dwk March 15, 2017 at 5:39 pm

                “I am okay with leaving the people who are forced to sleep outside alone, and not forcing them to constantly be uprooted and move their belongings once a month.”

                Let them eat cake.

                Recommended Thumb up 5

              • Bjorn March 15, 2017 at 7:28 pm

                I say move the homeless camps to Adam’s house. Letting people live where ever they want seems like a great idea when it doesn’t impact you.

                Recommended Thumb up 18

          • Middle of the Road Guy March 16, 2017 at 9:00 am

            Like the ACA – mandating that people who normally could not afford something suddenly have to buy it?

            Sometimes government DOES have to make a decision and act on it. It may not be nice, but not doing something for fear of hurting feelings is worse than doing something that might have a positive outcome. What we do know is that status quo does not work.

            And government should work for ALL of its citizens. The impacted people also have rights.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

              I agree the status quo was unsatisfactory. I wish that once the Republicans took ownership of the ACA, they would work to actually fix it instead of making it worse.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 12:21 pm

              “Mandating” … well, yes. The individual mandate – EVERYBODY in the pool – is necessary to make the insurance system work. This wasn’t Obama’s idea: it came from the private insurers who are very much focused on the bottom line, and also terrified by the prospect of single-payer.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 12:52 pm

                It actually came from Mitt Romney’s health plan when we was governor of Massachusetts. Remember him?

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Middle of the Road Guy March 17, 2017 at 9:56 am

                I think everyone already knows the individual mandate was originally a conservative concept. It doesn’t matter. The point was that sometimes people have to be forced to do something for the common good over the individual good.

                Single payer would definitely flip the script on how profits are made, though. It would be outcome based v. procedure based.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam March 15, 2017 at 6:39 pm

        Charlie Hales’s dismissive attitude towards the problem effectively okayed camping. It exploded under his mayorship.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Matheas Michaels March 15, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    That is such a shame 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Champs March 15, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    Hales’ experiment is just one of many chickens coming home to roost.

    The sorry state of revenue from the capitol and down is crippling social services. Perpetually flat property taxes and compression are driving up housing prices in neighborhoods that now have too much character for some greedy developer to get away with profiting from den$ity.

    I fear that DC is too busy making America great again to have anything in the pipeline for people seeing “just OK for once” or to regulate, much less punish the companies that sparked an addiction epidemic.

    But hey, homes are way up in the last decade, and the Oregon Lottery does Good Things. I saw it in a TV commercial.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • JD March 17, 2017 at 6:48 pm

      I want to find this land of perpetually flat property taxes. My property taxes have gone up steadily 3-4% a year for more than the last decade.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • paikiala March 15, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    “Metro clearly points the finger at former Portland Mayor Charlie Hales for putting them in this position.”

    What position, slumped over from lack of spine?

    Recommended Thumb up 13

  • not that Mark March 15, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    My early morning commute takes me through this area. I understand why people don’t want to live right by a bike path anymore.


    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Chris I March 15, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    A someone who works in Fairview and loves to tack on extra miles via outer-east county with a return home on the Springwater, this is very upsetting, but not unexpected. I guess I’ll just continue to endanger my life sharing narrow roads with speeding cars and trucks when I want to ride south of Troutdale.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • TAJ March 15, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Your comment that property taxes have been perpetually flat got me to look at mine, which are +3.5%/yr from 2005-2015. Not huge, but more than CPI and more than average wage growth, which is what pays for most property taxes…unless we want people to have to sell their house because the tax becomes unaffordable.

    I’ll agree with you re: many chickens. This is just n=1, but my tax increase makes me question whether property taxes not going up fast enough is the biggest problem.

    Maybe it’s the elephants coming home to roost. Didn’t we approve a new home for elephants funded from the same property taxes?

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 2:58 pm

      I’d support repeal of Measure 5, but I’ll never get a chance to do so.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • KTaylor March 15, 2017 at 8:11 pm

      I agree – not all homeowners are wealthy, and property taxes have gone up a lot for those of us who bought our places back in the good ol’ days before everyone wanted to be Portland’s boyfriend. I constantly worry about my place, which used to be cheap housing and has escalated in value by $50,000 in just two years. If my HOA votes to complete major improvements to the building that need to be permitted (building siding, roof, etc.), my place could be reassessed and my taxes would go up astronomically. Also, we have no other funding mechanisms here, so whenever anything needs to be paid for, bonds go on the ballot and property owners are assessed, which raises our taxes.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am

        No, KTaylor, that can’t happen. Read your tax statement. Notice you’re not taxed on the entire assessed value. Because of past ballot measures your taxes can’t go up more than 3% of year (yes, that’s less than inflation) due to an increase in assessed value. They can go up more than 3% in one year of new taxes are passed, but not merely due to an increase in value.

        Now your association dues, that’s a different deal. I know of people in condos who pay astronomical HOA dues because of big repair bills (new siding, specifically).

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 7:24 am

          OK, as rachel b pointed out you can also have an increase if you make major improvements like an addition. But siding and roofing are maintenance, not improvements.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • K Taylor March 16, 2017 at 8:45 am

            That’s only true if the replacement is of the same quality as the original. In the past few years, most of the people moving into my building have substantially more money than the people who lived here before. Whenever something is replaced now, it’s an upgrade, and there are other upgrades being discussed that would definitely be defined as exception events. Rachel b is right – Multnomah County has been/isn’t using a very even hand when it comes to reassessment. If you live in a UGB like the Pearl or Alberta, which have gone from poor to rich neighborhoods in recent years, your property taxes have been abated to nothing. People in outer SE, however, are being hit disproportionately hard.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

          • rachel b March 16, 2017 at 2:37 pm

            For what it’s worth, we didn’t add anything–remodel all in the same footprint.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • rachel b March 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm

              …and we live in Hosford-Abernethy.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

        • SE Rider March 16, 2017 at 1:40 pm

          This is just simply not true. Plenty of folks consistently report their property taxes going up much more than 3% (sometimes over 20%) without any renovations taking place. Assessed value cannot go up by more than 3% a year, but as far as I can tell actual tax burden is not applied to this assessed value (and cannot be attributed to tax bonds, which should be applied uniformly across all properties). You can easily go on zillow and see that property taxes fluctuate (sometimes wildly) between properties that are similar and adjacent to each other.

