(*Note: Read Friday’s update to this story.)
Portland city councilors Mitch Green and Loretta Smith have found common cause on a notoriously tricky transportation funding issue: sidewalks.
As you might have already read in the Willamette Week, the two councilors who represent districts one (east Portland) and four (southwest Portland) respectively want to get their constituents out of the mud and onto sidewalks. They’re looking at a variety of funding sources, including Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) grants, federal grants and bonds.
According to Councilor Green’s Chief of Staff Maria Sipin, the two councilors began working together earlier this month following the release of the city administrator’s draft budget recommendations, which included steep cuts for the transportation bureau. Given how difficult it is to fill sidewalk gaps, and how popular they are with voters, Sipin said in a phone call today that, “an appetite had been growing around sidewalks” among city councilors, “especially for district one and district four.”
While details about funding sources are still being worked out, Sipin said Councilor Green is focused on restructuring the city’s debt and using Portland’s bonding authority. “We’re trying to figure out how we can get sidewalks without using PCEF funds specifically,” Sipin said. The use of PCEF funds is a hot topic in City Hall right now, with different camps forming around whether or not the climate change-focused, voter-approved tax on big businesses is an appropriate way to fill the city’s budget holes. It’s notable that the fund already awarded $20.6 million for sidewalks in east Portland last year.
Why sidewalks? Sipin said Councilor Green and Councilor Smith share a deep interest in government accountability and transparency and in finding resources to invest in the things their constituents care about. “And in the Venn diagram of their world, that thing is sidewalks.”
Sipin continued:
“For the good of the people, we’re really trying to figure out, how do we build something as essential and popular as sidewalks? What kind of vision do we have to do that? What tools do we have, especially with the federal government, and lots of funding opportunities that we have relied on over the years at the state as well? What can the city do independently? Do we have the resources? And I think that’s where the bonds idea really emerged from.”
Councilor Green, an economist by training, feels like the City of Portland has been too conservative with its use of bonds in the past and he sees potential in that avenue of funding.
As to which sidewalks would be prioritized? Sipin, a former planner at the Oregon Department of Transportation, said her office would lean on existing city plans and recent public processes that have already identified which sidewalks should be built. “I know there are lists. So there are places to start.”
A program funding total of $100 million has been set as a starting point for conversations. We can expect a draft resolution to be on the agenda of this Monday’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting (of which both Smith and Green are members of).
In related news, The Oregonian reported today that Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has already begun exploring a street utility fee as a major new source of revenue for transportation.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Sidewalks significantly enhance the value of neighboring properties, I don’t understand why this is such a hard thing to fix. The city should simply build the sidewalks by issuing a bond and then place no interest or very low interest liens on adjacent properties in such a way that property owners don’t actually have to come up with the money until they sell if they don’t want to and since their properties will be worth more everyone would come out ahead by being able to enjoy the sidewalks now and they would be paid for as properties change hands. Those of us who have already paid to upgrade our streets so that they have sidewalks shouldn’t be paying for property enhancements like this through taxes, that is just a wealth transfer for no reason.
That sounds like a nice idea, but I’m pretty sure any land use lawyer with their salt would be able to sue the city on the grounds of a taking, and the city would have to pay just compensation for the land taken. If no land is being taken, maybe it’s got a better chance of passing legal muster, but not really sure how that would work in practice off hand.
I personally don’t mind a city-wide bond to pay for sidewalks, since I walk on sidewalks
In large parts of Portland (but not quite everywhere) folks’ yards extend deep into the public right-of-way either 10 feet, 12 feet, or 15 feet, and the spacing of the grassy berm, the width of the future sidewalk, and that grassy space between the sidewalk and the property line is already prescribed on the property deed. Most of the exceptions where the property line is too close to the curb or pavement edge tends to be in the SW Hills and certain parts of East Portland, but they are few and far between, though they do exist.
As for property owners being required to pay back the city for new sidewalks through liens, I very much doubt the city will charge anyone, as they didn’t for the sidewalks they built in EP & SW after 2012 (except in LIDs) nor during the WPA projects in inner Portland in the 1930s.
My main concern is that the sidewalks built prior to 1940 are already crumbling and pretty much the entire city will need new sidewalks, so even $100,000,000 is a drop in the bucket.
…and homeowners pay for sidewalk repair/rebuilding.
Fully agree that ROW is unlikely to be a problem.
However the idea that real problem is that “pretty much the entire city will need new sidewalks” seems wildly divorced from reality.
