Good points, bad points, in VisionPDX

Hoo boy, I worry about who will be implementing this VisionPDX. Maybe if nobody does, that would be for the best in some cases, even though some parts are good. The holes in it are big enough to drive a truck through, or more particularly to squeeze in three skinny houses on a lot zoned for one.

Scroll down to find my previous posts commenting on the “Learning Portland” section, including one published late yesterday evening with amendments that will be proposed at the Portland City Council’s hearing tonight. The following bold italic quotations are from various other parts of the proposal – due to the lack of time for review, a very quick take on the best/worst of the rest. Please post in the comments or e-mail me if you’ve noticed other issues to highlight.

“Our built environment is a mix of the reassuringly old and strikingly new”

Yep, still there, from the draft published months ago. Buh-bye, historic charm and neighborhood character.

“Portland promotes dense development in neighborhood centers and along retail corridors and has encouraged well-designed infill development.”

Promoting dense development … like in outer Southeast, in big apartment buildings along streets with minimal infrastructure, few transit services, and no play space for miles? And what level of “dense development” and infill are we talking about? Reasonable and appropriate, or neighborhood-transforming density and infill as adopted without improved services in the Outer Southeast Plan, or as proposed in the Southwest Community Plan? Can we talk about this? Can we talk about it tonight, at the hearing where Council seems set to accept the Vision as written after just two days of community review? Because I know from 7 years on the Planning Commission and 21 in Portland that while many/most citizens share the commitment to limit Urban Growth Boundary expansion, if planners and politicians try to stuff too much inside neighborhoods, the defensive reaction produces the opposite of the desired effect. I can tell you right now, City Councilmen, and indeed you already know, that by no means do we have consensus on the desired level of density or what constitutes “well-designed” infill. Or whether we should “encourge” and “promote” in-migration, or manage growth without actively trying to attract new residents to our region and city.

Maybe some will say that discussion has already happened as part of the VisionPDX process. If it did, I missed the notice of the meetings titled, “Density: How much is too much, in your neighborhood? Growth: Encourage it or manage it?”. Or even, “Portland: Do we want to be a ‘world-class’ Big City, or should we aim to retain the hometown feeling we have now?” I’m guessing more people might have participated if the questions had been asked in those terms.

“Portland encourages high population density while incorporating parks, environmentally protected areas, street trees, community gardens, green spaces, waterways and pathways.”

Um… sir? Sir? Yes, I’m raising my hand because I have a question. What does that mean? I get the “encourages high population density” part, that seems straightforward. But what does “while incorporating… environmentally protected areas” mean? Or “while incorporating… waterways”?

“Portland recognizes the value of diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods. Families with children can still live throughout Portland, regardless of their income.”

Why does it say they can still live here, rather than that they do? Is the Vision that it’s possible, or that it’s happening?

“East Portland is an integrated part of Portland, while maintaining its distinctiveness.”

I will be interested to hear what East Portland folks think of this line — the only time that I see one outer area of the city called out for special attention in the Vision. Is this to make it harder for East Portlanders to try to secede?

“The city has developed and implemented a policy of zero net loss of green and open spaces.”

That will be a good trick to see. Even if every building will be required to have an ecoroof, I’m not seeing how a zero net loss policy is feasible.

“As in generations past, Portlanders find unique ways to solve problems collectively because the City of Portland encourages public deliberation and considers public decisions from multiple viewpoints.”

Oh, please, let’s not perpetuate the decision-making process dominated by the interests of affluent white men, that we’ve had for generations past! What on earth is the “As in generations past” phrase supposed to allude to?

Sections I like:

“Public transportation systems create a system-wide web, connecting neighborhoods to one other as well as providing easy access to and from the central city.”

“Neighborhood associations have a strong voice, as do identity-based groups whose members cross neighborhood boundaries.”

That’s good. But please note Neighborhood Associations deserve both the N and the A capitalized.

“Individual, community and environmental health are among the highest in the nation because they are considered a public priority.”

I really like that one. Very nicely put, Vision writers.

In the “Community Challenges” section at the end, there are many questions about objective matters such as school funding, taxes, and equitable provision of services. But the closest the Vision gets to questioning the closed Inner Circle power structure of City government is:

“How will we create efficiency in local government while honoring Portlanders’ desire for meaningful involvement in decision-making? ….

Portlanders highly value and are known for their ability to “make a difference” in their communities and in government. Encouraging inclusive and authentic civic engagement can require a significant investment of money and time, which some see as competing with government’s ability to carry out its basic functions.”

I disagree with the framing of that question. It’s phrased from the bureaucrat/insider perspective. Community leaders like me believe that citizens having the ability to affect decisions (not just “meaningful involvement”) is actually more efficient and cost-effective. Neighbors know local conditions and desires, and are invested in their communities with passions and volunteer capacity that staff and elected officials from other parts of town can’t match. Listening to citizens early can save a lot of time and money later.

I would like to see a companion “Community Challenge” listed, on the lines of:

“How will we renovate our power structure so that all Portlanders are heard and have the ability to be leaders in making decisions that affect their community?”

If we could identify and implement the answer to that question, I’d be much less concerned about both the wording of the Vision, and who is going to choose how to implement it.