          For one example:
          year taxes change assessed value change
          2015 $2,703 +1.5% $114,290 +3.0%
          2014 $2,662 +16.1% $110,970 +3.0%
          2013 $2,294 +17.2% $107,740 +3.0%
          2012 $1,956 -11.4% $104,610 +3.0%
          2011 $2,208 +2.8% $101,570 +3.0%
          2010 $2,148 +2.7% $98,620 +3.0%

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • rachel b March 15, 2017 at 11:30 pm

      Whoa–Maybe yours aren’t going up fast, but the county’s got an eagle eye on anyone doing a remodel and they’re leaping in and jacking taxes soon as they can (I think they have to wait a year after the remodel). Ours were nearly doubled from $3600 to $7000 this year because of our remodel. It was extensive but didn’t change the footprint of the house. I’ve heard of almost as steep hikes for some kitchen remodels, or a basement remodel. They base the hike on the cost of the remodel, so if you had delays and cost overruns as we did (doh), you pay extra…and then you pay extra.

      The disparity in tax rates from house to house, even on the same street, means some families are getting hit extra hard and others feel comfortable voting for every bond that comes down the pipeline, because it doesn’t affect their bottom line much. People in outer SE have been paying higher taxes than those in hot inner neighborhoods where housing values have soared. If you happen to be one of the lucky ones with a low tax rate, good on you. But please don’t vote for or suggest more taxes on the rest of us! I know our (mine and my husband’s) taxes are going to be $10,000 a year in no time, with all the PPS and other bonds in the pipeline. We simply won’t be able to stay here.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • rachel b March 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm

        oops! Was responding to Champs… Agree w/ Taj and K Taylor.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • K Taylor March 16, 2017 at 8:46 am

          Yi! That is quite a hike!

          Recommended Thumb up 2

      • dan March 16, 2017 at 10:46 am

        Question for the community: if the people that own the house next door to you evict the tenants to turn it into an Air B’n’B and do a couple of bathroom remodels before renting it full-time (against city regulations) on Air B’n’B…would the moral person rat them out to the city so they get their taxes reassessed, or just live and let live?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • q March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am

          I wouldn’t hesitate to turn them in if it bothers you in any way. In regard to “live and let live”, they’ve already told you by their actions they think you should accept living next to a constantly changing group of short-term renters so they can profit from it. It’s very easy to get a short-term rental permit if you operate legally. You shouldn’t feel bad about turning them in any more than a traffic cop should feel bad for giving a speeder a speeding ticket. It was your neighbor’s decision to open themselves up to any consequences.

          And remember, airbnb is in on it, too, making money off of a rental they know is illegal (if the people have no permit). If your neighbors face consequences, they can complain to airbnb for enabling them, not that airbnb would care.

          Plus, although the impact is minor compared to other factors, full-time airbnbs are replacing long-term housing and contributing to affordability–and ultimately homelessness–problems.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • dan March 16, 2017 at 11:50 am

            They have a permit, but the property is a short-term rental 100% of the year — Portland code only permits up to 3 months per year. I agree with you that Air B’n’B is having an impact on housing availability/affordability, and I think it’s bad overall for the neighborhood. I’m sure there are people renting out flats in their homes, but evicting your long term tenants for more lucrative short-term renters is a textbook negative outcomes from Air B’n’B. Not quite ready to go nuclear by trying to get their taxes reassessed, but the option is still on the table.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • q March 16, 2017 at 12:12 pm

              All their having a permit means then is that they clearly know they’re breaking the law by doing it full-time (unless they’re living there themselves). Airbnb also knows they are. The only people who may not know the use is illegal are the renters, so letting it go on isn’t doing any service to them.

              One thing I’d recommend, if you do complain–file a complaint directly with the City. Don’t talk to your neighbors first. It’s the opposite of my usual stance, but it reduces the possibility of retaliation by them. Plus they already know it’s illegal. And if it’s bothering you, it’s probably bothering other neighbors.

              Also consider that it’s likely they’re not insured for that use. So if a renter starts a fire and your house is damaged, you and your own insurance company may be negatively affected.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • rachel b March 16, 2017 at 2:47 pm

          Trust me. The city/county already knows. They track remodels with a vengeance–it’s one of the only ways available to them to reassess homes/hike property taxes, and believe me–they pursue it.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

      • q March 16, 2017 at 3:01 pm

        Besides the obvious problem of impacting affordability for people whose incomes aren’t rising, two less talked-about issues are 1) the penalization of home improvements, especially noticeable, exterior improvements, and 2) the penalty for getting a building permit.

        If you spend $30K on an interior remodel, you likely won’t be “caught” by the assessor if you don’t get a permit, but you will if you do get one.

        If you spend the same on the exterior, you’re likely to be caught if you don’t get (or need) a permit, and even more likely be caught if you do get one. And the more public benefit to your work–the more visible the improvement from the street–the more likely you are to be caught.

        Conversely, if you spend that much on an expensive TV and sound system, you’re only taxed if you buy it in a sales-tax state.

        And even then, you’re only taxed once.