I live and walk in the inner eastside. The issue isn’t sidewalk maintenance. That’s borne by property owners (except for the corners, which are the city’s responsibility and are indeed due for replacement at many intersections) and are getting repaired all the time by a complaint-driven process and periodic inspections by area. At least, that’s the way it was ~15 years ago when a city inspector came through the neighborhood and marked up all the slabs we needed to repair.
The issue is getting sidewalks in place with proper drainage where there is nothing in place now. It’s expensive but like any journey of 1,000 miles, we just have to put our shoes on and start walking.
I can’t find it on their website but maybe 15 years back WW did a story on Portland’s failure to build sidewalk as it grew eastward. I recall it compared Portland to Seattle and maybe 1 or 2 other West Coast cities, all of which did the right thing and gradually put this very basic urban infrastructure in place as they absorbed unincorporated areas.
I’m really hoping that our new city government can fix this galling failure to provide essential services to a large segment of the populace.
You’re right that we used to have a proactive sidewalk inspection program, but we don’t anymore. Now it’s all complaint-driven.
Ah thanks for this – that’s interesting. I guess I was under the impression that most lots without improved sidewalks didn’t have an existing dedication. I was hoping to find a more detailed map showing this online, but didn’t have any luck.
portlandmaps.com
ROW is clearly delineated for each property in Portland, and sometimes adjacent areas.
Can’t believe I didn’t think of Portland Maps… Thanks
Aren’t sidewalks usually within the right-of-way? In which case, would there actually be a “taking”? The property owner would just be paying for an improvement that they didn’t have a choice about. Or do you mean the lien itself would represent a taking?
My house in Milwaukie had really nice sidewalks added just the year before I moved in (score!). Judging from what I can see and what I’ve heard, the City of Milwaukie faced no impediments, though I don’t know how they financed it.
Yes, but how this relates to properties that don’t already have sidewalks is not clear to me.
It would be a taking based on the timing of it. The city can take the land needed for the sidewalk if they pay for it, but the payment can’t be at some arbitrary later date. A “physical invasion” of private property is essentially always a taking – which doesn’t mean they can’t do it, just that they have to pay for the privilege to do so
If the potential sidewalk is in the ROW why would the city pay the landowner? The city already has rights to it. The ROW is not as I understand it private property although it is nominally considered so until the ROW holder (the city) dictates otherwise. I’m not sure if there can be a “physical invasion” by the city as they would be the entity that holds the ROW and would be exercising their rights.
A right-of-way is just that – you can travek over it by right because it is the property of whatever jurisdiction owns it, city or county or state, not the homeowner. Rather unfair we have to pay to maintain it, but at least you aren’t taxed on it.
A NICE jurisdiction will deal openly and fairly with the adjacent property owner, and try to minimize inconvenience, but they are within their right to simply show up and bulldoze that hedge and garden you had growing in the ROW. It is NOT a taking – you don’t own it.
Fun fact: you can travel through any ROW you see, although terrain and hoemowners who try to prevent that can make it difficult. That’s the ENTIRE premise of SW Trails Inc.
This is strictly in cases where the city needs to acquire more ROW (which based on my random surveying of places in Portland with no sidewalks seems to be “occasionally”)
https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/property/-13644888.237706106_5702965.966021386_xy/
For 87th and 88th Ave for example, note how far the city right of way extends past the paved portion of the road. Lot lines are much further in than one would think walking down a street without a sidewalk. And I believe adverse possession does not apply in this case. Even if you had a fence up for years, the city can make you move it.
For a bit more Portland sidewalk history, here’s a previous BP post: https://bikeportland.org/2021/08/16/follow-up-digging-a-bit-deeper-on-portland-sidewalk-history-336621 which includes a link to a 2000 PBOT report (pdf) https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2000-PBOT-LID-report.pdf
When we had work done on house we had to install sidewalks at a considerable cost. When trees heave sidewalks the adjacent property owners are responsible for replacing the heaved panels, again at considerable cost. Your idea is a good one. There is no 100 million dollars in our indebted city just laying around, waiting for a project. There would an uproar of protest if city funds provided sidewalks to others when historic practice was to make property owners buy them.
None, if it is a ROW already. Sorry if you have bushes there, but the city can remove them and put in a sidewalk. Now, many older areas DO have the property line right up to a road, so that would have to be a taking.
Don’t make Lisa interrupt her vacation to post how much sidewalk the city put in historically! Here, I’ll let an old quote from David Hampsten fill in for her
Yep this very option already exists for willing property owners:
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/lid-projects/what-local-improvement-district-lid
Back in the 1990s, when the City was on an annexation binge, they promised the communities (mostly east side) that if they voted for annexation and hooked up their houses to new sewer lines that the City would install sidewalks. City reps promised this at many community meetings. However, nothing was written down in a legal document.