        So bottom line–spend $30K on your media room–no tax or one-time sales tax at worst. Spend it on a home improvement–exposure to being taxed on your “purchase” every single year until you move or die.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • rachel b March 17, 2017 at 2:41 pm

          Well stated, q. Tax reassessment really is the gift that keeps on giving…er, taking. We did everything by the book, got everything permitted and our builder worked very closely w/ inspectors. It was clear the assessor got his numbers from the permitting office because I know he didn’t get them from us. I think they haunt that office, looking for hapless home remodelers… It really burns me, too, that we remodeled into an official duplex (it was unofficial–since the ’40s, I think), EXACTLY where they say they want everyone to be doing that. And it cost us a pretty penny, too, that wound up costing us a lot more in property taxes, every year for as long as we’re here, now. I imagine all the tax breaks they’re going to be giving to people to encourage them to build ADUs and extra internal units in coming years and I want to cry. We’re stuck w/ this frickin’ doubling of property taxes forever, now.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X March 15, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Light rail and MUP trails…just another word for an urban “noose” some in the ex-urbs would fear…we used to laugh when folks would say that criminals would ride light rail to rob homes versus using the real crime routes (aka freeways) in a often stolen car (no one was saying close the freeways!)…but in this case with the management of the trail camping there is too much basis for this fear given how the houselessness emergency unfolded in many neighborhoods…

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Travis March 15, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    Ugh. If several choice parking lots were converted to accommodate lifestyle and transitional camping, perhaps fewer folks would seek the trails. But camping aside, I do not understand the logic of fearing more for “bad people” on foot than “bad people” in cars. The news provides regular evidence of crimes being committed by people using cars.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 2:51 pm

      It’s not “bad people on foot”, it’s groups of people, some of whom are dangerous, some of whom are drug-addled, in an isolated area when you have no means of protecting yourself.

      I totally understand that logic.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

      • Travis March 16, 2017 at 9:24 am

        I don’t know. Here are some quotes from concerned residents above:

        “I would like to see the trail, but not until you can ensure the public we will be safe from undesirable people doing bad things,” read one of them. “I’m really concerned about riff raff traffic being in our neighborhood. Yet, I welcome the improvements — not sure how to find a balance,”

        “A big unknown is who is going to be on the trail,” Craven said, adding that he worried the trail would give an “avenue for transients to now have access to walk through a community”.

        The quotes above directly reference undesirable riff raff transient bad people not in cars; specifically walking thru neighborhoods.

        You cannot deny the bias and bigotry of these suburb folks. The entire argument is baloney. One random sweep a week would squelch camping. But there’s no possible means to entirely prevent predators (with homes, jobs, cars, or not) from targeting folks on trails — not that trail violence appears to be the larger concern.

        Too, I haven’t seen a lot of camping on the Rock Creek neighborhood MUPs and isn’t Springwater camping way down…

        Ticky Tacky.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 10:21 am

          If “squelching camping” were easy, why are there so many campers along the Springwater? This is not an example of the “people in the suburbs are bigots”. This is an example of people seeing what a disaster the Springwater has become and saying “I don’t want that here.” And who could blame them?

          Recommended Thumb up 9

          • Travis March 16, 2017 at 12:11 pm

            Like I said, weekly sweeps could prevent camps from ever establishing. The quotes, which specifically address people walking in the neighborhoods, are on par with Vancouver and Clackamas County fearing light rail will bring the undesirables of Portland to their communities. I’m not denying the Springwater has become an issue. I’m not denying camps all around the city present issues. Maybe I’m suggesting the bigotry has always existed and now the bigots have a big giant “I told you so”. I’m mostly just rubbed wrong by the colorful stench of the quotes — they reek.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • SE Rider March 18, 2017 at 10:00 am

              Cities don’t have the money for weekly sweeps. They’re expensive.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan 1.0 March 15, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    Sad and short sighted.

    Looking at the Buxton road section in this article, and at the overall route in https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/40-mileupdatedmap.jpg, the only part which resembles the Springwater’s secluded character is a fairly short section through the South Beaver Creek Greenway. The rest of the route is alongside roadways where limited space and unlimited surveillance from the adjacent roads provides deterrence to camping and crime.

    I’d like to see all the routes on that map built (1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a), even if the Beaver Creek segment is delayed. That way there would be nice, safe, local loop routes as well as reducing that gap in the 40 Mile Loop.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Mike Sanders March 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    At the very least, the decision by Troutdale and Fairview puts the whole loop project on the shelf for four or five years. The anti-Trail folks can now make the the argument that building trails create linear homeless camps unsuitable for public use. And not just in metro Portland. It could stop projects statewide. And getting the Trans-America trail to its projected west end in Oregon might be all but impossible. All because Hales blew it. Which puts solving the homeless problem front and center. We can’t build a single mile of MUPs anywhere until we get it solved. Sad, but true.

    Just an observation, though. Other parts of the country put up split rail fencing between the trail’s edge and the edge of the right of way. Others use cyclone fencing, usually painted green. Do we put up a 12-foot high cyclone fence on both sides of a trail to prevent Trumpvilles from forming? Is that how we convince the public that these trails – which are supposed to be public corridors – are safe? We need answers, and fast.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Mike Quigley March 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    If the desirables (mostly old whites as reported by one who attended) are this paranoid now, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Lots more undesirables are on the way as the have/have not gap widens.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Middle of the Road Guy March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

      Trump is going to fix it all!!!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Terry D-M March 15, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    Two years ago I predicted the Springwater houselessness issue would snow ball if not solved immediately, with the end result being cancelled projects due to the loss of public support.

    This is a not unexpected “I told you so.”

    The regional path that currently has the most support up and down jurisdictions and is far enough from scared and frustrated Residential areas is the North Portland Greenway Trail. The plans are done, so let us focused resources to build that one until as a region we can regain control of the housing crises.

    We can come back to this later after progress has been made.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • TAJ March 15, 2017 at 5:49 pm

      I get the idea of building MUP infrastructure now where we can. Once built, it won’t go away and we can come back later and address problems that may be there now or that may develop (like camping, litter, graffiti on springwater, peninsula crossing, i-205).

      But I’d still prioritize taking care of the MUP’s we have as a better way to gain support for more MUP’s. And as a better way to increase usage of all existing MUP’s for all the benefits that brings (less driving, more health, etc etc).

      Even 50 yards of camping on a 40 mile MUP cuts off access (for some and maybe many) to a lot of the MUP.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Terry D-M March 16, 2017 at 12:51 am

        Different pots of money, different political jurisdictions. This cancellation has taught them all lessons. The public and private sectors will be investing a half billion over the next decade or so in affordable housing. If we make cost effective choices, we can house everyone in less time than it will take to get funding for the North Portland Greenway Trail. Though it is critical to build, it is very expensive.

        Then once progress has been made on housing and crime prevention and a few more trails open in areas with an easier political lift, we can come back.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • MaxD March 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    Adam H.

    I want to get homeless people out of the rain and into a city owned facility. You do not.

    I have no idea where you are getting this idea from. I have never said that I want “people sleeping and crapping in the mud”. Of course I would want everyone to have shelter. But since there is not enough shelter for everyone, I am okay with leaving the people who are forced to sleep outside alone, and not forcing them to constantly be uprooted and move their belongings once a month. The very least the city could do is provide toilet and garbage facilities (which I have also argued for in the past).
    Recommended 0

    The problem with leaving them alone, but providing them with trash and toilets in a relatively remote area is that it supports a behavior that is very detrimental for all of the reasons I noted before. It also forces the City to fight a bunch of battles, and do neighborhood outreach, and create new permits- all for a system that is truly horrible for our city and pretty miserable for the homeless population, too. By supporting camping, you are perpetuating it. This will be all the City can manage to come up, and it will become or has become entrenched. An about-face on camping will be a painful transition, but that can be mitigated by putting resources into City-managed temporary shelters. Allowing camping is not truly helping anyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 15, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      Another problem with leaving them alone is that it makes it easier for predators to prey on their fellow campers. There needs to be a police presence.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

    • soren March 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      “get homeless people out of the rain and into a city owned facility.”

      these facilities do not exist in sufficient numbers now and houselessness is *increasing* due to our chronic rental housing crisis.

      your faux concern is maddening.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick March 15, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    Do they want a freeway for cars instead in their backyard ?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Suburban March 15, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    I’ve been trying for 15 years to get Portland style crimes to Troutdale along a MUP or light rail…Now my plans are foiled. Bad people just want a convenient way to take their things, to hurt stakeholders. We are now in dialog with Tri-Met and using our grant money on discounted bus passes and an assessment report from CH2MHill

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 7:17 am

    Sheesh. Here’s the pattern for almost EVERY TRAIL THAT HAS EVER BEEN CONSTRUCTED:
    1. Neighborning property owners find out about the proposed trail.
    2. Some of the property owners raise concerns about trespassing, illegal camping, fires, garbage, environmental damage, crime and ultimately loss of property values.
    3. If the opponents don’t prevail and trail eventually gets built, people start riding, walking and/or skiing it.
    4. Feared nuisances fail to materialize.
    5. Neighbors find their property values have gone UP as a result of the trail. And real estate flyers invariably tout the property’s proximity to the trail.

    I don’t care what trail you’re talking about. It happens every time, with every trail that passes near private property. Rail-trails, but other trails too. The Klickitat Trail took forever to get built because of neighbors’ opposition. Happened with the OC&E Woods Line east of Klamath Falls, the Trolley Trail through Milwaukie and Gladstone, Springwater on the Willamette, the Deschutes Creek Trail in Bend, the Fanno Creek Trail and the Westside Trail in Beaverton. Going on right now with the proposed Salmonberry Trail.

    It’s not just in the Northwest, it’s everywhere. I also see this here in Minnesota, where there are a lot more long-distance trails: the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail will finally get finished this year … the trail segments in Hopkins and Richfield were done several years ago, but the segments in Edina (a more upscale suburb) are just now getting done because they pass by the backyards of some very wealthy people.

    I’ve observed this pattern for years and never thought it would affect me directly except as a trail user. Then last year I learned the Minneapolis Parks & Rec Board is planning to build a trail all the way around the wetland behind my own yard. It will be dirt in places, and boardwalk in others. It’s public land, and I’m all for the trail. I think it would be great (will be great) if more of my neighbors could access this beautiful spot where I see bald eagles, redtailed hawks and waterfowl daily, right in the city. But some of my neighbors do not. One of them told me she’s very concerned about the trail attracting troublesome people, specifically mentioning teenagers she’s seen smoking pot on a secluded park bench along an existing part of the trail. Well, I go past that park bench all the time, and I’ve never seen anything like that.

    I bring this up whenever neighbors oppose a trail precisely because this is such a repetetive pattern and they appear not to realize it. Very rarely does a trail bring trouble (yes, yes, I know: the Springwater), and I think more people need to realize this. It’s important for planners to hold public meetings, gather public input and allow neighbors to vent their fears – AND for those same planners to come to those meetings prepared to reassure those neighbors with the numerous examples of similar trails where neighbors had the EXACT same fears but the trail turned into a huge success. I think that last part often isn’t happening.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • TAJ March 16, 2017 at 8:46 am

      Step 4 has been different in my experience. I remember when graffiti was noticeable because it was rare. The city ignored what was happening along the paths for way too long and now we’re happy if the only problem is graffiti.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 12:13 pm

        Step 4 has been exactly as I described on every trail I mentioned except the Springwater. I know people are freaked out about it, but Springwater is an outlier. The city has failed to provide necessary services (including, as kitty mentioned, policing) to the population camped there and the people who pass through.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • TAJ March 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm

          Camping along I-205, Peninsula Crossing, and Columbia Slough increased when campers predictably relocated from Springwater. Part of Columbia Slough has been closed lately, but there were several campsites there prior to the closure and before that campers were living along Peninsula Crossing. I-205 is still a crapshoot.