So you can guess, the City lied, they took the new property tax money they got after annexation and fixed up downtown areas.
I no longer live in the southeast, but my ex-house had no sidewalk when I sold back in the early 2000s and I only imagine it still doesn’t.
The sidewalks were already long ago promised to the east side, maybe it’s time the City kept their promise.
I like sidewalks but is putting it on the credit card really the most fiscally responsible move here? The city is straight broke.
Not if we start taxing people who make less than 125k.
The city is only broke because of its idiotic tax structure. Use the PCEF–sidewalks promote non-motorized transport, thus reducing carbon output. Put sidewalks in around pre-schools and use the preschool tax. Put sidewalks in around homeless shelters /encampments and use the homeless tax–lord knows most of the homeless are in EastPo anyway.
These arguments are at least plausible, but if some non-profit , itself funded by these taxes, sues cause its employees don’t get paid from sidewalks, put something on the ballot to rearrange. No new taxes!
WOW! [Way 2 go.] I wonder if historians will look back 50 years from now on the government format re-boot AND say that this was one of the dramatic first outcomes of it?
ALSO, I would recommend that council adopt a new policy – that all properties (say >$50,000) when sold would need to bring their sidewalks up to code. It is much easier for property owners to afford to do this expensive [but important] work then and with mortgage funds vs out of pocket.This may also be the perfect time to do such what with the cost of real estate sales potentially being cheaper with more competition due to recent court challenge to past real estate commission fee structure.
And people wonder why housing is so expensive in Portland.
Far better idea to tax people based upon the number of steps they take on sidewalks.
Better yet, by weight.
Or, pass that responsibility along to the bank/developer that buys my house and tears it down to build denser housing.
Lord knows that with what they charge for that housing, they should be able to afford it.
To MotRG: Under typical urban development the developer in your densification scenario would most likely be required (and want) to build sidewalks connecting the existing network. Now if there is no existing network or spotty one near by then they may not be “required” to construct such based on the requirements in the local code.
It used to be standard-practice to require sidewalks be built with new development, even ‘sidewalks to nowhere’ … even in Portland! The idea is it would eventually fill in. However, a Supreme Court decision on how much you can make a developer spend, coupled with a city bureaucracy that chose to make excuses for developers NOT putting in sidewalks in many areas has led to the perverse logicof: if there IS an area with few or no sidewalks, why, you just can’t upset that historical aspect of the neighborhood and require a sidewalk!
I know as someone who campaigned so long for basic sidewalks in East Portland 2009-15 and got a lot of them funded (and a few in SW too) I ought to support this new effort. But I don’t. I think it’s a complete waste of money and city resources.
Instead, I’d advocate that the city use this $100million (or however much it ends up being) to implement a comprehensive strategy to make car driving as difficult, unsafe and as inconvenient citywide as it is currently to walk, bike, and use public transit. Instead of building new sidewalks, why not make existing streets safe to walk on and cross, even at night?
I like the concept that Gand/Ghent did in Belgium of creating neighborhood zones of easy access, then using diverters to make it difficult to cross over to other neighborhoods by car (but easy by bike, walking, & public transit).
I’d also like to see the city ban car parking on all arterial and collector streets and use the resulting space for exclusive public transit (where there is existing transit service) and for bike/walk only where there isn’t transit service. A total ban on any street with 2 or more lanes going in the same direction (including downtown) – one lane in a direction is all that should be allowed, to make crossings safer.
For car parking on residential streets, I’d like to see a city-wide parking permit program to discourage on-street parking (and to price it), plus put in line markings for designated parking spaces to not only “daylight” intersections, but also to create chicanes with parked cars, to discourage residential speeding.
Where appropriate, and even where inappropriate, plant trees in streets, on the parking lanes, on medians, double-medians, etc, but the kind of trees that grow quickly and straight that last about 40 years and have a regular planting and removal schedule, not the kind of trees that last 100+ years and the roots cause the curbs and sidewalks to buckle.
That won’t get past the inevitable “equity” arguments that will arise, unless it becomes another policy based upon higher income folks paying for it and others not
I like some of the cut of your jib!
I will say that putting a sidewalk EVERYwhere would drain this fund pretty quickly; in many areas, I woud be happy if they would put the damn guardrail between me and the cars so my unpaved shoulder feels safer.
All the good stuff happens when you’re on vacation! Kudos to Councilors Green and Smith.
SW Portland has a more fundamental problem than not having sidewalks — it doesn’t have a *stormwater system*. The inefficiency is that some developers *want * to put in sidewalks, but the city won’t let them. You can’t put in sidewalks without a pipe for the water flow to drain into.