          Springwater was an outlier to the extent that camping became so incredibly dense, but it hasn’t been and isn’t just a Springwater issue. The whole Eastside MUP has been affected.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Terry D-M March 17, 2017 at 7:29 pm

            That is also something I told the “powers that be” would happen. Now that the “problem” is dispursed even further it is more difficult to get services to though who need it. My social worker friends were worked to the Bone during the cold snap trying to save people ….. Everywhere they could find them. Yes, the Springwater is cleared up…..But the issue is just hidden away.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Middle of the Road Guy March 16, 2017 at 9:18 am

      Except in this case, those things were not imaginary. The people living next to the trails with the camping did experience greater crime and trash.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 10:11 am

        … are experiencing…

        Recommended Thumb up 8

      • GlowBoy March 16, 2017 at 12:14 pm

        You say “trails [plural] with the camping.” As far as I’m aware we are talking about ONE trail with significant camping and problems like crime and trash.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • dwk March 16, 2017 at 12:32 pm

          One Trail???
          There are camps all over town. There is trash all over town.
          This is not just a Springwater problem.
          The people camping by the Moda Center are building a real shanty town with construction materials they have hauled in.
          That camp is adjacent to probably the most well used bike lane in Portland.

          Recommended Thumb up 11

        • SE Rider March 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm

          The 205 path is pretty bad as well (much, much worse than a few years ago).
          I know you’ve been out of a Portland for a few years, but things have changed pretty dramatically in that time.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • TAJ March 17, 2017 at 8:35 am

            Same for Peninsula Crossing and it’s getting worse on the Esplanade (again)… out of control all over the East Side.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

        • MaxD March 16, 2017 at 1:57 pm

          Have you seen Hazelnut Grove? It is a literal shanty town- no building codes apply! And the MUP that connects the bike facilities on Interstate to Greeley? That is now their driveway used to store their personal vehicle. The City has reams of regulations guiding everything from building a fence, to replacing a window, what size sturcutres you can build, how to prevent ersonion control, open fires, etc. None of these apply to Hazelnut Grove because Charlie Hales attempted to create a new, lower class of citizen who is not offered the smae protections as other Portlanders. They are told to go camp over there and regulate yourselves.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • dwk March 16, 2017 at 2:14 pm

            The camp below the Hawthorne bridge had a open fire burning this morning.
            Right next to piles of garbage and a whole bunch of very flammable tents.
            This is a disaster just waiting to happen where a fire kills a bunch of campers.

            Absurd that Wheeler and the new admin are doing basically nothing….

            Recommended Thumb up 5

          • soren March 18, 2017 at 11:42 am

            “It is a literal shanty town”

            a demeaning statement directed at the houseless.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty March 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm

              A better word is “chantier”. It adds a bit of French flavor, and dresses the place up a bit. Who wouldn’t want to live in a “literal chantier town”? Maybe they serve fondue!

              Recommended Thumb up 2

            • MaxD March 20, 2017 at 10:14 am

              They are literally building shanties or shacks. The City gave them a permit to camp, yet they are cobbling together all sorts of unsafe structures that are completely out of code compliance. Codes are written to provide a basic standard of health and safety for Portland citizens. To relegate people to some forgotten corner of the City and then look away when they create substandard, unsafe and unhealthy living conditions on the very land you permitted for them to use to formally create a new and lower class of citizen. Shanty town is a demeaning statement, and the shanties themselves are deserving of the title. The term, however, is directed at Hales and the City for creating a ghetto under the guise of compassion

              Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Middle of the Road Guy March 17, 2017 at 9:58 am

          <—what dwk said. ever drive in on 84 – look at all the trash on the hillsides.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • BEL March 16, 2017 at 8:27 am

    Missing the real loss. So disappointing that all the work to develop & build TRANSPORTATION routes for peds & bicyclists has to be abandoned & forcing cyclists back on the roads. Just not safe especially for a lone woman rider anymore. I’d ridden these roads extensively since the 1980’s.
    Wonder how quickly the problem would be addressed if the illegal campers with the extensive garbage started setup camps in the transportation routes used by cars.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • MaxD March 16, 2017 at 9:43 am

      That is such a great point! Hales would have possibly been more successful if he had closed a few city blocks to establish a temporary camping place. For instance, SW Morrison between 20th and 18th would not be too disruptive to any single business, it is easy to service and patrol, and it is very close to transit and services. Because of its proximity to the MAX, Lincoln High, Providence Park, the people that Hales pandered to would be confronted with the issue and feel the impact, and permanent solutions would be forthcoming and fast-tracked. Tucking the problems away in “temporary” camps adjacent to less wealthy neighbors is step one of creating permanent shanty towns/ghettos.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

        Any permanent fix will require lots and lots of money. How many in the region would be willing to pay $500 or $1000 more in taxes to fix the problem? I would, but then I see how much angst there is over the $35 arts tax, and I know that raising the money is probably futile.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • dan March 16, 2017 at 10:51 am

          I’m just ticked about the arts tax because it was billed as paying for art education and in fact it’s supporting non-profits that should do their own damn fundraising like the Portland Opera (call me a philistine, but that is a luxury that should be supported by its patrons, not taxpayers at large) and the RACC…the organization responsible for heinous public art with no citizen input, e.g. the “ghost warehouses (“aka pile of rusty girders”) on the East Side and the hairy testicle spider in front of Powells.

          If it was actually for arts education in the public schools, I would pay it with a smile.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 12:34 pm

            I heard a segment on OPB about that this past weekend, and they said most of the money is in fact going to education, and that it was failing at its goal of funding public arts groups, which was one of its original aims.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

          • J_R March 16, 2017 at 1:14 pm

            Some of the public art that I think you object to was funded by the mandated public art percentage of federally funded transit projects – not the city’s arts tax.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • dan March 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm

              OK, I actually looked it up – the planned distribution of the arts tax was to put about $6 M annually to art in schools, and about $2M to the RACC, which would use it to disburse grants. J_R, you’re right that the bad public art is selected by the RACC, but paid for from a different source of funds. Still, they have a pretty bad name in my book.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

        • TAJ March 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm

          Maybe it wasn’t enough, but did we not vote for more taxes for housing in the last election?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q March 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    This topic has been timely for me, since I’ve been trying to get the City and County to restore some safety and access to the Willamette Park boat launch, where boat campers have taken over much of the dock space–staying in “loading only” spaces for months for free, due to non-enforcement. It has the added weirdness of wealthy boaters exploiting the lack of enforcement. We don’t have high-tech executives camping along bike trails in $100K tents avoid paying housing costs, but there already are wealthy boaters living in luxury “camping” with the truly poor to avoid moorage fees and get a nicer view.

    As with trails, non-enforcement will kill support for future boat launches, since the facilities become less safe and available for their intended use by the public.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • BrianC March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    Hello, Kitty
    It actually came from Mitt Romney’s health plan when we was governor of Massachusetts. Remember him?
    Recommended 0

    Going to the way back machine… Mitt picked it up from the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank. So the whole ACA platform was a Republican plan to funnel profit into Big Insurance and Big Pharma… Which is why the Republicans are having fits getting rid of it. It was their idea from the beginning…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mark smith March 16, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    This could actually be good news. Trails are cool….But not the end all. Time to take lanes for biking….For real this time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q March 16, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      The trails are for walking and running also. Plus, lots of people bike on them that would not be interested in or comfortable riding on busy streets.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        Trails are also for cooking crank, chopping bikes, and having sex in a grocery cart.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • q March 16, 2017 at 5:01 pm

          Maybe it’s time for those to take the lane.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Middle of the Road Guy March 17, 2017 at 9:59 am

          The Costco-sized carts or the small ones from Fred Meyer?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • soren March 16, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    Oh come on….
    Public property is public property and we certainly have the right to tell people they cannot camp wherever they want.
    You have completely jumped the shark….
    Recommended 35

    The fact that people are free to store their cars on public property but houseless people cannot rest on public property is incredibly sad.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • dan March 16, 2017 at 10:19 pm

      Cars usually don’t harass or assault passers by, litter, operate chop shops, etc. etc. I’ve had some negative interactions with travelers recently and my sympathy is at a low ebb.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 16, 2017 at 11:49 pm

        Cars also rarely have sex in a shopping cart.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • dan March 17, 2017 at 11:56 am

          That is an arresting image! 😉

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • soren March 17, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    NIMBYs helped create our housing crisis by excluding affordable rental housing and now NIMBYs want to punish the people their selfish policies have involuntarily displaced.

    this will end well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm

      The NIMBYs are behind the scads of high-end studio housing all over the city that doesn’t work for the majority of people who need housing? Show me one rapidly growing city where market forces brought about the affordable housing nirvana we’d have if not for the NIMBYs.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • soren March 17, 2017 at 3:23 pm

        Glad to hear that you support upzoning your neighborhood to facilitate construction of below market rate (inclusionary) multifamily housing in your back yard, H,K!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 3:31 pm

          There’s plenty of places in my neighborhood that are zoned for multi-family housing, and would totally would support more family-scale affordable (we already have some) construction being built there. Instead, we’re getting housing that is neither family scale nor affordable, just as we are losing existing affordable housing to developers using “density” as an excuse to turn a $450K rental house into a pair of $900K houses.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • soren March 17, 2017 at 4:36 pm

            sadly, many legal conversions go this direction:
            rental house with 5+ people living in it ➡ ~$800,000 twee bungalow with 0-2 people living in it.

            i personally would like to see more of this:
            ~$800,000 twee bungalows demolished ➡ multi-story affordable housing development with <60% MFI units, a methadone clinic, dive bar, and tattoo parlor.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 4:45 pm

              Very few “twee” bungalows are selling for $800K — to get that much for a place there has to be a demolition, granite, and stainless involved.

              But otherwise, that’s exactly the problem. Personally, I’d rather see the rental house with 5+ living in it stay that way, or, perhaps, be sold to a family that can’t afford one of those $800K houses you describe. There is plenty of room for larger residential/commercial structures on the main corridors, except no one wants to build what we both want when there’s studios to be built.

              But hey, 3 studios is thrice the density than one 2 BR apartment, so that’s a win, right?

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • q March 17, 2017 at 4:47 pm

              Yes, exactly. Yet the City still views “density” by how many units are on a lot, not how many people are there. The new Residential Infill rules encourage exactly what you describe–replacing one unit housing many (inexpensively) with 2 expensive units housing 1 or 2. It also makes it more difficult to build new homes intended for multiple adults, including multiple generations or unrelated ones, unless those adults are separated into multiple, more expensive, smaller units.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

              • SE Rider March 18, 2017 at 10:12 am

                That’s not true. The RIP also limits lot splitting in a number of areas of Portland, further limits size of new homes built, and incentivizes adding ADUs and building duplexes and triplexes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • soren March 18, 2017 at 10:27 am

                SE rider, I do not give a RIP about $450,000 twee ADUs sold to higher-income people (many ADUs in my neighborhood are condo-ified or made conforming).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • soren March 18, 2017 at 10:36 am

                q, current exclusionary (anti-renter) residential zoning has encouraged the conversion of shared rental housing into luxury single-family housing for decades. and while adus are often sold, triplexes are often rented so RIP is a very, very, very small step in the direction of affordability.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • q March 18, 2017 at 11:03 am

                soren–I agree with all you said, but the RIP also has the unintended, negative consequences I mentioned, plus others.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • q March 18, 2017 at 11:27 am

                SE Rider–you say what I wrote isn’t true, then tell me some things in the RIP rules that are true, but are either irrelevant to the negative impacts I mentioned, or are actually contributing to the negative impacts.