What needs to happen in SW is that the city should select 5 or 6 collectors for which they will build stormwater retaining ponds (like were built for the Capitol Highway project). With those in place, you can have sidewalks. I imagine this is a multi-decade project.
Thanks, Lisa. A clarifying question (or two) for my benefit:
What is the reason that a developer who builds hundreds of feet of streets, driveways etc does NOT have to build a stormwater system?
Or DOES a developer have to treat every millimeter of stormwater generated by new impervious surfaces but in the case of new sidewalks does NOT have to?
I can’t wrap my head around the fact that many square miles of impervious surfaces are added to new developments and that’s just fine. But when someone wants to build ONE SQUARE INCH of new sidewalk or bike lane, then all of the rules around stormwater treatment kick in.
I don’t want to speak for Lisa, but where I am in the SW the ditches are where the sidewalks need to go in the public right of way. There isn’t enough room for both ditches and sidewalks, and typically this is solved by putting in a stormwater system that traditionally pipes it to some nearby body of water/wetland/treatment facility.
I guess a good analogy is that developers would be responsible for connecting to an already existing stormwater system just like they are responsible for connecting to the existing road, water, sewer, and electrical system. But you can’t connect to something that doesn’t exist.
I didn’t know they addressed this in the SW Capitol plan by having ponds installed. I am guessing they had to acquire the land to install those, which probably was super expensive.
You got it J1mbo! I’m guessing the retention ponds were put in on land the city already owned. You can go see them, the easiest to get to is the just south of the US post office in Mult Village. Another is on the south side of Dolph, between Cap Hwy and Spring Garden Park.
The analogy I use is a cake: you can require the developer to frost a cake, but you can’t ask them to frost a cake which hasn’t been baked. SW is a big unbaked cake.
The difference is that a sidewalk goes in the right-of-way… the property is NOT owned by the developer, but by the city, etc.; the developer is being asked to improve a city asset becuase it will be used by the development’s residents. The problem in D1 and D4 is often that a) as Lisa says, often there is no where for the runoff to go b) giving it a place to go can be expensive in some areas and c) the Nollan/Dolan cases meant there’s a limit to how much you can make a developer pay for the residents’ impact. So if expensive to deal withrunoff, no runoff will be made!
Other cities tell the developer to pay x% of their estimated project cost for the work; those municipalities may then padd in whatever money they feel is needed from thir own coffers to get the desired infrastructure. This passes Nollan/Dolan tests (usually).
Portland has decided NOT to have a court-defensible standard (and lied about having one!) and it has NO money to pony up to finish something even if it did.
I don’t know what was promised to annexed property owners but I do know that assessment is a tough sell given those districts’ relatively high property taxes, and liens as security for borrowing is a can of worms.
I do know that the city has promised pensions and they are significantly underfunded. Those aren’t bonds in a technical sense, but they are a big note coming due.
Might be worth looking at the cost for a linear foot of sidewalk in Clark, Clackamas, or Washington County, then drive a bargain based on their requirements and the size of the job. We’re not buying from Costco here, we ARE the Costco.
This is yet another tax for an overtaxed city. And many residents who don’t have sidewalks don’t want them. For those that do, there is a program for them to get them. It’s called a LID (Local Improvement District).
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/lid-projects/what-local-improvement-district-lid
Once you put the stormwater pipes in for your street, what do they connect to?
$100 million to start.
With how poorly government entities deliver on cost estimates, this will get us what, 1000 feet of sidewalk?
We could farm the work out to a non-profit and get 500 ft.
Way back in 2012 (13 years ago) when we developed the EPIM, the rule-of-thumb by PBOT staffers was a sidewalk on a street that already had a curb, sewers, and reasonable drainage underneath was $1 million per linear mile on each side of the road (the actual cost was sometimes as low as $800,000/mile). About a third of this cost is administrative overhead, which doubles when ODOT builds a sidewalk.
When a street needs curbs and sewers added, the cost goes up to $5 million/mile on each side and $7 million/mile in Southwest due to the poor drainage there.
I don’t know what the costs are today in Portland. I do know that the costs here in Greensboro NC are far less per mile than they are in Portland due to much lower administrative costs, much lower wages, and a tendency to contract services out to the lowest bidder, but the quality of work is also a bit lower.
And that is the primary reason, government projects, are so ridiculously expensive. It should be way less than that, because afterall, it’s not like paving a street is a totally brand new and never been done before thing.
Sidewalks are important, but given the budget cuts the city is facing, shouldn’t we prioritize those funds for maintaining our existing streetscape? Many of our streets are in dire need of resurfacing. Hitting a pothole in a car is annoying; hitting a pothole on a bicycle can send you to the ER.