                I said it encourages “replacing one unit housing many (inexpensively) with 2 expensive units housing 1 or 2.” It does, and your answer confirms that.

                I said it makes it more difficult to build new homes intended for multiple adults, and it does. Instead, as you agree, it limits new home sizes but gives incentives for separate ADUs or building two smaller units.

                The RIP has lots of good aspects, but it has problems too.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 18, 2017 at 11:35 am

                You keep saying ant-renter but that is simply untrue. There are tons of renter’s in the single family zones. Many renters prefer to live in a house rather than an apartment. Why would you take that choice away from them?

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 18, 2017 at 11:56 am

                SE Rider — ADUs are great because they make very nice Airbnb rentals. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one used as a long-term rental. Actually, I do know of one, but that was before the dawn of Airbnb. People who think ADUs will provide low-cost rental housing may still be using AOL.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • q March 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm

                HK–is that ants who rent, or people who rent ants?

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • soren March 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm

                the RIP stakeholder committee did not have a single tenant’s rights advocate…

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • soren March 20, 2017 at 8:56 am

                Hello, Kitty: “There are tons of renter’s in the single family zones.”

                yes…and most live apartment buildings and plexes that were made illegal/non-conforming by exclusionary anti-renter land use policies.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 20, 2017 at 9:46 am

                It sounds like the anti-renter forces have totally failed. Maybe they don’t exist?

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • q March 20, 2017 at 10:22 am

                “yes…and most live apartment buildings and plexes that were made illegal/non-conforming by exclusionary anti-renter land use policies.”

                True in many areas. In others, many renters are families renting single-family homes. The huge group of renters that people forget about (not saying you, but certainly the City) are roommates renting houses.

                Roommate situations have huge advantages for people–high density, better social situation for some people, much cheaper. However, almost all roommate situations occur in houses or apartments that were designed for individual families, and City policy ignores or thwarts roommate situations. For instance, look at all the hype the City has done focusing on creating separate, backyard ADUs, but what has it done to encourage taking in a roommate (meaning someone who doesn’t live in their own complete, independent unit).

                If you want to build a 2600 sf house to house 6 roommates, so each has their own “master suite” instead of all sharing a couple bathrooms, and an extra large kitchen and dining area, the RIP will ban that. If you want to add an ADU to house one more person expensively, you’ll be praised and assisted.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty March 20, 2017 at 10:46 am

                This is an interesting point. I think the city dismisses roommates as being an inferior solution to density because it isn’t as “modern” as everyone having their own private unit in a boxy apartment building. That despite the advantages of cost, community, environmental impact, and flexibility. It also provides a way for renters to have a yard, raise a garden, and do other things that are not feasible when their only choice is an apartment building.

                I think it is a mistake to look at the RIP as being a “pro-renter” concept. It primarily benefits property owners and builders, often at renters’ expense.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • q March 20, 2017 at 11:38 am

                You’re right, it benefits builders, and property owners IF the property owners want to to develop their property with more units. It harms property owners who want to have a house larger than 2500 sf on property they already own (through adding or building new). It encourages building (ADUs) right up against property lines, instead of adding it onto a house further from neighbors. It encourages removing garden space instead of adding on top of a house….

                Builders aren’t harmed by the size restriction unless they already bought their property with the idea of building a large house. Existing property owners are. Telling someone “Well, you can’t add onto your house, but you can add an ADU in the backyard now” doesn’t help when they need the space for an extended family, or roommates, or a home office that isn’t isolated from everyone else.

                And as you and others have said, a lot of what it encourages (expensive small units) doesn’t help many renters.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • q March 20, 2017 at 2:19 pm

                I just read about the first Gold LEED house in California. It was built by a family–actually families. The owners/occupants are two brothers (one with a partner and child) plus the brothers’ two parents–total of five adults plus one child, and could accommodate another adult and more children. Because it’s over 2500 sf, it would be legal here, but will be illegal under the new RIP rules, even if it were built on a street where it was the smallest house there.

                This is an option that works well for that family, and could work for other extended families. It’s not going to solve all housing problems, or work for a high percentage of people, but on the other hand, Portland shouldn’t be making it illegal in (ironically) the name of promoting density options.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dwk March 17, 2017 at 1:55 pm

      Show me the statistics that the current homeless population are mostly displaced locals who were pushed out by the local housing crisis.
      Because if you do any research or ask anyone working with this population, you would find that a whole bunch simply showed up in our fair city to camp.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • soren March 17, 2017 at 3:08 pm

        I have worked with houseless people and many were involuntarily displaced from their long-term homes in Portland.

        Only ~12% of the unsheltered (houseless) moved to Portland as houseless individuals. And over 80% of houseless people have lived in Portland for more than 2 years.


        Kafoury says … the idea of homeless people flocking here from across the country makes sense to many. But she says, “The reality is, they’re not.”


        Nobody knows how many Portlanders have been evicted for no cause, because unlike home foreclosures, evictions often don’t go as far as court. (Landlords often don’t even call them “evictions” because they usually don’t reach court.)

        The exact number of renters evicted “without cause” in Multnomah County is unclear. But there are indicators.

        Earlier this year, the David Douglas School District, which is located in a densely populated swath of East Portland, analyzed students who were identified as homeless (which, by the school definition, includes living on couches, in hotels or in shelters) during one hectic week. It found that more than half of 79 homeless students had faced no-cause evictions.


        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Dwk March 17, 2017 at 3:57 pm

          There has been an explosion in the last 2 years and I would assume you would know that if you live here.
          Hales changed a lot with his camping approval edict in 2016.
          Most rational people are aware of this.
          What this whole discussion is about.
          In 2015, these bike trail proposals would not have met opposition.
          Time to get up to speed, eh?

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • soren March 17, 2017 at 4:26 pm

            * hales’ safe sleep policy was a 6 month experiment that ended in Aug 2016.
            * i’ve lived in portland for 17 years.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Dwk March 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm

              All the camp sweeps in the last 6 months have revealed a huge amount of needles.
              You think this is due to the housing market?

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Dwk March 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm

              There is more camping now than last August.
              I guess ending the experiment fixed the problem.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

              • soren March 18, 2017 at 10:21 am

                so you rant in an exaggerated manner about hales’ 6 month experiment and then complain about hales ending the 6 month experiment.


                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • dwk March 18, 2017 at 10:46 am

                “so you rant in an exaggerated manner ”

                Do you even read the thread you comment on?
                Do you think I am the only person who sees a problem with thousands of people camping outdoors in the mud and rain?

                You must live in cloistered life on the hill.
                The rest of us ride our bikes along paths strewn with campers and garbage.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • soren March 18, 2017 at 5:00 pm

                “You must live in cloistered life on the hill.”

                I don’t live on a hill or “the hill”.

                “There is more camping now than last August.”

                So you demand that I “show [you] the statistics” and then a few comments later make up your own.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Dwk March 18, 2017 at 5:58 pm

                Well apparently no amount of people here who see this as a problem will convince you we even have a homeless problem.
                You are a seriously horrible person…..
                You must enjoy seeing people cold and hungry since you offer nothing but contempt for people who want to do something.
                You are just smug and cruel.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • soren March 20, 2017 at 8:51 am

                “You must enjoy seeing people cold and hungry since you offer nothing but contempt for people who want to do something.”

                Given the enormity of our housing crisis my volunteer efforts and charitable donations are akin to a drop in the bucket.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Dwk March 18, 2017 at 6:14 pm

              When you cycle by the folks in their makeshift tent shelters, do you pat yourself on the back for your”progressive” ideas?

              Recommended Thumb up 3

  • TAJ March 17, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    This NIMBY votes yes on housing, yes on $15 minimum wage in Portland, yes on limits on no cause evictions, yes on funding addiction rehab… and yes on enforcing no camping laws.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • soren March 17, 2017 at 3:14 pm

      “and yes on enforcing no camping laws”

      if the houseless cannot camp where do you believe they should go?
      someone else’s backyard?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 3:23 pm

        I think the city should buy them all a 1-way Max ticket to Gresham.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • George Dorn March 17, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    Jonathan, the article alludes to facts failing to dispute the emotional response; is there a link to the studies mentioned? It would help enlighten the discussion, as people are expressing the same irrational fears in the comments.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • q March 17, 2017 at 11:09 pm

      What are the “irrational fears” you are seeing being expressed in the comments?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty March 17, 2017 at 11:21 pm

        Perhaps the crazy and unfounded notion that people would set up a semi-permanent encampment alongside a bike trail?

        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Mark smith March 18, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Why is camping ok in the mountains or in camp sites…but not ok in the city?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 18, 2017 at 11:39 am

      Camping is fine in the city so long as it’s in a place that has been set up to accommodate it.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty March 18, 2017 at 11:23 am

    I support the size limitations, though I fear they’ll fall at the first cry of “taking”. They are the only part of the RIP that has any chance of limiting the price of new construction. That might limit what otherwise would have been a $900,000 house to $800,000.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • q March 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm

      The size limitations have problems. There are plenty of streets where typical homes are over the size limit. If you have a smaller home and want to enlarge it to be similar to what your neighbors have, you won’t be able to. If you have a large house already, and want to add on to the first floor so your disabled mother can come live with you, you can’t. If you want to build a house plus a detached ADU, you can, but if you want to build the same sf as the ADU onto your house, so it can house an extended family living together instead of a separate dweller in the separate ADU, you can’t if your house is close to the limit already.

      And it is a taking–2500 sf isn’t that large. Nobody ever considered that all homes aren’t built by developers, either. If you bought your house so you could one day enlarge it to something even much smaller than what the zoning allowed, you may not be able to, even if your addition would still make you the smallest home on the block.

      Yes, the limit could mean a developer may build a 2500 sf house and sell it for $800K when he would have preferred to build a 3000 sf one and sell it for $900K, so those who only have the $800K won’t be priced out.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • GlowBoy March 20, 2017 at 6:55 am

    Hello, Kitty
    It actually came from Mitt Romney’s health plan when we was governor of Massachusetts. Remember him?
    Recommended 2

    Yes. And he got the idea from HillaryCare, which got the idea from the insurance companies. As MOtRG pointed out, it was a conservative response to the threat of single payer, so I’ve always found it ironic (but not surprising) that conservatives professed to find it so outrageous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alan 1.0 March 20, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      All those, including ACA and AHCA, most closely resemble The Bismarck Model, named after Otto von Bismarck of Prussia for his insurance law of 1883. I agree with your sense of irony, GlowBoy, especially given that much time to “fine tune” it, as Sen. Ryan calls the current charade.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick December 1, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    The nimby story here is one of the disappointments from 2017.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty December 1, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      Far more disappointing is that we’ve let homelessness get so out of control that we can’t build bike trails because of it.

      Recommended Thumb up 4